From: Somewhere Texas
Actually under US Tax law, she would only be taxed if she actually worked for the royal house,
I don't think the salary that royals get is considered just a stipend. I think it's actually a salary for their royal duties. As doing their royal duties is a full time work, initially Meghan was ask to quit her job as an actress to do full time royal duties, just like a Prime Minister being paid for his job as a Prime Minister.
That's why US would want a slice of her salary from the Royal House.
Greta, do you practice at making great leaps of stupidity?
The royal family is not paid a salary, for anything.
Okay Mr intelligent. Read this article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2017/11/30/meghan-markle-prince-harry-filing-taxes-separately-heres-why/#2efefe1b6fce
It isn’t just income that the IRS wants to know about. It’s assets too, maybe even some royal ones. FATCA, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, is a uniquely American law. It was passed in 2010, and is now ramped up worldwide. It requires an annual Form 8938 filing with the IRS that could end up involving royal assets.
But anyway, for her an easy fix is, give up US citizenship and all is good.
I have read the article.
And I will also go so far as to point out the obvious, the writer of the article clearly based most of his ideas on some misconceptions.
There is a key phrase "could end up involving " that he used.
First the obvious flaws in his logic.
1) She would not 'own' or come into ownership of any of the assets that generate any part of the royals 'income.' Technically, Prince Charles owns the Duchy of Cornwall.
2) None of the Royal family 'assets' seem to qualify as such under US tax law. The closest they come to being is a trust fund, which falls under a totally different set of tax laws.
Under US Tax law, a business asset is something that 1) generates an income and 2) can be sold to offset a liability, or easily liquidated in order to purchase an asset or make an improvement in holdings.
Or to put it another way, an asset would be like one of Trump's buildings, he can sell it to buy property to build a bigger building to generate more income.
Since a Duchy cannot be liquidated by the owner, it fails to qualify as a business asset.
Then there is the joint return he mentioned.
If she is dependent solely on his income, she has no income of her own, and therefore would only be getting, as I said, an allowance. She herself, has no tax liability.
Finally, if she does work, she would do better from an accounting stand point, to fill a separate return (should she keep her US Citizenship) and lives abroad for one very damn good reason.
Under US tax law, if she is living overseas, and working, and her 'work' requires her to live over seas, she can deduct up to 50% of her income as expenses for living over seas as part of her job.
And clearly he was basing his whole premise on Boris Johnson, who was elected as Mayor of London, a office that has a yearly salary, and then was appointed to Foreign Secretary, another position with a salary.
And finally, if she were to be paid to attend state or royal functions, it would, as I stated earlier, fall under the stipend clause of the US tax code, which are not taxable.
The reason being is that being a princess does not involve salary negotiations prior to the wedding, since it would be to cover her personal expenses, that do not meet the qualification under current US tax law to be taxable.
Now granted, considering how the president seems to be pissing off the British government lately, he might ask congress to pass a new tax law so that the US government could get their hands on some of that money.
Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?
You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.
Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI