From the BBC, we get official confirmation that Boris Johnson never followed through with his 2006 threat to renounce U.S. citizenship, but instead renewed his passport so that he could obey the formerly-wartime-only but now-peacetime law demanding that anyone whom the U.S. deems to be one of its citizens must use only a U.S. passport to enter the country:
Boris Johnson renewed his US passport in November 2012, the London Mayor’s aides have confirmed. The news came as a surprise to some. In a column for the Spectator in 2006 he said he was renouncing his US citizenship after being barred from using his British passport to change planes in Texas. But it appears he didn’t follow through.
For those of you who haven’t been following European news, Mr. Johnson is an American citizen who happens to reside in Europe so he can do some work for a city government in one of those allegedly-sovereign countries over there, while enjoying all the great U.S. embassy services and giving nightly prayers of thanks that the Marines will come sail up the Thames and save him from the clutches of the British government if he gets into any trouble.
Since I have no desire to imply that Mr. Johnson is anything but a law-abiding, loyal, and patriotic U.S. citizen — unlike some of these recent economic Benedict Arnolds who have been abandoning the Greatest Country on Earth in its hour of need — I am sure he has been dutifully filing Forms 1116, 2555, 3520, 5471, 8621, 8833, 8938, and whatever else the Homeland may ask of him for his offshore investments in the United Kingdom. Not to mention FBAR reports on all those municipal government accounts inexplicably held in offshore banks in London rather than patriotic banks in New York, so that the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network can make sure he’s not using those accounts for purposes of money-laundering or drug-dealing or Cuban-rum-purchasing.
But in the extremely hypothetical event that Mr. Johnson is not up to date on all his U.S. tax and anti-money-laundering obligations, well, the IRS has his number: even if they don’t listen to the Beeb, pursuant to 26 USC § 6039E the State Department has forwarded Mr. Johnson’s Social Security Number and other identifying information to the IRS. And in this highly unlikely situation, of course the IRS will show Mr. Johnson no favouritism at all due to his position, but rather will make sure to levy 12,900% fines against him if they find any two or three-digit annual tax deficiencies. And if the IRS decides that Mr. Johnson was actually willful in failing to file FBAR reports and should thus be fined several multiples of London’s annual budget, Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs will show an equal lack of fear or favour in executing a mutual collection assistance request, and swiftly seize the required funds.
Fortunately for Mr. Mayor, the U.K.–U.S. tax treaty of 2001 actually addresses some of his problems, to make his process of U.S. tax compliance all that much easier — after all, he’s an important government official, not a Canadian trying to evade U.S. taxes by sneaking funds into a Canadian disability savings plan. Specifically, Article 19 ensures that his entire salary and pension is exempt from U.S. taxation. And his non-government income amounts to nothing more than “chicken feed”, as he puts it. So I guess the $743 million the U.S. claims it can raise from revoking expats’ passports is going to have to come from someone else’s bank account.
In conclusion, Boris Johnson for President! (Or at least Commerce or Treasury Secretary!)
@all
We’ll never know whether Boris was compliant with US reporting in his early years, only Boris knows the answer to that; but let’s not be naïve.
After his 2006 newspaper column, there must have been any number of wink-wink, nod-nod, finger aside the nose approaches made to Boris or his staff by both the Big 4 accounting firms in London, or at least by 3 of the more influential London based tax advisory firms. Tooooo much potential profit to be made by having Boris as a client, especially with the ‘signature authority’ issues surrounding FBARs. I would wager money he is fully aware of his situation, has reviewed his options, and has responded with his own goals in mind. Mind you, judging from Boris’s past actions, those options could include a two finger salute. But, the legal civil servants for the City of London surely would be concerned as to which option he took (or may have influenced it).
Boris may enjoy the ‘lovable buffoon’ image he displays, but I suspect at heart he is a rather sharp operator when it comes to self-preservation. What we do (seem) to know is in November of 2012 he was/is a US Citizen. Is being Mayor of London sufficient for his ego? Would he really challenge Cameron for leadership of the Party? If Cameron were to step down, would he challenge Osborn (quite possibly)?
Perhaps we’re overlooking the obvious. If the PM job is not available, does Boris actually see a future somewhere in US politics? Keeping his options open, perhaps? Or, as Eric jocularly eluded to in his alert on this topic, maybe he really does have a deep, abiding love for his American heritage. If you believe that, I have a bridge in New York I’d like to sell you.
@OAP “the number of ‘Accidental Americans’ now posting on the UK expat sites seeking either an explanation as to what is going on or seeking how to now solve their (OMG) problem, has increased significantly.”
As these are in fact British Citizens, can you post some links as it may be helpful.
