Tag Archives: renounce U.S. citizenship

Part 2: Inheriting From America AKA Anxiety On Steroids – Retain Or Renounce U.S. Citizenship? What About U.S. Tax Compliance?

Prologue

This is the Part 2 of two posts motivated by the story of a Canada/U.S. dual citizen living in Canada who sought help from the University of Washington “Low Income Tax Clinic” – “LITC”. The first post is here.

Part 1: The University Of Washington “Low Income Tax Clinic” And A Canadian Student

This was also discussed by “Tax Fairness Abroad“.

It’s worth reading the entire blog post from Tax Fairness Abroad titled “A summer job and bad advice land an American in Canada in international tax court“.

The post references a report from the University of Washington “Low Income Tax Clinic”. (Note that the “LITC” also provided assistance to Gabriel Morrow who is another American abroad who received advice from the clinic.)

The complete text of the “LITC” report AKA the drama of taxing Americans abroad

“Taxpayer is a dual US-Canada citizen; TP is a long-term resident of Canada and is employed there. TP’s father passed away in 2020 and client received an inherited retirement account in 2021 (approximately $110K). TP was misinformed by the retirement account custodian that the “taxes have been paid” (when,in reality, this was just the tax withholding from the transaction). TP believed that taxes had been reported and paid; the retirement account was not included in the 2021 tax return. TP also did not include 1099-income earned while doing a summer job in Canada for a U.S. domiciled company. TP received a notice of deficiency, and a tax court petition was filed. Unfortunately, the TP has a deficiency because the retirement account; nonetheless, IRS appeals refused to apply the LITC’s treaty claim in regard to the 1099 income and is invoking the US-Canada Treaty savings clause. The LITC will be requesting a competent authority determination on this issue (Revenue Procedure 2015-40, Section 6.04(3) and related IRM provisions). However, the TP will still have a liability because of the retirement account taxable income—this liability process will continue through appeals while the competent authority determination is submitted and a determination is received from the IRS.”

000001

What facts can we glean from the report?

It appears that this dual Canada/U.S. citizen who resides in Canada filed a U.S. tax return for the 2021 year. That return omitted both distributions from the U.S. IRA AND income from the summer emmployment performed in Canada. It is likely that the IRS was able to match his Social Security Number with the information returns that had been filed for both the IRA distributions and the wages from the U.S. based employer. Put another way: the existence of the information returns combined with the Social Security Number on the U.S. tax return, alerted the IRS to the two specific income sources that should have been included on the tax return.

Question: What does this imply for Americans abroad who stand to inherit retirement plans or other income generating assets (for example a stock portfolio) from a U.S. relative? This is a recurring question. What about long term Americans abroad who may not be current on their U.S. tax returns? Should those people renounce U.S. citizenship prior to inheriting these assets? Should they remain American? If so, how do they manage U.S. tax compliance? Inheriting assets of a kind that would generate income and require the reporting of that U.S. source income implicates the question of U.S. tax compliance.

Two background points that are worthy of note:

1. The United States does NOT impose tax on the value of an inheritance. Rather it taxes the income generated from that inheritance. As per 102 of the Internal Revenue Code:

Gross income does not include the value of property acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or inheritance.

(Note that your country of residence may impose an inheritance tax.)

2. In most states, depending on the circumstances, it is possible to “disclaim” an inheritance. As always, the Internal Revenue Code – section 2518 – imposes specific procedural requirements. If you want to completely avoid these issues (perhaps because the amount of the inheritance is very small) you should be aware that a disclaimer is possible. That said, to disclaim an inheritance – although there may be good reasons to disclaim an inheritiance – is an erosion of your wealth.

The inheritance from America – The Good, The Bad And The Ugly

Inheritances (and gifts) can be income producing or non-income producing. It seems likely that inheritances that are non-income producing will not produce income tax (and therefore tax filing) consequences. For example, if a U.S. citizen were to receive personal property that would not be used to generate income there would be no presumptive income issues. The problem is more likely to arise where the American abroad receives assets that are (1) income producing and (2) reported as income producing. An obvious example of an income producing inheritance would be an IRA.

This purpose of this post is to discuss the quesion of “income producing inheritances” from various perspectives. The “LITC” case of the Canadian student reinforces why “information returns matter. The effect of the information return (reporting the fact of the inheritance of the IRA and the fact of the employment) is that the IRS would have a reason to expect income to be reported on a U.S. tax return.

