Read These if Relinquishing Act Performed Prior to June 4, 2004

55 thoughts on “Read These if Relinquishing Act Performed Prior to June 4, 2004”

1. Came to Canada in 1970, Canadian citizenship in 2004, today denied a CLN because I continued to use a valid US passport (issued prior to obtaining Canadian citizenship) until it expired. HUGE MISTAKE. Was told at Toronto consulate that I would only be eligible for a renunciation (and therefore subject to all of the ruinous financial consequences of home ownership and non-registered mutual funds). Absolutely catastrophic. So, if you want to be free of any intent to retain US citizenship, you must not at any time use a US passport after you have obtained Canadian citizenship. That is the only indicator of intent that I had, and it was enough to deny me a CLN. I have been a close follower of this site, and my understanding was that use of a US passport would not be a determiner of intent to retain US citizenship, especially because of border hassles, but sadly this has proved not to be the case. I’m not sure where this thread should go, but it is information that people need to know about. This has been a really bad day.

2. @ Muy Linda,

   Dreadful. Toronto seems to have really changed since they got their new American Citizenship Services director. I never heard this happen before, though, just automatically saying no-go due to a passport. I’m not sure if you renounced or if you’re making other plans or what. I hope you’re doing okay, given the circumstances and the shock.

   Toronto seems to be pulling some weird and unfair stuff lately, such as we got reports recently that TO was telling persons-born-dual that they could not have expatriated under s. (4) on the grounds that they, having been born dual, did not have the capacity to do so. Which is ridiculous because born-duals have got CLNs based on s. (4). I also checked that point of law out with Washington (had the law changed?). It had not. Washington confirmed that persons-born dual had and have the same capacity as any other dual citizen in this regard.

   Toronto is a consulate that should know better because they’ve been doing a lot of CLNs for a few years now. I don’t know what’s going on there. I can accept that out of all the CLN applications, some might not meet the criteria for approval. But these out-of-hand rejections are outrageous. I don’t know what the outcome of a particular CLN application would be, but it sure sounds like they’re wrong to say it’s an *automatic* no-go based on the passport. (And from what you’ve written, your file sounds very similar to others that were successful.)

   Putting a few people’s recent experiences together, it sounds like a serious attitude problem there.

3. @MuyLinda

   I’m so sorry that you had such a bad experience at the Toronto consulate. It sounds like you dealt with the same person that I did. I had a very bad experience there too.

4. Thanks, Pacifica and MyKitty. I appreciate your kind thoughts. Pacifica, I have followed your reasoned and careful comments for quite some time now, and I am very grateful for the care and attention you give to this blog. As for renouncing, the economic impact would be horrendous; a home in downtown Toronto (bought in 1977) and a basket of mutual funds (PFICs) are really good and sound financial strategies in Canada but are absolutely toxic in the hands of the IRS. And the whole thing is so wrong, so wrong.

5. Muy Linda –

   Regrets for your unhappy surprise. You might have been less surprised if certain Brockers had not made a project of developing a few reported exceptional cases into a pattern of expectation.

   That was a wishful and aggressive stance, not a conservative one. It resembles the presumption of scot-free status on 8854 for those with previously unreported relinquishing act prior to whatever-date 2004. Only time will tell on that one. Meanwhile the IRS gets into criminal investigation of the whole class of relinquishers and renouncers.

   Going forward, as the United States encounters more and more of the sharp upward trend in abandonment of its toxic personhood, is it not reasonable to expect that loopholes will close and difficulties will increase? The 2011-2013 period was early early days, days that may already start to look like a golden age. Wait times now seem to be on the increase. How long before the fee for renunciation goes up? Could the $450 become a pittance? Sauve qui peut.

   This seems a good time for a repeat of counsel (5 June 2012) from underappreciated guru Phil Hodgen:

   Political signals from the United States show that expatriation and tax policies are likely to get harsher. … The cost of expatriation now is less than the expected future cost of expatriation. Better to take the medicine now rather than later. … Expect the same exit tax rules, but more of them, and worse. Expect more expatriations. … Get out while the getting is semi-good. Don’t wait for more time. More time means more laws.

6. @usxcanada

   I am sure everyone feels badly for Muy Linda’s experience.Your comment about “certain Brockers…” being somehow responsible for her situation is deeply offensive, unwarranted and not appreciated.

   Many of us who did have a positive experience at the Toronto consulate shared that information in order to encourage others who were able, to do the same. If that is what you call “made a project…” then there is something curious about your perception and need to cast some negative light for reasons known only to yourself. There were many, not a few and we have not done anything wrong by passing on what happened at what was likely, one of the most difficult times of our lives.

   Ironically, you then refer to the very “counsel” those of us were following back then. What gives, eh?

7. Tricia –

   Posting of aggressive one-sided “information” to Brock seems to me the most offensive thing that any Brocker could do. Fuzzy good intentions are not enough.

   If I do “other side” posting, it is only to attempt to bring balance.

   Newcomers desperate to find simple reassurances on particular points fail to do the drudgery as they fall into the waiting arms of would-be helpful new “friends” … who push “answers” that fail to hold up. Shock and disappointment follow for persons like Muy Linda.

   Use of US passport provides case in point. So what if that approach worked for a few people a few times? The only conclusion is, you could try and see if it happens to work for you. Then lucky you. No guarantees. Sauve qui peut.

   Logic says that any subsequent use of a US passport is a strong indicator against “intention” to relinquish. A handful of cases may have benefited from temporary inconsistency across a system of consulates that has had almost no experience of processing relinquishments. The more cases the US processes, the more standardized their treatments are likely to become. Especially after IRS gets done with examination of the whole lot for possible criminal implications.

   Warm-hearted one-track bad advice that hits a brick wall, or hard-headed admonition to consider all eventualities. Take your pick.

8. @ USX,

   I don’t see what the purpose would be to “push” anything. I think people simply share what happened in their experience.

   I certainly can’t see why anyone would want to push a particular course of action, because an action that is right for one person might cause complications in another person’s situation, and why would someone want to possibly cause problems for someone who is also a victim in this – and also it’s not like the “pusher” themself would gain any benefit from what another person (a complete stranger) chooses to do.

   As for the passport matter, I think that having even one indicator of possible US citizenship behaviour on a 4079 means we’re not talking slam-dunk — I don’t think I’ve ever read anyone here say or imply it was — and there’s an element of risk.

   However, I don’t think the s.(1)-based-CLNs-despite-passport-use are a mistaken inconsistency caused by lack of knowledge at the consulates, given that several consuls that I’m aware of checked with DC about this issue before proceeding to meet with the relinquishers.

   Until now, we had received one report of an s. (1) application being rejected due to passport renewal. It was not rejected right-off-the-bat — that case took 3 consulate visits and a bunch of e-mailing between the person, the consulate, and DC. We have also received several reports of people receiving s.(1)-based CLNs, although their 4079 had one indicator of possible US citizen behaviour (either passport or filing taxes in these cases), which they explained to the satisfaction of the consulate officer. It depends on the individual case.

   Several Brockers, using different consulates, one as recently as a month ago, reported that prior to their consulate meetings, their local consuls, not being certain, contacted DoS Legal Affairs in DC on this issue and were told by Legal Affairs that passport use does not necessarily preclude a relinquishment having occurred. From what I gather, it depends in each case on the circumstances and the intent (eg duress, misinformation, etc.) and of course on the entire contents of the file.

   Loss of citizenship determinations are to be made on the balance of probabilties. That’s a relatively low burden of proof for the person– but it still gives DoS room in their evaluation. However, if the consul simply went “passport-used-automatic-rejection,” they are not evaluating the case at all – that sounds like Toronto is inventing their own rules. Toronto also said that persons-born-dual lack the capacity to have relinquished under s.(4). According to DoS Legal Affairs in Washington, that is wrong, and also according to DoS Legal Affairs in Washington, passport use is not an automatic bar to a relinquishment having occurred. I get the feeling Toronto is screwed up.

9. @MuyLinda

   At the risk off raising the ire an some here an of being accused of being some sort of compliance condor, I will say that my experience in preparing for renouncing has been OK – not pain free but OK. I have entered the Streamlined program – I, too, have a house in one of the most expensive markets around an I had all of the things that are good for Canadians and bad for US persons – TFSA, RESP, mutual funds with their PFICs – you name it, I had it. I have had to pay an accountant to prepare this stuff for me but I have had to pay no US tax. Since I want to be free and clear in an up front and official way, this was the only reasonable way for me to proceed. You may wish to get more information about your options regarding becoming compliant in order to renounce to be free and clear. I wanted out as soon as possible; I know others who are waiting to see if things will get a bit easier. At any rate, I think it’s important to review the options for oneself.

10. @USX
    I see you were referring to something specific concerning relinquishment; I confess to being unaware of that and reacted in a more general, overall way. Always happy to consider other sides however, I feel it is more productive to look for common ground or work toward agreement.

    As I recall, the questions concerning the use of the passport in relation to relinquishment center on usage as a factor versus intent. One could argue that using a passport that had already been issued could be seen more as a factor. Several past cases involving pressure from border guards would suggest neither factor nor intent. Intent might be observable should one apply for a new passport after the date of claimed relinquishment. Would an immediate application for a passport of the new/2nd citizenship suggest either? Does using a non-US passport generally indicate non-US status only as a factor? I doubt that the US would consider the last two situations however, either would still be indicative of one’s state of mind. Due to the fact that some of these have previously been brought up, if not extensively discussed here, I am not sure I see your reference to “aggressive one-sided information” or “fuzzy good intentions.”

    I agree that newcomers must do the drudgery however, isn’t that what we all did at the beginning of Brock’s existence? How much more is there to discover? The 7 causes of relinquishment, the dates of when laws changed, when notifying the consulate became part of the picture, notification of the IRS & 8854, etc. The blog has changed; it seems only so much information is there to discover. The government has moved in the direction we expected; once people began figuring out how to protect themselves within the system, DOS began to refuse, make it harder etc. I see this as more the issue rather than some “pushing of misinformation” or Brockers themselves as the likely cause of relinquishments becoming more difficult.

    “Logic” and “hard-headed admonition to consider all eventualities” – can you show me where these two things are really lacking above? I honestly don’t see that and really would like to understand.

    I am truly sad and horrified to see MuyLinda’s experience at the consulate. I am not aware if she has posted over time prior to visiting the consulate. So I cannot know that her experience is directly related to information she received here. I think that matters.

11. Pacifica & Tricia –

    I started from the fact that Muy Linda developed certain expectations that clearly were shattered. The question is, how did that situation come about? My best guess is that ML latched onto perceived offhand information that appeared to suit the purpose.

    Some of the difficulty attributes to ML for not doing enough of the drudgery. It seems clear that some also attributes to carelessly distributed “information.”

    This is all about good information. Long-term Brockers can wonder How much more is there to discover? But this is true only for those who have been around the block so many times they can almost recite the FATCA IGA backward. (Watch out — doing that will cause Satan to appear.) To the extent that conditions are a known, and a crux question keeps coming up, reference to a single thought-out and balanced FAQ might serve better. Do it once, do it balanced, and update as necessary. Surely that consistency would amount to less work, not more?

    I once imagined doing some of that work. I have counseled individuals. I have decided that the complexities and interrelationships and instabilities are overwhelming. The one thing I still feel safe in doing is asking questions. Lots of them. But have you thought about x? This can improve the description of the tangle. Only the affected individual can finally decide what to do with the machete.

    What often seems to be happening around Brock is warm reception followed by off-the-top-of-the-head reassuring reiterated comment addressed to immediate perceived need.

    I don’t question good intent. I also tend to see the paving stones on the road to hell.

    I dislike witnessing bad effects from misguided executions, potentially and actually.

    Let the enemy not be us, but the US.

12. @MuyLinda

    Did you ask that your file be sent to Washington for review and possible reversal of the Toronto Consulate’s decision (as MyKitty did)? If not, are you considering trying another Consulate (ex. Montreal or the Embassy in Ottawa)?

    @Pacifica

    Are you aware of anyone trying a second Consulate after an unfavourable experience at their first Consulate? Thanks all.

13. @ Mr. A,

    Yes, I started at one consulate but finished at another. At the first consulate, strong attempts were made to prevent me from applying for an s.(1)-based CLN, although I had no ties or connections to the US since relinquishment over half a lifetime ago. I was basically bullied and the law was misstated to me: for example, I was told that too much time had expired since the date of my relinquishing act. I wrote a complaint and both consulates were aware that I was changing consulates.

    One thing about the passport issue. My concern here is that Toronto took the passport to be an automatic cause for rejection. That is wrong. However, in any particular case, depending on the circumstances of the passport use and the entire contents of the file, the decision to approve or not could go either way. My situation was more clear-cut because the problem was strictly procedural. There was nothing that could be disputed in the substance of the case, so I basically knew what the outcome would be.

14. @Pacifica and Trish,

    Thank you so much for all you do to help those of us still caught in the FATCA net. You both are clear and free, yet you hang back here with us, cheering us on, and helping us find our way out. We don’t pay you like we do the lawyers and accountants. You don’t have all the answers – no one does, even the highly paid lawyers and accountants – but your wisdom comes from the turmoil of personal experience and from the goodness of your souls. Please don’t let people like USXCanada (also free and clear, but not so helpful) drive you away. We would miss you dearly.

15. I wholeheartedly echo WhiteKat’s comments.

16. @usx

    At the very beginning of Brock, I did try to start categorizing what should go where in a set of info sheets but it was a project that didn’t get done. Primarily because I simply had no overall idea yet of how to sort it out, regroup according to context and timing and so on. It would be great to have FAQs but who/how what? At the moment I am too busy with the Info Sessions and listings, accounting for CCCF and some other related work. I also have huge area where I simply do not yet understand all the factors. Any volunteers?

    Meeting people at the Info Sessions and corresponding with people by phone & email, I come to exactly the same conclusion as you; “the complexities and interrelationships and instabilities are overwhelming.” There is always some new factor that skews the balance of the other facts known into a swirling mess of confusion. One of the clearest observations from the recent CCLA conference was that our laws have not kept up with technology thus causing many types of privacy violations. I am not sure what factors could be substituted here but this seems an analogous situation. Perhaps the actual laws and policies we can research actually do not address the problems that are developing. Perhaps there is no right answer. One thing IS for sure, whatever “machete” is chosen, none feel good or satisfying.
    “Let the enemy not be us, but the US.” Agreed.. I suspect your message gets lost, resisted or simply not understood due to your style of expression. Will try not to jump the gun next time around.

17. @ Tricia,
    I have a list of 10 Q/As in the April edition of the Consulate Report Directory (which isn’t up yet, technical difficulties again). Not so much FAQs, though, mostly “Where do I find info on …?” links (because details of everyone’s situations can be quite different, on most of the points I prefer to send the reader to source material as I was leery of writing generalisations that might not apply to a specific reader). I could post it as a page as well, as that might be helpful. I’m not good at writing FAQs because I find it hard to word them well, taking exceptions and all that into account, but someone else may have a knack for it.

    @ WhiteKat and Mr. A.
    Thank you. I’m glad to be of help and thank you for your input here too!

18. @WhiteKat 7 Mr. A

    Thank you, very much appreciated.

19. Just subscribing…

20. One long “factsheet” that should have very good information is the set of notes Blaze took at John Richardson’s Info Session in London on Feb 8. All of the sessions follow the same basic format/topics so these are typically what is covered.

    http://maplesandbox.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Synopisis-Ricardson-London-Ontario.pdf

    @MuyLinda,

    You mentioned taking CDN citizenship in 2004. I am curious if this ocurred on or after June 3? If so, I wonder if that had any bearing on the issue (rightly or wrongly).

21. @ Tricia
    That’s a super idea! Blaze’s Info Session report covers a lot of ground and Blaze and John both went over it carefully to make sure it conveyed the information clearly and accurately.

22. What’s this about Toronto giving a hard time to duals about s 4? I’m about to apply for a CLN based on government employment and my appointment is at Toronto. Can someone please fill me in on what’s been happening there?

23. @Kathy

    I think it depends on who you deal with at the consulate. In January, I was told that as a dual from birth I could only renounce or commit an act of treason. The agent said she was recommending that my case be denied, and that she had denied 3 similar cases within the past month.

    I knew she was wrong. I worked for the Canadian federal government in the 1980’s. I requested that she send my paperwork to Washington anyway.

    I had practically the complete contents of my employee file as proof of employment, including my signed oath.

    If I hear from Washington, that they have denied my request, I will hire a lawyer.

    If you have specific questions, please ask.

24. @mykitty

    Thanks. Does anyone else know of incidents like this at Toronto?

25. Kathy, if you didn’t see it, please read Pacifica’s April 1 comment near the top of this thread. I would be very interested in hearing how your Toronto Consulate appointment goes. Please consider posting your experience on this thread or in the Consulate Report Directory. Thanks.