In a back-up story in Action Comics #900, David Goyer had Superman renounce his American citizenship. This short story has been getting a lot of mainstream press coverage. Some people are outraged by Superman “ditching” America. Some people think it’s a modern twist. Before we discuss further, please keep in mind that Goyer’s short story hasn’t been confirmed as canon. I’m sure that after DC is done giggling about all the press coverage, it will confirm that it’s not canon. Anyway, I wanted to look at this issue from a few angles and have y’all vote in today’s poll.
- One argument for Superman being American is that his values were shaped by being raised by two excellent parents in a small town in Kansas.
- The argument against him being American is that he’s from Krypton and in America illegally. Why hasn’t Lex Luthor made a big deal about Supes’ birth certificate?
- Does it matter if Superman is American as long as Clark Kent is paying taxes? Is Batman’s citizenship different than Bruce Wayne’s?!? Oh wait, Batman is an S-Corp now….
- More than any other character in comics, Superman is the world’s hero. Wouldn’t he serve better in that capacity by not being a citizen of any country?
[poll id=”114″]
I didn't vote. I think him renouncing it is a function of being a citizen and being raised by 2 good people.
Should he be? Up to him….he's a grown man.
Yep.
Love the second point. He is an illegal alien (literally). Amazing the parallels between Donald Trump and Lex Luthor. Hey, wasn't Lex the president of the U.S. at one point?
I'm going to ask my wife about the second point, but if I'm not mistaken; once a U.S. citizen, always a U.S. citizen as far as paying taxes goes. So even if Clark Kent were to move to another country (or anywhere, really) he would still have to pay taxes to the IRS.
-M
I think as long as his money wasn't repatriated in the US then he's in the clear.
According to my all-knowing wife (in the areas of taxation), if Clark Kent stays working at the Daily Planet, but not actually living in the US and as a renounced U.S. citizen, then he is considered a resident for tax purposes and still has to pay income taxes on his world-wide income. If Clark gets a job in another country, and if it is a country that the U.S. has a treaty with, it depends on what the treaty says. You'd have to look at the tie-breaker rules to determine what country he will be considered a resident of under the treaty. He can not continue to have a significant presence in the U.S. If not, then he may again be considered a U.S. resident and taxed on his world wide income. Additionally, the year in which he expatriates the U.S., he will be required to pay an "exit tax" if he has assets in the amount of $2 million or more.
And if he doesn't work, any visits he has to the U.S. have to be very limited, or he may be considered a resident for tax purposes and taxed on his world wide income as if he were a U.S. citizen. The way to determine the length of time that he can stay as a visitor in the U.S. is a bit complicated and my head exploded when my wife tried to explain it to me, so I'll save you the trouble of wiping the bits of brain matter off your monitor.
-M
@iceman
He could just spend $100 and incorporate himself and avoid most of that.
… or that.
I have a feeling that if he did that, Bruce Wayne would find a way to be the majority shareholder in that "S-Corp".
(*cymbal crash*)
-M
haha. That's a nerdy joke.