←back to thread

606 points saikatsg | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
seydor ◴[] No.43929489[source]
Will he be taxed on his foreign Papal salary? Or will he forego the salary , like Francis did?
replies(3): >>43929532 #>>43929889 #>>43930898 #
devrandoom ◴[] No.43929532[source]
If he is taxed, he should renounce US citizenship as he's very unlike to move back to the US.
replies(2): >>43929580 #>>43929818 #
1. codethief ◴[] No.43929818[source]
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)
replies(4): >>43929864 #>>43929945 #>>43930074 #>>43930733 #
2. umanwizard ◴[] No.43929864[source]
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.
3. joecool1029 ◴[] No.43929945[source]
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
replies(1): >>43930758 #
4. AlotOfReading ◴[] No.43930074[source]
Even if the reed amendment were suddenly enforced for some reason, diplomatic visits by heads of state like the Pope operate under a completely different set of rules than normal tourists. Modi has famously been banned from personal visits to the US for decades, but he has visited the US on diplomatic business as recently as Feb.
5. jkaplowitz ◴[] No.43930733[source]
That would only apply if he were to renounce for the purpose of avoiding taxation, as opposed to for the purpose of having his sole allegiance be that of the city-state and the church over which he rules, or for the purpose of having diplomatic immunity during visits to the US.
replies(1): >>43947665 #
6. jkaplowitz ◴[] No.43930758[source]
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.

replies(1): >>43931321 #
7. thimabi ◴[] No.43931321{3}[source]
At least according to customary international law, a head of state has full sovereign immunity regardless of any nationalities that they might hold. By the way, the immunity covers not only the head of state, but also the head of government and the Secretary of State.

If the Pope were a mere diplomat, his immunities would be restricted to the acts directly related to his job in any country of which he’s a national or permanent resident. That’s because, unlike sovereign immunity, diplomatic immunity is based on a Vienna Convention full of restrictions like that.

8. codethief ◴[] No.43947665[source]
> if he were to renounce for the purpose of avoiding taxation

That was indeed the premise of the comment I was responding to.