Tag Archives: relinquish U.S. citizenship

A History Of The Board Of Appellate Review And A Tribute To Chairman Alan James

Leave a reply

By: John Richardson – June 15, 2026

Prologue

On July 18, 2017 the Washington Post included a section describing:

“Notable Deaths in the Washington, area”

“Alan James, lawyer, State Dept. officer

Alan James, 96, a lawyer who specialized in admiralty law and a State Department officer who served as a delegate to international panels on laws of the sea, died June 13 at a hospital in Bethesda, Md. The cause was heart ailments, said a daughter, Anne James.

Mr. James, a Bethesda resident, was born in Brooklyn. In the 1950s, he began his State Department career as an administrative and political counselor specializing in maritime matters. He was a political counselor at U.S. embassies in London and Paris as well as a delegate to laws of the seas treaty conferences. From 1982 to 1995, he chaired the State Department Board of Appellate Review, which reviews individual nationality cases. He was an avocational scholar who specialized in the works of Henry James (no relation).”

https://wapo.st/4eKK4hG

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/notable-deaths-in-the-washington-area/2017/07/18/ecb73298-6bd2-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html

Continue reading →

Extreme Caution Should Be Exercised In Applying For Non-Renunciation “Relinquishments” Of U.S. Citizenship

Leave a reply

January 25, 2025

Keeping this short, sweet and to the point:

I recommend NOT applying for Certificates Of Loss Of Nationality (“CLNs”) based on a past relinquishing act. Past relinquishing acts include ANY form of relinquishment that is not a present day “renunciation” of U.S. citizenship. (See the appendix to this post.)

If you need help with this problem feel free to reach out to me.

This recommendation is based on experiences in Canada:

– knowing several cases where the Consular appointments documenting the past relinquishing act took place almost two years ago. The individuals have still, despite repeated inquiries, NOT had a response from the State Department! To be clear, two of these were based on naturalizations as Canadian citizens after June 16, 2008 (meaning they were clearly subject to U.S. taxation up to the date of the appointment and were in fact tax compliant!)

– the new rules (using a new DS-4079) which took effect on November 1, 2024 make it VERY clear that the State Department is reviewing the evidence of voluntariness and intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship. The voluntariness and intent must be proven at the moment of the expatriating act!

– I know people who submitted applications to renounce U.S. citizenship (in Canada) prior to November 1, 2024 (and therefore prior to the beginning of the new DS-4079), who are awaiting appointments to renounce. They have subsequently received messages asking them (in anticipation of their renunciation appointments) to complete the new DS-4079. The message to them also included the statement that:

The Department of State will only have a legal basis to approve a CLN in your name if the preponderance of evidence shows that you voluntarily performed a potentially expatriating act with the intent to relinquish U.S. nationality.

Notice that the burden of proof is on the person seeking the CLN. The State Department decides what it takes to satisfy the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. This is a difficult burden to meet when the relinquishing act was many years ago. It appears that the facts of “NOT exercising any rights of U.S. citizenship” (after the relinquishing act) are insufficient to meet the evidentiary standard.

For many years I was able to assist (many) people in getting CLNs based on “relinquishing acts in the past”. The law has not changed. What appears to have changed is what the State Department will accept as evidence of meeting the “burden of proof” of voluntariness and intent. The shift in the State Department attitude appears to have started about two years ago. It is clearly expressed in the new DS-4079. I have been warning people about this for the last year or so. I strongly suggest that people exercise extreme caution in applying for CLNs based on relinquishing acts in the past. This is particularly true for those who need a CLN relatively quickly.

Bottom line: You should renounce!

At this point my suggestion is (assuming you qualify):

Renounce and use the 2019 “IRS Relief Procedures For Former Citizens“. Current information on the “Relief Procedures For Former Citizens” program is here.

If you need help, feel free to contact me.

John Richardson – Follow me on X.com @ExpatriationLaw

Appendix – 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

What follows is the statute governing relinquishment of U.S. citizenship. I have added “JR Commentary in italics“.

Notice that paragraph (b) describes the “burden of proof”.

I suggest using (5) renunciation as your method of relinquishment. The other options are now presenting hurdles that are difficult to meett.

§1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality–

JR Commentary: The general test is that the expatriating act must be or have been performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

JR Commentary: This is a past relinquishing act. I know of people who have relied on this and are having difficulty getting CLNs.

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

JR Commentary: This is a past relinquishing act. I know of people who have relied on this and are having difficulty getting CLNs.

