9 ms·

Will he be taxed on his foreign Papal salary? Or will he forego the salary , like Francis did?

by seydor 1y ago

devrandoom 1y ago
If he is taxed, he should renounce US citizenship as he's very unlike to move back to the US.
- _dark_matter_ 1y ago
  Very unlikely is an understatement. Francis never even visited his home country of Argentina after being elected as Pope.
  - mFixman 1y ago
    Francis was seen as being too close to the Kirchnerists in ideology and too conflicted with the Kirchnerists in actions when he was Archbishop. Visiting Argentina would have forced him to take a side and trigger a political crisis he probably wanted to avoid. As far as I know there's no similar conflict with the new Pope, and he wasn't even in America for the most important part of his church career.
    - lormayna 1y ago
      Really? I always heard that Francis was the first enemy of Kirtcherners
      - mFixman 1y ago
        Francis was the most important supporter of liberation theology in Argentina, which was very ideologically aligned with the Kirchners. He was also strongly opposed to almost every politician who opposed the government. Bergoglio had several conflicts with the Kirchner government when he was an Archbishop. Cristina didn't tell the position the government would take when he got elected Pope, but the government-aligned (but not government-controlled) mass media associations preemptively filled Buenos Aires with anti-Bergoglio propaganda. A week later Cristina met the Pope and announced that they were politically aligned, and the same mass media associations filled Buenos Aires with pro-Bergoglio propaganda.
        lormayna 1y ago
        > Francis was the most important supporter of liberation theology in Argentina Really? I am Italian, so I known Bergoglio only by name before he became Pope, but I always heard that he was not really a supporter of liberation theology. Anyway, during his papacy he showed that he was influenced in many aspectes by liberation theology and peronism approach.
- codethief 1y ago
  Notably, in that case he might end up no longer being able to enter the US at all: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Amendment_(immigration) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Amendment_(immigration)
  - School-Cotton 1y ago
    Whether they let the pope enter the US will be entirely based on whether the administration wants the pope to visit the US, not on some obscure immigration law that, according to the article you yourself linked, is almost never enforced even on normal people.
  - joecool1029 1y ago
    He's a sitting head of state now. Even if he violated US law, he's diplomatically immune. One case of it being brought up in the past: https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/87327.pdf https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/87327.pdf
    - jkaplowitz 1y ago
      It's not clear that he is diplomatically immune from US law if he retains his US citizenship. The source you linked was not a case of a US citizen pope. If the pope renounces his US citizenship for the purpose of having diplomatic immunity or treats his acceptance of the papacy as an expatriating act with intent to relinquish citizenship within the meaning of INA §349(a)(4), he would not be inadmissible under the Reed Amendment: that amendment only applies when the reason for renouncing is to avoid taxation, and might not apply to relinquishment under §349(a)(4) regardless of reason since it uses the verb renounce rather than relinquish. Why might the verb matter? The only parts of INA §349 that use the verb renounce are the ones about explicitly swearing or affirming an oath or affirmation of renunciation, not the other potentially expatriating acts. Relinquishment is the broader term in the statute which encompasses all such acts. And I say "might" only because this amendment has been so rarely enforced that the courts haven't had occasion to rule on it. Only two people have ever been denied admission to the US under the Reed Amendment. It was a very badly drafted legal provision.
tptacek 1y ago
Apparently heads of foreign states are exempt.
- jkaplowitz 1y ago
  What's your source on that, at least in the case when the head of the foreign state also remains a US citizen? There's also the interesting question of whether he will remain a US citizen after all, or whether taking the office of pope will count as him relinquishing US citizenship under INA §349(a)(4): https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/Loss-US-Nationality-Public-Office-in-Foreign-State.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/L... In the latter case, the tax question would not arise. Existing US Department of State policy applies an administrative presumption to most cases of accepting foreign government employment that the person does not intend to relinquish US citizenship unless they affirmatively state otherwise, but they don't apply any such presumption to becoming a foreign head of state or a foreign head of government. They actively analyze such cases individually with no default presumption. Pope Leo XIV will lose his US citizenship due to his acceptance of the papacy if and only if he intended to relinquish US citizenship by that act, based on the standard of proof of the preponderance of the evidence (the same as in civil lawsuits). He has the right to dispute the question in court if he and the US Department of State disagree on the answer, but I imagine this would in practice be handled more quietly for such a high-profile case.
  - BirAdam 1y ago
    I put no such assumptions on this. If Trump gets angry with His Holiness, Trump will probably have Little Marco revoke the Pope’s citizenship.
    - jkaplowitz 1y ago
      If the Pope and the Department of State disagree on this, whichever party wants to prove the loss of citizenship will have to prove it in court. Rubio and his department don't get the final say, though they do get to make the initial administrative decision.
Towaway69 1y ago
Apparently Popes don't receive a salary, all expenses are covered by the church. Neither is there a retirement package since it's a job for life. I couldn't imagine a Pope applying for a pay raise. Or rather, to whom would the Pope got to get a pay raise ... hm ;)
- anon291 1y ago
  He's a religious priest which means he cannot own anything other than personal accoutrements. Even if he were to take paid employment before becoming pope, he would have to give it away.
  - wl 1y ago
    That vow of poverty goes away once a religious priest is consecrated a bishop. https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib2-cann607-709_en.html#CHAPTER_VII https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/docume....

