IRSCompliantForever asked this question in a comment, and I thought the answer was interesting (and complicated) enough to deserve its own post. The Reed Amendment — which bans people determined by the Attorney-General to have “renounced citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation” — was an amendment to the Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995 (which eventually morphed into the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996), moved while the bill was being considered by the House Committee on the Judiciary. The amendment passed with broad bipartisan support — you’ll notice plenty of familiar names among the committee voters, including Chuck Schumer — while the Republican control of the House and Senate ensured the passage of the bill in which it was contained. The detailed breakdown of the votes can be found after the jump.
Category Archives: Issues regarding US persons abroad
Why Sir John Templeton may have renounced US citizenship – AKA why the US shot itself in the foot
This post about Sir John Templeton appeared on the RenounceUScitizenship blog. In an earlier post I suggested that by renouncing U.S. citizenship Sir John Templeton was able to use his wealth to benefit humanity. The media is prone to depict Templeton as a tax cheat. The reason? Had he been a U.S. citizen when he died, the U.S. government would have received approximately 100 million in estate taxes. This post considers this claim. I am not aware of Templeton ever publicly stating his reasons for renouncing U.S. citizenship. Nobody knows for sure. But, I suspect that the correlation between his renouncing U.S. citizenship in 1964 and the enactment of the CFC (Controlled Foreign Corporation and SubPart F) rules in 1962 did play a role. To put it simply:
The 1962 changes in the Internal Revenue Code meant that Templeton may have been forced to choose between U.S. citizenship and his mutual fund business. This is not much different from the situation of Americans abroad today. Again, I emphasize that this is pure speculation on my part. But, if you agree you will see that Templeton may have been forced to renounce U.S. citizenship. It is very clear that U.S. tax laws make it very difficult for individuals and corporations to participate in a global world. Sir John was one of the earliest casualties of this reality. Citizenship-based taxation continues. FATCA is the most recent manifestation of this principle.
Message to all you Homelanders: If I am correct, it was very costly to the U.S. government to have forced Sir John Templeton to renounce U.S. citizenship. Just one more example of how costly citizenship-based taxation is to the Homeland! But, again I am just speculating.
Article assumes child born abroad to US citizen parent not automatically US citizen
With support foreign-born child of #americansabroad can BECOME a US citizen http://t.co/Iso5KiE289 – Interesting article not IS but BECOME
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) July 8, 2013
Interesting perspective on a topic of great interest.
Is Actor Johnny Revilla Stateless?
Actor Johnny Revilla, who starred in “The Strangers”, now sits as a representative of the Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW) Family Club in the Philippine House of Representatives, after taking oath on the 26th of June, 2014, could face up to seven years of imprisonment if he is a U.S. citizen.
Documentation obtained from the Philippine Bureau of Immigration shows that he travelled using an American passport from 2002 up to 2009.
A scan through the names listed in the Federal Register reveals no mention of a “Johnny Revilla”. The closest similarity one can find is a “Johnny Kim”, who is listed as having given up the blue passport in the second quarter of 2010 and then again in the first quarter of 2011. Is Johnny Kim incorrectly listed twice or was his last name mispelled? Maybe Johnny knows. Don’t rely on the Federal Register for accuracy.
The Wiki list of former United States citizens who relinquished their nationality makes no mention of a “Revilla” or even a “Johnny”. Yet, Johnny Revilla still insists that he is not a US citizen.
“It is not true that I am a US citizen. I am a Filipino, born in UST hospital, January 26, 1955. You can check my records. I am a Filipino through and through,” Revilla said in a separate interview.
The Manila Times
Yet, it is argued that Johnny claimed that he dropped his US citizenship in 2001 and will prove to the press that he is a citizen of the Philippines.
Nang tanungin si Revilla ukol dito, tahasan niyang itinanggi ang alegasyon sa pagsasabing noon pang 2001 niya binitiwan ang pagiging American citizen.
Si Revilla na anak ng beteranong actor na si Armando Goyena ay nagsabing sa tamang panahon ay haharap siya sa isang press conference upang patunayan na siya ay isa ng Filipino citizen.
Remate
According to OFW Family Club Rep. Roy Seneres of OFW, the former Philippine Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, Johnny cannot be a citizen of the Philippines if he is a citizen of America.
