The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #241  
Old 12-03-2017, 07:24 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Squirrel View Post
Or the US Government could do the decent thing and change the tax law to one based on domicile, like every other country except them and Eritrea (and they had the hypocracy to complain about Eritrea doing it).
Based on current political climate, that's unlikely. I wouldn't be surprised if they try to take away the foreign tax credit TBH. There is a reason why people turning in their passports have increased dramatically. Her situation is easier as she can just keep her investment in US accounts, that would exempt her from UK taxes in the mean time, I believe? I'm not terribly familiar with UK tax laws. I'm sure Harry can more than cover their lifestyle in the mean time. But if God forbid anyone dies and leaves the children anything in the meantime, it'll be subject to IRC and disclosure requirements.
__________________

  #242  
Old 12-03-2017, 07:27 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 876
I agree that Meghan's citizenship should be fast tracked due to her becoming a representitive of Britain and a member of the Royal Family. It seems most appropriate that she gives up her US passport.
__________________

  #243  
Old 12-03-2017, 07:32 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,144
As much as I know that having dual citizenship would probably be a major headache for Meghan in the tax department (especially should Suits go into syndication and Meghan continues to pull in royalties from that show into the future), there's another twist to it that could prove to be detrimental.

If Meghan retains her US citizenship, she is still very much eligible to vote in US elections. I can just hear the Daily Fail's "fake news" stories coming out that because Meghan was in the US (for whatever reason) and was seen in such and such a place and wearing red/blue, that she is a supporter of "X" for president or such and such issue trying to get passed into law. Elections are not a happy time in this country and every trick under the sun is used.

I do think it would be the wisest move to make to assure that Meghan divorces herself from anything and everything possible that has to do with US politics. She'll be a working member representing the British monarchy and to be honest, in that respect, I can see her American citizenship being a conflict of interest.

She will never lose her heritage any more than she could lose the love and affection of her parents. That's something one carries with them always.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #244  
Old 12-03-2017, 07:32 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Washington DC, United States
Posts: 489
Well, many foreigners have renounced their countries to become citizens of the US. I have many friends that I have done it, They tell everyone that asks I am from El Salvador, Spain, or France etc and they have US passports. So maybe I am being unfair here.
If Meghan decides to renounce, she will still and will always be an American, and born and raised there. It's not like she's a child moving there. She is a full grown lady and her customs and ways are in place. LOL!
  #245  
Old 12-03-2017, 07:34 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,492
Personally I wouldn't have a problem with her just getting special treatment to get British citizenship asap. She's going to be a member of the RF and have HRH so its really won't make much difference IMO. Its not like she's going to massively benefit from citizenship in some way, apart from her own financial affairs it will make really little difference.
I highly doubt it will happen for one reason - Brexit - the papers are full of people who've lived here for years, married with children etc but who are refused citizenship with scare stories they may have no rights once Brexit is done. Yes Meghan is not European but still it wouldn't necessarily play well and would be a political issue for the government.
  #246  
Old 12-03-2017, 07:35 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
Well, many foreigners have renounced their countries to become citizens of the US. I have many friends that I have done it, They tell everyone that asks I am from El Salvador, Spain, or France etc and they have US passports. So maybe I am being unfair here.
If Meghan decides to renounce, she will still and will always be an American, and born and raised there. It's not like she's a child moving there. She is a full grown lady and her customs and ways are in place. LOL!
Of course she will be. She grew up here, and it's integral part of who she is. She'll take that with her into her new role. She has a responsibility that she's marrying into, and she'll have her life experiences to guide her as she acquires new life experiences.
  #247  
Old 12-03-2017, 07:56 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
I'd also like to point out that the British royal family is independently wealthy. As Prince Philip has said, they could all very easily walk away, if that's what the country wants. OTOH, they all, particularly the Queen feel a deep sense of responsibility and duty in serving the people and in faithfully continuing the traditions of the monarchy. It is also in the best interests of Britain's economy and tourism dollars for the royal family to continue as an institution. But as Prince Charles has often indicated, going forward, there will be changes made in order to ensure the monarchy works efficiently and that it serves the people in the most beneficial ways.

