Renunciation and Relinquishment of United States Citizenship: Discussion thread (Ask your questions) Part Two
Ask your questions about Renunciation and Relinquishment of United States Citizenship and Certificates of Loss of Nationality.
Participants will need to provide their e-mail address (real or fake) and an alias. The only written rule is that participants must use a same alias each time they post (and not “anonymous” or derivatives thereof).
Bear in mind that any responses that you get from participants is peer-to-peer help, and it is not intended as a replacement for professional advice. Also, the Isaac Brock Society provides this disclaimer: neither the Society nor any of its members are professionals. We offer our advice here only in friendship and we recommend that our readers seek professional advice if they need it.
If you wish to receive an e-mail notification of comments, check the box to that effect when making your first comment.
NB: This discussion is a continuation of an older discussion that became too large for our software to handle well. See Renunciation and Relinquishment of United States Citizenship: Discussion thread (Ask your questions) Part One
@Molly
I’m so sorry to hear of your CLN denial. Devastating!
There supposedly is a formal mechanism of appeal as mentioned in S. 1230 of the Foreign Affairs Manual. As there is no longer a Board of Appellate Review, that seems the only option othe then taking the DOS to court.
I’m not sure if anyone has actually appealed in the past. It doesn’t cost anything so at this point I can’t see any harm to appealing.
My heart goes out to you. Good luck in your decisions.
@molly
the last 15 months were for you a roller coaster ride no one should have had to take.
were it me in your situation….. i would have taken a photo copy of said certificate and given that to which ever finacial institution requested it
and then sent the orginal back to amerika and never cross the border again.
the bank would have a copy of your cln so they can check that box and as long as you have zero interaction at the border how is amerika going to know where you are?
i realize that this answer would work for me however i like others here have a high risk tollerance and are willing to say F U to a foreign government.
i am and will continue to refuse to comply to a foreign law until such point that i am brought infront of a canadian court and proven guilty for breaking a canadain law.
I’ve never heard of someone getting their CLN revoked. First they said your application went into the wrong pile. Then they said that the CBC isn’t a crown corporation.
This took human intervention to undo what the State Department granted.
Let me get this right – just because crown corporations don’t exist in the US, they can’t exist for renunciation purposes in Canada?
Someone in DOS was sweating until Molly’s CLN was returned. I, too, hope copies / certified copies were made before complying with their latest threats. Just think, none of those *so important* CLN’s given out even have a number to identify which one went to who (in a dumb attempt to never reveal the real number of expatriations from US citizenship?)
Perhaps someone in Washington, DC read this and gave it as a reason to reverse their decision. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/what-are-crown-corporations-and-why-do-they-exist-1.1135699
@Brockers, in trying to formulate some considerations for Molly I cam across something rather interesting on what is foreign employment and political subdivisions. This deals with teachers in Canada;
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2012/08/27/1771.pdf
@Bubblebustin
*just because crown corporations don’t exist in the US*
If it doesn’t exist in the US… its make believe.. Homelander’s mindset…. US is the centre of the world… all rules & regulations are US rules only…. they don’t give a crap about anyone else… this whole thing is shooting fish in a barrel… we are comfortable in life but we do not have deep enough pockets to fight any bad rules or regulations… Nor will anyone stand up for any one of us…
@Molly…..well you just had your two front teeth knocked out and for good measure was then hit with a two by four. No human being deserves this……..
You need some help amongst the solace so here is my two cents worth that I hope is helpful.
We first need to go back to 2014 and why you did what you did. I believe that you honestly felt your employment in 1999 was a relinquishing act, you have not acted like an American since then, that you liked the idea a CLN Relinquishment was at zero cost, that a CLN could be handy for a bank and lastly that a 1999 date meant you had no other “obligations.” You wanted the “golden ticket.”
I am not lecturing but some Brockers in like situations do not simply trust the US Government and considered what you did to be too risky. Self documented relinquishment is where the act was performed but you do not want to risk the USG somehow messing things up.
