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!
Well at least one Professor disagrees. I’d happily help for free. Give me a call next week if that works for you.
@Haydon….something to think about and not reply to.
In the USA there is something called Selective Service, which is another name for registering for the military draft.
US Embassy websites remind all US Citizens including duals that young men age 18-25 must register under law. That make special mention of duals. The penalty for not registering is five years and $250,000.
In the USA most young men are automatically registered for the draft when they get a drivers license.
As you know, in the UK when you get a drivers license DVLA asks for place of birth and you need to provide passport information so they can check identity with UK Passport Agency.
Would you support our UK Government handing over drivers license information…of all young men aged 18-25 who have a place of birth in the USA, even though they self identify as British Citizens for the purpose of registering said British Citizens for the military draft in the United States?
I think you would find that utterly repugnant.
Haydon Perryman,
Thanks for commenting here at Brock once again. You take us a little further out of our realm with your discussions here.
Just want to make the point, as a reminder as I think you are aware of it, that for some that *US taint* is not temporary — those like my Canadian-born and raised son (many other sons and daughters of US Citizens Abroad) who was never registered as a US citizen, never lived a day in the US nor had any benefit from the US. Makes no difference — the US says that a person without requisite mental capacity who would not understand the concept of citizenship and must make any decision for expatriation without the influence of any other person. A parent, a guardian or a trustee cannot act on such a person’s behalf, even with a court order. Absurd entrapment when there are the ongoing consequences of complex and costly US tax and reporting compliance for such persons with US citizenship-based taxation. Oh, and they, too, must also register for the US Selective Service — with the help of parents or guardians (but cannot renounce with that same type of assistance). The Canadian Minister of Revenue just sent me correspondence saying,
If you are a *US citizen who happens to abide in Canada* (the Canadian definition which seems to exclude us from the Prime Minister’s statement that *A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian*), you don’t have the rights of those who are true Canadians. So many of us feel we are spinning our wheels in any continued communication with our Canadian government (or the US government) which we’ve attempted for years now. The Canadian litigation seems to me our only hope.
Sanity would be the almighty US moving to residence-based taxation or, if they must be exceptional from all other countries of the world that tax by residence, at least saying that there is an OPT-IN to US citizenship if facts permit, never an OPT-OUT that would entrap any kind of *Accidental American*, mentally-abled or not.
@calgary411 Yes, I take your point.
My hypothesis is that much of this will get reversed. I say that because CRS is a few years behind FATCA but nonetheless tackles 100 jurisdictions – which would leave citizens of an additional 100 jurisdictions suffering the same “taint”.
I don’t believe that can stand. CRS is basically FATCA without withholding and is multilateral rather than unilateral.
For this reason I don’t believe the “taint” can be permanent.
Bear in mind that the 100 jurisdictions that signed up represent most of the worlds GDP. Together they represent more than the US’s 22% of world GDP.
I don’t believe the status quo can last the test of time but I suppose that is easy for me to say.
In the long run countries will reverse parts of regulations that amount to racism.
It may take time though. On May 9th all the Mossack Vonseca data will be released and there will be outrage. Also there is an anti corruption summit on May 12th.
So, in the short term I expect the situation to get worse but in the longer term I expect humanity to prevail over racism.
Maybe I’m hopelessly naive.
@Haydon, apologies, but I don’t understand why you say that things will even out with CRS implementation; “..CRS is a few years behind FATCA but nonetheless tackles 100 jurisdictions – which would leave citizens of an additional 100 jurisdictions suffering the same “taint”. ….”
How would that be equivalent taint, and equivalent in terms of permanency and impact? The CRS and FATCA differ on the basis of determining tax residency don’t they? I thought that the CRS did not seek our or recognize citizenship as indicia of tax residency, but instead looked for actual residence based indicia in order to determine who is a tax resident of what country.
