Another important document, US Joint Congressional Committee published report, from George:
Hello Brockers, another little ditty to download before they take it away;
This is part of a joint congressional committee published report. Others can probably dice this up better, but it might be nice to have in the file. Better yet, send it to your MP as a report to Congress pointing out that having a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) is not written into US Law. My guess is that would be the final breaking of the Expatriation Act 1868.
“There is no obligation for an individual to obtain a CLN or otherwise notify the Department of State of relinquishing ones citizenship.”
From part of a US joint congressional committee published report “84-288-GPO-CPRT-JC5-2-03-7-2, B. Aquisition and Loss of Citizenship”
Wow! What a great find! I love it when it’s possible to use their own words as ammunition against them.
Tell that to the banks.
Fellow Brockers, this Dept of State of publication with a very current date and the Joint Congressional Committee Report on another thread are extremely powerful documents. They cause you to think.
Can I implore you to send these off to your lists of Canadian MPs? Add your own words and thoughts and what they mean to you. We only need one staffer for an MP to bite and I know Canadians are the best fishermen in the world.
I have read many of your stories and many of you had no idea what a CLN was and frankly you had relinquished your US citizenship.
When you relinquished, you were right that a CLN was not required and Congress knew it too!
We need to get the Canadian Government to simply pause and scratch their heads.
Blessings to all of you.
Pingback: Maple Sandbox
Pingback: Maple Sandbox
@George: Great finds! These are more arsenals to add to our fight.
We are a diverse army.Together, we know we are formidable. More importantly, Flaherty, Shoom, Trudeau and Canadian Bankers Association know they are fighting a losing battle with us.
The war’s not over yet, but we will win–no matter how long it takes.
Wow, great find. What I find most interesting is the phrase “the date upon which the CLN is approved is not the effective date…the loss of citizenship is effective on the DATE THE RELINQUISHMENT OF CITIZENSHIP OCCURS..
if only State actually followed that rule
So my spouse relinquished in 1980 when she became a Canadian citizen. She got her CLN in 2013 because she thought she had to, to prove it to the bank. So was getting it unnecessary? Brockers advised to get it.
@ Joe. Years may pass before anyone knows whether getting a CLN was unnecessary, but it certainly will stop a bank dead in it’s tracks. At least it didn’t cost $450.
@Joe; It seems one department south of the border has no idea what other departments are doing.FATCA regulations require the CLN or proof of other citizenship and a reasonable explanation of why does not have a CLN.
Many people want the CLN for peace of mind and to have concrete proof of relinquishment. I personally am determined to never go anywhere near a US Consulate or to give them or IRS any information about me or my whereabouts.
However, I have a copy of my signed oath to Canada from 1973 renouncing any other citizenship. That oath is witnessed by a Canadian citizenship official. I don’t see how any Canadian bank could refuse to accept that–or to explain to a Canadian judge why that is not evidence that I am not a “US person.” Canada’s law and policy changed days after I signed, so I am fortunate to have that document.
Having the CLN is proof positive that your wife is not a “US person.”
The most offensive thing about this is why should any Canadian citizen or resident have to prove to a Canadian bank that they are not a “US person”–with or without a CLN. They have no legal right to ask under Canadian laws.
Flaherty should have told Canadian banks three years ago they must adhere to Canadian law. He should have said Canadian law will not be changed to accommodate a foreign government. He should have told the US that would be the foundation for any “negotiations.” That should have been the beginning and end of this story–which has turned into a never-ending saga.
@Blaze, every government on earth and every FFI is dead afraid of the 30% withdrawing and being denied access to the US financial market. I don’t understand why no government tried to dispute the legality of that in international court.
Say there is no delay to FATCA, I am curious to see what is going to happen when the US actually starts withdrawing. What will be the reaction of the banks/governments that haven’t signed IGAs or signed up with the IRS? We might figure that out later this year….
@noone: But what if those governments around the world had said in a clear voice “No”. Just like they did to Eritrea.
Certainly, US is much more powerful than Eritrea. But, the countries of the world have power if they come together too.
Canada could and should have led the way because of our long-standing effective information exchange and tax treaty with the US. That could have served as a model for the world in trying to combat true offshore tax evasion.
Flaherty seemed to start off in that direction, then later he seemed to wimp out. Who knows what’s going on behind closed doors. I’m actually still optimistic he will stand up for us, but the responses to Ted Hsu’s questions this week made me less optimistic.