What is your position today? Today, there is no question at all but in 2015 you have now been formally declared administratively to be a US Citizen by the US State Department. This is a VERY BAD position to be in because you have not just outed yourself to a business but you have outed yourself to the USG.
In Calgary in 2014, when the relinquishment was being questioned by the Consul had you pulled back at that time you would not have been outted as badly. Regardless, I think your decision then to move forward was correct.
OK, right now you are in a far worse position today than you were in 2013. Had you not gone for a CLN you could have thrown the dice and self documented to FIs as and when needed.
It is very clear that you must appeal, you have no choice.
You likely need to invest in a lawyer. At a minimum you should buy a few hours from John Richardson.
You also now need to add up how much a renunciation will cost which includes five years of compliance and the simplified disclosure program. That will tell you how much money you will spend on fighting this.
Since you have already outted yourself, at this point I am likely to say that your best protection is now going all the way and contacting ADCS about being a witness. I am very serious as I write this point about being a witness.
(cont) Also at this point, if you ever want to go to the USA you will now need a US Passport. Unless you have a Provence Enhanced Drivers License.
I, too, think that Molly with what has been done to her would / could be an excellent witness for the Canadian litigation. I hope you will consider contacting Stephen Kish in that regard, Molly. If you ever want to meet for a coffee, I could be someone to listen to your thoughts on such a step.
George. With respect, Molly can travel to the U.S., if she wishes to, on her Canadian passport. She has choices. One is to do nothing. Another is to renounce and not file- what exactly can they do about it?
Meunier. With respect, the denial of renewed passports for those owning 50,000 is a red herring. Firstly there has to be a confirmed and final decision that the 50k is owed, not a possibility that someone might be liable for US taxes. Secondly, anyone here would be trying to ditch the blue book not applying for a new one
Am I suggesting people knowingly deny the truth? Presidents do it, Prime Ministers do it. We all do it at one time or another. My Mother-in-law said ‘ only lie if you have to’
Molly’s situation needs diplomatic intervention. This is a situation where the US is trying to claim for itself a citizen which it no longer has, based on a conflicting view that the CBC is not a crown corporation.
I would be tempted to contact my MP and have them contact the Canadian ambassador to the US to intervene in this.
@Molly Is there a reason you need the $3000+ Cnd gilded certificate from the USG to prove you’re a freed slave? Unless you really need it, and most of us here in Canada don’t (unlike our unfortunate brethren in Europe), doing nothing and simply blending in is an option. Consider refusing to play the game. You’re a Canadian in Canada– the US is foreign. I like Duke’s “Do nothing option” if you don’t actually need a CLN.
Molly,
Following on Calgary’s suggestion, if you are interested in being a Witness in our Canadian litigation, and go public with an affidavit describing your harm, you can contact me at: Stephen.Kish.Chair@adcs-adsc.ca
@Molly, I am speaking as someone not in Canada and not affilated with ADCS other than someone who sends assorted currencies.
The suggestion to meet up with @Calgary might be beneficial even if solely to vent. We are human beings and need to vent on this matter literally for the health consequences of bottling it.
You do have a problem in that at this moment your status as a USC has been administratively determined with the USG. That does differ from many others whose status has not gone all the way to an administration determination by the USG.
Sadly, you are no longer among the tens of thousands undocumented relinquishers.
If I was similarly situated as you, why would I want to talk to the ADCS lawyers? Even if you decided not to be a witness, you would glean some legally powerful insight as to your current status from superb lawyers. The very worst case for talking to Arvey and Richardson is that at the end you would have a better idea on what to do or not do going forward.
The one thing for sure is that you desperately need legal advice from someone that is not a cross border compliance condor. And in this case you would actually benefit from some initial guidance at no expense. You have entered into a whole new landscape that few have stepped into before.
I am sure Stephen Kish will correct me if I have over stepped.
@Bubbles….you are extremely correct in that because @Molly has been outed with the USG that this has entered a whole new realm and yes, it is now a diplomatic matter on top of everything else.
@Duke and @BC_Doc, our friend @Molly has truly entered the Twilight Zone of nationality. The State Department now has according to 7 FAM coded a file that shows she has been administratively determined to be a USC. Two years ago, she did not even exist to the USG but now she exists, has been coded/tattooed with a number and filed. Sadly @Molly has become the poster child of why one should never ever set foot in a US Consulate to get a golden ticket.
Literally, @Molly came out of the shadows completely unknown to the USA and has now been placed on its books!! She went all the way and got burned very badly………
Should a person unknown to the USG come out of the shadows to claim a relinquishment? Based on @Molly…..NO. It would have been far different for someone already known to the USG to apply for a relinquishment and get turned down. Take Petros as an example, he was known and it would have made no difference had he been refused.
She now has nothing else to lose so an appeal is an absolute must.
If the appeal is denied she can no longer answer the USC question as NO with a FI as she has no reason to justify that answer. An undocumented relinquisher can answer NO but @Molly went all the way and lost.
Thank you everyone for all of your thoughtful and supportive responses. I am a little overwhelmed by all of this and will need some time to decide what I want to do next. I am tempted to come forward as a witness, but am already dealing with several additional life stressors, including a job loss and caring for my elderly mother, so am not sure I can take on the additional pressure of coming forward as a witness at this time. I am torn. I would like to help, and a big part of me wants to speak out because I am so angry that the U.S. is doing this to people. Like most people here, I owe nothing to the U.S. in taxes and have very little in the way of material wealth. I haven’t been to the U.S. in almost 30 years and would be perfectly happy to never cross the border again. That’s why I relate to what @BCDoc has said. I will think about what everyone here has offered in the way of input. Thank you again.
@Stephen Kish, is there a phone number you could send me privately through the moderator?
Take care @Molly. I can’t offer anything that hasn’t been offered up here, though I think that @bubblebustin is on to something important above when saying;
“Molly’s situation needs diplomatic intervention. This is a situation where the US is trying to claim for itself a citizen which it no longer has, based on a conflicting view that the CBC is not a crown corporation.
I would be tempted to contact my MP and have them contact the Canadian ambassador to the US to intervene in this.’
Perhaps trying to contact MP Rankin or one of the MPs like Scott Brison – who are aware of the issues and who in the past have acted forthrightly in public to acknowledge them – or at least portions of the problem, related to FATCA (ex. https://youtu.be/slqAkW_eeUA https://youtu.be/08WttMWXdmc ). MP May of the Greens is fully aware. NDP MP Rankin attended the day long debate on US citizenship taxation held in Toronto in 2014, and invited members of the audience to speak with him then.
Unfortunately, this is not the kind of issue the U.S. ambassador would get involved with. I’m with BCDoc.
Molly,
I just sent you an email with how and best times to give Stephen a call.
I’m hoping that you will consider and that others here will be encouraged as well to be witnesses for the important Canadian litigation.
Wishing you some peace at this time of the year.
Thanks again for the update on your unbelievable situation. Please stay in touch. You are among friends who want the best outcome for you!
@Meunier wrote:
“Given that the universal ‘they’ supposedly estimate that only 700,000 of 7.6 million American ex-pats pay taxes AT ALL…”
The 7.6 million number was promoted, and for all I know invented, by American Citizens Abroad (Geneva) and eventually accepted by the State Department as a replacement for much lower numbers (thus in 2005, 3.2 million: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/41607.pdf ). Neither number has ever been substantiated: the number of citizens registered with a consular office is unreported but far, far lower.
7 FAM 085 and 9 FAM 40.2 (persons with a possible, but undetermined, claim to US citizenship may be treated as aliens) are relevant.
