After a lengthy (and illegal) delay, the latest Quarterly Publication of Individuals, Who Have Chosen To Expatriate, as Required By Section 6039G will be printed in the Federal Register for Thursday, 14 February 2013.
It contains forty five names. This brings 2012’s total number of “published expatriates” to 932, or little more than half of the number seen in 2011.
Journalists who may write about this list in the next few days should be warned against misinterpreting it as a complete list of people who turned in their U.S. passports last year. The Federal Bureau of Investigation tells us that 4,385 Americans renounced citizenship in 2012, and another 167 in January 2013 alone — and that number does not even include people relinquishing citizenship or abandoning long-held green cards, both acts which should result in one’s name appearing in the Federal Register. I am aware of more than a dozen public figures who have given up U.S. citizenship in the past year, almost all for the purpose of running in non-U.S. elections, but only four of their names have been published. South Korea recorded 2,158 of their citizens giving up U.S. passports or green cards in 2011, and numerous anecdotal reports from Washington and from Seoul suggest that this “reverse migration” accelerated rather than slowed in 2012.
@Roger…
Thanks for posting. That is a good model to use. I will do the same.
On the other hand, Thomas J. Sholseth is a veterinarian in BC who writes books about animals, and Russell Robinson, Jr. is a professional basketball player from the Bronx who plays in Europe. Marie Prest might be an ER doctor in New Zealand.
Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.
@Roger, powerfully worded e-mail. And this phrase particularly struck me: …”The information which foreign banks are required by… FATCA regulation to report to the IRS on all their accounts of US citizens is the same kind of information that the IRS can only obtain from a US bank with a court order based on credible evidence of tax fraud. Yet FATCA obligates foreign banks to report this information to the IRS on all their US person accounts including dual citizens of the countries where they live and work, in violation of the bank privacy laws of those countries. The presumption of FATCA is that all US citizens resident abroad are tax-evading traitors. “….
So Machiavellian.
This contrast hadn’t occurred to me before – if I understand you correctly, INSIDE the US the IRS can only get that exact same detailed bank info by obtaining a “court order based on credible evidence of tax fraud”? I hadn’t really thought about comparing what lengths they’d be required to go to in order to get the exact equivalent information if the accounts were located in the US.
I always thought we were being treated as presumed guilty of tax crimes before the fact, but didn’t realize the specifics – re the court order requirement ( vs. the automatic reporting). That is pretty stunning. That a country can presume guilt of that magnitude just based on the geographical location of the accounts. If due process is needed inside the US, how can they suspend that outside? They want to apply and enforce FATCA extraterritorially, but any possible US legal protection or due process is to stop at the border.
Definitely an important point to make to our Canadian representatives – underscores the lengths at which the US is going in trampling on us just because we were born, and live somewhere else. Perhaps another legal avenue to back up the conflict with Canadian laws.
@Eric, very grateful for your work on the stats. The comparison with the FBI numbers http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/02/09/fbi-statistics-say-three-thousand-renounced-u-s-citizenship-in-september-and-october-2012/ is shocking. I’m afraid I can’t dismiss it on the basis of incompetence, it is just too convenient. In fact, given what we know of the numbers of appointment slots at the Canadian consulates alone, plus what we’ve heard about lineups to renounce in Switzerland and elsewhere, the Register value is just absurd.
At this rate, will the next quarter show 0 on the list?
@AbusedExpat, re; “I suspect Rand Paul and others would find the possibility/probability of “cooking the books” on the number of renunciants/relinquishers very interesting.”
And I am wondering if this is something that Carolyn Maloney, ACA, AARO, and FAWCO are able to question – to see the reaction, or get some commitment to examine these figures. It bolsters their arguments about the size and depth of expat anger and unrest.
Perhaps they would feel that raising this would be too confrontational?
@Roger, would you like a copy of my CLN or renunciation receipt as proof of one who renounced who is not on the list?
@Roger, Senators Rubio (R), and Nelson (D) were my “representation” prior to when I renounced, but they didn’t respond to my letters prior to when I renounced. Why not ask them to clarify why I’m not on the list? Maybe they can at least do that for their former constituents that they failed to represent?
On September 13, 2012, I wrote the following to Marco Rubio via VoxBox:
On the 16th of October, I renounced US citizenship and Marco Rubio then responded with:
Why not ask him why I’m not on the list? He wrote that he “understand how important these issues are to you”. Why not challenge him to see if he means it?
It is shocking to see only 45 names on this list. I received my CLN in April 2012 and I’m very disappointed to find my name still has not appeared. Why or why?? (I was looking forward to finally being “named and shamed” so I could throw a party.)
I disagree with the notion that the IRS has to have a court order for access to financial information inside the US. FATCA essentially imposes 1099 reporting (1099-INT, 1099-DIV, 1099-B) on the rest of the world. I receive a 1099 on my Fidelity account annually and it says very clearly on that form that the information is also being furnished to the IRS.
I renounced in August and received my CLN in December – and I’m not on the list either.
Regarding “covered expatriates” as being the criteria for being included on the list. That is quite obviously not the criteria, since those who renounced in 2012 could only have possibly filed their 8854 form for 2012 during the past few weeks. In other words, in the vast majority of cases it’s not even known if a renunciant will be classified as a “covered expatriate” or not when the list is published.
I personally know 17 individuals who renounced citizenship in Europe in 2012, all of whom have received their Certificates of Loss of Nationality. Of the 17, only one person’s name appears in the lists for the whole of 2012. These lists are not to be trusted.
1099 on my Fidelity account reports income and taxes paid/with held. The account numbers are not sent to the IRS.
FBAR and 8938 report account balances (wealth information) and account numbers.
@Petros
“We’re the government, and you’re not”
Say’s it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvsADU2OOWM
@swisspinoy
How nice that one of Marco’s minions have sent you the standard boilerplate form letter, so that you can feel that your concerns are really listened to, even though in all actuality, they could really care less. I used to get those all the time back when I foolishly believed that the system still worked, and that was sometimes up to at least a good three months or so after I wrote the letter, or sent the email. Believe me, it’s all part of their charade. Their replies are about as good as cheap toilet paper.
@Rose
45? I wouldn’t be surprised if the actual number of renunciants is more like at least 4500. Surprisingly, I don’t know why the US doesn’t just list the actual number, and then arrogantly tell the world how we’re all just a bunch of selfish ingrates. But, I believe they’ll stick with 45, as it maintains the illusion for their homelanders that there is no reason to find a better life outside the USA. No, the number 45 is pure propaganda here, and it would be much harder to spin it if it was actually around 4500. It will end up making them look bad, and not us.
Gosh, if the FBI says that around 3000 renounced in the last quarter alone, I have to wonder how many more renounced in the whole year?
I have to wonder if my guess of 4500 is actually much lower than the real number?
@mjh, I’ve been guessing that the number of total expatriations must exceed 20,000 per annum. The actual number could be much higher.
@Just Me, don’t think of the choice of being one of “conspiracy” vs. “incompetence”. Rather, think of it as a question of corruption. The United States government is the most quantitatively corrupt nation in world today, in the order of trillions of dollars. Why would shaving the number of expatriates surprise anyone? Why should we give this corrupt government the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to incompetence or inter-departmental politics? Nay, I say that even if this is “incompetence” as you suggest, it would be what the IRS would call willful neglect of a known duty, i.e., wilful ignorance: See Jack’s blog: Petition for Certiorari on Deliberate / Willful Ignorance / Conscious Avoidance / Ostrich Instruction (10/11/12)
My point is that everyone should wake up and smell the coffee. Let’s stop living in a dream world where the United States are the good guys. That day has passed (if the delusional reality of the US ever being the good guys ever was real).
Forget the Treasury Department. It’s now obvious that they’re not going to report the true numbers of expatriates. Is there no way to get from the State Department the numbers of CLNs issued in each month, quarter or year??
@Edelweiss, re your earlier comment about the current 1099-INT, 1099-DIV, 1099-B reporting vs. the FATCA reporting. http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/02/13/fbi-says-three-thousand-renounced-us-citizenship-last-quarter-but-irs-claims-it-was-just-45/comment-page-2/#comment-186129 .
Isn’t the 1099 reporting on interest, dividends, and other earnings from financial investments, rather than a reporting of the balances, and all transactions (deposits, withdrawals, etc.)? That would seem to be a major difference in the level and type of reporting.
I think the difference is that I think FATCA reporting under the IGAs, by our governments and financial institutions, will eventually extend to automatic reporting of ALL transactions – deposits, withdrawals, balances, etc. – as well as the account ID#. That is far more information on an automatic reporting basis than merely the taxable account EARNINGS – ex. interest accrued, which is already automatically and routinely reported by financial institutions to our own resident country tax agency, and which generates tax slips for us to submit with our home country taxes.
Also, FATCA applies to categories and types of ‘accounts’ that aren’t usually taxable or reportable in the present – and which would not generate a 1099?
If I understand correctly, that is what Roger was saying about the standards for disclosure being higher inside the US – requiring a court order for the same information being automatically required under FATCA. The US doesn’t issue automatic court orders for the banking transactions and account details of each and every US resident, and probably does not routinely do that for the very broad classes of ‘accounts’ that FATCA will include.
And in addition, under the BSA, for the FBAR, the account numbers are furnished – along with the ‘highest balance on any one day in the year’ – which is NOT the basis of any of our usual home country tax reporting, and which also includes the accounts of non-US employers, and other non-US, non-personal accounts, etc. where the individual has absolutely NO financial interest or earnings to report and be taxed on. And the accounts have no tie to the US. So, the intrusion extends far far beyond actual ‘taxable’ earnings by the actual US individual, and far beyond what they actually can derive or access benefit from. It can also include accounts where there is no present benefit. That does NOT have any direct connection with actual ownership or with merely reporting taxable earnings. That is one of the most disturbing things about this. I actually don’t mind reporting the account interest earned, on my US returns – which I already do on the returns for my actual home country of residence. But the US has no business compelling people to report on their local children’s hockey team fundraising account, or employer accounts in another country. The true owners of the accounts have no obligation to the US, has nothing to do with taxable income, is under layers of oversight where they are located, and the equivalent is not required of people living inside the US. It pre-supposes that every single person living outside the US, with any access to any accounts are all either guilty, or poised to commit tax fraud or other crimes.
Who wants to remain a citizen of a country that pre-judges them guilty, and who forces them to pro-actively demonstrate and document innocence annually, for life. That is not the same standard that US homeland residents are held to. So, every one of the 6-7 million ‘abroad’ are pre-judged as criminals in waiting merely because of living outside the US with local accounts – or some kind of tenuous potential connection to other people’s non-US accounts. And under the IGAs, we’d be treated like that by 2 governments, both the non-US one where we actually reside, AND the US – which we have no economic or residence connection to at all.
That is why the actual numbers renouncing would be so valuable to establish – because it is one concrete way to show the numbers who refuse to remain US citizens under such unjust and discriminatory conditions – and were motivated enough to jump through all the IRS and State department hoops because of it. People don’t pay 450. and pass through the IRS gauntlet on a whim.
One would think that US government statistics would track the numbers of people gaining and losing US citizenship each year. I have started to look at their on-line statistical data, and have found statistics on persons naturalized and on “aliens removed”, but so far nothing on citizens losing nationality. Other people might want to try looking, starting at
https://explore.data.gov/profile/Data-gov-Program-Management-Office/e8ug-wzay?category=Other
In the column at left, there is an expandable list of all of the categories of data.
@Petros
20,000 you say? I’d believe it.
My main concern is that if the huge number of expatriations becomes widely known, Congress will try to pass laws to make it even more difficult and expensive to renounce as a deterrent.
I can guarantee this: that if the US were to make it impossible for me to relinquish once I take the oath of Canadian citizenship, then I will stop complying with the US tax laws, along with any and all other activity consistent with US citizenship, and I will expect my rights to be respected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I will miss my family in the US, but if push does come to shove like that, then I won’t need to go back there ever again.
From Nigel Green
Americans continue to leave US over Taxes
@Just Me
They can say it’s about the money all they want, but we all know that it’s really about their arrogant, punitive policies.