One’s country of residence is something which can be changed. But birthplace or parentage are immutable, and those being entrapped by the US forever based on the immutable fact of US birthplace or sufficient US parentage, and also subject to US laws that will never allow for those who are deemed legally incompetent to renounce US citizenship EVER, is a permanent state.
I don’t see how the implementation of the OECD CRS will have a lessening impact on the US laws governing who is deemed to be a US taxablecitizen and who continues to be forbidden to renounce, and therefore, on how those deemed to be legally incompetent are bound and doomed to be unwilling US taxablecitizens forever and ever.
And as for the comment by George as to the very real barrier to employment in fields such as accounting or law (handling non-personal workplace accounts deemed ‘foreign’ and ‘offshore’ by US definitions) due to being id’d as a US citizen (based on birthplace) and FBAR/FATCA enforced outside the US, I don’t see how you can dismiss that issue. For more examples, see;
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/10/25/how-the-fatca-iga-has-made-u-s-citizenship-a-disability-in-canada-and-highlighted-the-issue-of-law-firm-trust-accounts/
Even outside of accounting and law, there are many many employment or voluntary roles in which a person must hold co-signatory powers on non-personal accounts as part of their duties.
In the distant past, I myself worked and volunteered for years in a community sector in which I held co-signatory powers over the agency account/s (though very rarely ever used) as a volunteer Board member, and as a staffperson. At that time, I had no idea about FBARs, and how those co-signatory powers and roles would in the law of the US transform those Canadian community agency’s legal local Canadian sited and Canadian owned accounts into FBAR reportable ‘foreign accounts’ simply because I myself was born in the US – though I left there when I was a toddler and Canada has been my home for over a half century.
I am 100% certain that I would not have been allowed to keep my job and roles if I had known about the FBAR and had informed my Canadian employer and fellow Board members of FINCEN’s demands for their agency account information merely because my mother’s birthing bed was located in the US when she had me. And having worked with more than one other US born person at the same employer – I am certain that they also did not know about FBAR requirements and would not have had permission from our Canadian employer and voluntary agency to report those non-personal accounts.
We have had at least one reader here in a bind employment wise because of non-personal co-signatory powers. And that same bind has been alluded to in the media; ex.
http://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/taxes/uncle-sams-corner-max-reed-fbar
In what way will the implementation of the CRS make that special US created burden disappear?
@Haydon
The Canadian Revenue Minister has said (allow me to paraphrase) that the FATCA has more to do with information sharing than tax collection. Maybe we should open a Ministry of Funny Words in Canada because that sure is laughable.
So because Canadian banks don’t tell people that their info has been sent to the IRS through the CRA, the first thing a Canadian hears about his/her US tax filing obligations is when the IRS contacts them? From my understanding, if the IRS contacts you first, that’s when you can say ta-ta to any hope of entering any amnesty program, no?
@Haydon, “My hypothesis is that much of this will get reversed. I say that because CRS is a few years behind FATCA but nonetheless tackles 100 jurisdictions – which would leave citizens of an additional 100 jurisdictions suffering the same “taint”. ”
Thats a fascinating hypothesis, had not thought of it.
Death by a thousand cuts and CRS is one of those cuts.
Cheers,
@Badger, I have seen what you describe in the community/voluntary sector happen.
1.) Bank FATCAs member of organization volunteer.
2.) Tainted volunteer definitely now has reporting obligation to USA.
3.) Cost to report because of paper work is a large percentage of small organizations income.
4.) Organization volunteer has one choice and that is to leave.
What if one of this groups members was tainted?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/bank-accounts/11571643/Church-bell-ringers-in-Kent-told-to-fill-out-US-tax-form-to-open-bank-account.html
The call by Stephen for ADCS witnesses in the characteristics that he is seeking for Arvey, drive home the point how insidious the FATCA IGA actually is with respect to discrimination amongst Canadian Citizens in Canada. A Canadian is NOT a Canadian, NOT a Canadian.
