Renunciation and Relinquishment of United States Citizenship: Discussion thread (Ask your questions) Part Two

10,433 thoughts on “Renunciation and Relinquishment of United States Citizenship: Discussion thread (Ask your questions) Part Two”

1. Finally! The IRS seems to be listening to the travails of Accidental Americans with “law-abiding instincts”!?

   Posted on June 4, 2014

   The IRS Commissioner just announced, on June 3rd, a set of common sense statements about “U.S. citizens” who want to comply with their tax obligations. Commisioner John Koskinen said the IRS will likely modify “in the very near future” (according to an article written by Jaime Arora and William Hoffman of TaxAnalysts) its offshore voluntary disclosure program for U.S. citizens residing overseas.

   http://tax-expatriation.com/

2. @Patrick Martin,

   So what about those “Accidental Americans with law abiding instincts” who don’t want to bend over for USA and become ‘tax compliant’ for a country that they have not lived in for decades – if ever.

   Not all of us are looking for an easy way to be good slaves and come into compliance because this is not the right thing to do, it is just a less bad thing for the USA to do to us. Many of us want USA to recognize us as what we are – law abiding citizens and taxpayers of other countries, living and earning solely in other countries.

   USA can keep its CBT if it wants, but it needs to let non-compliant ‘US persons’ who don’t legitimately OWE USA anything because they neither earn US income, nor live in USA, to go free and clear without jumping through ‘compliance’ hoops to get out.

3. http://tax-expatriation.com/2014/06/04/why-the-fbar-late-filed-or-never-filed-is-not-a-requirement-for-the-certification-requirement-of-section-877a2c/

   ‘Why the FBAR (late filed or never filed) is not a requirement for the Certification Requirement of Section 877(a)(2)(C) – (5 Years of Tax Compliance)’

   Posted on June 4, 2014 Updated on June 5, 2014

4. @badger

   It should be noted that, in theory at least, a person would still be on the hook for those unfiled FBARs until the 6 years SOL runs out.

   Personally, the only reason I could see for not filing FBARs is to make a political statement. If, OTOH, you just want to get this whole Kafkaesque situation totally over with once and for all, then file the forms and have one less thing to worry about for the next 6 years.

5. Why the Zwerner FBAR Case is Probably a Pyrrhic Victory for the Government – for USCs and LPRs Living Outside the U.S. (Part II) – http://tax-expatriation.com/

   Posted on June 13, 2014

   Will the IRS and Justice Department end up with a “Pyrrhic Victory” for USCs and LPRs residing overseas who have not (probably never – in many cases) filed FBARs? This is a follow-on post to an earlier post of this week. See, Why the Zwerner FBAR Case is Probably a Pyrrhic Victory for the Government – for USCs and LPRs Living Outside the U.S. (Part I), Posted, June 11, 2014.

6. Hi,
   I was born to Canadian parents in the United States. I moved to Canada when I was 18 and have lived here ever since. When I found out that I could register as a Canadian citizen born abroad, I was told by Canadian immigration officials that I had to choose to be a Canadian or and American. If I became a Canadian, I would lose my American citizenship. I believed them and that is what I wanted.

   I know others personally who were told the same thing and then searching on line it would seem that this was said to many others. The Canadian government now says this was not the law on the part of Canada at the time. I can’t find any documentation of the US policy.

   If this was commonly told to people there must have been some law or policy of this nature. If I could get documentation of this it would help me expatriate as of the date of my registration of birth abroad.

   Does anyone have information about this?

   Thanks

7. What year was that. The policy changed in1978.

8. Early 1977

9. Early 1977. I asked my MP to check on the law with immigration. They said prior to the law change in ?1977 if you were American you could become a Canadian as a dual but not the reverse?

10. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?q=359&t=5

    Cheryl, this may be similar to those of us born in the US who became Canadian citizens decades ago, being told at the time that we would be losing our US citizenship by doing so. Some have been able to claim their relinquishment of US citizenship by their act of becoming a Canadian citizen in those times. A few lucky ones even got their own Certificates of Loss of US Nationality. However, most of us didn’t and were not told that was any kind of a requirement for actually officially losing US citizenship. US DOS regulation says that if you were born a dual citizen (which is what it was, really, for you — born in the U.S. to Canadian parents), you cannot claim relinquishment and would have to, instead, renounce — unless you had another claim, having taken the oath of office for a government agency. That, too, is a point of dispute whether one born a dual will be successful in claiming relinquishment or not. The jury of the Department of State is still out for decision for some. (The good thing is that if you were born a dual citizen, no matter your level of net worth wealth, you will not be deemed a ‘Covered Expatriate’ for purposes of the US Exit Tax — unless you fail to complete the final IRS Form 8854.)