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

JR Commentary: Again, only in the most extraordinary circumstances will this succeed.

(4)(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or

JR Commentary: This depends on the nature of the work for the foreign government. Only specific kinds of employment have a chance of success (and even then there is the problem of proof).

(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or

JR Commentary: So far I have never had a renunciation, at the Consulate rejected. If you want a CLN quickly this is the way to go.

(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

___________________________________________________________

(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

JR Commentary: It appears that the focus of the State Department is now squarely on whether the individual seeking the CLN has met this burden of proof.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 3, §349, 66 Stat. 267 ; Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1256, §2, 68 Stat. 1146 ; Pub. L. 87–301, §19, Sept. 26, 1961, 75 Stat. 656 ; Pub. L. 94–412, title V, §501(a), Sept. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1258 ; Pub. L. 95–432, §§2, 4, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046 ; Pub. L. 97–116, §18(k)(2), (q), Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1620 , 1621; Pub. L. 99–653, §§18, 19, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3658 ; Pub. L. 100–525, §§8(m), (n), 9(hh), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2618 , 2622.)

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1481&num=0&edition=prelim

New Renunciation Form And Processes For US Citizenship Relinquishment Effective November 1, 2024

2 Replies

Update November 5, 2024 – See the Appendix where I include podcasts with expatriation lawyers Virginia La Torre Jeker and Diane Gelon.

The “Readers Digest” Version

Towards the end of October of 2024, the following comment appeared online:

‘Just renounced in Rome this afternoon. Very smooth, professional, friendly. I was asked why by the consular officer but the office person who did all the work was extremely helpful and did not ask why I decided to do it. It should take 2-3 months to get my CLN. Maybe even less. One thing the office guy mentioned was that I was just in time to do the standard procedure, because it is soon going to change. He said that if now there are two forms to fill out, soon there will be 13 pages of forms to fill out “to better identify and determine certain particular situations”. Does anyone know anything about this? I am thinking ( hoping) that it may be to facilitate accidentals? Anyway, all done, I am FREE! (No emotions. I remembered the podcast where someone said “just think of it as retirement “’

(The “think of it as retirement podcast was actually a podcast I did called “The Retired Citizen“.)

Effective November 1, 2024 a new procedure has been adopted for individuals seeking a Certificate Of Loss Of U.S. Nationality (“CLN”).

Generally, the new procedure:

– is based on a newly designed Form DS-4079 (the old one is obsolete) which has different sections for different kinds of expatriating acts. The parts of the form that you complete depend on the nature of the “expatriating” act upon which you rely;

– is better designed to probe whether the applicant’s facts meet the evidentiary standard (“preponderance of the evidence”) to establish the “voluntariness” and “intention to relinquish” which are required under IINA 349(a) and INA 349(b).;

– reflect that the burden of proof of establishing “voluntariness” and “intention” must be met by the individual (the days of presuming intention are over) – INA 349(b)

– clarify that the first interview need NOT take place in person (phone or email can work) but that the second interview MUST take place in person

– clarify that ALL individuals must (1) Complete the newly designed Form DS-4079 (a completely redesigned form) and and (2) what ORIGINAL documents must be presented at the relinquishment/renunciation interview

– appear to be moving toward a standardized process all around the world (up until October 31, 2024 different Consulates used different forms, etc.)

Generally the new process is described in the new DS-4079 which is available here:

ds4079

Those wishing to renounce U.S. citizenship in Canada will be pleased to know that (after a lengthy absence) Quebec City and Halifax are renunciation options. In Canada one can renounce in: Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City and Halifax. Canada is surely the renunciation capital of the world!

Additional commentary

1. I will add more in the upcoming days. Until now few (if any) renunciation requests were refused. I predict that the new process will result in the first wave of individuals who cannot meet the evidentiary standard required on renunciation and relinquishment.

2. The new DS-4079 heightens the chance of inadmissibility after renunciation.

To be “FORMWarned” is to be “FOReArmed!”