@Badger……IF civil partnerships is NOT equivalent to marriage for same sex partners THEN every FATCA IGA is CLEARLY discriminatory in its treatment of Countries Citizens within said Countries borders.
From Citizens Advice (UK);
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/discrimination/what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/indirect-discrimination/
@badger and @george
There are so many points here.
In this comment I’m talking only about the “US Taint” that George alluded to and, even then, I am narrowing this comment to a “restraint of trade” as potentially applying to a UK trained Lawyer with a US PoB.
It’s been some 29 years since I started working on regs – I started very young!
My experience has been that over time where regs have unintended consequences, they get revised. (A long process that takes years.)
No legislative body ever intended to impose a restraint of trade on any American born person wanting to practice Law.
Further as the CRS creates the same issue (precisely the same issue not withstanding citizenship and, or residency – and do bare in mind an individual can have several tax residencies at a time) this injustice cannot stand the test of time when it applies to the US alone, let alone a further 100 jurisdictions.
The UK has laws of its own, this includes laws concerning restraints of trade. So this will all get addressed before George’s son Graduates from Law School.
@badger Whilst the CRS is on the basis of tax residency, individuals and entities often have several “tax residencies” at the same time.
I have seen individuals hold as many as 5 tax jurisdictions all at the same time.
So, if a person is reportable in 5 jurisdictions, taking Georges point, they would have the restraint of trade applied to them in 5 jurisdiction.
Such a perversion can not stand the test of time.
@Bubblebustin Yes – that is spot on.
@Badger, let me give you and others how “corrosive” the FATCA IGA is with regards to general public policy.
Citizens Advice UK provides general guidance for the people in the UK. They provide examples of discrimination that would be considered unlawful in the UK;
___
Example
A health club only accepts customers who are on the electoral register. This applies to all customers in the same way. But Gypsies and Travellers are less likely to be on the electoral register and therefore they’ll find it more difficult to join.
This could be indirect discrimination against Gypsies and Travellers because of the protected characteristic of race. The rule seems fair, but it has a worse effect on this particular group of people.
Example
There’s a clause in your contract which says you may have to travel around the UK at short notice. It’s difficult for you to do this because you’re a woman with young children. This clause therefore places you at a particular disadvantage. It also places women generally at a disadvantage, as they’re more likely to be the carers of children.
You could challenge the clause because it affects you personally, even if you’ve not been asked to travel at short notice yet.
Example
Your optician has a rule which allows payment for glasses by instalments for those in work. This rule applies to all their customers regardless of their protected characteristics. This is the pool for comparison. You’re not working because you’re a pensioner and so are not allowed to pay by instalments. The rule therefore places you at a disadvantage. It also disadvantages other pensioners who want to buy glasses by instalments.
Being a pensioner falls under the protected characteristic of age. This could be indirect discrimination, as one group of people who share the protected characteristic of age are particularly disadantaged compared to another group.
____
FATCA IGA makes me say BULL SHIT on all the above.
We either live in a society where all forms of discrimination are wrong OR go ahead and discriminate whatever floats your boat.
My Government had the gaul, the unappauled gaul to say civil partnerships was not equal to marriage yet at the same time and based on the above create the FATCA IGA and throw my fellow neighbors who are British Citizens under the bus.
There is no way you can say that the FATCA IGA is not discriminatory based on the very examples above yet my Government threw its fellow citizens under the bus.
I do look forward to the day when the actions of my government are used against them in Court of Law to uphold other forms of discrimination, whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
And remember, my government had the further gaul to BAN British Citizens with place of birth taint and US Citizen taint by parentage from opeing up “Savings Bonds” with an agency of HM Government;
From the NS&I terms and conditions;
22. General limitations Bonds cannot be purchased by:
(a) a person who is either a US citizen and/or a US resident for tax purposes;
(b) a person who is an undischarged bankrupt;
(c) a person who is 16 years of age or older and operates under a legal disability; or
(d) one person on behalf of another, unless the application
is made in accordance with paragraphs 16(b), 17 and 19.