WantToBeFree wrote:
“They don’t have a second citizenship, which means renouncing will render them stateless.
“The concern is that if they remain a U.S. citizen, they could be deported by the nation they are staying in back to the United States…”
Extradition treaties are quite specific and normally the crime accused must be an offence in both the sending and receiving countries. The USG has sought to include tax crimes as extraditable offences. For the law as of 2003 see Bruce Zagaris’s article: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ilr/vol25/iss3/9/
Deportation (informal extradition or unilateral expulsion) involves a country contacting a consular office of the receiving country and seeking a document (normally a letter) in lieu of passport to assure acceptance. Zadvydas v. Davis addresses (non-)imprisonment where the other country refuses to admit a convict. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zadvydas_v._Davis
The late Garry Davis was the most notable renouncer who did so in Paris and became stateless as a political ploy to promote his World Citizenship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Davis
General comments:
Bankruptcy is a solution for some, but not all, tax debts: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/bankruptcy-tax-debts-eliminating-29550.html
Other countries bankruptcy systems that provide discharge for consumer and tax debts may be willing to accept filings by US tax debtors resident or domiciled there (the definition of “domicile” varies by country and also the legal issue in question). Such a foreign discharge would not be recognised by the U.S. Government, nor would the USG appear or file a claim, but the discharge would protect the tax debtor and his/her property within that foreign country. Whether the discharge would be recognised in other (third) countries depends on the facts and on local law.
U.S. Tax Court is a fairly straightforward forum, commonly used by pro-se taxpayers. It has, however, very strict timelines and may not be available for many persons subject to the new law. The Tax Court and District Court remedies proposed by the new law may not be useful for those unable or unwilling to return to the United States to fight such a case. If a tax claim was put forward by the IRS by mistake, and internal IRS appeals encounter (as they often do) harried or ignorant staff, filing a Tax Court claim may allow a case to be resolved more quickly and by brighter, more motivated IRS lawyers. For clear-cut cases this can be done by filing written motions without any court appearance. But it’s not for the faint-hearted.
There may be some precedent in the child-support debtor cases relating to refused passports: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/passport-denial-failure-pay-child-support.html
Persons who are legally resident in a foreign country and are unable or unwiling (usually for political reasons) to obtain a passport from their home country are often able to secure a travel document in lieu of passport from their country of residence.
New US tax treaties are expected to include provisions for reciprocal collection of tax debts. The exclusion of tax debts incurred while the (non-)taxpayer was a citizen of the requested country may limit application of the provision. General enforcement clauses appear in US income tax treaties with Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands and Sweden and in estate tax treaties with France and South Africa, but only the Canadian provision has been applied.
Wealthy scofflaws may find it easy to secure a foreign passport through various “economic citizenships” https://duckduckgo.com/?q=“economic+citizenship”. For those with a foreign passport and residence, and without assets, income or heirs in the USA, the new law will be of little significance except to the degree that the USG is able (as it sometimes is) to assimilate nonpayment of tax to common-law fraud, money-laundering and other crimes for which extradition is possible. The Marc Rich case involved more than tax fraud: Rich had violated the Trading Witht the Enemy Act.
I am afraid that, as with PFIC, FATCA, OVDP and the rest of the tax alphabet soup, FAST has attracted commdent largely from those geared up to profit from it: lawyers, accountants, financial advisors eager to help those are or (or in the opinion of those experts may be) non-compliant. Less evident are those able and willing to address the more basic issue of whether a person is a U.S. citizen in the first place, whether that citizenship is cognisable under foreign and international law, whether the non-compliant person is eligible for recognition of a foreign nationality for ancestral, ethnic or residence reasons. Here’s an example of the first group: http://blogs.wsj.com/expat/2015/12/13/tips-for-u-s-expats-coping-with-new-fast-law-affecting-passports/
FAST will work its way through the courts; its compatibility (or not) with the U.S. Constitution is not obvious.
