Closely following on the heels of their previous announcement that the $2,350 fee for renunciation — twenty times as high as in other developed countries — “protects” the human right to change nationality, the folks at the State Department have announced that they’ll be extending that “protection” to people who relinquished U.S. citizenship under 8 USC § 1481(a)(1) through (4) and seek to obtain Certificates of Loss of Nationality documenting that fact as well.
In the latest Schedule of Fees for Consular Services to be published in the Federal Register on Tuesday (80 FR 53704, 53707), Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy or one of his ghostwriter minions proclaims:
Currently, nationals who renounce nationality pay a fee of $2,350, while nationals who apply for documentation of relinquishment of nationality by the voluntary commission of an expatriating act with the intention to lose nationality, do not pay a fee. However the services performed in both situations are similar, requiring close and detailed case-by-case review of the factors involved in a request for a Certificate of Loss of Nationality, and both result in similar costs to the Department.
In the past, individuals seldom requested Certificates of Loss of Nationality from the Department to document relinquishment. Although the Department was aware that an individual relinquishment service was among the most time consuming of consular services, it was rarely performed so the overall cost to the Department was low and the Department did not establish a fee. Requests for a Certificate of Loss of Nationality on the basis of a non-renunciatory relinquishment have increased significantly in recent years, and the Department expects the number to grow in the future, causing the total cost of this service to increase. At the same time, the Department funds consular services completely from user fees. The Cost of Service Model continues to demonstrate that such costs are incurred by the Department when accepting, processing, and adjudicating relinquishment of nationality cases; therefore, the Department will collect a fee from all individuals seeking a Certificate of Loss of Nationality. Taking into account the costs of both renunciation and non-renunciation relinquishment processes, the fee will be $2,350.
If you do not need a CLN in the first place, nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act requires you to obtain one to document your loss of US citizenship, and people who relinquished before 4 June 2004 did not have to report their relinquishment to the State Department in order to end their status as U.S. tax subjects either. However, FATCA regulations and IGAs require people with U.S. indicia to show their banks a CLN or provide a “reasonable explanation” of why they do not have U.S. citizenship.
See this earlier post for discussion of what banks might accept as a “reasonable explanation”, and let us know if you find a bank which will accept the absurd price-tag as an explanation of why you don’t have a CLN.
Well, we’ve discussed the possibility of this happening before, so not terribly surprised, sad to say.
Folks, whilst this angers me it is actually good news and to be honest was hoping for this to happen.
They have now jumped the shark.
I hope the fee now goes higher and higher and higher.
I am a relinquisher but do not have a CLN, though my file is well documented. A CLN was not required/is not required and when I relinquished did not know about it until after the fact and thought of it as requiring too much bother to get and besides I was DONE with the the USA.
I feel greatly empowered now going to any FI without a CLN. I had been troubled before because an employee could have easily said with a straight face go and get a CLN, we want it and its free.
Now I can tell them for me to get a CLN is going to cost $2,350.
The fee for a relinquishment CLN makes the reasonable explanation why you do not have a CLN extremely plausible.
Another benefit? Traveling to the USA. I am pretty confident the USA will not issue a US Passport to someone who states on the application that they committed a relinquishing act with the intention to relinquish there USC having performed X.
Riddle me this? I have an expired US Passport. What will State do if I apply overseas to renew it and in that part of the application with relinquishing acts I state what I did and that I did it voluntarily and with the intent to relinquish.
State will have no choice but to issue a denial letter which should be as good as a CLN or they will issue a US Passport to a person who says they relinquished!!! They will be in their own catch 22.
To be honest, this is the best news in fighting the IGAs!!!!
Now we need to get a letter from State stating that a CLN is optional and not required which is why the fee does NOT conflict with the Expatriation Act 1868. I have stated for a long long time on this very board that a fee for CLN relinquishing can only be in harmony with the Expatriation Act 1868 is if a CLN is not required under US Law. Now we have an opportunity to obtain such a statement which can be used to attack the IGA.
Rejoice in this great news……
Any comments??
@Eric; you should add a link to the Expatriation Act 1868 showing how this is in violation of law.
@Eric, “and people who relinquished before 4 June 2004 did not have to report their relinquishment to the State Department in order to end their status as U.S. tax subjects either. ”
This is another monkey wrench in their own gear box.
It is now possible that this required fee to get out of the tax system invalidates that US tax law!!!
@ADCS….folks will you notify who you hired for the first State Department complaint? Can you also get this information to Republicans Overseas and Bopp?
One more point……..travel to the USA for a relinquisher should now be easier……
When you arrive at the USA;
Your passport says Born in the U-S-A.
Yes, I relinquished and lost my USC.
Where is your CLN?
They cost $2,350 but besides if I apply for a US Passport they will deny it when I honestly state on the form I did ____________ .
——
The wrinkle is that the new game in town might be notifying State by applying for a US Passport, listing your relinquishment in order to be denied.
Not a surprising development. The US gov has no interest in improving its relations with its diaspora.
Figures in the notice of the fee changes and their justification for the increase:
Estimated annual number of applications (for 2015):
– Renunciations: 5,986
– Relinquishment: 559
Total estimated for 2015: 6,545
Well, either the relinquishment side is slowing way down or they’re way out in the figurework (which wouldn’t surprise me). Here at IBS we usually reckon 5/6 relinquishments for every renunciation. So I make that somewhere between 29,930 and 35,916 relinquishments – netting the State Dept/US government between $70,335,500 and $84,402,600!
@canoe,
Interesting numbers. One might wonder if the predicted number of relinquishments is so small, why bother adding the fee there?
I wonder if they hope this encourages more people to simply renounce than to relinquish. They say the work load is similar for them either way, but I have to imagine a renouncement is a lot less work for them to verify. Also less work for the renunciant/relinquisher, too, for that matter. Only difference is Reed Amendment, but that is widely considered a non-starter anyway. (And any renewed version will surely not leave the relinquishment “loophole” open.)
@George: regarding the passport thing, I’m trying to find out more details about how they process those “supplementary explanatory statements” if you committed a potentially-expatriating act. Most of the Foreign Affairs Manual chapters about passports (7 FAM 1320 to 1350) aren’t available online. The State Department issues a guide to post office employees and others who accept passport applications, but it’s not greatly informative; the most recent version I could find online (2002 version, courtesy of WikiLeaks) says only (Ch. 2, p. 12): “All persons asking about regaining their citizenship should be referred to the local INS office or the nearest Passport Agency”
@canoe & Medea Fleecestealer: based on the 1994 data from that JCT report I got 4 relinquishers per 5 renunciants. Last time I remember someone counted up the reports from the Consulate Report Directory it was more like 4 per 6.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/02/10/statistics-on-people-giving-up-u-s-citizenship-in-1994-and-early-1995/
In any case I agree with the main point: we all expected that relinquishment should have become more common recently — not less common like the State Department is trying to claim. On the other hand, it’s nice to seem State finally admitting what Andy Sundberg was told by a retired FSO three years ago: that they do maintain statistics on renunciation and relinquishment:
http://static.globalnews.ca/content/interactives/documents/general_news_bucket/130812_ly_citizenship.pdf
http://andysundberg.weebly.com/1/post/2012/08/more-on-the-state-department-foi-follies.html
@George – Couldn’t the IRS just extend the definition of a USP to include all those people who have relinquished, but have not received a CLN? They can almost define a USP as anything they want and the colonies have to comply.
FATCA was a trojan horse. Once implemented, the US can tinker with its definitions as it wishes and her colonies must comply or face the wrath as their banks collapse. It was at first, a small slice of your sovereignty, but once that was surrendered, the rest of your sovereignty will be delivered slice-by-slice. The moment to resist has passed the world. The Rhineland has passed into their hands and soon, Austria and then the Sudetenland.
Keep in mind that there’s no penalty for government agencies which publish BS lowball estimates in the Federal Register when they’re so far below the threshold of a “significant regulatory action”. Examples:
1. Last year USCIS claimed that only 9,371 people per year would file Form I-407, even though their own statistics which Shadow Raider got by FOIA showed an average of twice that many in recent years.
2. Also last year, the IRS tried to claim that only 20,000 people per year needed to file Form 8891
3. Two years ago the State Department cut their estimate of DS-4079 filers by 25%, in the middle of a recordbreaking year for renunciations & relinquishments.
George: I wish I could agree with your excellent reasoning above but I can’t really believe that any bank is going to give a rat’s behind if a CLN is going to cost someone $2350.00. If they want one and you don’t have one, well, that’s just going to be too bad in the eyes of the bank. As it stands, I find this latest development to be an utter outrage.
Thank you, Eric, for bringing this to our attention. Whenever we finally raise the attention of the UN they’ll be hearing from us on this matter as well.
FWIW, these are stats I’ve been keeping, divided into the 5 DoS Districts – definitely not a scientific survey, it’s just what gets reported on Brock
I’ve always wondered if relinquishment rates may be high in Canada because, throughout the years, many US-born people here felt comfortable with the idea of not having US citizenship, whereas in some countries of the world a US-born person might have found cultural differences greater and been more likely to continue to identify with the US and retain their US citizenship; also there’s probably some countries where instability might have encouraged a US-born to retain their US citizenship just-in-case.
But, as mentioned, our stats are a very small number of data (heavily from one country) and not scientifically collected — and my musings on it are just my 2 rmb.
