From Dr. von Koppenfels:
[See pdf’s: Univ Kent study brief and US citizenship renunciation Kent study summary]
Dear all,
As promised, here (are) two documents – cut and pasted to go here, so I hope they don’t look too strange with the formatting – that summarize the initial findings of my research from the survey “The US and You”, to which some of you may have responded. Many respondents (thank you!!) took the time to write extensive comments, and I am still working my way through those (400 pages) of data. Producing a more in-depth analysis of that may take some months, but I’ll post that eventually as well.
For now, here the initial results. And thank you to all survey respondents!!
Best,
Amanda
11 February 2015
New Survey Shows US Citizenship Renunciation Intentions Not Linked to Income
BRUSSELS, Belgium (11 February 2015) – Figures released by the US Treasury Department show 3,514 US citizens renounced their citizenship (also includes long-term residents who gave up their residency) in 2014; this is the highest figure ever, up over 2,999 in 2014.
A recent University of Kent (at Brussels) study surveyed 1546 US citizens and former citizens (from 5 December 2014 to 20 January 2015) on this topic. Of the US citizen respondents, 31% have actively thought about renouncing US citizenship and 3% are in the process of doing so. The study shows that, in contrast to what is commonly thought, income is not a key factor in their doing so.
Of those who have renounced or relinquished US citizenship (142 of the total respondents), nearly half (43%) have annual pre-tax household incomes of under $100,000 (USD). There is, similarly, very little difference in renunciation intention between those with lower incomes and those with higher incomes: of US citizen respondents with annual household incomes under $100,000 (USD), 28% are actively thinking of renouncing; of US citizen respondents with incomes above $250,000 (USD), 33% are actively thinking of doing so.
The University of Kent study shows that many overseas Americans are feeling increasingly pressured by US financial reporting requirements and that maintaining US citizenship is costly – in terms of accountants’ fees. One respondent noted: “I can’t pay an accountant 2000€ in order to pay the USA $0.00 in the end.” Fear of “draconian” FBAR (Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts) penalties is also widespread, as this pensioner noted: “Annual income under $4,000; potential FBAR penalties $30,000 per annum for 3 small accounts! I am old and dependent on savings; one paperwork lateness could leave me facing starvation.”
Numerous respondents also noted severe difficulties in retaining or opening investment accounts, bank accounts and, in some cases, securing mortgages, as local banks increasingly refuse US customers – which negatively affects their ability to plan for retirement. Some 39% have lived abroad for over 20 years, and over two-thirds (67%) say they are unlikely to return to the US.
All US citizens living outside of the US are required to comply with both taxation on global income and financial reporting requirements. Certain groups of US citizens and former US citizens feel particularly targeted, as a respondent in Canada explained: “Canada is home to many border babies, born in the US because that was the location of the closest hospital, and ‘accidentals’ like myself who left the US as young children with no say in where they were born.”
This University of Kent survey – the first academic study of its kind, and the largest look at the attitudes of Americans living abroad on this topic to date – shows that income is not the key motivating factor in prompting renunciations, but that increasing reporting requirements, fears of “draconian” penalties and increasing inability to hold a bank account are factors prompting renunciation.
A longer summary of initial findings is available.
———-
Executive Summary:
Survey of Citizenship Renunciation Intentions Among US Citizens AbroadThe US State Department estimates that 6.8 million Americans live outside of the US. The Treasury Department recently released its official numbers on 2014 fourth quarter US citizenship renunciations. In 2013, annual renunciations rose to their highest level ever, at 2,999, and in 2014 rose still higher, to 3,514.
A new research survey of 1546 US citizens and former citizens living outside of the United States shows that 31% of the US citizens are seriously thinking about renouncing their US citizenship, and that 3% are currently in the process of doing so.
The survey ran from 5 December 2014 to 20 January 2015, surveying 1404 US citizens and 142 former citizens, living in 69 countries. The survey was an opt-in snowball survey, distributed initially via overseas American organizations. The survey included closed-ended and open-ended questions, allowing for both quantitative and qualitative analysis.
Initial key findings of the study are:
Quantitative Analysis:
1) 31% have actively thought about renouncing US citizenship and 3% are in the process of doing so; 32% have never thought about renouncing US citizenship. Another 33% have given only a passing thought to the idea, however, they have no immediate or even long-term plans to do so. Many hold strong feelings of American identity and express pride in being US citizens.
2) More than one-third (39%) of all respondents had lived in their current country of residence for 20 years or more. The primary reason (33%) for moving to that country was to be with a spouse or partner, followed by employment (26%). 21% left the US as children. Over half (54%) are aged 50 or older, and 58% are female. 88% have at least a four-year college education. 45% have annual pre-tax household incomes of under $100,000 (USD) and an additional 18% between $100,000 and under $150,000.
3) Of those who have renounced or relinquished US citizenship, nearly half (43%) have annual pre-tax household incomes of under $100,000 (USD). Of those who have renounced or relinquished, more than half (56%) have lived at least 20 years in the United States, and three-quarters (75%) more than 20 years in their current country of residence.
4) Renunciation intentions are not linked to income: 43% of former citizens have annual household incomes under $100,000 (USD). Of US citizens with annual household incomes of more than $250,000, 33% have actively thought of renouncing and 4% are in the process of doing so. This compares to 28% of those US citizens with incomes under $100,000 (USD) having actively thought of doing so, and 3% currently in the process, and to 31% of all US citizen respondents who have actively thought of doing so and 3% who are in the process.
Qualitative Analysis:
5) US citizens who have renounced or relinquished their citizenship, or are thinking about doing so, mention several key factors. They note that financial reporting requirements are increasingly onerous and intrusive, and, second, that they are likely to remain overseas.
6) US citizens living overseas are affected by three sets of financial reporting requirements: first, they must file tax returns on global income – unlike nationals of any other OECD country living abroad; second, they must report all bank accounts with a combined total of $10,000 (USD) or more, or the so-called FBAR (Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts) and, third, they are affected by FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) requirements, a law which came into force 1 July 2014. All three factors play a role in individuals’ thoughts on renunciation:
a. In open-ended responses, analysis shows that it is not payment of taxes which prompts renunciation, but rather primarily costs associated with complying with US filing requirements – particularly FBAR, which many respondents only learned about recently, and the recent FATCA law. These can be as much as $1000 to $5000 per year – as one respondent, with a household income of between $50,000 and under $100,000, put it, “I can’t pay an accountant 2000€ in order to pay the USA $0.00 in the end.” This person, who renounced citizenship, would have had to pay nearly 10% of annual income in such costs: “To maintain tax compliancy with my pension account I was going to have to pay my accountant at least £1500 per year and I only earn £18 to £20,000 per year.” Maintaining US citizenship is costly – in terms of accountants’ fees. There are, moreover, no pre-tax retirement savings options for overseas Americans – unlike their US-based counterparts.
b. FBARs are now e-filed via the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, a phrase which riles many. The primary concern, however, over FBAR filing is that of many non-working spouses, as expressed by this woman, who has renounced her US citizenship: “Hated being treated like a criminal and filing FBARs on money earned solely by my UK only husband.” Others speak of stress created in their mixed-nationality marriages, especially those who are home-makers with income-earning non-US spouses, because of US filing requirements.
c. FATCA reporting requirements, also requiring reporting on joint accounts with non-US spouses, have further ramifications: numerous respondents also noted severe difficulties in retaining – or opening – investment accounts, bank accounts and, in some cases, securing mortgages, as banks increasingly refuse US customers. Numerous respondents reported great difficulties and stress in planning for retirement – with investment accounts increasingly closed to them in the countries they live in, as well as in the US (where many investment funds now require a US address).
7) Many respondents offered a “wait and see” response, noting that that if FATCA, in particular, is not changed, they feel that they will be “forced” to renounce US citizenship.
