Notice that the burden of proof is on the person seeking the CLN. The State Department decides what it takes to satisfy the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. This is a difficult burden to meet when the relinquishing act was many years ago. It appears that the facts of “NOT exercising any rights of U.S. citizenship” (after the relinquishing act) are insufficient to meet the evidentiary standard.
For many years I was able to assist (many) people in getting CLNs based on “relinquishing acts in the past”. The law has not changed. What appears to have changed is what the State Department will accept as evidence of meeting the “burden of proof” of voluntariness and intent. The shift in the State Department attitude appears to have started about two years ago. It is clearly expressed in the new DS-4079. I have been warning people about this for the last year or so. I strongly suggest that people exercise extreme caution in applying for CLNs based on relinquishing acts in the past. This is particularly true for those who need a CLN relatively quickly.
Bottom line: You should renounce!
At this point my suggestion is (assuming you qualify):
Renounce and use the 2019 “IRS Relief Procedures For Former Citizens“. Current information on the “Relief Procedures For Former Citizens” program is here.
Appendix – 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
What follows is the statute governing relinquishment of U.S. citizenship. I have added “JR Commentary in italics“.
Notice that paragraph (b) describes the “burden of proof”.
I suggest using (5) renunciation as your method of relinquishment. The other options are now presenting hurdles that are difficult to meett.
§1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality–
JR Commentary: The general test is that the expatriating act must be or have been performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
JR Commentary: This is a past relinquishing act. I know of people who have relied on this and are having difficulty getting CLNs.
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
JR Commentary: This is a past relinquishing act. I know of people who have relied on this and are having difficulty getting CLNs.
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
JR Commentary: Again, only in the most extraordinary circumstances will this succeed.
(4)(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
JR Commentary: This depends on the nature of the work for the foreign government. Only specific kinds of employment have a chance of success (and even then there is the problem of proof).
(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
JR Commentary: So far I have never had a renunciation, at the Consulate rejected. If you want a CLN quickly this is the way to go.
(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
___________________________________________________________
(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.
JR Commentary: It appears that the focus of the State Department is now squarely on whether the individual seeking the CLN has met this burden of proof.
(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 3, §349, 66 Stat. 267 ; Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1256, §2, 68 Stat. 1146 ; Pub. L. 87–301, §19, Sept. 26, 1961, 75 Stat. 656 ; Pub. L. 94–412, title V, §501(a), Sept. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1258 ; Pub. L. 95–432, §§2, 4, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046 ; Pub. L. 97–116, §18(k)(2), (q), Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1620 , 1621; Pub. L. 99–653, §§18, 19, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3658 ; Pub. L. 100–525, §§8(m), (n), 9(hh), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2618 , 2622.)“
I see that the level of complexity in relinquishment has multiplied since I went through the process in 2012/13, for a CLN backdated to 1994. It took 18 months to find out if I was successful, but the frustration was all worth it when I did not have to enter into the US tax system at all. And a bonus in those days was that relinquishing did not require payment of a fee.
With the US political situation now, I foresee even more dual citizens looking into giving up their US ties.
With the developing disaster re: Cheeto/Musk it will probably soon be impossible to renounce in any time frame at any price.
To all and sundry, John was hugely helpful to me in getting my CLN. If you want someone to work with you, he’s your guy. Since getting my CLN in 2020 (I believe), I have been out of touch on these issues of course. I am wondering, are there any people out there who have actually paid the enormous penalties demanded by the US?
What about renouncement based CLN applications? Have any been approved since the new administration took over? Anyone know if the office in the state department that approves the CLN applications is still functional?
@ javelin312,
1. I presume yes. We only know about approved CLNs if someone posts on the site about receiving theirs (no such posts in the past month, but that’s not strange at all) or if we read stats (but there’s no stats out for 2025 yet).
2. I haven’t read anything to the contrary. I’ve been keeping an eye out for news on administrative/policy changes re renunciation – and I suspect a lot of us who post here are. So it’s probably good to check this site occasionally, in case there’s a development re renunciation that gets buried under all the other current US govt news in the mainstream media.
Are renouncing and relinquishing the same thing?
@ Shar,
Renunciation is actually a form of relinquishment [s. (5) in the Immigration and Nationality Act excerpt below], but we single out renunciation with its own name for clarity because the circumstances and procedure differ a bit from the other ways of relinquishing.
Renunciation is the only relinquishing act that is witnessed by a Consulate officer, so it’s very straightforward and you do not have to prove that the act occurred. Renunciation is the most common form of relinquishment.
With the other sections of the Act — eg, s. (2) naturalisation in a foreign country with intent to relinquish – you must provide proof you performed the act and you must not have acted as a US citizen since performing the act (ie, didn’t apply for or use a US passport, etc).
With renunciation, you just perform the relinquishing act by taking the oath in the Consulate officer’s presence.
Immigration and Nationality Act, s. 349(a)(1); 8 USC 1481
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1)
obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2)
taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3)
entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4)
(A)
accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or
(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5)
making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State;
There are also relinquishment acts under ss.(6)and (7), but I didn’t bother to paste them, as they deal with war and treason.
Current bill about eliminating RBT in Ways and Means Committee:
https://lahood.house.gov/2024/12/lahood-introduces-bill-to-modernize-tax-system-for-americans-living-overseas
That one’s been floating around for years going nowhere. I’ve got a better idea:
Somebody needs to mention FATCA to DJT and explain what it is, with particular emphasis on the fact that its one of Obama’s signature “accomplishments”.
Once brought to his attention, chances are good that Trump would immediately wipe out FATCA with an executive order. After all, he is hell-bent on stamping out anything to do with Obama and is most definitely not concerned with tax evasion. For a guy like Trump, getting rid of FATCA would be a no-brainer. Whether or not that would be legal, who knows, but he seems little troubled by such technicalities.
Even though he would be stepping on their turf, nobody in Congress would fight him on this, most Americans have never heard of FATCA, and the few who have heard of it would be glad to see it gone. In other words, there is zero downside.
This would, of course, tie right in with DOGE because Elon could then fire all the IRS employees tasked with implementing FATCA . A win-win and another significant step towards “Making America Great Again”.
Ha! FATCA and NAFTA *are* easily confused…