cross posted from Citizenship Solutions
Circa 2015:
US Passport application links Citizenship (State Dept) to Taxation (Treasury) to enforce "Taxation based Citizenship" https://t.co/UIINgzbpF2 via @ExpatriationLaw
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) October 2, 2018
The logical progression continues …
I just got off the phone with someone who has just received a letter from the IRS stating that:
1. He had a “seriously delinquent” tax debt; and
2. That notice of the “seriously delinquent” tax debt was being forwarded to the State Department.
(In 2016 I did a presentation on this topic just a few months after the law came into force. You may view the presentation here.)
It is clear that the letters from the IRS have started to go out. The purpose of this post is to explain in simple terms what this means for Americans abroad.
To put it simply:
1. If you have received the notice and you do NOT have a current U.S. passport then:
The State Department cannot issue you a passport.
2. If you have received the notice and you DO have a current U.S. passport then:
The State Department may revoke your passport but is not required to revoke your passport.
For most Americans abroad (who certainly have a valid U.S. passport unless they are dual citizens) receipt of the letter does NOT mean that they will lose their existing U.S. passport.
Like all aspects of living as a U.S. citizen abroad, this issue will be governed by both the IRS and by the State Department.
It began with Sec. 3201 of the FAST Act (which naturally is a revenue offset provision and one of the final gifts from the Obama administration) …
Like most of life as a U.S. citizen, it all starts with the IRS …
Internal Revenue Code Sec. 7345 provides the mechanism to certify the “seriously delinquent tax debt” and then forward notice of the debt to the State Department. The relevant language is:
If the Secretary receives certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that an individual has a seriously delinquent tax debt, the Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary of State for action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport pursuant to section 32101 of the FAST Act.
You can read how the IRS interprets this provision here:
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/revocation-or-denial-of-passport-in-case-of-certain-unpaid-taxes
Once the State Department receives the “certification” it will respond with “denial, revocation, or limitation” …
According to the State Department:
Passports and Seriously Delinquent Tax Debt If you have been certified to the Department of State by the Secretary of the Treasury as having a seriously delinquent tax debt, you cannot be issued a U.S. passport and your current U.S. passport may be revoked.
If you are overseas you may be eligible for a limited passport good for direct return to the United States.
We would suggest that if you have seriously delinquent tax debt, you contact the IRS to resolve your debt before applying for a passport. If you do not resolve your tax issues before applying for a passport, your application will be delayed or denied.
If you have seriously delinquent tax debt and have already applied for a new U.S. passport, we cannot issue a new passport to you until you have resolved your tax issues with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
For more information on seriously delinquent tax debt, see Revocation or Denial of Passport in Case of Certain Unpaid Taxes on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) website.
So, where in the legislation and regulations does all this come from?
Denial: Denial is mandatory when one applies for renewal or for a new passport.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/51.60
§ 51.60 Denial and restriction of passports.
(a) The Department may not issue a passport, except a passport for direct return to the United States, in any case in which the Department determines or is informed by competent authority that:(3) The applicant is certified by the Secretary of the Treasury as having a seriously delinquent tax debt as described in 26 U.S.C. 7345.
Revocation: Revocation is permitted but is not mandatory
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/51.62
§ 51.62 Revocation or limitation of passports.
(a) The Department may revoke or limit a passport when(1) The bearer of the passport may be denied a passport under 22 CFR 51.60 or 51.61; or 51.28; or any other provision contained in this part; or,
It is not clear when the State Department would revoke an existing passport. I am not sure what incentive the State Department has to revoke an existing passport (just because of a tax debt).
My thoughts on this …
1. The $50,000 “tax debt” includes interest and penalties. It’s easy for an American abroad to exceed this simply through “form transgressions”.
2. The people most threatened by this are those who do not have a second passport. Get yourself a second passport.
The days of living as a U.S. citizen outside the United States are clearly numbered.
Interested in learning about Substitute Tax Returns for non-filers? If this is not enough excitement, see …
Considering renouncing US citizenship? "Passport Revocation Update: Over 436,000 Taxpayers Meet "Certification" Criteria" https://t.co/LDoHw0iAAV via @VLJeker
— John Richardson – lawyer for "U.S. persons" abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) October 2, 2018
“The purpose of the passport is to suggest residence rights instead of residence permissions. In some countries it works that way; for example Canada’s Charter of Rights guarantees Canadian citizens the right to reside in Canada.”
Ok, there is missing information here. Do even Canadians need a passport to live in Canada? Does anyone with any passport have the right to reside in Canada?
“Japan issues travel documents to some people but the documents aren’t passports. These people, or their parents, or their grandparents, had had Japanese citizenship forced on them and then had Japanese citizenship stripped from them. Even if they’ve never set foot in Korea and don’t speak Korean, the Japanese travel documents designate them as Korean citizens. Japan can deny reentry to those people if they travel abroad.”
And Japan can can deport them if they do not carry their travel documents on them or their version of the “gaijin card”.
