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
@Benedict Arnold be me
More great finds to add to your kit.
Your mother had you get your Canadian citizenship at age 10 and we’re reading this now as a expatriating act at the time it was done. In this area my case is different.
I’ve had Canadian citizenship since birth and therefore my mother didn’t have to do any expatriating act, unless applying for the (Canadian citizenship) Certificate of Birth Abroad counts as an act itself? Therefore, the two arguments for my case that I have collected so far are the fact that I went to the US consulate to renounce in 1973 but was told I wasn’t a USC anyway, and the repeal of INA 350 in 1978 which documents that by doing nothing to retain my USC I lost it automatically at some point (age 25, I suppose).
Oh, in addition, I’ve done nothing to indicate retention of USC (no voting, passport, etc).
@WhatAmI
Try reading this case as it might help yours…
Bookmark this case…
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/publishedopinions/povol05/5_BAR_%28PO%29_139_%281988%29.pdf
Better format than previous (edited) above. Typed format in full.
There is an attempt to flip flop back to US Citizenship, but rejected on the basis of Naturalization by a parent, and failure to retain permanent residency before the age of 25 prior to changes in 1986.
(It seems to me that the Oct 10, 1978 changes dealt with retention for persons born abroad of the U.S. )
@Benedict Arnold be me
Interesting! As you say, this guy argued loss of USC based on not returning to the US by age 25 in 1972, and got a CLN. When he flip-flopped and tried to get his USC back, they used the age 25 business (section 349) against him in 1987 or so, and refused his USC back. That certainly seems to back up your case.
INA 350, the one repealed in 1978, very specifically says a “dual-national by birth”, which I am. This case is built around INA 349, which specifically deals with a USC who gets his other citizenship by naturalization.
It seems to me that INA 349 applies to you, but INA 350 applies to me. One of the differences is that you, with 349, did the act of naturalizing in Canada and not returning to the US by age 25. I, under 350, can claim that I:
“voluntarily sought or claimed the benefits of the nationality of any foreign state and thereafter has a continuous residence for 3 years in the foreign state whose nationality he or she acquired at birth at any time after attaining the age of 22.”
I’m thinking those benefits include: obtained and traveled with a Canadian passport, voted, attended (subsidized) University, collected unemployment insurance, contributed to CPP, …
@WhatAmI
All these cases are determined individually…Preponderance of Evidence is the hallmark…The more evidence you provide, the better the case you have…
Also, one has the “Unawareness clause” supported by the “Official MisInformation Clause” (ie: advised by Consular reps)
An individual who was aware before age 26 that he or she was a U.S. citizen but assumed that such citizenship had been lost could claim unawareness as a defense against the operation of former section 301(b) INA.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/153154.pdf
7 FAM 1100
@Benedict Arnold be me
I had a look at your latest link and my interpretation is that it’s opposite to what we need. For example, you could argue the unawareness and official misinformation defences as reasons for not taking action to retain your USC before age 25, and actually get it back.
Possibly bad news, this document explains “official misinformation” thusly:
It is incumbent upon the applicant to provide convincing evidence of misinformation beyond a simple self-serving statement. … An applicant claiming official misinformation must provide convincing evidence of the misinformation, such as official correspondence, previously issued documentation of U.S. citizenship, and the like.
@Benedict Arnold be me
On further thought, neither of us were given offical misinformation. We we told we weren’t USCs, and that was true. I think the only thing you can say is that they didn’t tell us that it could be possible to get our USC back by moving to the US prior to age 25, etc.
@WhatAmI
True, but in the process of enquirying…did they not fail to mention that we should file for a CLN or do something ? since they claimed we were not USC (at least in my case from 2 sources by virtue of already being 21)
(it is odd that in that CASE I linked, he was issued a CLN..so I wonder why it wasn’t automatic policy by consulates to respond to any enquiry by requesting the individual come in and file something)
I would call that misinformation by failing to inform and certainly no mention was made of the age 25 residency rule…again, I argue one had to rely on the experts and ommission is a form of misinformation…
I suspect the consular reps either didn’t know the precise rules or were biased towards any dual citizen as being an automatic expatriate given the non-existance of Dual Citizenship
I took this out of a FAM 1995 report
b. The United States has no special arrangements with individual countries to “permit”
dual nationality. U.S. Government policy toward dual nationality is the same regardless of
other nationalities involved.
c. While a person who has dual or multiple nationality resides in the United States, the
right of the United States to claim his or her allegiance is held to be paramount of the right
of the other countries of which he or she may be a national. Conversely, while a person
who has dual nationality resides abroad in a foreign country of which he or she also is a
national, the right of that country to claim his or her allegiance is paramount to that of the
United States.
