Relinquishment and Renunciation Data (as reported on Isaac Brock), Part 2
US RELINQUISHMENT RENUNCIATION.m2
Above is a link to data we are compiling on Relinquishments and Renunciations — a work in progress.
(We are starting Part 2 as Part 1 has now over 1,000 comments.) Link to “Relinquishment and Renunciation Data (as reported on Isaac Brock), Part 1”
This Relinquishment and Renunciation database corresponds with the Consulate Report Directory, which tracks individual experiences for each Consulate, along with a timeline chart.
Note: We are using numbers instead of blog names for this public posting so there will be no compromise of private information. Your facts will help give a snapshot of relinquishment and renunciation activity and where that occurs.
Please submit information in the comments below (or someone can contact you privately if you leave a message).
This database and the Consulate Report Directory have proven valuable resources for those new to the subject of relinquishment and renunciation. They can see numbers for and read others’ experiences of relinquishment or renunciation at various US consulates throughout the world — as reported by participants of the Isaac Brock site.
Thanks for your addition to the Relinquishment and Renunciation database. Your input will definitely help others.
@Mona Lisa, Thank you so much! I remember you too. YOU have come a long way and I know it was a painful journey for you. I’m so glad you are finally out as well but, not happy about all you had to go through. It means a lot to me to see your comment.
@Shubert, thanks so much, you’ve given a lot of encouragement and inspiration to so many during this three ring circus!
@Noble, sister I could NOT have done this without you. <3
I want to copy over to Maple Sandbox now. LOL and to THINK I joined that other forum just to chit chat with other expats. I had NO IDEA what information I was to find out there and what was to become of that!
@AtticusinCanada, congratulations! I’ve been away and only just heard your good news.
@wondering
I couldn’t agree more. Not much chance of finding 1000 Kiwis that care at this point, but legal action could definitely come into play later.
Thanks for those words, I think I will write to the Minister along similar lines.
@all
I forgot to mention that in a response to one of my letters, the NZ Minister of Revenue described NZ citizens (deemed USP), as “US Taxpayers habitually resident in New Zealand”.
It took me over a week to get over my anger before I could write a (relatively) unemotional reply.
@Osgood…
Well, that is a new one… Habitually resident! For gods sake, what is wrong with that man’s thinking?
So, if you move to New Zealand, and take out NZ citizenship and live and work there, you are still only Habitually resident in NZ? I don’t recall seeing that category of residency on the Immigration web site!
Amazing. I think the next Citizenship swearing in ceremony I go to in KiaKohe (and I just went to one last year with some Pome friends that were making that leap. It was nicely done, btw) I will let the Americans that are part of the swearing allegiance to the queen process know, that the NZ IRD minister thinks they are only Habitually resident now, and not really citizens! Stunning.
Just Me, they have to come up with terms that make us seem as though we are Americans only in order to just all this. It reminds me of a response (I think Em received it?) of Justin Trudeau’s to an email asking him about FATCA and he basically replied that Canada cannot tell the USG whether or not it can tax Americans regardless of location. In essence admitting that America’s claim on its citizens trumps all others.
“Habitually resident”, hmmm. Makes us sound like permanent tourists or something.
Habitually vs occasionally resident, like a habitual vs occasional smoker.
BTW – I wrote back and told him it was a gross insult and that I expected an apology! For goodness sake, my daughter was born in the UK and came here when 3 months old. She’s visited the US once to visit grandparents. She is a “US taxpayer, habitually resident in New Zealand?” – Give me a break.
This is commonly expressed by stateside Americans, and it can be kind of understood when they state it, since it is no secret that America stops thinking beyond its border.
Yet, when non-Americans state such a thing, that’s truely mind-boggling. It is as if they stopped thinking outside of US jurisdiction since the US ordered them to do so.
@Osgood
These may help in making the case in NZ:
http://www.greenparty.ca/media-release/2013-03-13/implementation-fatca-likely-unconstitutional-says-leading-constitutional-ex
http://www.greenparty.ca/sites/greenparty.ca/files/attachments/peter_hogg_fatca.pdf
I also just posted this argument:
The attribution of “US-person-hood” and “US tax residency” based SOLELY upon a US place of birth is the FRUIT OF A POISON TREE, and the poisoned tree is national origin discrimination.
It is remote to claim that a person who was born in the US decades ago, and subsequently has no concrete tie of residence or economic activity in the US, is somehow a “US tax resident”.
It is remote because it is based solely on a foreign law defining citizenship in a foreign country. The concept of “tax residency” put forth by FATCA apologists is build on a foundation of sand: national origin discrimination. The US-person “indicia” is based upon US place of birth, but only US law defines tax residency based upon place of birth.
So a foreign law (US) defines certain people as “tax residents” of that same foreign state (US) because they were born there. But it can argued in any other country that, since that definition has no legal standing in their local law, it is remote and it cannot serve as a Legal Defense or Exemption for national origin discrimination.