The statement about Canadian passports and the Charter makes little sense. Do not attempt to analyze.
“Rights do not expire.”
They do in the US. The 5th Amendment used to guarantee the right to not be deprived of life (Anwar al-Awlaki), liberty (Bobby Fischer), or property (me, and I’m not talking about the lawful amount of tax authorized by the 16th Amendment) without due process of law. The 1st Amendment used to guarantee freedom of religion. The 8th Amendment used to guarantee the absence of torture (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPqjCM6e5oM, http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/antonin-scalias-spirited-defense-torture).
“Can the UK withdraw citizenship as easily as it can a PR visa?”
That depends on race (Falkland Islands vs. Hong Kong).
=====
“Do even Canadians need a passport to live in Canada?”
No, that’s why I pointed out that someone else’s reference to a passport suggests residence rights but it’s not really the same thing. Citizenship provides residence rights in Canada but not in some countries. Non-citizen nationality (and British second-class citizenship) sometimes ease residence permissions but apparently not rights.
=====
‘And Japan can can deport them if they do not carry their travel documents on them or their version of the “gaijin card”.’
The travel documents that Japan provides to former Japanese and their descendants (of Korean ancestry) are for travel to other countries. They are not equivalent to either the former kind or present kind of gaijin card which somewhat relates to residence in Japan. When Japan blocked reentry of such a person, I think the person still had their travel documents regardless of what they were worth, but probably had their gaijin card confiscated.
“The statement about Canadian passports and the Charter makes little sense. Do not attempt to analyze.”
Someone colloquially used the word passport to mean citizenship, and someone else misinterpreted it. If the word citizenship had been used, the Charter makes sense. I have rights to enter, exit, and reside in Canada, but the Charter doesn’t give me a right to reside outside of Canada (i.e. Canada might be able to strip me of my citizenship or punish me in other ways).
@ND
A friend of mine is a Korean resident of Japan. He was born here. He is is just the last of several such persons who have told me that if he does not have his residence card on him and he is stopped by the police he can deported, just as I can if I am stopped without either my residence card or passport.
Not black and white I know, but what I am trying to get at is Plaxy’s repeated statement that having a PR visa somehow provides more proection against having one’s US passport revoked or renewal denied. It certainly doesn’t for USCs in Japan and I doubt it does many other places.
None of the cases you cite are cases of any right expiring. Each is a case of the US Gov. being allowed to violate rights.
But you are correct in that rights are lost if violations of them are allowed. I should have written that they can not legally be taken away except in the cases I cited.
“…what I am trying to
get at is Plaxy’s repeated statementclaim is that Plaxy said that having a PR visa somehow provides more proection against having one’s US passport revoked or renewal denied.”Nope. Plaxy never said it, and, quite obviously, it’s nonsense. US laws about US passports have absolutely nothing to do with any other country’s laws about residence.
@plaxy
Your words, “again. “I’d say any individual living in a country where he or she has neither PR status nor citizen status has good reason to be concerned about their future in that country”
How does that mean anything other than one who has a PR status or citizen staus has no good reason to be concerned about their future in that country?
You and you alone specifically leave persons with PR status or citizen status out of the those you say have good reason to be concerned about their future in that country.
I ask again, what is the difference between these two groups of people in regards to being concerned about their future in whatever country they live in if their US passport is revoked or not renewed?
“I’d say any individual living in a country where he or she has neither PR status nor citizen status has good reason to be concerned about their future in that country” … because an individual with neither PR status nor citizenship status may be at risk of deportation when their current visa expires.
Hmm. Just googled my name agian. First time in several weeks. This time, at the top of the list I found a site that had much of my info from my life in the States. Correct old addresses, parents’ and siblings’ names. Correct bith dates for same.
I also learned that I am now living in the States and that I am single. The line item “lawsuits and liens” bares a red flag.
In past searches I have learned that I have an arrest record, that I am an over the road truck driver, that I own my own big rig and home. Wonder how much I am collecting in various benefits.
Yep, no worries have I when time to renew my passport comes round. Wonder if mine is even valid. Wouldn’t be the first time I traveled with a state issued ID that someone else had renewed on my behalf, just being nice I guess, leaving with an invalid document.
Fun fun.
“what is the difference between [USCs living in a non-US country with PR status, and USCs living in a non-US country as citizens of that country] in regards to being concerned about their future in whatever country they live in if their US passport is revoked or not renewed?”
Depends on the laws of the residence country, obviously.
Yes, BUT, BUT, wait for it… I have a PR visa and I and all other USCs living in Japan on a PR visa are at grave risk of deportation when my passport expires. The visa is voided, if the passport expires and is not renewed or is revoked.
So, yet again, what is the difference? Both those with and without a PR visa are at risk of deportation if they have their application for passport renewal denied. There is NO difference between the two in this regard.
Them blanket statements’ll get ya everytime.
Still wondering if having a PR visa provides the same level of protections and specifically rights as a UK citizen enjoys.
