I had a couple of my posts taken down by Keith Redmond at the American Expatriates Facebook Group.
The first made use of Lebron James comment, ‘I’m the best player in the world’.
I wrote, “Mirror Mirror on the wall, who is the best basketball player of them all?” Keith Redmond, the co-administrator of the Facebook group asked me what relevance it had to the group and I said it is analogous to American exceptionalism, “Mirror, Mirror on the wall, who is the most exceptional of them all?” It is really about the National Narcissistic Personality Disorder from which Americans suffer as a nation. It leads to the USA unilaterally imposing FATCA on the rest of the world as so beautifully captured in this video, which is still the best explanation of FATCA ever:
The second censored post reported on the State Department’s denunciation of Dominican Republic citing the United Nations human rights provisions. I said the USA was hypocritical because it violates the human rights of its own expats.
Then as Deedee Gierow, the Democrats Abroad co-administrator of the American Expatriates Facebook group, posted that she was sick and tired of all the bashing of the USA and that she, Keith and others were working very hard to lobby Washington (Facebook link). This solicited a discussion in which Redmond and Gierow heroically defended the purpose of the group and that they would henceforth delete any America-bashing content.
The American Expatriates group’s mission is to inform, educate, and provide the most up to date information regarding United States government policies affecting the lives of Americans living overseas. It is extremely important to mitigate the misconceptions about Americans living outside the United States vis-à-vis the public at large
It remains unclear to me how it is possible to have a group which discusses Citizenship Based Taxation and FATCA from an expat’s perspective without being anti-American. This is the conundrum–either the content is irrelevant (e.g., cookie recipes) or it is anti-American–e.g., discussions of the lives that are being ruined by FATCA and CBT. How do you stand by and allow innocent people to be destroyed by a foreign government and say positive things about that government?
There was some back and forth between myself and some of the other active members of the group, in which I learned that I am argumentative and offensive. Really? That really surprised me.
My third censored post was a comment: if we can’t really complain about how the USA is treating us, then we are supposed to be like a battered spouse, who quietly accepts abuse, and so I posted a link to the following page and suggested the situation was comparable to spousal abuse: Intimate Partner Violence Dynamics.
It seemed like Expat Forum deja vu, when I concluded that a censored forum is an oxymoron. So later when I suggested that some people would indeed leave the group because it wasn’t a safe place anymore, Redmond told me to leave. So I suppose my days are numbered.
I guess that is all I can write for now. My knee is bothering me and it is hard to stand up at my desk. In any case, it is good that some people are trying to lobby the US government, but I have no faith that that will change anything. So perhaps my cynicism and pessimism is not welcome in best of all worlds–but certainly not on certain “forums”. Cheers to you all.
Japan T wrote:
“There are many people on this forum who renounced their USC only to have it reimposed upon them by the SCOTUS.”
Please kindly point me to it. Some famous rulings prevent the US from stripping citizenship from persons without their consent. Some less famous rulings impose US citizenship on persons born in some of the second-class-citizenship parts of the US, but not on persons born in other, third-class-citizenship parts and effectively-stateless parts. I haven’t found any that reimpose it on persons who intentionally, voluntarily renounced.
If you mean that “tax citizenship” lasts longer than real citizenship, yes that’s a big problem, but I didn’t find a US Supreme Court ruling on it.
Please point me to it.
@ Norm
I wish I could easily whip it out for you, but the actuall conversations with the actual ruling are buried within the mound of stuff I have collected on this mess. Perhaps others can provide the details as I am sure I learned of it here.
The gist is that many who renounced/relinquished decades ago had US citizen reimposed upon them due to a SCOTUS case brought a a former USC that wanted his US citizenship reinstated arguing that renouncing/relinquishing was not enough to prevent him from being a USC. The SCOTUS agreed and the decision voided many renunciations/relinquishments without those who renounced/relinquished having any say in nor knowledge of the decision. It think this is when the CLN either came about or at least took on real importance. The decision dates from the early part of either the 80s or 90s I believe.
As can be seen, my memory on the details are fuzzy. For myself, a current USC, the details were not important to me, only that fact that some who voluntarily renounced/relinquished have had USC imposed upon them years later and with it all the responsibilities and fines for not living up to them.
I will look for the info, though hoping someone else with more knowledge on this will fill us in soon.
@JapanT
It is my understanding that one could apply to have citizenship restored but that there is nothing in law that re-instated it automatically.
Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980), was the SCOTUS decision that determined that a US citizen cannot have his or her citizenship taken away unless he or she has acted with an intent to give up that citizenship.
http://hodgen.com/revenue-ruling-92-109/
In accordance with this amendment, individuals who were determined by the Department of State to have previously lost United States citizenship may apply to the Department of State to have their citizenship status administratively reviewed.