In addition, although Britain has the most enviable pomp and circumstance and the most prominent, well-known, storied and resonant royal history, citizens in many countries have to pay taxes, quite often in ways they do not like. In America, even without a royal family, citizens have to pay heavy taxes for loads of stuff legislators pass that we don't necessarily all agree with. It's the price of being a citizen of this country, because much of the money we pay goes to preserving our cities, waterways, infrastructure, etc. And when we disagree with some of the inevitable corruption and mismanagement, it's up to us to make our voices heard.
  #248  
Old 12-03-2017, 08:31 PM
Gaudete's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: South East Coast, United Kingdom
Posts: 514
Whilst that is certainly true, the difference is that Americans who object to their tax dollars being spent unwisely by public officials who are unworthy of their posts, can simply vote them out. The monarchy exists on a totally different understanding and whilst the British Royal Family are independently wealthy, they know that this doesn’t entitle them to take the public for granted.

Harry and Meghan will never be poor but they will always need public support to prevent themselves becoming poorer. Or perhaps worse than that, being resented. If Meghan adopts a work ethic akin to the Princess Royal, she’ll have a free pass from criticism for the rest of her life. If she adopts the same approach as the Duke of York, she may find herself in difficulties.

I don’t believe Meghan is in any doubt of what’s expected but until the Royal Family do follow Prince Philip’s alternative and vacate Buckingham Palace forever, they remain accountable to the British people. Whilst we can be very tolerant and welcoming, we can also turn on a pinhead quite suddenly and be very unforgiving too.
  #249  
Old 12-03-2017, 08:42 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
I'm not sure whether you meant to say 'Duchess of York' or not. Again, there's no comparison whether you're speaking of the Duchess of York or the Duke of York I disagree that either Harry or Meghan 'need public support to prevent themselves becoming poorer.' That's ridiculous. The British tax dollars mostly pay for the pomp and circumstance, the security, the travel, and the maintenance of the palaces, etc. Royals have to use their own money for many of their personal lifestyle concerns.

FWIW, Prince Charles has not been sitting by idly twiddling his thumbs. He's been serving his country, as well as investing in his family's future with his many Duchy of Cornwall projects. Plus he's clearly concerned about public perceptions regarding the monarchy and he's spoken of plans to 'streamline' under his future reign. William has been a working pilot for the Air Ambulance Services. Prince Harry has served his country admirably in the military, and he would still be serving if he could, except that his position as a royal necessitated his retirement since he did not wish to work behind a desk, and his royal duties also conflicted. Sophie would have continued with her work, but her high profile and people trying to take advantage of her royal status, led to her having to leave her profession. Prince Harry has grappled mightily with being a royal. And he finally realized that who he is provides him with a platform to help other people, and to bring attention to worthy charitable causes. Meghan has said in interviews before she met Harry that her career success afforded her a platform and the opportunity to provide encouragement and support to others. And she's been a wonderful role model to many young people. Together, Meghan and Harry seem deeply committed to making a difference in the world, not just for Britain and the Commonwealth, although serving Britain will be their main focus.

You're British and you surely know more about British history and the parliamentary system than I do. I would just point out that the British monarchy these days plays very little to no part in ruling the country. Queen Elizabeth is a lovely, dutiful and amazing figurehead, but a figurehead nonetheless, presiding over an antiquated institution that has done it's best to survive intact over centuries. Whether Prince Philip was simply being flippant and crusty in his temperamental way of speaking out or not, most of the members of the royal family in modern times have felt the burden of royalty. Many members have weathered personal crises as a result, some tragically, including Prince William of Gloucester, Diana Princess of Wales, and Princess Margaret -- not to open a can of worms in this thread -- we can go to their threads. I just mention them as examples.