@Benedict Arnold be me
OK, I’m seeing a possibility now. If the person who told me I wasn’t a USC when I tried to renounce was in fact wrong, then his misinformation caused me to leave the building without the opportunity to do the renounciation I went in to perform. Making that claim would scare me though, because it sounds like I would be conceding that I have been a USC all along. I don’t want to ever give in to accepting that. It sounds like a trap. It sounds like making a deal at the crossroads. They would own me at that moment.
@WhatAmI
Let’s just see what the results of my CLN submission are…3 months and counting…
@WhatAmI
You said:
“I’ve had Canadian citizenship since birth and therefore my mother didn’t have to do any expatriating act, unless applying for the (Canadian citizenship) Certificate of Birth Abroad counts as an act itself? Therefore, the two arguments for my case that I have collected so far are the fact that I went to the US consulate to renounce in 1973 but was told I wasn’t a USC anyway, and the repeal of INA 350 in 1978 which documents that by doing nothing to retain my USC I lost it automatically at some point (age 25, I suppose).”
I found this in Wikipedia..(but you may want to get a more reliable reference)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_nationality_law
For people who acquired citizenship by birth outside Canada under the 1947 Act, a certificate of registration of birth abroad or a certificate of retention of Canadian citizenship issued before 15 February 1977 would also constitute proof of citizenship
@WhatAmI
I think it is self-evident…
One had to apply for the Certificate of Birth Abroad…it wasn’t automatically conferred…
@ozteddies
Thank your for your kind invitation! Once our kid is thru university, and we can travel afar again, I would like to visit your wonderful country and raise a glass with you both. It sounds like a lovely place to be settled and congratulations on having taken control of your fate by emigrating.
I am saddened by the nasty discrimination you describe. Some good news is that, among the university-age people our daughter hangs out with, being gay or straight is a non-issue. In Canada, gay marriage is well established and openly celebrated. The premier of the Province of Ontario is open about her lesbian partnership. And many of our politicians, businesspeople, media celebrities and other public figures are openly out. It’s one of the reasons I’m proud to be Canadian.
I hope that if FATCA is imposed on the proudly independent people of Australia by a complicit government, there will be legal action based on “national origin discrimination”. The perfect plaintiff would be a long-term Australian citizen who’s only tie to the US is happenstance of birth, and has no economic or physical presence relationship with the US. In Canada, there are many “border babies” that fit this description, and one of our leading Constitutional law experts Peter Hogg has written an excellent brief on this issue, which was published on the Green Party of Canada’s website:
http://www.greenparty.ca/media-release/2013-03-13/implementation-fatca-likely-unconstitutional-says-leading-constitutional-ex
An Australian FATCA IGA is build upon the quicksand of national origin discrimination (US birthplace indicia regardless of Australian citizenship). The Australian Bankers Association have publicly stated that complying with FATCA conflicts with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA), as it would require banks to discriminate against people based on their citizenship and/or national origin. Is the Australian government somehow legally permitted to circumvent their own anti-discrimination laws?
It only takes ONE high court victory to bring a law down – like the recent SCOTUS decisions that demolished the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage.
Here is link to an excellent FATCA submission made to the Australian government by a NZ citizen – it is well worth sharing with any concerned party as convincing argumentation:
http://bit.ly/XqZLOM
Good luck – and enjoy!
Sorry, this isn’t really anything to do with this thread, but I found it ironic in it’s assumptions about the US:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/11/opinion/navarrette-mexico-immigration-law/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
Just a couple of relevant paragraphs:
“We’re talking about a country (Mexico) that people try to escape, where opportunity is scarce and where the population is divided six ways from Sunday — rich vs. poor, country folks vs. city dwellers, light skinned vs. dark skinned, the educated elite vs. the poor illiterates who serve them. We’re talking about a country where people routinely prey on one another, and where many of them seem to think that they can’t have anything unless they take it from someone else.
