Just a quick post to draw your attention to this Christian Science Monitor story on Nina Olson of the TAS.
This lady should be Commissioner Shulman’s replacement, but that would be too logical for Congress. Even if Obama were smart enough to do that, the Republicans would block her just to spite him. That is how the political game is played.
@justme- I read the article and when I finished I noticed that there was a link to another article which invited the reader to take a U.S. citizenship test. I took the test and part way through it there is a question about the citizenship oath. The question has four possible answers about what the oath requires. The correct answer to that question is that the citizenship oath requires the new citizen to “give up all loyalties” to any other nation. Now doesn’t that sound like renunciation?
On that basis it would seem to me that the U.S. actually does not allow dual citizenship. As far as the U.S. is concerened there is only one citizenship. I therefore contend that anyone who leaves the U.S. and takes out citizenship in another country has, by U.S. citizenship law, in fact lost their U.S. citizenship because we have sworn loyalty to another country.
@Recalcitrantexpat: I have often wondered the same thing about this portion of the oath of U.S. citizenship: “that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.” It it certainly worded as a renunciation to me. I also find it disturbing that as a U.S. citizen I was expected to “bear arms” in defense of the U.S. Perhaps it is time that Canada reconsider its oath of renunciation as removed in the early 1990s.
Further to my earlier comment, here is one of the questions from the Christian Science Monitor “Could You Pass a U.S. Citizenship” test:
26. What is one promise you make when you become a United States citizen?
a) never travel outside the United States
b) give up loyalty to other countries
c) disobey the laws of the United States
d) not defend the Constitution and laws of the United States
Incidentally, “B” is of course the correct answer!
@Just Me,
Thanks for finding this great article! It builds upon my base of admiration for Ms. Olson. She’s even veg!!!
I notice that the Secy of Treasury actually appoints the NTA, though I suppose it has to be ratified by Congress. Is Geithner limited to a term, anyone know when he is leaving?
I am amused that even she can make mistakes on taxes!
I do wish somebody important, would make a distinction between offshore accounts for resident Americans and local foreign accounts for non-resident Americans. Big difference.
@nobledreamer.
Geithner is appointed by Obama, and remains at the Presidents pleasure until Obama leaves. As far as I am concerned he can’t leave soon enough to take up that job at Goldman Sachs that I am sure he lusts after. Isn’t that how the revolving door works?
@nobledreamer- I agree fully with you, that the circumstances of the two types of citizens are substantially different and deserving of different treatment. Unfortunately though as far as U.S. tax and citizenship law is concerned the thing that connects is citizenship and global taxation. If non resident Americans were to have their financial accounts excluded from the reporting requirement then it is only logical that they also be excluded from taxation.
Since the U.S. will never give up the latter it therefore cannot give up the former. U.S. law is caught in a twisted system of logic that is based on “patriotism” and which therefore prevents the government from doing the right thing.
The only way to be free from this injustice is to dump U.S. citizenship or/and never go back.
@recalcitrantexpat, You qouted this with respect to the oath that new citizen must swear when becoming a US citizen:this portion of the oath of U.S. citizenship: “that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.” This may be what the US intends, but making an oath like this to the US government is meaningless to the authorities of the country of which the person is a citizen. In order to lose citizenship in that country (most of them at least) you must formally make a renunciation statment to that country in order for that country to recognize that you no longer hold citizenship. (There are a few countries that will deprive you of their citizenship if you become a citizen of another country – but they are in the minorty. So your “old” country continues to consider you to be a citizen of that country requiring you to use the passport of that country when you return for a visit, both to enter and to leave.
It is somewhat analologus to a divorce and remarriage. If you decide to marry a new wife and pledge loyalty and devoiton to her, that does not automatically grant you an anullment of your prior marriage or a divorce from the old spouse to which you are already married. As far as the law is concerned you have to formally terminate a first marriage before you marry someone else, unliess you marry in a country that allows husbands to have more than one wife. If you do this in the US, which prohibits bigamy, you have commited a crime for which you can go to prison. There have recently been some trials for which the husband was found guilty and sent to prison.
An oath made to a foreign nation does not generally affect your citizenship in the prior country, unless its laws speficifally provide for this. And there are still some countries which do not allow you to renounce their citizenship.
@rogerconklin- I understand that. My point is that the U.S. does not actually ACCEPT dual citizenship. Once you have American citizenship the U.S. doesn’t consider any other citizenship you may concurrenlty have to be relevant.
