Yes, it’s hard to believe. For a link to the U.N. resolution confirming this check out:
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT CONDEMNS THE USE OF A DIASPORA #TAX for Eritrea!US Taxing #Expats is ok.Hegemonic chutzpah!!bit.ly/w2db3f
— Marvin Van Horn (@FATCA_Fallout) January 30, 2012
The above tweet has a link to the actual U.N. resolution. Here is some commentary that I received on this issue:
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT CONDEMNS THE USE
OF A DIASPORA TAX!
DEAR OVERSEAS AMERICAN FRIENDS,
How truly extraordinary!!
As you read down through the text of this recent UN Security Council Resolution, adopted on 5 December 2011, try to avoid laughing out loud when you discover that the U.S. Government actually:
10. Condemns the use of the ‘Diaspora tax’ on Eritrean diaspora by the Eritrean Government to destabilize the Horn of Africa region or violate relevant resolutions, including 1844 (2008), 1862 (2009) and 1907 (2009), including for purposes such as procuring arms and related materiel for transfer to armed opposition groups or providing any services or financial transfers provided directly or indirectly to such groups, as outlined in the findings of the Somalia/Eritrea Monitoring Group in its 18 July 2011 report (S/2011/433), and decides that Eritrea shall cease these practices;
and
11. Decides that Eritrea shall cease using extortion, threats of violence, fraud and other illicit means to collect taxes outside of Eritrea from its nationals or other individuals of Eritrean descent, decides further that States shall undertake appropriate measures to hold accountable, consistent with international law, those individuals on their territory who are acting, officially or unofficially, on behalf of the Eritrean government or the PFDJ contrary to the prohibitions imposed in this paragraph and the laws of the States concerned, and calls upon States to take such action as may be appropriate consistent with their domestic law and international relevant instruments, including the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to prevent such individuals from facilitating further violations;
WHAT? They were actually condemned by the U.S. Government for using a “diaspora tax”?? and for using threats, etc, to collect taxes outside of Eritrea from its nationals or other individuals of Eritrean descent?
Apparently only one country in the world is supposed to be allowed to impose and vigorously enforce such a tax on its diaspora today, and it can then of course use the resultant revenue for whatever purposes it wants, including destabilizing any countries it might be so tempted to do, too.
ERITREA:
TEXT OF RESOLUTION 2023 (2011)
AS ADOPTED BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL
Dec 5, 2011
The Security Council,
Recalling its previous resolutions and statements of its President concerning the situation in Somalia and the border dispute between Djibouti and Eritrea, in particular its resolutions 751 (1992), 1844 (2008), 1862 (2009), 1907 (2009), 1916 (2009), 1998 (2011), and 2002 (2011), and its statements of 18 May 2009 (S/PRST/2009/15), 9 July 2009 (S/PRST/2009/19), 12 June 2008 (S/PRST/2008/20),
Reaffirming its respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence and unity of Somalia , Djiboutiand Eritrea , respectively, as well as that of all other States of the region,
Reiterating its full support for the Djibouti Peace Process and the Transitional Federal Charter which provide the framework for reaching a lasting political solution in Somalia, and welcoming the Kampala Accord of 9 June 2011 and the roadmap agreed on 6 September 2011,
Calling upon all States in the region to peacefully resolve their disputes and normalize their relations in order to lay the foundation for durable peace and lasting security in the Horn of Africa, and encouraging these States to provide the necessary cooperation to the African Union in its efforts to resolve these disputes,
Reiterating its grave concern about the border dispute between Eritrea and Djibouti and the importance of resolving it, calling upon Eritrea to pursue with Djibouti, in good faith, the scrupulous implementation of the 6 June 2010 Agreement, concluded under the auspices of Qatar, in order to resolve their border dispute and consolidate the normalization of their relations, and welcoming the mediation efforts of Qatar, the continued engagement of regional actors, the African Union, the United Nations,
Noting the letter of the Permanent Representative of Djibouti to the United Nations of 6 October 2011 (S/2011/617) which informs the Secretary General of the escape of two Djiboutian prisoners of war from an Eritrean prison, while noting that the Government of Eritrea has to this date denied detaining any Djiboutian prisoners of war,
Expressing grave concern at the findings of the Somalia/Eritrea Monitoring Group report of 18 July 2011 (S/2011/433), that Eritrea has continued to providing political, financial, training and logistical support to armed opposition groups, including Al-Shabaab, engaged in undermining peace, security and stability in Somalia and the region,