We’re talking about a country that takes in about $25 billion a year in remittances from expatriates living in the United States, and has no real national economic policy beyond that and tourism. We’re talking about a country, parts of which remain mired in the Third World and an economy that — while it has shown new vibrancy in recent years — remains second-rate, and where immigration is kept to a minimum and where foreign investment in key industries such as petroleum is restricted. And last, we’re talking about a country that remains plagued by nativism and racism toward immigrants who are considered inferior to the native-born.”
No one tries to escape the US – well, we know he got that REALLY wrong
No scarcity of opportunities in the US – wrong
The US isn’t divided 6 ways – wrong
The US has a natonal economic policy – wrong
Parts of the US aren’t mired in the Third World and don’t remain second rate – wrong
The US isn’t a country plaqued by nativism and racisim towards immigrants who are considered inferior – wrong
He should travel more of America than just Washington DC and then he’d find out how bad things really are in many parts of the States.
@Wondering
Thank you very much for the information you shared, very good reading and serious food for thought.
It’s wonderful how the laws and courts protect the admirable freedoms Canadian citizens enjoy. A superb tradition, one which should give Canadians a great deal of pride. Australia’s system is quite different to that. Our nation’s constitution has extremely scant protection of any personal freedoms at all built into it. Nor is there anything like a formal Charter of Rights in this country. Our High Court tend to be rather traditional and conservative by nature; they are not where one would turn, I think, who sought redress from unjust treatment generally.
The system here is a “soft” one, based more on general leniency than on explicitly stated rights. Rules which prove imperfect in their implementation tend to be bent or circumvented rather than actually changed. Formal laws are loosely adhered to. As far as the Racial Discrimination Act goes, it tends to offer little if any protection. The government merely bypass it whenever they feel so inclined, with no observable consequence. Under our most recent Liberal government, the “Aboriginal intervention” was enacted (formally called the Northern Territory National Emergency Response). It subjected Aboriginal Australians specifically to discriminatory rules, such as quarantining of welfare benefits and restrictions on purchasing alcohol, which were not applied to any non-Aboriginal citizens. Even the United Nations made complaint about this action. When passing this legislation, Parliament simply and smugly “waived” the Racial Discrimination Act to allow their bill to be duly enacted. The courts made no objection to that. I expect the same would occur in order to permit FATCA as well. Rules here are soft and pliable, not sharp and firm as they may be in other different cultures.
What gives us our abundant freedoms is the fact that the state tends to be small and not so generously funded. This is a large nation with a modest, thinly-spread population. The state lacks the resources to invasively interfere in people’s private lives, so it largely refrains from doing so. Many films which are judged “subversive” or qualify as adult entertainment, for instance, are officially banned under antiquated censorship laws. At the same time, anyone can easily purchase these at a local shop or adult bookshop despite the formal ban. Or via the Internet. The fact of the ban mollifies the conservative elements in society, while the lack of its actual enforcement placates the far more tolerant majority. Our rights stem not from what is explicitly legislated, but rather from what is not specifically prohibited or (the clincher) seriously enforced.
Which is why I don’t see FATCA failing here due to any attempted legal challenge. For that matter, I imagine any well-integrated American dual citizen here might well just answer “no” were they queried by a financial institution about being a US person and had any expectation they would get away with such response. We’re a very egalitarian flock in this country. The sheep that bleats louder than the rest will likely end up grilling on the barbie come dinnertime. Tall poppies get shorn, as they say. One learns to be rather invisible amidst the herd, the best survival technique in these parts. Were someone’s accounts actually closed, they could quietly move them to one of the many very small credit unions with minimal fuss. Far easier than mounting a costly, and probably futile, legal action.
What I suspect the game-changer would be were if the US actually tried to enforce its penalties on a major Australian financial institution. Individuals tend to have but little voice Money speaks however. If the banks should find compliance too costly or bothersome after a while, our government would surely hear of it and most loudly. From there would arise the impetus for change. Not to protect personal freedoms, not to respect any weak anti-discrimination laws, but solely to protect the bottom line of our lofty and puissant financial institutions. No one will give heed if a few sheep get fleeced. But stuff about with the rancher, and the bloke will come out fighting.