My main points are that the royals do not rule Great Britain; the British monarchy is important to the British economy or it wouldn't still exist; quite a number of people in Britain have a vested interest in the continuation of the monarchy and of British royal traditions. I'm sure we will all stay tuned with even greater interest as a new and fascinating individual joins this historic family. Any British citizen who strongly disagrees with the institution has the right to speak out and some of them do. If it were taken to a vote, I believe currently there is a strong enough sentiment for the British monarchy to remain in existence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaudete View Post
Don’t misunderstand me, I wasn’t trying to compare the two. I was simply using Sarah as an example of what happens when the British don’t like the way things are going. Decades ago, we would have kept a deferential silence when members of the Royal Family stepped out of line. Today however, the scrutiny is far greater and the consequences far more immediate. The OP suggested that the British would have to adjust, as I think most of us can agree, it doesn’t work that way.
Yep @Gaudete, I understand what you're getting at in the larger sense. On some level we are speaking of apples and oranges, and making different points. And some of us may misunderstand the complexities and the subtleties. This whole conundrum of citizenship has certainly been discussed by Meghan, Harry, his aides and British authorities in detail, I'm sure. They have all worked out where things are heading, and many details will take time to be worked out. The thing is that this is rather new and unusual for an American to marry into the British royal family in modern times, and in any time, even though it's not very unusual for British aristocrats to marry wealthy Americans (as we learned historically watching Downton Abbey).

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying obviously. I'm pointing out that it truly makes sense for all of us to maintain a sense of perspective here, and not get too carried away. This is an exciting love story, and it's fun to discuss all sides of it. Actually, no one owns either Meghan or Harry, or their love story. Essentially, they are calling the shots, at the same time they are well aware of the restrictions and requirements of royal protocol and life in the royal family. No matter what, we all have to make adjustments in life, individually and collectively.

Above all, it's Meghan and Harry who have made a commitment to each other, and they've been navigating their journey under the radar for a long time, trying to enjoy their privacy and figuring out how to make everything work as smoothly as possible, with all the sacrifices it has taken for them to maintain their long distance relationship.

As Meghan said in the VF interview, she and Harry both knew there would come a time when they would have to present themselves and respond to questions and share their story with the British public. Meghan is smart to end her relationship with her former charities in Canada and start afresh with a clean slate in Britain. And it's been reported that this is her idea, and that she wishes to concentrate on steeping herself in a knowledge of Great Britain and it's people. As time passes, she will eventually become involved with new charities under the Royal Foundation umbrella.

Harry and Meghan have surely each grown on this journey over the past 18 months, and they've kept their feet on the ground regarding logistics and the burdens they will have to continue to traverse, even as their love for each other has probably had their hearts soaring in the clouds. Meghan has surely experienced some heartbreak and poignancy in making the choice to leave her beloved Bogart and her former life behind in Toronto. But she also seems to be fully embracing her new life with joy, calm and steadiness, mixed with a bit of nerves and excitement. I believe her eyes are wide open, and Prince Harry has got her back, just as they both have hold of and deeply cherish each other's hearts. How rare is that!
  #250  
Old 12-03-2017, 08:53 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 876
In this time of increased terrorism anything could happen at any time. After the wedding there should be no confusion about which institution/country Meghan Markle represents and which country is her home and responsible for her protection.
  #251  
Old 12-03-2017, 09:45 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other regarding Meghan giving up her U.S. citizenship. This is her life, her choice, and her decision. As has already been discussed, she probably will relinquish her U.S. citizenship at some point.

In many ways, Meghan very much embraced her temporary Canadian adopted city of Toronto, with open arms. I don't see her doing anything less, as she embarks on a new life with Prince Harry in Great Britain.
  #252  
Old 12-04-2017, 03:37 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
I just read Mette Marit's open letter about Marius, and it gave me goose bumps. Perhaps letting any children of theirs have dual citizenship isn't a bad thing after reading that. Harry's children won't come close too the throne or be working royals barring some catastrophe. I don't think any of us have any clue about how much harder life is when you have to grow up in a fish bowl. It might be that the children would want to find escape in another country where they can live relatively obscure lives. Rather than have the press analyze every little bit of their lives and criticize them for everything, fairly or not. Sometimes young people just needs to be young people. Harry and Meghan have decided to dedicate their lives to the monarchy. I don't think that's the life path for any children they might have. Maybe this would set them free.

Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the Jungle View Post
In this time of increased terrorism anything could happen at any time. After the wedding there should be no confusion about which institution/country Meghan Markle represents and which country is her home and responsible for her protection.
I don't think there is any confusion for Meghan, and I believe she's trying her best to make the British people understanding that. This woman has just turned her life upside down in every way possible to commit to life in her new country, without any hesitation. I think she also realizes that while people might have that initial honeymoon period with her because she's new and interesting right now, it won't last just based on that. She'll have to prove herself if she wants to be accepted truly. That likely had an influence on a number of decisions she's made that we found out this last week.
  #253  
Old 12-04-2017, 05:06 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Somewhere in, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the Jungle View Post
In this time of increased terrorism anything could happen at any time. After the wedding there should be no confusion about which institution/country Meghan Markle represents and which country is her home and responsible for her protection.
Isn't it already obvious? Where would the confusion be?
  #254  
Old 12-04-2017, 07:31 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Personally I wouldn't have a problem with her just getting special treatment to get British citizenship asap. She's going to be a member of the RF and have HRH so its really won't make much difference IMO. Its not like she's going to massively benefit from citizenship in some way, apart from her own financial affairs it will make really little difference.
I highly doubt it will happen for one reason - Brexit - the papers are full of people who've lived here for years, married with children etc but who are refused citizenship with scare stories they may have no rights once Brexit is done. Yes Meghan is not European but still it wouldn't necessarily play well and would be a political issue for the government.

I've asked that question before and apparently I got no answer, but here I go again: even if there was a desire to fast-track Meghan's naturalization, how would that be done in practice ? My point is that the UK is governed by the principle of the rule of law and, accordingly, the government cannot do anything that is not authorized by law. So either there is some special regulation or exception in the law that enables fast-tracking of a royal bride's naturalization. or such regulations will have to be enacted first, which, as Tommy said above, could be politically controversial, especially when the UK is leaving the EU presumably, among other things, to cut down on immigration.
  #255  
Old 12-04-2017, 07:43 AM
Gaudete's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: South East Coast, United Kingdom
Posts: 514
I don't think it would be a political issue quite honestly. There are two reasons for this.

The first is to say that this can't really be related in any way to Brexit. Whilst the British have consistently voted for anti-immigration parties and whilst the current government has an ongoing pledge to bring the numbers down, this wouldn't affect Meghan's application because she isn't an EU national. In many ways, she provides some insight into what visa applications and citizenship will mean for applicants in the future as much of our future immigration policy will be focused away from the EU and towards America and the Commonwealth. Her route to citizenship (as it stands), shows what the standard will be for everybody once Britain has left the European Union.

But the second and most important is that Meghan isn't exactly the norm when it comes to migration into the UK. Immigration policy for non-EU migrants usually requires a sponsor here in the UK. When your sponsor is Her Majesty the Queen, you're probably going to be treated a little differently! In practise, the Home Office can fast track certain applications but it's almost always politically controversial because there generally isn't a need to fast track and when it happens, it's often done for the wrong reasons. For example, a former Home Secretary fast tracked citizenship for his housekeeper because she was at risk of deportation. But that's nowhere near Meghan's reasons for becoming British. Quite honestly I think more people were surprised it wouldn't be fast tracked (as it can be) than they would have been had it been announced she would be granted citizenship on her wedding day.
  #256  
Old 12-04-2017, 07:46 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
I just read Mette Marit's open letter about Marius, and it gave me goose bumps. Perhaps letting any children of theirs have dual citizenship isn't a bad thing after reading that. Harry's children won't come close too the throne or be working royals barring some catastrophe. I don't think any of us have any clue about how much harder life is when you have to grow up in a fish bowl. It might be that the children would want to find escape in another country where they can live relatively obscure lives. Rather than have the press analyze every little bit of their lives and criticize them for everything, fairly or not. Sometimes young people just needs to be young people. Harry and Meghan have decided to dedicate their lives to the monarchy. I don't think that's the life path for any children they might have. Maybe this would set them free.