Condemning the planned terrorist attack of January 2011 to disrupt the African Union summit in Addis Ababa , as expressed by the findings of the Somalia/Eritrea Monitoring Group report,
Taking note of the Decision of the African Union Assembly of Heads of State and Government held in January 2010 and the Communiqué of the AU Peace and Security Council held on 8 January 2010, welcoming the adoption, by the United Nations (UN) Security Council on 23 December 2009, of resolution 1907 (2009), which imposes sanctions on Eritrea, for, among other things, providing political, financial, and logistical support to armed groups engaged in undermining peace and reconciliation in Somalia and regional stability; stressing the need to pursue vigorously the effective implementation of Resolution 1907 (2009), and expressing its intention to apply targeted sanctions against individuals and entities if they meet the listing criteria set out in paragraph 15 of resolution 1907 (2009) and paragraph 8 of resolution 1844 (2008),
Noting the decision by the 18th Extraordinary Session of the Assembly of the Heads of State and Government of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), calling on the Security Council to take measures to ensure that Eritrea desists from its destabilization activities in the Horn of Africa,
Noting the letter from Eritrea (S/2011/652), containing a document responding to the report of Somali/Eritrea monitoring group,
Strongly condemning any acts by Eritrea that undermine peace, security and stability in the region and calling on all Member State to comply fully with the terms of the arms embargo imposed by paragraph 5 of resolution 733 (1992), as elaborated and amended by subsequent resolutions,
Determining that Eritrea’s failure to fully comply with resolutions 1844 (2008), 1862 (2009), 1907 (2009) and its actions undermining peace and reconciliation in Somalia and the Horn of Africa region as well as the dispute between Djibouti and Eritrea constitute a threat to international peace and security,
Mindful of its primary responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Condemns the violations by Eritrea of Security Council resolutions 1907 (2009), 1862 (2009) and 1844 (2008) by providing continued support to armed opposition groups, including Al-Shabaab, engaged in undermining peace and reconciliation in Somalia and the region;
2. Supports the call by the African Union for Eritrea to resolve its border disputes with its neighbours and calls on the parties to peacefully resolve their disputes, normalize their relations and to promote durable peace and lasting security in the Horn of Africa, and encourages the parties to provide the necessary cooperation to the African Union in its efforts to resolve these disputes;
3. Reiterates that all member States, including Eritrea , shall comply fully with the terms of the arms embargo imposed by paragraph 5 of resolution 733 (1992), as elaborated and amended by subsequent resolutions;
4. Reiterates that Eritrea shall fully comply with resolution 1907 (2009) without any further delay and stresses the obligation of all States to comply with the measures imposed by resolution 1907 (2009);
5. Notes Eritrea’s withdrawal of its forces following the stationing of Qatari observers in the disputed areas along the border with Djibouti, calls upon Eritrea to engage constructively with Djibouti to resolve the border dispute, and reaffirms its intention to take further targeted measures against those who obstruct implementation of resolution 1862 (2009);
6. Demands that Eritrea shall make available information pertaining to Djiboutian combatants missing in action since the clashes of 10 to 12 June, 2008 so that those concerned may ascertain the presence and condition of Djiboutian prisoners of war;
7. Demands Eritrea to cease all direct or indirect efforts to destabilize States, including through financial, military, intelligence and non-military assistance, such as the provision of training centres, camps and other similar facilities for armed groups, passports, living expenses, or travel facilitation;
8. Calls upon all States, in particular States of the region, in order to ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo established by paragraphs 5 and 6 of resolution 1907 (2009), to inspect in their territory, including seaports and airports, in accordance with the National authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, all cargo bound to or from Eritrea, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 5 or 6 of resolution 1907 (2009), and recalls the obligations contained in paragraphs 8 and 9 of resolution 1907 (2009) with respect to the discovery of items prohibited by paragraphs 5 or 6 of resolution 1907 (2009) and paragraph 5 of resolution 733 (1992) as elaborated and amended by subsequent resolutions;
9. Expresses its intention to apply targeted sanctions against individuals and entities if they meet the listing criteria set out in paragraph 15 of resolution 1907 (2009) and paragraph 1 of resolution 2002 (2011) and requests the Committee to review, as a matter of urgency, listing proposals from Member States;
10. Condemns the use of the ‘Diaspora tax’ on Eritrean diaspora by the Eritrean Government to destabilize the Horn of Africa region or violate relevant resolutions, including 1844 (2008), 1862 (2009) and 1907 (2009), including for purposes such as procuring arms and related materiel for transfer to armed opposition groups or providing any services or financial transfers provided directly or indirectly to such groups, as outlined in the findings of the Somalia/Eritrea Monitoring Group in its 18 July 2011 report (S/2011/433), and decides that Eritrea shall cease these practices;
11. Decides that Eritrea shall cease using extortion, threats of violence, fraud and other illicit means to collect taxes outside of Eritrea from its nationals or other individuals of Eritrean descent, decides further that States shall undertake appropriate measures to hold accountable, consistent with international law, those individuals on their territory who are acting, officially or unofficially, on behalf of the Eritrean government or the PFDJ contrary to the prohibitions imposed in this paragraph and the laws of the States concerned, and calls upon States to take such action as may be appropriate consistent with their domestic law and international relevant instruments, including the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to prevent such individuals from facilitating further violations;
12. Expresses concern at the potential use of the Eritrean mining sector as a financial source to destabilize the Horn of Africa region, as outlined in the Final Report of the Monitoring Group (S/2011/433), and calls on Eritrea to show transparency in its public finances, including through cooperation with the Monitoring Group, in order to demonstrate that the proceeds of these mining activities are not being used to violate relevant resolutions, including 1844 (2008), 1862 (2009), 1907 (2009) and this resolution;
13. Decides that States, in order to prevent funds derived from the mining sector of Eritrea contributing to violations of resolutions 1844 (2008), 1862 (2009), 1907 (2009) or this resolution, shall undertake appropriate measures to promote the exercise of vigilance by their nationals, persons subject to their jurisdiction and firms incorporated in their territory or subject to their jurisdiction that are doing business in this sector in Eritrea including through the issuance of due diligence guidelines, and requests in this regard the Committee, with the assistance of the Monitoring Group, to draft guidelines for the optional use of Member States;
14. Urges all States to introduce due diligence guidelines to prevent the provision of financial services, including insurance or re-insurance, or the transfer to, through, or from their territory, or to or by their nationals or entities organized under their laws (including branches abroad), or persons or financial institutions in their territory, of any financial or other assets or resources if such services, assets or resources, including new investment in the extractives sector, would contribute to Eritrea’s violation of relevant resolutions, including 1844 (2008), 1862 (2009), 1907 (2009) and this resolution;
15. Calls upon all States to report to the Security Council within 120 days on steps taken to implement the provisions of this resolution;
16. Decides to further expand the mandate of the Monitoring Group re‑established by resolution 2002 (2011) to monitor and report on implementation of the measures imposed in this resolution and undertake the tasks outlined below:
(a) Assist the Committee in monitoring the implementation of the measures imposed in paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 above, including by reporting any information on violations;
(b) Consider any information relevant to paragraph 6 above that should be brought to the attention of the Committee;
17. Urges all States, relevant United Nations bodies and other interested parties, to cooperate fully with the Committee and the Monitoring Group, including by supplying any information at their disposal on the implementation of the measures decided in resolution 1844 (2008), resolution 1907 (2009) and this resolution, in particular incidents of non-compliance;
18. Affirms that it shall keep Eritrea’s actions under continuous review and that it shall be prepared to adjust the measures, including through their strengthening, modification or lifting, in light of Eritrea’s compliance with the provisions of resolutions 1844 (2008), 1862 (2009), 1907 (2009) and this resolution;
19. Requests the Secretary-General to report within 180 days on Eritrea ‘s compliance with the provisions of resolutions 1844 (2008), 1862 (2009), 1907 (2009) and this resolution;
20. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
As I read it there’s no failure to file penalty if no taxes are owed: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=178194,00.html
This is the reason why a lot of USCs abroad who’d looked into the matter before OVDI decided they couldn’t be arsed to file returns – they knew they wouldn’t owe tax, and that the failure-to-file penalty would be nil, so why bother?
