Liberty and justice for all United States persons abroad

Nearly $13 million in renunciation fees last year, and they can’t even compile a simple list of our names

CashingInOnTheAmericanDiaspora

I count 1,058 names in the latest Quarterly Publication of Individuals Who Gave Us At Least $2,350, which has just been placed on public inspection for printing in the Federal Register next Monday, a mere nine days later than required by law. Meanwhile, the FBI, which also tracks American emigrants who renounce citizenship (but not those who relinquish in other ways) for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), says that NICS had 27,240 renunciant records on 31 December 2014, and 32,666 renunciant records a year later, for an increase of 5,426 during the year 2015, and another 253 in January. Only 4,279 names showed up in the Federal Register in the same period, meaning that the IRS missed more than eleven hundred of us at minimum.

Last year was the first full year in which the $2,350 fee — the world’s highest fee — was in effect, and Q4 2015 is the first full quarter in which not just renunciants but all relinquishers were charged that fee for exercising the human right to change their nationality. Clearly the American diaspora is wildly enthusiastic about State’s efforts to protect that right, and that’s helped make it a record year for State Department fee revenue: at least US$12,908,550!  (That figure, and the chart above, only includes revenue from renunciants listed in NICS; I haven’t tried to estimate how many non-renunciant relinquishers there might be, though our earlier analysis suggests they might be only slightly less numerous than renunciants.)

More than two-thirds of that revenue is attributable to people giving up citizenship within the past year — that’s an amount nearly 50% bigger than State’s entire 2015 budget request for American Citizen Services. (Keep in mind that all the fees went to State, rather than the IRS who actually do the hard work of compiling the list by copying the names from the CLNs which State sends them into a spreadsheet and deleting a bunch for kicks and giggles or something.)

Table of contents

  1. General comments
  2. Media articles about specific relinquishments
  3. Comparison with NICS
  4. Conclusion

General comments

The pre-print of this quarter’s list takes up 27 pages. Most full pages have 41 names; two pages (11 and 25) have only 40 names due to long names taking up two lines. There’s 22 names on the first page, and 13 on the last page. So unless I’m even worse at math and counting than the U.S. government, that’s 1,058 names.

The IRS’ Federal Register list is far from the only illegally-late government report these days. For example, under 19 USC § 2432(b) (part of the hilariously hypocritical Jackson-Vanik Amendment), the State Department is required to give Congress “information as to the nature and implementation of emigration laws and policies and restrictions or discrimination applied to or against persons wishing to emigrate”, so that Congress can confirm whether the President is correctly exercising his obligation to sanction countries which “impose[] more than a nominal tax on emigration or on the visas or other documents required for emigration, for any purpose or cause whatsoever”. However, State’s report on the emigration policies of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan was around two weeks late, according to the Congressional Record — it was supposed to have been submitted to Congress by the end of last year.

The IRS list is not only late, but incomplete as well. It’s supposed to include not just the renunciants who show up in NICS, but people relinquishing citizenship under any provision of 8 USC § 1481. Yet, for the fourth year in a row, NICS added a bigger number of names than the IRS printed in the Federal Register. (And that’s not even mentioning the nearly 20,000 people per year who turn in their green cards, some of whom are also supposed to show up in the Federal Register list.) This discrepancy has led observers such as international tax lawyer Andrew Mitchel to conclude that the IRS list is “missing a significant number of names”. (See here for our earlier discussion of various theories about the list, such as the claim that it’s only supposed to include covered expatriates.)

In total, since then-Secretary of State and current presidential candidate Hillary Clinton first authorised the imposition of a $450 fee on renunciants back in 2010, they’ve collected more than $18 million from people who don’t want to be Americans any longer.

Media articles about specific relinquishments

Here’s a table of seventeen people mentioned by name in media reports as having given up U.S. citizenship since the beginning of 2014; nine of their names have not yet appeared in the Federal Register (four out of eleven from 2014, and five out of six from 2015). I’ve also included one person who posted his own CLN on Twitter and later showed up in the list (I haven’t included people who tweeted their own CLNs but didn’t show up in the list). Oddly enough, not a single one of these showed up in the Q4 2015 list. Maybe I’m just missing some media reports of famous people who gave up citizenship and did show in the revenue list; if you know of any others, please leave a comment. In any case, a non-publication rate of more than one-third for 2014 is still pretty bad.