You shouldn’t need anything more than a notarized and signed statement of your relinquishment to prove to a bank that you’re not a US citizen. To require a CLN is implicitly to acknowledge that one’s relinquishment is dependent on the permission of the government. But if it’s a human right, then it does not depend on any government permission to change citizenship.
That being said, the US deems people US Persons all the time who aren’t US citizens (green card holders no longer living in the US, people who live there 6 months of the year, etc.) so I don’t see how having a CLN will protect you from being labelled a US Person for ‘tax purposes’. The CLN only proves you’re not a citizen, it doesn’t prove you’re not a US Person.
You may try using 3(a) but you still need the first two item completed. The 8854 may not be required if relinquishment was done either 1987 or 1995. Not certain which date. You may be not be a US citizen with a CLN but you can still be a US person for tax purposes. Look at bottom of thread at references.
a)“Where account holder information unambiguously indicates a
place of birth, the Reporting United Kingdom Financial Institution
obtains or has previously reviewed and maintains a record of:
(1)a self-certification that the account holder is neither a U.S.
citizen nor a U.S. resident for tax purposes (which may be on an
IRS Form W-8 or other similar agreed form);
(2)a non-U.S. passport or other gov
evidencing the account holder’s citizenship or nationality in a
country other than the United States;
(3)a copy of the account holder’s Certificate of Loss of Nationality
of the United States or a reasonable explanation of:
(a)the reason the account holder does not have such a certificate despite renouncing U.S. citizenship;
(b)the reason the account holder did not obtain U.S.citizenship at birth.
from UK Facta
You need more then CLN
You are are still a US person for tax purpose until you do an 8854
You have to do a 8854 tax compliant for W8 to be true.But of course a W8 is an IRS document. Does the Canadian government protect us from lying on an IRS document especially when we only have Canadian assets?
“For purposes of filling out Part I, the date of your expatriation is the later of the date you notified the relevant agency of your expatriating act or the date Form 8854 was first filed in accordance with these instructions. Apply the rules of section 7502 to determine the date on which this form is filed. Generally, the postmark date is the filing date.
Until you file Form 8854 and notify the Department of State or the Department of Homeland Security of your expatriating act, your expatriation for immigration purposes does not relieve you of your obligation to file U.S. tax returns and report your worldwide income as a citizen or resident of the United States.”
Step 3: File Form 8854
You must file a Form 8854 to notify the IRS of the change in your status. Until you file this form, you will continue to be treated as if you were still a US citizen or Green Card holder for tax purposes.”
@George. The 8854 refers to expatriating in 2004, 2008, and 2013. But nothing about expatriating in 1980
Also does not 8854 only refer to renunciation and not relinquishment?
@GeorgeIII @Joe: It’s my understanding it does not apply to pre-2004 relinquishments. That’s why a back dated CLN prior to 2004 is a good idea.
There was no IRS requirement to advise DOS until 2004.
There’s a thread here somewhere with a U.S. lawyer’s opinion confirming that. Perhaps someone can post it here.
Lawyers’ opinions are in the sidebar under the heading “Links by Subject,” Important! If Relinquishing Act Prior to June 4, 2004 This will take you to a thread on “Three Recent Legal Opinions” and one on lawyer Michael Miller’s article about this matter with a link to Michael’s article.
On page 3 of the .pdf file, page 52 of the document, it says: “Similarly, if a CLN has been issued, but the Department of State later discovers that such issuance was improper … the Department of State could initiate proceedings to revoke the CLN.”
How would that work?? Could the DoS do that without the agreement of the person to whom the CLN had been issued? Assuming the person’s original sealed copy of the CLN were stored safely outside the US, it could hardly be confiscated, although DoS might demand its return. So if it were not returned, would the DoS issue a separate Certificate of Revocation of CLN — in effect a document saying that the person is once again a US citizen, even if the person objected to revocation of the CLN?? How very Kafkaesque, Orwellian, and Alice-in-Wonderlandish that would be! Or could they institute criminal proceedings against the person for failure to return US government property? To whom does a CLN belong — the person or the US government?
I can only guess that an item would be put in record in some CLN database, keyed by name, birth date, and place of birth, indicating that the CLN retrieved by those key attributes was no longer valid. Then some document indicating that would be sent to the IRS and Homeland Security, who would really have a field day harassing any person with that name, birth date, and birthplace who was thereby doubly stigmatized as not only having tried to ditch their US citizenship but also having failed in the attempt.