I don't think there is any confusion for Meghan, and I believe she's trying her best to make the British people understanding that. This woman has just turned her life upside down in every way possible to commit to life in her new country, without any hesitation. I think she also realizes that while people might have that initial honeymoon period with her because she's new and interesting right now, it won't last just based on that. She'll have to prove herself if she wants to be accepted truly. That likely had an influence on a number of decisions she's made that we found out this last week.
Historically, there have been several foreign brides who married into the English, Scottish and later British royal families and, if historic accounts are correct, attempted to use their position to advance the interests of their native countries. In fact, we don't have to go that far into the past (to the days of Catherine of Aragon or Marie de Guise for instance) to find examples like that. Take for example Alexandra of Denmark, the wife of the future King Edward VII, who, as Princess of Wales, tried to influence her husband to side with the Danish in their conflict with Prussia over Schleswig-Holstein, contrary to the position of the British government and Queen Victoria at the time.

I would say that, compared to the foreign princesses and queen consosrts of the past, Meghan as a potential advocate for American interests within the Royal House is really a non-issue IMHO.
  #257  
Old 12-04-2017, 09:02 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Historically, there have been several foreign brides who married into the English, Scottish and later British royal families and, if historic accounts are correct, attempted to use their position to advance the interests of their native countries. In fact, we don't have to go that far into the past (to the days of Catherine of Aragon or Marie de Guise for instance) to find examples like that. Take for example Alexandra of Denmark, the wife of the future King Edward VII, who, as Princess of Wales, tried to influence her husband to side with the Danish in their conflict with Prussia over Schleswig-Holstein, contrary to the position of the British government and Queen Victoria at the time.

I would say that, compared to the foreign princesses and queen consosrts of the past, Meghan as a potential advocate for American interests within the Royal House is really a non-issue IMHO.
My point has never been about her advocating for US issues. Never even came up. And really, having to go back to Catherine of Aragon, Marie de Guise, and Alexandra of Denmark is pretty far. It’s more of a loyalty issue than advocacy issue.

She represents the Queen and monarch as a member of the BRF, both domestically and foreign, not seeing how that’s convincing or diplomatically ok when she’s not a British citizen. Someone mentioned earlier that there shouldn’t be a question of if she’s a citizen of UK or US, I think that has more to do with the fact that her security will be provided by the UK taxpayers, she will live in a place that’s owned by the British public, etc. . This, there shouldn’t be a question of where her loyalty lies. And part of that is citizenship issue. I agree.

And whilst I know that Harry’s line will unlikely to be on the throne barring any tragedy, he is determined to be close enough to have ask the monarch’s permission by law or deal with consequences even after Cambridge #3. And this was only determined in 2012, so it’s not antiquated. Also, there is the question of future children. Harry might opt his children out of being known as HRHs when the time comes, and I believe it’s a likely scenario, how is that for optics when blood HRHs are dual nationals? And as long as they have children within 5 years, all children will be dual nationals until at least age 18. There is just no way to get around that. Some papers have also expressed concern over the fact that certain royal family financial structure can be available to foreign government now.
  #258  
Old 12-04-2017, 06:15 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,035
If no one has posted this, here it is and we all should read it. Basically, Meghan must retain dual citizenship for 3 years and she can be double taxed as long as she has that status. Meaning both the US and UK can tax her earnings. Which would include gifts of value. Also, the US can demand spousal records of those with dual citizenship and joint accounts. No Bueno from the perspective of the BRF. This is a sincere reason for her to renounce US citizenship after that 3 year period. I'd consider it and I love my country deeply. But double dipping is just crummy!

Apparently Eritrea is the only other country that does this tax thing with those with dual citizenship. Everyone else just allows taxes where you reside.

Even odder, for state taxes, I am taxed where my employer pays my state taxes and also in my state of residence, if that differs. It differs from state to state, but at a state level, I also saw this double dipping for years.

