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
Just to highlight how wacky all this is, here’s a story with a strange twist:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/u-s-says-alabama-woman-who-joined-isis-isn-t-an-american-citizen-1.4305888
Born in New Jersey in 1994, she was once issued a US passport so at the time the US accepted that she was a citizen. Now the US government has decided to use the “born while her parent was a diplomat” exception to strip her of that former citizenship. It will be interesting to see how this one pans out as it makes its way through the courts. Presumably, if the US government prevails, she will wind up stateless. At least it would save her $2350.
@Watcher, portland, formerpatriot,Birdperson, Heidi, maz57. Thanks again for the information. I think my case is farily simple. Heres the scenario. Like Heidi had green card was naturalized US citizen. Sold home in US no CGT tax as under the threshold for it on sale. Bought home in UK a number of years ago. Renounced January this year.. So in column a of line 16 Real estate ouside the US I would put the market value on the day of renunciation in January this year? Column b I would put the value of the home when I bought it a few years ago would I and in column c any gain or i think in my case bcause of the exchange rate at the time i bought it and now it will be a negative.? Column d i dont fill out as not a green card holder when renounced but citizen. Is this correct? For my private pension which is only small on line 7 of lage 5 of the 8854 form in colun a i put the value of it on eht day in Janaury I renounced? In columb b do I put the value of when I first started it way back in 1987 even thoogh when i left this sompnay Inever paid anything into it since in fact i forgot al about it until a staetment arrievd with its vlaue end of last year.? it was a pension from a company I worked for and it grown a little not much we are talking less than £10,000.. So in column b do Iput the value of it when first started if I
Dont know what happened to above post it went beforeIi had finished tryping! carrying on above “So in column b do Iput the value of it when the pension first started and the value of it then in 1987 and in column c the difference betweencolumn a and b? Say it ws £500 to start in 1987 and it is now a vlaue of £10,000 the difference would go in column c?
Cash in bank would only go in column a on line 1 nothing in column b and c? Line 19 other assets say my car and thats about it? Idont own much else and have made no improivements ot my home so the value hasnt changed apart from the market value which as I say with the exchaange rate is now worth less than I paid afew years ago! on eother questions on the instructions shhet for the 8854 form. It says under Part V Balance sheet which we are now talikng about under who must complete Schedule A – Balance sheet says Note: If there have been significant changes in your assets and liablities for the period that began 5 years before your expatriation and ended on the date you first filed Form 8854 you must attach a statement explaining the changes” what does this mean as i thoigh once you renounced if there were any chnages to your situaton it would not alter anything. it is confusing. I mean what if a member of your family were to die and you inherited something after you renounced but before you file the form 8854 next year?
@kabby
You are correct for house asset columns.
As you were a green card holder, then a citizen, your pension could qualify as a step up asset. That is you could put its value on the day you became a green card holder in column b, ( not the value when it was started,) and the gain in column c, but as its so small and if it is a pain to find its value when you got your green card, it won’t make any difference which year you choose as you wont be covered or owe any tax.
I believe Watcher explained that the balance sheet note of ‘significant changes in your assets’, only refers to those who expatriated under the old 10 yr rule, during which one had to submit an 8854, each yr for 10 yrs before you were free of the IRS. That note does not apply to you. Renunciation changed in 2008 to the present method of only one 8854 and an exit tax assessment. There are still some who are exiting under the old regime .
@kabby
PS
Yes, cash in bank would only go in column As
@maz57 Re: the wacky of being born in the U.S. but stateless….
When it was published I didn’t see this article mentioned on Brock.
https://thewalrus.ca/no-job-no-car-no-bank-account-what-its-like-to-be-stateless-in-canada/
@ Shovel
What a predicament for Qia Gunster! I was left wondering whether the poor kid even knows about the over-extended reach of his Uncle Sam. Could that be another shock in store for him? It isn’t just the IRS. There’s the Selective Service System to consider also. What a mess!
According to the article, Qia Gunster seems to finally be on the road to getting Canadian citizenship. At least Gunster was a person who deserved some sympathy. He was an innocent victim of bad decisions made by his mother.
The Alabama woman, on the other hand, would never be in the situation she now finds herself in if she hadn’t made her own monumentally bad decisions. She provoked the US government and they always seem to be able to adjust their laws to achieve a desired outcome. Her son will be the innocent victim in this case because if she isn’t a US citizen, he isn’t a US citizen. I doubt there is any such thing as citizenship of the now defunct caliphate and I don’t imagine Syria would claim them either.
I have heard of other cases involving Hispanic mothers who gave birth in US border towns and their children were later rounded up and deported to Mexico because ICE claimed that the places and circumstances of their births were “questionable” or not “properly documented”.
While it appears that Mr. Gunster was granted permanent residence status in Canada based in part on a DNA test demonstrating that he had an American parent, the article says nothing about the US recognizing his existence, let alone claiming him as a citizen – there is no birth certificate or other proof of his US birthplace. So he may not have any concerns on that score.
Not that he would anyway. There are no consequences to ignoring Selective Service registration, nor are there consequences to ignoring US tax compliance. And he might not even be lying if denies US citizenship on a FATCA questionnaire.
“While it appears that Mr. Gunster was granted permanent residence status in Canada based in part on a DNA test demonstrating that he had an American parent,”
It does appear that way, doesn’t it. Why should a grant of permanent residence in Canada depend on the person’s ancestry? Shouldn’t a stateless person with an Eritrean parent or unknown parents also be considered on the basis of their own situation?
At the risk of again leading us into pointless off-topic chatter, I will respond once and only once.
What I think is going on here is that for whatever reason Canada will not grant permanent resident status to someone without knowing (or having proof of) their country of origin.
In this very specific and unusual case, the Canadian authorities needed a way to confirm what could not be documented due to the lack of birth records, that Mr. Gunter was entitled to US citizenship. Ancestry, via DNA test of his father, was considered sufficient. Once they proved to their satisfaction that he was “American” – I use the scare quotes because it isn’t the US government making that determination, which was my original point – then they could grant him permanent resident status.
There’s no reason why the same determination could not be made for a stateless person of Eritrean or any other known parentage, so I’m not sure what your complaint is there.
Unknown parentage presents a different set of problems. I’m not sure what they would do with a stateless person who could not identify any other nationality or heritage.
Though they are going to have to figure something out soon due to the incredibly stupid changes they’ve made to citizenship laws, whereby a child born outside Canada to a Canadian who was also born outside Canada is not automatically entitled to Canadian citizenship. Assuming no other citizenships, when two children of Canadian expats reproduce in a country without jus solis citizenship, the baby is stateless. (Well done, federal government. Really gave that one some careful thought… Though admittedly the same thing can happen with Americans who don’t meet the 5/2 rule for transmitting US citizenship, but at least the 5/2 rule makes that situation far less likely.)
Way back when talking about Kabby’s house and form 8854, I wrote: “So yeah, in Kabby’s case it seems like there should be a step up (albeit pointless, since you cannot reduce the exit tax to below $0!). This would go in column d of the 8854 ‘Balance Sheet’ though, rather than a ‘tweak’ to column b.”
After re-re-re-reading the 8854 instructions I see that this is wrong. Column d is only for ‘Part II’ filers (that’s me, but it’s not Kabby). So yeah, I guess a potential ‘adjustment’ to column b (except that on my reading of the circumstances, Kabby bought this house while a US citizen/resident, so no actual adjustment?).
You’ve all probably moved on from this already, but it bothers me to leave mistakes like this out on the internet potentially forever. So here’s the correction — please ignore my previous references to ‘column d’. It’s not intended for anyone who renounced after 2008.
Jeez, this stuff is infuriating. Pointless complication for no gain to anybody.
@Watcher,Heidi. Thanks for the latest help.I think I have got it now even though i have till next year to wait to do the final filing Iwanted to know what I am doing on the forms! Yes a complete pain for sure.
@Watcher & Kabby
Our time aside, I do gain a certain amount of satisfaction know this is costing the IRS time and money to process these forms for zero gain to the US gov. I can’t believe they spend much more scrutiny for minnows than the time it takes to open the envelope .
According to news reports a few years ago, sometimes they don’t even open the envelope.
@Norman
I heard about the containers full of unread paper fbars from my accoutant back in 2012.
“There are no consequences….” Re:Qia Gunster (back up-thread):
There’s a flaw in the incessant “There are no consequences” trope we hear.