We do envy the Canadians somewhat for their intelligent, enlightened gay rights laws. Here in Australia we cannot marry as yet, and I’m not optimistic that my partner and I will see that occur during our lifetimes. At the same time, I find people in Melbourne more tolerant of same-sex relations than people of any other world city we’ve visited apart from Amsterdam. We’ve had a formal civil union which bestows on us some rights, but less than those on offer in Canada of course. Changes here, if and when they do occur, will certainly not come from our High Court however. Those changes could only come from Parliament and from the will of this nation’s greater majority.
While I find Australians to be somewhat anti-authoritarian by nature, the adjective independent tends not to come to mind. The majority here, it appears, are still entirely content remaining a constitutional monarchy respectfully headed by Her Majesty, who remains our formal head of state. The status quo is valued. Things are tolerable enough for the population so why bother making changes. Currently we’ve got a hung Parliament in which no party has a majority. Don’t envision any strong leader appearing, willing to bound bravely into battle with the US over something like FATCA. The fashion in which the Mother Country decides to respond to that dreaded legislation will prove the strongest influence upon what this country then does in turn.
What a great chat we could have were you ever to visit here! You would certainly be welcomed with the very warmest hospitality. My fellow Australians show no interest whatsoever in the travails facing overseas Americans. Canadian citizens unaffected by such matters must react likewise I’d think. Expats are left to converse solely amongst ourselves about these issues. It’s amazing that we end up with no option but to give up our former citizenship. Yet the increasing numbers doing so make the very strongest statement of all about this situation. This site has been ever so fascinating, for here I watch history in the making, unrolling before my very eyes. And how sorry I am to read of the extreme troubles being caused for so many people. Maybe FATCA will end up delayed indefinitely. Maybe it will ruin countless peoples’ lives instead, and prove devastating on a world-wide scale. Two things we have are the most valuable of all; our freedom, and our CLNs. Cheers.
@ozteddies et al
That seems a pretty accurate summing up.
I am at this moment doing my year end taxes. The Australian authorities are SO much more what my daughter calls “chilled” about the whole thing than the IRS. My taxes here are so simple I do them myself online, which I would never dare do with the US taxes. Before you fill anything in, they have a statement which basically says “if you make an honest mistake and owe more, you probably won’t have a penalty, but you will have to pay the tax.” Sounds fair 🙂
Also that if you overpay by mistake they will return the difference (with interest, I think). Why the **** can’t the IRS treat people like that?
In my work I also have to deal with the ATO (Australian Tax Office) quite a bit, and any time I’ve had to talk to them they have been friendly and helpful. People here sometimes complain about them – they don’t know how good they’ve got it.
I’ve met few other Americans here, there is a Meetup group but these are recent arrivals still talking about how to catch the NFL or how to bring your favourite foodstuffs…. so no, I don’t think there will be any big court challenge. So far my bank hasn’t made any issue of me being a US person, and I hope that by the time they do I won’t be any more.
Re same sex marriage, I think it will pass eventually – it doesn’t really seem to be a problem with the public, or even the politicians, they just keep on trying to play it “safe” politically, and are just looking at the win/lose numbers (without… really considering the human people involved…)
@ozteddies, another excellently written commentary. Thank you for sharing.
One point resonated for me was the détente that comes from having bad — or counter-productive, or futile — laws on the books to appease some constituency while not actually enforcing them to mollify everyone else. All fine while it lasts. But an ever-present danger is that a later government sees it as a good idea to start enforcement, for any number of reasons — need for cash, political expediency, or especially in an election year, demagoguery. Then you get a ‘crack down’ that is hard, if not impossible, to argue against without appearing unreasonable. After all the law, even if bad, already exists and has done for years. The current government can blame any bad effects on its predecessor, the ‘only following orders’ excuse, while reaping the benefits.