Not surprised by all these late OMG moments. A friend went to the U.S. embassy to renew her son’s passport early in the year and the only mention of FATCA there was in a story on renunciations in a magazine she happened to pick up. There has been so little mention of FATCA in the U.K. that I have resorted to desperate measures like e-mailing all the Americans I know in the U.K. and trying to get my Facebook contacts to publicise the IRS streamlined compliance program story. It really feels like people are being set up for a fall.
I would hope that Boris has had ample offers of assistance. It is widely known that he was a U.S citizen and that he has money. I doubt he is after the U.S. presidency: he would need to reside in the U.S. for about 13 1/2 years before he became president, so I can’t really envision that happening.
I wrote a personal letter to Boris this morning. I suggested that as he is obviously US tax-compliant and is well-known in the UK and the US, he is the ideal person to speak out about the problems of US citizenship based taxation as it affects people in the UK. I mentioned the compliance costs, including fear and distress as well as financial costs, that it imposes on ordinary US people (many of them dual citizens, like Boris) who are resident in the UK, how it prevents them from effective retirement planning (potentially making them more likely to be reliant on the government in their old age) and how it drains the UK exchequer in favour of the US by taxing some of the benefits the UK decides to provide to its people. I don’t think there is anything Boris would gain politically from speaking out on this topic, but it made me feel a little better to ask him to do so.
Re ‘Boris for President’, there’s nothing Americans would love more than to be reunited with the Empire, however minor that connection might be.
The administrative presumption that a person state his intention to retain citizenship does not apply when someone takes a policy level position regarding 349(a)(4). I’m surprised DOS hasn’t sent him a DS-4079 telling him to state his intentions not to retain citizenship and he would have to overcome the burden of proof. Absent that, they could mail him a CLN without his input like they use to do in the old days to Canadians.
@RMA
Instead they sent him a passport in 2012.
@bubblebustin,
In the mind of the US, they ARE the EMPIRE.
That is obvious in comments like this one, coming from someone who has professional experience and training sufficient to know how very serious the problems continue to be for expats:
“…The United States is the greatest, most powerful country on the face of the earth. When the world has a serious problem, it turns to the United States to solve it. We are governed by the rule of law. Capitalism is what has made our country great. Yes, our taxes are too high, far too high. Yes, there are those who want to turn our country away from capitalism. These are hardly arguments not for relinquishing U.S. citizenship. Americans do not run from challenges. We bear down and solve them.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/stephendunn/2012/05/20/relinquishing-u-s-citizenship/
That author never acknowledges the irony of the US having become the very image of the exploitive, abusive, overweening, extraterritorial imperialist power that he celebrates the US resistance to in his reference to the Revolutionary War. And doesn’t note that ‘taxation without representation’ was one of the issues Americans responded to in part with the Boston Tea Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation .
I am sick of the smugness of US tax and law professionals or academics who bask in the power of the US – without acknowledging the substantial harms that have and are flowing from the selfish, unethical and unjust application of that power to those outside the US – via the ‘Might makes Right’ mindset.
I find it singularly offensive when a US professional benefiting from being admitted to live and work in Canada publicly declares that Canadians who fight against the extraterritorial and forcible application of a US law on sovereign Canadian soil aren’t ‘rightminded’. This is our home. Not a colony or territory of the US. Who is the ‘rightminded’ one here?
What gives someone benefiting from their admittance into Canada – but whose ties appear to be overwhelmingly to the US http://www.moodysgartner.com/credentials/roy_berg/ , to tell other Canadians who are citizens and permanent residents what to do in our own permanent home? “…… Some may take pride in what appears to be a case of Canada standing up to its more powerful neighbour. “There’s a perception among Canadians that this is a good thing,” says Berg. “IRS is trying to force [FATCA] down our throats and people are glad CRA and Finance are standing up to them. That is absolutely wrong.”” http://www.advisor.ca/tax/tax-news/feds-bury-fatca-law-in-budget-bill-148502
Would he ever argue that the US should allow a foreign country to force the US to do the same? For example, would these US professionals advise those in the US to surrender without protest, if China were to try and use extortionate force on the US to make concessions based on the huge amount of US debt it holds http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/27402499-452/geithner-wrong-about-delusional-kirk-source-says.html ?
@RMA
Is Mr Johnson not stating his intention to retain US citizenship by applying for a US passport (although there are some Brockers who can attest that it does not always affect the ability to relinquish US citizenship).
@Bubblestein, it would be evidence, but assuming he took an oath of allegiance as an MP to the Queen, they still would probably want to adjudicate.
@badger
From the jingoistic drivel in Forbes article you cite:
“Rebel?” Isn’t that quaint?
Act against the US now the way Washington did against England, and you’re a terrorist. That’s today’s appropriate word for Washington.
The Forbes quote disappeared when I posted….
My heart is heavy when I think of [George] Washington and what he did for our country. To this day the British call him “rebel.”
My correspondence to Mayor, Mr. Boris Johnson:
Correspondence to Mayor Boris Johnson from Carol Tapanila, Canada, May 13, 2014
I’ve already received a receipt of my correspondence.
How nice to get that and not something that says I must be a constituent in order to send something to the Mayor of London.
Carol, good luck with that. The Mayor’s office might deal with letters concerning the City’s business but I don’t see why they would deal with his personal affairs.
@Shovel, re the the “jingoistic drivel in Forbes article”..
It doesn’t surprise me at all that someone living in the US should be so presumptuous and arrogant as to tell all those of us living abroad what to do with our own individual allegiance, but it goes far beyond nauseating when it is a relatively recent transplanted US homelander making a living on Canadian soil, who is telling Canadians what to do in our own home – and appearing in front of Parliament to tell OUR elected MPs where to go:
““…… Some may take pride in what appears to be a case of Canada standing up to its more powerful neighbour. “There’s a perception among Canadians that this is a good thing,” says Berg. “IRS is trying to force [FATCA] down our throats and people are glad CRA and Finance are standing up to them. That is absolutely wrong.”” http://www.advisor.ca/tax/tax-news/feds-bury-fatca-law-in-budget-bill-148502
One might tell a presumptuous neighbour next door where to get off, but when the intrusion emanates from within your own yard, what is the correct reaction?
KalC,
I have no illusions that I will receive anything further. It is an attempt, like the many others not answered — from my own government representatives. IF Mr. Johnson reads it or if anyone else reads it, it is a step further in awareness.
@Shovel
regarding the quote you reproduced from the Forbes article
“My heart is heavy when I think of [George] Washington and what he did for our country. To this day the British call him “rebel.”
Actually, George Washington is generally referred to as the First President of the United States in Britain.
I wonder what the American colonists who sided with Britain thought of Washington when they were being driven from their homes and farms by the Continental army? The simplistic way history is taught in the US (and to be fair, elsewhere) doesn’t seem to help things.
@badger
“when the intrusion emanates from within your own yard, what is the correct reaction?”
The correct reaction is outrage.
The key is to manage the outrage so as to best attack the problem.
That is what you, and so many others at Brock, when at their best, are doing.
On a vaguely-related theme, some folks in Taiwan claim that President Ma Ying-jeou has a green card and never gave it up properly and is going to get caught by FATCA. (Incidentally, his daughter Lesley Ma is a U.S. citizen and lives in Hong Kong.)
http://www.ettoday.net/news/20140514/356852.htm
http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/1006880
Anyway, just like in the U.S., the loud and obnoxious commentariat & peanut gallery don’t give a fig about the ordinary ex-immigrants who are going to get caught up in this mess, they only care about using the issue to fling brickbats at the Most Evil People In the World: folks on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
http://www.pcdvd.com.tw/showthread.php?s=10c946e66843a16114d32f8563b77de7&t=1049155&page=1&pp=10&PageSpeed=noscript
http://www.168abc.net/Meeting/Detail.aspx?Board_sn=3851349
In Canada Green card holder or ex green card holder without a I-407 are not considered US persons for FATCA.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/nnrsdnts/nhncdrprtng/ndvdls-eng.html
“I hold a U.S. green card. How does this affect my tax residency?
If you are a green card holder (that is, a lawful permanent resident of the U.S.), the U.S. considers you to be a U.S. resident.
However, if you are a resident of Canada for tax purposes and do not hold U.S. citizenship, you should not identify yourself as a U.S. person to your Canadian financial institution.”
If Hong Kong signed a similar deal to Canada he may be safe.
@GeorgeIII
Well, this conflicts with the US’s definition of a US taxpayer, doesn’t it. If residency is the tie-breaker, why not include US citizens resident in Canada too?
Was the US-UK Tax Treaty developed to be enforced on citizens of both nations? What if you are an EU citizen (by way of, say, Italy) and work in the UK but, by chance of birth, also have dual citizenship with the US? …
@ Duality
The USA sees you as above all else a US citizen which actually means a US tax slave for life, unless you renounce with all your tax papers presented and accounted for. That’s the cruel reality of US citizenship-based taxation.
@ EmBee
Thanks for the response.
I cannot legally work in the UK as a US citizen without a work visa, only as an EU citizen. So wouldn’t the Master Nationality Rule come into play? If the USA are still able to tax me on my EU nationality, then are they not manipulating the nationalities of other countries? …
@ Duality
Master Nationality Rule does not come into play with the USA. It should but it does not. Yes, of course the USA is manipulating — that’s the type of country it has become. The USA does not see it as taxing you on your EU nationality. It sees it as taxing it’s own citizen no matter where in the world he/she resides or works or collects passive income.