So guess what? In the post FATCA IGA era as far as I am concerned, as far as my family is concerned, and as far as many former pats/ex pats are concerned…what is good for the goose is good for the gander, discrimination is OK. The precedent is cast………
In Canada, Justin Trudeau is defending open discrimination, he is a racist. If HE succeeds in Court, you should wipe your ass with the so called Charter because that is all it is worth.
@George Do bear in mind that the Inter Governmental Agreement is not a legal instrument.
The legal instrument which transitions the Inter Governmental Agreement into law, in no way, directly or indirectly, says or implies that racism is OK.
It also doesn’t give permission to any FI to deny accounts to Americans simply because they are Americans.
The way you explain the UK and contrast the way the Inter Governmental Agreement is being applied is *exactly* why I think parts of the regulation will have to be re-written.
Either the regs will be revised or the FIs who have misapplied them will be brought into line.
British law isn’t going to morph into a horrific xenophobic monster just to accommodate a few banks who chose to exclude Americans because they are Americans.
I accept that at present some would say that is what has happened. I wouldn’t agree but if it were so, parts of any regulation that have racist consequences, once exposed as such, will be repealed.
As for NS&I presumably, following the same logic, their T&Cs will have to ammended to exclude the 100 CRS jurisdictions.
There is a problem there – that would include the UK.
CRS, is way bigger than FATCA because it includes 100 nations and will expose all the problems with how many FI have chosen to implement their interpretation of the regulations.
@Badger, the utter hypocrisy from my government.
https://www.gov.uk/employer-preventing-discrimination/recruitment
https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/types-of-discrimination
“Questions you can’t ask when recruiting
You must not ask candidates about protected characteristics and:
their health
if they’re married, single or in a civil partnership
if they have children or plan to have children
1. Types of discrimination (‘protected characteristics’)
It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:
age
being or becoming a transsexual person
being married or in a civil partnership
being pregnant or having a child
disability
race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
sex
sexual orientation
These are called ‘protected characteristics’.”
________
Soooo, its ILLEGAL for Lloyds Bank to ask a job candidate their place of birth because that would be discriminatory, BUT its OK to ask place of birth before they open an account at Lloyds to deposit their pay packet!!
The hypocrisy is stunning and indefensible.
@George The CRS also asks for PoB. I agree with your points. I’m saying the CRS is your friend because it will put all these issues onto the world stage.
@Haydon, again I/we really appreciate that you do comment at IBS and lurk around. I hope you like my hypocrisy example with Lloyds Bank. 🙂
If I can do one thing and make one impact on you, its based on your often and general comments along the line “exclude Americans because they are Americans.”
They are not excluding “Americans” they are excluding fellow British Citizens. They are as British as you and me, in fact its technically impossible for said persons to be “American” in the UK because they are living in the UK based on their status as UK passport holding British Citizens.
Is Boris Johnson an “American?” The minute you call him or anyone else “American” you are doing something (which I know you are not) and its very dark and cold racism.
The new Mayor of London, son of Pakastani immigrants is very likely also a Pakistan Citizen based on the law of Pakistan. Do you look at him as a Pakastani or as a fellow British Citizen?
There are Americans getting caught up in this but they are USA Passport carrying persons who are admitted to this country based on Limited Leave to Remain or Indefinite Leave to Remain. That is an entirely different category.
To be honest with FATCA here in the UK, it is easier for everyone involved to set up apparatus that goes after those “Americans.” After all they are “Americans” and “not British.”
In the recorded hearings in Canada, the then Government went to great length NOT to refer to these individuals as fellow Canadians rather they were “Americans abiding in Canada.” Yes thats an exact quote, sadly.
I have a friend who is a compliance officer with a major FI. She is from Kenya and eventually became a British Citizen. When she took the Oath I told her that she was no longer my friend from Kenya but she was now my British sister equal in ALL regards to me and my family that is British going back to the beginning of all our history. As a new British Citizen she was instantly equal to me and my family, British for generations upon generations.