    What the Ottawa US Embassy has to say about “Dual Citizenship”: http://canada.usembassy.gov/consular_services/dual-citizenship.html

    What the Government of Canada has to say about “Dual Citizenship”: http://travel.gc.ca/travelling/publications/dual-citizenship

    If you were born in another country:

    In general, you are a Canadian citizen if you became a citizen through the naturalization process in Canada (i.e., you were a permanent resident – a landed immigrant – before you became a citizen).
    In general, you are a Canadian citizen if you were born outside Canada and one of your parents was a Canadian citizen at the time of your birth and that parent was either born in Canada or naturalized in Canada (‘naturalized’ means that the parent was a permanent resident – a landed immigrant – before becoming a citizen). You are the first generation born outside Canada.
    You may be a Canadian citizen if you were born outside Canada between January 1, 1947, and April 16, 2009, inclusively to a Canadian parent who was also born outside Canada to a Canadian parent (you are the second or subsequent generation born outside Canada). If you think this may apply to you and you need more information, please contact CIC.
    If you were a British subject residing in Canada when the Canadian Citizenship Act came into force on January 1, 1947, or you were born outside Canada to a British subject parent who might have become a citizen on that date, contact CIC to find out how to confirm whether or not you are a citizen.

    If you are uncertain about whether you are a Canadian citizen, we encourage you to use CIC’s online self-assessment tool before applying for the Certificate of Canadian Citizenship. To use the online tool, visit the CIC website, and proceed to the Apply for Citizenship section.

11. What I don’t understand is if all these people were told they would lose their US citizenship there must have been some basis for it?

12. Unless a person has that valuable US CLN – Certificate of Loss of Nationality (which a few did get from decades ago), they did not officially complete the process — but those US-born and raised persons (not generally born dual however) are successfully claiming relinquishment back to the date they became Canadian citizens.

    Regarding ‘some basis to it’, we wish. It is similar to having been able to cross the border with our Canadian passports time upon time upon time although the actual law is that if we are ‘US citizens’ we MUST only cross the border with a US passport. Some of us, including me, were finally challenged when we were “caught” crossing with our Canadian passport. As well, times past persons from the US were told by Canadian accountants that they did not have to file US tax returns. I was told that by two different Canadian accountants over the years. I don’t know: you get advice from a professional of any sort and you take it as true without checking whether or not that is the case. So, here we are — all having our OMG moments of finding out what US citizenship-based taxation really means. Most of us had no idea there was such a thing — residence-based taxation the thing that makes common sense. We are now being criminalized by the US, backed up by our own Canadian government, for our “ignorance” or, as I think of it, lack of education on the matter.

13. And, the truth, as I see it, Cheryl, is that people who were told that they would lose their US citizenships when becoming Canadian citizens were, in those times, warned / threatened. The warning was similar to the other kinds of US fear-mongering. Those were the Vietnam “war” days when many people chose to come to Canada rather than fight in an illegal “war”.

    See “A” Dual Citizenship FAQ: http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html

    If I am a dual US/other citizen, is there any way I can lose my US citizenship?

    Although current US law forbids the government from taking your citizenship from you against your will, it does permit you to give it up voluntarily. This has placed the US State Department in the complex position of determining whether someone who claims to be a US citizen has, in fact, given up that citizenship by his voluntary statements or actions.

    In the early days of court-mandated acceptance of dual citizenship, State Department officials (hostile as most of them were to the whole idea of dual citizenship) tended to play hardball with people who claimed dual status, looking for almost any excuse to revoke US citizenship, and frequently ruling that a person had voluntarily forsaken his US ties despite steadfast protestations or even convincing evidence to the contrary.

    On 16 April 1990, though, the State Department adopted a new set of guidelines for handling dual citizenship cases which are much more streamlined and liberal than before.

    The State Department now says that it will assume that a US citizen intends to retain (not give up) his US citizenship if he:

    is naturalized in a foreign country;

    takes a routine oath of allegiance to a foreign country; or

    accepts foreign government employment that is of a “non-policy-level” nature.

    Apparently, a “routine oath of allegiance” to another country is no longer taken as firm evidence of intent to give up US citizenship, even if said oath includes a renunciation of US citizenship. This represents a dramatic reversal of previous US policy; it used to be that any such statement was taken rigidly at face value (as in the Supreme Court’s 1980 Terrazas decision).

    This presumption that someone intends to keep US citizenship does not apply to a person who:

    takes a “policy-level” position in a foreign country;

    is convicted of treason against the US; or

    engages in “conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that [he] intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship.”

    The State Department says that cases of these kinds will be examined carefully to determine the person’s intent. They also say that cases falling under the last criterion mentioned above (conduct wholly inconsistent with intent to keep US citizenship) are presumed to be “very rare.”

14. Cheryl, there absolutely was a basis for it. The policy of the State Dep’t at the time was that acquiring Canadian citizenship ( by whatever means) was an act that would cause the loss of US citizenship unless the preponderance of evidence was such that it was clear the INTENT was not to give it up. Generally speaking they were opposed to dual citizenship. ‘Evidence’ included such things as which passport you used, whether or not you had property down south and so on.
    The subject is complex and confused and contradictory.

    Google ‘ Vance V. Terrazas’ for a Wikipedia description of the law at that time. The state dep’t has turned 180 degrees and now instead of making it difficult to keep American citizenship are making it difficult to give it up.

15. Thanks KalC,
    That is very helpful. I had read a shorter summary of Vance vs Terazzas and was planning on using it but I was uncertain why the Canadian government would tell me I would lose my US citizenship. Thanks.

16. @Cheryl,

    I’m not clear on your timeline. Were you born in 1959?

    Do you have a Registration of Birth Abroad? Received in 1977?

    Since you lived in the US until age 18, your children have “US citizenship rights” (my term). What is not clear to me is if they are US citizens whether they like it or not, or if they are US citizens only if they apply(ed) for it.

    Some of what you say doesn’t make sense. If you were born a dual-citizen (which you were), then merely getting a certificate to prove it could not make you lose your USC. A Canadian official could not take away your USC. Prior to 1986, it was up to the US government whether an action you performed lost your USC. Since 1986, it’s up to you whether or not an expatriating act loses your USC. I think all these quotes of what people were told by Canadian officials back in the day were simply the Canadian officials quoting US laws to people.

    Today, if you take an oath of foreign citizenship to another country, and that oath declares that you are giving up all other citizenship, US law still will let you keep the USC. As far as the US is concerned, you only lose your USC if you want to. That’s what the Rusk and Terrazas Supreme Court cases (and the INA changes of 1986) were all about.

    Unless you have worked for some level of government in Canada (or joined the military as an NCO or higher), it sounds like you haven’t performed any expatriating act.

17. I was born in 1953, moved to Canada at age 18 in 1971 on a student visa, and became a landed immigrant in 1973. I then found out my parents were Canadian citizens when I was born so applied to be registered as a Canadian born abroad in 1977. At that time I was told by Canadian officials that I had to choose whether I wanted to be a Canadian or American, that I couldn’t be both. My point is whether that was true or not that was my understanding at the time. According to Vance vs Terraska the Supreme Court indicated that the demonstration of intent to lose citizenship was more important than the words spoken etc. I don’t know for certain but that seems to apply to me.

    Thanks for your interest

18. Good luck, Cheryl. Hope you now have something to go on to claim and prove relinquishment of US citizenship — if that doesn’t work, you can fall back on renunciation instead. You are the flip side of the coin, the US Consulate in Canada telling so many of us US-born citizens that we would lose US citizenship upon becoming Canadian citizens (but, here we are, finding now that not to be so if it was ever so). Since you, too, were born in the U.S. and are more easily identifiable, if you still want the ability to travel to the U.S., it seems you (and we) will need that ever-more-important Certificate of Loss of (U.S.) Nationality (CLN) to show your/our local Canadian “foreign financial institution’/bank, the border official and anyone else who may in the future require such.

    I don’t know if have read my family’s story here, the story of those with a ‘mental incapacity’ entrapped into U.S. citizenship. It is almost the mirror of yours as my son was born in Canada to two US parents (who didn’t become Canadian citizens until the next year) so he automatically acquired US citizenship. I won’t repeat it again for the sake of others here, but it may be of interest to you to compare your situation with. Again, good luck.

19. @Cheryl,

    What you say about Vance vs Terrazas is true, but it applies to someone who has performed an expatriating act such as naturalizing or working for the government. Prior to 1986, the laws stated that performing such an act lost your USC whether you liked it or not. That’s maybe what the Canadian official was referring to. It’s a bit fuzzy, but the US did not recognize dual citizenship until 1986. That could also be why the Canadian officials said what they said. However, registering as a Canadian born abroad was not an expatriating act. Naturalizing was and is, but you were born a dual citizen (as I was), and did not naturalize.

    That gives fewer options such as government employment to claim as expatriating acts.

    However, is your birthday before October 10? If you turned 25 before October 10, 1978 you may have a small chance. (I missed this cut-off by 3 months.)

    Besides government employment, the only other opportunity for a born dual-citizen to have lost their USC was INA 350. It was repealed on October 10, 1978, but NOT retroactively. Therefore, it _should_ be a valid claim. However, read the following section from the Foreign Affairs Manual. It states that they no longer will accept it, and in fact they will reverse it no questions asked. The last point seems to say that if you insist, they will send a claim of INA 350 to Washington DC. Will it be accepted and get you a back-dated CLN? As far as I know (from being here on IBS for 2 years) there are no reports of anybody trying, so we have no idea.

