Renunciation and Relinquishment of United States Citizenship: Discussion thread (Ask your questions) Part Two
Ask your questions about Renunciation and Relinquishment of United States Citizenship and Certificates of Loss of Nationality.
Participants will need to provide their e-mail address (real or fake) and an alias. The only written rule is that participants must use a same alias each time they post (and not “anonymous” or derivatives thereof).
Bear in mind that any responses that you get from participants is peer-to-peer help, and it is not intended as a replacement for professional advice. Also, the Isaac Brock Society provides this disclaimer: neither the Society nor any of its members are professionals. We offer our advice here only in friendship and we recommend that our readers seek professional advice if they need it.
If you wish to receive an e-mail notification of comments, check the box to that effect when making your first comment.
NB: This discussion is a continuation of an older discussion that became too large for our software to handle well. See Renunciation and Relinquishment of United States Citizenship: Discussion thread (Ask your questions) Part One
Mr Borg, er…Berg. Resistance is futile.
@Bob, nothing more than them trying to drum up business. You already know how the renunciation process works and no need for a lawyer/accountant for that. As for tax, the IRS is overworked, understaffed and over there as the old saying goes. If someone hasn’t filed how are they going to even know if you’re worth the time and expense of trying to find you. Even if someone had filed in the past and stopped, without a good idea that you may be worth a lot they aren’t going to waste limited resources on coming after you.
An enterprising academic might get a very good paper based on an analysis of the Moodys Gartner’s web page at https://renunciation.moodysgartner.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/renouncing-your-u-s-citizenship-is-divorcing-uncle-sam-right-for-you.pdf
They come as close as dammit to warning USCs that they’ll be required to prove US tax compliance before they’ll be allowed to renounce.
Fn 39: “There is a $2,350 USD fee for renunciation of U.S. citizenship, payable at the time of the exit interview. This fee was increased from $450 USD on September 12, 2014. In addition, there are a number of heightened security measures when appearing for a matter before
a U.S. Consulate General office.”
Implying that if you can’t prove US tax compliance you’ll be taken into US custody?
Elsewhere they mention the Reed Amendment, carefully setting it in a context of terrorism, Nazis and paedophilia, and implying that the DoS will be making a ruling on whether you are as bad as a terrorist, a Nazi, or a paedophile, based on your answers to questions you will be asked during your renunciation interview:
I don’t know how they can face themselves in the mirror, I really don’t.
Makes me feel like running down the street screaming “
Soylent Green is peopleMoodys Gartner are liars!”From the same article “Many individuals pursuing the renunciation process request a U.S. trained and licensed attorney accompany them for the interview.”
KA-CHING! Keep those dollars rolling in for the compliance condors by building up the renunciation process into this “intense, emotional event” (another direct quote) fraught with terrifying consequences so as to scare the hell out of people into thinking that they need a lawyer there.
I find phrases such as
to be very disturbing because there’s no logical, or legal, reason why a routine renunciation “interview” would take one hour.
If a routine renunciation “interview’ takes anywhere near one hour, the consul is going way way way way off base on some sort of fishing or intimidation expedition.
If that happens to their clients, it’s very strange.
If that happened to my client, I would be on the phone to DoS HQ so fast . . . . (HQ has been very responsive to complaints on irregular or abusive procedure. This firm doesn’t know that? Yeah, right. Well, maybe they really don’t – that doesn’t make them look very good either.)
An obvious scare tactic to drum up business – with side effects that it also causes needless anxiety, and if a person believes a routine consulate meeting is supposed to be an inquisition, they won’t recognise rogue abuse if it occurs and therefore are more likely to put up with it.
I do greatly regret not being able to attend a seminar here last month, so that I could ask a few questions. I think some polite disruption needs to be a priority, next time they go out on the road.
You are not even allowed to bring a lawyer to the interview. I guess they ran out of suckers in Canada and moved to Oz for more business. It couldn’t be much easier except for the usurious fee.
“Many individuals pursuing the renunciation process request a U.S. trained and licensed attorney accompany them for the interview.”
They forgot the next sentence which should read:
“Moody’s advises all renunciants that such a request is pointless because the Consulate will not allow any attorney (whether US trained and licensed or not) to accompany the individual during the renunciation process.
But we don’t have one iota of integrity so instead we will take full advantage of this opportunity to soak the individual one final time as we aid and abet the US government with their extortion racket.”
Really, those guys should be sued for malpractice. Their client is the person who pays the bills, not the US government. Its maddening.
It certainly appears to violate the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards (http://www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/theCode.aspx)
Turn up at one their seminars with t-shirts reading variously “You don’t need a lawyer to renounce – ask me how” or “Non-compliance is easy, safe, cheap and fun – ask me how” and see what they say.
I suspect the audience would just think you were Moody’s competition. 🙂
Which, in a way, we are since they’re preying on people like us.
i renounced last year – no need for a lawyer to renounce – all the info anyone needs is on the Brock site.
Good point Medea!
“The process of renouncing your U.S. citizenship is a multi-layered [relatively simple] procedure of immigration filings [questionnaire completing] and tax compliance submissions [DELETE — not a part of the renunciation process] that come to a crescendo with a one hour [usually brief] interview administered at a U.S. Consulate General office. During this one hour [again — usually brief] interview the renouncing individual will be asked to:”
“… what is said at the exit tax interview before the U.S. Consulate General, as discussed below, is critically important. Other categories of individuals on this same “inadmissible list” include known terrorists, members of the Nazi party, and international child abductors.” — WHOA Nellie!!! This is NOT an “exit tax interview” and if questions are asked about tax filings they are totally out of line and the consulate staff should be called out for it. As for including this “inadmissible list” all I can say is BAD Moodys … BAD, BAD, BAD!!! You are low-down compliance fear mongers seeking to help yourselves to the assets of your clients.
“…….that come to a crescendo with a one hour interview administered at a U.S. Consulate….”
Most of that so-called crescendo is spent waiting on bench. LOL. What a bunch of (fear-mongering, compliance condor) drama queens!
@ maz57
You are right. My husband spent 97% of his time going through security and bench warming. (He said the chairs provided were not very comfortable.) Although, his procedure was a relinquishment so he probably had less face time with consulate employees than renunciants do — no oath taking and at that time no fee to pay. However, don’t think it didn’t cost us anything because we had to pay for a motel (bitter cold winter days with limited hours for daylight driving to and from the big city).
Agree EmBee, Most of my time was spent waiting. And it also depends if the embassy/consulate does an interview for a renunciation. The Swiss one didn’t when I renounced so it was wait to be called to check paperwork, do that, then go round to the payment window to pay the fee and then wait some more until the Vice Consul did the Oath.
What are these dangerous scary “critically important” questions from the consul at these meetings (which Moody’s Gartner refers to as “interviews,” and which in reality run not 1 hour but about 10 minutes)?
Let’s see, I remember, “Would you sign this form here at the bottom?” “Did you sign both copies of this one?” “Will you come in to pick up your CLN or do you want us to mail it to you?”
As I stated in my earlier comment, if they go much further in questionning than such administrative matters and asking that you understand the consequences, they’re getting out of bounds and it should be reported to DoS HQ rather than tolerated.
I cut them some slack if they go a little bit further and ask why you’re renouncing (they usually don’t but sometimes do) simply because that’s no big deal. You’re not required to say why, but I recommend just give them a short neutral answer just to keep things running smoothly.
One non-administrative question such as that, however, does not result in a 1 hour interview, more like an 11 minute one.
Re: “critically important” questions.
I’ve heard that one of them is: “Would you like fries with that?” Critically important, my ass.
By the way, the reason the chairs aren’t very comfortable because the US government is all about punishment. (Unless you are Ben Carson, LOL!)
Perhaps the “Why are you renouncing” question is more about coercion than taxes.
The consular officer has to recommend to DoS whether the renunciation should be approved. He doesn’t need to take into consideration the question of whether you’re renouncing for tax reasons, because that’s not grounds for refusal. “My son/mother/spouse says I have to” would be grounds for refusal.
Yes, I don’t see it as a tax-oriented question either, just was referring to it as a question that’s not purely administrative — and as you’ve pointed out it could be considered as being about coercion/voluntariness, which is within their mandate.
Main thing to me about that question is that you’re not required to give an answer, but might as well do so to keep things running smoothly — whereas pretty much anything else of a non-administrative nature is getting into an out-of-bounds fishing/intimidation expedition, which one does not have to and should not put up with (despite Moody’s Gartner’s apparent characterisation of a routine meeting being a 1 hour inquisition).
Yes, that’s what I did – gave an innocuous reply.
Has anyone ever reported being asked any other questions?