This is precisely why FBAR, fundamentally useless as a law enforcement tool, was ignored for the first 40+ years of its existence, then all of a sudden became mysteriously ‘critical’ to US efforts on tax compliance. (Here ‘compliance’ is defined as a means by which to extort money from disenfranchised constituents while disguising it as a tax.)
It’s the same here in Switzerland, Shunrata. I keep a copy of my tax return as a spreadsheet, update it with various figures as I go through the year and then just need to change any allowances once I get the actual form and instruction booklet that details what allowances you can claim. Takes about an hour to fill it in by hand, copy the necessary supporting docs and then it’s ready to be posted back. If we underpay we get an invoice for the outstanding amount in a few months so we can pay it; if it’s over and just a small amount you can either have it paid back to your bank account or they’ll offset it against the following year’s tax. Sometimes you get a nice surprise and it’s several thousands back; we had that last year. I still haven’t figured out why we had a refund, but I’m not going to complain.
I haven’t needed to use them, but others over on the English Forum have and they all say they find the tax officials very helpful in sorting out and explaining how to fill in the forms. After all, it’s in their interest to make sure people do it right as it saves them time and money sorting it out later.
@Shunrata
Heartily agree that the ATO is quite friendly, helpful, and most unthreatening compared to its US counterpart.
When our CLNs arrived last year, I took certified copies of those to the bank which holds our mortgage. My intent was to forestall any FATCA related nonsense by presenting these. When the bank’s manager met me, she refused even to look at the CLNs and insisted I put them away. It was against regulations for the bank to know anything about a client’s national origins she said, and they did not want to be told anything in that regard, full stop.
Instead it was suggested that I send these to the Australian Tax Office and to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. I did so. Initially I rang the immigration office to enquire to whom these should get addressed. The lady there told me definitely to send the the CLN copies along with a brief cover letter. She said they were grateful to be kept informed of changes in peoples’ dual citizenship status as such, and noted that the US Consulate does not keep them posted of these matters.
We felt relieved knowing that our loss of US citizenship was now permanently on file with the relevant agencies in this country.
A bit encouraging that you actually think same-sex marriage equality will pass Parliament eventually. We’ve felt less optimistic about that ourselves, but one never knows. Sadly, most of the friends and family we most fervently wished would be around to attend our wedding someday have already passed away of old age. We might well be joining them ourselves before that day ever comes about. For the younger generations there remains hope at least. Better late than never. Cheers
@Davis wrote: “I think the main point is if a return (tourist) trip to t he US is made on your other passport, will you pop up as a expatriate who dodged taxes ?”
As far as I know, the main risk is that a “US Person” with outstanding tax issues will be on the radar of IRS collections, and they will have a lookout on TECS, Treasury Enforcement Communications System (a search engine will link you to Internal Revenue Manual § 5.1.18.14 and other relevant materials).
It is not possible to know how many American citizens abroad are failing to apply for or to renew US passports. I had in mind a FOIA query on the latter subject but it occurs to me that State itself may not know the answer.
Any tax system that depends on self-declaration must rely on the occasional prosecution “pour encourager les autres”. As I’ve written elsewhere, the draconian, disproportionate penalties applied automatically and with little discretion available to expatriates who relied over many years on the non-enforcement of these laws has had two results:
¶ US resident taxpayers with hidden overseas assets have mostly come to understand they have little choice but either to engage with OVDI or to emigrate with their assets (bearing in mind that IRS has a long memory and will, if they can, go after their heirs in due course. And although State has long requested Social Security numbers on passport applications, there is now closer liaison with IRS and the émigré who hasn’t a second passport may find in due course his American one revoked. (It is scarcely a stretch in the current environment to extend a practice already used for arrears in child support, etc.)
¶ Large numbers of middle-class Amcits abroad, unable to pay the costs, including back taxes, penalties and legal expenses, are simply abandoning their United States connection. Of course this is easiest for those born abroad whose passport shows no US connection and for former green-card holders (“long-term residents”). Those who have assets, including Social Security credits and pensions, in the United States need to think twice.
