Facebook co-founder will save millions from renounced citizenship

Eduardo Saverin, co-founder of Facebook, will potentially save millions of dollars after he renounced his United States citizenship before the company's IPO launches later this week.

Saverin, who served as the chief financial officer of the company when it was known as The Facebook, currently owns roughly four percent of the company. According to a Bloomberg report, this would value Saverin's stake in the company as high as $2.89 billion. The co-founder renounced his U.S. citizenship in September and currently lives in Singapore, which doesn't have a capital gains tax (a tax on the profitable sale of capital assets, such as stock).

By renouncing his citizenship, Saverin stands to save at least $67 million, according to Bloomberg's calculations. Saverin's spokesperson stated that the co-founder's decision to renounce his citizenship "had nothing to do with tax and everything to do with his desire to live and work in Singapore."

The Facebook co-founder sued Zuckerberg for a larger ownership sake in the company, as depicted in the 2010 dramatization The Social Network. While Saverin held a large percentage of the original company, Zuckerberg founded a new company in Delaware which purchased the former company, diluting Saverin's shares to a minuscule amount. At the time, Saverin's role in the company had also diminished significantly. Saverin and Facebook later settled out of court, increasing his stake in the company to its current levels.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

40% of Android smartphone sales are from Samsung

Next Story

Mozilla shows off 'Firefox Metro' browser start page on video

56 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

http://economy.money.cnn.com/2...dont-come-back-ever/?iid=GM

"Senators to Saverin: Don't come back. Ever.

...

Schumer and Casey are calling their bill the "Ex-PATRIOT Act."

The proposal says that if a wealthy American seeks to renounce their citizenship, it will be presumed they have done so for tax purposes, unless the individual can convince the IRS otherwise.

If the person is unable to convince the IRS, they will be subject to 30% capital gains tax on future U.S. investments no matter where they live. Furthermore, they will not be allowed back into the United States. "Period," Schumer said. "They could not set foot in this country again.""

"Saverin has turned his back on the country that welcomed him and kept him safe, educated him, and helped him become a billionaire," Schumer said. "This is a great American success story gone horribly wrong."

Initially I was disturbed by this, but now I suppose that I can see the logic, seeing as he was born in Brazil and he lives in Singapore...

If he goes ahead with this than he should also renounce his rights to ever be a citizen of the USA again. Its only fair that if deny a community that you are part of the benefits of your success and you should also forfeit your right to rejoin said community.

Jelly2003 said,
Initially I was disturbed by this, but now I suppose that I can see the logic, seeing as he was born in Brazil and he lives in Singapore...

If he goes ahead with this than he should also renounce his rights to ever be a citizen of the USA again. Its only fair that if deny a community that you are part of the benefits of your success and you should also forfeit your right to rejoin said community.

That is cute; it in fact identifies "IRS" with a word such as "community". I double-dare you to in fact do some research for yourself and find out where our tax payments go to, and tell me how the tax system is in fact helping the "community".

In a truly free society, an act like this would be met with "Oh well, good for him I guess! (shrug!)" But most people in the US would not understand "free" if it started them in the face.

It is quite pathetic that a ton of people reading this news seem to equate "paying taxes" with "being patriotic". It shows a pretty gaping lack of knowledge of your own country's history. Although pretty sad display of affairs, it is not entirely unexpected; the public education system would have you beleive that before big government times (circa start of 20th century) - US was an uncivilized place where wild gun-carrying men dragging their wives by the hair roamed right along the dinosaurs or something, there was no economy and no progress was possible - ever.

Renouncing one's citizenship may have some valid reasons and we don't know the details why Eduardo did so thus we cannot really judge him.

For instance, I am on the verge of renouncing Turkish citizenship since they want me to either pay $14,000 (easy money for the Turkish government) or join the Turkish army for 12 months.

Sure hope the U.S. NEVER let's him regain citizenship though, if he were to try.

Freaking a**hole. Go away and stay away!!

+1 And all of the 1000+ rich aholes should be arrested and imprisoned if they ever try to come back. Time for some stricter laws regarding these recent actions by these clowns.

Maybe if the U.S. weren't a welfare state, you wouldn't need to rely on rich people for their money. Stop paying unemployable, ineducable and near-legally-retarded people to live for free and have 8 kids and your country might start going somewhere other than deeper in debt.