Japan T:
Plaxy:
Japan T:
In that case, under the laws of your residence country, you would be at grave risk of deportation.
But a person who has neither PR status nor citizenship, is already at grave risk of deportation when the visa expires.
See the difference? Renewing their US passport won’t help them continue living in their residence country. Many USCs are living under those precarious conditions in the UK, where immigration is a hot button issue and settlement is expensive and lengthy, with very stringent conditions.
Japan T:
“[Does] a PR visa provide… the same level of protections and specifically rights as a UK citizen enjoys.”
UK PR status [Indefinite Leave to Remain] has conditions attached, including, I believe, a restriction as to how long you can live elsewhere while still keeping ILR. There may be other conditions. I lived for many years with ILR and never had occasion to find out whether there were any conditions attached at that time; but UK law and policy have changed dramatically since those days, so my experience is probably no longer relevant.
“But a person who has neither PR status nor citizenship, is already at grave risk of deportation when the visa expires.”
No more than a person who has a PR visa but loses it, regardless how they lose it. The loss of a US passport affects those with and without a PR visa the same. It is not a question of visa expiration. It is a question of losing whatever visa one may have due to the loss of the US passport.
Yes, the mere expiration of a non PR visa is troublesome but is just as relevant to the discussion if passport loss as the price of tea in China.
“See the difference? Renewing their US passport won’t help them continue living in their residence country. Many USCs are living under those precarious conditions in the UK, where immigration is a hot button issue and settlement is expensive and lengthy, with very stringent conditions.”
And the connection to the loss of their US passport is?
There’s another famous country too, where if you have legal permanent residence but you go abroad for more than a year without a reentry permit (which works differently from the way Japanese reentry permits used to work) then you lost the privilege to enter or reside in that country but they continued taxing you as a resident until you sent in a form to relinquish your invalid residence.
There’s another country too, usually less famous but relatively famous on this site, where if you have legal permanent residence but you go abroad too much you lose it. The time limit used to be six months but I’ve read that it’s more flexible now.
Loss of a non-permanent residence visa still happens a lot more “easily” (not easy for the person who loses it) than a permanent residence visa. For example in 2002 if an employer told the immigration department the same thing that he told the tax department, I would have been deported. In many countries people can lose their visas when they lose their jobs, even if it’s due to the employer’s bankruptcy or fraud.
@ND
Yep, all true but probably well known by most USC only folks living abroad. PR visa are not generally passed out like the tissue packs near certain train stations.
But this thread is on how the loss of a US passport affects those living abroad.
Japan T:
“The loss of a US passport affects those with and without a PR visa the same.”
Every visa comes with specific conditions. If your PR visa requires you to maintain a valid passport of the country from which you immigrated, then failure to meet that condition could put you at risk of deportation.
Those with neither PR status nor citizenship status (the group to which I referred in my comment which seems to have sent you into a towering rage) can be deported much more easily than those with PR status. Not only must they continue always to meet the specific conditions attached to their visa, they must also succeed in getting a further visa or leave when their current visa expires. And if forced to leave, naturally they need to be able to go elsewhere, to avoid becoming stateless refugees in some godforsaken detention centre. A valid US passport (even one limited to return to the US) would come in handy.
“It is not a question of visa expiration.”
For the group I referred to, it is.
“It is a question of losing whatever visa one may have due to the loss of the US passport.”
For the group I referred to (those with neither PR status nor citizenship status), there’s always the deadline of the expiration date, plus whatever specific conditions attach to their visa.
You, yourself, may be concerned only about keeping your US passport; but I wasn’t referring to you.
“the mere expiration of a non PR visa is troublesome but is just as relevant to the discussion if passport loss as the price of tea in China.”
In theory the discussion is supposed to be about US tax laws and IRS/DoS regulations, not the conditions attached to your Japanese visa and what might happen to you, Japan T, if this or that unlikely disaster were to befall you.
Japan T:
“this thread is on how the loss of a US passport affects those living abroad.”
I believe this thread is in theory about the revocation provisions and whether USC expats might lose their US passports for not filing US taxes.
Japan T:
I was trying to explain to you that my comment (the one that has enraged you) referred to USCs with neither PR status nor citizenship status; a group which does not include you.
Waste of time trying to clarify, it seems.
ND:
“not easy for the person who loses it”
Indeed not. Easy for the immigration official aiming to meet the target.
@plaxy
“Those with neither PR status nor citizenship status (the group to which I referred in my comment which seems to have sent you into a towering rage) can be deported much more easily than those with PR status. Not only must they continue always to meet the specific conditions attached to their visa, they must also succeed in getting a further visa or leave when their current visa expires. And if forced to leave, naturally they need to be able to go elsewhere, to avoid becoming stateless refugees in some godforsaken detention centre. A valid US passport (even one limited to return to the US) would come in handy.”
Yes, all true but not at all relevant to the discussion on the risks of losing a US passport to those living abroad.