@broken man
I learned the following from the link:
“Filing tax returns and paying the correct amount of tax is good citizenship. Conscientiously discharging this duty contributes to our nation’s well being and provides peace of mind. And failing to file returns can jeopardize a family’s financial security and future.”
Somebody should have said that to Patrick Henry, John Adams, and some of the other rebels who refused to pay tax to King George and declared their independence. Having the current government lecture us on what good citizenship is all about is a betrayal of all that the United States is founded upon.
@ Roger,
Check out renunciationguide.com step-by-step process. Note steps 3, 4, and 5.
http://renunciationguide.com/Renunciation-Process-Step-By-Step.html
Hancock
@broken man @Petros
In the same link, discussed is “Why file a tax return?”
The benefits listed DO NOT APPLY TO ME IN CANADA.
Just what are my benefits for filing a US tax return when I have lived in Canada since 1969 and became a citizen in 1975?
“… There are numerous practical reasons to file tax returns. Important programs like:
federal aid to higher education require applicants to submit copies of tax returns to qualify for loans — DOES NOT APPLY TO ME IN CANADA
Lending institutions also may require copies of filed returns for buying a home or financing a business — DOES NOT APPLY TO ME IN CANADA.
… And the filing of tax returns can have a tremendous impact on your future. A person’s lifetime earnings as reported to the IRS and the Social Security Administration are:
the basis for Social Security retirement and disability benefits
as well as Medicare. DOES NOT APPLY TO ME IN CANADA (except if I am entitled to receive Social Security from the US to supplement the years deficient for Canada’S OAS under the terms of the Canada / US Social Security Agreement. Medicare only payable if worked in US for 10 or more years — and we sure don’t benefit from Medicare living in another country)
…also the source for state benefits such as unemployment compensation and industrial insurance. DOES NOT APPLY TO ME IN CANADA.
@Petros:
“Filing tax returns and paying the correct amount of tax is good citizenship. Conscientiously discharging this duty contributes to our nation’s well being and provides peace of mind.”
Processing my nil returns is a waste of scarce public resources.
Although none of these benefits are received by you, the uniqueness of US tax laws are that they apply to everyone who holds US citizenship. The US is the only country in the world with this kind of a citizenship based tax system. Personally I think it is idiotic but it is the law if you are a US citizen and the IRS can be mean to you if it gets its hands on you and you haven’t filed US tax returns. Not likely to happen if you never visit the US.
If you don’t live in the US your benefits from US taxes are zilch and I certainly sympatize with any such person who gives up his US citizenship. Once renouned you can’t get it back again, but living abroad and being a US citizen so you can enter the US with a US passport results in paying the high price of submitting US tax returns every year.
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”
– George Orwell
@ John Hancock,
The reference link you provided is excellent. It is very informative. I had not seen it before. It clears up some misconceptions that I had, and I thank you very much for posting it.
It does leave me wondering how the IRS can effectively enforce things like the exit tax if you renounce, move away and leave no forwarding address. It could take a lot of resources to chase down and collect what might be due under the current legislation, unless of course you visit the US some time in the future – then watch out!
Only a perverse sense of self indulgent reasoning would attempt to state that people who do not live in your territory are somehow recipients of the government’s largess. The argument is specious.
I will maintain with all of my life that I have not received a single benefit from the U.S. since I left that country. It is also legally impossible for the U.S. to bestow any monetary benefits upon their non-resident citizens. When George Bush was giving out tax rebates I don’t believe that any non resident citizen received a check unless that citizen happened to have lived in the country during the period preceding the passage of the law.
What kind of life would this be if in addition to requiring us to pay taxes for services that are never delivered if we were required to pay for private health insurance even though we live in a nation that has publicly funded health care?
The U.S. government is one of the biggest violators of human rights that there is in this world. They habitually conduct illegal wars, sell arms to nations that oppress their own people and meddle in affairs that don’t concern them.
No, there is no benefit to U.S. citizenship for me or my children.
I renounced back in 1776. Jefferson filled out everyone’s DS forms and wrote a grand renunciation statement. I was the first to sign it.
Never looked back since.
Hancock
“Do not expect justice where might is right.”
– Plato
@Mona..
