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.
The only instance where nationality and citizenship are not the same thing, far as the US is concerned, is if you were born in American Samoa to non-citizen national parents, and that is ONLY because American Samoa is US territory not considered a part of the US, (it is an unincorporated territory) and no act of Congress has otherwise ever extended the grant of US citizenship over to American Samoa.
It should also be noted, that if you were born in any US Minor Outlying Island to non-citizen national parents, that in theory, you would also be a non-citizen national.
There is no legal mechanism in place where someone could, even theoretically, be recognized as a citizen of the US, and NOT as a national. This is why, when you lose your US nationality, you ALSO lose your US citizenship.
@Heidi, Calgary411, & Jan
You are all very kind. I don’t agree as to the level of learning (you should see some of my tax tests!). I do appreciate the sentiment though. Thank you!
Jan, the point about the US automatically reinstating citizenship, is the exact reason I chimed in. It is my understanding that they not.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/06/17/homelanders-abroad-at-american-expatriates-facebook-group/comment-page-7/#comment-6218793
And I echo your comments to Japan T. Yikes. I absolutely would not want to deal with yen and FBAR. What a nightmare!
@Bubblebustin
About not trusting, exactly. When I did decide to renounce, I believe I could say that was THE number one reason I could not stop myself from doing it. I could entertain the idea that maybe they weren’t after minnows, did I really want to take the chance of never being able to “go home” and so on. Mind you, and you will remember but for those not around back in late 2011, the atmosphere was completely terrifying. This was partially due to hearing all the horror stories that were starting to come out about what was happening in the 2009 OVDP program. The FAQ 35 issue was (and remains) as proof to me, that the IRS absolutely cannot be trusted.
For those unaware of this horrid event, FAQ 35 contained this particular phrase:
Later, the IRS simply eliminated FAQ35 and began to apply FAQ 50 (OVDI 2011) to those who had entered OVDP 2009. Below is tax attorney Jack Townsend’s response to that (one of the only sites available back then to get good info & comment; I only lurked there) :
http://bit.ly/1FtJedv
Then there were facts such as assassinating American citizens without trial, holding people in Guantanamo for 12 years without charge and the torture and all of that. It wasn’t a huge leap to see trust was out of the question. At least for me.
I have never understood the difference between nationality and citizenship. I find it most confusing and now will have to add it to my list. UGH!
With regard to the CLN and the IGA situation for relinquishants from long ago, my dear and wise friend Calgary411 reminded me of something:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Exhibit-1-Explanation-of-Reason-Account-Holder-Does-Not-Possess-a-Certificate-of-Loss-of-Nationality-Despite-Having-Relinquished-U.S.-Citizenship.pdf
This is a form created by Roy Berg of Moody’s attached to a paper he wrote. You can see it all in the post written about related issues (http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/05/08/26-u-s-code-%C2%A7877a-the-exit-tax-rules-do-you-see-them-as-applying-prospectively-or-retrospectively-or-both/).
At any rate, I am remiss in not thanking him at the time of the above post. Last summer, we had a few exchanges which left hanging, the idea that someone should suggest something positive to the government(s) going forward. I had totally forgotten about this at the time the article came out/the above post was written. The reason this is important to acknowledge is the fact that Moody’s approaches the idea of having lost one’s citizenship as “in almost every situation you have not lost your USC” (from a Moody’s seminar I attended). I also believe it is true that Mr. Berg sees 877A as retroactive and applies to anyone without a CLN. Therefore, for him to have created this as a way to help those who did legitimately relinquish decades ago, without a CLN, is really to be appreciated. He certainly did not have to do it and I am glad to see that he did. If Treasury/IRS adopts it we will all benefit. Thank you Mr. Berg.
http://business.financialpost.com/legal-post/canada-u-s-dual-citizens-could-be-worse-off-if-fatca-lawsuit-succeeds#comment-1548249170
http://business.financialpost.com/legal-post/canada-u-s-dual-citizens-could-be-worse-off-if-fatca-lawsuit-succeeds#comment-1548233341
http://business.financialpost.com/legal-post/canada-u-s-dual-citizens-could-be-worse-off-if-fatca-lawsuit-succeeds#comment-1548811432
http://business.financialpost.com/legal-post/canada-u-s-dual-citizens-could-be-worse-off-if-fatca-lawsuit-succeeds#comment-1548909203
http://www.moodysgartner.com/is-the-canadian-fatca-lawsuit-a-pyrrhic-war/
http://www.theepochtimes.com//n3/917259-americans-line-up-to-renounce-us-citizenship-in-toronto/#comment-1562854074
Japan T says
“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.”