Slayer said,
Maybe if the U.S. weren't a welfare state, you wouldn't need to rely on rich people for their money. Stop paying unemployable, ineducable and near-legally-retarded people to live for free and have 8 kids and your country might start going somewhere other than deeper in debt.

I think you should run out and buy a clue.

Slayer said,
Maybe if the U.S. weren't a welfare state, you wouldn't need to rely on rich people for their money. Stop paying unemployable, ineducable and near-legally-retarded people to live for free and have 8 kids and your country might start going somewhere other than deeper in debt.

It isn't just the US, the UK has a fair number of people who think they're entitled to benefits and free housing. Then they have lots of kids and complain that the council doesn't give them a bigger house.

Once upon a time, such people would have starved to death if they couldn't get the food on the table. Now we just let them get away with leeching off those who do work...

ahhell said,

I think you should run out and buy a clue.

Sounds to me like he has one. Its you that needs to get a clue.

This is why taxing the rich and mooching off of them will never work...

This doesn't explain why Germany, which is a welfare state far more than US could ever imagine in its wildest dreams, has such a strong economy.

bguy_1986 said,

Sounds to me like he has one. Its you that needs to get a clue.

This is why taxing the rich and mooching off of them will never work...


Taxing the rich used to work until the rich ******* started lobbying and creating laws that help them stay rich. That is when everything went in the ******. Sounds like you need to buy a clue too.

AtriusNY said,
This doesn't explain why Germany, which is a welfare state far more than US could ever imagine in its wildest dreams, has such a strong economy.

Do they not have a debt problem?! Do you know what debt is? Debt is not a good thing...

Slayer said,
Maybe if the U.S. weren't a welfare state, you wouldn't need to rely on rich people for their money. Stop paying unemployable, ineducable and near-legally-retarded people to live for free and have 8 kids and your country might start going somewhere other than deeper in debt.

First of all, having a social safety net is a practice most first-world countries have, not just the United States. Your suggestion would make the United States a third-world country. And obtaining these benefits is difficult: people have to show a specific need. If you have a disability, you have to prove that disability; if you're unemployed, you have to show you're looking for work.

Slayer said,
Maybe if the U.S. weren't a welfare state, you wouldn't need to rely on rich people for their money. Stop paying unemployable, ineducable and near-legally-retarded people to live for free and have 8 kids and your country might start going somewhere other than deeper in debt.

If by "ineducable" you meant uneducable, you're not demonstrating a particularly stellar education yourself at the moment. Those who live in glass houses...

Slayer said,
Maybe if the U.S. weren't a welfare state, you wouldn't need to rely on rich people for their money. Stop paying unemployable, ineducable and near-legally-retarded people to live for free and have 8 kids and your country might start going somewhere other than deeper in debt.

Absolutely. I still find it hard to believe how little people understand of the state of our economy. And why you would not allow money into our country is beyond me. lol That would just be moronic.

Anthony Tosie said,

...and obtaining these benefits is difficult: people have to show a specific need. If you have a disability, you have to prove that disability; if you're unemployed, you have to show you're looking for work.

I call bull**** on this. I know extended family members who are aren't sick, scam the doctors and get disability and laugh about it. Unemployment, yes fill out a piece of paper with company names and phone numbers, heck make them up! They do not verify your monthly submission. People going to college not to get a degre but to get governement grants, student loans (with no intention of paying them back) on welfare and collecting child support under the table. They've been in school for 10 years now! Right before obtaining the degree they switch majors to continue the cycle. Wake up and open your eyes; the American system is a joke and people are robbing the hard working citizens. The rich are rich for a reason; they know how to save, invest properly and connect with people. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Anthony Tosie said,

And obtaining these benefits is difficult: people have to show a specific need. If you have a disability, you have to prove that disability; if you're unemployed, you have to show you're looking for work.

I can tell you for a fact that this isn't the case... lol

ahhell said,

Taxing the rich used to work until the rich ******* started lobbying and creating laws that help them stay rich. That is when everything went in the ******. Sounds like you need to buy a clue too.

I think you need to figure out who creates the jobs. The government is not the correct answer.

Anthony Tosie said,

First of all, having a social safety net is a practice most first-world countries have, not just the United States. Your suggestion would make the United States a third-world country. And obtaining these benefits is difficult: people have to show a specific need. If you have a disability, you have to prove that disability; if you're unemployed, you have to show you're looking for work.

I agree until you said it's difficult to obtain benefits. It's way too easy for people to live there whole life on government benefits. And I'm not talking about people that actually need it (those with disabilities), that's a very small minority. It's the people that are able to work, but don't want to do anything except create more kids that will leach off the working class.

Nexus69 said,

I call bull**** on this. I know extended family members who are aren't sick, scam the doctors and get disability and laugh about it. Unemployment, yes fill out a piece of paper with company names and phone numbers, heck make them up! They do not verify your monthly submission. People going to college not to get a degre but to get governement grants, student loans (with no intention of paying them back) on welfare and collecting child support under the table. They've been in school for 10 years now! Right before obtaining the degree they switch majors to continue the cycle. Wake up and open your eyes; the American system is a joke and people are robbing the hard working citizens. The rich are rich for a reason; they know how to save, invest properly and connect with people. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The rich are rich for a reason, they have robbed, stolen, and manipulated the system for far more than the less fortunate. The American system is a joke when a company can obtain millions of dollars and tax relief to build in a city just so people in that city can have jobs for its citizens. However I do know that is the way America was made; from forced labor and trampled rights of those that some felt were inferior. It has always been that way the "rich" take and give crumbs to others and then complain about "helping" the less fortunate.

pwgarner said,

The rich are rich for a reason, they have robbed, stolen, and manipulated the system for far more than the less fortunate. The American system is a joke when a company can obtain millions of dollars and tax relief to build in a city just so people in that city can have jobs for its citizens. However I do know that is the way America was made; from forced labor and trampled rights of those that some felt were inferior. It has always been that way the "rich" take and give crumbs to others and then complain about "helping" the less fortunate.

That's what sore losers say.

Forced labor with the power/money hungry unions we have now?!? Just when I thought I've heard it all!!!!!!

pwgarner said,

The rich are rich for a reason, they have robbed, stolen, and manipulated the system for far more than the less fortunate. The American system is a joke when a company can obtain millions of dollars and tax relief to build in a city just so people in that city can have jobs for its citizens. However I do know that is the way America was made; from forced labor and trampled rights of those that some felt were inferior. It has always been that way the "rich" take and give crumbs to others and then complain about "helping" the less fortunate.

If you don't like your "forced labor" I pretty sure you are still free to quit that job and find something that isn't "forced labor"

bguy_1986 said,

Do they not have a debt problem?! Do you know what debt is? Debt is not a good thing...

No they don't have a debt problem.

AtriusNY said,

No they don't have a debt problem.

Source?

Everything I've found is that they don't have as much debt as the United States yet, but they aren't in that great of a position yet.. (Debt to GDP isn't pretty)

I don't believe they have a budget surplus yet either to get them out of the hole they are in...

http://nationaldebtclocks.com/germany.htm

bguy_1986 said,

That's what sore losers say.

Forced labor with the power/money hungry unions we have now?!? Just when I thought I've heard it all!!!!!!

My god! I was speaking on how most of the rich got their money. Wealth was created long ago not just the 20th century. Here in America at least. There is/was a reason for those unions as well. I don't always agree but there was a reason. I was mainly speaking on slavery and the elimination of the Native American. That is how many got land and accumulated their wealth. You cannot suppress generations of people and then release them and expect them to get "up to speed" so to speak quickly. It amazes me time and time again how some will look at things now and not realize what happened to get us in the state we are in now. I look at the people that are upside down in their home notes and think that could have been me but I learned from the past. It would be wise of you to do the same.

bguy_1986 said,

If you don't like your "forced labor" I pretty sure you are still free to quit that job and find something that isn't "forced labor"

Not sure if you are being funny but there is not any forced labor in the US anymore at least not legally. (My kids may think differently however) I was speaking on the beginning. Our system is flawed deeply flawed and there is no getting around that fact. But generalizations that you are making make you seem shallow.

pwgarner said,

My god! I was speaking on how most of the rich got their money. Wealth was created long ago not just the 20th century. Here in America at least. There is/was a reason for those unions as well. I don't always agree but there was a reason. I was mainly speaking on slavery and the elimination of the Native American. That is how many got land and accumulated their wealth. You cannot suppress generations of people and then release them and expect them to get "up to speed" so to speak quickly. It amazes me time and time again how some will look at things now and not realize what happened to get us in the state we are in now. I look at the people that are upside down in their home notes and think that could have been me but I learned from the past. It would be wise of you to do the same.

