I am posting below (with permission) details of the experience of a young person of legal age who attempted to renounce United States citizenship at a US Consulate in Canada.
Readers have weighed in whether the behaviour of the Consular official was appropriate or not.
The FIRST part of this post is the detailed December 19, 2019 personal account of the person, followed by an earlier April 10 2019 second hand summary of the experience.
DECEMBER 19, 2019 DETAILED FIRST-HAND ACCOUNT OF EXPERIENCE OF YOUNG PERSON ATTEMPTING TO RENOUNCE AT US CONSULATE IN CANADA:
“In July 2018, I sent an email request for a renunciation appointment to be scheduled for after my 18th birthday, since I was not yet 18 years old at the time. I needed to wait until my birthday because according to U.S. law, they can deny an application from minors, but they cannot deny an application from a legal adult unless they suspect that said adult is being coerced. In January 2019 I finally received a reply, scheduling an appointment at the Halifax consulate for March 2019.
On the day of the appointment, I arrived a few minutes early and had to wait for the consulate to open (I think I was the first item on their schedule for that day). The building where the consulate is located is very nice and modern, full of business suites for law firms and the like. The consulate occupies its own floor accessible only by elevator, and when I got there, I had to buzz in using what looked like a doorbell camera from an apartment building. Once inside the consulate proper, there was only a single guard, who was quite friendly until I informed him that I was carrying an Epi-Pen because of my severe food allergy. He seemed worried about this as if it was some sort of threat and confiscated it, saying that I could have it back when I left. I asked him what would happen if I needed it, and he obfuscated for a few seconds before telling me to continue into the waiting area, never answering my question. The consulate itself is very small – a single room with about 20 chairs in the middle, three bank teller-style windows in one wall, and the guard’s desk and metal detector by the entrance. At this point the guard and I were the only people in the room.
I waited for probably 15 minutes before a clerk appeared in one of the windows and called my name. She took my documentation and I sat back down and waited for probably another 10 minutes before my name was called again. I went up to the next window and paid the $2,350 USD in cash, which the clerk seemed irritated by. She gave me a receipt and told me to wait again. While I was waiting a family came into the consulate for what I think was U.S. travel visas, based on snippets of conversation I accidentally overheard. After maybe 20 more minutes of waiting I was called to the third window, which had a chair set out in front. I sat down, and the woman behind the window introduced herself as the vice-consul. We had to speak through microphones that didn’t work very well and kept cutting out, and there was a slot at the bottom of the window for passing documents through.
The vice-consul started by asking me to confirm my identity and my intent to renounce my citizenship. I raised my right hand and swore to tell the truth, as directed. The vice-consul then began going through my documents and asked me about the circumstances of my birth. From this point forward I remember clearly what was said but I cannot recall exactly the order of events because the questioning became very intense and intimidating, and I went into autopilot mode. The consulate probably knows exactly how the conversation played out, however, due to the surveillance camera conveniently located right above the interview window.
I do remember that it began with her incredulity that I was trying to renounce at only 18 years old, because according to her, I didn’t have enough life experience to do so. She asked me why I chose to renounce at this time, and I said it was because I legally could and wanted to, and she seemed irritated by my lack of elaboration. Since I was still in high school, had not travelled extensively outside of North America, had not been to the U.S. much in the past few years, and had yet to vote in any election, she claimed that I clearly didn’t know enough about the world to make such a monumental decision. I told her that I planned to vote and travel later and just had not been able to do so yet because I was not old enough, but she wasn’t satisfied. She asked me to list everywhere I had ever lived, and what jobs my parents held in each location. When I told her that some of my parents’ jobs were with the U.S. government, she seemed very suspicious about it. She also made some strange comments about the fact that we moved quite often during my childhood, as if she suspected that we were involved in something shady.
