The excuse for flogging this horse: it ain’t dead yet! Plus, this stuff needed to be pulled together.
When I posted Form 8854 on 13 June 2012 I facetiously hoped for two professionals to come up with diametrically opposed views.
Michael J. Miller soon weighed in with some very useful comments, based on actual off-the-record conversations with IRS. That information seemed to be received with joy, because it was so what people wanted to hear.
Petros followed up with a second thread on the topic on 19 June 2012: Please read this post if your actual expatriation date is before 2004 (Updated)
Some of you have been over there already, but I only recently came across the Phil Hodgen comment (to his own magisterial Why People Expatriate) that describes the core question as
A vexing problem … [that will] … require someone to be a crash-test dummy to test this in the Federal courts.
Hodgen says he might dedicate a separate posting to this in the future. In the meantime, does anyone feel like pursuing a new career as a crash-test dummy? Without someone steppping up to hit the wall, only perpetual uncertainty for all US persons in the affected class!
Not diametrically opposed exactly, but definitely messier now, definitely more equivocal than univocal.
May the dialectic continue to swerve and clatter its way toward the never-settled approximation of what actually is. If a troubling issue seems too neat, and relatively resolved, the result can’t be real.
The forthcoming blog post I promised won’t be forthcoming. I’m working on something and I don’t want any tip-offs until and unless I file a petition in Tax Court to get things straightened out. (Hint — this may be the crash-test).
Interesting question for either yourself(Phil), Steven Mopsick, or Michael Miller. If necessary are any of you accredited to argue a case in front of the US Supreme Court.
In a judicial political context I suspect if either a case of nationality law, tax law or both ever got to the US Supreme Court the Conservative wing i.e. Scalia, Thomas, Alito would tend to disfavor the idea of “dual nationality” and rule that someone who was a native born American citizen but naturalized as Canadian lets say back in the 1970s committed a permanent relinquishing act at the time ceasing any tax obligations. The question is do want to spend the money required in legal fees to get such a case before the likes of Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito and take the risk that the like of Chief Justice Roberts and Anthony Kennedy might stand with the loosy goosy liberal wing of the court.
I will take note also that the very conservative US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia just ruled against the State Department which had denied an Israeli citizen a CLN based on a relinquishing act. I also think the possibility that an overseas person could appeal from US Tax Court to the afforementioned US Court of Appeals for DC instead one of the “regular” US Court of Appeal more symphatetic to the IRS would be interesting.
What is the recent case you are talking about? Do you have a name or a cite?
Also, my understanding is that one need only pay a fee (assuming you are a licensed lawyer) to become a member of the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here’s the link —
I’m curious why Phil or others may see this as a real issue (assuming, as I’ve said before, that under the applicable immigration rules (as to which I do not pretend to have any expertise), a person is considered to have ceased being a citizen prior to enactment of the American Jobs Creation Act in 2004).
I explained my analysis both here and on Phil’s blog, but do not believe there was any reply on point. Apologies if I missed it.