I believe that the corollary of the American citizenship oath which requires you to give up any previous state loyalties is that when an American citizen becomes the citizen of another state that he/she has violated the assumed loyalty to the U.S. and is therefore at that moment no longer a citizen.
Formal notification to the U.S. government may be required but acknowledgement of the loss of citizenship should go back to the date of the expatriating act. In other words I am arguing for the old pre-1986 system for loss of citizenship. I don’t believe that the U.S. ever abandoned that system in practise.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
would it make sense to write to obama at the above site?
@Kristen
Canada removed the renunciatory oath in April, 1973. They then changed their nationality law in 1977 and now do allow dual citizenship.
@tiger- dual citizenship wouldn’t be a problem if it wasn’t for the fact that the U.S. believes that it can exercise extraterritorial control over your life. If the U.S. practised territorial taxation U.S. citizenship wouldn’t be an issue.
Canada needs to reinstitute the law forbidding dual citizenship with regards to U.S. citizens. Canada should also amend its citizenship laws in order to make it easier for Americans to become Canadian citizens without having to endure U.S. taxation any longer than is necessary. Canada should also stop admitting any green card holders who aren’t already Canadian citizens. In other words Canada has to become more like Singapore and flat out deny dual citizenship, at least with regards to U.S. citizens.
Once U.S. citizens are locked out of the international labour market and are required by foreign governments to renounce their citizenship maybe then Washington will get the message?!
It would be an international embarassment for U.S. persons to be denied access to world wide immigration.
@desi, You might try, but I recommend you don’t hold your breath while waiting for a reply.
@recalcitrantexpat, there is one area where the US clearly recognizes your dual sitizenship. It is in the warning printed in every US passport Note 14 in US passports reads as follows:
“14, DUAL CITIZNS
A person who hold citizenship in more than one country at the same time is considerd a dual citizen. A dual citizen may be subject to the laws of the other country that considers that person its citizen while in that country’s jurisdiction, including conscription for military service. Dual nationality may hamper the efforts to provide US consular protection to dual citizens while in that foreign country of the other nationality. Dual citizens who encounter difficulties abroad should contact the nearest US Embassay or Consulate.”
I might also add, although it is not so stated in this note, that the US requires its citizens, even though they may be dual citzens, to respect US prohibitions on US citizens, no matter where they live or what other passport they may use, in unauthorized traved to Cuba and other countries to which US citizens are not allowed to travel without specific authorization.
Also listed in item 13 are the actions which may result in loss of US nationality such as serving in the armed forces of a foreign state. It is not automatic. The word “may” is part of this. I don’t know if such persons would be subject to the exit tax, but I suspect the IRS would say they are.
Wouldn’t it be great if you lost your US citizenship for going on vacation to Cuba? We could all go on a group vacation and make sure they stamp our passports so they show we’ve been to Cuba.
@OMG, That would be great! We would have a fantastic party..I would be the first on the plane..
@recalcintrantexpat, maybe you are onto something here. How about a law that prohibits granting residency status or permissions to work to citizens of countries which exert extraterritorial authority to subject such persons to taxation on income earned or received within the sovereign territory of the country? In effect this is what happens in some countries today that have foreign exange currency controls which prohibit residents from converting their local currency income into a foreign currency for removal from that country to pay taxes to a foreign country. That is Venezuela today as one example. Cuba is another.
@saddended123, sorry I am afraid that won’t work. US citizens who travel to Cuba are not subject to loss of citizenship. Only fines and imprisionment when they return to the US. If they live abroad and never travel to the US there is about a zero possibility that they will be apprenhended.
@rogerconklin- you said it much moree eloquently than I did. That would be a simple law to frame and it would be easily understood by all.
@rogerconklin- I just emailed a copy of your statement to Canada’s Finance Minister J. Flaherty and Immigration Minister Jason Kenny.
Let the Americans become the island that they are looking to be.
@ desi;
I was submitting online comments there – every day, sometimes multiple times a day for about a month. I got 1-2 form e-mail acknowledgements, but usually nothing. It may be just a sham – a pretense of consultation. On the other hand, it allows for the inclusion of links to websites (like this one,) articles in the media, etc. So, it might be worth peppering them with submissions – and following up with an old fashioned letter.
I just sent them the link to the NYT article re FATCA, with and excerpt, and a comment about how it is losing Obama and the Democrats the support of those ‘abroad’. May do nothing, but it was quick.
