Psychologists describe 5 stages of grief based on the Kubler-Ross model introduced by Swiss psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in her 1969 book, ‘On Death and Dying’. Although originally ascribed to the emotional stages experienced due to death of a loved one, the model can also be useful to understand the responses to any subjective trauma that a person may go through, for example a relationship breakup, a job loss, or a ‘OMG! I am a US taxpayer’ moment.
The key here is ‘subjective trauma’. Many ‘US persons’ know what it is like to have people roll their eyes, yawn, or wonder why we are so worked up, just because we discover we are subject to FATCA (what’s the big deal? You ARE an American!), or because we discover we are US taxpayers (if you don’t like it why don’t you renounce?). Typically, we do not get the sympathy one would get if we had a serious illness, or lost our job, or divorced our spouse.
Non-US persons for the most part, just do not ‘get’ the ‘US person’ curse, because to be FATCA’d and CBT’d is not within the realm of normal human experiences. We are unique and special in the world that way – thanks to USA’s exceptional treatment of those it deems ‘US persons’. Nevertheless it IS traumatic for those of us who have lived most or all our lives in countries other than the USA, and who have never had a clue we were US taxpayers on our non-US income, to be FATCA’d and CBT’d.
The following are the 5 stages of grief as outlined in the Kubler-Ross model. Keep in mind that these stages are not necessarily linear. One day you may feel like you are angry beyond belief, and the next day you may feel that it just is what it is. Hopefully, at some point, most of your days will fall into the latter category.
Denial.
The first reaction to hearing one has a terminal illness, or their house burned down, or they are subject to the tax laws of a foreign country, is denial. This just CANNOT be for real. It makes no sense. This has got to be wrong. How could I have lived all these years and NOT known I was a US taxpayer? There must be exceptions for people like me who don’t live in the USA. They surely cannot be referring to ME.
Anger.
Once the initial shock wears off, anger follows. We want to blame someone or something. We may be angry at the doctor who gives us a bad diagnosis, at the driver who caused the accident, or at ourselves for not doing something to prevent whatever bad thing happened. We are angry at the Canadian government for not standing up for us, at our spouse who thinks we are over reacting, at our neighbour who doesn’t want to listen to our rants, at ourselves for not figuring out years ago that we were US taxpayers, or at the American government for acting like it owns us.
Bargaining.
This is the stage where we play games with ourselves, and with others, desperately trying to ‘work it out’ or ‘fix things’, so that we can go back to the way things were before. The person whose romantic relationship is at an end may promise to change their behaviour – anything to not have the relationship end. The dying patient may promise God he/she will be a better person or take better care of himself/herself – anything to not have to die. The newly aware US taxpayer searches for a way to work out their non-compliance: streamlined program? 5 years tax compliance catch-up? – just please don’t penalize me for my ignorance.
Depression.
Reality is setting in now. There is no easy way out. We are not going to bring our loved one back. Our job is gone forever. The relationship is definitely over. No matter which route we take to solving our ‘US taxpayer status’ we are going to pay – whether that be in taxes, compliance fees, penalties, loss of privacy, loss of US citizenship, or by being forced into hiding. It sucks no matter how you look at it, and this just makes us sad. 🙁
Acceptance.
Psychologists and grief counsellors say you are lucky if you get to this point. Many people get stuck in anger or depression for years or even a lifetime – the widower who becomes a recluse when his wife passes away, the mother who mourns a lifetime for the child she lost, the aspiring athlete who never made it to the big leagues and seems forever lost in his former glory years, the ‘hidden’ US person who cannot shake the mental chains of his unwanted ‘US taxpayer status’ even if he has logistically found a way to deal with it. The luckier people at some point accept the reality of what has happened and find a place to put it so that it does not interfere in their daily lives anymore. The widower finds peacefulness alone, or maybe finds new love. The mom, whose child is gone, remembers the happy times she spent with him/her and stops dwelling on what was lost. The US person, finds a way to deal with his/her own particular situation – stays hidden, or becomes tax compliant, or renounces – and moves on with his/her life.
