Consulate Report Directory (Brockers Describe their Consulate Meetings) and CLN Delivery Time Chart Part 2
If clicking on a link brought you to the wrong page on the comment thread, click here to go to the current page.
Wonder what really happens at the consulates? Find out in the Isaac Brock Society’s Consulate Report Directory, currently 279 pages of first-hand accounts of renunciation/relinquishment appointments, arranged by consulate location, along with further information and links to the required Dept of State forms and the Dept of State manuals used by the consulates in processing CLN applications, with an appendix containing a timeline chart (booking-meeting-CLN) as reported by consulate location.
The Directory is updated as consulate visit stories are posted on the website.
You can post here or elsewhere on the site (we’ll keep an eye out for them). Some comments may be excerpted or condensed slightly in the consulate reports. The original posts and comments remain on their threads are not edited.
Thanks to everyone for sharing your experiences…and keep ’em coming! It’s a new experience for everyone and your information is really helpful.
To change or delete your report in the Directory, you can post the change as a comment on this thread or e-mail Pacifica@isaacbrocksociety.ca
Click here for the Consulate Report Directory
Notes:
Consulates are listed alphabetically by country and the Directory’s table of contents links to each section (they don’t look like links, but they are.)
This thread is a continuation of Consulate Report Directory Part 1, which contains earlier discussion on this topic, 929 comments from its inception in March 2012 through February 2013.
To Book an Appointment and/or Request Information from your Local Consulate:
This post by Eric, Almost No US Citizenship Renunciation Appointments Left During 2016 in Dublin, contains a chart of links to the consulates’ website pages on renunciation/relinquishment, for info on booking appointments and/or requesting information at your location. (The title highlights Dublin, but the charts, article and discussion cover consulates around the world.)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
If clicking on a link brought you to the wrong page on the comment thread, click here to go to the current page.
In the Canadian IGA RRSPs RRIFs and TFSAs are ‘excluded from the definition of financial accounts’. For FATCA purposes they don’t exist. Period.
Duke,
That sounds like the Conservative government MPs line. Sure that’s all true, but what will that matter? Are you and the Conservative government telling all *US Persons* in Canada who have any Canadian registered accounts to avoid their so-called *US citizenship-based taxation responsibilities* that the Harper government went along with in the signing and passing legislation for implementation of the FATCA IGA? — with the unbelievable proviso about registered accounts being exempt that sounds to me a lot like they are condoning US tax evasion after, as Allison Christians points out, they have shone a light on us. Can you explain it to me in terms I can understand?
I paid the US IRS $3,661 because of the RDSP of which I am the Holder on behalf of my son, a person with a developmental disability. Just how, HOW, could that have not had to be paid (having been identified on my FBARs to the US Treasury) — along with the yearly continuing costs of the maintenance of that RDSP (or RESP or TFSA) on behalf of a person with a mental capacity? Just how are so-called *US Persons* to get around the fact that the law is the law is the law EVEN IF it makes not one lick of sense?
Will the bank in which I hold my son’s RDSP ask the dreaded questions? Will they already have the information about Carol Tapanila and son on file? Should I have somehow tried to HIDE all of this instead of looking for an answer that will be just for all such persons as my son? Or, should every family to have look behind their shoulders at who is stalking them for US citizenship-based taxation for the rest of their lives, then even the settlement of their estates beyond?
Calgary you are putting words in my mouth. I don’t appreciate it. Note that I said. “for FATCA purposes”.
I was merely trying to help KCam who was being given a hard time by RBC DI over his place of birth. His only accounts with them are registered and therefore he should tell RBCDI to bugger off.
We are familiar with your story; we feel badly that you were given poor advice early on; we deeply appreciate your passion and the hard work you are doing for all of us and for your family.
OK, for FATCA purposes. What about other purposes? What are US-defined US Persons to do as the Conservatives now define us “US citizens who happen to reside in Canada?”
How do I tell RBC DI or RBC or any other Canadian bank to bugger off? Not just for me / my son — anyone? What happens after you tell them to bugger off?
Sorry, I still don’t “get it”. My apologies to you — and to anyone who does not understand the term “For FATCA purposes”.
Here’s what Phil Hodgen had to say today about “banking” and receipt of those important CLNs:
OK Let’s call a truce or as Rodney King said ‘Can We All Just Get Along?’
Instead of telling RBC DI to bugger off, he could say ‘dear RBC DI guy. According to the IGA my accounts are not reportable. Therefore you don’t need any more info. from me. If you don’t like it, I’ll take my accounts elsewhere”
@Duke of Devon, which could trigger a freezing of said accounts as KCam found out with her financial institution. Not saying they will all do so, but there is a risk there.
And Phil obviously hasn’t been to Switzerland where proof is being demanded in the form of a CLN.
@KCam, the comments by the Duke of Devon and WhatAmI are very sound.
I would add that you should prepare a statutory oath/affadavit, swear same before a lawyer and also provide that to RBC.
The idea is that you need to have something very solid in your hands that you are swearing what you did, why you did it and what it accomplished. You would close it with something along the lines that you are not a US Citizen.
@MediaFleeceStar, “Not saying they will all do so, but there is a risk there.”