8) Two groups of US citizens and former US citizens feel particularly targeted by US financial reporting requirements, as well as by US citizenship policy, as explained well by this respondent in Canada: “Canada is home to many border babies, born in the US because that was the location of the closest hospital, and ‘Accidentals’ like myself that left the US as young children with no say in where they were born.”
These individuals – or their parents – believed that they no longer held US citizenship, having naturalized or held Canadian citizenship or not been aware of legal changes in US nationality law. Many realized only recently that the US Government still considers them US citizens, often after having been assured by US officials that they were not citizens, as this respondent said: “I was horrified to find out this year that the US is still claiming me as a citizen” – having relinquished US citizenship at the time of naturalizing as a Canadian. This person is not alone. Either not having been aware they were US citizens, or having been assured, many years ago, by Consulate officials that they were not, such individuals now face the cost of filing five years’ tax returns – even if no tax is owed – and potentially a $2350 renunciation fee, which for many is “prohibitively expensive”. They feel caught and targeted by US policy.
9) For many other respondents, a strong sense of anger and feeling of “being targeted” also emerged: “It is not a crime to live abroad and the US should not treat its expat citizens like criminals. I would never consider renouncing my US citizenship if the US treated me respectfully. As it is, I may end up renouncing, and that is a sad situation.” One person who renounced noted “What upsets me the most is the attitude by most US people that everyone outside the US is a tax cheat” and another noted “FATCA treats families like mine as suspected criminals until proven otherwise all because one family member is American who dared to marry abroad.”
10) Many expressed strong pride in being American, noting they would never renounce citizenship. Nonetheless, even some of those who have given no thought to renunciation still note, as this person did, “Folks upset about taxation without representation is what created the US.” A respondent with no intention of renouncing notes that “1. I’m an American. 2. I deeply resent being treated like a tax fraud or a drug lord.” This respondent, also with no intention of renouncing, said: “I find it tragic that many Americans living abroad are finding it necessary to give up their US citizenship based upon primarily taxation and banking problems. I think the IRS has to revise the code.”
11) Another person who has actively thought of renouncing, although does not intend to go through with it, said: “I do think that the mass media representation of this issue neglects to capture how difficult this decision is and how heartbreaking and frustrating it is. It’s like being in a cage.”
12) Many of those who did renounce or relinquish their citizenship expressed the pain of doing so, as this woman did: “It’s a bit like having a mastectomy because giving up my passport was traumatic for me.”
13) A very high degree of stress and even fear was expressed by a number of respondents, as expressed by this person “When I found about FBARs and the penalties involved I was unable to eat and sleep properly for weeks”. Many fear that inadvertent filing errors will wipe out retirement savings.
14) Numerous respondents mentioned their frustration with a lack of political representation of overseas Americans. They noted that they do vote in US federal elections, but also noted a lack of response concerning their concerns. Above all, respondents strongly felt the lack of representation of overseas Americans per se, as these two people did: “Double taxation without representation, without services, but with onerous ‘Orwellian’ compliance” or “I don’t feel that I have any representation within the US, so I might as well start forging links elsewhere.”
15) For many, American pride remains strong and a key factor in not renouncing, despite costs associated with remaining a US citizen (accountants’ fees, no pre-tax retirement savings options). On the other hand, frustration and resentment over US government financial reporting policies emerge strongly as well, even among those who feel they may return to the US at some point in the future.
Dr. Amanda Klekowski von Koppenfels is the Director of the MA in International Migration at the University of Kent in Brussels (www.kent.ac.uk/brussels). She is the author of Migrants or Expatriates? Americans in Europe (2014; Palgrave-Macmillan).
Watcher – indeed! 🙂
It’s an impossible dream, for US politicians or tax pundits who hope to find a way to squeeze revenue out of non-US-resident US citizens who are renouncing their citizenship. It’s one of those places where the CBT fantasy runs into reality, like Truman’s boat running into the painted backdrop.
They can’t stop the person renouncing, or “deem” that the renunciation didn’t happen.
They can’t make the renunciant pay while he or she is still a citizen, because the income/assets they covet are not US-source and not US-taxable; “deeming” them to be US-taxable has no effect.
They can’t make the renunciant pay once he or she is not a US citizen, because the income/assets they covet are not US-source and not US-taxable; “deeming” them to be US-taxable has no effect.
The US would like to be able to tax everyone everywhere on everything; in reality what the US has is RBT, just like everybody else. Ha ha ha! 😉
Watcher – thanks for the link to that Kirsch paper. Very interesting, not to only with regard to the exit tax but also with regard to relinquishing US citizenship.
Kirsch argues (as I understand it) that it’s acceptable for the US to treat a person as continuing to have US citizenship if they committed a relinquishing act years ago, but never informed the DoS; because if the DoS isn’t notified, citizen benefits such as right of return, right to a passport, etc, don’t get withdrawn.
Whereas it’s not acceptable for the US to treat a person as continuing to have US citizenship if they committed a relinquishing act and notified the DoS.
The IGAs, by allowing banks to treat a person who has relinquished citizenship as continuing to be a USC unless they can show a CLN, seem to be breaking international law as interpreted by Kirsch. Proof that they’ve notified the DoS ought to be enough, since that shows that they’re no longer entitled to benefits and therefore also no longer taxable.
Consequently, there should be no need for a person to pay $2350 to prove relinquishment/renunciation of citizenship; proof that the DoS has been notified should be enough. Proof that the person can’t claim USC benefits, which is the only possible justification for reporting their account to America.
This is not news, I realize, but Kirsch sets out the reasoning and cites the laws, which could be very helpful for contesting the IGA in the partner country, at least in my country it seems to me it could be helpful.
I’m not a lawyer of course so I may be well off the track.
I cooked up a fun thought experiment the other day. What would happen if you wrote the State Department a letter stating something along the lines of “I can’t afford $2350 but I hereby renounce my US citizenship; I swear on a stack of bibles that I won’t renew my US passport” and then went ahead and filed an 8854? Would the US government be so dumb that the IRS closed the tax file? You wouldn’t get a CLN, but you might not need one anyway.
This is probably a bad idea. Hence, thought experiment, not to be attempted in real life.
There seems to be no reason to think the IRS ever closes a tax file. “Exiting the US tax system” is a warm fuzzy feeling, not an actual event.
A naturalised citizen of, say, Canada, could just write to the Secretary of State, enclosing copy of naturalisation proof. A copy of the letter plus proof of posting plus proof of receipt should be enough.
Then never using any USC benefits again.
I’d give it a go if I was still a citizen. It wouldn’t be risky because I have no US-taxable assets or income.
Bank employees don’t seem to know even the most basic information about this, at least in Canada, so it would be very easy to avoid FATCA with by producing an “I renounce” letter, or a self-made CLN, or just cheerfully signing a W8.
But I’m curious as to what would happen if someone who’d been compliant claimed to have renounced and sent in an 8854. Would the IRS even check? I can’t really think of the situation where this would be advantageous, since it involves perjury and they could simply stop filing to achieve the same effect
“Would the IRS even check?”
I don’t know.
“ I can’t really think of the situation where this would be advantageous, since it involves perjury and they could simply stop filing to achieve the same effect.”
To stop filing would be much safer, given that perjury is a felony and an extraditable offence. Once they’ve got you, they’ve got you, and might even sling you in one of their delightful correctional facilities.
“…would be very easy to avoid FATCA with by producing an “I renounce” letter, or a self-made CLN, or just cheerfully signing a W8.”
Worth noting that for a USC, signing a W8 would also be perjury. Not as risky because in theory it never gets sent to the IRS.
In Canada so far, all that is necessary is to answer with a simple “no” anytime a financial institution asks if you are a US citizen or a US taxable person. No need to complicate things by volunteering anything more than that. The couple of times I’ve been asked, the bank employee appeared to be visibly uncomfortable even asking the question and seemed very happy to accept my answer without reservation so we could move on to the rest of the account opening sequence.