@ WhiteKat
I understand your past understanding of what a passport meant. I always thought of it as a travel document too and didn’t really associate it with citizenship. People seem to forget that 20 years ago nobody had the internet to find answers and sometimes we didn’t even know there was a question we should be asking. I honestly did not know the terrible significance of having a green card either. I thought it just allowed me to work in the USA if I wanted to. I did work but not as an employee so I never used it for that and nobody ever asked to see it for any reason, although I think I showed it to a border guard once coming back from a Canadian vacation. One thing’s for sure I had no disposal instructions for that card. It’s so easy with a search engine to find answers now but the only thing we used to have was a dial up phone and pen and paper. Actually we didn’t even have a phone for most of the time we were in the USA (rural area with no phone lines).
Oops I typed my e-mail address wrong and my gravatar turned blue. Suits my mood today.
Thanks Embee for your understanding. I am feeling like a total shit right now, and yet have no idea how it got to this point today as I really was just trying to converse with people, not trying to piss anyone off. I appreciate your comment more than you know. You really do have empathy, and do not just ‘talk the walk’.
@WhiteKat
Selfish? Stupid? Nobody is saying that. NOBODY. Stop beating yourself up about it. I didn’t really think twice about my passport. It just “was”. I used it to get on a plane. I never thought about it much otherwise. Maybe thats stupid too. We were young and those were different times.
@Polly, Forget about it.
@WhiteKat, @Embee, I used to have no problems with the idea of dual citizenship but had to rethink the premises.
I believe that you can be multi-national with just about ANY country on earth EXCEPT the USA.
The USA requires equal loyalty which can not be given, its impossible.
I relinquished almost a decade ago because of such concerns but today my eloquence on why is far better….
Me, I just don’t worry about it. Chances are, the IRS will never come looking for me, because they are understaffed and I am just small fry. And if they ever do, I’ll just point out to them that, because I am living abroad and outside of US jurisdiction, and because I am a citizen of the country in which I reside, that I am not a US citizen. That is because US citizenship ends at the US border, as it is clearly indicated in Amendment 14: Section 1 of the US Constitution that reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
This is the definitive definition of US citizen. Both conditions of “born or naturalized in the United States” AND “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” must be true for this definition to be true. This is a rule of logic.
The US has been engaging in a huge bluff, and does not have a constitutional leg to stand on. I would actually like to have the IRS file charges against me in order to test this theory out in court. Of course, I would demand an impartial court in not under US jurisdiction to arbitrate this case.
@YAZZ
One of the problems of our times is that EVERYTHING is being judged in an american court. I don`t get it? Why should a french bank be fined for selling stuff to Iran when France itself has no boycotts towards Iran? Confusing. At any rate- pretty certain that if these issues were judged by a “world court”, the outcome would be different because the logic would be. Just like the UN just came out with a scathing report on the United States breaches of human rights.
Yazz, interesting interpretation. Too bad, the US government doesn’t agree.
Re: “Amendment 14: Section 1 of the US Constitution that reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
It seems strangely worded to my non-legal mind also. The phrase “AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof” seems to imply that one must be living within US borders to be considered a citizen.
If AND was replaced with ARE, and ‘are citizens’ was replaced with ‘and are citizens’, then it would make more sense to me, that we would be US citizens. I.E. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, ARE subject to the jurisdiction thereof, AND are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
As it is written, my logical computer analyst mind sees it like you do Yazz. WISH THIS REALLY WAS THE CASE!
Yazz, or even if they just left out the phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” – it would be clear to me that we are citizens. The word AND must mean something different in lawyer speak.
The US may not agree, but that is not what matters. What matters is how the country of one’s residence, of whom one is a citizen, defines one’s citizenship.
But first about the wording: It is a well known rule of logic that two clauses of a proposition connected by ‘and’ must be true in order that the entire proposition be true. Take 2+2 and 3+1 = 4, for example. Both those clauses must be true for the statement to be true, which is easily seen. What if it were 2+2 and 1+2 = 4. One can easily see that the entire statement is false. If it were 2+2 OR 1+2 = 4, that is, either one or the other equals 4, then one can see that this is a true statement.
Because the clear wording of the 14th Amendment does, indeed, use the word ‘and’, this rule would apply. If the word had been ‘or’, then only one clause of proposition would need to be true for the entire proposition to be true. That is, either one is born or naturalized in the United Sates, OR, one is under the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition of US citizen defined by the 14th Amendment: Section 1 is the definitive one, because the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, superseding all others. (Article 6 – Supremacy: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; )
Thus, a person living outside of the US and not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, and who is not a resident or citizen of any state of the United States, is by definition, not necessarily a US citizen. It will depend on how the country of residence recognizes his citizenship. Citizenship is not absolute, and it is not defined by any one country.
Thus, when a citizen of one country is abroad and no longer under the jurisdiction of that country, he may or may not continue to be a citizen of that country depending on how he is recognized and treated by the host country in which he is currently residing or visiting. This is the case for persons who hold sole Israeli citizenship, for example. If they should happen to find themselves in any one of the 31 or so countries that do not recognize Israel, they would be, effectively, stateless persons having no official citizenship. Thus, it is irrelevant how one might consider one’s citizenship, or how an institution like a bank might consider one’s citizenship, or even how the United States might consider one’s citizenship. The only definition of citizenship that matters is how a host country, under whose authority and jurisdiction one finds oneself, might consider one’s citizenship.
This goes to the heart of the question where it concerns dual nationality: Would a country like Canada, for example, recognize a Canadian citizen having dual nationality and residing in Canada as a Canadian citizen, or would Canada recognize this person as a foreign citizen of the other country? If Canada does recognize a dual national in that situation as a Canadian citizen, then she is not recognizing this person as a foreign citizen, and a dual national Canadian can legitimately claim not to be a US citizen because Canada says so. If, however, Canada recognizes a dual national in the above situation as a foreign citizen, then she is not recognizing this person as a Canadian citizen, which would raise important questions of constitutionality and national sovereignty. I haven’t considered the case of a country like Canada recognizing a person as both a citizen of Canada and as a foreign citizen at the same time, which may not have clear legal resolution at the moment. I think this may be what the current lawsuit is about. All of that may be irrelevant, however, because it is the way that Canada treats these people; as either Canadian citizens, or as foreign citizens. I am not familiar with Canadian law, and whether discrimination on the basis of nationality, place of birth or origin are legitimate grounds for it. The courts will have to work this out.
Polly: “Why should a french bank be fined for selling stuff to Iran when France itself has no boycotts towards Iran?”
It’s called “hegemony.” The US is a bully and throwing its weight around. It is an imperial power, and not too apologetic about it.
Whitecat: “It seems strangely worded to my non-legal mind also. The phrase “AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof” seems to imply that one must be living within US borders to be considered a citizen.”
That is precisely the implication. Which is why the taxation of dual nationals residing abroad is just a big bluff by the IRS. They are getting away with something that is unconstitutional, and people are just taking their word for it and letting themselves be intimidated.
I would take this to court if the IRS ever pursued me on it, but until they do, I have no standing to do so. So, I’m kind of thumbing my nose at them.
Yazz, re:
***************
Until we see some policy from any other party to show they disagree, this seems to be Canada’s / the Conservative government’s definition of our citizenship.
What is the position of your country of residence /citizenship?
***************
from Stephen Kish
Submitted on 2014/09/22 at 4:56 pm
My comment:
[ Of course, we have at the moment (for Canada) from the US / Canada Tax Treaty and from the mouth and pen of (now former) Canadian Finance Minister Flaherty, variations of saying:
@Yazz
I like your interpretation of the 14th amendment.
Of course the US gov. is projecting the stance defined by WhiteKat’s re-wording, claiming jurisdiction over any US Person in the world beyond US borders. But what about people in another countries who
wish to be and consider themselves to be US citizens? Are they subject to US jurisdiction because they
willingly submit to it? Extending the logic of your interpretation, any US citizen who leaves the US and lives beyond US jurisdiction thereby loses their citizenship. Clearly this has not been the case in practice.
Also, fugitives who have committed crimes in the US and escape to other counties are not (to the best of my knowledge) escaping US jurisdiction. Or maybe technically they are and what’s needed is the co-operation of another country to return the fugitive to within US borders and therefore proper US jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction definition (from the Cornell U. Law School Legal Information Institute):
1. Power of a court to adjudicate cases and issue orders.
2. Territory within which a court or government agency may properly exercise its power.See, e.g. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co. et al., 526 U.S. 574 (1999).jurisdiction: an overview
One of the most fundamental questions of law is whether a given court has jurisdiction to preside over a given case. A jurisdictional question may be broken down into three components:
whether there is jurisdiction over the person (in personam),
whether there is jurisdiction over the subject matter, or res (in rem), and
whether there is jurisdiction to render the particular judgment sought.
The term jurisdiction is really synonymous with the word “power”. Any court possesses jurisdiction over matters only to the extent granted to it by the Constitution, or legislation of the sovereignty on behalf of which it functions. The question of whether a given court has the power to determine a jurisdictional question is itself a jurisdictional question. Such a legal question is referred to as “jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction.”
Could Yazz’s argument be brought to Mr. Arvay’s attention for his opinion on the wording of the 14th amendment?
“Gwen and Ginny, living outside of US borders and therefore beyond US jurisdiction, according to the exact requirements of the 14th amendment of the US Constitution, cannot be considered US citizens and therefore cannot be subject to FATCA-IGA financial account reporting”
Unfortunately, I don’t think that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” can be taken to mean simply being outside of the borders of the US. If it did, then anyone who stepped outside the borders of the US automatically would lose US citizenship, which cannot possibly have been the intention behind the 14th amendment.
With respect to the exceptional USA, they simply wrote another law to cover that law!!!
§ 515.329 Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The term person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States includes:
(a) Any individual, wherever located, who is a citizen or resident of the United States;
(b) Any person within the United States as defined in § 515.330;
(c) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and
(d) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, that is owned or controlled by persons specified in paragraphs (a) or (c) of this section.]
[50 FR 27437, July 3, 1985, as amended at 68 FR 14145, Mar. 24, 2003]
@George,
So it is a circular definition.
14th Amendment: jurisdiction implies citizenship
§ 515.329: citizenship implies jurisdiction
Glad that’s cleared up.
@Foo, all they need now is a simple amendment
§ 515.329 (a) is amended by striking “who is a citizen or resident of the United States”
Once they do that….presto chango………they get what they want and its very clear to the world. Someone should suggest that to Hatch and Schumer
@Yazz, @ADCS Team……
Yazz your logic can go further and here is the question which goes beyond US Law. I think we run aground because we keep reaching back to US Law and thats the problem!!!
Under the law of Canada, can a Canadian Citizen be anything other than a Canadian Citizen whilst under Canada? By way of example, could Gwen all of a sudden claim the protection of the United States whilst she is in Canada!!
The Convention that established the Master Nationality Rule was a means to prevent such problems but a certain EXCEPTIONAL Country did not sign said agreement.
Under UK Law, you are either an Alien or…..
““alien”, in relation to any time after commencement, means a person who is neither a Commonwealth citizen nor a British protected person nor a citizen of the Republic of Ireland.”
So under UK Law, if you are not a Commonwealth Citizen, a BPP or Irish, then you are an Alien. An American Citizen is an ALIEN.
Lets use Boris Johnson as an example. Is Boris an ALIEN in the UK? A certain EXCEPTIONAL country may call him one of their own but he is NOT an ALIEN in the UK. But under UK law, Boris is recognized as a British Citizen, a Commonwealth Citizen and an EU Citizen. But UK law does not recognize in law any other nationalities, they appear to be effectively extinguished.
The only dual combination that could work in the UK is maybe someone who has multi commonwealth and Irish nationality.
So in the case of Gwen, does the Government of Canada under the law of Canada recognize Gwen as anything other than a Canadian Citizen and a Commonwealth Citizen? If Canada under its law does not discuss the issue, then it does not exist.