One result of FATCA and its progeny has been the non-registration of many children born abroad to U.S citizens, counting on the two FAM provisions mentioned above, as well as doubt over prior qualifying residence of a parent: http://www.afsa.org/citizenship-and-unwed-border-moms-misfortune-geography
Self-expatriation is quite common: like Marc Rich many possible- or forner- citizens, especially those born abroad, self-certify their alien status for purposes of IRS certifications W-9, W8-BEN. There are public policy issues cognisable in other countries that ought to be addressed (pension rights (in countries without the UK treaty exception), tax sparing savings, SICAV, and other pooled investments) but for now are ignored as to many nonresident in the USA who are treated while abroad and in their other country of nationality (as international law allows) as if they held only that foreign nationality. That US tax treaties have conflict provision for “U.S. Persons” and “former citizens” does not change this: tax treaties and social security totalisation agreements are drafted (with the help of the U.S Chamber of Commerce and other interested bodies and lobbyists) with multinational corporations in mind, not so much consumers and individual taxpayers. Hard cases are largely ignored unless prosecuting them would serve a larger purpose (publicity, celebrities, “encourager les autres”).
There are various academic and legal treatise discussions of the tax consequences of loss of citizenship, and the passport and citizenship consequences of unpaid taxes, forgiven debt, worthless (but taxed) stock options and tax penalties. I like the title of this article: “The Tax Code as Nationality Law” http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1496&context=law_faculty_scholarship
For other serious articles, do a Web search and include as a search term, thus: constitutionality passport cancellation taxes site:edu (unfortunately unlike FATCA or PFIC “FAST” is a “noise word” so one has to work around it.)
@George asked: “As a take off to what BC Doc said, what if a relinquisher applied for a US Passport under duress from a Border Guard but states on the passport application and fully documents that they completed the relinquishing act with intent? What will State do?”
There is no such thing as “duress” from a CBP officer. Just try at another border crossing. There are several participants on this forum who made this mistake: whereas they probably had lost their U.S. citizenship from past acts, they recovered it (in accordance with SCOTUS decisions and State Dept. practice) by applying for a passport or simply seeking to renounce.
As there’s no money in it for the bottom-feeding lawyers, accountants and consultants who advise on the topic, advice from any but an honest and capable immigration and nationality lawyer is compromised by his/her self-interest.
From the USG point of view, American “exceptionalism” and the concept of (permanent) allegiance works against you. As time goes on the concept of “U.S. tax citizen” may cause conflicts with other sovereign states that they cannot ignore. That is where the solution lies. That and (as others have said) “self-help”. Good-faith interpretation of the law to deem oneself a non-U.S.-citizen and act accordingly.
@Andy, “Good-faith interpretation of the law to deem oneself a non-U.S.-citizen and act accordingly.”
That is the logical path for many.
Concerning a US Passport application, not sure if you saw the root I was trying to find. Here goes;
Jack naturalises in the Republic of Ireland on February 10, 2014 and stops acting like a USC. His US Passport expired in the prior month and he solely travels now on his Irish Passport.
When he filled out the Irish forms he stated in the “Other Section” that his naturalisation was going to be a relinquishment of USC. He further has an affadavit attesting as such witnessed by the Judge that swears him in.
In May 2015, Jack goes to the Dublin airport to fly to Miami on Aer Lingus and attempts to clear US Immigration which is based at the airport. They tell him he can not travel on his Irish Passport, so he leaves the airport and goes home.
At his home in County Clare he fills out a US Passport application and affirms per the question on the form that he naturalised in a foreign state voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing and that he is applying for a US Passport because he was denied entry to the USA at the Dublin airport by US Immigration (not airport staff) because they saw the place of birth being Boston, Mass.
With his application he encloses a copy of the naturalisation form from Ireland and the affadavit sworn before a Judge. He also sends in copies of the certified letters where he turned in his US Drivers lincense and voters registration card.