You may find the comments at these two posts interesting:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/07/11/irs-ruling-on-relinquishment-and-retroactivity-from-1992-this-is-big/
NB the link for the article listed does not work but the same information is below:
http://hodgen.com/revenue-ruling-92-109/
I think it was along the lines of if one relinquised/renounced but did not obtain a CLN then they were still concidered a USC, that the CLN was not previosly required but became required and those who renounced/relinquished prior to the decision but did not have a CLN were thus still USCs.
ThanKs Japan T.
That sounds like the argument put forth by those who believe 877A is retroactive. The question then becomes, at what point, if any, was a CLN required? I am working on that this very minute!
Sometimes there is incomplete information out there………….
@Tricia Moon, “The question then becomes, at what point, if any, was a CLN required? ”
Solely for the education of lurkers.
A US issued CLN for nationality purposes is only required with respect to renunciations.
“A US issued CLN for nationality purposes is only required with respect to renunciations.”
I don’t think so. It’s required for any kind of relinquishment. It even comes accompanied by instructions on how to reverse the loss of US citizenship if the recipient did not intend to lose US citizenship, so it’s pretty clearly not just for renouncers.
@Norman Diamond, applying for a CLN is not a requirement to lose ones US Nationality under US Code with respect to nationality purposes for the relinquishing acts.
As a matter of fact, that is documented in the Congressional record and there is a link on Brock somewhere about that.
That is also why in the FATCA IGA you can provide a CLN or a reasonable explanation why you do not have one.
Example…..
John Maple swears the Oath to HM QE2 and becomes a Canadian Citizen.
John does this with the intent to lose his US Citizenship.
Presto…..once he takes the oath….he is no longer a USC.
John may now live his life as a uni-Canadian Citizen “unburdened” with his USC.
However because of FATCA it would be wise for John at a minimum to sign a statement at his Oath taking that he intends to relinquish. He could also state that in his formal application for Canadian Citizenship.
John MAY need a CLN if he desires to travel to the USA or if he is dealing with a bad ass bank.
But a CLN is not required to get rid of Citizenship, its lost at the act.
@Norman……
Key…..a relinquisher can get a CLN if they want/need…..but its not required to lose ones nationality…..only a renouncer needs it per US Code.
Link
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CPRT-JCS-2-03/pdf/GPO-CPRT-JCS-2-03-7-2.pdf
One more example……
Last month Boris Johnson re-entered Parliament as an MP and took the Oath.
IF he took that Oath voluntarily AND with the INTENTION of relinquishing then Boris is no longer a USC.
It might be very handy for Boris to get a CLN based on that relinquishment but he is not required to get same.
@Norm, Tricia and George,
This is not exactly what I was looking for but it offers a hint of where my understanding comes from. Unfortunately, all I have been able to dig up today comes from the same source, albeit, different dates. The first three segments are from the Vancouver Sun’s FEAR AND CONTEMPT RISE IN CANADA OVER UNCLE SAM’S TAX CRACKDOWN. August 15, 2014.
“The U.S. is losing its dominance as a world power” and is irresponsibly causing
untold hurt to an estimated seven million expatriates around the world, said Hamilton, who moved to Canada when he was 13 and became a Canadian citizen in 1991. Until recently Hamilton didn’t even realize the U.S. considers someone like him an American citizen,
since several decades ago the U.S. didn’t allow its citizens to have dual citizenships.
However, Elizabeth May, head of the Green party of Canada, who was born in the U.S. and moved with her family to Canada in the 1970s, calls FATCA “a global shakedown.” The MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands considers herself “100 per cent Canadian,” even though she has never formally obtained the U.S. document that many FATCA-fighters now consider critical, called the “Certificate of Loss of Nationality”. May said, “It never occurred to me that the U.S. government would retroactively try to claim me as a citizen.” She believes she lost that unwanted status when she became a member of Parliament in Canada.
In light of FATCA, a former alderman and mayor of the municipality of Delta, Beth Johnson, is relieved she relinquished her U.S. citizenship years ago. A proud Canadian who includes the phrase “ocanada” in her email address, Johnson became a Canadian citizen in the early 1970s and correctly assumed, at least for that time, that her formal commitment to Canada meant she had forfeited her U.S. passport. But then a U.S. Supreme Court challenge in the late 1980s led to a change in U.S. citizenship law. “I find what happened next to be breathtakingly arrogant,” Johnson said. “They (U.S. lawmakers) gave all of us our citizenship back — without asking us if we wanted it, or telling us that they did it. I didn’t find out that I was once again considered a U.S.A. citizen until I applied for my Nexus card.”
The below are from the same paper’s OBAMA ASKED TO INTERVENE IN IRS ASSAULT ON CANADIAN RESIDENTS, September 06, 2011.