With all do respect, CHF is a “special case” because the banks all signed seperate and “special agreements” with the USG!!
In Canada, Ireland, France and most of the world, there is zero risk of account closure under current agreements!!!
To freeze an account in the case of KCam is clearly ultra vires and is inviting court action with a demand for financial damages.
That said, CHF should be considered the canary in the coal mine!!
@Calgary411, “Just how, HOW, could that have not had to be paid ”
With all due respect, you voluntarily elected to pay an amount determined by a foreign government based on foreign law that is not enforceable in your still sovereign nation.
Ask yourself, what would have happened had you said NO? Think it through, slowly……
Having said just that which may hurt, your actions then, now and in the future have been of immense value to many and I mean many. If you reflect back and say that was a mistake, I say no because it laid the groundwork for others. Others have learned and I pray your family too may benefit from others on this long convuleted journey.
@Calgary411, “Will the bank in which I hold my son’s RDSP ask the dreaded questions?”
and
“How do I tell RBC DI or RBC or any other Canadian bank to bugger off?”
First, thank God for the internet as we are not alone! Just imagine what FATCA would be like in a non-internet world.
Deep breath time………..
You already know my opinion on lying from these very blogs. A lie will compromise oneself…………
Go back ten years ago……what did you know about nationality laws? Not much, huh. Me too……………. Sister, we have come light years….
You know the law of Canada. You know the law of the USA. You even know a chunk of international law!!!!
Your son was born in Canada, is a lawful resident of Canada and has never exercised any benefits that are typically afforded to Citizens of the USA.
If a Canadian FI asks you with respect to your son, “What is your Citizenship?” You will answer that truthfully based on your understanding of the law based on the facts on the ground.
Under the laws of MANY countries, I have a rainbow of citizenship. I think the number is now at six. Yet, I am only a citizen of ONE regardless of what the six say. Half, I can not speak the language.
@Pacifica, On this thread or another you provided the 7 Fam that clearly shows that the employment clause which previously only permitted expatriation if the employment was restricted to nationals of said foreign country was repealed.
That said, page 5 of 7 FAM 1280 cites that old section as if it was applicable today!!! I suspect many Consular Officers read that FAM and not the one you cited!!!
What a Charlie Foxtrot….
“Section 401(d) NA contains the single prerequisite that the employment be employment for which only nationals of the foreign state are eligible. The individual must be a national of the foreign state. Employment must be restricted to nationals of the foreign state; if an alien may hold such a position, even if none were actually employed, the employment is not a potentially expatriating act.”
@George,
Well, you had my heart pumping for a few minutes…
The quote that you give from Page 5 of & FAM 1284 is just two pages down from what @Pacifica and I I have cited recently. Page 3 is where the effective dates of 401(d) are given (7 FAM 1282). I guess 1284 is just a summary and doesn’t repeat the details of effective dates?
Your point is well taken, though, and it could be sloppy reading by consuls that lead to the confusion and false requirement statements. I would encourage anybody making a claim of past relinquishment to go armed with this (and other) sections of the FAM printed out, just in case. I had it all with me (not even knowing about this unfortunate section) at my interview but didn’t need to pull it out.
George, you, too, know my opinion on lying. I can’t and won’t do it to try to find a way around my family’s particular US-defined US citizenship problem. It is NOT about my son — I want something that makes sense for everyone, including everyone’s sons and daughters who are the “Accidentals”. What does that subset of persons equate to in non-US definitions of persons? We have unwittingly bred children into this US slavery pool, so just word candy to say that was ever abolished.
Neither can I imagine what it would be like to be going through all this without the internet, without this Isaac Brock Society blog, without the support of others, like you!!! It would not look anything like we see ourselves here. We have so much to be thankful for in the midst of it all.
@WhatamI, yes you need to go in full of facts.
In order to prevent confusion someone claiming such a relinquishment should state;
“Foreign government employment post December 23, 1952”
That would cause the GS employee to scratch their heads…
@Calgary411, you may or may not agree…your son is a Canadian Citizen resident in Canada and whilst so resident in Canada can only be a Citizen of Canada irrespective of what any foreign governments may otherwise consider. That is not a lie………..
And yes, I think in retrospect you were railroaded by professional advisers and a foreign government that had no claim or power outside of its own territory over the citizens of other countries in the protection of their own government.
@George,
It’s interesting to see that the consuls are slowly learning though. A year and a half ago the Calgary consulate insisted a Brocker produce a copy of an oath of employment. A year later, Calgary consular staff told another Brocker that an oath was unnecessary and meaningless as part of their government employment because she was already a Canadian citizen. It’s glacially slow though!
@ George,
So, that’s where that myth was coming from! Thanks. It’s really amazing how many strange (inaccurate) things people have been told at consulates, and, in combating misconceptions, it can be useful to have some insight into where a misconception is originating from
And that’s good advice, WhatAmI, really important, to bring the relevant FAM/s with you, so just in case there is a disputed matter, you can point the consulate officer right to the relevant section.