If you are a U.S. citizen living outside the United States you should consider the implications of receiving any inheritance, but most particulary an inheritance from the United States. I suggest that the implications should be considered from the following perspectives in Category A, Category B and Category C.

Continue reading

Becoming A Citizen: For Some It’s Letting Go, But For All It’s Moving On

February 24, 2026

Today was a special day.

For me it was special because I was invited to be a guest at the official ceremony of a person taking the oath of citizenship and becoming a new Canadian citizen. It was humbling to be invited to share such a special day.

For the newly minted Canadian, it was a special day for two reasons.

First – what he had gained: He had achieved his goal of naturalizing as a Canadian citizen. He had come to Canada as a visitor, received a work permit, become a permanent resident of Canada and then naturalized as a Canadian citizen. He had gained the security of becoming a citizen in the country where he lives and works.

Second – what he had lost:, He lost his citizenship in India. This is because as a citizen of India, becoming a citizen of Canada meant that he would no longer be a citizen of India. India does NOT allow dual citizenship. India does allow citizens who naturalize as a citizen of another country to officially become an “OCI” (“Overseas Citizen Of India“). “OCI” status does not give one the full status of a citizen of India. Those with “OCI” may not vote, hold public office or purchase agricultural land. They (humanely) are permitted to return to India to visit and or live.

He could have lived in Canada indefinitely as a permanent resident and remained a citizen of India. But, significantly he made the choice to lose his citizenship of India and become a citizen of Canada. Citizenship is important to one’s identity and often the key to opportunities.

Citizenship is part of where we have been, who we are, how we define ourselves in the present and what we aspire to in the future.

The importance of and the “Human Rights” implications of citizenship

Why citizenship isimportant and what does citizenship mean?

The meaning, importance and value of citizenship is expressed by the former United States Chief Justice Warren in the 1958 case of Perez v. Brownell. Writing in dissent (starting on page 21), Justice Warren writes that:

Citizenship is man’s basic right for it is nothing less than the right to have rights. Remove this priceless possession and there remains a stateless person, disgraced and degraded in the eyes of his countrymen. He has no lawful claim to protection from any nation, and no nation may assert rights on his behalf.’ His very existence is at the sufferance of the state within whose borders lie happens -to be. In this country the expatriate would presumably enjoy, at most, only the limited rights and privileges of aliens, ‘ and like the alien he might even be subject to deportation and thereby deprived of the right to assert any rights This government was not established with power to decree this fate.

https://citizenshipsolutions.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/service-ll-usrep-usrep356-usrep356044-usrep356044.pdf

Human rights implications of citizenship

Citizenship is a big deal! It provides membership in a community. It gives one the “right to have rights”. Significantly, it’s importance in recognized in Article 15 of the International Declaration Of Human Rights which says:

Article 15

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Germany has program to restore the citizenship of those who were stripped of their citizenship during the Nazi era. The existence of the program is an expression of the importance of citizenship in the world of human rights. See the following:

Put more simply: Citizenship is your past, present and future!

One hundred twenty-one people took the oath of Canadian citizenship on this particular day, in this particular ceremony, at this particular location. Some changed their nationality. Some were deprived of another nationality. It was a remarkable “cross section” of humanity. It included people of all ages and (so we were told) citizens of 32 other countries. All 121 people took the oath of citizenship at the same time. Interestingly and significantly it was a “non-renunciatory oath”. In other words, people were NOT required to (ceremonially) renounce whatever other citizenship(s) they had. Canada did not require its new citizens to give up anything to become a Canadian citizen. Yet Canada gave them everything in becoming Canadian citizens. The Canadian citizenship ceremony respected diversity in many respects – including multiple citizenships.

The Canadian citizenship ceremony was an extraordinary moment of patriotism, community and bonding. It was a recognition that:

What unites us as Canadians is far greater than what divides us.

Many of the invited guests joined in and reconfirmed their commitment to Canada by retaking the Canadian oath of citizenship.

I swear (or affirm)
That I will be faithful
And bear true allegiance
To His Majesty
King Charles the Third
King of Canada
His Heirs and Successors
And that I will faithfully observe
The laws of Canada
Including the Constitution
Which recognizes and affirms
The Aboriginal and treaty rights of
First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples
And fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

The ceremony and procedure consumed most of the day. This included the time to travel to the ceremony, waiting for the ceremony to begin, watching the ceremony and a late congratulatory lunch. It gave me the opportunity to think about citizenship all day.

Some thoughts on citizenship

Continue reading

Restore U.S. Citizenship

Part 1 – Why have many U.S. citizens abroad relinquished their U.S. citizenship?

FATCA was passed into law as part of the HIRE Act on March 18, 2010. The implementation began in 2014 in the form of FATCA IGAs (“Inter-Governmental Agreements”). The implementation of FATCA and the IGAs was NOT free from controversy. I – John Richardson – was a witness at a Canadian House of Commons Hearing about FATCA in 2014. The complete text of my 2014 statement is here.

FATCA has caused enormous problems for U.S. citizens living outside the United States. These problems have led to an increasing number of U.S. citizens renouncing U.S. citizenship.

The problems caused by FATCA. leading to citizenship renunciation, fall into at least three distinct categories.

First, many U.S. citizens living outside the United States have difficulty maintaining access to regular bank and financial accounts. This has caused great disruption and inconvenience in their lives. Many people have renounced their U.S. citizenship in order to have the access to the bank and financial accounts needed to live their daily lives.

Second, along with FATCA came an awareness of U.S. citizenship taxation. Prior to FATCA citizenship taxation was neither well known nor enforced. By causing an awareness of citizenship taxation, more U.S. citizens abroad have entered the U.S. tax system. The consequence of entering the U.S. tax system has caused difficulties for many Americans abroad. These difficulties include double taxation, U.S. taxation of retirement planning accounts (example TFSA in Canada). Generally, this has disadvantaged U.S. citizens abroad in their country of residence. It caused many U.S. citizens abroad to relinquish/renounce their U.S. citizenship.

Third, as discussed in Helen Burggraf’s American Expat Finance News Journal, FATCA facilitated the expansion of the U.S. tax base into other countries.

The combination of these circumstances has incentivized (and in some cased forced) many U.S. citizens abroad to relinquish/renounce their U.S. citizenship.

Part 2 – The legal test for relinquishment/renunciation

Continue reading

“13 Reasons Why” I Committed Citizide By Renouncing US Citizenship By Jane Doe

13 Reasons Why I Committed Citizide

Note: The following brilliant essay was written by a former client of mine. I originally posted it in 2017 on Medium here. My introductory comments in 2017 are (I think) worth considering. If you want help with deciding whether to renounce U.S. citizenship feel free to reach out.

(Inspired by the television series, 13 Reasons Why)

Hey, it’s Jane. Jane Doe. Settle in because I’m about to tell you the story of my renunciation. More specifically, why I gave up my US citizenship. And if you’re reading this article, you’re probably thinking of doing it too. I can’t expect you to understand exactly how I feel; each person has a unique set of circumstances, a deeply personal mix of conflicting emotions, fears and problems that shape their response. But I can tell you why I did it. Let me start by saying, don’t believe everything you hear.

Continue reading

Sacred Trust: Counseling Americans Abroad Through The Trauma Of A FATCA World

Introduction:

Much of living as a U.S. citizen abroad is learning to cope with a life of trauma. Posts discussing the trauma are here here, here and here. For Americans abroad, preparing to file a U.S. tax return is a form of trauma.


The U.S. extra-territorial tax, form and penalty regime reminds Americans that they are:

“Subject to certain penalties, for uncertain conduct!

Those who do not file tax returns worry about the consequences of not filing.

Those who do file tax returns worry about the consequences of filing.

Thinking about the issue of trauma, I was reminded of a presentation that I did in 2015 in London, UK. It was titled:

Sacred Trust: Counselling Clients Through The Trauma Of “U.S. Citizenship Abroad” In A FATCAesque World”

(The audience was a group of U.S. tax professionals. I am not sure that they really understood the message. But, the presentation was a welcome diversion from the usual technical tax talk.)

I had forgotten about the presentation, but was reminded of it today. Looking at the slides, I think I agree with everything I said in 2015. If anything, it has gotten worse!

Here is the presentation:

A PDF version is here:

Sacred Trust – Counselling Clients Through the “Trauma of U.S. Citizenship Abroad” in a FATCAesque world – Toronto – February 2015 1

AI Generated Podcast generated from the 2015 presentation

John Richardson – Follow me on X.com @ExpatriationLaw

The Proposed S. 899 Penalty Tax On U.S. Source Income And The Decision To Renounce U.S. Citizenship

Update – June 27, 2025 – The 899 Penalty Tax has been removed from the “Big Beautiful Bill”:

Introduction – It’s The American (A)Way

The United States tax system is designed to impose punitive tax, reporting and penalties on the non-U.S. income and assets of Americans abroad. Nonresident aliens (those who are neither U.S. citizens nor residents) are taxable ONLY on their U.S. source income.

This reality has driven many U.S. citizens (living abroad) to renounce U.S. citizenship. It has also caused many Green Card holders to abandon their green cards. This is the consequence of U.S. citizenship-based taxation – a system that defines tax residency in terms of one’s citizenship (one may not reside in one’s country of citizenship) – regardless of one’s actual residence. (Green Card holders are deemed to be U.S. tax residents regardless of their residence.)

The United States taxes ALL U.S. source income regardless of the recipient of the income. Therefore, the practical impact of citizenship taxation is to impose U.S. taxation on the non-U.S. source income of individuals who do NOT reside in the United States. To put this in visual terms:

A person born in the United States, with no U.S. source income, is subject to U.S. tax, reporting and penalties on income received from the country where that individual lives.

A Summary Of How Different People Are Subject To U.S. Taxation

1. The United States taxes ALL individuals – regardless of citizenship or residence – on U.S. Source income.

2. The United States taxes its RESIDENTS – regardless of citizenship – on worldwide income.

3. The United States taxes U.S. citizens – regardless of residence – on worldwide income. The United States is the only major country that taxes its citizens on their worldwide income when they do not live in the country.

4. The United States taxes nonresident aliens (those who are neither citizens nor residents) on U.S. source income.

The 2025 “Big Beautiful Bill” proposes a new S. 899 of the Internal Revenue Code. This new section would impose a more punitive U.S. tax regime on the U.S. source income, received by some, but not all, nonresident aliens. The more punitive regime would be imposed on nonresident aliens who are tax residents of countries that are described as “offending foreign countries”. “Offending foreign countries” are countries that the U.S. deems to impose unfair taxes on U.S. corporations or persons. To be clear, the tax paid imposed on the individual, would be based on the tax policies of the country where the individual is resident for tax purposes!

Continue reading

The Constitutional Right To Retain U.S. Citizenship May NOT Include A Constitutional Right To Relinquish U.S. Citizenship

The Readers Digest Version

In his motion to dismiss the indictment against him, Roger Ver has argued that the U.S. 877A Expatriation Tax, is an unjustifiable burden on a constitutionally protected right to renounce his U.S. citizenship. (His motion for dismissal also includes a separate and distinct alternative argument that the 877A expatriation tax is unconstitutional because it creates taxation without a “realization event”. This is the issue that formed the basis of the appeal in the Moore case. I will NOT consider that issue in this post.)

The government in reply has argued that no such constitutional right to renounce U.S. citizenship exists. Additional commentary about the background to the Ver indictment is provided by U.S. lawyer Virginia La Torre Jeker here.

The U.S. Constitution, U.S. Citizenship And Constitutional Issues Surrounding U.S. Citizenship

The 14th Amendment is a constitutional provision that prohibits the U.S. government from stripping U.S. citizens of their citizenship (provided that their citizenship is the result of birth or naturalization in the USA.

The 5th Amendment has been used to argue that there is a constitutional right to relinquish U.S. citizenship. To date no court has expressly ruled that there is a constitutional right to relinquish.

Fortunately, INA 349(a) gives U.S. citizens a statutory right to relinquish their citizenship.

It is an open question whether the U.S. government could prohibit ALL relinquishments of U.S. citizenship.

Continue reading

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

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

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:

Instructions For Those Who Have A NEXUS Card And Are Renouncing U.S. Citizenship

Introduction and purpose

I continue to assist many people with the relinquishment and renunciation of their U.S. citizenship. Many of the people who I assist live in Canada and have NEXUS cards to facilitate their travel from Canada to the United States or from the United States to Canada. The NEXUS card, which is part of the U.S. “Global Entry” program, can be a real time saver. (Many Canadian credit cards actually offer as a benefit the reimbursement of NEXUS card fees.) That said, the NEXUS card will state your citizenship: whether Canadian, U.S. or both.

Here is a lengthy post that I wrote in 2018 about NEXUS and Global Entry.

Warning!! You are NOT permitted to attempt to enter the United States while falsely representing yourself to be a U.S. citizen. Therefore, I always warn people that the NEXUS card is NOT to be used after renunciation. (In some cases the NEXUS card is surrendered at the renunciation appointment.)

After renunciation it is important to get a new NEXUS card which reflects that you are ONLY a Canadian citizen. What follows is a description (written by somebody who recently renounced U.S. citizenship) of how she achieved this. Although procedures change, for the moment this is exactly how this individual obtained an new NEXUS card which reflects ONLY Canadian citizenship.

________________________________________________________________________________

Continue reading