One problem for expats is that residence abroad tolls the statute of limitations. This has been discussed at http://federaltaxcrimes.blogspot.com
“In the United States limitations periods for tax-related offenses will be tolled while the taxpayer has absconded or is outside the United States; and on civil liability also where a fraudulent return or no return has been filed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3290, 26 U.S.C. § 6531
An interesting possibility, not yet tried AFAIK, is to file bankruptcy in Canada to discharge American taxes. It is wildly improbable that the IRS will file proof of claim/debt and Canada Revenue Agency will have no interest insofar as the debtor is and was a Canadian citizen at the relevant times. However, note that discharge of American student debt was allowed in one case and not so much in another. Compare Bialek (1994) 25 C.B.R.(3d) 271 (S.C. Ont.) and Taylor, In re Taylor, (1988) 68 C.B.R.(N.S.) 93 (P.E.I.S.C.), both online somewhere.
Given the obsolescence of some portions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, it remains possible that those who self-expatriated and consider themselves no longer American citizens, may be treated by some foreign States (especially a State of which they are a citizen) as no longer American. The issue of the exorbitant application of American law to such persons, and to long-term residents and the like (with no exception in that law for those obviously exempt, such as persons who gave up green cards to take up employment in international organizations or diplomatic posts in the US) is probably something most foreign States would like to avoid. And I suspect that the US Treasury would like to avoid it too.
Given that US beneficiaries of foreign decedents’ estates and foreign-source gifts have to report those on Form 3520, my guess is that one would need to disinherit such persons, or at least provide for a testamentary or inter vivos trust that includes a discretionary power to avoid any payment likely to be challenged or seized by US (i.e. foreign) tax authorities. That means a revision to the common Will clause about “payment of debts and taxes”.
@ozteddies,
Interesting about the bank. When you opened your account what did you use for ID? I had to use my US passport as I didn’t yet have any Aus ID documents – so I would assume they know my origin, Then again they could just have noted that I passed the 100 points ID check and leave it at that.
I would not have thought to inform Immigration about receiving a CLN but it makes sense and I’m happy to hear they appreciate being updated. Did you send one to the ATO as well?
Question:
My son who was born outside the US but is a citizen and has a passport and SS# has asked me about dealing with the IRS. He’s never filed a US tax return, and would never owe tax as he lives in (a country with low income and high taxes).
Logically I wonder why in the world they would be interested in him, but logic doesn’t seem to come into it. He has a local bank account with a bank which doesn’t know of his US status and probably doesn’t care as he has little money. He doesn’t meet FBAR reporting requirements.
I really don’t know what to tell him or who to send him to. He could consult an accountant who will of course tell him to file, and will be happy to help him out and charge him for it. He could talk to other people who would tell him to ignore the situation (and possibly in the future get his passport pulled / be unable to enter the US).
Any words of wisdom?
@Calgary411 @Petros
I was reading last night about “Dianne” on a May 2012 thread to which many here contributed. It suddenly ends on May 5th 2012…
My questions:
1) Did she ever follow up with a CLN ?
2) Is she in the Consulate Report Directory?
3) Is her story still in Limbo?
4) Her completed journey would be a good reference for future candidates..
5) I also noticed she wrote to Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper to no avail at the time.
This was the link to the thread:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/05/02/she-didnt-know-the-united-states-still-thought-she-was-an-american/
Shunrata, here are his choices:
Ignore it, but only if he never plans to go to the US ever again. And hope his bank doesn’t eventually want to know about his citizenship status and that the US doesn’t decide to link passport renewals with being tax compliant.
If he has/can get a second citizenship, then renounce.
Comply by filing US tax returns, even though he doesn’t owe anything and pray that eventually the US will switch to a residency based tax. If he earns so little, it may be worth seeing an accountant to do the initial filing and then hopefully he can just copy from year to year after that himself. No guarantees though.
It’s a difficult choice to make and only he with your help can decide what’s best for him.
Thomas Jefferson on the “natural right” to expatriate: http://www.scribd.com/doc/153740533/Thomas-Jefferson-on-expatriation-1776-The-Writings-of-Thomas-Jefferson-1892
@badger:
Failure to file a return, and failure to claim the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion before the IRS discovers the discrepancy, can work a loss of the right to claim that exclusion. http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Choosing-the-Foreign-Earned-Income-Exclusion
One can still claim a deduction for foreign tax paid on Form 1116 but AMT may cause double taxation to some degree.