Prior to 2008, penalties for FBAR filing failures were rare, but that was before the task of applying those penalties was transferred from Fincen to the IRS. Now, for “reasonable cause”, the IRS says to Canadians there will be no penalties. However, as we know, the IRS definition of what is reasonable, and your definition are probably world’s apart. I have learned long ago to not make any assumptions as to what they should “logically” do, as I have been wrong too many times. 🙂
We can only speculate on what they will do based upon what limited evidence we have in the past 2 years as to what they have done. The Internal Revenue Manual does give guidance as to what the IRS should do, if it follows its own manuals, but even that gets muddled depending on the Examiners ability to navigate that maze of qualifiers and technical definitions.
The problem with FBAR penalties which are less than the “in Lieu of” penalty, or less than the maximum penalty within the OVDP and OVDI, is the lack of visibility. It is only by anecdotal information sharing that we determine or judge how the IRS is acting for those who Opt Out or assert reasonable cause. There is no data base or clearing house one can look to and see how the IRS is handling these cases, or even how many there are.
Currently I only know of 3 where no penalties were asserted in the OVDP. I hope there were more, but this is all I have heard about. One in a pre FAQ35 withdrawal as reported on Phil Hodgen’s blog by someone called Damsel in Distress pre ‘Opt Out’ days. Post “Opt Out” procedures, (after June 1, 2011) there has only been two reported. One, by a Sally reported on Townsend’s blog, and one by Moby again reported here, and on Townsend’s blog. If anyone knows of any others, I wished they would share. There has to be more, but how would you find out?
The thing that concerns me, and concerned the Tax Advocate Service (TAS), is that there are many who should have been given relief, probably rolled over and paid the “in lieu” of 20% penalties. They really should not have, but fear of the unknowns forced their hand and kept them in the programs that they should have Opt Out of. However, in the original 2009 OVDP, there were no procedures for “Opting Out” until June of 2011.
Of course, there are others that have been reported where a lesser penalty than maximum wilful penalty has been asserted, like in my case. Some attorneys trumpeted success at obtaining lower penalties during the OVDP, but after examination, those were only granted using the FAQ35 relief in the OVDP which of course was later rescinded. There is no such relief in the OVDI, except to “Opt Out”.
The FAQ 35 relief I have heard about is where the IRS have hit you with “only” a non willful $5k per unified FBAR penalty per year, but that still is a significant cost anyway you look at it. For me that was $25K, which is a hellva lot better than the $172K they wanted, but was still harsh, and I had to make a business decision to suck it up and take it. But think about what that means, in practical terms. The IRS is saying, we agree you were not willful, but we basically don’t think your “reasonable cause” argument is good enough, so we are going to fine you $5K each year anyway, because we can!
And, that for you dear Canadians should give you some pause in thinking you might have relief under the “reasonable cause” argument. You might find yourselves surprised. I hope not, but there are the sober considerations you need to keep in mind, it seems to me.
So, when it comes to how the IRS is going to treat you as Rumsfield has said, there are many known unknowns, but with it comes to FBAR penalty application and the IRS we are often operating in the unknown unknown realm. We are left to speculation, based upon logic of what we think “should happen”, and that is fraught with problems.
No, as you say, “there don’t seem to be any cases specifically mentioned on any of these blogs,” but I have to tell you, that means nothing as related to evidence. One it is too early in the process yet to know or get good anecdotal reports, and secondly, for each person that comments on a blog like this one, there are probably 10 that don’t bother to inform anyone. But there I go, speculating about who reports or doesn’t and which blog they report on! My point is there is no clearing house of information related to FBAR penalties, and so I just do not know how we can assert anything yet about what will happen.
I have chatted with Just Me; he’ll be uploading this comment as full post in a few hours. FYI
But there have also been quiet disclosures for this sort of thing…
Five years in the dark valley, I have to wait. In the trenches
They’re showing their nuclear option…seems a new cold war of sorts
Do you know why the US supported the UN Security Council resulution condemning Eretreia for its world-wide citizenship based tax policy when the US has the same policy?
Could it be that our UN representatives don’t even realize that is double taxation of our private citizens living, working and retired abroa is also the US tax policy? Not beyond the realm of possibility since the average man-on-the-street doesn’t know anything about this US policy. And if any of our diplomats at UN headquarters in New York have served abroad, then this policy hasn’t affected them either.
