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.
@WhatAmI
“If they reject your explanation and documents or you walk and close your account, they are required to report you to the CRA.”
This gotcha policy stinks. Shouldn’t the bank really be sending letters out to ALL their customers that should the bank find indicia, the customer may be put in this position?
@Bubblebustin
“Stinks” is too tame a word. It seems to me that if you decide to tell the IRS to take a flying leap and refuse to cooperate, you are now breaking Canadian law, not US law. Say what? A foreign country is putting us into a position where we “must” break the laws of our own country???
Doesn’t that constitute entrapment?
@WhatamI, “I know a guy who worked at an election polling station for a couple of days. He listed this in his list of claimed expatriating acts, and the consul ridiculed him and said it didn’t count. The consul also discounted his other claim of government employment as a contractor, but sent it all to DC with a strong recommendation to be denied.”
That is interesting so I have been attempting to figure out why the Consul would reject it.
Plain reading of US Code indicates “any employment” with the intent and voluntariness is expatriating, there are no other conditions;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481
So how could this be, a Consuler recommending non-approval based on the plain reading of the law?
So I start thinking that “any employment” in State Department language actauly only means certain employment.
So in a departure from the actual law, I go to 7 FAM 1284 and find this little ditty;
“e. 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.”
http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/07fam/
Shazam…….this is the key to why some Consulates will recommend denial of “any” foreign government employment. They will recommend DENIAL because of the guidance in 7 FAM 1284.
But……they are quoting not US Code or the Immigration Nationality Act (INA), they are quoting the Nationality Act (NA).
Whats that? And what is the exact language referred to?
The Nationality Act was passed in 1940 and here is the provision in question;
“(d) Accepting, or performing the duties of, any office, post, or
employment under the government of a foreign state or political
subdivision thereof for which only nationals of such state are
eligible; or”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8613702/Nationality-Act-of-1940-Ch4-S401-410
Oh oh, trouble in river city for the otherwise superb relinquishment plan.
But……The Nationality Act of 1940 (Act of October 13, 1940) was repealed by Public Law 414 June 27, 1952 known as the Immigration and Nationality Act. Yes, Congress repealed the whole 1940 Act.
The 1952 overhaul replaced the offensive language cited in 7 FAM with;
(4) (A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any
office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state
or a political subdivision thereof, if he has or acquires the nationality
of such foreign state; or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-66/pdf/STATUTE-66-Pg163.pdf
So what Congress did in 1952 was they made it easier for people to lose US Citizenship. ANY foreign employment would be expatriating not just restricted to those jobs that only a foreign national could hold.
So what does this mouthful teach us? ANYONE who relinquished based on employment needs to print these reference sections and be prepared to show a Consulate Officer that the 7 FAM guidance is ultra vires.
@WhatAmI, “It’s going to be a long time before anybody can be sure in advance of what their particular FI will accept in lieu of a CLN.”
I think the IGA was in a sense clever by half.
Because “reasonable explanation” is NOT defined in the IGA it will be defined under local law be that Canadian, French, Irish………
I would hazard to say that if a bona-fide reasonable explanation is put forward as in you expatriated under 8 US Code by doing “X,” you have actual documents proving you did “X” and you swear the statement to be true under Canadian, French, Irish…..Local Law, then a FI is going to be hard pressed to reject such reasonable explanation.
Now this would only apply for bona-fide relinquishments which I believe there are MPs in Canada who have relinquished and I suspect they do not have a CLN.
It would not apply to someone who goes on the street corner and renounces his citizenship to the world!!
@George,
“That is interesting so I have been attempting to figure out why the Consul would reject it.”
We do have many reports that consuls across the country have made incorrect statements, such as insisting on an employment oath from dual citizens to accept government employment, insisting gov’t jobs had to be high-level/policy-making, etc. I think they have improved their knowledge of their own laws over the last 18 months. The consul I’ve described, after telling interviewees that he doesn’t think their claim is valid for whatever reason, has gone on to say “but I’m not an expert so we’ll see what Washington has to say”. Damn, I wish some results would start coming back. It’s been maybe 9 months since we’ve learned anything new with regards to what is being successful.
@George
“…then a FI is going to be hard pressed to reject such reasonable explanation.”
Now the FI is put in the position to make an interpretation of US laws and a judgement as to whether our claim is valid. I can imagine at least some will cover their a$$ and have their definition of a “reasonable explanation” as something we cannot produce.
What about a “legal opinion” from a certified US immigration lawyer practising in Canada? Do they exist, and do they give legal opinions, and would it be expensive? Or do they cover their a$$ too and give opinions that have disclaimers as not actually being legal?
@WhatAmI, I think someone going in for a relinquishment based CLN for employment would probably be well served with a letter drafted in advance that it is their understanding that they relinquished under 8 US Code which states_______, which increased the scope of employment for relinquishment compared to the repealed NA of 1940. I would also be tempted to go in and state right off that 7 FAM 1284 is ultra vires and cites law that was repealed fifty years ago!!
If you cross paths with that person you may wish to pass along this new understanding in case they need to appeal.
Anyways what you came up with has helped develop the discussion and I was real puzzled as to what we may have been missing on the employment clause!!
Its kind of funny as there was probably some Senator in 1952 who said “I am going to screw over those traitors and make it easier for them to fall off the straight and narrow line and lose their precious US Citizenship.”
In researching the old text, I could almost sense a wickedness in creating a gotcha moment to take away citizenship more easily.
And here we are 62 years later using that gotcha moment to help people get rid of USC. Its not screwing people today, its helping people off the plantation.
@WhatAmI, “What about a “legal opinion” from a certified US immigration lawyer practising in Canada? Do they exist, and do they give legal opinions, and would it be expensive? ”
For some relinquishers, its easy and right to simply get a CLN.
For others, it could be costly as in travel time.
For others, it could be that they want nothing to do anymore with what is a foreign government. They have followed the law and they are done, finished, no mas.
US Law on expatriation is actually cut and dry. It also does not require a CLN for nationality purposes other than for a renouncing.
I think its a good idea for some people to consult a lawyer, outline what they did with documentation and seek a narrow legal opinion are they or are they not a US Citizen. Especially if they do not get a CLN.
I have noticed some FIs as actually stating on their websites that you should seek out your own legal guidance as to status.
@George
“I have noticed some FIs as actually stating on their websites that you should seek out your own legal guidance as to status.”
I’ve seen that too, but never thought of it in the context of the question I just asked. It could be an answer! These FIs might accept that legal opinion as a reasonable explanation. I would think that such a document would have a much greater chance of success than a sworn document with a regular lawyer. All seem to me to only say “this person swore to these facts in my presence but I did not verify their truthfulness”. Well, as the consul told me during my interview, “Anybody can write a letter”.
I just received a letter from the Dept of State rejecting my claim for relinquishment by Section 350 of the 1952 INA. They said “The law clearly provided that the three years of continuous residence must have postdated the seeking or claiming of the benefit.” i.e. when after I registered for birth abroad in Canada. It doesn’t say that in the FAM…does anyone have a copy of the original law? I have been unable to find it. I am of course devastated as many Brockers have been in the past and will contact a lawyer to see if I can still manage to get this relinquishment. I feel like I’ve been kicked in the stomach. Many thanks to all of you who tried to help me. It is very much appreciated. I will, of course, continue to support the cause.
Cheryl,
You’re right – a kick in the stomach. I have no expertise to comment on this, but I see others are weighing in. With rejection of your claim, we are seeing more and more trend toward those decisions. I hope there is a way you’re able to fight the decision against your claim to relinquishment. Hang in there.
Thanks Calgary411. I’m a bit of a basket case right now but I’ll come around.
@Cheryl
I ordered a copy of the US case law from Scib.com for my letter to Washington, it has section 350 in it. PUBLIC LAW 414-JUNE 27, 1952 If you email me I can send you a copy. I tried to get them to back date mine to when I turned 21 using their case law but they only went as far back as when I started with the federal government in 2001 instead of 1981. But 2001 works for me too. Hope you can appeal. Sorry to hear it did not go as you had hoped. If I did not get mine I just would never travel to or through the US again, I don’t think they can do anything to you if you stay in Canada and visit Europe. 🙂
Moderators, you can give Canadiangirl.403 my email address.
@Canadiangirl.403. Thanks a lot. Congrats on your freedom.
Done, Cheryl.
@Cheryl @calgary411
Sorry I have tried twice with two different email accounts the email address I have for you is not going through. Moderator maybe you could give Cheryl my address & I can just reply to her email.
Thanks
Canadiangirl.403,
I’ve sent another email to Cheryl. Will see if I get an answer or a “not deliverable” message back before I put another email address up at which Cheryl can reach me to then get instructions to reach you.
Cheryl,
You can send me an email at calgaryfouroneone@gmail.com so I can put you and Canadiangirl.403 in contact with each other. The email address you provide is “undeliverable”. Thanks.
I am an accidental American (left the country prior to 2 yrs old) and have lived in NZ, as have my parents and siblings ever since. I married a NZer and have a child born in NZ. In short I have not had anything to do with the US for 38 years. I have now found that I potentially have a tax filing liability. I took a NZ oath and claimed naturalisation to NZ on 3 March 2004, so am hoping I can claim loss of citizenship through relinquishment/intention of relinquishment, but of course I must complete the forms and be seen to qualify. The only problem I can see is that (in my ignorance of the situation) I have kept my US passport, however I was always told that I was legally obliged to use this when visiting the US (which I’ve only done about twice in the last 38 years, both times for less than a week). Also there is still the fact that I have never filed a tax return. I understand that this is a requirement to not be liable for exit tax, however I wonder in reality if I was to be accepted as relinquishing, if it would really matter, as being a non citizen how would they in effect tax me (I have no intention of returning over there now).
I noted the loophole you mentioned re the fact that the form DS-4079 does not mention anything about relinquishment prior to June 2004, which is my case (assuming they accept and date it back to my oath taking). Something to do with no ex pat legislation written back then and the Reed Amendment act that was in place prior to June 2004. If you are correct then effectively there is no exit tax applicable nor taxes requiring filing….. Am I correct in my thinking here? And do you have any further information on this ie; has anyone yet tested it…?
I am feeling rather angry about the whole thing and would not be averse to engaging a lawyer if this was indeed a realistic track to go down. There seems to be only one place that specializes in US ex pat scenarios over here and I need to wait until Jan 5 before I can get their advice on my situation. Failing the relinquishment then I think I will have to file 3 years taxes under the current amnesty and then renounce once I’m seen to be up to date. Burying ones head in the sand does not appear to be a sensible option with FATCA etc an inevitable reality. My poor husband (NZer) is the one that has worked so hard, and simply because he was unfortunate enough to marry a USC he is now potentially going to be out of pocket, as our finances are all mucked in together. It makes me angry in that while we are not ‘poor’ by any means, we have worked hard and made sacrifices to be where we are now financially, (and I don’t mean we are millionaires), but we are comfortable, and have paid our taxation dues in the society where we owe them. What right does the US have to want a slice of our pie for the unfortunate act of my simply being born in their country…!?
I had applied some time ago for my son to become a citizen (never got as far as an interview thank goodness), as I now feel the opportunity to live in the US really doesn’t stack up when considering the punitive tax laws and international discrimination he will potentially have to contend with should he decide not to live in the US. Leaves a very bad taste in the mouth, and I now view the US in a very different light. Land of the free – what a JOKE! Any feedback on similar situations re relinquishing etc would be appreciated.
I should add as a side note that I am mortified at the heavy handed treatment ex pats are having to swallow with FATCA, and the inference that all are US overseas citizens are tax evaders, when in reality the vast majority would be just working hard, paying full taxes in their resident country’s and trying to get on with their lives. I don’t really even consider myself an ex pat but an unfortunate accidental US citizen by birth. Worldwide taxation is a farce and they are simply treating normal everyday people as cash cows, with no thought to the lives they are, at best, disrupting and at worst, ruining. I am sure most wealthy tax evaders will be well ahead of the IRS on hiding their assets, and so the honest average workers who hold citizenship, in many cases unknowingly like myself are being caught in the crossfire.
Ok, that’s my rant done! I thank you for your informative posts as I would have not known where to start without these, and they’ve given me a certain amount of solace to know I’m indeed not alone. Now I feel relatively well informed of my choices (as much as one can be when dealing with US bureaucracy).
@Coleen
I feel your pain. I am in NZ and finally got my CLN but due to financial trouble have not been able to afford to do my back filings yet. As far as I am aware even if you oath’d in 2004 the clock only starts ticking the moment you officially relinquish at the US consulate. For example I oath’d in 2008 and my CLN was dated for 2008 but I am still liable for tax filing the last 6 years and the form 8854 (iirc). I’m not sure if yours would be different. The entire thing is freaking ridiculous, things are further complicated with me as I own a small NZ Ltd so I even have to file 6yrs of paperwork for that. I need to come up with probably $5,000 NZ to get all of this sorted out, which I do not have. Some family might be loaning me the money because they fear if I do not get through this I’ll never be able to visit them again in the US. Or who knows maybe they’ll punish US expats or accidentals even further and extradite us to Guantanamo bay -after all we are nothing but tax evading traitors in their eyes. It’s beyond depressing, but you are far from alone.
@Coleen,
Did you renew your US passport after 3 Mar 2004? If so, that is a problem that could very well kill your chance of claiming a relinquishment.
As you probably read here ( http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/06/19/if-your-expatriation-date-is-before-2004-the-rules-are-different/ ) you would not be obligated to file any taxes if your Mar 2004 relinquishment is accepted.
You did not live in the US long enough to transfer US citizenship to your children.
Thank you for that. Yes, I suspected the passport thing may pose a problem. I will just have to explain I renewed only because I understood it was unlawful to travel on any other passport if you have an American (and I was never asked to relinquish it). Stupid on my part in hindsight…. So is the prior to 2004 situation a given ie: no requirement to file tax/exit tax? Has anyone successfully done this…?
Coleen, welcome. Quite the mess and you’ve come to the right place to get support and do some research.
Can you clarify if you were born to New Zealand parents in the US and then returned with your NZ parents to NZ at the age of two? ie., did you have to naturalize to become a NZ citizen or were you, by NZ law, a NZ citizen by birth to NZ citizen parents even though born in the US? If you were *born with dual citizenship* (both NZ citizenship by birth to NZ parents PLUS US citizenship by birth in the US), you must have other circumstances, like having had a NZ government job, to be able to claim relinquishment if you intended to relinquish by taking that job. If indeed you did have to naturalize to become a NZ citizen in 2004, with only a US citizen before that, you should be able to claim your becoming a citizen in 2004 as your act of relinquishment. So many in’s and out’s = many absurdities in all of this.
It appears that you would not be able to automatically or otherwise pass US citizenship on to your NZ-born son as you only resided in the US for two years — so that is good. If your parents are US citizens though, he could as an adult apply for US citizenship through them.
Anyway, those are my questions / my take on your comment here. You’re right — Land of the Free is a big, bad joke.
I am born to a US father (who served in Vietnam) but who is now NZ resident, and an English Mother, also now NZ resident. So I also have a British passport (I registered as a UK citizen and applied for and was granted a passport in 2006), so I guess was effectively born with dual citizenship(?) US and English though, not US and NZ. I did the naturalisation and oath in 2004 for NZ. My parents chose to emigrate to NZ in 1976.
Yes, my son is not an automatic US citizen and I was applying using my US Fathers residency there for many years prior to 1976 as the grounds. I am now thinking I may withdraw the application as we’ve not yet been to the US to do the interview/oath, so cancelling will just leave him with his original non US status. While I’d love him to have the opportunity to live there if he so wished later on, I now feel I could be potentially placing a heavy burden on him if he decided to settle elsewhere. Not to mention if we died and he inherited our assets, no doubt they would come calling…. Sigh…. So many scenarios to consider!