Now, the law clearly states that I don’t have to give a reason, but she told me in no uncertain terms that a person as young as me must prove to her that I am of sound enough mind and have a good enough reason to renounce. This is blatantly untrue, and I knew that during the interview, but I felt very intimidated by the vice-consul and I had to appease her in order to get through the interview and not waste the massive amount of money I had just paid. She asked me about my career aspirations, and when I told her that I might go into medicine, she said that I should keep an open mind about medical school and residency in the States. When I told her I would rather stay in Canada for my education, she seemed bewildered and asked me if I had really thought about it, because if I had thought about it properly, I must be at least considering going to the U.S. I said I had considered it plenty, and I preferred Canada. She kept pressing me about it, asking me why I didn’t go to university in the States, or take a gap year and travel there. I said I didn’t want to. Every time I said I didn’t want to go to the U.S. her expression became more and more confused. She then said that I should keep my citizenship because if I ever decide to travel internationally, American diplomats and military can provide more protection if I get kidnapped abroad. She said that a maple leaf on my backpack can only get me so far, that nothing can protect me as well as a U.S. passport, and because of that I need to keep my citizenship for my own safety while travelling. I didn’t know quite how to respond to that, so I just said that I had made my decision and hoped she’d back off. She didn’t.
Sometime after that she began trying to construct a case that my parents were coercing me into renouncing. She started asking all sorts of leading questions – were my parents still citizens, did we discuss renunciation at home, did I go with them to their renunciation appointments, how long I had been thinking about renouncing, did they suggest that I do it, and did they drive me to my appointment that day. I answered that I did hear about it from them but that the decision to renounce was my own; and furthermore, since I can’t drive and am from out of town, I couldn’t have gotten there without being driven by my parents. She seemed very confused by my answers and muttered under her breath several times that she didn’t understand my reasoning.
The vice-consul also asked me about my Canadian citizenship. I naturalized when I was a kid, having moved to Canada at a young age. She asked me why I didn’t want to stay as a dual citizen, and I told her it was because I felt Canadian, not American, and I didn’t want to keep a nationality I didn’t identify with. She didn’t take that as an answer, so I said I thought it would be easier to just have one citizenship. She said that having American citizenship had no downsides, and used herself as an example – she explained that she had a very high security clearance and an important job in the U.S. foreign service and her dual Canadian/American citizenship didn’t cause any problems for her. I thought it was rather inappropriate for her to be talking about details of her job, especially her security clearance, in a renunciation interview, but I didn’t say anything about it. She clearly expected me to acquiesce and admit that she was right, but I just said that I wanted to get rid of my American citizenship and that I was determined to go through with it. She was visibly frustrated by my response, and said again that she didn’t understand my reasoning.
She also had a very low opinion of young people such as myself, which came out on multiple occasions during the interview. She made several comments about young people being impatient, not understanding the world, making uninformed decisions, et cetera. She said at one point that I was being naive, that young people are always so blasé about serious matters, and that I would surely regret this decision once I was older and wiser. I felt insulted by the constant references to my youth, and during the entire interview I felt I was being treated like a child.The interview went on for about half an hour of hard grilling before the vice-consul suddenly gave up. I think she was trying to wear me down and intimidate me into cancelling my renunciation, and after I refused to do so, she decided to drop it. After she asked me her last question, she audibly sighed and pushed the papers I would need to sign through the slot in the window. She asked me to read several documents and summarize them for her. I did so, signed both copies, and gave them back in exchange for the the document containing the oath of renunciation. I had expected to raise my hand, swear, or do something officially binding while reciting the oath, but she just asked me to read the oath out loud, which I did. I signed both copies of the oath and gave them back. Meanwhile, it was very clear that the family in the waiting area had heard everything that was said between the vice-consul and myself, and it was unexpectedly very embarrassing to have to defend my decision to renounce my citizenship from a high-ranking diplomat in front of people who were actively trying to get into the U.S.
The vice-consul went on to explain that Washington would respond in a few months with either a CLN or a letter of denial, and that I would have to be patient. She added another rude comment under her breath about people my age being impatient. She also said that young people who decided to do this often come to regret their decision after a couple months, and if I regret mine before receiving my CLN, I could write the consulate and try to get it stopped. She also gave me a temporary CLN to use if I had to travel abroad before the legitimate one arrived. She returned my documents to me and very brusquely asked me to leave. I reclaimed my Epi-Pen from the guard and left the consulate without incident. The appointment took around an hour and 15 minutes in total, about half of which constituted the interview. After I left, I was externally calm but internally very shaken, since I felt that my rights had been violated. The vice-consul abused her position of authority over me during the interview in order to intimidate me into keeping my citizenship, and I was very afraid that my application would be rejected. It felt like I was trying to a leave a cult.
My CLN arrived in April 2019, just over a month after my renunciation appointment. I was surprised that it arrived so quickly, but I was also very relieved that I had been approved after all. I was glad to have it over and done with. Forever.”
APRIL 10, 2019 SECOND-HAND SUMMARY ACCOUNT OF EXPERIENCE OF YOUNG PERSON ATTEMPTING TO RENOUNCE AT US CONSULATE IN CANADA:
“Anyone preparing to renounce their US citizenship needs to be aware of a situation affecting a young adult renunciant of which I have recently become aware.
This person attempted to renounce at a US Consulate in Canada and received an unpleasant surprise. Instead of the standard brief interview process, which typically involves being made aware of the consequences of renunciation and determination of voluntariness, this person was subjected an almost 30-minute grilling by the Vice Consul about how foolish their intention to renounce was, especially at their young age, accompanied by proselytizing about the virtues of American citizenship.
It was explicitly stated by this official that they had to know, in detail, why this person was renouncing and that they had to be fully convinced of the validity of their motives before the renunciation could be forwarded to Washington for approval, as if they were a minor under 18 instead of an adult.
The Vice Consul badgered the young person, asking again and again for an explanation, even though they had clearly said that they did not wish to make a statement about why they were renouncing, both in the paperwork and in person at the interview.
In particular, the Vice Consul insinuated that the young person was most likely being coerced by their parents because no young adult would have the life experience or understanding to take such a monumental action.
Also, they spent a good portion of this “lecture” extolling the virtues of maintaining US citizenship and even derided the young person for not considering attending university in the US. The Vice Consul called them “naive” and “blasé” and said that they were acting “rashly”, even though the person in question is very mature, intelligent, well-spoken, and firmly resolute in this decision and in their motivations.
The Vice Consul went on to say that it was extremely rare that an 18 year-old person would take this action and that “it didn’t make any sense.”
The Vice Consul also said there was no reason to renounce because there were no negative consequences to holding both citizenships.
She then implied that Canadian citizenship wasn’t as valuable because Canada couldn’t/wouldn’t help out like America could/would while travelling abroad (e.g., consular assistance, military rescue, etc.), even saying that the Canadian flag on the backpack would only get you so far but that travelling under the US passport gave you the most safety of all.
While the Vice Consul was technically polite and did not raise her voice, it appeared to the young renunciant that the official’s intent was to manipulate. In their opinion, the Vice Consul’s actions constituted a clear attempt to intimidate and to spread pro-American propaganda and to create doubt in their mind about whether they should renounce or whether they even had the right to renounce at this age (even though they are an adult). Accordingly, they are now afraid that the State Department will reject the renunciation and keep the USD$2350 due to the Vice Consul’s willingness to bully them in this way.
I don’t know if this is a new policy being implemented by the State Department or if it is a random occurrence happening to this one person but anyone planning to renounce should be prepared for an intense grilling about motives and unprofessional conduct by consular officials, especially if they are young adults.
This young person feels strongly that their human right to expatriate without interference, as guaranteed by the Expatriation Act of 1868, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was clearly infringed. Be aware and be prepared.”
Yes, well, “wealth managers” presumably have a minimum stake, and may not be much use to ordinary middle-class folk who just want a mortgage or straightforward retirement savings. Stories of this abound, which is why Switzerland has become the shorthand for countries where FATCA consequences make life extremely difficult for anyone with a discoverable US person taint, dual or otherwise.
“”wealth managers” presumably have a minimum stake, and may not be much use to ordinary middle-class folk who just want a mortgage or straightforward retirement savings. ”
There’s a list on the Embassy website of banks that offer “certain services” to US citizens. Doesn’t mention whether that includes mortgages. If not, renouncing might be the best first investment.
If some Swiss banks are refusing to have any US-born Swiss resident —even a non-citizen —perhaps it would be worth exploring the possibility of legal action.
I am not surprised at all by this report. It was the VC in Toronto that lied to me in 1992, telling me that I’d lost US citizenship by voting in Canada. I was treated like garbage during that very long phone call. My experience renouncing (2012? 2013?) proved that consulate communication skills and attitude had not improved over the years.
I truly believe they all feel exceptional, rules don’t apply to them, and the end justifies the means. Pretty cocky considering they’re in someone else’s country.
@Plaxy
“If some Swiss banks are refusing to have any US-born Swiss resident —even a non-citizen —perhaps it would be worth exploring the possibility of legal action.”
I haven’t heard personally or on reading the Swiss/Engllsh forums, of any Swiss bank refusing to take a US born client with a CLN in hand.
There are only three banks I know who will take US citizens who MUST also be resident in Switzerland and then only offer basic accounts with increased charges.
There were reports of Swiss only citizens working temporarily in the US who had had their Swiss mortgages and bank accounts closed due to having a US address.
@ TheMom
Yes most in the US are fed the honeydew of exceptionality, but I do think that at least some Embassy staff are reasonable people. As in most situations in life you get the good and the bad. The Consul I had said she fully understood why people were renouncing and it was such a shame the US were losing so many good people.
In case it may be useful to anyone reading, the “Banking Resources” page on the Embassy website (https://ch.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/local-resources-of-u-s-citizens/living-in-ch/banking-resources/) says:
Followed by links to three websites.
“Certain banking services”, of course, may well be doublespeak for a PAD-compliant basic banking account.
The Swiss banks may have eased up a little on their US tainted customers after settling their fines and being permitted to join model one agreement.
Did the US embassy web site by chance include an apology for creating this mess?
Over on the FB group, there was a woman who had only US citizenship (not yet Swiss) but who because of divorce and custody issues could not leave Switzerland, and who nearly lost her house because she couldn’t renew her mortgage. I think she finally screamed and yelled enough that someone else loaned her the money, though at a higher interest rate. And if I recall there were great difficulties opening an account purely for the transfer of monies to pay out the old mortgage. It was not an easy situation.
Similar problems led Daniel Küttel to renounce. He testified at that FATCA hearing a while back.
According to the Swiss Bankers Association, “On 8 October 2014, the Federal Council approved a mandate for negotiations with the US on changing to a reciprocal FATCA agreement under Model 1.”
It would be interesting to know why it seems to have taken such a long time.
ING Luxembourg (https://www.ing.lu/content/siteing/en/Individuals/legal-documents-/regulation/FATCA_CRS/FATCA/Article.html):
@nononymous
Apology?!
I got a personal email from Donald Beyer, the then US ambassador to Switzerland in response to my letter to him, in which he stated “unfortunately it’s folks like you who become ‘collateral damage’ in the fight against tax evasion.” The US seems to make an art of ’collateral damage’ in all its forms.
@plaxy
I would imagine it took the time needed for all the fines to be paid.
I didn’t think Switzerland had a choice, that they were placed in model 2 until the fines were settled and paid and then were permitted to apply for model 1?
Some banks who only had a local base and did no business in the US such as Raiffesen opted out entirely but still refuse to take US tainted persons.
Model 1 was the original. As I understand it, Model 2 was devised because some countries couldn’t sign Model 1 or didn’t want to – as with Switzerland, hoping to hang on to bank secrecy.
Under CRS swiss banks will only be required to exchange info on non resident account holders, so I don’t understand why that explanation would force them to join model 1? Surely they did that to protect their US business?
They haven’t been forced to switch to Model 1. Model 2 apparently didn’t allow them to preserve bank secrecy. Or so ING says and it seems logical to me.
@plaxy
I didn’t say that they were forced into model 1, in fact I read that they were not permitted to join 1 until the fines were paid.
Bank accounts in Ch are still secret in such a way as the Swiss Gov does not have access to any Swiss resident accounts….. except of course if you are a US person resident there under Model 1 your account is sent via the Swiss Gov to the IRS.
“…I read that they were not permitted to join 1 until the fines were paid.”
That’s interesting. Do you happen to have a link to where you read that?