They’re still very helpful stories. Thank you. (Not helpful for me because the IRS already persuaded me to renounce in 2010, though events delayed it until 2011. Helpful for others who don’t yet understand why they’d better renounce.)
“The only option open to one without the resources to hire an account and or tax lawyer and challenge the dolts is to comply.”
Unfortunately that’s a pretty dangerous statement. As I explained from unpleasant and expensive experience, complying makes it worse. The IRS’s report to Congress also explains why complying makes it worse. The IRS penalizes people for telling the truth on returns, and courts uphold it.
As previously mentioned, it would seem that the only option is to make up a return that looks like one that a homelander would file so it’s processable (the IRS doesn’t want it to be true; they want it to be processable). The IRS compels you to sign the unaltered jurat at the bottom of Form 1040 even when you know it’s false.
However, the IRS Tax Crimes Handbook cites a court ruling punishing someone who signed the preprinted jurat when not believing it to be true.
So there is no option at all. Even if you DO have resources to hire an accountant and tax lawyer, there is no option at all.
THIS IS IMPORTANT.
Japan T writes:
“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.”
FORM 4056-T.
You’ll need to file two per year.
One is needed for a transcript of the accounting of your tax return. The result somewhat resembles the assessment that the Canadian tax department sends each year.
One is needed for a transcript of US withholding, if you had any on Forms 1099 and 1042-S.
I only learned about this form by accident, and unfortunately I learned too late. The IRS will only reveal records going back 3 years. Even though the IRS has older records which they use in penalizing you, you can’t get them. So you’d better file 4056-T every year.
If I had known about this form in time, I could have got IRS records showing that I claimed large foreign tax credits which had no basis. Then I would have learned part of the reason why the IRS accused me of fraud. (My actual claims for foreign tax credits, two Forms 1116 per year, were for $0.00. I don’t know which IRS employee filed corrupt records.)
If I had known about this form in time, I could have got IRS statements showing that the IRS had no records of my Forms 1099 and 1042-S. (IRS employee Monica Hernandez filed corrupt records attributing my withholding to other persons.)
Now, if I had known in time, who knows if court rulings would have gone differently. Since it’s illegal to tell the truth on US tax returns, the IRS could still penalize me for being frivolous, but I could have filed perjured Form 1040X amended returns in time to get my refunds. Well maybe or maybe not, because Monica Hernandez wasn’t caught yet when the IRS told me to refile and sign the unaltered jurat.
mjh49783 says:
“The only instance where nationality and citizenship are not the same thing, far as the US is concerned, is if you were born in American Samoa to non-citizen national parents”
There used to be more. If I understand correctly, the governor of Okinawa was born in Osaka, but he didn’t have Japanese citizenship because his parents were nationals of Okinawa, which was US territory. (Japanese citizenship at birth comes from parents not from birthplace.) In order to visit Japan again while Okinawa was still US territory, he had to get travel documents. I presume he became a Japanese citizen when Japan took over Okinawa.
For Puerto Rico there was a US Supreme Court case even before Congress acted, so the 14th Amendment plays some role even without Congress. I think the reason the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply in other territories is because persons in those territories were racially ineligible for US citizenship.
We are doing what we have to do and you, Tricia, reminded Mr. Berg and the rest of us why so well.
@ George
In your example of the poster Shrub, how is that not retroactively reinstating citizenship. From 1975 to 1978 he was not a USC but a 1978 law says, after the fact, that he was.
Your two posts seem toback up my comments to Norm. The US has changed the definition of citizenship and applied these changes retroactively and placs the burden on the non USC to prove they are not a USC. If Japan adopted the same policies, then descendants of Japanese would be in the same fix. All they would have to do is change the law saying that they maintained Japanese citizenship.
