Author Archives: pacifica777

As the holiday season approaches, we’re getting together for dinner and drinks on Wednesday 11 December, 6 pm, at The Lieutenant’s Pump pub, 361 Elgin Street (two blocks North of Gladstone).  Good food and drink and, important for us, it’s a good place for conversation, quiet mid-week and comfortable.  Street parking, and also accessible by OCTranspo routes 5 and 14  http://plan.octranspo.com/plan?Culture=EN.

We’re currently expecting 8 people. Hope you can join us!  Please rsvp by leaving a comment or e-mailing pacifica@isaacbrocksociety.ca, so we know about how many to expect.

John Richardson reports on the new DS-4079 form (which now includes the former DS-4080 (renunciation oath), DS-4081 (statement of understanding of consequences) and DS-4083 (certificate of loss of nationality form), along with other additions/changes. (reposted with permission)

*****

The “Readers Digest” Version

Towards the end of October of 2024, the following comment appeared online:

‘Just renounced in Rome this afternoon. Very smooth, professional, friendly. I was asked why by the consular officer but the office person who did all the work was extremely helpful and did not ask why I decided to do it. It should take 2-3 months to get my CLN. Maybe even less. One thing the office guy mentioned was that I was just in time to do the standard procedure, because it is soon going to change. He said that if now there are two forms to fill out, soon there will be 13 pages of forms to fill out “to better identify and determine certain particular situations”. Does anyone know anything about this? I am thinking ( hoping) that it may be to facilitate accidentals? Anyway, all done, I am FREE! (No emotions. I remembered the podcast where someone said “just think of it as retirement “’

(The “think of it as retirement podcast was actually a podcast I did called “The Retired Citizen“)

ffective November 1, 2024 a new procedure has been adopted for individuals seeking a Certificate Of Loss Of U.S. Nationality (“CLN”).

Generally, the new procedure:

– is based on a newly designed Form DS-4079 (the old one is obsolete) which has different sections for different kinds of expatriating acts. The parts of the form that you complete depend on the nature of the “expatriating” act upon which you rely;

– is better designed to probe whether the applicant’s facts meet the evidentiary standard (“preponderance of the evidence”) to establish the “voluntariness” and “intention to relinquish” which are required under IINA 349(a) and INA 349(b).;

– reflect that the burden of proof of establishing “voluntariness” and “intention” must be met by the individual (the days of presuming intention are over) – INA 349(b)

– clarify that the first interview need NOT take place in person (phone or email can work) but that the second interview MUST take place in person

– clarify that ALL individuals must (1) Complete the newly designed Form DS-4079 (a completely redesigned form) and and (2) what ORIGINAL documents must be presented at the relinquishment/renunciation interview

– appear to be moving toward a standardized process all around the world (up until October 31, 2024 different Consulates used different forms, etc.)

Generally the new process is described in the new DS-4079 which is available here:

ds4079

Those wishing to renounce U.S. citizenship in Canada will be pleased to know that (after a lengthy absence) Quebec City and Halifax are renunciation options. In Canada one can renounce in: Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City and Halifax. Canada is surely the renunciation capital of the world!

Additional commentary

1. I will add more in the upcoming days. Until now few (if any) renunciation requests were refused. I predict that the new process will result in the first wave of individuals who cannot meet the evidentiary standard required on renunciation and relinquishment.

2. The new DS-4079 heightens the chance of inadmissibility after renunciation.

To be “FORMWarned” is to be “FOReArmed!”

The Closer Connection rule exempts snowbirds (Canadians who winter in the US) and any non-citizen (including former ones) who spend up to 182 days in a year in the US from being considered US tax residents, though ironically it does not apply to US citizens living outside the US.  John Richardson examines Closer Connection in this article.  (reposted with permission)

Question For Americans Abroad:

Did you know that people who are NOT U.S. citizens or Green Card holders can live in the USA for 182 each year, meet the requirements to to be a U.S. “tax resident” but actually file a “closer connection to another country form” to NOT be treated as a U.S. tax resident? They will avoid U.S. taxation, penalties and reporting!!

Do you like what you just read? Did you know that you can renounce your U.S. citizenship (outside the United States) and then spend up to 182 days in a year in the United States (assuming you meet the immigration requirements) and not be taxable by the United States or have to file forms (including FBAR) as long as you have a “closer connection” to another country?

What about immigration considerations? Can I legally enter and stay in the United States?

The immigration requirements for entry and stay in the United States depend on a number of factors. That said, here are two groups of people who are likely eligible to spend up to six months a year in the United States:

1. Canadian citizens and from the Canadian perspective

2. Holder of a B1/B2 visa.

There may be other options.

Bottom line: To put it simply, non-U.S. citizens can spend loads of time in the USA (for a number of reasons) and be completely exempt from the requirements that make the lives of Americans abroad a “living hell”!

Americans abroad are fully aware of U.S. “citizenship taxation”. The “closer connection” exemption is an example of “citizenship non-taxation”.

Read on!! – it’s all about having a “closer connection” (a form of “citizenship non-taxation”) to another country!

John Richardson reports on “FATCA is Not the Answer,”  by SEAT (Stop Extraterritorial Taxation) co-founders John Richardson, Karen Alpert and Laura Snyder, is SEAT’s response correcting errors and misinterpretations in the article “Taxing Fat Cats Abroad” in Financial News Federal. (reprinted with permission)

*********

On February 26, 2024, Tax Notes Federal published an article entitled “Taxing Fat Cats Abroad.”

The article defended the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) as an “automatic exchange of information used to track down and tax accounts held by wealthy U.S. citizens living abroad.”

The article contained many errors and misinterpretations.

SEAT co-founders John Richardson, Karen Alpert, and Laura Snyder submitted a response to the article, entitled “FATCA Is Not the Answer.”

Their response, published on March 18, 2024, can be accessed via SSRN at this link.

The response explains:

1. The considerable differences between FATCA and CRS. They include FATCA’s lack of reciprocity and the United States’ refusal to join CRS;

2. The inequalities inherent in the U.S. tax system with respect to Americans living outside the United States and their discriminatory treatment;

3. The irrelevance of FATCA with respect to Farhy v. Commissioner and Bittner v. United States;

4. The unjust stigmatization of Farhy, Bittner, and all Americans living outside the United States;

5. Inconsistencies between the article’s defense of citizenship-based taxation and the “single tax principle” advocated by professor Reuven Avi-Yonah;

6. The failure of the article, in its theorectical defense of citizenship-based taxation, to contend with the real system in place today and its myriad intractable problems;

7. The lack of any connection between taxation and voting rights;

8. The importance of the 14th Amendment for the equal protection of the rights of Americans living outside the United States; and

9. That the 16th Amendment is not — and it should not be used as — a license to channel violations of constitutional and human rights through the tax code.

A Bloomberg News reporter would like to interview accidental Americans who wish to renounce but are awaiting the announced lowering of the fee back to the $450, which it was prior to being hiked to $2350 in 2014 hike.  In response to a case initiated by l’Association des Américains accidentals in US District Court (District of Columbia), the US Department of State notified the Court in January 2023, shortly prior to the scheduled hearing on the matter, that it would reduce the renunciation fee to $450, but to date has given no indication of when the decrease is to take effect.

Fabien Lehagre of l’Association des Américains accidentals notified me of the request from the Bloomberg reporter.  He mentions that one may remain anonymous and that, although Bloomberg is an English language news site, the interview can be done in French.

If you’d like to be interviewed by Bloomberg News, please contact Fabien at president@americains-accidentels.fr

Commenters on Brock have often pointed out that other countries take a positive approach towards their citizens living outside the country in contrast to the US’ discriminatory policies towards its own. In The Unknown Ambassadors, author Phyllis Michaux does a deep dive into US policies vis-a-vis its citizens living outside the US.

Thanks to John Richardson for this detailed review: (reposted with permission)

*********

I just read “The Unknown Ambassadors: A Saga Of Citizenship” by Phyllis Michaux.* Phyllis Michaux was an American citizen who married a French citizen/resident. She lived her adult life in France. By any standard, she was an impressive and effective advocate for the rights of Americans abroad.**

I recommend the book (if you can find a copy) to all Americans abroad. As diverse as the community of Americans abroad is, what unites them is far greater than what divides them. What unites all Americans abroad is the horrible discriminatory treatment they suffer at the hands of the U.S. government. (As the distribution of vaccines in the covid pandemic demonstrated, the discriminatory treatment is NOT limited to taxation.) In this respect the United States is practically unique. Ireland honours and celebrates its diaspora. France gives it expats representatives in the legislature. The United States does (in 2024) and always has (as documented in “The Unknown Ambassadors”) mistreat its citizens abroad. U.S. citizens abroad are examples of the “discrete and insular minorities” contemplated in Justice Stone’s infamous Carolene Products footnote 4.)**** U.S. citizens, more than the citizens of any other country are in need of a second citizenship.

Phyllis Michaux’s achievements from the 20th century offer lessons for the many individuals and groups who are advocating to achieve justice for Americans abroad in the 21st century.

“The Unknown Ambassadors” provides an account of Ms. Michaux’s recognizing discrimination against Americans abroad as a matter of fact, identifying the laws responsible for that discrimination, identifying the appropriate U.S. government agencies to lobby for change and finally executing that change. Advocates for Americans abroad in the 21st century should read this book. A testament to her achievements is that the “Phyllis Michaux Papers” are found in the “Georgetown University Archival Resources”.

As the holiday season approaches, we’re getting together for dinner and drinks on Tuesday, December 5th, 6 pm, at The Lieutenant’s Pump pub, 361 Elgin Street (two blocks North of Gladstone).  Good food and drink and, important for us, it’s a good place for conversation, quiet early in the week and comfortable.  Street parking, and also accessible by OCTranspo routes 5 and 14.

We’re currently expecting 8 people. Hope you can join us!  Please rsvp by leaving a comment or e-mail me at pacifica@isaacbrocksociety.ca

Note:  You might see a crowd when you arrive.  But no worries — Senators fans gather at this pub to get a bus that leaves for the hockey game at 6 pm. Once they leave, it’s quiet.

Important article which Helen Burggraf has written for John Richardson‘s website (posted with permission). Please note deadline for submissions is this Wednesday.

Those interested in contributing their thoughts to the State Department’s forum on the question of its proposed renunciation fee reduction may click here and follow the instructions.

*************************************

October 29, 2023 By Helen Burggraf – American Expat Financial News Journal

Advocates for fairer tax treatment of American expats by their government, including both the Republicans Overseas and Democrats Abroad, are urging such expats not to hesitate in posting comments on a U.S. State Department proposal to lower the fee currently charged those seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenships, the deadline for which expires in less than three days. 

However, many of those urging fellow expats to register their opinions regarding the renunciation fee, including both the Democrats Abroad (DA) and the Republicans Overseas, are suggesting that those commenting include a mention of the fact that there would be less need for people to renounce their citizenships if the U.S. government were to address the mostly tax-related problems that are driving them to do so.

The reason they’re ramping up their calls for expat action now is because they say this temporary comment submission facility represents a rare chance for expats to speak directly to strategists at one of the most important bureaus involved in U.S. tax policy decision-making – and because, as this article was being published on Sunday (Oct. 29), only 454 comments had been received, according to the page on the Federal Register that those invited to make comments are instructed to visit.

“Instead of penalizing Americans on their way out the door, the State Department should be asking itself why they’re leaving in the first place,” is how the DA Taxation Task Force (DATTF) put it, in an email to its members earlier this month. It reinforced this message with a follow-up email on Thursday.

While reducing the fee to renounce – or, as the State Department puts it, the fee for providing the necessary consular services required to process requests for each “Certificate of Loss of Nationality” or CLN) – to US$450 from US$2,350 was “at least an improvement” to the current situation, the DATTF went on, “the real tragedy is that so many Americans feel like they have to cut ties in the first place.

“Instead of nickel-and-diming Americans forced to renounce their citizenship to escape double-taxation, the State Department should push Congress to bring the US into line with the entire rest of the world in the way it taxes its expats.”

Thursday’s email added: “This is a great opportunity for your voice to be heard about the tax problems forcing Americans abroad to renounce their citizenship in the first place (aka the tax compliance nightmare suffered by Americans abroad)”; The Republicans Overseas echoed the Dems Abroad’s comments in its own message to its members, sent a few days ago, in stressing the opportunity to make the case for fixing the way American expats are taxed, rather than focusing on the renunciation fee itself.

John Richardson examines the concept of the “weaponisation of citizenship,” beginning with the 1920s Cook v. Tait decision through the present day. Posted with permission.

***************

Introduction And Purpose

The Weaponization Of US Citizenship – Two Methods

The history of US citizenship as documented in Amanda Frost’s “You Are NOT American”, is an epic story of the “weaponization of citizenship”. I highly recommend Professor Frost’s book – “You Are NOT American” to those interested in the evolution of US citizenship.

The focus of this blog has always been on citizenship, taxation and citizenship taxation. Although taxation has always been perceived as a necessary burden, citizenship has sometimes been a benefit and sometimes been a burden. James Dale Davidson, writing in “The Sovereign Individual”, expressed the view that in the 20th Century US citizenship was generally a benefit. In the 21st (digital) century US citizenship based taxation has transformed US citizenship into a burden. The numbers of people renouncing US citizenship are a testament to this new reality.

Method 1: Weaponization By Claiming The Individual Does NOT Meet The Requirements Of Citizenship

Regardless of the benefits or burdens of US citizenship, it is clear that the United States has a long history of “weaponizing US citizenship”. Professor Amanda Frost in her superb book “You Are NOT American” provides many examples of how the United States has used the concept and status of citizenship to either punish or reward individuals. Generally, Professor Frost describes a history where the use (or misuse) of America’s “nationality laws” has created hardships for people. Citizenship is a part of who people are. It’s part of their personal identity. Citizenship (presumptively) gives people a place or country they can call home. Citizenship (presumptively) gives people a place where they can live without fear of removal. Citizenship matters and the loss of citizenship can be a frightening and destabilizing event in the lives of an individual. It was not until 1967 that the United States Supreme Court in Afroyim ruled that US citizenship was conferred by the Constitution, belonged to the individual and could not (at least if born or naturalized in the US) be taken by the Government. (Of course that is of little comfort to those who can’t prove their US citizenship.)