Globe and Mail article from 2013, reporting the signing of the US-Switzerland IGA2:
“Switzerland agrees to tell IRS about U.S. citizens’ offshore accounts”
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/switzerland-agrees-to-tell-irs-about-us-citizens-offshore-accounts/article8690509/
I believe Austria did sign up to IGA2 and still has it. Luxembourg, as per the ING website account linked to above, decided against IGA2 and opted instead for IGA1. As did Switzerland, later in 2013, only for some reason it has taken a long time to get the switch accomplished.
@plaxy
Can’t find the article in the Swiss press which I beleive stated that model 2 was the only one offered to the Swiss, but perhaps it was the only one permitted under Swiss secrecy laws at the time?
Here is an article explaining the chronology and reasons for ‘choice’
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/us-legislation_swiss-banks-to-tell-all-under-fatca/40473870
Thanks for the link. Yes I agree, it does seem likely that the Swiss bank secrecy laws prevented Switzerland from signing up to IGA1. Perhaps that’s in fact why IGA2 was developed – to offer as an alternative to countries whose laws didn’t allow them to sign IGA1.
And perhaps that’s why it has taken so long – maybe it was due to the difficulty of changing such longstanding laws.
Very interesting.
@plaxy
https://lecocqassociate.com/publication/the-foreign-account-tax-compliance-act/
More info, see Switzerland. It seems Swiss privacy laws were the factor.
Heidi – thanks very much for the link to that very informative explanation of the whole bizarre scarcely-credible edifice that is global FATCA.
Pity none of the perpetrators (banks, US, or residence countries) thought to spend some time explaining to non-US-resident duals what the hell was going on, and providing a simple free exit from the US tax system for those not interested in US investments. A lot of fear and grief could have been avoided, and (for some) could still be avoided.
Collateral damage indeed, Mr Former Ambassador – wholly avoidable collateral damage.
@plaxy
I owned and maintained a modest apartment and simple bank account for many years in Switzerland while I was working in the US. The account was always reported to the IRS .
The first time I heard about FATCA was when I received a letter from that bank informing me that they were closing my account as I was a US person. At that time I had just retired and was in the process of moving back to Switzerland. I had no way to pay my utility bills until my Swiss brother in law offered to pay the bills for me. I felt as though I had been made a prisoner of the US and was determined that they would not dictate to me where I could live. I have two European passorts but I have a US pension which is paid into a Swiss bank, so a CLN was the only sure way to cure the problem without subtifuge .
I read that the ex Ambassador privately owned a chalet here and I often wonder if he was able to keep and maintain it, also Julie Andrews, Geraldine Chaplin, and many others.
One way of looking at it: the model agreement devised by the US and G5 (now known as the Model 1 IGA), solves the banks’ conflicting requirements to comply with both US law (FATCA) and residence-country law (data protection / privacy laws, or financial secrecy laws) by (a) withdrawing the protection of residence-country law from resident duals; and (b) withdrawing the FATCA teeth (withholding threat).
This allows the banks to claim FATCA-compliant status even though in fact they can’t actually do anything to a pre-existing customer who doesn’t co-operate, except carry on reporting the account.
Switzerland couldn’t legally sign up to the pretence, hence the IGA2, with the ongoing threat of withholding and the banks’ consequent attempts to actually comply, by closing pre-existing accounts.
Now that push has come to shove and the deadlines have begun to elapse, the withholding threat has been withdrawn even for IGA2 countries, for gross proceeds; while withholding on “pass-through” payments – which seems likely to have risked a legal challenge – has been indefinitely deferred.
@plaxy
Yes, they have acheived their objective and now the witholding threat has been removed, the threat of a legal challenge has also been removed. Criticism seems to have also subsided , as they continue providing anonymous LLC accounts in Delaware, Nevada and New Mexico with flagging condemnation.
We seem to have committed subject drift, so will exit before we drift again.
“…they have acheived their objective and now the witholding threat has been removed…”
If it was ever a real threat.
“… the threat of a legal challenge has also been removed.”
I believe there was a successful legal action against a Belgian bank, and there are ongoing cases in Canada and in France.
But most USCs have opted for other solutions.