Mr. A: “Of course the US gov. is projecting the stance defined by WhiteKat’s re-wording, claiming jurisdiction over any US Person in the world beyond US borders.”
The US government might claim jurisdiction over citizens of other countries, but if they do, I would require that the US government prove it. How does a country prove it has jurisdictional authority? Well, by having the actual ability of lawfully arresting someone, charging them with a crime, trying them in a court of law, fining and imprisoning them if persons are found guilty. That is, it exercises lawful police, jurisdictional and punitive power over persons without interference from other governments, as you correctly pointed out. However, this is not something the US government can do, or other countries would allow. So, the US claiming jurisdictional authority over dual-national, foreign persons outside their territory is just intimidation and a bluff.
I never implied that citizens lose their citizenship once outside the jurisdiction of a country. A country may continue to recognize a person as a citizen even when that person is no longer within its jurisdiction. My proposition concerned the treatment of persons by other countries, whether these recognize the citizenship of any particular country. Nations have agreed through treaties to recognize the citizenship of foreigners by reciprocity. But what if a country does not recognize the foreign citizenship of a person because it recognizes, instead, this person as one of its own citizens? In the eyes of this country, one is not a citizen of another country to be treated as such, and enjoying none of the privileges and protections of citizenship, but a full fledged citizen with all the rights, protections and privileges this country affords. If a dual citizen relies, then, on the citizenship status of his country of residence and not that of a foreign government, then he can legitimately claim to be a citizen of that country and not of some other. Just because the US claims that a person is one of its citizens does not create an obligation that this person has to accept this characterization. If such were the case, then any tin pot country can claim that every US citizen is now a citizen of that country and subject to its taxation.
So, about Gwen and Ginny living outside of US jurisdiction, and whether they are considered US citizens or not under the 14 Amendment depends on how Canada characterizes them and not how the US characterizes them. If Canada characterizes them as Canadian citizens, then they can rely on this and disclaim US citizenship.
Concerning fugitives from justice: There are extradition treaties between government that govern this. One nation cannot simply send in the police and arrest someone in another nation. That is why the actions of the US regarding the killing of Bin Laden continue to be controversial, and is criticized in some quarters as “cowboy” justice.
Foo,
No one loses citizenship. It is a question of how foreign jurisdictions look upon dual nationals within their borders. People have to stop letting the US define citizenship for the entire of the world.
And concerning your second comment: If the US claims worldwide jurisdiction of however they define “US person”, then let them prove it. Read my comment above to Mr. A.
calgary411,
The statements of Mr. Flaherty seem to concern only US citizens; that is, persons recognized by both Canada and the US as US citizens. What needs clarification is how Canada recognizes Canadian citizens of whom the US makes claims of citizenship. Does Canada recognize dual nationals as Canadian citizens or as US citizens. That is what I think needs clarification.
It is an awkward situation for a country to be in. Canada certainly does not want to displease the US, yet it cannot simply throw its own citizens to the wolves, as it were.
George: “With respect to the exceptional USA, they simply wrote another law to cover that law!!!
§ 515.329 Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The term person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States includes:
(a) Any individual, wherever located, who is a citizen or resident of the United States;”
I had to laugh at that one. As I said to Foo, just ask the US to prove they have jurisdiction. Saying you have jurisdiction is not the same thing as actually having jurisdiction; that is, police power and the power to enforce.
One would have to ask other nations whether the US has jurisdiction in their country. If they say no, then § 515.329 is just slight-of-hand and one, big bluff.
George: “@Foo, all they need now is a simple amendment
§ 515.329 (a) is amended by striking “who is a citizen or resident of the United States”
“Once they do that….presto chango………they get what they want and its very clear to the world. Someone should suggest that to Hatch and Schumer”
Such a precedent should be good news to all these tinpot nations like Greece. It can simply pass a law making every citizen of the US and Europe a Greek citizen subject to its taxation. Can you imagine if all the countries of the world started taxing just anybody of any nationality anywhere? Thanks US for showing the way!