I don't agree. People that are poor now, are poor for a reason, and its not because of something that happened 100 or so years ago. I guarantee that if you would look at most of the rich people a majority of their families weren't rich 50 or so years ago. I don't see very many families become rich and stay rich. Kennedy's are about the only family that comes to mind, that or the slut that owns the hotels... but I don't see that lasting long...

bguy_1986 said,

I agree until you said it's difficult to obtain benefits. It's way too easy for people to live there whole life on government benefits. And I'm not talking about people that actually need it (those with disabilities), that's a very small minority. It's the people that are able to work, but don't want to do anything except create more kids that will leach off the working class.


Please provide some information on this claim. Welfare kings and queens were a myth created in presidential elections. The true statistics refute your position -- the overwhelming majority of individuals on welfare have proven a need. Single mothers, for instance, receive a good chunk of welfare. Welfare benefits have also declined drastically over the last 30 years when adjusted for inflation. I'm not denying there are people that game the system, but it's a relatively low percentage.

If you look at economic movement, people who are born into poverty tend to stay in poverty. When you have means -- middle-class on up, essentially -- it's much easier to advance through the economy.

M_Lyons10 said,

I can tell you for a fact that this isn't the case... lol


Your fact meter appears to be broken: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...f_American_welfare_programs

krasch said,

If by "ineducable" you meant uneducable, you're not demonstrating a particularly stellar education yourself at the moment. Those who live in glass houses...

The sad thing is that you could have done something as simple as google the word ineducable to find out what it means. Instead, you've wasted both of our time. I commend you for being a stellar example of the sort of human waste my post was talking about.

Anthony Tosie said,

First of all, having a social safety net is a practice most first-world countries have, not just the United States. Your suggestion would make the United States a third-world country. And obtaining these benefits is difficult: people have to show a specific need. If you have a disability, you have to prove that disability; if you're unemployed, you have to show you're looking for work.

My government said stuff so it must be true. Derp. I personally know a drug dealer that gets welfare every month. Care to explain?

As for your third world comment, there are many things turning America into a third world nation; its welfare program is just one of them. I think the most glaring one is a practically open border with an actual third world country, but hey, could just be me.

Slayer said,

My government said stuff so it must be true. Derp. I personally know a drug dealer that gets welfare every month. Care to explain?

As for your third world comment, there are many things turning America into a third world nation; its welfare program is just one of them. I think the most glaring one is a practically open border with an actual third world country, but hey, could just be me.


The old "I know someone who..." argument doesn't work, sorry. Post actual facts that can be verified.

Anthony Tosie said,

The old "I know someone who..." argument doesn't work, sorry. Post actual facts that can be verified.

That would be his name, phone number and address. Think about that for a second. It would seem there's a consensus even in this tiny comment thread that "benefits" are easy to acquire. Regardless, people that can't provide for themselves shouldn't be provided for by other people against their will or without their consent.

Slayer said,

That would be his name, phone number and address. Think about that for a second. It would seem there's a consensus even in this tiny comment thread that "benefits" are easy to acquire. Regardless, people that can't provide for themselves shouldn't be provided for by other people against their will or without their consent.


There was once a consensus the world was flat. The "consensus" of this group means nothing -- at all. The fact that you may or may not know someone who has abused social welfare programs also proves nothing. A single example is not indicative of the entirety of a situation, hence why I asked for facts and statistics which support the claims being made (which no one has provided).

Anthony Tosie said,

There was once a consensus the world was flat. The "consensus" of this group means nothing -- at all. The fact that you may or may not know someone who has abused social welfare programs also proves nothing. A single example is not indicative of the entirety of a situation, hence why I asked for facts and statistics which support the claims being made (which no one has provided).

You are a fool!!! Get out from Mommy and Daddy's basement!

Even the idiot Bill Maher did a report on it (kind of... Never watched the whole show, can't stand him. Just seen this on youtube):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2kGPdxkofo

Wikipedia isn't real world, which is why I didn't read your "facts". On paper maybe Welfare shouldn't be as easy as it is, but on paper doesn't mean **** anymore. And it's different for each state.

bguy_1986 said,

I don't agree. People that are poor now, are poor for a reason, and its not because of something that happened 100 or so years ago. I guarantee that if you would look at most of the rich people a majority of their families weren't rich 50 or so years ago. I don't see very many families become rich and stay rich. Kennedy's are about the only family that comes to mind, that or the slut that owns the hotels... but I don't see that lasting long...

I guess we can agree to disagree. The fact remains that most wealth was accumulated long ago. There are a few people that have become "rich" and most of those people rely on the "poor" to remain rich.

Why would someone do that (apart from saving money)? Seems to be one of those things that really don't matter, like someone who was baptized as a baby, and is now an atheist adult, wanting to invalidate that sacrament.

AtriusNY said,
Well... your example really doesn't apply to him.

He is Brazilian and he still holds his Brazilian passport.

Still, it would be interesting to know the reasoning behind it. He says it's not because of the money. Then why is it? He says it's because he lives in Singapore, but seems like a null reason.

Setnom said,

Still, it would be interesting to know the reasoning behind it. He says it's not because of the money. Then why is it? He says it's because he lives in Singapore, but seems like a null reason.

He probably can't get citizenship in Singapore if he has citizenship in the US and Brazil, and since Brazil is his native country, he chose to renounce the US...

Setnom said,

Still, it would be interesting to know the reasoning behind it. He says it's not because of the money. Then why is it? He says it's because he lives in Singapore, but seems like a null reason.

Why would gaining citizenship in the COUNTRY IN WHICH YOU LIVE be a null reason? I think I would much prefer having citizenship in my country of residence. It comes with a lot of benefits, such as, you know, being able to STAY there and all... LOL

d4v1d05 said,

He probably can't get citizenship in Singapore if he has citizenship in the US and Brazil, and since Brazil is his native country, he chose to renounce the US...

Plus US has some 'draconian' double taxation rules. He isn't in the US, so why pay US taxes?

Setnom said,
Why would someone do that (apart from saving money)? Seems to be one of those things that really don't matter, like someone who was baptized as a baby, and is now an atheist adult, wanting to invalidate that sacrament.

Apparently some people DO track the church in which they were baptized to remove their names from the book. It happens!

What this proves though, he never cared about the company Facebook, it was just the money. Its one thing you have to give Mr. Zuckerberg credit for is sticking with the company through thick and thin. I bet if Mr. Saverin was in charge, he would have sold the company the minute it was valued at 1 billion dollars. You know co-founders who really love their company: Zuckerberg, Gates, Jobs, Ellison, Brin and Page.

Mr. Dee said,
What this proves though, he never cared about the company Facebook, it was just the money. Its one thing you have to give Mr. Zuckerberg credit for is sticking with the company through thick and thin. I bet if Mr. Saverin was in charge, he would have sold the company the minute it was valued at 1 billion dollars. You know co-founders who really love their company: Zuckerberg, Gates, Jobs, Ellison, Brin and Page.

I don't come to that conclusion, seems a bit of a leap.

Mr. Dee said,
What this proves though, he never cared about the company Facebook, it was just the money. Its one thing you have to give Mr. Zuckerberg credit for is sticking with the company through thick and thin. I bet if Mr. Saverin was in charge, he would have sold the company the minute it was valued at 1 billion dollars. You know co-founders who really love their company: Zuckerberg, Gates, Jobs, Ellison, Brin and Page.

That's a big conclusion to draw, when you have 2 billion dollars, 67 million is a piddly bit of interest in the bank. Its nothing on that level. Its a drop in the ocean.

Really, if he likes singapore, why not live there?

Mr. Dee said,
What this proves though, he never cared about the company Facebook, it was just the money. Its one thing you have to give Mr. Zuckerberg credit for is sticking with the company through thick and thin. I bet if Mr. Saverin was in charge, he would have sold the company the minute it was valued at 1 billion dollars. You know co-founders who really love their company: Zuckerberg, Gates, Jobs, Ellison, Brin and Page.

Saverin was basically forced out during a power struggle. He doesn't work for the company and has no say in how it operates with such a small interest inthe company. Your opinion that he just doesn't care is just plain dumb. Should he fall on his sword and pay 67m in taxes just to show morons on the internet he "cares?"

Hell, if it were me, I'd do the same thing if I were single. Even if he doesn't generally love singapore, the thought of turning over nearly 70m in taxes when I could pretty easily not just doesn't make sense.

Auzeras said,

That's a big conclusion to draw, when you have 2 billion dollars, 67 million is a piddly bit of interest in the bank. Its nothing on that level. Its a drop in the ocean.

Really, if he likes singapore, why not live there?

Exactly. What's wrong with living where you want? If I were rich, I don't think I'd be in the states... LOL