Looking at it from the bank employee’s point of view, why should they give a damn? Its not their problem. They are not the enforcer of US CBT. Its simply another stupid government rule (a foreign one which they think is unreasonable and un-Canadian) that gets in the way of the important business at hand. A no answer is simpler for them to process and they are most likely relieved that you didn’t answer in the affirmative.
Who knows where this will all go in the future, but for now “no” works just fine.
Not in my country, alas.
Yes, we are lucky (so far).
Ah the magical solutions involving magical correction of an imperfect situation! A magical conversion of my birthplace from NY to Timbuktu, the magical appearance of a real-looking CLN, a magical letter to my bank swearing I’m not a USP… All have occupied my daydreams abundantly I assure you. But the problem, as usual, is that the coverup may be worse than the crime, as far as consequences.
Yes. A safer approach would be to avoid commiting a crime, either by renouncing/relinquishing, or by responding to questions with the news that it’s none of their business.
The first option loses the passport. The second option might or might not end in account closure, but at least it wouldn’t end in criminal charges.
As far as I’m concerned, any Canadian citizen living in Canada who refuses to comply with these unreasonable and illicit demands from the rogue US government is not a criminal. If the Canadian government actually tried to prosecute an individual for this so-called crime they know the potential media shit storm would be so bad that they won’t ever even try. There’s nothing here but downside for them.
Nobody in Canada wanted this FATCA crap; not the individuals, not the banks, and certainly not the Canadian government. Its all pointless anyway because the CRA won’t assist the IRS in collecting from a Canadian citizen. I believe total noncompliance is the way to go because FATCA and CBT are inherently unenforceable. Widespread noncompliance only makes them even more unenforceable.
My $.02 (CDN).
@Eric
One thing that the Withersworldwide article forgot to mention is that the investment advisors who specialise in U.S. persons, at least over here in the U.K., are not available for people who have less than $1 million to invest in stocks. The median income of the U.S.-born population of the U.K. was around $50,000 in 2006, so there are a lot of people who won’t have that sum, especially since housing is expensive. One of the major strategies that used to be available for the U.S. persons in the U.K., putting U.S.-based ETFs into a Self-Invested Pension Plan, has been cut off. Last week a set of E.U. regulations, Mfid 2, came into effect and the U.S. companies seem to see no reason to come into compliance and keep their products on the E.U. market, since they have European affiliates selling Mfid 2 compliant products. This is definitely true of Vanguard, with whom I have corresponded.
maz57 – “As far as I’m concerned, any Canadian citizen living in Canada who refuses to comply with these unreasonable and illicit demands from the rogue US government is not a criminal.”
Definitely not. The IGA doesn’t require customers to answer the questions, it only requires the banks to “identify” USC accountholders and obtain their SS number.
It’s when the USC signs a US tax form that the spectre of perjury rears its head. They always have to be signed “under penalty of perjury.”. Don’t sign them, is the simple solution.
The Canadian government couldn’t prosecute an accountholder for not answering the questions; refusing to answer is not a crime. That’s what makes it hard to challenge.
“FATCA and CBT are inherently unenforceable. Widespread noncompliance only makes them even more unenforceable.”
I agree. But people have the right to comply if that’s their choice. All one can do is keep pointing out – CBT is unenforceable.
A USC can refuse to answer; I don’t know what the legal situation is if the USC answers falsely, and/or supplies a false document. If anybody knows I hope they’ll share.
@plaxy
We have pondered from time to time what the consequences of telling untruths might be, but nobody has supplied a definitive answer. Possibly because nobody has been caught yet!
Signing a W8 is theoretically risky, though they supposedly stay with the bank and never go to the IRS. It’s difficult for me to imagine the circumstances in which that would lead to US prosecution for perjury followed by deportation unless there were far larger crimes involved!
A fake CLN, much as we love the idea, might also be dodgy. I’m no lawyer, but I imagine that it would constitute fraud for you to use a forged document to obtain a service to which you would otherwise not be entitled (that service being either a bank or investment account not normally available to US persons, or simply an account that is not reported under FATCA). Now whether that level of fraud would lead to prosecution, rather than simple closing of the account, is another question.