If you need help, feel free to contact me at …

John Richardson – Follow me on X.com @Expatriationlaw

Appendix – Podcasts with lawyers Virginia La Torre Jeker and Diane Gelon

Virginia La Torre Jeker:

Diane Gelon:

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

Leave a reply

Update – November 2, 2018 to include – “Retain or Renounce” Information session held in Brisbane Australia on October 25, 2018


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 →

"It's better in the Bahamas – Combining your renunciation with a vacation

Leave a reply


For years I have seen the slogan “It’s better in the Bahamas”. It’s a great place to vacation. It’s a short flight from Toronto. It’s relatively inexpensive to visit. It’s was the home of one Sir John Templeton (one of the most famous renunciants of U.S. citizenship). And when it comes to “renouncing U.S. citizenship”, it might be “Better in the Bahamas“, because you can schedule a renunciation appointment on a predictable date!
What follows are some recent reports about the renunciation process in Nassau, Bahamas.


Continue reading →

Tax Haven or Tax Heaven 5: How the 1966 desire to "poach" capital from other nations led to the 2008 S. 877A Exit Tax

Leave a reply

Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter N, Part II, Subpart A of the Internal Revenue Code is of great interest..
IRC871
IRC8712
The text of S. 871 of the Internal Revenue Code is here. The IRS interpretation of S. 871 along with the requirements for when the non-resident alien is required to file a 1040-NR return are here.
The above subsection of the Internal Revenue Code applies to “NON-RESIDENT ALIENS AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS”. It contains rules for how those who are not “U.S. Persons” are taxed under the Internal Revenue Code. As is expected, the Internal Revenue Code imposes U.S. taxation only on those “aliens” who have income sources that are connected to the United States. The previous post explained that S. 871 (in its present form) was enacted in 1966. Internal Revenue Code S. 871 also provides strong incentives for “aliens” to bring their capital to the USA.
Interestingly this subsection of the Internal Revenue Code also includes the S. 877A and S. 877 Expatriation Tax provisions. Significantly, both S. 871 and S. 877 were enacted in 1966 as part of the Foreign Investors Tax Act of 1966, Public Law 89-809.
The combination of the inclusion of both Internal Revenue Code sections 871 and 877 suggests that the intent of the Foreign Investors Tax Act of 1966, Public Law 89-809, included:
1. The intent to attract “Foreign” capital to the United States by imposing either no or low taxes on that “Foreign” capital lured to the United States, as expressed in S. 871 of the Internal Revenue Code;
2. The intent to give “non-resident aliens” certain tax benefits that were NOT available to U.S. citizens;
3. A recognition that some U.S. citizens might wish to expatriate to avail themselves of the benefits of NOT being a U.S. citizen;
4. A “penalty” expressed in S. 877 of the Internal Revenue Code for those U.S. citizens who expatriated to receive the same tax benefits enjoyed by “non-resident aliens”.
For a pdf of the 1966 Foreign Investors Tax Act (a massive document), see …
Foreign Investors Tax Act 1966 809
My point is a simple one …
It is clear that the U.S.desire to establish itself as a “Tax Haven”, also resulted in the S. 877 Exit Tax, which gradually evolved into the S. 877A Exit Tax that exists today.
To put it another way: the desire to establish the United States as a “Tax Haven”, eventually evolved into the S. 877A Exit Tax rules that:
1. Impose confiscatory taxation on assets that are outside the United States; and
2. Impose confiscatory taxation on assets that were acquired after a “U.S. Person” abandoned residence in the United States.
To illustrate why this is so, please see:
“The S. 877A Exit Tax in Action – 5 actual scenarios with 5 completed U.S. tax returns”
You will be shocked by what you see!
Like the 1970 FBAR rules, S. 877 of the Internal Revenue Code has gradually evolved into a mechanism to confiscate the assets of Americans abroad. Think I am kidding? See the examples in the link above!
John Richardson

The $2350 "relinquishment fee" does NOT mean that people should simply renounce citizenship

1 Reply


 
On September 6, 2015 it was reported on the Isaac Brock Society that the State Department intended to begin charging $2350 for both “relinquishments” and “renunciations”. The proposed rule is to be published on  September 8, 2015. With respect to “relinquishments” the Federal Register states:

The Department is expanding the application of and renaming item 8 in the Schedule of Fees to “Administrative Processing of Request for Certificate of Loss of Nationality.” The fee will be applied to cover not only services to U.S. nationals (i.e., U.S. citizens and non-citizen nationals) who relinquish nationality by taking the oath of renunciation under 8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5), but also to cover services to U.S. nationals who relinquish nationality under 8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(1) to 1481(a)(4) or any earlier-in-time relinquishment statutes administered by the Department of State and request a Certificate of Loss of Nationality. Currently, the fee is paid by those taking the oath of renunciation under 8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5) at the time the oath is sworn. The fee would be collected from an individual claiming to have relinquished nationality at the time that person requests the Certificate of Loss of Nationality (that is, after completing Form DS-4079 and signing before a consular officer Part II of Form DS-4079 entitled “Statement of Voluntary Relinquishment of U.S. Citizenship”). The Fiscal Year 2012 Cost of Service Model update demonstrated that documenting a U.S. national’s relinquishment of nationality is extremely costly whether the service is for a relinquishment under 8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(1) to 1481(a)(4) or a relinquishment by renunciation under 8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5). Both require American consular officers overseas to spend substantial amounts of time to accept, process, and adjudicate cases. The cost of the service is not limited to the time consular officers spend with individuals prior to and at appointments. The application is reviewed both overseas and domestically to ensure full compliance with the law. The consular officer must determine that the individual is indeed a U.S. national, advise the individual on the consequences of loss of nationality, and ensure that the individual fully understands the consequences of loss, including the inability to reside in the United States unless properly documented as an alien. Through documentary review, consideration of the individual’s circumstances, and careful interviewing, the consular officer also must determine whether the individual is seeking loss of nationality voluntarily and with the requisite intent, as required by U.S. Supreme Court case law and by statute (8 U.S.C. 1481). This determination can be especially demanding in the case of minors or individuals with a developmental disability or mental illness.

The consular officer must also ensure that the commission of an expatriating act was as prescribed by statute, which is often an issue in non-renunciation relinquishment cases. The loss of nationality service must be documented on several forms and in consular systems as well as in a memorandum from the consular officer to the Department’s Directorate of Overseas Citizens Services in Washington, DC (“OCS”), in the Bureau of Consular Affairs. All forms and memoranda are closely reviewed in OCS by a country officer and a senior approving officer, and may include consultation with legal advisers. This review entails close examination of whether the requirements of voluntariness and intent are satisfied in the individual case. Some applications require multiple rounds of correspondence between post and the Department. The final approval of the loss of nationality must be done by law within the Department (8 U.S.C. 1501), by OCS, after which the case is returned to the consular officer overseas for final delivery of the Certificate of Loss of Nationality to the individual. In addition, every individual issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality is advised of the possibility of seeking a future Administrative Review of the loss of nationality, a time-consuming process that is conducted by OCS’s Office of Legal Affairs.

Currently, nationals who renounce nationality pay a fee of $2,350, while nationals who apply for documentation of relinquishment of nationality by the voluntary commission of an expatriating act with the intention to lose nationality, do not pay a fee. However the services performed in both situations are similar, requiring close and detailed case-by-case review of the factors involved in a request for a Certificate of Loss of Nationality, and both result in similar costs to the Department.

In the past, individuals seldom requested Certificates of Loss of Nationality from the Department to document relinquishment. Although the Department was aware that an individual relinquishment service was among the most time consuming of consular services, it was rarely performed so the overall cost to the Department was low and the Department did not establish a fee. Requests for a Certificate of Loss of Nationality on the basis of a non-renunciatory relinquishment have increased significantly in recent years, and the Department expects the number to grow in the future, causing the total cost of this service to increase. At the same time, the Department funds consular services completely from user fees. The Cost of Service Model continues to demonstrate that such costs are incurred by the Department when accepting, processing, and adjudicating relinquishment of nationality cases; therefore, the Department will collect a fee from all individuals seeking a Certificate of Loss of Nationality. Taking into account the costs of both renunciation and non-renunciation relinquishment processes, the fee will be $2,350.

The fee will take effect on November 9, 2015. I have been aware of this impending fee increase for some time. Hence, it comes as no surprise. Furthermore, if you accept the validity of the $2350 fee for renunciations then a similar fee for “relinquishments” is justifiable.

There has been and continues to be extensive discussion of this increase. What does it mean? Why now? Is this to discourage “relinquishments”? What does this say about the character of the U.S. Government?  At a bare minimum, the fee increase is a continuation of a pattern of abuse of Americans abroad. That said …
The purpose of this post is to comment on a question asked by, USXCanada, who is a long time (I believe) blogger at the Isaac Brock Canada. He or she includes an interesting question in this comment:

The best thing about the utterly predictable extension of the $2350 fee to relinquishers?
Not having to endure any more speculations about the convoluted retroactive possibilities for exhuming prehistoric personal intentions to lose U.S. citizenship – especially by extraterritorials who did any such thing as (1) hold a U.S. passport (2) vote in a U.S. election (3) file any U.S. taxes (4) work a week as a temp janitor for a non-U.S. municipality.
How about a Brock contest to see who can do closest guess on (1) when the current fee next increases? (2) how much it goes up by? Here’s mine: September 2016 to a round $3000. Further out? At least $6000 by September 2020.
Off-the-top-of-the-head question:  Is there now any circumstance at all where an exiter will prefer to seek relinquishment because the morass of rules confers some benefit that would be lost through renunciation? (PS – Staying off the name-and-shame list is NOT one.)

