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.
@Calgary411, “There was no Isaac Brock Society at my start of all this. I MADE MANY MISTAKES!”
Your experience, that of Neil from the UK but in the USA, other Brockers experience, has all been INVALUABLE.
Many peoples lives have literally been saved because of the path you tread before them.
We/they/us might not like the forest that we see BUT because of the trail cut by you all, we can see the forest!
We have had to come to accept that we have been screwed by our own governments who many swore an oath to. Having said that fightback has started in the Courts and in the High Street. I no longer fear opening new FI accounts as I am willing to first state that asking place of birth is racist and likely in breach of numerous laws and that I have relinquished here is my proof and by the way Mr. Bank Manager, I am a Citizen of this great country just like you, no less a citizen and no more but equal and so are my kids! Its the I am here and I am in your face.
But we also have had to accept that the USA might no longer be a destination to ever go for a visit again. There is a tinge of sadness in that but oh well. Need a nice beach in winter? There is the Caribbean/Cuba. Winter skiing? How about the Canadian Rockies. The lights of New York City? How about the lights of Montreal/Paris/London.
@ProudAussie/@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.”
Clearly there are Consuls and likely executive appointment Ambassadors that are acting ultra vires or simply do not have a clue. Or in that one 7 Fam series where one pub contradicted the other pub!!
It seems that someone getting naturalised today will have a slam dunk relinquishment case and all things being equal should probably make the effort to get what is otherwise a slam dunk CLN.
Past relinquishers need to make a decision if getting/attempting to get a CLN is worth the effort and possible risk of an ultra vires decision.
The original version of the specimen IGA had language that referred to renouncing. This was changed to relinquishing and not having a CLN. That was a very important change.
If someone applies for a relinquishing CLN and are rejected in writing, they have been adjudicated and have no choice but for a current dated renounce.
George, it’s possible that visiting there will be difficult but I am not convinced it’s impossible. Do we have any reports of anyone being turned away at this point? A winter road trip to the consulate is a headache at best and a really bad nightmare at worst. I’ve got no travel plans. We don’t fly when we do have to visit.
Besides, I have issues with the form they sent which require a bit of questioning. I have a straight up relinquishment and the form simply doesn’t allow for that.
I am in no hurry. And I don’t see Congress down there doing anything immigration related for a good long while so it’s not likely the CLN will be required anytime soon.
Just following up on the RBC issue for anyone that is interested. RBC froze access to my new DI account until they see my CLN. They allowed the money to come in, but then froze it! They want this because they did not like that I answered positively to “born in the US” on one form and filled out a W8 Ben saying I am not a US citizen (because I relinquished prior to 1995 through government employment.)
So, I figured I’d give them a chance to resolve:
1. By not worrying about it because TFSAs and RRSPs are not reportable and that is what I ahve in the account, or
2. By allowing me to provide “reasonable explanation” other than a CLN that explains why I am not a US citizen, and by showing that I am not required to have notified the state department of my renunciation because it occured prior to 1995.
After several phone calls, the bank advises that they will not accept anything other than a CLN. Further, while RRSPs and TFSAs are not reportable, their policy is collect the paperwork regardless. This means my only option is to liquidate or transfer my account to have access to manage my funds prior to receiving a CLN.
Does anyone have experience with a Canadian FI that would not hold this same policy?
By the way, thanks for all your comments and references; they have been invaluable.
@Kcam, “After several phone calls, the bank advises that they will not accept anything other than a CLN.”
They are acting Ultra Vires and you need to require that they put that in writing. You should also advise them verbally and in writing that you will be consulting legal counsel on receipt of same and will consider court action as they are not acting in accordance with the US/Canada IGA or Canadian Law.
“Further, while RRSPs and TFSAs are not reportable, their policy is collect the paperwork regardless.”
You need to ask them for their policy in writing and that they show you where you consented to it. Their policy is not the law of Canada.
“This means my only option is to liquidate or transfer my account to have access to manage my funds prior to receiving a CLN.”
If you can liquidate or transfer that does not indicate that your account is technically frozen. They may not want to do business with you but if you can access with closure that is far different than freezing.
Also note that historically because of US Regulation S, I think thats the one, that most non-US brokerage firms have excluded US Persons from its customer base for decades because of securities regulations.
@KCam
I’m not at all surprised that they want the questions answered for all new accounts even if they are registered accounts. Assante Capital Management does the same, even if an existing client opens a new (registered) account. They don’t ask where you were born, but: “Are you a US resident for tax purposes (which includes a US citizen)?” and “If you are a snowbird or living in the US temporarily you can make a temporary US visitor declaration”.
Freezing funds is a different matter though. Is the account they froze a registered account, or a non-registered account that received the funds prior to placing them into a registered account? Freezing a registered account would really seem over the top, I think.
WhatAmI;
it is a registered account and was a transfer from another FI. They accepted the transfer with the paperwork provided, then froze it. They will only allow me to transfer or withdraw but can not manage the funds within it.