Name Occupation Other
citizenship
Giving up US citizenship Appeared in
Federal
Register
?
Source
Reason Date
Lu Shu-hao Military Taiwan Service in Republic of China Army January 2014 or earlier No Taipei Times
Sandy Opravil Housewife Switzerland Save her mortgage February 2014 Q3 2014 Newsweek
Roger Ver Bitcoin investor St. Kitts & Nevis Libertarian political opinions February 2014 No Bloomberg
Sophia Martelly Politician Haiti Run for Senate of Haiti March 2014 Q3 2015 Haiti Press Network
Ya’aqov Ben-Yehudah Writer Israel Complicated; see source March 2014 Q2 2014 Times of Israel
Sean Cavanaugh Technology Canada FATCA April 2014 Q1 2015 Tweeted own CLN in August 2014
Mona Quartey Politician Ghana Become Deputy Finance Minister of Ghana July 2014 No Graphic News (Ghana)
Alex Kim Singer South Korea Obtain South Korean citizenship & serve in military August 2014 No Herald Business (South Korea)
Nicole Beaudoin Unknown Canada FATCA September 2014 Q3 2014 La Presse (Canada)
Kim Sungkyum Military South Korea Be commissioned an officer in the Republic of Korea Army December 2014 Q1 2015 Kookbang Ilbo (South Korea)
Lin Jou-min Architect Taiwan Take position in Taipei city government December 2014 Q3 2015 Central News Agency (Taiwan)
Rachel Azaria Politician Israel Members of Knesset cannot hold foreign citizenships January 2015 No Times of Israel
Jonathan Tepper Macroeconomic analyst United Kingdom FATCA & other U.S. tax reporting requirements January 2015 No The New York Times
David Alward Politician Canada Become Canadian consul-general in Boston April 2015 or earlier Q3 2015 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Alfred Oko Vanderpuije Politician Ghana Stand for election to Parliament August 2015 No Starr FM (Ghana)
Philip Ryu Singer South Korea Serve in South Korean army September 2015 or earlier No Money Today (South Korea)
Rachel Heller Writer Netherlands FATCA & other U.S. tax reporting requirements even when no U.S. tax is owed November 2015 No Blog (will be included in TV news programme at a later date)

For earlier reports (including the date, if any, in which those people showed up in the Federal Register), see Wikipedia’s list of former United States citizens who relinquished their nationality, though note that it only includes people who have Wikipedia articles. (I’ve seen two media reports of people without Wikipedia articles giving up U.S. citizenship in 2013: Kim Young-keun, who according to the Dong-A Ilbo renounced to take a position in the Overseas Korean Foundation under South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and showed up in the Q3 2013 list; and Michael Putman, interviewed for this BBC article, who finally showed up in last quarter’s list.)

Back to table of contents

Comparison with NICS

The below table lists the monthly additions to NICS for 2011–2015, compared with the quarterly lists in the Federal Register. The FBI has the bad habit of uploading the new NICS report each month at the same URL as the old one; the only way to keep a verifiable collection of old reports is to save old ones in the Internet Archive each month, and unfortunately we didn’t remember to do this for all months. If the month is set in upright type, the link goes to an actual Internet Archive copy of the FBI NICS report for that month. If the month is in bold type (for December), the link goes to the NICS annual operations report for the appropriate year. Finally, for months in italics, the link goes to a Brock post or comment.

A few caveats. The “addition” figure for April 2011 refers to all additions since December 2010. The “addition” figure for October 2012 includes what the FBI described as a “backlog” of 2,900 renunciant records, also included in the annual total for that year. I also gave an estimate of what the annual total would be without the backlog, even though some of the backlog may relate to other periods covered by the chart.