@ Tricia Moon
Yes and if one were to bring the Statute, case law, etc with them and show it to the Dolt behind the counter at any gov. office the result would be a blank stare, a shrug, then a restating of the rule you are to follow based upon the directions of the dolt’s department.
I would go further to say the even the lawmakers do not know or care about the law, for if they did therewouldn’t be so many legal challenges.
@ Jan, Norm and others.
“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! ”
There it is( thanks Jan), the retroactive reimposition of US citizenship. Is it supported by statute? Doesn’t matter for these folks, does it? Legal or not, they are stuck with it.
@ Tricia Moon
“And I echo your comments to Japan T. Yikes. I absolutely would not want to deal with yen and FBAR. What a nightmare!”
Which is way I don’t. The probability of making an innocent mathmatical error is so high and the penalty for each individual error so egregious that to submit a FBAR for even one of my multiple accounts would be a life ending experience. From that point on I would be no longer living, merely existing to fillout out and file forms and pay fines. Which burns me up more than words can express….but then there are many on this forum that know that perhaps better than I.
They didn’t actually reinstate the citizenships.
What State Dept did in 1990, due to several Supreme Court decisions, was they reversed the administrative presumption on loss of citizenship.
Prior to that, it was presumed the person performing one of the potentially relinquishing acts in s. 349(a) intended to lose their citizenship by so doing. After that, it was presumed the person intended to retain their citizenship.
It’s important to make that distinction (reinstatement vs presumption) because if a person who believes they lost their citizenship due to naturalisation years ago (and was quite content being a non-USC) but now believes that their citizenship was reinstated, they may do something like get a US passport – which they may later regret when they find out that since 1990, the citizenship was not reinstated, only presumed to exist.
It’s a rebuttable presumption. So, if a person naturalised in, say, 1980 with the intention of relinquishing and he continued to act as a non-USC ever since, he is not a citizen and he can today get a CLN attesting that he relinquished his citizenship in 1980.
But if the person performed any acts consistent with US citizenship, it makes it quite difficult to rebut the presumption. One such act is not necessarily fatal to a relinquishment claim, but it can be and often is.
So that’s why I feel it’s important to be clear that the citizenship wasn’t automatically reinstated. If a person believes that their citizenship was reinstated, they may walk into a trap and basically “reactivate” it.
@ Norm
“Unfortunately that’s a pretty dangerous statement. As I explained from unpleasant and expensive experience, complying makes it worse. The IRS’s report to Congress also explains why complying makes it worse. The IRS penalizes people for telling the truth on returns, and courts uphold it.
So there is no option at all. Even if you DO have resources to hire an accountant and tax lawyer, there is no option at all.”
Well there is a third option, do nothing and enjoy life as much as possible until they haul you away. That is my path, the other two being closed to me.
But Norm, the articles may be important to you. The people in the articles did have citizenship reimposed upon them. If the US did it to them, what keeps the US from doing it to you and others later on down the road?
You (or maybe it was George?) point out the statute showing nationality and citizenship to be the same. So it is now. But if the US can retroactively change who is and who is not a USC, then they can change this too.
@ Norm
FORM 4056-T.
You’ll need to file two per year.
One is needed for a transcript of the accounting of your tax return. The result somewhat resembles the assessment that the Canadian tax department sends each year.
One is needed for a transcript of US withholding, if you had any on Forms 1099 and 1042-S.
Thanks for this! It does not help me but may help others to prove compliance to their FFI and keep from having their accounts closed. Will forward this info on to friends.
Japan T wrote:
‘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.’
I agree that Elizabeth May lost US citizenship when she became an MP, but that is not the same as renouncing.
Later Japan T wrote:
“There it is( thanks Jan), the retroactive reimposition of US citizenship. Is it supported by statute?”
If Elizabeth May had renounced instead of believing in the old law (the old law that was overturned by US Supreme Court), I don’t think she would have to worry about the new law. Even now if she declares that she became MP with the intention of relinquishing US citizenship by that action, I don’t think the new law can reimpose it on her. As long as she didn’t do anything like use or renew a US passport, or vote in a US election, after becoming MP; or file Form 1040 other than as a schedule attached to a Form 1040NA return for the year she became an MP, I think her relinquishment would be recognized.
“But if the US can retroactively change who is and who is not a USC, then they can change this too.”
Yeah, if the US reneges on CLNs maybe I’ll have to apply for asylum in Iceland or somewhere,
@ Pacifica777
Ok, that’s the law. But for these people, one day the were not USC and had not been for some time and the next day they are again USC and always have been. Their reality is that their USCship was retroactively applied. Regardless of the legal wording behind it, that is their reality.
Many have gotten US passports solely because boarder guards instructed them to do so if they wanted to enter the US.
For those who have not, they can rebut the assumption of USCship. Rebut to whom? Can they rebut to their bank and prevent losing their accounts and all the horrible mess that comes with that? If not, then the right to rebut is worthless as it can not replace any that was lost due to the presumption. Until the former USC’s rebuttal is successful they are USC.
However, I now understand the importance of the distinction between actual reinstatement and the assumption of never losing it to those who are knowledgable enough of the situation to be researching it. It would be very bad for them to believe it was reinstated and get trapped. But there is a trap and innocent people are getting caught in it. If it happened to them, then it can happen again to anyone. This trap came from a court or legislative action causing a department of the USGov. to change policy after the fact that for those effected changed their citizenship status retroactively. It happened once, it can happen again.
@ Norm
I think I can finally express my point. If I were to renounce/relinquish it would be precisely so that I would have no more need to prove anything to the US or my banks. For those in the articles, renouncing/relinquishing did not end their need to keep proving things to the US and/or their banks. So, why should I go through the trouble? I would have to pay an exit tax based upon my wife’s assets added to my own nonexistent assets, pay the over $2000. fee and still possibly not be free from the US based upon some future legislation or court ruling or policy shift that changes, adds or removes some assumption or other on my citizenship status.
We now can look back on the situations these people found themselves in and find ways they could have prevented them, if they had anyway of knowing. What lies ahead for us? We can not know, but based on these cases and others, it seems to me that giving up USCship is not at all a guarantee that one is forever free from having to prove they owe nothing to the US.
Like anything important in life, always get written proof. A relinquishment is a legal process not dissimilar from other legal processes in that you would want documentary evidence in the event you need it later.
If you don’t get a CLN from the State Department, then you can’t prove that you’re relinquished your citizenship to anyone.
Another way of expressing this just came to me. If one must rebut an assertation made by the US, then one is a subject of the US. Giving up USCship does not guarantee that one is now longer subject to US law, and it should.
@ mjh
Agreed, but the CLN is a relatively new document. When many of these folks gave up USC, as I understand it, either the CLN was nonexistant or a foreign passport was all the proof needed. This changed, so what is to keep the CLN from no longer being proof positive and some new yet unthought of document is required in the future to prove you were no longer a USC today?
Here’s what can happen if you assume something such as “automatically reinstated:”
https://vimeo.com/124155908
A “certificate” appears in the Nationality Act of 1940. I was looking to see if there is anything to suggest that one must get one at relinquishing/renouncing. No matter how I read it, it never says that at all and instead, is a description of how it is treated in the DOS system. This holds true for amendments that refer to it specifically; i.e., in 1952 and 1994. That is, instructions for who submits it, who reviews.approves it and how the local consulate is to forward it to the person it refers to.
So it is not new yet there seems no indication it must be obtained in order to relinquish or renounce. I have read the statutes and the regs. I have not found any court cases based upon that issue. I hope that would be sufficient to indicate this information is correct.
Hmm, concidering that the US was 164 years old in 1940, a certificate upon losing UScship is relatively new. Further, even though it’s been around since 1940, it surely was not needed and a non US passport was sufficient to prove one was not a USC until very recently, at least in practice.
@ Patricia Moon
Thanks for the link. Her tesimony is powerful. Will view the others later.
Yes, not good for those who assume it was reinstated, but we only know that now after she and many others went through it and told us about it. I believe that there undoubtably will be other traps set and some who gave up USCship will be trapped.
I am not arguing against giving up USC, just that unfortunately, we must remain onguard even after doing so. And that should not be the case.