DOCUMENT TYPE: Column ISSN: 0028-0038 LANGUAGE: English
RECORD TYPE: Fulltext; Abstract
WORD COUNT: 775 LINE COUNT: 00060
ABSTRACT: There is some justifiable Congressional sentiment to reduce the annual time limit that wealthy tax expatriates living in the US can visit here tax-free, from six months to four months. Alienation to protect property is not the highest of motivations.
TEXT: The question, from a member of the Democratic panel, was intended as hostile. What did we Republicans think of American citizens who, in order to save taxes, give up their citizenship?
I answered to the effect that protest against taxation is a venerable American habit, thought to be axiomatic by those of our ancestors who emptied a boat laden with tea into Boston Harbor.
Well, what did we think of the proposal to bar such expatriates from living here for more than four months every year?
That question sends us back to the thought-library. When is expatriation commendable?
We begin by acknowledging that all Americans are the fruit of expatriation. We have never cultivated harsh thoughts for those who left England or Holland in search of greater religious freedom than they had at home. Certainly we do not resent those who came to America fleeing persecution. And, on reflection, we do not resent those who came here looking for commercial opportunity, do we? If Andrew Carnegie left Scotland intending nothing more than to make a fortune in the New World, what is the proper attitude of the Scots he abandoned?
During and after the Revolutionary War there was some resentment of the "loyalists" who went to Canada. But the bitterness was not long lasting, and it isn't hard to understand that there should have been those for whom the tug of loyalty to the Crown transcended contemporary revolutionary ardor. The Southerner who abandoned his "country" (there were very few) because he did not wish to identify himself with a war the apparent purpose of which was to establish the South's right to continue to allow slavery would not, in retrospect, be thought cowardly, or disloyal, though his timing was questionable.
What about the rich American who gives up his flag in order to shield himself from taxation?
The spastic answer is that of course such a man is to be despised. But it's also true, isn't it, that we are, as Americans, tolerant of deviant behavior? The most engaging recent example of expatriate canniness is the man who gave up his citizenship, pulled out his money, went off to live in some little island country, and persuaded the government to appoint him Ambassador to the United States. A really nifty arrangement, because now he has rejoined his family and lives in his native land, tax free. Somebody somewhere got in the way of that little maneuver, and now the question raised in Congress is how far to limit expatriates' visits to the United States. After 182 days, you become a U.S. resident for purposes of taxation; so that anyone primarily engaged in evading taxes would not expect to live more than six months a year here. But there is sentiment in Congress for limiting this time further, even drastically.
One seeks perspective. Sure, anybody ought to have the right to go anywhere to take up residence, subject of course to the right of every country to regulate immigration. The question we are considering is whether the man who undertakes alienation in order to protect his property is beneath contempt.
Certainly that would be so if such a person left his country when it was in distress. We have read of Germans who thought it disloyal to leave when Hitler assumed power, on the grounds that their duty now was to unseat Hitler. Others, despairing of this possibility, fled to protect themselves and family.
An American who left the country in wartime can properly be thought of as a deserter. But what about an American who decides that the property he has accumulated he wishes to retain for himself and his family? How heavily should he be punished? Should we allow him only thirty days in his ex-country? Three days? No days?
Loyalty has always got to be contingent. The current issue of First Things publishes five deeply philosophical essays wondering whether loyalty has been forfeited to a government whose judiciary arrogates authority over life and death, as the Supreme Court has done in the matter of abortions, and threatens to do on euthanasia. A belief in equal treatment under the law is not frivolous; and the citizen made to pay at class-warfare rates, current or prospective, can presumably be thought of as an Andrew Carnegie in reverse. We must remember what Burke taught us, that a country to be loved must be lovely.
COPYRIGHT 1996 National Review Inc.
DESCRIPTORS: Expatriation--Moral and ethical aspects; Aliens--Laws, regulations, etc.; Tax evasion--Moral and ethical aspects
FILE SEGMENT: MI File 47