This of course is the infamous Japanese American internment provision that has not been used since the 1940s and which Chuck Schumer attempted to get repealed as part of “comprehensive” immigration reform.
“For reasons we do not understand, Aaron Schnitzler, a South Dakota state prisoner, wants to renounce his United States citizenship,” Garland wrote. “For reasons the government has failed to explain — or rather, for a host of ever-changing reasons — it has made it impossible for him to do so.”
Schnitzler is nearing the end of a 15-year sentence for sexual conduct with a child under the age of 16. Starting in about 2010, he embarked on what Garland termed a “merry-go-round” of entreaties to a variety of federal agencies, in search of his citizenship renunciation. Frustrated, he sued.
Among other arguments, the government said an in-person interview is required to request renunciation. But, since Schnitzler is incarcerated, such an interview was impossible. He’d have to wait until he was released. Not good enough, Schnitzler says.
“’I want to renounce citizenship while in prison right now!’ he said,” Garland recounted.
@Domino, the relinquish clause evolved from the renounce clause in early IGA. That change should follow through as a most favored clause….
In regards to a hypothetical person not having a CLN but having relinquished, I personally believe that if the FI does not have hyper-compliance legal/accounting firms advising them, they will be amenable to accepting other solid documents, preferably something from a local lawyer.
Shovell, I noted that, so clearly, we’ve got it backwards. The US State Dept should be proving that we are USCs and therefore subject to taxation or FATCA rather than us having to prove we are not.
@monalisa1776 “if what you say is true, then no one can ever enjoy complete certainty with the IRS.”
Yes, especially with the IRS.
“[I]f a CLN has been issued, but the Department of State later discovers that such issuance was improper … [court cases, changes of law?] the Department of State could initiate proceedings to revoke the CLN. … To the extent that the IRS [yes, the IRS] believes a CLN was improperly issued, the IRS could present such evidence to the Department of State and request that revocation proceedings be commenced.”
And the CLN revoking above reflects only how things were up until 2004 when citizenship loss ended tax obligation. I suggest that today, since citizenship for tax purposes is a thing apart controlled by the IRS, the IRS doesn’t even need to bother with CLN status if it feels like revoking tax citizenship loss (for which there is no certificate).
Another blog post about the Schnitzler case. Points out another important question: is there a constitutional right to renounce citizenship?
Pingback: The Isaac Brock Society | Comparison of fees and procedures for renouncing citizenship in various countries