I do not consider myself a US citizen any longer. I have been a resident of Canada since 1973 and a naturalized citizen of Canada since 1986. Apparently, however, according to current practices the United States still considers me to be a US citizen.
What is particularly disturbing is the position of the children of US citizens who reside in Canada. According to the US House of Representatives’ website which quotes Title 8> Chapter 12> Subchapter III> Part I> section 1401, sub-sections (c) and (g) provide for automatic US citizenship to children born outside the US where one or both parents are considered US citizens. This means that our children are considered US citizens and subject to the provisions of the IRS, i.e., they too must file US taxes and disclosures, and suffer the consequences of the IRS pursuit of undisclosed non-US financial accounts. These children, however, are Canadian; they were born in Canada; they have never lived or worked in the United States; in many cases they have never set foot south of the border; and they have no affiliation with the US government. They should not be subject to US taxes and disclosures, and the substantial IRS penalties for non-disclosure.
The last segment is particularly disturbing for me as I have a young child that even though has not been registered at the embassy, if the above is true, is nonetheless considered a USC.
Again, these are not the stories I was thinking of when I made my statement to Norm. I will still look for those but must do so later.
In the meantime, I will concede that there may not actually be any law nor judgement as Norm requested. This must not be easy for many to read, especially lawyers, but the actual law is meaningless. What the dolt of a gubment employee sitting behind bullet proof glass and speaking through a speaker believes his nitwit of a gubment employee supervisor thinks the law/rules are is all that matters to most of us. If you have not yet read my submission to the Senate Finance subcommittee on taxes, please do so. But in brief, I was instructed by the IRS to complete an extremely long procedure to determine my income in USD. Very recently, members of IBS tell me that this procedure is not necessary. Whoever the dolt at the IRS was that sent the letter and the two other dolts who verified this requirement over the phone thought so. The only option open to one without the resources to hire an account and or tax lawyer and challenge the dolts is to comply. For us minnows the law is as the gubment dolts we are obliged to deal with say it is. What the lawyers and courts deduce is merely theory, the reality is different. Georges remarks on nit necessary but a good idea seem to attest to this.
The Immigration and Nationality Act states:
It does not say “by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality [list of relinquishing acts] and obtaining a CLN.”
I note also that in the Canada-US FATCA IGA, Annexe 2, s. (B)(4)(a)(3), the US Government agreed that a person may prove their lack of citizenship without a CLN, if they provide
something the US govt would not likely have agreed to if a CLN was required to cause termination of US citizenship.
The CLN does not terminate citizenship. It functions as a useful document that resolves any ambiguity and provides easily-understood incontrovertible proof of the citizenship termination.
Ok. That’s the law. So why are the folks in the articles expariencing trouble. Indeed, why is the CLN even talked about not to mention held to such importance?
@JapanT
Because the banks are shit scared of the 30% withold. There are only 3 banks in Switzerland that will take Americans Without a cln but have to prove compliance by showing banks past and present fbars .
@ Japan T.
I think the CLN is considered important because it’s a one page unambiguous document that speaks for itself, very clearly, that the person is not a US citizen. Anyone can understand it, so they can tell right off the bat you’re not a US citizen, so you can avoid possible hassles/delays/etc of trying to convince them.
*The first three segments are from the Vancouver Sun’s FEAR AND CONTEMPT RISE IN CANADA OVER UNCLE SAM’S TAX CRACKDOWN. August 15, 2014 (http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/08/15/u-s-persons-in-canada-see-uncle-sam-as-bully-for-one-way-tax-crackdown/)
So, it seems that the law does not matter. Banks will refuse based on fear of a fine, the non USC must prove they are not a USC rather than the US prove they are. And can someone tell me how one is to prove they are compliant with the IRS? I have never heard of anyone getting anything from the IRS indicating receipt of a tax return not to mention if they accept it as accurate. Filing FBAR does not make one compliant.
Excellent points, Japan T.
@JapanT…..here is an example….its the example of the poster Shrub or some moniker like that…he was born to Canadian military parents in 1954.
The law was that if you were born dual and starting at age 22, you accepted a benefit from the foreign nationality and did not return to the USA in 3 years you lost your USC.
Shrub knew the law of the land when he was 22.
He accepted benefits in Canada!!
The three years expired and he should have been free as a Canadian Eagle……
The law was changed in 1978 a mere months before his 25th birthday…..he did not lose his USC
@JapanT, B I N G O
Absent a customer confessing they are a USC, the burden should be on the USA or the bank to prove the customer is a USC.
If a customer opens an account and states they are Canadian with no other citizenship, that should be it.
