While reading through U.S. Department of State (DOS) form DS-4081 I noticed that the renouncer is required to make (or not make by ticking off a “do not choose” box) to DOS a “written explanation of my reasons for renouncing/relinquishing”.
Has any Brock reader explained in writing on DS-4801 that they renounced for “tax-related reasons”?
Point #10 of DS-4081 does make the bold statement that hopes to terrify:
“.. I understand that if my renunciation of United States nationality is determined by the United States Attorney general to be motivated by tax avoidance purposes, I will be found excludable from the United States under Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended.”
— IRS tells us however that “tax avoidance” is NOT a criminal act, yet DOS wants to punish those who renounce for tax avoidance purposes.
Canada Revenue Agency, on the other hand, grudgingly admits that tax avoidance is of course “within the letter of the law” but cautions fair-minded Canadians who all must support the CRA that “those actions contravene the object and spirit of the law“. CRA has four approaches to “combat tax avoidance”.
The Australian Government lumps tax avoidance with tax evasion and promises: “Those seeking to do the wrong thing will be left with no doubt that deliberate tax avoidance and evasion will not be tolerated.“…etc.
As always, thank you for your passion and your overview of how this affects your and other families in Canada and around the world.
Nor would I ever take my former US citizenship back if it were offered and will as best I can reject it again if legislated back. My goal remains the same — to speak in any way for those who are entrapped into this injustice – this nightmare.
please elaborate on what was meant by the comment (in part) ” if legislated back” I must have missed something because I don’t understand how any government can legislate citizenship once it has been renounced by the citizen.
And what constitutes “aggressive” tax avoidance in Canada – buying your TFSA in anger?
Kidding aside, what is tax planning to one person is tax avoidance to another – technically legal but not in the spirit of the tax code, apparently.
“Tax avoidance reduces government revenue [I would argue that it gives them only what they are entitled to – after all, they make the rules], so governments with a stricter anti-avoidance stance seek to prevent tax avoidance or keep it within limits. The obvious way to do this is to frame tax rules so that there is a smaller scope for avoidance. In practice this has not always been achievable and has led to an ongoing battle between governments amending legislation and tax advisors finding new scope/loopholes for tax avoidance in the amended rules.”
Persons who came to Canada decades ago and became Canadian citizens were
toldwarned by the US that they would thereby lose their US citizenship. Who knows what the US can do / can legislate, Gail? Speculation on what might come next is a part of consideration for many. I know that I will never again go back to sleep for I did not understand why that occurred. I have my CLN to show to my local Canadian *foreign financial institution* but that cannot happen for my Canadian-born son who does not have the requisite mental capacity to be able to renounce (and a parent, guardian or trustee cannot act on such a person’s behalf, even with a court order. I will continue to ask *why is that?*.
According to the U.S. Joint Committee on Taxation 2003 report, CLNs can be reviewed and cancelled retroactively by judicial review if a U.S agency like DOS or the IRS discovers the relinquishment was not letter perfect. That’s why Marliyn’s published confession that her renunciation was not voluntary scares the h*ll out of me for her sake (see my comment earlier in this thread).
Then there are the IGAs which effectively say that it’s entirely at the discretion of the U.S. who will be a U.S. person for tax purposes (in other words, a tax citizen independent of ‘nationality’ citizenship).
Thus one needn’t get too wrapped up in the above use of the term “legislated back”. Try “sucked into the maw one way or the other”.
The US legislated that Puerto Ricans, Guamanians, etc., were US non-citizen nationals. Later the US legislated that Puerto Rican, Guamanians, etc., were US citizens.
(“etc.” does not include Filipinos, American Samoans, some Marianans, Okinawans, etc.)
‘[The answer seems to be “no”.]’
Was that in the original title of this posting, or was it added later?
I think I answered that for “tax-related” the answer is yes, though for the other question “tax avoidance” the answer is obviously no because my US taxes went up after renunciation.