“If he renounced his US citizenship, he needs to reapply for his Filipino citizenship. Otherwise, he [Revilla] is stateless. He cannot claim that he secured dual citizenship because if you want to be a citizen of the most powerful country in the world, you have to renounce your existing citizenship,”
Yet, such is not the case. Johnny could be a citizen of either nation or both and might simply need to reacquire his Filipino citizenship. With the Philippine Republic Act No.9225, the “Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003”, “all Philippine citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship.” I find that Johnny’s situation is similar to that of Byron, mentioned in the following article:
The case of Byron is different. He was born in the Philippines of Filipino parents. As such, he is a 100% Filipino citizen at birth… Despite his success in America, Byron discovers that his heart truly belongs in the Philippines… Byron only had one citizenship at birth and he lost it when he became a U.S. citizen. There is no Philippine citizenship to recognize anymore. As a foreigner, his land ownership is also restricted. Byron intends to buy 20 hectares of coconut land for his copra business, which is more than the allowable 3 hectares of rural land allowed to former Filipinos. Fortunately for Byron, the Philippines now has Republic Act No.9225, the “Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003.” Under this law, Byron can reacquire his Filipino citizenship. In fact, the law declares “that all Philippine citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.” The procedure under this new law is quite simple. Byron simply has to present his birth certificate plus passport photos to the nearest Philippine consulate and, for a fee of just $50.00, he can take his oath as a Filipino citizen. He can even apply for a Philippine passport afterwards. The United States recognizes dual citizenship, but some concerns have been raised that taking the oath of Philippine citizenship may amount to a renunciation of U.S. citizenship. According to the “Advice About Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality” issued by the Department of State, dual citizenship can cause loss of U.S. citizen-ship only “if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship”. It adds that the taking of a mere routine oath of allegiance to a foreign country carries with it the presumption that the person intends to retain his U.S.citizenship. In light of this, the Oath of Allegiance required by RA 9225 does not contain any indication of relinquishing one’s U.S. citizenship. It reads: “I,________________, solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and local orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines, and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto, and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.” So, no worries for Byron. He can go ahead and enjoy the best of both worlds. He can purchase the coconut farm and do business in the Philippines. He can travel back and forth the United States and the Philippines as often and for as long as he wants. He can enjoy the warmth of the Philippines under the protection of the world’s most powerful nation
Asia Journal
The warmth of the Phipppines is certainly desirable, but Johnny obviously doesn’t want the protection of the world’s most powerful nation.
Before Sir John Marks Templeton, there was Cleveland Ferguson
Most of us here are familiar with the name of Sir John Marks Templeton — not the least because the media have repeatedly reminded us who he is when they bring up the topic of renouncing U.S. citizenship. He was the prototypical “wealthy American fleeing to a tax haven”, though of course his later philanthropy made him too sympathetic a figure for the simplistic, black-and-white picture that journalists love to paint of “selfish traitors who refuse to pay their fair share”, and so his name is less mentioned these days in comparison to those who left more recently, like Denise Rich and Eduardo Saverin.
But a few years before Templeton made his famous move to the Bahamas, another American went and made a name for himself by discussing his desire to give up his citizenship and resettle on that famous island of warm breezes and low taxes. Homeland newspaper hacks who read this description are probably chomping at the bit for yet another story of an Economic Benedict Arnold who would was so ungrateful for the Amazing Benefits of being a citizen of the Greatest Country on Earth that he would dare speak out publicly about shirking his God-given duty to the IRS. But that’s not quite what we have here: meet Mr. Cleveland Ferguson, Bahamian immigrant and disabled Korean War veteran.
US – Sri Lankans “Asked” to Register with their Banks — What if they don’t do so voluntarily?
Many thanks to Steve Klaus for providing this visual of what ‘US Persons’ are being asked to do in one country. What happens if they don’t comply with this request? When will full page ads appear in our Canadian or other countries’ newspapers?
NOTICE TO ALL U.S. PERSONS
REGISTERING OF U.S. PERSONS UNDER THE FOREIGN ACCOUNT TAX COMPLIANCE ACT (FATCA)The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) is a U.S. legislation aimed at preventing tax evasion by U.S. Citizens and residents through overseas assets. FATCA was signed into law on 18th March, 2010 by the U.S. Government and will come into effect in 2014.
FATCA is extra-territorial by design and requires “U.S. Persons” to report their financial assets held overseas. It also requires Foreign Financial Institutions (FFIs) to report to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the Unites States of America about their American/U.S. clients. The law requires financial institutions to report more extensively on business they conduct with U.S. persons and introduce a new reporting and withholding regime for FFIs.
Under the provisions oF the Act, the following criteria may classify you as a “U.S. Person.”
- A citizen of U.S.A. (including an individual born in the U.S. but resident in another country, who has not renounced U.S. citizenship;
- A lawful resident of the U.S. (including a U.S. green card holder);
- A person residing in the U.S.;
- A person who spends a certain number of days in the U.S. each year;
- U.S. corporations estates and trusts;
- Any entity that has a linkage or ownership to U.S. or to U.S. territories;
- Non-U.S. entities that have at least one U.S. Person as a “substantial beneficial owner.”
If you fall within the above criteria, please make arrangements to register yourself with your respective Bank/Bank Branch within two weeks of this notice in order to be in compliance with FATCA.
In order to fulfill the Bank’s obligations, your Bank may ask you to provide necessary information to establish whether you are a “U.S. Person.”
If you require further information, please contact your Branch Manager.
