5 ms·
In the United States we had the opposite problem. The 1986 Tax Reform mandated that the social security numbers of children be included in order to claim them
by jewel 10y ago
In the United States we had the opposite problem. The 1986 Tax Reform mandated that the social security numbers of children be included in order to claim them as dependents to get a tax break. Seven million children 'disappeared' the next year.
http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/dependents.asp http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/dependents.asp
- AtheistOfFail 10y agoIf I remember correctly, a lot of it was traced to divorced parents claiming the children on both tax refunds which this law did away with, only the person with most/solo custody can claim the children now.
- Spooky23 10y agoMy grand uncle claimed his dog for years.
- acdha 10y agoThe snopes.com link above quotes this towards the bottom: ”The tax agency said about 20 percent of the vanished dependents were children who had been claimed as dependents by both parents after a divorce. Under the law, only one parent may claim the child as a deduction. Most of the others probably never existed, John Szilagyi, an I.R.S. researcher, said. And some families apparently became quite greedy in creating dependents, each worth a $1,080 deduction in 1986, and $1,900 in 1987. About 66,000 taxpayers who claimed four or more dependents in 1986 claimed none in 1987, after the Social Security identification rule went into effect. And more than 11,000 families claimed seven or more dependents in 1986, but none in 1987.”
- AtheistOfFail 10y ago> And more than 11,000 families claimed seven or more dependents in 1986, but none in 1987. So, big lie, you mean. -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
- acdha 10y agoThat doesn't seem relevant to this thread?
- AtheistOfFail 10y agoIt is, it's a technique where the bigger the lie, the harder to dispute.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- cauterized 10y agoWow, that's a lot of septuplets graduating high school!
- microtherion 10y agoMy younger son lives in this kind of limbo existence. As a former green card holder, I have to file US taxes, but since my son was born in Switzerland to non-US citizens and never lived in the US, he's not eligible for a SSN or ITIN, so I can't claim him as a dependent.
- ma2rten 10y agoYou can't claim dependents who didn't live in the US for the majority of the tax year anyway.
- einarvollset 10y agoWhat makes you think that as a former green card holder you have to file taxes? My understanding is that if you give it up, no need.
- pzh 10y agoYou need to renounce your residence with the IRS as well, and then they require you to pay an exit tax on the cash value of all your assets as if they were sold on the same day. Because of the principle of citizenship based taxation, US residence/citizenship can be quite a burden for those who don't live in the US--just take a look at FATCA and all the filing requirements and penalties.
- beagle3 10y agoAnd you can only do that if your last 5 years of taxes are properly filed.
- seanmcdirmid 10y agoGreen card != citizenship. In fact, you can lose your green card just by not living in the USA for 6 months out of the year.
- pzh 10y agoTrue, but there is a difference between residence for tax purposes and residence for immigration purposes. You may live a certain number of years (7-8?) in the US, give up your greencard, and still be considered a resident for tax purposes for life or until you relinquish with the IRS and pay your exit tax.
- hkmurakami 10y agoAnd in Japan, the deceased elderly remain "alive on paper" so that the family members can continue to collect their pensions and federal social security checks.