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/120532.pdf

    k. In light of the Terrazas decision, CA no longer makes a finding of loss of nationality for a person who claimed such a benefit between December 24, 1952 (effective date of the INA) and October 10, 1978 (effective date of Public Law 95-432) who met the 3-year residence requirement, even if he or she claimed that the benefit was sought and obtained with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.

    l.If a CLASS hit occurs when clearing the name of a passport applicant due to former INA 350, the lookout should be removed and the passport issued.

    m. If a U.S. citizen requests a finding of loss of nationality under former INA 350 the matter should be referred to CA/OCS/L (ASK-OCS-L@state.gov).

20. Thanks. I’ll look in to that. I was born June 12, 1953.

21. @Cheryl,

    Interesting! As I said, it’s a big “IF”. You would need to be able to state that you knew about this law and that you intended to lose your USC by remaining in Canada and not taking an oath to the US to retain USC.

    There are considerations when attempting a back-dated expatriation claim. For example, what it if fails? Are you now on the IRS radar? If you intend to catch up with filing and renounce if it fails, then perhaps there is no harm in trying. Having said that, making the attempt will take a year or so to find out if you’re successful. During that time, FATCA arguably comes into effect. Will a bank cause you to be known to the US/IRS? All this has been discussed here, so keep reading! I’ll give you a hint though: there are no answers, just questions, opinions and guesses.

22. @ Cheryl

    I then found out my parents were Canadian citizens when I was born so applied to be registered as a Canadian born abroad in 1977.

    What I find interesting is this comment you made…You were an Adult in 1977 (age 24-25).
    One would think that seeking to establish Canadian Citizenship was an overt act on your part to Naturalize…
    Something to look into…Just my observation…

23. I came across a document I’ve never seen before. It’s from the ACA, called “The Evolution of Citizenship Law in The United States of America since 1789”

    http://americansabroad.org/files/3013/3478/0295/18-04-2012_1318_971.pdf

    It explains a bit about the repeal of INA 350:

    1977
    THE “CINDERELLA CITIZENSHIP CONUNDRUM” AND OTHER PROBLEMS”:According to a State Department report in 1978, approximately 14,000 children are born overseas each year with “Cinderella Citizenship” which will expire at midnight on the child’s 26th birthday unless the child has returned to live for two continuous years before reaching age 28, as required by sub-section 301 (b) of the current citizenship legislation. The State Department says that in recent years, from 100 to 200 children have been involuntarily expatriated each year for this reason. An additional 25-50 citizens lose their U.S.citizenship each year through the application of the current Citizenship law’s Section 350’s ambiguous requirements. The State Department estimates that about 40,000 children are born to U.S. citizen parents and qualify for U.S. citizenship at birth, with an unknown additional number of children born abroad with no rights to American citizenship because one American parent has not fulfilled the present prior U.S. residence requirements. An unknown number of these children may actually be born “stateless”.
    1978
    “OVERSEAS AMERICAN DEMONSTRATION ON THE STEPS OF THE U.S. EMBASSY IN LONDON”:
    On May 10, 1978, more than 100 American children demonstrate on the steps of the U.S. Embassy in London to protest U.S. laws that could cause them to lose their citizenship and possibly become stateless. The organizer of the demonstration is Toby Hyde, co-chairman of the London branch of ACCRL. Toby Hyde is also still serving as the worldwide head of Democrats Abroad.

    THE “CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1978” (THE “MCCLORY BILL)”:
    This new legislationrepeals subsections (b), (c) and (d) of section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and becomes effective as of October 10, 1978. It also strikes out “(a)” after “Section 301” and redesignates paragraphs (1) through (7) as subsections (a) through (g)respectively. It removes the requirement for a child acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth abroad to subsequently reside in the United States to retain this citizenship. This bill is the direct result of efforts undertaken abroad by the American Children’s Citizenship Rights League, founded in Geneva in 1977, which has branches in many other countries. (Act of October 10, 1978 (92 Stat. 1046

    And this tidbit:

    It should be noted that Canada no longer requires new citizens to give up their other citizenships. The renunciatory language in the Canadian naturalization oath was ruled illegal by a Canadian court in 1973, on technical grounds and was subsequently removed –and Canada has allowed dual citizenship without any restrictions at all since 1977.

24. WhatAmI –

    It’s watching people like you rediscover the wheel that has done a lot to make me slack off.

    http://usxcanada.wordpress.com/documents/

    Envision an enthusiasm graph as inverse of the renunciation graph. Plummet city.

25. I think the repeal of 301b etc applies to children born outside the US as do the rules of required time spent in the US AFTER AGE 14? That wouldn’t apply to me as I was born in the US.

Comments are closed.