Category Archives: Issues regarding US persons abroad

George has another excellent comment that must be posted. Here it is:

Morning Brockers;

Its good to read of your efforts in educating others: (Report #1 AND Report #2 AND Report #3). Those in attendance will tell others and so forth.

I made a list of what is probably all the steps we have gone through on our own paths. I am sure there are differences but in general terms.

Journey, one step in front of the other.

1.) Decision to leave the homeland. Face possible concern and ridicule from friends and family in homeland.

2.) Apply for all the visas and other requirements to be a properly documented immigrant in your new land. Concern from homeland friends and family grows, they whisper about us.

3.) Spend years learning language, customs and become assimilated into your new home. Your allegiance is slowly transferred to your new home. Friends and family in the homeland think of you as the crazy relative locked up in the basement. They are somewhat embarrassed about us but figure we will come back saying what a mistake it was and how bad the health care system is and we ran away from the health care death panel.

4.) After a certain number of years you realize that you are no longer X but you have become Y. You fill out countless papers to be naturalised/registered as a new citizen. Christmas cards from the homeland are very light this year. 

5.) The Big Day! Just like new immigrants to the USA are fully expected to become completely loyal to their new land, we/you do the same thing in our new land. Some of us in accordance with US Code as ordered changed by the US Supreme Court, intend that this action to be a relinquishing act.

Remaining proud to be an American, now proud to be a ______ Citizen, but no longer a US Citizen.

Or for others remaining proud to be an American, now proud to be a ______ Citizen, but no longer a US Citizen at least in respect to where you are living in accordance with the Master Nationality Act.

Christmas cards from the homeland grow in abundance because your homeland is where your heart is and that is where you are and your friends who are fellow citizens realize this. They no longer ask you if you are a tourist or when are you going home, didn’t you hate that. Or the question, are there things you miss?

6.) Carry about our lives in our home country. As a Citizen of X, living in X, I have only one citizenship recognized by Country X. You are calm, happy and at peace, probably the happiest you have ever been.

7.) At some point realize that our former country has established new laws or re-interpreted old ones that have absolutely no comparison to those in the countries of our sole allegiance or for some primary allegiance. Our newish countrymen look at us cross eyed when we explain what happened, they do not believe us.

8.) Panic, Fear, Health Problems

9.) Resolution. You realize that you are Canadian or French or _______, that you are not a US Citizen and have never acted like a US Citizen since becoming Canadian, French or German. Psychologically you are free at last, start sleeping again.

10.) Decision time. Do you appease those to the south (N/E/W)? For some it will make clear sense to get a CLN. For others it may look outright foolish to get a CLN. For some it will be a mixed bag.

11.) Final Sadness. All of us out of respect to the place we were raised in, or where we have family, or of a place we really never had ties but dreamed of it as that shining place on a hill, have great sadness that US Citizenship has become something that people want to get rid of like gum on a shoe. A place where when learning you might be a US Citizen is like a doctor telling you that you have a destructive disease. A place where you have become afraid to even visit again.

12.) Conclusion. Those with a CLN have some security but remain wondering if Congress or the Supreme Court will change the rules again and give them their citizenship back, something they do not want back. We have seen the rules changed too many times, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Continue reading →

Another important document, US Joint Congressional Committee published report, from George:

Hello Brockers, another little ditty to download before they take it away;

This is part of a joint congressional committee published report. Others can probably dice this up better, but it might be nice to have in the file. Better yet, send it to your MP as a report to Congress pointing out that having a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) is not written into US Law. My guess is that would be the final breaking of the Expatriation Act 1868.

“There is no obligation for an individual to obtain a CLN or otherwise notify the Department of State of relinquishing ones citizenship.”

From part of a US joint congressional committee published report “84-288-GPO-CPRT-JC5-2-03-7-2, B. Aquisition and Loss of Citizenship”

Cross-posting from Maple Sandbox, resulting from George’s comment at Isaac Brock:
Dual Citizenship: “Paramount Allegiance-Predominant Claim”

See: http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/07fam/ (shown in list of links as “-080 DUAL NATIONALITY [111 Kb])”

Over at Brock, George posted some information from U.S. Department of State on dual citizenship which is very useful to us. It says:
From the US Dept of State, 7 Fam 080, the formal and OFFICIAL US Position.

“b. It is a generally recognized rule, often regarded as a rule of international law, that when a person who is a dual national is residing in either of the countries
of nationality, the person owes paramount allegiance to that country, and that country has the right to assert its claim without interference from the other country.”

AND

“e. U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality: When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.

So, there we have it. Even the United States says we owe our “paramount allegiance” to our country of residence. That is exactly how most of us are living our lives.

Our countries of residence have “the right to assert its claim without interference from the other country.”

So, why aren’t Canada, France, Switzerland, New Zealand, China, Russia, Brazil and India telling the U.S. to just FATCA off? Our “paramount allegiance” is to those countries and those countries have a “predominant claim” to us.

I have just included this information in my Canadian citizen submission to New Zealand.

Update on my previously buried comment from information I received from Terry McBride, Saskatoon, SK’s The StarPhoenix. I am moving this to its own post. There is input here from James Jatras, including the comment:

Repeal FATCA

This hits the nail right on the head. Now that the Republican Party has officially endorsed FATCA repeal, momentum is shifting. National governments should not sign IGAs and subject themselves to an American law that even the US Department of Justice admits has no legal authority over them, and can only be backed up with the threat of reprisal — the 30% sanction. Most of all, Mr. Green is right, institutions that stand to save a lot of money if FATCA is repealed have the ability to affect the outcome: “The prospect of FATCA’s repeal is quite realistic. If institutions help educate and inform the American public and Congress, there’s a good chance Fatca can be delayed and perhaps – I hope – eventually repealed.” If banks, credit union, pension funds, stock and hedge funds, spent a tiny fraction of the money they’d spend for FATCA compliance on securing its repeal, that goal is achievable.

We’ve also seen Allison Christians’ input to a letter to Justin Trudeau, Canadian Liberal Leader:

It is one thing for the USA to say to individuals across the planet: if you have status under our law you must follow all of our laws no matter where you are. It is another thing entirely for Canada as a nation to voluntarily, with no compensation except the conditional promise of removal of a threat of economic sanctions, assist the United States in globally rounding people up to force them to comply with its patently untenable and unjustifiable position. Such assistance fundamentally conflicts with a universally recognized (and far more just) jurisdictional claim based on actual residence, which Canada practices along with the rest of the world.

Thanks to Badger and Hijacked for posting this news. 

This tax information session for Canadians considered to be “US persons” hosted by Alex Atamanenko, MP for British Columbia Southern Interior, will take place Tuesday 11 Feb 7 – 9 pm at the Fireside Conference Centre, 1810, 8^th Avenue, Castlegar.    Speakers include two lawyers, a CPA and a financial advisor.

For more info, see  http://www.castlegarnews.com/news/241985751.html

Also see Hijacked’s comment 

And Badger’s comment, which has some other links regarding Mr. Atamanenko’s opposition to FATCA in it, which dates back to at least 2011.

Northernstar emailed Justin Trudeau in July 2013 regarding her concerns about FATCA. Today she received the following email in response:

Dear XXXXXXX,

Thank you for taking the time to write to me with your concerns regarding the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).

Despite its good intentions, the unfortunate consequence of FATCA is that Americans who hold dual citizenship still fall under its authority, and it requires access to their financial information through their banks. As a result of FATCA, there has been a surge in US citizenship renunciations over the past few years, and this trend continues to grow.

I share your concerns about personal privacy, an issue that is increasingly important to all Canadians. The Conservative government’s efforts to protect the personal privacy of Canadians have been inadequate. The implications of having Canadian banks report directly to a foreign government agency are troublesome. The Liberal Party of Canada will continue to press the government on this issue, and demand a closer examination of FATCA’s effects.

Thank you once again for writing to me and taking the time to share your concerns with me. It is through such exchanges of ideas and opinions that I can best represent not only my constituents, but all Canadians.

Sincerely,

Justin P. J. Trudeau

Member of Parliament for Papineau

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

Offline, a friend of Isaac Brock Society says:

It is one thing for the USA to say to individuals across the planet: if you have status under our law you must follow all of our laws no matter where you are. It is another thing entirely for Canada as a nation to voluntarily, with no compensation except the conditional promise of removal of a threat of economic sanctions, assist the United States in globally rounding people up to force them to comply with its patently untenable and unjustifiable position. Such assistance fundamentally conflicts with a universally recognized (and far more just) jurisdictional claim based on actual residence, which Canada practices along with the rest of the world.

January 28, 2014, Elizabeth May, Green Party Leader and Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands: IRS Tax Collection: Evasion of the US or Invasion of Canada?

…
The federal government must refuse to sign the Inter-Governmental Agreement to implement FATCA and instead advise their US counterparts that these policies are an unacceptable intrusion into Canadian sovereignty, and work to develop an arrangement that would mitigate the effects of current US tax laws that unjustly target honest Canadian citizens. These measures should be examined by the appropriate House of Commons committees, in consultation with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

We must not permit Canadian financial institutions to comply with FATCA in violation of our own privacy laws, and if the US attempts to enforce FATCA against them, we must vigorously respond and seek legal remedy as is our right.

If the US feels the existing Canada-United States Convention with Respect to Taxes is not working, they should provide specific details and suggestions on how to improve it through legislative amendment without sacrificing the rights of Canadians to foreign interests.

CBC World at Six January 28, 2014, Starts @ 10:00 James Fitz-Morris: FATCA
NOTE: Looks like the link above refreshes to new date’s broadcast each day. I cannot find an archived link for CBC, The World at Six for January 28, 2014.

Government of Canada seeking RECIPROCITY … one of the biggest sticking points in the negotiations as the U.S. WON’T LET OTHER COUNTRIES’ LAWS TO BE ENFORCED ON ITS TERRITORY!