Eva M Haines-Lewinter

Indianapolis


                                                                                                                Thursday, May 9, 2024



IRS


Ms. M. F.


Austin, TX 73301-0025




–          Your reference 0544xxx








Dear Ms. F. ,





I received your letter dated April 16th, 2024, thank you!





You claim “we reviewed your information” and came to the conclusion “no action is necessary on your account”.





I understand you are only doing your work to the best of your knowledge.


Please confirm in detail that you understand the following:


1.)    The tax charge of $910,118.29 is based on an inheritance “Rosemarie Meyer-Stoll” in the country of Germany.


2.)    Under the jurisdiction of Germany, the inheritance value was estimated and taxed at 30% already according to German law. The responsible entities in Germany are:


a.       Thomas Huth, attorney, Klosterstrasse 11, 61462 Königstein Taunus, Germany


b.       Dr. Stefan Exner, executor, Albrechtstr. 12, 06844 Dessau-Rosslau, Germany


c.       Amtsgericht Königstein, Taunus, Gerichtstr. 2, 61462 Königstein Taunus, Germany


d.       Finanzamt Fulda, Gerberstr. 19, 36037 Fulda, Germany


e.       Waltraud Kuehn, attorney, Frankfurter Str. 6, 61462 Königstein Taunus, Germany


f.        Consulate General of the United States of America, Giessener Str. 30, 60435 Frankfurt Main, Germany


3.)    All taxes and fees have been paid already for this inheritance under the jurisdiction of Germany.


4.)    Please explain under the double taxation agreement between the United States of America, why the United States of America claims jurisdiction over the taxation of this inheritance. The assumption is that either one or (exclusive or) the other country is allowed to tax, but not both.


a.       Should Germany have precedence over the jurisdiction of this taxation, any additional taxation from the United States of America would be illegal.


b.       Should the United States of America have precedence over the jurisdiction of this taxation, why did the United States of America fail to claim jurisdiction in regards to the facilitating entities in Germany, the individuals mentioned in 2.) of this letter?


c.       How does the United States of America communicate in the year 2024, that it had jurisdiction in the year 2017, to make Germany reverse its mistake to claim jurisdiction?


5.)    Should it be legal to tax an inheritance from Germany at 30% in Germany and to an additional 25% in the United States of America, please explain the following:


a.       The jurisdiction to estimate the value is under the responsibility of Germany.


b.       The jurisdiction to estimate the value is under the responsibility of the United States of America.


c.       Both countries make their own estimates to charge their tax.


d.       Should the due date timing of the United States have preference and jurisdiction in Germany, why weren’t the entities in 2.) not told so? I told them but they didn’t comply.


e.       Should the due date timing of Germany have preference and jurisdiction in the United States of America, why is the United States of America not able to follow that process? In fact, the final estimated value of the inheritance in Germany was determined in the year 2021, so how can the United States request this information with a due date 12/31/2017?



The process described here, a double jurisdiction over a period of time with different evaluation schemes at two opposing points in time, reminds me of the “cum-ex” fraud scenario.



Please answer the questions above, since you haven’t convinced me yet, that this isn’t a fraud scheme.





My understanding is that double taxation is indeed fraud. Furthermore, the representation of an individual as a taxpayer in two countries for the same tax object at the same time is fraud.


This case is documented.


Sincerely,


Eva.

---

Disclaimer.