FYI:
Chartered banks in Canada are governed by the Canadian Human Rights Act. “Ethnic or National Origin” is an enumerated (prohibited) ground for discrimination. See http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/eng/content/how-are-human-rights-protected-canada
@Wondering…
FRUIT OF A POISON TREE Good analogy!
“Fruit of the poisonous” tree is a legal metaphor used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally or unlawfully. The logic is that if the source of the evidence or evidence itself (the “tree”) is tainted, then anything gained from it (the “fruit”) is tainted as well.
In Canada, it is unlawful for any federally regulated institution to discriminate based upon national origin. And the Canadian Charter regulates interactions between the state (federal, provincial and territorial governments) and individuals. So any question aimed at differentiating an individual based upon their place of birth could be considered unlawful. The concept of “US person” in Canada is the fruit of a poison tree (national origin discriminatory query) if it is based solely upon place of birth. However, considering a Canadian a US person because they are actually a permanent physical resident of the US with a US legal address would not be a covered ground for discrimination.
BTW – the banks in a REALLY bad spot on this – and they know it.
There is a strong precedent in Canada to the effect that: when foreign laws conflict with Canadian laws, a Canadian bank must comply with Canadian law. Also, the affects of foreign laws are a BUSINESS RISK that Canadian banks take on voluntarily.
In Van deMark vs. Toronto Dominion Bank [1989], a Canadian high court decision established two important principles:
– in a conflict of laws, Canadian law has primacy over the law of a foreign jurisdiction where the bank also does business
– Canadian banks may not act as foreign revenue collectors or enforcers
That judgement stated:
“There is no dispute between the bank and Kenneth Van deMark and the dispute, if any, is between the bank and the Internal Revenue Service of the United States. The effect of what has occurred is that a Canadian citizen has placed assets in a branch in Canada of a Canadian chartered bank. The bank also does business in the United States and is being threatened by a United States authority.”
“One must sympathize with the position of the bank but that position is the result of its election to carry on business in more than one country and that cannot influence the application of Canadian law.”
“In any event, while acceptance by the bank of a penalty imposed in the United States might seem to be a hardship, the effect of permitting the Ontario branches to defend the applicants’ claim on the basis of the bank’s liability in New York State would be to enforce indirectly a claim for taxes by a foreign state and one that has, so far as the evidence discloses, not even given rise to a New York or Federal Court judgment.”
That judgement is pretty darn clear. I hope the politicans and future judges see the issue with similar clarity
@ Wondering: would the effect of an IGA be to provide a basis in Canadian law for enforcing the US law in Canada, thus letting the banks off the hook? I can see how the decision you cited might be a problem for the banks, but why is this not being discussed publicly when FATCA issues are raised?
@Just Me,
Van deMark vs TD Bank was a precedent-setting case in Canada. If a Canadian plaintiff harmed by a FATCA-based national origin query cites it, it’s up to the defendant bank to find other judgements that counter it. I don’t think there are many judgements that would do that.
I have little faith in politicians – more faith in the courts. Canadian courts have set landmark precedents in opposition to the government in power.
@Rev Susi
Exactly; Canadian banks are desperate for a Canadian IGA that would make FATCA a Canadian law. Thay hate the idea of FATCA and have been outspoken against it, because it puts them in an untenable situation. Especially because so many Canadians have a US place of birth due to the border. And to comply with FATCA Canadian banks would have the break Canadian laws.
However a FATCA IGA would probably violate the Canadian Charter by discriminating against certain Canadians based upon US place of birth. It would certainly be the first Canadian law to apply to Canadians born in only one foreign country. And many voters have already served notice to the Department of Finance that they utterly oppose a FATCA IGA and will take any law regarding one to court, as soon as it is tabled.
However, the Van deMark decision would probably be brought into any legal challenge regarding a Canadian FATCA IGA, because it is Canadian judgement that shows our courts’ clear distaste for Canadian banks to enforce foreign tax collection.
There has been little real public discussion of FATCA in Canada; a few articles, blogs like this one, letters to politicians and the press, and a few queries during question period.
Our government, which has a majority due to vote splitting between the 3 major parties here, has basically gone silent regrading FATCA IGA, as least as far as voters are concerned. Parliament has been prorogued so there is no public debate as of yet, but it is certainly coming.
The Charter case against a FATCA is here:
http://www.greenparty.ca/media-release/2013-03-13/implementation-fatca-likely-unconstitutional-says-leading-constitutional-ex
and here:
http://www.greenparty.ca/sites/greenparty.ca/files/attachments/peter_hogg_fatca.pdf
@ Wondering Thanks for this. Living now in the UK, I don’t have that kind of protection. I renounced, so it’s moot for me. But I’d think Brockers in Canada would jump on this legal argument against FATCA and any IGA. This is the most hopeful bit of info I’ve seen in a long time. Here there’s absolutely nothing in the press about it, only reporting on the measures across Europe to share information in order to catch tax avoiders, particularly in Switzerland. When I posted something on my FB page just to test the water, Brits who responded said I was probably the cause of third world poverty, go figure! I didn’t respond.
@ atticusincanada
Congratulations on your relinquishment appt in Toronto. I went in July and was told about 4 months. I just saw recent comments on this post and saw all the new ones I missed.
I am leaving my IBS business cards on bulletin boards where I go.
As Q3 comes to a close, we have 30 days to spend in gleeful anticipation of those new renunciation numbers once again 🙂
@bubblebustin, considering the impending US government shutdown, it seems most unlikely that the Q3 list of names will come out on time or will be very long. The people in the State Department who approve CLNs will almost surely be laid off, as will the people in the Treasury Department who prepare the list for the Federal Register. It should be comforting to know, however, that IRS tax collectors will not be laid off during the shutdown (if it occurs). 🙂
Thanks AnonAnon
What about OVDI submissions? What’s another 22 months at this stage?
Please feel free to add my Relinquish request information to the database listing.
Requested by email for relinquishment appointment on Oct 1, 2013.
Response came the same day via email for an appoinment on Thursday, January 30, 2014
Location: Calgary consulate
If you require further information, please let me know. I will provide an update as it proceeds.
Thank you. – Geri
You are never going to persuade Americans by argument that there is money anywhere in the world that doesn’t belong to them. This is a terrorist state that has no problem bombing unidentified civilians for no reason other than that they happen to be in certain places; does anyone seriously think they will have any qualms about taking your money?
The US will not restrain itself; it must be restrained. I have written to the foreign minister in my country (in Europe) and asked whether they can adopt the Canadian policy of not showing birthplaces on passports. This is just a start. The United States made me its enemy; I hope I can be a worthy adversary, and inflict a lot of damage.
Dear Society Member
PLEASE PLEASE HELP ME.
The last two weeks of my life have been two of the most incredibly stressful weeks of my life – i have found out about FATCA that the implications for my complex situation. I have been reading everything i can however my case is especially complicate.
– i am a dual Australian/American citizen since birth (im in my 40s now)
– i have never lived in the US, never obtained an Social Security Number, never been a resident in the US, never voted.
– i have never filed a US tax return
– i have always lived outside the US
– i have visited the States on my US passport (this year for ~3 weeks).
– i have a valid US passport since birth, most recently one i received in 2010 valid to 2020.
– my financial situation is VERY complex, reason – i have lived in Australia, NZ, Germany, all of which have different tax years and laws. I have run companies, owned properties, had US shares, etc.
– i have also contracted (worked for as a freelancer) to US companies (from outside the US) and have filled in W4 forms
I do not want to be a US citizen anymore, in my heart i am an Australian. I fear the cost of compliance for tax and FATCA.
My goal is to relinquishment my US citizenship and not have to explain my case to the IRD, or file tax returns for the last 7 years (it’s just insanely complicated in my case). I am not a tax cheat it’s the cost of compliance.
I believe if i RENOUNCE my citizenship i will have to fill in a 8854 form which requires me to essentially say that i have filed tax returns with the IRS, and i will likely have to pay and file these tax returns to have my request accepted.
My questions are as follows:
a) Do i have any options to relinquishment my citizenship? (since I’ve been an Australian since birth).
b) Does anyone know if can i ask the Australian govt to take the Australian oath again for the purposes of relinquishment my US citizenship?
c) In the process of relinquishment – do i have to wait on the US govt or IRS for any acceptance or recognition?
d) If i relinquish my US citizenship do i need to fill in an 8854 form? Or is this only for renouncement?
e) Importantly. If i manage to relinquishment my US citizenship will i have to fill in US tax returns
f) If i manage to relinquishment my US citizenship will i be liable for taxes to the IRS?
g) Can the IRS “get me” if I’m not a US citizen?
h) Can anyone recommend me a lawyer to help with my situation?
PLEASE PLEASE HELP ME.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU FOR THIS WEBSITE and your time helping me.
Jed
@Jed, sorry I wish I had better news, but you can’t relinquish. If you were born dual (which is sounds as if you were) you can only renounce. Taking the Australian oath would mean nothing as you were born a dual citizen. Plus you have been using your US passport so relinquishment is not an option because of that either.
Whether you renounce or relinquish you are still liable for any outstanding taxes owed, it doesn’t matter. You can renounce before filing the tax forms, that has no bearing on it. Indeed the embassy/consulate won’t/shouldn’t do more than just point out to you that you may have filing obligations. But it shouldn’t affect the renunciation being approved. I renounced, got my CLN and then started the necessary backfiling.
You have two choices: get a good tax accountant to help you sort this out and pay up what’s owed or renounce and don’t pay up. But if you take that route then I’d advise you never to have anything to do with the US in the future: business, leisure, whatever, nothing. Never try and enter the country again for whatever reason. Stay away from it completely forever.