Tag Archives: Virginia La Torre Jeker

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– is based on a newly designed Form DS-4079 (the old one is obsolete) which has different sections for different kinds of expatriating acts.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:

Podcast: In FBAR We “Trust” Part 4 – When ”Beneficial Ownership” Without Legal Title Constitutes A Financial Interest And Triggers An #FBAR Requirement

Leave a reply

Introduction

This is the fourth of a series of four posts exploring some of the more difficult and “interesting” areas of (possible) FBAR obligations.The first post explains the FBAR filing obligations of trusts. The second post explains when individuals may have to file an FBAR because of their relationship to a trust. The third post explains how/why one may be required to file an FBAR based on control of an account rather than ownership of the account. This fourth post continues the discussion of when beneficial ownership without legal ownership triggers an FBAR obligation. The four posts are based on Podcasts with US tax lawyer Virginia La Torre Jeker.

Podcast 1: February 23, 2002 – FBAR Obligations Attaching To A Trust

Podcast 2: March 4, 2022 – FBAR Obligations Attaching To People Because Of Their Relationship To A Trust

Podcast 3: May 25, 2022 – Looking For Mr. FBAR – A New Sighting – ”exercised control over and had access to the account”

Podcast 4: September 29, 2022 – When ”Beneficial Ownership” Constitutes A Financial Interest And Triggers An FBAR Requirement

Continue reading →

Podcast: In FBAR We “Trust” Part 1 – Obligations Attaching To A Trust Itself

Leave a reply

Introduction

This is the first of a series of four posts exploring some of the more difficult and “interesting” areas of (possible) FBAR obligations.This first post explains the FBAR filing obligations of trusts. The second post explains when individuals may have to file an FBAR because of their relationship to a trust. The third post explains how/why one may be required to file an FBAR based on control of an account rather than ownership of the account. The fourth post continues the discussion of when beneficial ownership without legal ownership triggers an FBAR obligation. The four posts are based on Podcasts with US tax lawyer Virginia La Torre Jeker.

Podcast 1: February 23, 2002 – FBAR Obligations Attaching To A Trust

Podcast 2: March 4, 2022 – FBAR Obligations Attaching To People Because Of Their Relationship To A Trust

Podcast 3: May 25, 2022 – Looking For Mr. FBAR – A New Sighting – ”exercised control over and had access to the account”

Podcast 4: September 29, 2022 – When ”Beneficial Ownership” Constitutes A Financial Interest And Triggers An FBAR Requirement

Podcast 3: May 22, 2022 – When FBAR Obligations May Attach Without Signing Authority Over An Account
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Podcast 1

February 23, 2022 – Participants Include:

Virginia La Torre Jeker – @VLJeker

John Richardson – @Expatriationlaw

Prologue – Report Early! Report Often! Report Everything! Keep A Record Of What You Report!

In October of 2018, Virginia and I went “Looking For Mr. FBAR.” During the last three years we have uncovered many clues, we have learned many things, but it’s clear that we have not yet located Mr. FBAR. Virginia has written about many of her “sightings” in a series of “FBAR posts“. I have also written a number of posts documenting the various adventures of Mr. FBAR.

Mr. FBAR is elusive. He is is simultaneously not anywhere, but everywhere. There is no weapon in the US arsenal of forms that has created such fear and uncertainty. He has even threatened certain visitors to the United States for the failure to file an FBAR.

Legal Authorization

The statutory authorization for Mr. FBAR is found in 5314 of the Bank Secrecy Act. Most of the substantive law is found in FBAR Treasury Regulations and the IRS FBAR instructions. It’s important to note that Mr. FBAR lives in Title 31 (Bank Secrecy Act) which is different from Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code).

Mr. FBAR And The Filing Obligations Of Trusts

This podcast is a discussion of how Mr. FBAR impacts “trusts”. When is a trust a United States person? When must a trust file an FBAR to report the “financial accounts” of a related purpose of entity?

Part II: Biden Proposal Changes the Taxation Game for Gifts and Inheritances – Americans Abroad Hit Hard

Leave a reply

Today’s post, Part II, was written by Virgina La Torre Jeker, J.D. and John Richardson, J.D.

Part I of this blog post discussed President Biden’s Green Book proposal that would change the tax rules for unrealized capital gains when assets are gifted or passed at death. To recap, the major thrust of the Green Book proposal (starting at page 30) is to treat gifts and bequests as “deemed sales at fair market value” triggering a capital gains tax which would be payable with respect to the year of the transfer. The net investment income tax / 3.8% surcharge looks as if it can certainly apply in addition to the capital gains tax (full detail on the 3.8% surcharge is here). The Green Book contains no proposals to eliminate or change the current Estate and Gift Tax rules and we believe that taxing gifts and bequests from an income tax perspective while keeping the Estate and Gift Tax regime in place is only a recipe for tax disaster.

Today’s post, Part II, looks at how the proposal will particularly impact the American abroad, its exemptions and carve-outs and how it complicates tax planning for individuals wishing to give up their US citizenship or green card.

Continue reading →

“With Liberty and Justice (and Death Taxes) for All” …. Biden Proposal Changes the Taxation Game for Gifts and Inheritances (Part I)

Leave a reply

Today’s post is in two parts and was written by Virginia La Torre Jeker, J.D. John Richardson, J.D.

On March 28, President Joe Biden released the FY2023 Budget, also known as the Green Book, available here. The Green Book is not proposed legislation, but it might be viewed as a kind of reading of the tea leaves showing what may lie ahead in the not-too-distant future. Today’s post will discuss a Green Book proposal that would change the tax rules for unrealized capital gains when assets are gifted or passed at death.

This is the second time this proposal has been put forth by the Biden Administration. It may be sitting on the shelf for now, but the proposal is an enticing revenue-raiser and helps meet what society has been viewing as a call for a “fairer” tax code, by targeting higher-income and asset wealthy taxpayers. We bet it goes through in one form or another.
Continue reading →

Understanding the 1996 Reed Amendment: A primer for those considering renouncing US citizenship AKA #citizide

Leave a reply

Updated January 28, 2026

When one renounces U.S. citizenship one becomes an “alien” under U.S. immmigration law. Aliens do NOT have a right to enter the United States. Rather they must be permitted to enter the United States in accordance with the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Those who renounce U.S. citizenship, will be treated as citizens of whatever country they are a citizen of. For example, if a Canada/U.S. dual citizen renounces U.S. citizenship, that person will (from the perspective of U.S. immigration law) be treated as a Canadian citizen. (At present Canadian citizens do NOT need any kind of visa and are permitted to enter the United States with a valid Canadian passport.) The rules that would apply to you depend on your citizenship.

There continue to be concerns about the relationship between renouncing U.S. citizenship and future admissibility to the United States. Much of this is the result from “fear mongering” from uninformed advisors and marketers.

The concern is based on a provision (referred to as the Reed Amendment) included in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. The history and context of the law is well documented in this article which includes:

The Reed Amendment, also known as the Expatriate Exclusion Clause, created a provision of United States federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10)(E)) attempting to impose an entry ban on certain former U.S. citizens based on their reasons for renouncing U.S. citizenship. Notably, entry can be denied to persons who renounced their U.S. citizenship to avoid paying income taxes. The United States is one of two countries in the world that taxes its citizens’ income earned abroad for citizens whose primary residence is abroad. The other country to do so is Eritrea.

The exact legislation deems certain former citizens to be inadmissible to the United States in the following circumstance:

(E) Former citizens who renounced citizenship to avoid taxation

Any alien who is a former citizen of the United States who officially renounces United States citizenship and who is determined by the Attorney General to have renounced United States citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation by the United States is inadmissible.

What does it mean to “have renounced United States citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation by the United States?

Interestingly the U.S. Mexico tax treaty has some provisions that shed light on what it means to renounce U.S. citizenship to avoid United States taxation. Although beyond the scope of this post, dual citizenship from birth can rebut a presumption of a tax avoidance motive in renunciation.

The 1996 legislative context of the Reed Amendment

The Reed Amendment was part of Public Law 104-208 which was enacted on September 30, 1996. Notably this is during the same Congress (and one month after) the amendments to the Internal Revenue Code that created a rebuttable presumption of the intent to avoid taxation for certain individuals renouncing U.S. citizenship. From 2004 “intent” ceased to be relevant (under the Internal Revenue Code) in determining the tax consequences (if any) of renouncing U.S. citizenship.

On the one hand the renunciation of United States citizenship means a loss of the right to enter the United States. On the other hand there have been very few renunciants barred from the United States under U.S. immigration laws because of the Reed amendment (or because of renunciation of citizenship generally). The purpose of this post is to provide some additional commentary and (hopefully) allay your concerns.

What follows is a podcast that I did in 2020 with U.S. tax lawyer Virginia La Torre Jeker where we discuss the Reed Amendment.

The podcast refers to a November 30, 20215 document from the Department of Homeland Security titled:

Inadmissibility Of Tax-Based Citizenship Renunciants

Departmental Management and Operations (DMO) – Policy – Inadmissibility of Tax-Based Citizenship Renunciants_0

Concluding message:

The Reed Amendment has rarely been enforced. That said, in a renunciation interview one should NEVER suggest that avoiding U.S. taxation is a reason for renunciation. In reality, most Americans abroad who are renouncing don’t actually pay U.S. taxes. It’s the compliance burden that is the problem along with the inability to engage in financial planning in your country of residence.

Those interested in a “deeper dive” into this issue are invited to read the resources in the Appendixes below.

John Richardson – Follow me on X.com/expatriationlaw

Continue reading →

Part 7 of series: Tax Law to American Abroad – “How Do I Hate Thee, Let Me Count the Ways

Leave a reply

Before moving to the post, if you believe that Americans abroad are being treated unjustly by the United States Government: Join me on May 17, 2019 for a discussion of U.S. “citizenship-based taxation” as follows:

You are invited to submit your questions in advance. In fact, PLEASE submit questions. This is an opportunity to engage with Homelanders in general and the U.S. tax compliance community in particular.

Thanks to Professor Zelinsky for his willingness to engage in this discussion. Thanks to Kat Jennings of Tax Connections for hosting this discussion. Thanks to Professor William Byrnes for his willingness to moderate this discussion.

Tax Connections has published a large number of posts that I have written over the years (yes, hard to believe it has been years). As you may know I oppose FATCA, U.S. citizenship-based taxation and the use of FATCA to impose U.S. taxation on tax residents of other countries.
Tax Connections has also published a number of posts written by Professor Zelinsky (who apparently takes a contrary view).

This is post 7 in my series leading up to the May 17 Tax Connections discussion. The first six posts have been for the purpose of demonstrating:

– in posts 1 to 4, Laura Snyder did a wonderful job in explaining how the U.S. tax system impacts the lives of Americans abroad. Her specific focus was on those individuals who identify as being U.S. citizens

– in post 5, I extended the discussion to reinforce that what the U.S. calls “citizenship-based taxation” is actually a system that impacts far more than those who identify as being U.S. citizens. In fact it burdens every individual on the planet who can’t demonstrate that he is a “nonresident” alien (people are renouncing U.S. citizenship because they can save themselves ONLY if they become a “nonresident alien”).

– in Post 6, I added the thoughts of Toronto Tax Professional Peter Megoudis who explained how those who are connected to “U.S. persons” (through family or business arrangements) can be impacted by the U.S. tax system

In this, Post 7, I am extending the discussion to explain that:

1. Not only does the United States impose worldwide taxation on individuals who don’t live in the United States; but

2. The system of worldwide taxation imposed is in reality and separate and far more punitive collection of taxes than is imposed on Homeland Americans.

I have previously written on this topic at Tax Connections:

Think of it! With the exception of the United States, when a person moves away from the country and establishes tax residency in another country, they will no longer be taxed as a resident of the first country.

But in the case of the United States: If a U.S. citizen moves from the United States and establishes tax residency in a new country, (1) he will STILL be taxable as a tax resident of the United States and (2) will be subjected to a separate and more punitive system of taxation! #YouCantMakeThisUp!

Although this truth is rarely understood and is rarely stated (it’s one of America’s “dirty little secrets”) here is an excerpt from a discussion I had with three international tax experts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13fhPJGtlXs

In this series of posts I am incorporating the thinking and writing of guest bloggers. In order to guide us in this discussion I welcome Virginia La Torre Jeker, a U.S. tax lawyer based in Dubai. I have previously featured Virginia in my “Unsung Heroes Of Life” Series.

Now on to Virginia La Torre Jeker …

Continue reading →

U.S. tax professionals discuss the principle that: The United States imposes a separate and more punitive taxation on #Americansabroad and @USAccidental

Leave a reply

Here are some links to some of my videos discussion various of aspects of FATCA and U.S. “citizenship-based taxation”. In general there are three sources:

1. My personal YouTube channel.

2. Videos made at ThatChannel.com (a small Toronto internet based television station).

3. Podcasts at “PREP Podcaster” – featuring many interesting discussions with interesting people.

In March of 2019 I began a discussion at Tax Connections exploring the principle that:

“The United States is imposing a separate and more punitive tax system on people who are tax residents of other countries and do not live in the United States.”

As part of this discussion I had some discussion with Virginia La Torre Jeker, Peter Megoudis and Elena Hanson. Each of them is highly experienced and knowledgeable about how the U.S. tax system applies to Americans abroad and accidental Americans. The discussion took place in March of 2019. It turned out to be a very long discussion. Rather than include a video of the complete discussion, I have broken this into smaller videos that are based on themes.

This post is to separate and highlight the videos that resulted from this discussion.
Continue reading →

#YouCantMakeThisUp! Married Americans abroad are more likely to meet requirements to file US tax returns than are singles – But, then again marriage to a nonresident alien is considered to be a form of tax evasion

Leave a reply

Before moving to the post, if you believe that Americans abroad are being treated unjustly by the United States Government: Join me on May 17, 2019 for a discussion of U.S. “citizenship-based taxation” as follows:


You are invited to submit your questions in advance.
And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
_____________________________________________________________________________
I begin with the conclusion …


The Every Day facts:


1. A U.S. citizen living in Canada Is married to an alien (the nonresident type)
2. Had $500 of part time employment income
3. Because she is married (in accordance with the definition of “married” in Internal Revenue Code 7703) she is of course required to absorb all the punitive consequences of the “married filing separately” filing category. The “married filing separately category” is a punitive filing category which is a “hidden tax on Americans abroad“.
In the 2017 tax (and previous) year she had NOT met the filing threshold required to file a U.S. tax return. Using the IRS Interactive “Do I Have To File A Tax Return” tool, we find that:

(Note that this refers to a threshold of $4050 which is the amount of the personal exemption for 2017. The significance of this will be further explained below.)
She did however have financial assets which exceeded the $200,000 threshold required to file Form 8938. Most of these assets were owned jointly with her nonresident alien husband. Because she had not met the filing threshold for “married filing separately” in 2017 and previous years she had not been required to file Form 8938. Notice that Form 8938 does require her to report to the IRS assets that are jointly owned with her “nonresident alien” husband. (By the way he would not be happy about this. I some cases this forces Americans abroad to choose between their U.S. citizenship and their marriage.)
April 2019 – An SOS …
I received a frantic message. She was/is trying to to determine whether she is required to file a U.S. tax return for the 2018 year (based on her $500 of income and her status as “married filing separately”).
On the one hand she is directed by IRS publication 54 (the Bible For Americans Abroad) that her filing threshold is $12,000.


On the other hand, she is being told on the IRS page describing filing thresholds that she is required to file a U.S. tax return.


Continue reading →