Renunciation – spin-off conversations To keep the main Renunciation Questions thread focused on people’s Questions as much as possible, I’ve started this thread for conversations on that thread that spin off into related matters. Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailLike this:Like Loading...
The only reason for needing a replacement CLN would be if the first copy got lost or stolen or destroyed.
In that event, yes, there would no doubt be a charge for getting a replacement.
Or if your name was wrong ……
There seem to be no reports of a misspelt name causing bank officials to suspect fraud or demand that the DoS correct their error.
Fanciful fears aside, the point is, warning people about non-existent dangers is not helpful. Renouncing is easy. Advisers aren’t needed; no warnings or cautions are needed.
Whatever your assessment of the risks involved when opening an account when the names don’t match,
I don’t want my name spelled incorrectly on my CLN and I shouldn’t imagine anyone else would either.
Indeed, it’s entirely reasonable to ask for it to be corrected, if that’s important to you. It wasn’t important to me. The name on my CLN didn’t match the name my bank accounts. The discrepancy didn’t bother me, didn’t bother the consular official, and didn’t bother the banks.
Well that’s all right then, your names don’t match on Brock too. 🙂
@Phyllis Henderson: “Can you give a reference to where that’s stated?”
I presume you were referring to Heidi’s note about not using multiple pseudonyms. In which case:
I might be wrong, but I have feeling you are also ‘iota’ from way back. In general using multiple aliases is frowned upon because one person can then masquerade as several, conduct discussions agreeing (or even disagreeing!) with their alter-egos, and so on. I don’t that’s the case here, though. Perhaps more a desire just to start afresh without baggage from earlier posts.
I was referring to the statement at http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/renunciation-spin-off-conversations/comment-page-1/#comment-8646697
Phyllis /plaxy ? was arguing that I was causing undue stress for renunciants by me suggesting it’s important to check the 4080 at the Embassy before signing as mistakes are made by the Embassy staff when preparing the forms and even if they are made it’s unimportant ! (I found two mistakes on mine and it was corrected immediately)
Phyllis seems to have the same M. O. and mindset in constant circular arguments as Plaxy, and she also made reference to her comments being blocked . I am not aware of Phyllis being blocked but am aware of Plaxy. She does not deny Plaxy when I reference her. I did wonder why Iota left the scene .
With reference to the above
I would be surprised if the State dept would out of the goodness of their hearts produce a corrected CLNfor free after you had supposedly checked and signed that your details were correct at the Renunciation.
Renunciants who’re concerned about it will no doubt make sure their name is spelt as they want it to be spelt before they sign.
Renunciants who aren’t concerned about it, are perhaps unlikely to subsequently develop a pointless anxiety and demand a new CLN.
Spellings matter. I can vouch for the fact that in both Hong Kong and Singapore, a single letter’s difference will put bankers into a swoon. To the point that we had to get a signed affidavit for my son that his name spelt with a W rather than a U were one and the same person, which he used to have to present at the counter every time he deposited a cheque.
And just as I return to Brock for a look, here comes Plaxy under a new moniker, turning a simple discussion into page after page after page of repetitious semantic nitpicking about nothing of importance. See ya later, folks.
“Spellings matter. “
Obviously, on some paperwork. Not on a Certificate of Loss of Nationality, which is merely the US Government’s confirmation that nationality has been lost.
There’s nothing at stake – not for the bank, not for the accountholder, not for the residence country, not for the US.
Sorry, “Phyllis”/Plaxy, but if a Hong Kong bank was shown a CLN with a W where a U appears in the passport or Hong Kong identity document, they would reject the CLN as evidence of being exempt from FATCA. Whether or not they have anything at stake, they will reject it. They are ID Nazis.
But you always must have the last word, no matter what. So go ahead, repeat for the fiftieth time what you’ve said over and over on the past three pages. I’m waiting…
“if a Hong Kong bank was shown a CLN with a W where a U appears in the passport or Hong Kong identity document, they would reject the CLN as evidence of being exempt from FATCA.”
A CLN isn’t evidence that an accountholder is “exempt from FATCA”.
A CLN simply allows the bank to determine correctly that the accountholder should be asked to sign a W8 (or similar) rather than a W9.
FATCA doesn’t say US citizens can’t have foreign bank accounts. FATCA says the bank has to get a W9 – making it very risky for the bank to collude with the accountholder to hide US-source income from US taxation, should there be any such intentions.
The injustice lies in the use of birthplace = citizenship = “tax-residence.”
Making the US the only country in the world which tries to claim tax revenue on the basis of an immutable characteristic.
I think plaxy needs to get out a bit more. 🙂
The CLN “cures” your US birthplace, and tells the bank they can let you sign a W8 and open a non-USC account without jeopardising their FATCA-compliant status.
If there’s an innocent typo in your name – that’s not a risk for the bank. The CLN isn’t an ID document that proves you’re entitled to an account. It’s a thing the bank has to have on file in order to let a US-born accountholder sign a W8 (or similar).
What’s risky for a bank is giving an accountholder with US indicia a US citizen account (a W9 account) without having both the W9 and the cure for the indicia on file.
No need for would-be renunciants to worry that they might get a duff CLN. It’s not evidence in a criminal trial, it’s simply a piece of paper needed by the banks for their files.
“What’s risky for a bank is giving an accountholder with US indicia a US citizen account (a W9 account) without having both the W9 and the cure for the indicia on file.”
Correction. What’s risky is:
a) giving an accountholder with US indicia a USC account without getting both the W9 and TIN on file; or
b) giving an accountholder with US indicia a non-USC account without getting both the cure for the indicia and the W8 (or similar) on file.
Does a future name change have any impact on the validity of the CLN? E.g. if I were to get married and change my surname? Or would I just need to have the proof of name change?
I am sure there is no impact on the validity of a name change on a cln, it is an official document and and would be treated as all other official documents when required by proving your name change, ie your marriage certificate.