The answer is yes! The “relinquishment fee” is an irritation but it is NOT a reason to simply default into a “renunciation”. Now, I am writing this post quickly and I invite others to add their thoughts. But, here are categories  of reasons why those who believe that they have validly relinquished U.S. citizenship, under U.S. law, should insist on a CLN based on a relinquishment.
Category 1 – For at least “citizenship purposes” the relinquishment date is always prior to the renunciation date.
Category 2 – The difference in treatment under other U.S. laws between “renunciations” and other forms of relinquishment.
Let’s examine each category.
 
Continue reading →

Relinquish or renounce U.S. citizenship – The course

2 Replies

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOjdP7sAN6Y&w=560&h=315]

U.S. Citizenship – Where taxation and citizenship intersect

“Relinquish or renounce U.S. citizenship – The Course”
What: Relinquish or Renounce U.S. Citizenship – The Course
Who: John Richardson – Toronto Lawyer – Specializing in “solving the problems of U.S. citizenship” and the relinquishment of U.S. citizenship
When:
Toronto, Canada – Saturday October 1/16 – 10:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Where: Toronto Downtown – Exact address TBA
Cost: $500 per attendee plus taxes
Enrollment limited to 10 participants!
Why would you participate in this seminar?
Continue reading →

Part 7 – Why 2015 is a good year for many #Americansabroad to relinquish US citizenship – It's the "Exchange Rate"

Leave a reply

The purpose of my series of posts on the S. 877A “Exit Tax” has been to explain how the tax actually works. I have provided actual examples. The results have been enlightening and have demonstrated how arbitrary the results have been. In “Part 5” of this series you will find the actual examples and draft tax returns. I provided examples of how much the S. 877A “Exit Tax” could be. The examples were based on one consistent set of financial circumstances and demonstrated how that one set of financial circumstances would apply to five different people. We learned that there were wide variations in the amount of the “Exit Tax” payable. A person who was a “dual citizen” from birth may have paid on “Exit Tax” of $0.00. A person who was born ONLY a U.S. citizen might have paid as much as $365,000. (All amounts are in U.S. dollars.) But, wait the person was born a dual Canadian citizen, but was living in the UK when he renounced would pay an “Exit Tax” of $365,000.
Refreshing your memory
exittaxexamples
and
exit-tax
 
These visual reminders strongly suggest that …


As one commenter observed:

I find this to be a very important study. The inclusion of sample completed Forms 8854 and 1040s is really helpful to understanding how the exit tax can affect people differently. The unfairness of the exit tax under 877A and its dependence on accidents of birth, over which a person has no control, is breathtaking. The article makes a convincing case for calling the exit tax “evil”.

Continue reading →

Attn: Former U.S. Citizens: Are you STILL or have you EVER BEEN a U.S. "Tax Citizen"?

Leave a reply


Synopsis:
This is a long post. In fact, it is too long for the average reader. Therefore, I wish to summarize the purpose and possible (but not certain conclusion) of the post in a few simple sentences.
Here goes:
If you were born in the United States (and became a U.S. citizen at birth) who moved to Canada and naturalized as a Canadian Citizen prior to June 3, 2004:
1. Without informing the U.S. State Department or applying for a Certificate of Loss of Nationality; and
2. You are hearing from the media and some members of the tax compliance community that you are either still a U.S. citizen and/or are somehow liable for U.S. taxes; then
You should NOT believe that you are still a U.S. citizen and/or are that you are subject to U.S. taxation without getting proper counselling.
In other words you should NOT:
– apply for a Certificate of Loss of Nationality
– file U.S. tax returns
– renounce U.S. citizenship
without a thorough investigation of your situation. You may or may not be a U.S. citizen who is subject to U.S. taxation.
Extreme caution is warranted. Every case is fact specific.
Please note that this post is NOT legal advice of any kind whatsoever. You meed to discuss your specific circumstances with a competent adviser of your choice.
To understand why, read on …
Continue reading →