Finally, giving a false answer to the citizenship question from the bank could also be considered a fraudulent act, I imagine, particularly if at some point you sign a form confirming that the answers you gave were true. (This was the case when I told the investment broker that I wasn’t a US citizen – a week later they sent me a paper copy of my updated customer profile to sign. Which I did, despite the fact that only Canadian citizenship was checked.) However, I really have a hard time imagining anything bad happening here because there’s always the “I forgot” or “I don’t know” or “I didn’t understand the question” defense; your fallback might then be “I refuse to answer” and account closure, which might (or might not) get you deemed recalcitrant if the bank felt sufficiently vulnerable.
In most cases I expect it’s in the financial institution’s best interests to quietly fire the customer, rather than to admit that their FATCA compliance procedures are sloppy and thus expose themselves to possible sanction.
Nononymous – thanks for your thoughtful comments. I expect you’re right about it likely being fraud.
I wouldn’t choose it myself, not so much because of possible consequences if found out, but because to me it seems like accepting that America has a right to treat USCs local accounts as “offshore”, and has a right to demand the information. But people see these things differently, and of course also have varying appetites for risk.
Knowing the situation is the main thing, in my view, so that an informed decision can be made.
One of the great things about Canada is the number and diversity of financial institutions to choose from. If one of them decides to act offensively, there is always another one right down the street. They all consider FATCA to be an irritant that does nothing but sour the relationship with their customers. As long as they can be seen to be covering their asses they are happy.
And yes, institutions can “fire” a customer, but a customer can “fire” the institution just as easily. Something I might worry about a bit more is that new CRA form (I can’t remember the number) which asks about tax residency. However, CBT is so counterintuitive and generally unbelievable that its easy to see how an otherwise honest taxpayer could get “confused” when asked those sorts of questions. Every Canadian bank employee I’ve ever talked to has a healthy dislike of the US government and is not going to be very diligent about tracking down potential US taxable persons for the IRS. They ask, I answer, and its back to business as usual. I can’t imagine there will ever be a problem because no one involved wants it to be a problem.
@plaxy
I agree to some extent, we should all stand up and refuse to answer the question, but when (in Canada) you can simply smile and mumble a “no” and open your account, that’s just too damn easy. I console myself with the knowledge that it’s at least private, subversive civil disobedience.
When my investment advisor asked about US citizenship, I first refused to answer on the grounds that all my accounts with them were retirement savings (RRSP) that are exempt from FATCA. If nothing would ever be reported to the IRS (via CRA) then why did they need this information from me? Could they guarantee that my citizenship status would be kept private and never leave the bank? We went back and forth for a few weeks and they even threatened to suspend trading privileges. I said fine then, I’ll sign a W8 if it makes you happy. Eventually, I can’t remember the exact wording, I wrote that I was a Canadian citizen, period, and they sent me an updated customer profile form to sign. Since then I’ve not heard a word, in three or four years.
@maz57
I actually like the new CRA tax-residency form. Because it has to do with CRS, it will be presented to everyone, and the wording “US tax resident” or “tax-resident of another country” is sufficiently vague (as opposed to “born in the US” or “US citizen”) that vast numbers of US persons may honestly (or semi-honestly) answer no because they can’t imagine that they are in fact obliged to report themselves to the US.
Of course other innocent victims will identify themselves and enter a world of pain, which is why we need to get the word out and promote non-compliance, for at least as long as it takes to get rid of FATCA.
‘There seems to be no reason to think the IRS ever closes a tax file.’
One thing they do is purge files, normally after 10 years. In my case they purged a file a year early, while the tax year was in the middle of litigation, because I figured out too much about what they had been doing and I was demanding discovery in court (courts helpfully ignored and/or rejected my demands for discovery).
A negative inference is warranted against the IRS for spoliation: Estate of Wilshire v. US, No. 1:07-CV-00377 (SD Ohio 2008):
“The Court further finds troubling the fact that Defendant purged its file after the Estate gave it notice of the refund claim, and concludes a negative inference is warranted against the IRS for spoliation. […] The IRS should not benefit from the spoliation of its file during the administrative appeal, and it has provided no satisfactory explanation for its action.”
Also see: Sullivan v. General Motors Corp., 772 F. Supp. 358 (ND Ohio 1991); Nation-Wide Check Corp. v. Forest Hills Distributors, 692 F. 2d 214 (1st Cir. 1982); Welsh v. US, 844 F. 2d 1239 (6th Cir. 1988).
But I’m me, so we can be sure courts in my case will overturn these precedents.
Another thing the IRS can do is mark an account as currently not collectable, and wait 10 years so that the account might become permanently not collectable. They’re supposed to do this only when an account is really not collectable. But they did it in my wife’s case because, again, they saw I figured out too much about what they’re doing and they don’t dare let a court get jurisdiction over their actions again. The next-to-latest news on this is that even though they persuaded Tax Court not to take jurisdiction, they acted on their own anyway to stop attacking my wife and resume their attacks on me instead, but they still refuse to take certain kinds of collection action because those would give jurisdiction to Tax Court again. The latest news is that the IRS made an administrative ruling that my wife had never filed the joint returns that the IRS attacked us for filing. The IRS slipped up. That administrative ruling gives Tax Court jurisdiction.
‘“Exiting the US tax system” is a warm fuzzy feeling, not an actual event.’
No it’s genuine. After renouncing there will only be one or two more tax years for which US law requires you to commit perjury on US tax returns, and after that you won’t have to any more. If your previous tax years aren’t cleaned up you’ll have to commit perjury on those too, but not for subsequent years.
…
‘To stop filing would be much safer, given that perjury is a felony and an extraditable offence.’
26 USC sections 7206(1) and 7207 make perjury illegal when performed willingly, but not when performed under coercion. The IRS and US courts coerce perjury. Do what you have to do. I renounced when the IRS first told me the IRS coerces perjury, when I didn’t know about the statutes and courts, but if I had known I would have done the same.
Subsequently the IRS coerced more perjuries, I complied, I wrote details in a letter to the IRS and wrote details in briefs to courts, and every court accepted them. Furthermore one court rejected my motion for leave to tell the truth. Perjury is absolutely required in the US.
One court required me to fabricate a social security number for my non resident alien wife, whose application for a genuine one has never been granted nor rejected by the Social Security Administration, and whose applications for Individual Taxpayer Identification Number had been rejected by the IRS up to and somewhat past the date when I had to fabricate an SSN for her. At that point I also figured out how to use a PDF editor to comply with a court ruling. The IRS accepted it. As far as I can tell, the US Department of Justice accepted it. I think courts haven’t weighed in yet on these acts of obedience.
But if you’re in Canada when you commit perjury under US law which isn’t punishable under US law because it was coerced, is it punishable under Canadian law and can Canada extradict you to the US?
…
‘Worth noting that for a USC, signing a W8 would also be perjury.’
It is? I signed one under coercion from a financial institution, when they rejected my W-9 and told me to submit a W-8BEN. Of course now it’s correct for me to use W-8BEN, but it wasn’t when I gave into it the first time.
@Nononymous
“I actually like the new CRA tax-residency form. Because it has to do with CRS, it will be presented to everyone, and the wording “US tax resident” or “tax-resident of another country” is sufficiently vague (as opposed to “born in the US” or “US citizen”) that vast numbers of US persons may honestly (or semi-honestly) answer no because they can’t imagine that they are in fact obliged to report themselves to the US.”
I’m OK with it too, although when I filled it out for the first time I found the tax residency part of it was somewhat vague and “confusing”, LOL. I’m sure I’ll get the hang of it.
Norman Diamond: as always, fascinating.
Nononymous: where I live they now send out CRS forms AND FATCA forms. Just filling out the CRS form isn’t enough, apparently.
Jeez, I remember a time when you walked into a bank, filled in a form, deposited a tiny sum and walked out 15 minutes later holding a new bank account, and you’d never hear from them again save for actual banking stuff.