First quarter Second quarter Third quarter Fourth quarter
Month,
year
Addi-
tions
Month-end
total
Month,
year
Addi-
tions
Month-end
total
Month,
year
Addi-
tions
Month-end
total
Month,
year
Addi-
tions
Month-end
total
Apr 2011 41 15,387 Jul 2011 89 15,705 Oct 2011 118 15,930
May 2011 98 15,445 Aug 2011 54 15,759 Nov 2011 40 15,970
Jun 2011 129 15,616 Sep 2011 53 15,812 Dec 2011 34 16,004
Q2 total 268 Q3 total 196 Q4 total 192
76 FR 27175 499 76 FR 46898 519 76 FR 66361 403 77 FR 5308 360
Annual totals for 2011 NICS 656 Fed. Reg. 1,781
Jan 2012 265 16,269 Apr 2012 204 16,662 Jul 2012 22 17,188 Oct 2012 3106 20,577
Feb 2012 98 16,367 May 2012 Missing Aug 2012 149 17,337 Nov 2012 97 20,654
Mar 2012 89 16,458 Jun 2012 504 17,166 Sep 2012 114 17,451 Dec 2012 0 20,654
Q1 total 452 Q2 total 708 Q3 total 285 Q4 total 3,203
77 FR 25538 460 77 FR 44310 189 77 FR 66084 238 78 FR 10692 45
Annual totals for 2012 NICS *4,648 W/o backlog:
~1,700
Fed. Reg. 932
Jan 2013 176 20,830 Apr 2013 319 21,823 Jul 2013 298 22,908 Oct 2013 302 23,557
Feb 2013 478 21,308 May 2013 374 22,197 Aug 2013 278 23,186 Nov 2013 118 23,675
Mar 2013 196 21,504 Jun 2013 413 22,610 Sep 2013 69 23,255 Dec 2013 132 23,807
Q1 total 850 Q2 total 1,106 Q3 total 645 Q4 total 552
78 FR 26867 679 78 FR 48773 1,130 78 FR 68151 560 79 FR 7504 631
Annual totals for 2013 NICS 3,153 Fed. Reg. 3,000
Jan 2014 320 24,127 Apr 2014 382 24,602 Jul 2014 577 26,000 Oct 2014 426 26,916
Feb 2014 95 24,222 May 2014 205 24,807 Aug 2014 180 26,180 Nov 2014 187 27,103
Mar 2014 -2 24,220 Jun 2014 616 25,423 Sep 2014 300 26,480 Dec 2014 137 27,240
Q1 total 413 Q2 total 1,203 Q3 total 1,057 Q4 total 750
79 FR 25176 1,001 79 FR 46306 576 79 FR 64031 776 80 FR 7685 1,062
Annual totals for 2014 NICS 3,423 Fed. Reg. 3,415
Jan 2015 271 27,511 Apr 2015 767 29,413 Jul 2015 856 30,973 Oct 2015 194 31,869
Feb 2015 105 27,616 May 2015 543 29,956 Aug 2015 552 31,525 Nov 2015 318 32,187
Mar 2015 1,030 28,646 Jun 2015 161 30,117 Sep 2015 150 31,675 Dec 2015 479 32,666
Q1 total 1,406 Q2 total 1,471 Q3 total 1,568 Q4 total 989
80 FR 26618 1,335 80 FR 45709 460 80 FR 65851 1,426 81 FR ????? 1,058
Annual totals for 2015 NICS 5,426 Fed. Reg. 4,279

Back to table of contents

Conclusion

The Department of State is collectively charging us millions of dollars to exercise our human right to change our nationality, while the “Internal” Revenue Service refuses to compile an honest list of our names as required by their own laws. Meanwhile, the Department of “Justice” continues to seethe about U.S. persons “concealing foreign accounts and evading their U.S. tax obligations” and threatens that “[t]hose who underestimate the ability of the United States to pursue offshore tax evasion do so at their own peril”.

With this kind of attitude from the U.S. government, expect the ten-month consular wait list for renunciation appointments to get even longer.

34 thoughts on “Nearly $13 million in renunciation fees last year, and they can’t even compile a simple list of our names

  1. @Iota, “I wonder if a UK bank would know what to do, if presented with a state-issued CLN?”

    Other governments COULD pass their own laws and issue CLNs in their territory whereby allegience is disavowed to Country A and a CLN is issued that is valid for public and private purposes.

  2. Ha! Renounce at a Service Canada office and let THEM send the information to the Department of State… and eat the renunciation fee!

    That would be swell…

  3. @George: Other governments COULD pass their own laws and issue CLNs in their territory whereby allegience is disavowed to Country A and a CLN is issued that is valid for public and private purposes.

