The Q1 2016 Quarterly Publication of Individuals, Who Have Chosen to Expatriate, as Required by Section 6039G has been placed on public inspection for printing in Thursday’s Federal Register, five days later than required by law. By my count, it has 1,159 names (41 names per full page and 27 full pages, plus 22 names on the first page and 30 on the last page, with no entries taking up two lines this time). Let me know if you get a different count. Correction: As Andrew Mitchel and Haydon Perryman both point out, the actual count is 1,158; there’s an entry on page 7 of the the pre-publication PDF which takes up two lines.
In contrast, the number of renunciant records held by the FBI in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database increased by 1,281 during the same period, from 32,666 at last year’s end to 33,947 as of 31 March (and they added another 860 in April). The NICS renunciant figures have outstripped the Federal Register count of “published expatriates” every year since 2012, with the gap last year growing to more than a thousand — even though NICS only covers 8 USC § 1481(a)(5) renunciants while the Federal Register is supposed to include all relinquishers under any paragraph of 8 USC § 1481(a), as well as some of the estimated five to seven thousand people who file Form I-407 to abandon their green cards each quarter.
All of the people added to NICS definitely paid the US$2,350 State Department fee — twenty times that in other developed countries — which has been in effect for renunciants since September 2014, meaning that Washington D.C. collected at least US$3 million from people seeking to exercise their human right to change their nationality last quarter. The State Department claimed this obscene fee “protects” the right to change nationality — well, that’s one mighty profitable protection racket they’ve got going on there! (And it could have been even more profitable if some consulates weren’t restricting renunciation appointments to an hour a week, leading to ten-month backlogs in Dublin and Toronto.)
Media reports on individual ex-citizens
Here’s a table of nineteen people mentioned by name in media reports as having given up U.S. citizenship since the beginning of 2014; seven of their names are missing from the Federal Register (three out of eleven from 2014 and four out of six from 2015), while for two more — the ones from this year — it’s too early to say whether they’ll show up or not. I’ve also included one person who posted his own CLN on Twitter and later showed up in the list (I haven’t included people who tweeted their own CLNs but didn’t show up in the list).
Names of public figures included in this quarter’s list: South Korean pop singer Alex Kim, who renounced nearly two years ago; and Jonathan Tepper, who said in a New York Times op-ed in December 2014 that his big appointment at the U.S. consulate was scheduled for early the following year. No public figure who spoke to the media about their renunciation in 2016 has yet been included, though this quarter’s list does have one name matching that of a Hong Kong government official who took office recently: Sandra Leung Shuk-bo.
| Name | Occupation | Other citizenship |
Giving up US citizenship | Appeared in Federal Register? |
Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reason | Date | |||||
| 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 | Q3 2015 | 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 | Singer | South Korea | Obtain South Korean citizenship & serve in military | August 2014 | Q1 2016 | 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 | Q3 2015 | 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 | Q1 2016 | The New York Times |
| David Alward | Politician | Canada | Become Canadian consul-general in Boston | April 2015 or earlier | Q3 2015 | Canadian Broadcasting Corporation |
| Alfred Oko Vanderpuije | Politician | Ghana | Stand for election to Parliament | August 2015 | No | Starr FM (Ghana) |
| Philip Ryu | Singer | South Korea | Serve in South Korean army | September 2015 or earlier | No | Money Today (South Korea) |
| Rachel Heller | Writer | Netherlands | FATCA & other U.S. tax reporting requirements even when no U.S. tax is owed | November 2015 | No | Blog (will be included in TV news programme at a later date) |
| Neil Llamanzares | Businessman | Philippines | Public opinion (his wife is running for President) | April 2015 | No | Rappler (Philippines) |
| Lee Chih-kung | Physicist | Taiwan | Appointed Minister of Economic Affairs by President-elect Tsai Ing-wen | May 2015 | No | Apple Daily (Taiwan) |
Congratulations to all those who made the expat honour roll this term!
@badger. I’ve no local knowledge, so if I get this wrong – my mistake. I’d be inclined to ask for Prof. Allison Christians help on that one. Prof. Christians knows every avenue of every argument on this.
@Haydon…let me step away from the philosophical side of things and since you are still hanging around, I have a technical question.
It has bothered me to no end that there is a wide path where some UK FI’s ask place of birth and others do not. There is no rhyme or reason as I have seen a lowly credit union demand place of birth and a very large billion plus assets FI not ask.
Form the UK guidance referenced by @IOTA; “Our interpretation of the DAC is that the provisions in Annex 1 E do not have the effect of placing a continuing requirement, after the repeal of the EUSD, to collect and report place of birth for new accounts, on those Financial Institutions currently required to do so by the EUSD.”
So if I am reading this correctly, there is no obligation of any FI in the UK to collect place of birth..yes?
And to the extent that place of birth is being asked, it is solely based on an internal FI policy for “security” per the UK guidance?
Part of my inquiry is that you may remember Lloyds was sued by some “Iranians” who had accounts closed and a Lloyds spokesperson came out and stated that they do NOT collect information relating to place of origin.
Thanks,
@George – the guidance I quoted from covers DAC/CRS. There is separate guidance for FATCA. The FATCA guidance says:
The DAC/CRS guidance document can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/461418/Guidance_Notes_for_the_Automatic_Exchange_of_Financial_Account_Information.pdf
The FATCA guidance document can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/461542/Guidance_Notes_for_the_UK-US_FATCA_Agreement.pdf
@Iota, the FATCA guidance does not state anywhere that the place of birth question is to be asked. Rather the issue is a matter of dancing if it comes up as part of ordinary KYC.
At some point….my mind did understand years ago that the EUSD had something to do with POB and for a brief moment in time it appearred to intersect FATCA.
But as you know here in the UK there are many FIs that ask the question and many that do not. I have also seen FIs that used to ask who no longer ask!
The bee in my bonnet is that Lloyds does not ask place of birth in their employment process because its illegal but they do ask to open an account.
@George What iota said.
@George
The problem is this part of the UK FATCA Guidance:
https://haydonperryman.com/gb/guidance/fatca/04-10/
and
https://haydonperryman.com/gb/guidance/fatca/04-11/
Whilst it doesn’t mention PoB – we are left interpreting silence.
It is a fascinating point you make George that plays to a point you’ve been making throughout this thread.
The de-facto assumption is that to determine US Citizenship a US PoB (or not) should be established and where there is US PoB it is very difficult to get any FI to see that person as anything other than a US person.
@George, @Hayman –
A FI would be entitled to ask for place of birth as part of the process of establishing identity under AML/KYC regulations, for a new inidividual account.
@George There is an interesting legal question here that I am not qualified to answer:
“Why does the US Government’s assertion that a US PoB means that a person is a US citizen trump a UK Citizen’s assertion that they are not a US Citizen simply because they were born there?”
it’s beyond my expertise but I think iota is right.
Though I still don’t know why the US has a divine right to apportion Citizenship to anyone born in the US wether they like it or not. Nor do I understand where the divine right to slap a unilateral USD 2350 charge on those who don’t want it, never asked for it and no want to be without it, comes from.
@George I am now persuaded that there is a legal question to answer. If I may, it is not about FATCA, it is about the unilateral imposition of US Citizenship based on nothing more than being born in the US.
This unilateral imposition leaves the US with a claim, for life, on your income, and, if you don’t like it you have to pay USD 2,350.
You have no right of appeal and even though you became a Citizen of another jurisdiction, you will always be a US Citizen in the eyes of the US and your native Country will accept without question that you are a US Citizen.
HP It’s down to American exceptionalism. They simply cannot comprehend that anyone, anyone, would wish otherwise. They also cannot believe that anyone of sound mind would voluntarily give it up and so must be dissuaded at all costs. Too bad nobody can afford to challenge this in court.
@Haydon, it is actually worse than place of birth citizenship it is also citizenship by parentage.
A child born anywhere to two US Citizens is automatically a US Citizen at birth.
A child born to one US Citizen is very often a US Citizen at birth.
As stated before, I know of a young person below 18, who as part of account opening presented a long form birth certificate that showed two US Born citizen parents. The young person got caught in a FATCA trap.
@Duke of Devon. Yes. It seems the argument is based on a offer you can’t refuse backed up by 22% of world GDP and 20 aircraft carriers.
If I may – so isn’t it a question of human rights with regard to determination of citizenship?
@Haydon, re;
“Though I still don’t know why the US has a divine right to apportion Citizenship to anyone born in the US wether they like it or not.”
Or born of some kinds of US parentage (with lots of variation as to marital status, year born, years living in the US, etc……)
And what of the ‘divine right’ to keep those legally incompetent US citizens bound forever – for life and beyond (via estate), and minors for almost 2 decades?
Those the US deems citizens via birthplace or parentage, and who are also deemed legally incompetent can NEVER renounce/relinquish no matter what. And their legal guardian/parent is not allowed to do so on their behalf. Thus, the FATCA burden will fall heaviest on those who are most vulnerable, and will NEVER be able to be free, and their family (perhaps all NON-US) on whom they are dependent.
How do the UK FIs treat cases in which the person CANNOT SELF-certify, because they themselves are not legally competent to do so? And if their legal guardian or parent is NOT a USP, then they (the guardian or parent) has NO obligation to obey the US.
@Haydon, “you will always be a US Citizen in the eyes of the US and your native Country will accept without question that you are a US Citizen.”
Eventually this is going to have to all end up in court.
In 1930, this problem was actually addressed with the “Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Law.”
The UK is a signatory but the Exceptional States of America did not sign. My guess is they did not sign in 1930 because they effectively did not recognize multiple nationality. But once the US Courts got involved in the 60s/70s/80s, they should have signed immediately to iron out nationality problems.
The Home Office has written on this very subject under the Master Nationality Rule.
As a process guy, work this out in your minds……using my kids with a place of birth in the USA and under 18 can not relinquish.
My kids have lived here their entire memorable life, they do not remember the USA. They have had a UK passport since birth before a US passport.
They returned home to the UK on a UK passport, they entered the UK on a UK Passport.
Under UK Law, you can be a British Citizen, a British Citizen category, a Commonwealth Citizen, a citizen of the EU, an Irish Citizen as equal in all regards to a British Citizen or you are an Alien.