If asked, Qia Gunster could well innocently tell his banker he was born in the U.S. Then later his privacy rights are violated when some bank compliance minion scans through the files and silently ships off his info. And once Gunster learns of this, there’d be no difficulty getting this undone with the bank?
Apparently, such potential privacy violations are of “no consequence”.
@Shovel
What I specifically said was there are no consequences to his ignoring US tax compliance obligations – I wasn’t referring to FATCA.
At the risk of reigniting an ancient debate, I’d say that privacy violations are a consequence of reporting, but currently there are no consequences to the privacy violation except possibly in a few very hypothetical edge cases. Still better not to be reported of course, just to be on the safe side.
Mr. Gunter should be careful if a bank asks where he was born, though currently we mostly see questions about US citizenship or tax residency, not place of birth. If the US doesn’t recognize his existence, he can plausibly claim not to be a US citizen. Perhaps some kind soul should inform his lawyer, who was identified in the article.
It’s somewhat satisfying to imagine the IRS receiving FATCA data for a person with no SSN and no record of having been born in the US. (I’m sure it’s already received quite a few of those already, due to junk data.)
Recevied CLN today (Canada), took almost exactly 3 months. In the packet was also a one page doc headed “Administrative Review of a Finding of Loss of Nationality”. This was what I was shown very briefly during my appointment. I now have text:
“The premise established by the administrative standard of evidence is applicable to cases adjudicated previously. Persons who previously lost U.S. citizenship may wish to have their cases reconsidered in light of this policy. A person may initiate such a reconsideration by submitting a request to the nearest US consular office or by writing directly to (lists two DOS addresses.) Each case will be reviewed on its own merits taking into consideration, for example, statements made by the person at the time of the potentially expatriating act.”
What is this? I am correct in reading this as DOS’s acknowledgment that the step is not necessarily irrevocable?
@Duchesse
Were you asked to fill out a 4079 form?
I believe this form serves two purposes, for those who may have lost their US citizenship, but didn’t intend to (by performing an expatriating act) and those who wanted to relinquish citizenship by an expatriating act. Perhaps this letter covers and is intended for those in the first circumstance?
@ Heidi, no. Your comment was first I have heard of form 4079., which would not apply to me. This notice was shown to me, literally whisked under my nose. I asked if I could have a copy,was told no. Then copy showed up in my CLN package.
It seems to me this is a notice telling people they can get citizenship back…or am I reading the text I quoted inaccurately? I have not seen this doc mentioned in Brock poster’s reports of their renunciations.
“What is this? I am correct in reading this as DOS’s acknowledgment that the step is not necessarily irrevocable?”
If someone (usually US government) decides that your US citizenship should be revoked, and if the State Department agrees with that decision, the State Department issues you a CLN. If you didn’t renounce or otherwise didn’t participate in someone’s decision, this might be the first time you hear about it. Then it might be revocable.
If the State Department sends the letter to an undeliverable address, I guess you’re screwed (standard operating practice).
“… statements made by the person at the time of the potentially expatriating act.”
I thought renunciation was precisely an expatriating act, not potentially. Whatever does that mumbo-jumbo mean? Someone says at his/her renunciation appointment, “I really don’t want to do this but I find I must in order to lead a less complex life here.” Then sometime later, upon request, DOS will/might hand back their US citizenship. Seriously? What game are they playing here?
@Norman Diamond: I renounced. I did not “ participate in someone else’s decision ».
At my appointment, I read the list of conditions silently in front of the consular officer; one of them was that I understood the action I had requested was serious and irrevocable. Three minutes later, I was shown that document, but denied a copy. Today, along with my CLN, I received same doc. I have quoted it in its entirety except for addresses.
I’d like to know the intent of a doc that seems to say a renunciant can appeal to reverse his or her renunciation and why DOS is providing that note.
Embee: I was hoping for a knowledgeable answer here, yet it seems ( so far) I am first renunciant asking about this document’s purpose.
I don’t see a reversal being very likely a straightforward renunciation case. Suspect it probably has more to do with relinquishing acts,
The Foreign Affairs Manual also makes particular reference to relinquishing acts performed in the ’60s through ’80s when Supreme Court decisions ruled that, to result in expatriation, intent must accompany a potentially relinquishing act and that the burden of establishing expatriation is on the party alleging it, but before DoS clearly changed its administrative presumption in 1990 to reflect the Court’s rulings.