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
Thanks so much Ginny, Duke, Medea, fn0, Jane and Karen!! I feel so much better already!
@iota I read your Amsterdam consulate report. Extermely helpful. You mentioned traveling quite a distance to Amsterdam to avoid the DS-4079. Could you share the benefits of avoiding the 4079? I feel like I must be missing the point, since it only takes ~20 minutes to fill out the form, but many hours to travel out of your way.
Dana – do you not think the DS-4079 is horribly intrusive? I assumed you did, because your initial post starts by addressing “fans of the DS4079” which I took to be ironic!
DS-4079 is the kind of hyper-American, prying, the.inside.of.your.head.belongs.to.us questionnaire that really gets right up my nostrils.
Plus it’s really easy to get to Amsterdam from London and I wanted an excuse to see the revamped Rijksmuseum. 🙂
iota – Thanks for clarifying. I respect your high expectations for privacy (and museums! ). Cheers!
@Dana, not only is the 4079 intrusive, but for a renunciation it’s totally irrelevant. It has no bearing on the renunciation process at all because none of its questions has any bearing on what happens on the day. To renounce you go into the embassy/consulate, swear before the Consul/Vice Consul that you give up your American citizenship, sign the Oath and Statement of Understanding and that’s it – done, over, finito. You could file tax returns, vote in an American election, etc – do all the things the questionnaire asks the day before you renounce and it would MAKE NO DIFFERENCE! You have stood up in front of a duly appointed embassy official and stated you want to renounce as outlined in US law and all the questions in the world cannot change that. Filling in the 4079 form is a waste of both yours and the embassy/consulate’s time as it’s totally unnecessary.
http://www.internationalman.com/articles/how-i-renounced-my-us-citizenship-and-why,-part-ii
I filled the 4079, as I was relinquishing. It seems not necessary for renunciation, according to this article. Of course, like everything else FATCA, ymmv.
The DoS Foreign Affairs Manual (7 FAM 1260) says:
And yet they do, they do. It’s a power thing, I guess.
The only case where I think it would be pertinent would be if a prospective renunciant had indeed already unknowingly relinquished pre 2004 and therefore benefiting from the no tax filing status. Don’t tell me they are trying to do us a favour?!
It is strange that each Consulate is a law unto themselves, one would think that by now the State Dept would have given a directive, they sure must have gained a lot of experience in the proceedure.
@Heidi – I think DS-4079 appeared in the days before FATCA and “tax citizenship” were invented. Renunciations were apparently few and far between, and perhaps the main suspicion back then was that the person was going to try to return to the U.S. and live there undocumented. (Of course, DS-4079 wouldn’t be likely to flush out such an intention, but it might come in useful as evidence of perjury (a felony) in any subsequent deportation case.)
@iota
Yes, I believe Petros once explained the original purpose of the 4079 but depending on when that foreign affairs manual was updated, it seems they are stating it would also be pertinent in some renunciation cases.
Bern and also Luxembourg were adamant they didn’t need it for a renunciation.
I must say, I found it totally confusing when I first read it. I was relieved to not have to fill it in.
It’s mostly designed for helping the consular staff decide whether someone accidently lost their American citizenship when they didn’t mean to. Hence all the questions about what American things you do.
I suppose it helps in some cases of relinquishment, but for a renunciation it has no bearing whatsoever.
The manual was updated last year. The update was reported and discussed in this very interesting IBS thread:
“Major updates to Foreign Affairs Manual on U.S. citizenship renunciation procedures” (http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/07/10/major-updates-to-foreign-affairs-manual-on-u-s-citizenship-renunciation-procedures/)
Didn’t know that. I’m gladder than ever that I went to Amsterdam.
Oh boy! What is their definition of affiliation…a holiday home in Florida, a relative, a business connection, whatever do they mean?!
I haven’t heard of any renunciations being refused…as yet.
True – it doesn’t seem to happen in practice.
OK
Quickly scaaned IBS posting. It seems an example given is if the renunciant was not aware that he would relinquish the right to live permanently there, then he could be refused…as my kids would say…deeeer.
@heidi, only an idiot these days wouldn’t know that. I assume that all the US embassies/consulates dealing with renunciations will send PDF’s of both the Oath of Renunciation and the Statement of Understanding of Loss of Citizenship before they even make an appointment for someone. That was certainly the case when I renounced here in Switzerland in 2013.
I don’t know whether some embassies/consulates are still insisting on the two appointments for renunciations as well as relinquishments, but if they are it would also be made clear at those meetings that you lose ALL rights and privileges.
I think this is the relevant passage regarding this issue:
“In addition, please be aware that:
The U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Supreme Court have concluded that the intention to relinquish U.S. nationality required for purposes of finding loss of nationality under Section 349(a) of the INA does not exist where a renunciant claims a right to continue to reside in the United States, unless the renunciant demonstrates that residence will be as an alien documented properly under U.S. law.”
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship-right-of-residence.html
This seems to be bourne out by this much earlier case:
“C. REQUIREMENT – RENOUNCE ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
a person seeking to renounce U.S. citizenship must renounce all the rights and privileges associated with such citizenships. In the case of Colon v. U.S. Department of State , 2 F.Supp.2d 43 (1998),the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected Colon’s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of State to approve a Certificate of Loss of Nationality in the case because he wanted to retain the right to live in the United States while claiming he was not a U.S. citizen.”
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/renunciation-of-citizenship.html
You can’t have your cake and eat it, sorry.
@iota, I very much doubt such a conclusion would hold up in the Supreme Court when the law is so clear.
“A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:
1.appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
2.in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
3.sign an oath of renunciation”
Any previous affliation would have NO bearing on the day you renounce. Only if consular staff were convinced that you were being a) coerced against your will or b) did not understand the consequences of your actions could a renunciation be refused. And remember the State Department and others often use renunciation/relinquishment to mean the same thing, even though it’s obvious they’re not.
@medea
Unless they are trying to be really nice and saying…
” you know what, after reading your 4079, we found that you don’t need to renounce, we have determined independtly that you relinquished your US citizenship way back in 1960 when you became a citizen of say Trashcaninstan,
and as you have not used your US passport, or done anything vaguely American, you are excused all forms of high numerical indices and are free to leave, unshackled, just pay your fee on the way out.” 🙂
The DS-4079 came into being in 2008, although I’d assume they used some form for renunciation prior to that. I’ve seen the form used for relinquishment in the ’80s and that was about a-page-a-half, but I don’t know if that was used for renunciation too.
Here’s a comparison of the text of 7 FAM 1264 which was amended in July 2015:
Prior to July 2015:
Current text as of July 2015:
@heidi, that would be nice, especially the last bit about the fee.
The form does have relevance for relinquishment cases, but clearly not for a renunciation.
@ medea
I just think it’s as Phil Hodgen says. It’s always the worst case scenario with them. Perhaps it’s the start of more hurdles to renounce.
@Pacifica777 – thanks for posting the previous version. That’s the one I read before I renounced – not realizing that there was a newer version.
I remember feeling slightly uneasy about that wording – “it may come in useful…” The new version doesn’t seem to make it any clearer. Maybe they’re just cutting themselves some wriggle room: telling the consular staff not to require it, but making it clear that obtaining it would be helpful; knowing that a lot of renunciants will assume it’s required, and complete it, if it’s in the packet.
Speculation. I may be being a bit paranoid.
Has anyone renounced and simply refused to play along with the rules? Obviously I am talking about dual nationals. US jurisdiction has practical limits! Even the fact that a dual national, while a resident of his second passport country, files a US tax return (when there is no US source income) is outlandish since by international convention, while in his second passport country, he/she is ONLY a citizen of that country.
@Alexander, depends on whose rules you are talking about. 😉
That is a course of action that I have long advocated. Not sure how many actually follow it.
The US government and its bureaucrats pick and choose what rules and laws they follow, to their benefit. They did in 92 when they told me I no longer had citizenship, just like they do now.
Why should we be any different? What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. My rules always say don’t be goosed. LOL
@AlexandervPinoci
It depends on the country and how much they will help America. Canada seems to have said it will not collect for duals. Switzerland for now does not consider tax evasion a “major” crime and seemingly will only help America if a crime is worth a year`s jail time, which is not the case for now. I think Germany for example is very willing to help America and maybe England too. Extraditions are possible if maybe INTERPOL gets involved too so traveling might become a problem, as well as banks freezing accounts which has happened in Israel. I dont know about other countries- but I have been hearing a LOT of people talking about renouncing and doing nothing lately. Once they have that CLN in their hands they consider themselves free agents. America obviously doesn’t think so, but the IRS is probably overwhelmed with work right now. Don’t know how deeply they will look into these things in the future.