Why is that? As diplomats they are never subject to taxation by the foreign country where they are assigned. They pay taxes to the US as if they were still living back in the US. If they receive addidional monetary allowances to cover high foreign rents and other costs, being diplomats these allowance are tax free whereas to private citizens living abroad all such allowances are income that is subject to US taxation. And if they send their school-age children to a private English Language school abroad so they can qualify to enter a US university when they graduate, the State Department picks up the tab and it is not taxable income to them. But for the private citizen any reimbursement he receives to help him defray this generally very costly school tuition is considered taxable income. And at many overseas locations diplomats have access to PX facilities where they buy American products at prices far below the prices at local supermarkets. This benefit is likewise not taxed.
A bill has been introduced to make these allowancesand reimbursements for our diplomats taxable, but it has gone nowhere. But should it become law then their compensation would have to be increased massively or they could not survive abroad. There is no such thing as a freelunch.
Hopefully the smoke will clear and we will be able to find out why the US supported this US condemnation resolution for Eretreia doing exactly what the US does. Meanwhile there seems to be a total lack of coverage of this Security Council resolution in the press in the US.
I guess it just is not considered newsworthy.
@recalcitrant — Your question,
“What kind of life would this be if in addition to requiring us to pay taxes for services that are never delivered we were required to pay for private health insurance even though we live in a nation that has publicly funded health care?”
That sends shivers up my spine. Best we not give them any further ideas for collecting revenue from citizens abroad.
The only thing I can think is that they might turn it into a form of health insurance for when you’re visiting the US
@mona, I contacted the folks in ACA in Geneva, Switzerland about information on cases where US citizens abroad had really suffered in making honest attempts to “get right” with the IRS.
The important comment I got back is that no one that they are aware of has been succesful in using the fact that they were totally unaware of FBAR and US law requirements as “reasonable cause” for having failed to submit US tax returns or FBAR reports. Apparently the IRS is most unlikely to accept this.
Their recommendation is to seek competent, and the emphasis is on competent, professional assistance in dealing with the IRS. Not all professionals are equal. The competence of the professional advisors and their experience in having a competent and cordial professional relationship with the IRS can be an important factor in determining the extent of the penalties imposed by the IRS.
I hope this is helpful. But bear in mind that I am not a professional tax professional.
@ roger Thanks for this response, though I’m sure no one can be thankful for it–but I will resist the urge to shoot the messenger. 🙂
If what ACA says is true, then I reiterate my view that the US negotiated in bad faith with Canada over these issues with the Fact Sheet in December. The concessions by the U.S. depend entirely on the interpretation of “reasonable cause” and yet the IRS is inscrutable in its definition of this term. The way that we Canadians, including Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, would interpret “reasonable cause”, that of we didn’t know about FBAR we should all get a pass–provided we get ourselves into compliance. The Americans never meant that but they failed to tell the Canadians what they meant.
My accusation that the US has negotiated in bad faith is serious. No one can ever again trust a person or a country which negotiates in bad faith. The USA is losing any credibility that it may have ever had in the world.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.
I will never trust the IRS, and my financial well being now wholly depends not on the grace of the United States, but upon the protection of the Canadian government.
@petros- Well, I guess that this makes the whole exercise of filing rather moot. It also means that renunciations will never take effect unless a person pays the fines.
What a waste of my money and time this has all been.
Did anyone really think that the Americans would actually do the right thing?
@recalcitrant I am just saying that we can’t trust IRS. Everyone has to decide for themselves and their families what to do. Mach7 has correctly pointed out that there are few examples (or none) outside the OVDI of FBAR fines; but we rely entirely on anecdotal evidence, and if no one comes forward with valid information, then we stand in ignorance. ACA depends on information given to them by their membership and others who contact them with their stories.
It may be better to just sit tight, as Jacobson said. But I am not sorry that I relinquished my citizenship on 28 February last year. It seems even a change of administration would bring little relief from the obligations of the law.
@Petros,
CLNs should normally take 2 to 3 months to process. Perhaps you should consider contacting Ms. A to find out if there is a problem with your paperwork.
@Boiled Frog 2-3 months is optimistic. They are currently telling people 9 months to a year.
I don’t really care if I get it now. I have sealed paperwork showing my intention. If anyone wants to know, I don’t want United States citizenship, my story has been consistent.