The article: https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/pr...-accounts.html. Tip of the hat to the Fun Girls for supplying the link and the info. https://www.gofugyourself.com/. Their weekly Royal Round up always has insightful nuggets like this to peruse, IMO.
__________________
"And the tabloid press will be a pain in the ass, as usual." - Royal Norway
  #259  
Old 12-04-2017, 06:21 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
If no one has posted this, here it is and we all should read it. Basically, Meghan must retain dual citizenship for 3 years and she can be double taxed as long as she has that status. Meaning both the US and UK can tax her earnings. Which would include gifts of value. Also, the US can demand spousal records of those with dual citizenship and joint accounts. No Bueno from the perspective of the BRF. This is a sincere reason for her to renounce US citizenship after that 3 year period. I'd consider it and I love my country deeply. But double dipping is just crummy!

Apparently Eritrea is the only other country that does this tax thing with those with dual citizenship. Everyone else just allows taxes where you reside.

Even odder, for state taxes, I am taxed where my employer pays my state taxes and also in my state of residence, if that differs. It differs from state to state, but at a state level, I also saw this double dipping for years.

The article: https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/pr...-accounts.html.
That's not entirely true. CPA here. She will be taxed based on the location of the earning first. She will have to disclose her global income on US return, but she does get the credit for foreign taxes paid. If her US tax liability is deemed higher than that, she'll have to paid the additional tax. And anything of value is given to her by a foreign national is NOT taxable as gift tax liability is assessed of the person giving the gift. If the person giving the gift is not a US citizen or resident, no tax liability. However, she will have to disclose receiving the gift. If she fails to do so, penalties can be assessed. My understanding is that they are usually pretty hefty. I'm not sure about UK laws, but it might be easiest if she left her investments in US accounts if UK doesn't require taxation on investments held in foreign accounts.

She will have to file FBAR for any financial account she has a financial interest in. That's defined for any financial account she has her name on and/or signing authority. Things like jewelry will not need to be disclosed on FBAR as they are not considered financial accounts.

BTW, from the sound of it, it might still have implications for Harry's finances, depending on the situation. Basically, this whole thing is going to be a pain in the ass.
  #260  
Old 12-04-2017, 06:22 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
If no one has posted this, here it is and we all should read it. Basically, Meghan must retain dual citizenship for 3 years and she can be double taxed as long as she has that status. Meaning both the US and UK can tax her earnings. Which would include gifts of value. Also, the US can demand spousal records of those with dual citizenship and joint accounts. No Bueno from the perspective of the BRF. This is a sincere reason for her to renounce US citizenship after that 3 year period. I'd consider it and I love my country deeply. But double dipping is just crummy!

Apparently Eritrea is the only other country that does this tax thing with those with dual citizenship. Everyone else just allows taxes where you reside.

Even odder, for state taxes, I am taxed where my employer pays my state taxes and also in my state of residence, if that differs. It differs from state to state, but at a state level, I also saw this double dipping for years.

The article: https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/pr...-accounts.html. Tip of the hat to the Fun Girls for supplying the link and the info. https://www.gofugyourself.com/. Their weekly Royal Round up always has insightful nuggets like this to peruse, IMO.


Can you clarify a bit on this? Does Meghan have to retain her US citizenship for 3 years after becoming a UK citizen?
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Meghan Markle: Family and Background - November 2017-May 2018 soapstar The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 3418 06-19-2018 01:39 PM
Meghan Markle: Wedding Dress Suggestions and Musings soapstar Royal Style File 1819 05-19-2018 06:22 AM
Meghan Markle: Wedding Tiara and Jewelry Suggestions and Musings Tilia C. Royal Jewels General Discussion 999 05-19-2018 06:02 AM




Popular Tags
abdication america american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism british british royal family brownbitcoinqueen china chinese commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs daisy doge of venice doll dubai duke of sussex facts george vi gustaf vi adolf hello! house of windsor imperial household intro italian royal family jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewellery kids movie king edward vii książ castle line of succession list of rulers luxembourg meghan markle nepalese royal jewels prince constantijn prince dimitri princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess ribha queen consort queen mathilde queen maxima random facts royal ancestry royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding royal wedding gown serbian royal family solomon j solomon speech sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tradition uae customs united states of america welsh wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:36 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×