Switzerland banks asks for copies of fbars, that’s their major concern. Swiss banks are in a special non prosecution agreement called the ‘joint statement’ where they have to report all American account back to 2008 and state if they were compliant or not to avoid large fines. This all stems from past behavior of UBS hiding American money and actively courting it. Other countries are not experiencing the same degree of which hunt but just wait until the first 30% with old takes place elsewhere and I believe the banks will be dropping Americans like hotcakes.
Japan T
It’s what happens when people do not start with the law as the source for the information. Many laws are not well-drafted and hard to understand so people start believing what they hear elsewhere such as a newspaper, a blog, an accountant or lawyer, their neighbor next door and so on. After all that, very difficult to clarify all the ins and outs of what has been added, what cannot be true and so on.
It is also difficult because of the way laws created for another situation but impact others, complicate the situation. Thus, people tend to think only lawyers can clarify (which may or may not be true).
Pacifica’s comment regarding what is not included in the INA and what is included in the wording of the IGA is a perfect example of how hard it is to understand what the intent of Congress was, how agencies perceive it and so on. It shows she understands the process and how to address clarifying. IMHO anything that Pacifica or USCitizenAbroad writes is most likely to be the best information on citizenship issues.
One really has to read the statute, the regulations written by the implementing agency and look at case law. Combined. Not just one part of even these three is likely to be definitive esp in issues as complicated as citizenship law (which is actually much different than immigration law).
I am going back and looking at some things (such as whether a CLN is required) and finding it quite time consuming, challenging etc. And just as I learned in tax class, it seems there is always some new aspect in a situation that presents a new difficulty; there is no such thing as a clear-cut, irrefutable law, etc.
There are days where I would dearly love to go back to my field for which I am much better-suited (music). 😉
@Tricia
It seems to me that we should all be grateful that you are indeed a polymath.
I would just like to enjoy my retirement!
@Pacifica @Trish
I don’t trust them.
What if the US decided some time in the future that they want to retroactively restrict the receipt of a CLN to loss of nationality, not loss of citizenship? I asked this question of a citizenship advisor in the Dominican Republic in response to his article:
http://www.ascotadvisory.com/US-Citizenship-Renouncement.html
His response:
Dear [bubblebustin],
For the purposes of taxation and other things, the loss of nationality
(and subsequent loss of citizenship) formally puts you out of the
system, so to speak.
However, you raise an interesting point in that I suppose it is
possible in the future they may want to come back and say, well
someone lost their nationality but not their citizenship (ergo you
still owe taxes). On the same token, I could envision lawsuits in the
future whereby some may want to reacquire their US passport (for
whatever reason) and claim they were filing to get rid of the
nationality but not the citizenship.
For the US Government, everything is about the money (taxes), but as
I said, the view that they have the right to strip you of your
nationality is considered an insane idea by most other countries. Then
again, the IRS previously claimed that even though you lost
citizenship, they still have the right to collect taxes for the
next 10 years IF they think (or you meet the criteria in terms of
income) you were doing so for tax avoidance (another form of insanity).
For the moment, filing to rid nationality results in the loss of
citizenship as the secondary effect, which is the goal for most in
terms of being taken off the books for tax obligations. I would
say to read up on the IRS code in terms of income and asset
thresholds in terms of whom they claim still might owe taxes
after the citizenship loss. But this is like you switching
from ATT to Sprint, and then ATT says they think you were doing
so to get a cheaper phone plan and thus they insist you
continue to owe them for your phone service (absolute
lunacy).”
heidi,
My new word of the day, polymath: a person of great learning in several fields of study — as Tricia who researches thoroughly and shares with us after she breaks it down into layman’s terms. Wish we could also listen to her music. Yes, I am grateful that Tricia is a polymath or is polymath-a-tive.
@Bubblebustin, I can’t get my head around the concept that loss of nationality does not necessarily mean a loss of citizenship. What the …? I don’t think the average schmo would get the distinction, so it would be crazy for such lawmakers to try to make one, but I wouldn’t put it past them — something sneaked and passed into law so that politicians like Pelosi knows what they passed.
@JapanT, interesting collection of articles. The problem Elizabeth May and other face is that, at first the U.S. stripped citizenship of those who claimed citizenship in Canada (or wherever) until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that loss of citizenship as unconstitutional. So then the U.S. citizenship was re-instated automatically without seeing who in Canada wanted it back. For years, it didn’t really matter, but these days the cost to comply OR to renounce is exorbitant! Back to your earlier post, my heart goes out to you about the misunderstanding with your mother and other Americans. Some of them get so used to the yearly IRS forms, the American-centred press backing up American gov’t initiatives, they can’t imagine that people in other G20 countries live under a different system as they rightfully should. As for me, what I can’t imagine would be the difficulty of trying to file an FBAR based on Japanese yen and Japanese documents correctly into US $ and English for the IRS, and hoping to get it right! Or pay a terrible penalty!
RE POLYMATH: Love that! Tricia is extraordinaire!