The Q2 2015 Quarterly Publication of Individuals Who Have Chosen to Expatriate has been placed on public inspection for printing in the Federal Register for 31 July 2015, one day later than required by law. This is the seventy-fifth list to appear since the passage of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or maybe the seventy-fourth. (That depends on whether you count the 52-days-late Q3 2000 list, which was an exact duplicate of the Q2 2000 list.)
The list this quarter contains 460 names. This is the smallest quarterly total since the absurdly-small Q4 2012 list, which contained just 45 names. On the other hand, it’s also the second-fastest publication time since then too (the fastest being the Q3 2014 list, the only one to appear on time since then). During the same period covered by the newest list, the FBI’s NICS gun control database went from 28,646 renunciant records to 30,117, an increase of 1,471 renunciants — similar to the number added to NICS during the first three months of the year.
Working from the (possibly outdated, and if so probably too low rather than too high) estimate of four or five relinquishers for every six renunciants, the NICS figures suggests that at least 2,700 people gave up U.S. citizenship during those three months. On top of that, perhaps 4,500 ex-permanent residents cancelled their green cards during the same period (based on USCIS statistics from 2013).
Table of contents
- Media articles about specific relinquishments
- Comparison with NICS
- Who shows up in the expat honour roll anyway?
- Conclusion
Media articles about specific relinquishments
Here’s a table of people mentioned by name in media reports as having given up U.S. citizenship since the beginning of 2013. Only one person from the table showed up in this quarter’s list: Camillo Gonsalves, a diplomat and politician from Saint Vincent and the Grenadines who says he renounced citizenship back in September 2013. I have no idea what took State & the IRS so long to get his name printed, seeing as some people who gave up citizenship in late 2014 already showed up in last quarter’s list. On the other hand, some folks like Shere Hite took six years to get their names printed back in the early 2000s, so I guess the IRS is getting better at this after decades of practice.
| Name | Occupation | Other citizenship |
Giving up US citizenship | Appeared in Federal Register? |
Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reason | Date | |||||
| Naftali Bennett | Politician | Israel | Members of Knesset cannot hold foreign citizenships | January 2013 | Q2 2013 | Jerusalem Post |
| Dov Lipman | Politician | Israel | Members of Knesset cannot hold foreign citizenships | January 2013 | Q2 2013 | Jerusalem Post |
| Orlan Calayag | Bureaucrat | Philippines | Become head of National Food Authority | January 2013 | Q2 2013 | Philippine Star |
| Mahmud Karzai | Politician | Afghanistan | Launch political career in Afghanistan | January 2013 | Q1 2013 | Radio Free Europe |
| Bernard Chan Pak-li | Scientist, bureaucrat | Hong Kong | Join Commerce & Economic Development Bureau | February 2013 | Q2 2013 | HK Economic Times |
| Fauzia Kasuri | Politician | Pakistan | Pakistan does not allow politicians to hold dual citizenship | March 2013 | No | Dawn (Pakistan) |
| Marshall Nicholson | Investment banker | Hong Kong | Unclear — probably career-related (he worked in a Chinese-owned fund) | April 2013 | Q4 2013 | Reuters |
| René González | Intelligence | Cuba | Part of deal with DOJ to end parole & return to Cuba | May 2013 | No | Washington Post |
| Quincy Davis | Basketball player | Taiwan | Naturalise & join national basketball team | June 2013 | Q4 2013 | China Post |
| Glen L. Roberts | Writer | None | To become stateless | June 2013 | Q4 2014 | Int’l Business Times |
| Camillo Gonsalves | Diplomat, politician | St. Vincent & Grenadines | Join Senate of SVG | September 2013 | Q2 2015 | I-Witness News (SVG) |
| Michael Putman | Librarian, translator, editor | Canada | “[F]ully assimilate into the civic and cultural life of my new country” | September 2013 | No | BBC |
| Tina Turner | Singer | Switzerland | Unclear | October 2013 | Q1 2014 | Forbes |
| Lu Shu-hao | Military | Taiwan | Service in Republic of China Army | January 2014 or earlier | No | Taipei Times |
| Sandy Opravil | Housewife | Switzerland | Save her mortgage | February 2014 | Q3 2014 | Newsweek |
| Roger Ver | Bitcoin investor | St. Kitts & Nevis | Libertarian political opinions | February 2014 | No | Bloomberg |
| Sophia Martelly | Politician | Haiti | Run for Senate of Haiti | March 2014 | No | Haiti Press Network |
| Ya’aqov Ben-Yehudah | Writer | Israel | Complicated; see source | March 2014 | Q2 2014 | Times of Israel |
| Sean Cavanaugh | Technology | Canada | FATCA | April 2014 | Q1 2015 | Tweeted own CLN in August 2014 |
| Mona Quartey | Politician | Ghana | Become Deputy Finance Minister of Ghana | July 2014 | No | Graphic News (Ghana) |
| Alex Kim | Pop star | South Korea | Obtain South Korean citizenship & serve in military | August 2014 | No | Herald Business (South Korea) |
| Nicole Beaudoin | Unknown | Canada | FATCA | September 2014 | Q3 2014 | La Presse (Canada) |
| Kim Sungkyum | Military | South Korea | Be commissioned an officer in the Republic of Korea Army | December 2014 | Q1 2015 | Kookbang Ilbo (South Korea) |
| Lin Jou-min | Architect | Taiwan | Take position in Taipei city government | December 2014 | No | Central News Agency (Taiwan) |
| Rachel Azaria | Politician | Israel | Members of Knesset cannot hold foreign citizenships | January 2015 | No | Times of Israel |
| Jonathan Tepper | Macroeconomic analyst | United Kingdom | FATCA & other U.S. tax reporting requirements | January 2015 | No | The New York Times |
| David Alward | Politician | Canada | To become Canadian consul-general in Boston | April 2015 or earlier | No | Canadian Broadcasting Corporation |
Comparison with NICS
On 31 December 2014, NICS had 27,240 renunciant records, according to the FBI’s 2014 NICS operations report. The below table lists the monthly additions to NICS since then, compared with the quarterly lists in the Federal Register. The FBI has the bad habit of uploading the new NICS report each month at the same URL as the old one; the only way to keep a verifiable collection of old reports is to save old ones in the Internet Archive each month, and unfortunately we didn’t remember to do this for all months. As a result, the January and February links go to Innocente’s comments, rather than copies of the FBI’s PDF files.
| NICS | Federal Register | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Month | Month-end total | Increase | Quarter | Count |
| January 2015 | 27,511 | 271 | Q1 2015 | 1,336 |
| February 2015 | 27,616 | 105 | NICS Q1 Total | 1,406 |
| March 2015 | 28,646 | 1,030 | Est. non-NICS relinquishers | ~1,200 |
| April 2015 | 29,413 | 767 | Q2 2015 | 460 |
| May 2015 | 29,956 | 543 | NICS Q2 total | 1,471 |
| June 2015 | 30,117 | 161 | Est. non-NICS relinquishers | ~1,200 |
Who shows up in the expat honour roll anyway?
There’s two major disputes over the contents of the Federal Register lists: is it required (and does it bother) to include (1) former long-term permanent residents, and (2) non-covered expatriates? Both of these disputes revolve around some horribly-ambiguous wording in the last sentence of 26 USC § 6039G(d):
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later than 30 days after the close of each calendar quarter, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register the name of each individual losing United States citizenship (within the meaning of section 877(a) or 877A) with respect to whom the Secretary receives information under the preceding sentence during such quarter.
877(a) doesn’t define what it means to lose United States citizenship at all; it only defines what it means to be subject to the tax in 877(a). However, 877A(g)(4) does define what it means to “relinquish citizenship”.
Former long-term permanent residents?
Beginning from the Q1 2012 list, the IRS began to claim that “For purposes of this listing, long-term residents, as defined in section 877(e)(2), are treated as if they were citizens of the United States who lost citizenship.” However, those who believe this claim, or who repeat it without fact-checking it (e.g. most of the media), have never provided the name of single person who was verifiably a non-citizen long-term permanent resident and who appeared in the Federal Register.
The one country in which it is easiest to find media reports of named people giving up U.S. green cards is South Korea, because of the legal requirement there (soon to be abolished) for people who obtain foreign permanent residence to cancel their South Korean resident registration, and for them to prove cancellation of their foreign permanent residence to regain that domestic resident registration. None of the people named in those reports showed up in the Federal Register list (and all of them were pop stars, suggesting they had sufficient assets to meet the “covered expatriate” threshold, in the event that’s relevant at all to the list).
The question of whether the list is supposed to include ex-LPRs is a bit more challenging. Even after the most recent revision to Form I-407 in February 2015, USCIS still doesn’t collect Social Security numbers or length of time since the person obtained the green card from the 1,500 or so people who cancel their green cards each month. This means that the data they provide to the IRS on green card cancellations probably remains as useless as it was back in 2000.
Furthermore, Virginia La Torre Jeker, in comments at AngloINFO, disagrees that 6039G(d) even gives the IRS the authority to print the names of green card holders in the first place:
Frankly, the law in Sec 6039G states per below that the name of each individual “losing United States citizenship (within the meaning of section 877 (a) or 877A)” should be published in the Federal Register. First, it is not clear to me that United States citizenship is the same as holding a green card! Second if one refers to the referenced Code sections of Section 877(a) and 877A – these refer to those persons who are deemed to have a tax avoidance motive / fail to make the tax certification and either lose US citizenship or long term lawful permanent resident status (i.e., after having such status for 8 tax years out of the preceding 15 tax years). As such, certainly not all green card holders should be listed in the Fed Reg. and further, I wonder if ANY should be listed at all given the wording in 6039G, to wit — “losing United States citizenship”.
877A definitely does not include abandonment of a green card under the definition of “relinquishment of citizenship”; it only includes it under “expatriation”, and since, as Ms. La Torre Jeker mentions, the statute only permits publication of the names of people “losing United States citizenship”, it’s doubtful the IRS has the authority to print the names of ex-green card holders. So if you do happen to know the name of an ex-green card holder appearing in the Federal Register, it could indicate that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is in violation of 26 USC § 6103. Try dobbing him on Form 211 for your whistleblower reward!
Uncovered expatriates
David Lesperance and several others have suggested that the list only contains covered expatriates.
From Bill Yates’ earlier interview with Virginia La Torre Jeker (discussed by Brockers here), we know that in the early 2000s the U.S. government was thinking of trying to enforce the Reed Amendment by comparing names of arriving travellers to the expat honour roll and making them waive their Section 6103 privacy rights so the IRS could release their records to the Justice Department and the Attorney General could determine whether or not the person “renounced United States citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation by the United States”.
Similarly, William J. Krouse of the Congressional Research Service wrote back in 2000, in the context of Reed Amendment enforcement:
As required by HIPA, IRS publishes a list quarterly in the Federal Register of the names of persons who have renounced their U.S. citizenship (expatriates) and who, by having renounced citizenship, may have done so to avoid taxation and may meet tax liability or net worth tests under 877(a). The IRS, however, does not make a preliminary determination based upon its records whether these expatriates meet either test and, thus, would be inadmissible into the United States. Consequently, these lists include expatriates whose motivation may not have been tax avoidance, and whose exclusion might be an embarassment to the United States.
Both Yates’ and Krouse’s statements seem to imply that non-covered expatriates are supposed to be in the list. This would also square with the previous observation that almost all ex-citizens of 2006-or-earlier vintage showed up in the Federal Register — even South Korean apple farmers supporting a family of five on US$25,000/year.
Obviously, the biggest relevant legislative change since Krouse wrote that quoted passage was the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. Before it passed, there was a definite procedure for deciding that an expatriation had avoidance of taxation as “one of its principal purposes”: people who met the “covered expatriate” test of 877(a)(2), and who didn’t fall under any of the statutory exceptions, could apply for private letter rulings about the “principal purposes” of their expatriations. Afterwards, however, Congress took away the IRS’ authority to make judgment calls, and there would be no more investigations of the “purposes” of an expatriation; if you met the asset, tax liability, or missing tax forms test, you were subject to the expatriation tax.
However, if Mr. Krouse accurately described the IRS’ procedures for compiling the Federal Register list, I don’t see why the AJCA would have spurred the IRS to change those procedures. Besides, if the IRS were trying to restrict the list to covered expatriates, they would have to wait until each expatriate’s tax return due date — as late as October in the year following the loss of citizenship or green card — before publishing the name. Without a Form 8854 in hand, the IRS usually has no way of knowing whether a person is a covered expatriate (unless & until they become one by passing their tax return date without having filed that form), but as the table above demonstrates, some lucky people appear in the expat honour roll during the same year in which they relinquish citizenship.
There might be one case in which a person who has not yet filed a Form 8854 could already be known to the IRS to be a covered expatriate: if the IRS receives the person’s CLN, the person did not file U.S. taxes in the past five years prior to the expatriation date, and the IRS has proof that the person had sufficient income to generate a filing requirement. The third condition in particular should have been rather rare up until now, unless the person had U.S.-source income; FATCA might change this situation, though.
Other theories
Some folks think that non-renunciant relinquishers do not appear in the Federal Register. We’ve discussed this idea in the comments section here a few times, and John Gaver once advanced this theory on his blog and specifically predicted that Tina Turner would not appear. According to the Washington Post, Turner confirmed to the U.S. consulate that her acquisition of Swiss citizenship was performed with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship under 8 USC § 1481(a)(1). Turner’s name showed up in the Q1 2014 list. The Post also claimed that relinquishers don’t pay the exit tax, and had to issue a correction a few days later, so maybe they’re wrong about everything else they said too; however, other people whose publicly-posted CLNs show that they relinquished instead of renouncing (e.g. Petros) have also appeared in the list.
Robert Wood wrote last year that the list does not include “[w]hat is often called consular expatriations, where people don’t file exit tax forms with the IRS”. I’m not quite sure what “consular expatriations” are; these days, all expatriations involve showing up at a consulate in person, unlike the good old days when you could get rid of your unwanted citizenship by mail (something which you can still do in civilised countries like Ireland — and without paying an absurd fee, either).
Conclusion
The list has some names in it. They belong to people whose names the IRS decided to publish. There are other people whose names the IRS accidentally forgot to publish, or deliberately decided not to publish, or whatever. Ex-green card holders probably aren’t in the list. Everything else is a toss-up. Even lawyers can’t figure it out. Caveat lector.
Maybe the U.S. Government has gone from wanting to cause embarrassment to feeling embarrassed. Fudge accordingly.
Or, the increase in renunciation fee is having an effect. Or, people are holding out in hopes of tax reform. If it’s the latter, expect next quarter to surge.
This list has a person who is a textbook relinquisher in the IBS sense, under INA 349(a)(1),
It said 2700. Plus 4500 green cards. For 3 months ..probably very low
I see my name on the list. I relinquished. Went to do the paperwork in April 2014 and the CLN was dated approved in January 2015, while I actually received it (after a call to ask where it was) in April 2015.
I now share the dubious honour of having my name recorded for the ages on this latest Name-and-Shame™ list! I renounced my citizenship about a year ago (and not for tax reasons), filed my final tax forms plus 8854 in January (I have been fully IRS compliant since leaving the U.S. a decade ago and never owed a penny), and was NOT a covered expatriate under Section 877 (not even close!). So, the list is definitely not just for covered expatriates.
Wow, thanks for the mention right next to Tina Turner. I don’t usually open for her. LOL.
? = librarian and translator + editor, general academic precariat worker.
And yes, finally got CLN almost exactly one year later.
Part 2. non-covered. I had got up-to-date with income taxes (ultimately with Streamlined and owing nothing) anticipating getting a CLN and then 8854, which was filled out and sent off with last income tax forms. So in my definition of having correctly jumped through the right hoops, I shouldn’t be considered covered either.
@Eric, I don’t think there is any doubt, many people report here that they relinquished or are uncovered expatriates and appeared on the list, sometimes before filing form 8854. So the list does includes both renunciants and relinquishers, covered and uncovered, just consular or consular+IRS. It just doesn’t include all of them. The media was just speculating reasons to explain why the lists are incomplete, but it’s not because any of these classifications. The omissions and delays seem to be random.
I’m convinced that the list doesn’t include any former permanent residents, because none has been identified in the list, the number of forms I-407 makes it extremely unlikely, and the IRS still can’t know which former permanent residents informed by USCIS were long-term. Virginia La Torre Jeker’s theory is a valid question for the courts, but it’s not the government’s understanding and not the reason why they aren’t listed.
So there really seems to be no rhyme or reason regarding who appears on the list and when…sadly, typical of how the U.S. Government operates.
The biggest mystery to me is how they can get away with having a list like this at all. This is a clear violation of expatriates’ privacy rights and the publication of these names could potentially put those listed in existential danger. As evidenced by some of the comments posted in response to expat stories online, there are clearly some Homelanders who would like to do us harm, even physically, if they had the chance. Will the U.S. Government be legally liable if publishing expatriates’ names leads to someone being physically harmed by some unstable individual? One’s citizenship status and any transactions relating thereto are a private matter between the individual and the Government. The Government has no more right to do this than to publish copies of one’s passport or tax returns online. This is simply an unacceptable act of intimidation perpetrated by an uncivilized bully.
@Eric, one thing overlooked–if you look at the list, it almost always lists the full middle name. I suspect, most people don’t write their middle name on tax forms–the 8854 makes no mention and the 1040 asks for middle initial only. Therefore, I suspect, the lists are compiled from what they get from DS which generally lists the full middle name on the CLNs.
Eric, thank you for your usual fine analysis of the list. It remains an exercise in the Phony Precision of U.S. Government Bureaucracy. As I mentioned today on another thread, the current list contains a duplicate entry, as previous lists have often included. There is no way to tell whether the duplication is a mistake or really represents two people. And of course many names of renunciants and relinquishers, my own included, never appear on the list at all.
I wonder how many full-time-equivalent staff positions are required to maintain and publish the list. Maybe that is one of the cost factors that went into the increase of the fee for renunciation from US$450 to US$2350 — itself an absurd example of Phony Precision.
Then there is the strange, unexplained fact that although this very flawed quarterly FR list continues to be published, the number of CLNs that the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Services actually issues is still a closely guarded state secret, as if revealing that figure would somehow endanger National Security.
I could go on and on …
So basically, when it comes to publishing the names of green card holders …
The IRS lawyers have looked at the law,
And they say that it says what it clearly does not.
Their legal gymnastics have one little flaw,
They don’t do what they say the law says that they ought.
Though their claims of compliance may stick in your craw,
It’s true! They don’t do what it says they must not.
…
But they claim that they do, which is nothing but rot.
(Now if only I could come up with a seventh line that scans properly and rhymes with “law”!)
@Michael Putman: thanks, updated. Congrats on getting the CLN (and sorry I misspelled your name last time).
@T: good point. I wonder if that also account for the mix of capitalisation (some entries in all upper case, others in proper name case) which AnonAnon first noticed over in the other thread. My guess is that State might finally be providing true PDF CLNs (instead of scans) to the IRS; probably most FSOs type in all caps while a few use normal capitalisation, and the IRS just imported that data directly into whatever system they use to hack together the list.
@ Eric
I’ll try that 7th line (with slight modification of the 8th) …
It appears that their logic is made out of straw.
Yet they claim that they know, which is nothing but rot.
I`m not on the list and have had my CLN for years now.
Well, gang I am still not on the list!! My relinquishment was back dated to 2012 when I became a Canadian. This list is seriously not up to date at all. It seems they just play foot loose with this list.
This list is about as accurate as the USG’s economic data these days. It’s apparent they have under reported and trying to limit criticism.
Even if this is true, the figures will increase again once the banks continue sending out FATCA letters. If the IRS get aggressive, another spike is all but a give in.
IBS fascinating list xreffed with media articles. I firmly believe Fed Reg list was intended as punishment = Bubblebustin… Jul 30, 2015 at 1:12 pm … gone from intending to embarrass to being embarrassed….you can almost feel sorry 4 State …antiquated multiple DBs held together with sellotape, scrambling to recover from the fiasco of consular records going off line in last year— (I remember reading about 50,000 visa printing backlogin Beijing?), crippled by fear of the OPM data hack early June2015, weighed down by funding cuts… all they are trying to do is enforce the law when law is c***…my lawyers sed… -they join thinking they are going to negotiate cool treaties but their work is inc admin of renunciation and relinquishemnt. not good, not happy.i hav sympathy for consular officers
My name’s not on the” Honour Roll” yet either. I renounced in December 2014. CLN is dated end of January, 2015 and didn’t arrive until several months later.
Maybe we should start a new tradition and send flowers to those who make the list? My sense of humor really has a post FATCA dark side now.
See how the WSJ blog characterizes this latest list
http://blogs.wsj.com/expat/2015/07/30/u-s-citizenship-renunciations-fall-in-second-quarter-surprise/
‘U.S. Citizenship Renunciations Fall in Second-Quarter Surprise’
Open for comments. Would be great to somehow point readers to this amazing post (thank you as always @Eric!).
I love it that the WSJ characterizes the shorter list for Q2 2015 as a “surprising trend”. I hope their financial trend analysis is better than their interpretation of the Federal Register list!
The USG is lying about the expatriation body count. Should anything different be expected from the Obama administration?
Just look at the delays in expatriation appointments, the numbers provided by the FBI, the stonewalling of FOIA requests. All are indications of systematic manipulation.
A congressional inquiry should be initiated.
Well, the list meant to shame those who show up on it, took a turn and shamed those who once loved this idea. So of course they cannot be seen to have egg upon the home land face. Fudged lists was the answer.
FWIW in figuring out how the Name and Shame list was compiled;
I was on a previous list, but I was a relinquisher, and my name appeared even BEFORE the 8854 was submitted or due. I could not possibly have been a ‘covered’ expatriate.
Thus, I was Named and Shamed despite owing the US nothing, having too small assets to be a ‘covered’ expat, and doing the expensive and death-defying compliance dance and the 8854 as demanded.
Most recently Prof. Amanda Von Koppenfels notes the growing disenchantment with treatment by the US;
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/americans-abroad-disillusioned-diaspora . Strangely, she doesn’t note that the disenchantment is expressed not only via renunciations, but also in concrete legal challenges to FATCA outside the US – via the ADCS lawsuit started in Canada, as well as the other fronts – as described by Victoria http://thefranco-americanflophouse.blogspot.ca/2015/07/whats-on-anti-fatca-menu-today.html and by Deckhard1138 http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/07/27/goat-rodeo-roundup/ .
I question why media and researcher discussion of expat reactions and pushback do not also mention the very real and concrete efforts to seek legal redress. Renunciation, going underground, refusal to register dual born children, etc. are only a few of the ways that pushback is being manifested. We have moved far beyond mutterings of discontent.
@Badger I suspect Amanda didn’t mention these things because this an article for MPI and the focus is on migration/diaspora. MPI is based in Europe which may also have something to do with it. It’s not that easy either to get articles about developed country migrants published – when people think “migration policy” they think immigrants, sans papiers, refugees and those highly-qualified migrants from India. Those court cases are happening “over there” which might as well be Siberia for some folks in the EU. 🙂 All speculation on my part however.
What still infuriates me is how the media takes this damn list as gospel truth. I haven’t seen one article in any major newspaper or magazine, or even one serious investigative journalist, willing to take some time to look further at this list. It’s like a collective “we don’t really want to know” what this is all about. The number is good enough and makes for a flashy headline and that’s good enough for us.
Which goes back to what Amanda says about Americans thinking of their country as one of immigration and not emigration. I think she’s right and for that reason Americans in the US don’t want to know more about those who leave.