It is demeaning when a British Citizen is referred to as being something other than British when they are here on these shores. And I hate to say this, but I honestly think it makes it easier to discriminate against said individuals when you refer to them as anything other than British. And yes, we (me included) fall into the trap and not realize it.
@George Lets focus on what works. Whilst I agree about “American Americans” I don’t think that we can win that one – even though you are right. So for the record, I agree, but I don’t think we will win that one.
The CRS will turn over lots of rocks, that will help.
What we can all do is expose that the US hasn’t signed up to the CRS. Once America is brought into the fold I think they will smell FATCA and realise that it’s fragrance isn’t that of roses.
“No legislative body ever intended to impose a restraint of trade on any American born person wanting to practice Law.”
Yes they did. They intended to impose a restraint of trade on any American born person wanting to eat, sleep, or pracitce any profession at all, in any location outside of US borders. Furthermore they intended to impose such a restraint on any foreign born person outside of US borders if they had parent(s) who had immigrated after living too long in the US.
==
Meanwhile, the CRS affects people who might have 5 tax residencies, if those people are actually resident of those 5 jurisdictions. Well, if a person really was resident of those 5 jurisdictions, they already had 5 tax jurisdictions to deal with. CRS doesn’t add US&Eritrean taxation to people who aren’t US&Eritrean residents.
@Norman Diamond. If you can tell me what part of Title V if the Hire Act aka FATCA does as you suggest I will try to respond.
The honest truth is that via FATCA, the USA has willfully & deliberately become an extorting bully, aka, “the mob”. All of the “civil discussions” in the world won’t change that fact. The US is sniffing for $$$ & is causing, through it’s extortion of the world (only possible due to the good-faith vested in them at Bretton
Woods- and with which faith/power they are now brutalizing other nations) complete chaos & a ravaging disregard of it’s overseas citizens. As an added bonus, they also move forward with their undermining of each other world nation’s autonomy. This is USA as NPD sociopath via “lawfare” of it’s own creation and for it’s SOLE benefit. The costs of the undermining of autonomy/sovereignty has craftily been passed along to each foreign nation. “Put your hand into the bear-trap and lose your arm or we will shove your head in”. We (USA) DEMAND your data & that you cede your power to us, or else.
The worst thing is that there are actual human beings (apologists) who will attempt to sooth & to support this treachery to those who recognize & resist it’s implications. How they manage to convince themselves “all’s-well” & “nothing to see here, move along, move along”, is beyond me. Although, there’s plenty of psychological evidence of the mental illness of those who side with their abuser…especially if they show them favor (do not apply the problem rules) to the apologist/supporter.
@Jane
The US has always done everything for its sole benefit not ever with an altruistic motive.
The ‘special relationship’ it claims to have with the UK is always one sided. “What’s good for us is good for you attitude” I hope the UK politicians see through this crap, the majority of its citizens sure do.
We can blog until the cows come home, but unless someone starts raising money for another lawsuit in another country, it’s all talk and no action. That’s how the British Government and others will see it and FATCA wins.
“In Canada, Justin Trudeau is defending open discrimination, he is a racist. If HE succeeds in Court, you should wipe your ass with the so called Charter because that is all it is worth.”
George; If you recount the court decision from Vancouver; the Charter isn’t even worth the paper it’s written on. At least with TP (not TPP) it has some value; you can wipe other things other than your ass provided the latter hasn’t been done with it first.
@Don
@ Don
Not sure that’s true.
Sometimes home-grown resistance does prevail.
The “poison-crust”, as Prof. Christians alluded to, must be advertised. The trouble with FATCA is it’s absolute LACK of advertisement as to what it means in “real-time”. To US indicia as well as each country’s dis-solving of it’s privacy laws for it’s citizens due to FATCA.
I think no one knows what’s happening. And I believe that the USA is pushing feudal system.