I have a suggestion. Fight fire with fire. We’re not that insignificant a player in the US markets. Why doesn’t Canada give notice now that starting with whatever the moving FATCA target date is that Canada will withhold 30% of any Canadian’s US investments, thereby pre-empting the US from holding any threat over our financial institutions. This could bring the matter to a head, get huge international headlines, and we’d be heroes to the rest of the world. I’d be willing to bet trade with the rest of the world would be enhanced. FATCA as it is would evaporate.
OK, wishful thinking, but I’m so sick of all the wimpy approached governments everywhere, including here, are taking. Stand up to bullies! They’re not expecting that.
For 1995 Maybe not 8854 but other tax compliant. I am not certain but Dual US citizenship started in 1987, So if you became a Canadian you would have relinquished USA citizenship.
“As it turns out, the timeline of important amendments and changes to Section 877 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) dealing with Loss of Nationality begins much earlier than the June 2, 2004 amendment which introduced the infamous IRS Form 8854. For our purposes (meaning those who committed relinquishing acts in the 60′s, 70′s and early 80′s), the truly significant date vis-a-vis the IRS is actually February 6, 1994, as referenced in the 1996 Amendment – the most important one for us to understand, I believe. In a nutshell, those of us who committed qualifying relinquishing acts before February 6, 1994 are absolutely NOT subject to amendments made after this date under the terms of a “special rule”. As a result, it appears that we have no requirement to provide any IRS-specific forms or statements to the IRS, including form 8854! It would appear that a simple notification letter from us (notarized and duplicated, I would suggest) indicating that the Department of State has processed and issued a CLN showing a relinquishment date prior to February 6, 1994 should suffice. This seems to be the means by which a back-dated CLN issued by State could be used to provide sufficient information to the IRS to not require any further action. Of course, while State eventually provides its own direct notification to the IRS, I think it is important that we provide a “good faith” letter as well.
I have found some important references to this date, within FindLaw notes and in the official IRS Code. I am providing links and screen shots to relevant portions of these references, as follows:”
This is from REPORT ON H.R. 3103, HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1996 [PDF 1167 KB] that was in the Congressional Record from July 31, 1996 (earlier than the one George found, I know) but it’s very interesting to see the very clear language that says we didn’t have to report to anyone when we relinquished our citizenship.
“During the course of the 1995 Joint Committee on Taxation staff study on expatriation (see Joint Committee on Taxation, Issues Presented by Proposals to Modify the Tax Treatment of Expatriation (JCS–17–95), June 1, 1995), a specific issue was identified regarding the difficulty in determining when a U.S. citizen has committed an expatriating act with the requisite intent, and thus no longer has the obligation to continue to pay U.S. taxes on his or her worldwide income due to the fact that the individual is no longer a U.S. citizen. Neither the Immigration and Nationality Act nor any other Federal law requires an individual to request a CLN within a specified amount of time after an expatriating act has been committed, even though the expatriating act terminates the status of the individual as a U.S. citizen for all purposes, including the status of being subject to U.S. tax on worldwide income.”
Okay, so as far as I understand it, I don’t even need a CLN in order to be considered as a non-US person by the US in the event I relinquish. However, without that CLN, how will I prove that I’m a non-US person to a bank that would be required to report my account to the IRS under FATCA? Wouldn’t the onus still be on me to prove my non-US personhood?
The bigger question for Canadians, if you self certify incorrectly that you are not a US person for tax reasons what is the consequence in Canadian law especially if you do not have US source assets? We do not enforce IRS penalties, I think I saw something in another FACT if the FFI does not believe self certification is incorrect they can reject it.
One more opportunity to point out that Brock is a data morass. Here newbie “research” treks along another worn footpath. This item has been listed for a long time in the Documents section at InfoShop.
Here’s reproduction of a citation to the document and how it is structured.
United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Taxation. Review of the present-law tax and immigration treatment of relinquishment of citizenship and termination of long-term residency (Feb 2003) , iii, 220 p. [Note: Link will download pdf 1 of 13 only; final digit in url must be altered to obtain each of the 13 parts]
InfoShop has lost a lot of enthusiasm for enhancing a resource that seems to be a big waste of time.