SRI LANKA BANKS’ ASSOCIATION (GUARANTEE) LIMITED
Steve says:
This newspaper notice was placed in a Sri Lankan newspaper last month by the Sri Lanka Banker’s Association, requesting the voluntary ‘registration’ of U.S. Persons with their banks to facilitate the identification of U.S. Persons under FATCA. The voluntary registration was, apparently, not required by the Sri Lanka Central Bank, and Sri Lanka has not (yet) publicly signed an IGA or waived Sri Lankan banking secrecy to allow banks to directly enter into agreements with the IRS.Certainly, the notice for voluntarily registering oneself harkens back to 1939 for some of us, and exemplifies the positive discrimination that FATCA requires. The fact that many of the affected individuals are also Sri Lankan citizens, living in Sri Lanka, and under the protection of their own laws and government, does not factor in at all. Sadly, it also did not factor in to the governments of the U.K, Germany, Mexico and other countries that have signed IGAs either.
Here is a news article that Pacifica found regarding this:
US Citizens in Sri Lanka Asked to Register
“The Sri Lanka Banks Association (Guarantee) Limited today informed all United States citizens living in Sri Lanka to register themselves with their respective banks so as to comply with US legislation termed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). …”
…and badger asks:
Has Sri Lanka signed an IGA yet? If not, how can they direct US persons to go register with their Sri Lankan banks now?
The article says; “The Sri Lanka Banks Association (Guarantee) Limited today informed all United States citizens living in Sri Lanka to register themselves with their respective banks so as to comply with US legislation termed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)….”
I note that the entity directing US persons to do this is NOT the Sri Lankan government, or the US government, but a corporation – “…The Sri Lanka Banks’ Association (Guarantee) Ltd. is a Company registered under the Companies Act in Sri Lanka….”
On what legal basis can a Sri Lankan company direct ALL US persons or ALL US citizens in Sri Lanka to do anything on behalf of themselves or the US government?
Frustration abounds as answers are not received: “Accidental Americans” born abroad to US parent(s) and not registered with the US: Are they AUTOMATIC US citizens OR do they have THE OPTION to claim US citizenship when they can make that decision as an adult?
I’m making this morning’s comments to another thread part of this separate post so more of those affected will realize there needs to be certainty for them about this issue.
From USCitizenAbroad, and I agree:
There is ONLY one clear answer from the USG that is acceptable and that answer is:
People born abroad are NOT automatically U.S. citizens.
This would clarify the position of the USG.
If they say:
People born abroad ARE automatically U.S. citizens – that is their position but it is (in my opinion) as a matter of law wrong. Eventually the validity of their position will be tested in court.
Now, what is more important than the clear position of the USG, is that the persons affected by this take a clear position on their own.
That clear position: I am not a US citizen and therefore NOT a member of their “Tax, form and penalty club”.
Finally, I would be very surprised if the Consulate writes back and says people born abroad are not automatically U.S. citizens.
Some people make things happen.
Some people watch things happen.
Some people ask “What happened”
By featuring this prominently it will force the issue. This is extremely important for FATCA IGAs (if they happen).
But if the IGAs don’t happen, the banks will probably enter into agreements with the IRS. Now, the question becomes:
Who are they looking for? If it is U.S. citizens then the ONLY question that is relevant is:
Were you born or naturalized in the U.S.?
If the answer is Yes, then the logical next question should be:
Have you relinquished your U.S. citizenship?
There is no other question that is even relevant.
We need keep a very close eye on this.
Now, of course IF THEY ASK THE ONLY RELEVANT QUESTION, the banks are moving closer and closer to HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.
This is as my frustration abounds. I still have not gotten a reply from Sylvia D. Johnson from the US Embassy, Ottawa.
Nor have my comments to the “The Accidental US Citizen” blog gotten out of moderation: Comments Still Awaiting Moderation — Flott & Co. PC — The Accidental US Citizen.
Continue reading
Three speeches on the Expatriation Act of 1868
Three speeches on the Expatriation Act of 1868, made on 10 March of that year, two by Republicans and the other by a Democrat, are presented without comment after the jump. You can find the originals starting at page 1797 of The Congressional Globe for the 40th Congress. Some extra paragraph breaks have been added for readability.
Residence Based Taxation for Americans Abroad
President Carter writes on US indifference to human rights
A Cruel and Unusual Record http://t.co/RcF3pqoTAS – President Carter: US no champion of human rights – #americansabroad are well aware!
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) July 5, 2013
While the country has made mistakes in the past, the widespread abuse of human rights over the last decade has been a dramatic change from the past. With leadership from the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 as “the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” This was a bold and clear commitment that power would no longer serve as a cover to oppress or injure people, and it established equal rights of all people to life, liberty, security of person, equal protection of the law and freedom from torture, arbitrary detention or forced exile.
…
At a time when popular revolutions are sweeping the globe, the United States should be strengthening, not weakening, basic rules of law and principles of justice enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But instead of making the world safer, America’s violation of international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends.
As concerned citizens, we must persuade Washington to reverse course and regain moral leadership according to international human rights norms that we had officially adopted as our own and cherished throughout the years.
Speaking of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
2008 was the 60th anniversary of the Declaration. The United States of America celebrated by enacting the Exit Tax.