Cross-posting from Maple Sandbox, resulting from George’s comment at Isaac Brock:
Dual Citizenship: “Paramount Allegiance-Predominant Claim”
See: http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/07fam/ (shown in list of links as “-080 DUAL NATIONALITY [111 Kb])”
Over at Brock, George posted some information from U.S. Department of State on dual citizenship which is very useful to us. It says:
From the US Dept of State, 7 Fam 080, the formal and OFFICIAL US Position.“b. It is a generally recognized rule, often regarded as a rule of international law, that when a person who is a dual national is residing in either of the countries
of nationality, the person owes paramount allegiance to that country, and that country has the right to assert its claim without interference from the other country.”AND
“e. U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality: When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.
So, there we have it. Even the United States says we owe our “paramount allegiance” to our country of residence. That is exactly how most of us are living our lives.
Our countries of residence have “the right to assert its claim without interference from the other country.”
So, why aren’t Canada, France, Switzerland, New Zealand, China, Russia, Brazil and India telling the U.S. to just FATCA off? Our “paramount allegiance” is to those countries and those countries have a “predominant claim” to us.
I have just included this information in my Canadian citizen submission to New Zealand.
Listening to US politicians is a learned skill – US “taxes” US citizens based on citizenship NOT residency. So the “paramount allegiance” doctrine ends once they can see a tax.
It’s going to be foreign courts to tell the US to FATCA off. I hope someone files one in July somewhere to start the dominos falling in the other direction.
In the EU, someone needs to file in the home country, and if that fails onto the EU courts so the whole of the EU can FATCA off.
A new slogan is born, Don. FATCA OFF, USA!
And I might add … Keep your cLAWS to yourself, USA!
Hello Brockers, another little ditty to download before they take it away;
This is part of a joint congressional committee published report. Others can probably dice this up better, but it might be nice to have in the file. Better yet, send it to your MP as a report to Congress pointing out that having a CLN is not written into US Law. My guess is that would be the final breaking of the Expatriation Act 1868.
“There is no obligation for an individual to obtain a CLN or otherwise notify the Department of State of relinquishing ones citizenship.”
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CPRT-JCS-2-03/pdf/GPO-CPRT-JCS-2-03-7-2.pdf
Repeat after me,
My “paramount allegiance” is to Canada and Canada has a “predominant claim” to me. I know this is fact because the US Dept of State says it is in their official policy manual.
Sigh, deep down I wish I could recite that but I did get my second choice in life and almost as good. 😉
George,
As someone mentioned, it’s going to take someone going to court and getting a ruling, but my guess is that a bank is going to want more than someone’s word and a print out of a website page to accept a relinquishment.
@YogaGirl, The FATCA IGA says “reasonable explanation” if you do not have a CLN.
But there are a whole lot of worldwide courts where this can get settled and it only takes that first one to cause a leak in the dike.
What happens if Canada exerts “PARAMOUNT Allegiance – PREDOMINANT Claim”? We all like to think it means Canada will tell the USA to cease and desist with its claims to the assets of Canadian residents. But, could it end up that all, most, or some of the filing penalties the USA is trying to extract from us will be diverted to Canada? After all, under a Model 1 IGA all the data goes first to the CRA, then to the IRS, then to [fill in the blank]. I often wondered if Flaherty would FATCA us in exchange for a cut in the the US haul (a collector’s fee?). Of course he might sell us out simply to protect the banking industry, no matter the cost to individuals. (There’s that bank bail-in law lurking in the wings for whenever the banking industry is threatened remember.) I know he made the promise and the existing Canadian tax laws forbid it but anything can be changed, anytime, if it suits any government. 🙁 See what happens when you have too much time to think before a FATCA announcement? It drives you to invent even more insane scenarios.)
Fellow Brockers, this Dept of State of publication with a very current date and the Joint Congressional Committee Report on another thread are extremely powerful documents. They cause you to think.
Can I implore you to send these off to your lists of Canadian MPs? Add your own words and thoughts and what they mean to you.
We need to get the Canadian Government to simply pause and scratch their heads.
Blessings to all of you.
@Em: I learned an expression from Victoria:
“Do not live in the wreckage of the future.”
We have enough problems to deal with without creating new ones. So, don’t give anyone any ideas!
@ Blaze
They are better at thinking up these things than I am. I would have never dreamed up that bail-in legislation but they did. I’ve just got a touch of pre-announcement anxiety is all.
My letter; my attempt for justice from my Canadian government representatives. I am Canadian; my son is Canadian; many of us here are Canadian.
@Paid the Price, yes. I tend to agree with many things that the Department of State says and does, while the IRS tends to mess up their good intentions.
It is very interesting that the State Department recognizes the concept of predominant nationality, but yet Congress doesn’t. That makes me wonder….
Shouldn’t the idiots in Congress that are supposed to be drafting and passing the laws actually know what the frigging laws ARE in the first place?!?
Oy vay!
….actually, I take that back.
There are so many laws on the books over there that there is no way any one person can keep track of it all. Just the US tax code is as far as I understand it, the largest, most convoluted set of tax legalese on the planet!
Even if they were actual geniuses, they’ll still look stupid, anyway.
Pingback: perpetual traveler | iPT Perpetual Traveler - PT to Expat
Huh? This is interesting… “Paramount alliance” or “Paramount dominance” doctrine should trump CBT, shouldn’t it? Does George have a link to the actual US Dept of State, 7 Fam 080? I would want to read it in context…
I have to wonder what our international Tax Attorneys think about this? I ran it by ACA, and it is the first they have heard of it, so not sure what to think. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Something to crew on to figure out how best to use. Now for that link.. 🙂
@ Just Me
I found this somewhere last night and saved it.
http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/07fam/ (shown in list as “-080 DUAL NATIONALITY [111 Kb])”
Oh my, that link was right above here in calgary411’s comment. This is why I should be a coffee drinker. I don’t get any caffeine in the morning to wake me up.
@Em
Oh, I see it now. Too early here too… I did NOT read all the comments in detail, so missed it.
@Calgary411, could you move the link into the body of the post so it has better visibility…
Thanks…
This gives us hope! I thought the US government follow the law when I became a dual citizen!
Thatisme,
How did you become a “dual citizen”? Do you believe you are a dual citizen? Do you believe you have any obligations to the US IRS?
In George’s comment (see link), he notes:
My thought: I am a Canadian; I became a Canadian citizen in 1975 at which time I was warned by the US Consulate that I would lose my US citizenship by doing so. I’ve lived my life in Canada as a Canadian. My son was born in Canada to US citizen parents (at the time). He has never been registered with the US; the never lived in the US; never had any benefit from the US. I want his country, Canada, and other countries to stand up for its people.
My “paramount allegiance” is to my country, Canada, and Canada must have a “predominant claim” on me – and on my adult son who is otherwise seemingly entrapped into a U.S. citizenship (as will be many others) said to have been given US citizenship automatically by birth to U.S. citizen(s), but never in any way claimed. My son was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada and is Canadian. Canada has the right and I want Canada to assert its predominant claim for my son without interference from the other country, the United States.
@ calgary411
Thanks for the inspiration for me to send off yet another round of e-mails to the PM and pertinent MPs with a “Paramount Allegiance and Predominant Claim” theme. I concluded with this …
As noted above, it is a matter of paramount allegiance and predominant claim and the USA has agreed to this principal. I hope I’m right in assuming that Canada has also agreed to this very important and admirable principal.
But does Canada follow the primary residence law?
Not sure if this is relevant, as this is a tax issue, but see Conrad Black’s tax problem in which he lost to Canada Tax Court on location of residency and tax consequences. Author of article argues that Canada is violating tax treaty on “primary right [predominant claim?] to tax.”.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/01/29/vern-krishna-tax-court-complicates-compliance-with-double-taxation-treaties/