OK, so what is the US Consulate in Dublin going to do with the passport application?
To be honest, I doubt that have ever had such a problem!!
@George: If you force the USG to make a decision as to the nationality of a person, that decision (given current legislation, case law and administrative practice) will be biased against the loss of nationality. I find it curious that so many reluctant citizens feel a need for official ratification of their status. It is true that financial services providers may “demand” a CLN: but pre-1980 relinquishers — to name one group — have no need of such a document. Denial of passport cases are particularly tricky. Any contact with officialdom that has not been carefully scripted risks admission of facts contrary to what the person claiming loss of citizenship is trying to accomplish.
Statements to a foreign government are not controlling upon the USG: your Irish affidavit is of little probative value, probably as little as the renunciation oath in the U.S. naturalisation minuet.
For the rest, I was about to post this:
I do not often check in to this forum; usually only when I receive a subscriber email that calls for comment.
I was just with my (non-U.S.) grandchild at the playground, and it gave me time to think of some “relevant rules” that I would give to a client:
1. Never volunteer information. More people have been hanged for that than anything else (“I didn’t shoot the bank dick, [my buddy] did.” Or “Let Him Have It”.)
2. That includes, in contemporary times, consular registration of the birth abroad of a child born to a U.S. citizen, especially one whose own status is doubtful. If the child has a claim to U.S. citizenship (other than through unwed paternity), s/he will retain that right throughout life anyway, based on proof of facts. And the IRS has no standing to bring a procedure to establish unclaimed nationality.
3. If there is a scintilla of doubt as to absence or loss of U.S. nationality, one should never “avail himself of an attribute of American citizenship”. That includes seeking a CLN.
4. Even purported birth in the U.S., in the border zone of Texas especially, is not definitive. The State Department has questioned certifiations of out-of-hospital births certified by midwives, and with good reason. Far fetched perhaps, but there are odd cases: Rios v. Civiletti http://uniset.ca/other/cs6/571FSupp218.html and many involving the unrecorded births of Native Americans, especially the Tohono O’odham cross-border tribe.
5. The ludicrous, draconian penalties asaociated even with innocent failure to report assets and accounts abroad, and the trade-barrier elements of PFIC are ripe for adjudication in international arbitration and in international and foreign tribunals. Noncompliant U.S. residents are easy targets for the IRS and the DoJ. Nonresident dual and foreign nationals and those of doubtful status, not so much. In the end, as basically a collection agency, the IRS goes where the money is, money that they can seize. Especially now without representation abroad it is dependent upon potentially hostile foreign tax authorities for information and assistance. It remains to be seen how that works out. From what I have seen it is mainly the faint of heart among accidental and reluctant Americans abroad who fall victim to a “system” of which they are incidental casualties, collateral damage. Of clauses added as irrelevant addendums, never debated, to must-pass legislation.
6. At some point, one or more foreign governments will be aggrieved enopugh to push back. That was the case with Ronald James Anderson http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9804 Statute law occasionally gives way to diplomatic pragmatism. Still, as Anderson himself later said, “he hopes other United States armed forces deserters in Canada will learn something from his experience and will be cautious in visiting the United States.” Given the ne exeat republica writ served agianst the Barretts that might be said of foreign-resident tax debtors as well. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ne%20exeat%20republica%20barrett
@Molly says: “I’m wondering if it’s worth appealing”
Probably not. Two things you should know:
1. The U.S. Government is not responsible for the errors of its agents.
2. Like ISIS (and other Jihadists, ironically enough) U.S. Government officials can generally lie and deceive with impunity. (There are exceptions not relevant here.)
3. I would have told you not to return the CLN, which may have had some value. Now, I think, you need to start over, at considerable expense. But if you have no assets, income or heirs in the USA and do not intend ever to visit again, you can do as you see fit and hope for the support of the Canadian Government and cooperation from Canadian banks.
4. I hope you kept a good copy of the CLN.