My broad view in hindsight is a whole lot different than when I was making all my own decisions — MY decisions that I made and take full responsibility for having done so because I just could not deal with doing what I *had to do* myself. I was born and raised in the US. My husband and I came to Canada in 1969, as adult a decision as any I have ever made after becoming an adult. I chose to become a Canadian citizen because we worked and paid taxes in this country, loved this country and this is where we wanted to raise our family. My OMG moment that I had obligations under US citizenship-based taxation was such a shock to me, so unbelievable! I did what I had to to make sure that I was officially out and done after the realization that what I was told when I became a Canadian citizen was not the case without a CLN. There was no Isaac Brock Society at my start of all this. I MADE MANY MISTAKES!
Those who are “Accidental Americans” don’t have / didn’t have the choices that I had and I made. I maintain they should absolutely have a choice — a claim. Until *claimed* as an adult with ‘requisite mental capacity’, it should be the same as nothing! To entrap “Accidentals” into having to pay US tax and entrap even more deeply those without the mental capacity to be able to renounce their US-defined US citizenship and all the ongoing consequences of that is not something any country should feel proud of.
I also would not have had the backbone to “Just Say No” way back then. The things I would do differently are the things that I want others to learn from my examples of folly. It is my small contribution to pass some good on. I have benefited from the expertise and counsel of many here, including you, George. I have much to be thankful for.
@pacifica
Call me paranoid, but it seems to me that a lot of these “misconceptions” are being reiterated world wide. Particularly in the case of relinquishers who are being encouraged to renunciate. There seems a definite predilection to shove genuine relinquishers down the funnel that leads to serious IRS abuse. Correct me if I’m wrong, But if I personally where to renunciate, it would be tantamount to a confession that I had indeed been an American for the last twenty years, and therefore am in violation of numerous tax laws, for which I will likely be assessed with more panalties than I can even imagine. There doesn’t seem to have to be a crime for them to extract enormous tributes. And it always comes down to the same catch 22 for almost everyone. Our crime is not being completely familiar with 78,000 pages of US tax laws that even the people who voted for them aren’t familiar with.
@Calgary 411
I agree about the “accidentals”, and must say how much more injust it is for them. I’m only facing strong arm robbery, they sadly, have been kidnapped.
@ ProudAussie,
That’s how I felt, that I could not renounce because I didn’t have a citizenship to renounce. I ran into a major problem applying for my relinquishment-based CLN a few years ago (despite having a slam-dunk case, no US ties or connections at all for most of my life, just a nasty consulate). Some people asked me why are you fighting them? Why don’t you just renounce? Because it’s the reality of my life! Renouncing would be like the last 35 years of my life hadn’t happened, that I wasn’t who I was. I wanted a CLN, but more importantly only a CLN that reflected the reality of my life.
@pacifica
“I wanted only a CLN that reflected the reality of my life”
My sentiments exactly!
However, I may well have missed that boat. Even though it is a reasonable request, as this travesty evolves and they patch the leaks, it is becoming more and more unlikely, in my case anyhow.
In the end, it really IS just about the money. Right or wrong be damned, they want their pound of flesh.
I’m really having to consider if I’ll even attempt to officially relinquish. Every step I take has the potential to dig me deeper, like struggling in quicksand.
I already relinquished anyhow, 20 years ago. At some point thereafter they bestowed citizenship on me, without warning or feeling any need for my approval. It’s not even a question when I actually became American again, because they can take a time machine all the way back and say I never left.
ProudAussie, I recently relinquished on becoming a Canadian. Officially – legally per their law – I am not a USC. And I too am wondering why I should pursue a CLN b/c as it stands, I don’t need one.
I had my relinquishment witnessed by a citizenship clerk right after my ceremony. It’s all I need.
I get the “for safety’s sake” argument but I simply have my doubts that ten years from now it will matter. My bank accepts that I have relinquished. They even accept that my daughter has and she is a minor (someday she will have to go the consulate route but again – who knows the future?)
Still mulling. Now that winter is upon us, I have no intention of attempting unnecessary travel that can probably wait til spring. I am not an American. What do I care? Perhaps I will just wait and see what happens next time I have to visit relatives?
You are in a better situation with having relinquished so long ago. Perhaps just a sworn statement will suffice for you?
One of my banks in Germany required proof (i.e. CLN) that I had renounced. It’s not only happening in Switzerland…
@YogaGirl, “And I too am wondering why I should pursue a CLN b/c as it stands, I don’t need one.”
Per 8 US Code, you relinquished and there is no other requirement to do. But again I will say that if you wish to travel to/transit through the USA then a CLN is likely needed.
@Notamused, “One of my banks in Germany required proof (i.e. CLN) that I had renounced.”
Under 8 US Code a CLN is part of the requirement for those that renounce. It would be right for any FI in any country to require a CLN for renunciation. However, for other than CHF in which FIs have signed seperate agreements with the USG, a CLN is not required for those that have relinquished IAW 8 US Code but they do need to provide a reasonable explanation which amongst other things could likely include a certificate of naturalisation or proof of government employment and I would add a sworn statement to that effect.
Should a FI in Germany require a CLN and not accept any reasonable explanation for relinquishment with supporting documents they are acting ultra vires and should be taken into Court in Germany then with the EU.