Scotia McLeod asked my citizenship; not my place of birth. Although I agree with George, it would be a hassle to carry on with RBC.
Their policy deserves a highlight reel because they are over the top.
“After several phone calls, the bank advises that they will not accept anything other than a CLN.”
The value of having a CLN is increasing by the day while the value of having a US passport is rapidly plummeting.
Good job Team Obama!
I agree with the Duke– can an administrator give this topic a separate heading and then some of us can put it up on social media (I’ll use Twitter. I don’t have a Facebook account).
KCam’s treatment is why I will unabashedly lie to any banker that asks me either my citizenship or place of birth.
Thank you KCam for posting the update.
@KCam
Was there a FATCA-related problem with the FI that previously held the funds?
I accept or at least expected that FIs will ask The Questions of anybody opening a New Account, even if it’s a registered account. Some Brockers suspected that some FIs would be scared of the IRS and only accept CLNs. I haven’t seen a report yet of a FI that accepted something reasonable in lieu of a CLN, but some here seem hopeful and still suggest getting sworn statements, etc.
The IGA clearly states that registered accounts are excluded from the IGA definition of “Accounts” so it surprises me that they’ve gone beyond asking The Questions for your new registered account. But as @George said, the account isn’t really frozen if you can withdraw or close the account. Still, to refuse to hold registered accounts without a CLN is a BAD sign.
Many Brockers said Canada would NEVER agree to FATCA. Many Brockers said FIs would NEVER ask your birthplace. Many Brockers quote the IGA and insist what a FI can or cannot do. All of this advice has proved to be wrong.
It seems to me the only safe route was and is to assume the absolute worst behaviour from all FIs.
One certainly cannot assume that every employee of every branch of any particular FI will follow the same procedures, and certainly every FI will vary to some extent. Credit Unions with a stated Local Client Base on their web sites are not all FATCA-free, for reasons as yet unknown (parent company FATCA status is probably one). Prior to July 1 2014 it was impossible to get FATCA answers from credit unions, so I opened 10 new accounts that only handled Canadian residents. Only 2 turned out to be FATCA-free. One even said they were prior to July 1, but now they are not.
It’s been suggested before that we need a compilation as concise as the Consulate Directory to gather the policies and actions of FIs. Your experience with RBC DI will be lost in this and other threads and others will follow you. I think even a dedicated thread (we have one already) is inadequate for the importance of this information.
@WhatAmI, “I haven’t seen a report yet of a FI that accepted something reasonable in lieu of a CLN, but some here seem hopeful and still suggest getting sworn statements, etc.”
I gave a “reasonable explanation” to an EU FI that was accepted without any problems.
Another EU FI amongst many I am following online has amended its online application and removed place of birth.
If a FI is acting Ultra Vires they need to be immediately called on the carpet with a demand that everything be put in writing and legal action needs to be taken.
I would suggest that KCam and ADCS reach out to each other.
@WhatAmI, “Still, to refuse to hold registered accounts without a CLN is a BAD sign.”
Its not a “bad sign” rather its Ultra Vires and unlawful discrimination.
Everything needs to be documented in writing and the firm needs to be first advised they will be taken to Court if they do not change and if they fail to change be taken to Court.
Note I am assuming this is FATCA related and not Registration S related of the Securities Act which is another kettle of fish.
““After several phone calls,”
Phone calls are not the way this can be fought. Everything must be done in writing and well documented.
As I stated earlier, I provided in writing reasonable explanation that was very lengthy citing US Law to include the IGA with copies of relevant certificates of citizenship and copies of the documents on file with my countries citizenship department. This was accepted by a EU FI.
Another FI in person I told the manager that the place of birth question was discriminatory and would invite a lawsuit. I was quickly told the question was optional and an account was opened.
People need to stand their quote, quote the law verbatim and demand that everything be put in writing. I have found over the years that attitudes and opinions tend to change when people are forced to put things in writing knowing they will be held accountable.
Regardless written documents will be helpful to ADCS versus he said she said on the phone.
@KCam
I agree with George…. have everything in writing from them… I had instances when I was told on the phone and then I spoke to them at their offices very different… lots of mis-information… its how each person understands the situation… when u make them put it down on paper….u can cite their policy with proof. I would resolve the situation with them… once the account is *unfrozen* then I would close it up & go elsewhere… basically they are holding your accounts as hostage until u jump to their tune.. they are now the extension of the US gov’t… going above board with what is needed… u don’t need to do business with them….
KCam,
Thanks for reporting your experience with RBC DI.
For the rest of us, we can see that
or “bugger off” won’t necessarily be effective resolutions.
But a transfer to a Local Client Base credit union might work for you.
Such good advice, George.
@KCam, I fully agree with @USFP “I would resolve the situation with them… once the account is *unfrozen* then I would close it up & go elsewhere…”
You have no future with RBC DI but that should not stop you from getting everything in writing first. You then find another FI.
You said that you verbally told them you relinquished when you took Canadian employment. Well to be brutally honest if I was a RBC DI employee, that statement alone would not move me at all. First, how the hell am I to know that working for the Canadian Government is potentially expatriating under 8 US Code IF there is intent?
You need to put in writing what exactly you did with lots of corroborating documents, when you did it with lots of corroborating documents, you need to cite US Law as it applied at the time with footnotes and copies, you then need to cite the requirements under Canadian Law with footnotes and copies. All your documents will need to be certified by a notary/lawyer as true and correct. You will also need to swear an affidavit that you in fact relinquished.
And then send it to them special delivery so someone is on the hook signing for it.
Having received all that they need to do something and you need to demand it in writing if they call you on the phone.
If they reject your thorough well documented “reasonable explanation” then you have their written response in which you can take legal action in Canadian Court.
But again, “I am not a US Citizen because I worked for the Government” over the phone to a customer service rep is not going to float far.
I did the above for a EU FI and received a written reply thanking me for the information and that my file would be updated within seven business days.
@All, this with @KCam is a perfect example as to why asking place of birth which is Ultra Vires according to the CRA website, is causing discrimination to Canadian ONLY Citizens who have relinquished their clinging US Citizenship and further said Canadian ONLY Citizen is being further discriminated against based on a second Ultra Vires action requiring a CLN instead of a reasonable explanation which is a valid cure option under Canadian Law and in the IGA.
Pingback: The Isaac Brock Society | Revisiting the Question: “What will YOUR foreign financial institution ask you?” and “What will they do if you do not provide YOUR Certificate of Loss of Nationality?”
New post of the banking discussion at: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/11/20/revisiting-the-question-what-will-your-foreign-financial-institution-ask-you-and-what-will-they-do-if-you-do-not-provide-your-certificate-of-loss-of-nationality/
@KCAM and others: It would be useful for people to all attempt to maintain a consistent approach to these problems and to be firm.
1. Nothing in C-31 or the guidelines produced by CRA authorizes a bank to request place of birth nor obliges any customer to provide it. It seems to me that there is little chance to argue that they cannot demand new accounts self-certify that they are not US Persons, but there is no obligation to go behind that assertion nor any explicit blessing in C-31 or the IGA to authorize personal inquiries such as that. I would suggest that any and all can take the view that no FI can demand place of birth or parentage and all should refuse it on principle.
2. If RBC is refusing to allow access to a TFSA or RRSP on the basis of a misguided demand for a CLN, it is time somebody made a complaint to their regulator (OSFI – Office of the Superintendent of Financial Instutiions) with a copy to the Privacy Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission. All relevant addresses etc. can be obtained in 30 seconds on Google. That will escalate the situation in a hurry.
The IGA requires NOTHING in the case of registered accounts to begin with, and their “practice” is an unsanctioned violation of your right to privacy and none of their business. Secondly, the IGA only speaks of the FI obtaining a CLN or “reasonable explanation” for the lack of one. If you state that you relinquished before 1995 when there was no shred of a requirement for a CLN, I can see no reason why they should reject that explanation out of hand as failing to meet the standard. To the contrary, it strikes me as eminently reasonable: you lost your citizenship in accordance with US law at the time and from and after that minute, the US had no rights in you whatsover. A subsequent (tax code) requirement for CLN’s mattered no more to you than changes to zoning laws in Beijing – none of your affair. Remember – the IGA made asking for a CLN or reasonable explanation purely optional. The FI was only excused for NOT turning someone over if they had that explanation but under the IGA as drafted they could ALWAYS turn in a suspected US Person just in case with impunity. Bill C-31 (to Canada’s limited credit) REQUIRED FI’s to engage in that back checking. As a result, “reasonable explanation” is not merely limited to the whim of a compliance officer at RBC. You have rights in what that means as well. It will mean what it is interpreted to mean by the courts, by Human Rights Commissions, by OSFI (their regulator) etc. If you feel up to it, you can and should push back.
[ NOTE: This comment from Anne Frank is now incorporated into: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/11/20/revisiting-the-question-what-will-your-foreign-financial-institution-ask-you-and-what-will-they-do-if-you-do-not-provide-your-certificate-of-loss-of-nationality/.%5D
@KalC and @Ann Frank, the standardized guidance for FIs in the Netherlands is on the web at the moment in english in pdf.
It provides how you document reasonable explanation in the Netherlands.
Get it while you can. I listed how to find it via google on the other thread.
A “reasonable explanation” is only as reasonable as the person you’re talking to. Frankly, if I was a bank person listening to someone explain the history of the US relinquishment process and how it applies to me, I’d think I either lacked the legal expertise to make that kind of judgement or I was being bamboozled.
Banks are going to error of the side of caution, don’t you think?
@Bubbles…as time marches on internal FI guidance and in some cases countrywide industry guidance is going to show up on the net.
I have come across the standardized guidance from the Netherlands now used by all FIs.
They have a provision for accepting other documents as has been discussed on IBS.
But yes otherwise as a FI service rep, I would say this all lies and it can not be true.