Under UK law, what is the status of my children in the UK?
If they were recognized as US Citizens by HM Government they would be “entitled” to protection by the USA. They would also be illegal migrants as they do not have leave to remain as a US Citizen!
I actually posed this question to the Home Office through my MP and they confirmed that whilst in the UK they are recognized solely and absolutely as British Citizens.
Where will this all get settled??? My guess in a French court. I say that by their strong position on Polanski.
Link;
http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3b00.html
@badger Broadly speaking, if the customer doesn’t self certify the customer has a problem.
When the customer self certifies the bank has a problem.
@George. I think you are right.
My wife, born to English parents, was born in Spain. Back then my in-laws we offered either dual citizenship or simply UK citizenship.
My in-laws chose the later. Fair enough.
If Spain passed a law saying she had to file taxes in Spain because she was born in Spain and therefore Spanish, I would be, to say the least, incredulous. My children would presumably be Spanish as well.
@Haydon, “If Spain passed a law saying she had to file taxes in Spain because she was born in Spain and therefore Spanish, I would be, to say the least, incredulous..”
You now get it. 🙂
Me thinks that other countries need to pass “retaliatory CBT.”
By way of example, Greece and Ireland would start taxing Irish and Greek nationals in the USA because the USA taxes “US Persons” in Greece and Ireland. This would include Secretary of State John Kerry who I believe is Irish by descent.
@George. I do get it now, yes. This whole pack of cards is standing on a table supported by the unsolicited, unilateral, unquestioned and insidious imposition of US Citizenship. I think it would be simpler to address that head on and kick away the table.
Personally I can’t see how you would go about challenging America’s stance on US citizenship. U.S. courts would throw it out; no other court has any jurisdiction.
I do think it may be possible to challenge IGAs and/or bank practice, on specific points.
Perhaps legal action could obtain a court ruling that a bank can’t turn down a customer because they refuse to sign a US tax form; and can’t require a person with US place of birth to provide a CLN as well as self-certification.
All new customers have to certify tax residence now, and because of the psychotic American citizenship laws, a US place of birth is perhaps inevitably going to be accepted by UK courts as relevant to the question of tax residence. But if self-certification of tax residence(s) is sufficient for persons not born in the US, it ought to be sufficient for persons born in the US also. There should be no need to supply a CLN as well. That must surely be discrimination, particularly in view of the fact that (as I understand it) a person who relinquished before the Great Witch Hunt began might never have asked for a CLN, and shouldn’t now be required to pay $2350 to get one, in order to be able to open a bank account.
@Haydon Perryman
I suspect that the problems is that the big court cases over the past century have been brought up by people who were denied U.S. citizenship. Their victories have meant that U.S. citizenship is no longer the indication of a strong tie to the U.S. that it once was. When citizenship-based taxation was originally brought in, native-born U.S. women could lose it temporarily through marriages to foreign husbands, even if they never left the U.S.! Naturalised citizens living abroad had all sorts of hoops to go through on a routine basis if they wanted to retain their citizenship. Anyone could lose their U.S. citizenship fairly easy until the 1980s through various expatriating acts, such as voting in a foreign election. In the past accidental citizenship didn’t matter so much because most people would have done something, again by accident, that would lose them their U.S. citizenship by the time they were 25 or 30. And until CBT was enforced, the doling out of citizenship probably seemed like an alloyed good: the right to have rights. I don’t think that the courts really considered that they were also doling out the responsibility to fulfill responsibilities.
I don’t think the issue is what the US thinks, it’s about what native countries will allow.
I might pass a law in my country saying I own your house in your country. I daresay your country would not apply my law.
In the same way the US may have self aggrandising views about Citizenship but local countries can choose to honour their Citizens, as their Citizens.
@ Haydon
@George. I think you are right.
My wife, born to English parents, was born in Spain. Back then my in-laws we offered either dual citizenship or simply UK citizenship.
My in-laws chose the later. Fair enough.
If Spain passed a law saying she had to file taxes in Spain because she was born in Spain and therefore Spanish, I would be, to say the least, incredulous. My children would presumably be Spanish as well.
@George. I do get it now, yes. This whole pack of cards is standing on a table supported by the unsolicited, unilateral, unquestioned and insidious imposition of US Citizenship. I think it would be simpler to address that head on and kick away the table.
+++++++
Welcome to our world Haydon. Glad to have you aboard. See, this really is a great forum where alliances can be made through fair open discussions. Thank you for your participation. I enjoyed reading your blog today, even if I have not been following all the UK’s regs. Enjoyed reading Iota’s informative comments as well.
I am sorry things are so complicated in the U.K. Actually, in most of Europe and other countries. In some ways we are fortunate here in Canada but our law suit and our fight is very important and ongoing. As a border country, statistically we have the highest number of affected/tainted people so I am glad you see our issues.
Thank you George. May there be a day when we can shake hands. You are my kind of guy.
I don’t think the UK has any objection to helping the US implement FATCA. On the contrary – they took one look and set about creating CDOT, a.k.a. mini-FATCA. Now superseded by DAC/CRS.