Will he be taxed on his foreign Papal salary? Or will he forego the salary , like Francis did?

by seydor 1y ago

Will he be taxed on his foreign Papal salary? Or will he forego the salary , like Francis did?

devrandoom 1y ago

If he is taxed, he should renounce US citizenship as he's very unlike to move back to the US.

_dark_matter_ 1y ago
Very unlikely is an understatement. Francis never even visited his home country of Argentina after being elected as Pope.
- mFixman 1y ago
  Francis was seen as being too close to the Kirchnerists in ideology and too conflicted with the Kirchnerists in actions when he was Archbishop. Visiting Argentina would have forced him to take a side and trigger a political crisis he probably wanted to avoid. As far as I know there's no similar conflict with the new Pope, and he wasn't even in America for the most important part of his church career.
  - lormayna 1y ago
    Really? I always heard that Francis was the first enemy of Kirtcherners
    - mFixman 1y ago
      Francis was the most important supporter of liberation theology in Argentina, which was very ideologically aligned with the Kirchners. He was also strongly opposed to almost every politician who opposed the government. Bergoglio had several conflicts with the Kirchner government when he was an Archbishop. Cristina didn't tell the position the government would take when he got elected Pope, but the government-aligned (but not government-controlled) mass media associations preemptively filled Buenos Aires with anti-Bergoglio propaganda. A week later Cristina met the Pope and announced that they were politically aligned, and the same mass media associations filled Buenos Aires with pro-Bergoglio propaganda.
      - lormayna 1y ago
        > Francis was the most important supporter of liberation theology in Argentina Really? I am Italian, so I known Bergoglio only by name before he became Pope, but I always heard that he was not really a supporter of liberation theology. Anyway, during his papacy he showed that he was influenced in many aspectes by liberation theology and peronism approach.
codethief 1y ago
Notably, in that case he might end up no longer being able to enter the US at all: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Amendment_(immigration) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Amendment_(immigration)
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  Whether they let the pope enter the US will be entirely based on whether the administration wants the pope to visit the US, not on some obscure immigration law that, according to the article you yourself linked, is almost never enforced even on normal people.
- joecool1029 1y ago
  He's a sitting head of state now. Even if he violated US law, he's diplomatically immune. One case of it being brought up in the past: https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/87327.pdf https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/87327.pdf
  - jkaplowitz 1y ago
    It's not clear that he is diplomatically immune from US law if he retains his US citizenship. The source you linked was not a case of a US citizen pope. If the pope renounces his US citizenship for the purpose of having diplomatic immunity or treats his acceptance of the papacy as an expatriating act with intent to relinquish citizenship within the meaning of INA §349(a)(4), he would not be inadmissible under the Reed Amendment: that amendment only applies when the reason for renouncing is to avoid taxation, and might not apply to relinquishment under §349(a)(4) regardless of reason since it uses the verb renounce rather than relinquish. Why might the verb matter? The only parts of INA §349 that use the verb renounce are the ones about explicitly swearing or affirming an oath or affirmation of renunciation, not the other potentially expatriating acts. Relinquishment is the broader term in the statute which encompasses all such acts. And I say "might" only because this amendment has been so rarely enforced that the courts haven't had occasion to rule on it. Only two people have ever been denied admission to the US under the Reed Amendment. It was a very badly drafted legal provision.

tptacek 1y ago

Apparently heads of foreign states are exempt.

jkaplowitz 1y ago
What's your source on that, at least in the case when the head of the foreign state also remains a US citizen? There's also the interesting question of whether he will remain a US citizen after all, or whether taking the office of pope will count as him relinquishing US citizenship under INA §349(a)(4): https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/Loss-US-Nationality-Public-Office-in-Foreign-State.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/L... In the latter case, the tax question would not arise. Existing US Department of State policy applies an administrative presumption to most cases of accepting foreign government employment that the person does not intend to relinquish US citizenship unless they affirmatively state otherwise, but they don't apply any such presumption to becoming a foreign head of state or a foreign head of government. They actively analyze such cases individually with no default presumption. Pope Leo XIV will lose his US citizenship due to his acceptance of the papacy if and only if he intended to relinquish US citizenship by that act, based on the standard of proof of the preponderance of the evidence (the same as in civil lawsuits). He has the right to dispute the question in court if he and the US Department of State disagree on the answer, but I imagine this would in practice be handled more quietly for such a high-profile case.
- BirAdam 1y ago
  I put no such assumptions on this. If Trump gets angry with His Holiness, Trump will probably have Little Marco revoke the Pope’s citizenship.
  - jkaplowitz 1y ago
    If the Pope and the Department of State disagree on this, whichever party wants to prove the loss of citizenship will have to prove it in court. Rubio and his department don't get the final say, though they do get to make the initial administrative decision.

Towaway69 1y ago

Apparently Popes don't receive a salary, all expenses are covered by the church. Neither is there a retirement package since it's a job for life. I couldn't imagine a Pope applying for a pay raise. Or rather, to whom would the Pope got to get a pay raise ... hm ;)

anon291 1y ago
He's a religious priest which means he cannot own anything other than personal accoutrements. Even if he were to take paid employment before becoming pope, he would have to give it away.
- wl 1y ago
  That vow of poverty goes away once a religious priest is consecrated a bishop. https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib2-cann607-709_en.html#CHAPTER_VII https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/docume....