**************
World:
94 renounce – 77 relinquish
**************
World without Canada:
36 renounce – 13 relinquish
Canada:
58 renounce – 64 relinquish
**************
Western Hemisphere
61 renounce – 66 relinquish
Europe
25 renounce – 1 relinquish
Middle East
3 renounce – 3 relinquish
East Asia and Pacific
5 renounce – 7 relinquish
Africa
no reports yet
I am not at all surprised by this and have been expecting it. For what it’s worth, for the last year, I have been hearing that this day was near …
I think it’s important to understand the true significance of this announcement.
On November 4, 2008, I was watching the election results with some “Americans Abroad” in a far off land. One of those in the group was a 12 year old. When CNN confirmed an Obama victory, the 12 year made the following comment/question:
Does this mean that he is going to turn us all into slaves?
Now, for the record, I want to make it clear that I do NOT view this as the direct result of Barack Obama. But, I do see this as the direct result of a government that does NOT in any way feel constrained by law or morality. See for example:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/03/22/when-law-becomes-a-substitute-for-morality/
The Government is (or has been) made up of members of the Democratic Party (Levin, Schumer, Casey, Reed, and other symbols of “freedom, liberty and justice”) The problem is this:
A government that does NOT regard itself as subject to constraints will always:
1. Turn it’s citizens into subjects; and
2. It’s subjects into slaves.
The Obama administration (for which Barack Obama is FULLY responsible) has converted U.S. citizenship into U.S. slavery. (Doubt this? Try to leave.)
It’s NOT just Americans abroad who are slaves. It’s ALL American citizens (most of who live in the Homeland). It’s just that we as Americans abroad can see what’s happening. The Homelanders can’t see it at all. They can’t see how the basic concept of human rights and freedoms has left the USA in the dust. They can’t see that it’s easy to get a better life outside the United States. They can’t see how utterly tyrannical and despotic the U.S. Government, under the “leadership” of Barack Obama has become. But, that’s their problem. Those who are enlightened will attempt to leave. Those who are not will simply stay.
So, what is the real significance of the $2350 fee to offer a CLN to “relinquishers”?
The answer is that that the United States is serving PUBLIC notice to the world and to those born in the United States are U.S. slaves.
In centuries gone by, slaves could by their freedom by paying fees. Today Americans can buy their freedom by paying the U.S. Government:
1. A $2350 fee
2. An “Exit Tax”
This doesn’t include the fees paid to the Condors to prepare the taxes.
So, what to do?
Americans abroad who ARE not tax compliant have two choices:
1. Bring the taxes up to date and renounce (a viable option if you can afford it).
2. Hide
Americans abroad who ARE tax compliant have ONLY one remaining option (unless they want to be slaves):
1. Renounce and pay for your freedom.
The role of FATCA
FATCA, is a vehicle to locate U.S. slaves and return them to the U.S. tax system – a tax system that is BASED on the IMMUTABLE CHARACTERISTIC of place of birth! Those born in the U.S.A. are stuck with this. As I wrote in a previous post,
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/08/26/condors-aka-formpeople-then-and-now-from-2011-to-2015/
Again, to be clear on the significance of this announcement …
This is a PUBLIC notice TO THE WORLD that U.S. citizenship is a form of Modern Day Slavery.
The U.S. is saying to the world:
Don’t harbour our property.
You return them to “U.S.” or we will sanction you. Oh, and by the way, check back next year to see who we define as our citizens (FATCA IGAs give the USA the sole right to determine who is a U.S. citizen) next year!
Somehow, this old Ronald Reagan speech comes to mind:
Expatriation Act of 1868:
“Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness … Therefore any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic.” 15 Stat. 223; R.S. § 1999; 8 U.S.C.A. 1481….”
Interesting that the expatriation act of 1868 was close in date to the time expats were turned into slaves with making them pay US taxes no matter where they lived in the world?
From elsewhere in the new Schedule of Fees for Consular Services:
Translation: this whole exercise is a cash grab; they don’t particularly care where they get the extra $$$ from, either from the Treasury general fund or out of emigrants’ pockets. They wasted a bunch of employee time and taxpayer funds doing studies and compiling statistics so they could figure out ways to expand their budget without appropriations. Which goes back to that Economist that andy05 & orwell both posted last week:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21662545-charging-public-services-sometimes-makes-sense-often-though-it-racket-itll-cost-you?frsc=dg%7Cc
@George
I agree with Muzzled- I don`t think the banks care whether somebody has 2350$ for a CLN or not- they will demand it anyway because they are afraid of 30% withholding. Everything will remain the same except relinquishers will have to pay now too.
@USCitizenabroad
The government is a representation of the american people and society. These are the majority of the people who voted Obama into office and these are the people who agree with the choices this government makes, otherwise there would be greater opposition. I have spoken with americans who want to own a gun at all costs too and they don`t consider anything wrong with that either, in spite of all the people dying. So it isn’t just the gun lobby which wants guns for everybody, and it isn’t just the government which wants total surveillance by the NSA, and it all just isn’t my mentality anymore. Which is why I am glad I have renounced.
@All
None of us is surprised, are we? We all also expect an increase to the 2350$ in the future as well. The thing is, the treasury is empty. These services should usually be paid by taxpayers money. Only there isn’t enough to cover consular services as well as everything else. So they need to get extra money elsewhere to pay for the work the consulates are doing. Nothing there is “free” anymore. Well, it never was “free” – taxpayers paid for it. But the coffers are empty. Next step: get a CLN for 5000$ and upward.
Regarding the possibility that relinquishments (vs. renunciations) are small in number or slowing down — no, State Dept. says the opposite, thus the need to raise the fee:
“In the past, individuals seldom requested Certificates of Loss of Nationality from the Department to document relinquishment. Although the Department was aware that an individual relinquishment service was among the most time consuming of consular services, it was rarely performed so the overall cost to the Department was low and the Department did not establish a fee. Requests for a Certificate of Loss of Nationality on the basis of a non-renunciatory relinquishment have increased significantly in recent years, and the Department expects the number to grow in the future, causing the total cost of this service to increase. At the same time, the Department funds consular services completely from user fees. The Cost of Service Model continues to demonstrate that such costs are incurred by the Department when accepting, processing, and adjudicating relinquishment of nationality cases; therefore, the Department will collect a fee from all individuals seeking a Certificate of Loss of Nationality. Taking into account the costs of both renunciation and non-renunciation relinquishment processes, the fee will be $2,350.”
@Polly
I do NOT believe that this government is representative of America and American society. In my experience, most Americans are good people. They do believe that laws should be based on certain moral assumptions. They do NOT believe that U.S. citizens should be slaves.
This is a total breakdown of American democracy. The problem is that there is nobody left to vote for. There are NO candidates that represent the people. America is a two party state which is one only party removed from a one party state. Furthermore, the parties are nothing but private clubs. The only way that Americans can get representation is to encourage independent candidates and independent voting. See for example:
independentvoting.org
What we are seeing is the behaviour of a rogue government. That’s what the Obama administration is. And make no mistake about it:
The things that are being inflicted on Americans abroad have MOSTLY originated with the Democrats and are 100% ENFORCED BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. I invite a single member of DA to attempt to refute this!
USCitizenAbroad said:”The problem is that there is nobody left to vote for.” Does anyone know if Bernie Sanders is aware of the enslavement of overseas Americans by FATCA, and if he is, what is his attitude towards supporting or repealing FATCA and CBT?
@Polly, “I don`t think the banks care whether somebody has 2350$ for a CLN or not- they will demand it anyway because they are afraid of 30% withholding.”
The IGAs all state CLN or reasonable explanation.
With a CLN relinquishment essentially being free it was difficult to explain why you did not get one. Now you have support for that explanation.
A Non CLN Relinquisher is on better footing today than they were yesterday.
This is now also ammunition in making a case against our respective home governments, whom is going to pay the fee?
So again I say, are we in a better position today or yesterday?
Oh, I hope the double the fee and then double it again!!!!
They are now violating their own laws Expatriation Act 1868 and various UN agreements.
@Eric you are pretty good at finding things and I hope you can figure out the passport thing.
But I believe the logic is there.
You apply for a passport and tell the truth, “I became a Canadian Citizen voluntarily with the intention of relinquishing my US Citizenship and have done nothing since to discredit that.”
You could add, “A border guard told me I had to apply for this travel document.”
Seriously what are they going to do? There are only two options;
1.) Deny the application to someone who is not a citizen and issue a letter of some sort.
2.) Issue a US Passport to someone who upfront stated they were not a US Citizen.
Trust me they will be spinning in their chairs as I doubt anyone has done this. I guarantee all applications to date have been people who said they did X but they did not try to relinquish please please I am a good USC.
@George
You make an interesting point This would be a “back door” way to get a “relinquishment appointment”. I invite somebody today (I don’t have time) to go to the State Department site (pick any consulate) and complete the passport renewal application form (it’s not an actual online application). See exactly what it says today. The application has varied over the years. Note that they are now working hard to get Social Security numbers. Some recent post here said that Toronto Consulate was now requiring Social Security numbers.
In any event, it’s obvious that there is no longer (if there every was) any way to comply with and tolerate these laws.
(Part of the problem is that I don’t think that the State Department is obligated to issue a CLN if they discover an expatriating act.