So, back to this article for a minute. While it did a good job of profiling Nina Olson, did anyone notice that that the only two mentions of us “offshore” types did absolutely nothing to challenge standard MSM perceptions about our situation? I frankly expected a bit more from the Christian Science Monitor:
1. Some of the calls Olson has made during her tenure have drawn criticism. In one recent instance, she roiled high-ranking IRS officials by asserting that the agency has misled tax-payers with a program designed to make offshore tax cheats come forward voluntarily. Taxpayers with accounts in places like the Cayman Islands are not the kind who evoke the greatest public sympathy. Some tax experts say Olson’s position – alleging that the IRS hasn’t been straightforward in its communication – reveals her penchant for taking stands on behalf of any and all taxpayers.
Obviously this is referring to the most recent TAS report which chastised the IRS for its 2009 OVDI “bait and switch” tactics. Unfortunately, the author appears to side with the “roiled high-ranking IRS officials” who, once again, were simply trying to do their job of hunting-down us offshore tax cheats with accounts in the Cayman Islands. Everyone out there with accounts in the Cayman Islands, please raise your hand. (crickets) I thought so. Finally, it’s disingenuous of tax experts to dismiss Olson’s legitimate criticism of the IRS for its well-documented communication failures as a mere “penchant for taking stands on behalf of any and all taxpayers”. I guess that’s us – just some wacked-out fringe group of taxpayers who don’t deserve the kind of attention that Olson has provided.
2. Then it’s on to deliver an early-evening talk to tax lawyers and law students. In her speech, in addition to hitting her favorite general themes, she lashes out about a specific concern: the recent IRS treatment of people with offshore accounts. Saying that some people who haven’t acted as tax evaders are facing harsh penalties, she gets laughs from the audience by joking that, with so many dual citizens north of the border, “the entire population of Canada is terrified.”
Just one question: what exactly was funny about this?
Once again another article that, while interesting for its insight into an important player in this great passion play we’re embroiled-in, ends up throwing us under the bus, like so many before. I’m really getting tired of this.
One person who will never throw American Expats under the bus is Ron Paul.
His former Chief of Staff, Lew Rockwell, actively writes on his blog that Americans who renounce US citizenship due to Uncle Sam’s disrespect for the Bill of Rights are true Patriots!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/pr/10-benefits-of-expatriation.html
Another article by Lew Rockwell on renouncing citizenship:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/giving-up-us-citizenship143.html
@FromTheWilderness
Good article – I particularly liked the comment that giving up the right to vote in a US election basically says ‘you are giving up the right to choose between dumb and dumber’. My feelings to a tee!
@deckard1138, I see what you mean about the way that the author’s reference to expats and Caymans in the same breath is the same old —-.
I did however think that saying about Olson; “she lashes out about a specific concern: the recent IRS treatment of people with offshore accounts. Saying that some people who haven’t acted as tax evaders are facing harsh penalties, she gets laughs from the audience by joking that, with so many dual citizens north of the border, “the entire population of Canada is terrified.”’ I thought it was an acknowledgement of the ridiculousness of any perception that the million or more of expats/duals in Canada could possibly be made up of tax evaders – and that the US should be casting us in that light. Maybe thats not the way the audience understood it, but I don’t think that Olson was making light of the Canadian situation. That would seem to be incongruous with everything else about her profile and what she says in her latest report. I believe that the mention of ‘duals’ was at least helpful because the term ‘expats’ doesn’t really acknowledge the legitimacy of dual citizenship, or of choosing to have a permanent life outside the US. Expat has a bit of a taint to it in the popular mind.
When Olson critizises the IRS behaviour in this instance – as a specific and important concern of hers, while speaking to an audience of lawyers and law students, it makes me think that it is good for us that it is on her list of concerns to keep raising – in public.
Maybe I’m just clutching at straws….
God help us though if they decide to replace her as an individual, or change the position of the Taxpayer’s Advocate to allow it to be filled with with someone appointed directly by the IRS Commissioner – as someone in the article suggests should be done. Nina Olson seems not only uniquely qualified, but uniquely sensitive to the social and individual costs of being caught in the system.
@all- If the IRS Commissioner were to be allowed to chose the TAP it would be a disaster. No Commissioner would ever pick someone who is going to give him/her a hard time. As it is I believe that the system is flawed because the TAP is not a separate entity but resides within the IRS. This is weak protection for the tax payer.
The TAP also plays only an advisory role and has no real power over taxation policy or application. As we have seen the Commissioner can just choose to ignore the TAP when it is convient to do so.