    The Philippines actually does this, sort of. E.g. just recently the husband of a presidential candidate renounced US citizenship & swore allegiance to the Philippines in front of a municipal government employee and got a certificate stating that he’d done so. There’s a picture of the certificate in this article:

    http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/130709-grace-poe-husband-renunciation-neil-llamanzares-citizenship

    I’m very curious to know whether it would work for banking purposes (as a FATCA “reasonable explanation” of not having a CLN). Unfortunately I guess we won’t find out in this particular case, cuz the guy says he’s also going to go to the US Embassy and pay the $2350 to get their CLN as well once he can get an appointment.

    The Filipinos seem to have designed this system back when the US State Department still agreed that 8 USC 1481(a)(2) actually meant something. Incidentally, back in 2003 another Filipino politician also swore the above oath, but the US Embassy in Manila responded by sending him a very misleading letter stating that it didn’t meet the requirements of 8 USC 1481(a)(5) renunciation, while mentioning nothing at all about 8 USC 1481(a)(2).

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cg_6ALMWMAAMyFI.jpg

    (As Petros and many others have found out, consular officers were largely ignorant about relinquishment until recently.)

  4. Another country probably could have a CLN-substitute for purposes within that country, but if it’s not official with the U.S. government the (possible-former) U.S. citizen risks problems if (s)he ever steps foot back on U.S. soil (even to just visit).

  5. The US oath of citizenship contains language (“I absolutely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity”) whereby the new citizen must renounce any previous citizenship. None of that means anything to the old country but it apparently makes the US government happy and in their minds then gives them full authority to ignore any other country’s claims. (Invoking Master Nationality, right?) Canada’s oath of citizenship used to have similar language but it was deleted back in the 70’s.

    I wouldn’t mind seeing that language reinstated in Canada’s oath, at least for certain countries which practice CBT. That way the Canadian government could conveniently ignore any US claims on its Canadian citizens because the individual would officially NOT be a US citizen under Canadian law. I see no reason why the Canadian government couldn’t allow a person to renounce their US citizenship in Canada; they merely have to make it possible. As we seen, our government seems to have no particular interest in protecting its citizens, but its hard to believe that it has no interest in protecting its tax base.

    This would be meaningless in the US, of course, but who cares? This would really only be a recognition and official implementation of the Master Nationality Rule in Canada.

  6. Oh but the Canadian government will protect Canadian citizens with terrorism convictions!

  7. Congressional Research report

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
    (USCIS) Functions and Funding

    William A. Kandel
    Analyst in Immigration Policy

    May 15, 2015

    http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44038.pdf

    I find it interesting that as far as I can see, the fees (contentious and exponentially increased) for renouncing and now for relinquishing are not mentioned at all in this report, though the fee increases and history of other functions are. Nor does the report even acknowledge the processing of renunciations and relinquishments as UCIS functions or as contentious or flagged in any way. No mention of growing backlog either.

    Interesting and telling omissions?

    Other CRS reports here
    http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/

  8. So if I’d have just kept my mouth shut, I’d have not been in the federal register? No matter. I’ve resigned myself to never visiting the US again. There’s plenty of the world I can visit without passing through the the United States of America, and still instill the values my parents (one American and one Canadian) managed to pass on to me.

  9. Sometime late in 2017 the new US Embassy in London is expected to open. The cost of this building will exceed US$1 billion.

    Anyone who uses US Embassy services, including Americans abroad, contributes to building and maintaining these extravagant facilities, according to this US State Department document:

    “Consular Fees are established primarily on a cost recovery basis and are determined by periodic cost studies. … ICASS billings are computed on a cost recovery basis; billings are calculated to cover all operating, overhead, and replacement costs of capital assets, based on budget submissions, budget updates, and other factors. ”

    https://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/perfrpt/2012/html/201896.htm

    Th extravagant State Department spending on its embassies has been noted by some in the US Congress, including Rep. Jason Chaffetz:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-oversight-committee-report-state-department-costly-us-embassies-jason-chaffetz/#comments

    This recent article covers the opening of the new US Embassy in Norway, costing approx. $125 million:

    http://www.newsinenglish.no/2017/06/15/embassy-ribbon-cut-as-us-ties-upheld/

    The US State Department spares no expense when it wants extravagant digs.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *