Category Archives: Relinquishment and Renunciation

13 Reasons Why I Committed #Citizide: (Inspired by the television series, 13 Reasons Why)

cross-posted from citizenship solutions

citizide graphic_reversed

Introduction – Guest post by a perfectly ordinary person who renounced U.S. citizenship for perfectly ordinary reasons

In a recent submission to Senator Hatch I argued that what the United States thinks of as “citizenship-based taxation”, is actually a system where the United States imposes U.S. taxation on the residents and citizens of other countries. That submission
included:

On July 4, 2017, Americans living inside the USA celebrated the “4th of July” holiday – a day that Americans celebrate their independence and freedom.

On that same day, I had meetings with SEVEN American dual citizens, living outside the United States. This “Group of Seven” were in various stages of RENOUNCING their U.S. citizenship. Each of them was also a citizen and tax paying resident of another country. They varied widely in wealth, age, occupation, religion, and political orientation. Some of them have difficulty in affording the $2350 USD “renunciation fee” imposed by the U.S. Government. Some of the SEVEN identify as being American and some did NOT identify as being American.
But each of them had one thing in common. They were renouncing their U.S. citizenship in order to gain the freedom that Americans have been taught to believe is their “birth right”.

On August 2, 2017 posts at the Isaac Brock Society and numerous other sources, reported that that there were 1759 expatriates reported in the second quarter report in the Federal Register. The number of people renouncing U.S. citizenship continues to grow.

Now on to the guest post by Jane Doe, which is a very articulate description of the reasons why people living outside the United States feel forced to renounce U.S. citizenship.

John Richardson

Continue reading

Wisdom of “Three Monkeys” explain why: Although there is little support for “citizenship-based taxation” repeal is difficult

cross-posted from citizenshipsolutions
by John Richardson

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Wisdom of “Three Monkeys” explain why: Although there is little support for “citizenship-based taxation” repeal is difficult

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The uniquely American practice of “imposing direct taxation on the citizen/residents of other nations” (“citizenship-based taxation”) has NO identifiable group of supporters (with the exception of a few academics who have never experienced it and do not understand it).

The Uniquely American practice of imposing direct taxation on the citizen/residents of other nations has large numbers of opponents (every person and/or entity affected by it). In addition to the submissions of Jackie Bugnion, “American Citizens Abroad“,
Democrats Abroad“, Bernard Schneider there is significant opposition found in the submissions of a large number of individuals. It is highly probable that the submissions come from those who are attempting compliance with the U.S. tax system.

The “imposition of direct taxation” on the “citizen/residents of other nations” evolved from “citizenship-based taxation”. “Citizenship-based taxation” was originally conceived as a “punishment” for those who attempted to leave the United States and avoid the Civil War. I repeat, it’s origins are rooted in PUNISHMENT and PENALTY and not as sound tax policy.

In 1924, the U.S. Supreme Court in Cook v. Tait upheld the U.S. practice of “citizenship-based taxation”. This means only that (assuming the validity of the decision almost 100 years later), the U.S. has the right to impose “punishment and penalty” (Justice McKenna actually said that “government by its very nature benefits its citizens”) in the form of “citizenship-based taxation”. This does NOT mean it’s a good idea to do so. Cook v. Tait should be considered in terms of (1) the evolution of citizenship and (2) the evolution of taxation.
Continue reading

Renunciation Costs To Soar

If this report in Diplopundit is accurate, the cost to renounce U.S. citizenship will soar from $450 to $2350.

The percentage increase in the renunciation fee is 422%. With an estimated 2,378 annual renunciation of citizenship cases, this increase would net the USG an estimated $4,518,200. Using the projected FY 2014 workload, Consular Afffairs’ estimated change in annual fees collected for affected consular services is $64,003,862.

U.S. Department of State is expected to justify this with this statement:

The CoSM demonstrated that documenting a U.S. citizen’s renunciation of citizenship is extremely costly, requiring American consular officers overseas to spend substantial amounts of time to accept, process, and adjudicate cases.

Hmmm. I seems no one thought of another solution. Make the process easy. Allow it to be done via mail like Canada and many other countries do.

Renounce, Relinquish or Do Nothing

I am convinced I gave up my US citizenship decades ago, but the US State department may not agree with me, so I waffle about what I should do.dither

The way I see it, there are some real uncertainties in our future:

  • Enough money may not be raised to see the Charter challenge through to completion.
  • The Charter challenge may not win.
  • The Canadian government may cede even more to the US and stop what little protection Canadians have from IRS collection of taxes and fines.
  • Bank may or may not start asking all account holders if born in the U.S.
  • Customs officials at border crossings may intensify hassles crossing US border on Canadian passport, or even deny entry.
  • Don’t know what further actions the IRS may take to press the FATCA/FBAR/tax return issue.
  • Have no way of knowing whether coming to the attention of US State department will put family members at risk of being identified as possible US persons.
  • Have no idea of level of communication between US State department, IRS and Canadian banks.

To try to help me see things more clearly, I drew up a list of pros and cons. I’m sure I haven’t thought of all the possible ramifications of each action, since I’m still dithering. At any rate, here’s my list. Continue reading

Synopsis: Solving U.S. Citizenship Problem with John Richardson (London, Ontario)

Finally, I’m posting a synopsis of Solving the Problem of US Citizenship information session presented by John Richardson of citizenshipsolutions.ca that was held in London, Ontario on February 8, 2014.

I apologize for the delay. Other FATCA projects have consumed my life.

You can read the synopsis in the link, but here are a few highlights:

CITIZENSHIP:

John first gave an overview of US citizenship laws, tax laws, renunciation and relinquishment and many changes that have taken place over decades.

People have many differing circumstances and each one is unique. Because of the complexities, John stressed:

 “The bottom line is you have to check the law at the time the act took place.”

 For people born in Canada to one or more parent born in the U.S., John suggested they should not automatically assume they are US citizens or US persons. There are many different rules around that. In addition John questions whether the US can apply their laws on people born outside of U.S.  So, he recommended people explore that before making an assumption they must be a US citizen.

He said:

“I would never, never, never under any circumstances advise someone to simply swallow hook line and sinker, well my father was American, therefore I am American for a number of reasons.:

A Supreme Court decision from the 1960s dealt with the forcible destruction of US citizenship. John confirmed many in the room felt they were being forced to relinquish US citizenship.

John believes:

The forcible destruction of US citizenship is going to become THE argument on this issue.

 

John explained renunciation is one form of relinquishment, along with other expatriating acts like becoming a citizen of another country with the intent of relinquishing US citizenship, working for a foreign government and other actions.

For numerous reasons, John recommended people who are renouncing or relinquishing by other means should get a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) through US Department of State by renouncing or reporting relinquishing at a US Consulate.

John reported there are various reasons to

“Deal with this sooner, rather than later.”

For many different reasons, John thinks:

“U.S. citizenship is probably the most dangerous, toxic citizenship in the world today.”

Lynne advised people who became naturalized Canadian citizens may be able to get information from their Canadian citizenship file by applying through Access to Information at (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/atip/form-imm5563.asp)

PERSONAL EFFECTS:

John recognized the toll these issues are taking on people.  He stressed:

“Your life, your health, your family is so, so much important than any of this stuff. If you focus on this in a way that jeopardizes the things that make life worthwhile, you’re going to let these people win–absolutely destroy your life.”

TAXES:

John said there are two types of US persons:

1. Those Who Are Compliant

2.  Those Who Are Not Compliant

No matter what, you’re going to have a problem.  “When we talk about U.S. taxes, we’re talking about much more than taxes. It’s a whole information reporting regime, which is a huge problem.”

He covered many of the issues relating to taxation, but said the most important message was:

“One thing you should absolutely not do is enter the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program” (OVDP).

CANADA REVENUE AGENCY, CANADIAN COURTS:

John explained that under the Canada-US Tax Treaty, CRA will not collect penalties for the IRS for Canadian citizens or residents. CRA also will not collect taxes for the IRS on a US citizen who also was a Canadian citizen at the time the tax liability arose.

Plus, under the Revenue Rule, Canadian courts will not issue a judgement for the IRS.

FATCA:

John thinks FATCA is a “gross abuse of power” by the United States.

“FATCA allows them to redefine any time they want what the information is and any person who is affected.”

 Lynne noted the proposed legislation to allow FATCA to be implemented will prevail over other federal laws, including banking, privacy and human rights laws.  Some individuals have contacted a constitutional lawyer about this and more information will be posted at Maple Sandbox (maplesandbox.ca and Isaac Brock Society (isaacbrocksociety.ca)

UPDATE: Money was raised and constitutional lawyer Joseph Arvay was retained on March 10 by Dr. Stephen Kish and Lynne Swanson to provide a legal opinion on a possible challenge to the FATCA IGA enabling legislation under the constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms.