# Question about renunciation



## celticweb

Hi everyone
i said i would be back with more questions and here I am. After giving this some thought, I think renouncing US citizenship will be the right choice for me. The only real advantage I can see is being able to work there and I'm not interested in that.

I just don't want to live my life around the US tax system and filing requirements. I can see it might become difficult to plan any form of retirement here in the UK. I will be very sad, I remember very happy times from my years before 13 in the USA but I just can't see the advantage. plus the intrusive reporting of financial information.

My question is if i file 2012. 2013, 2014 now and then do 2015. Can I renounce now and then file 2016 next year or do I have to wait until next year 2017 after I have done 2016?

I have read about the exit tax, would need to confirm but can't see that affecting me.

thank you in advance.
If this question has been answered before, I apologise.


----------



## Bevdeforges

Probably best to start with the London website of the US Embassy/Consulate. They have quite a bit of information about renunciation, starting here: https://uk.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/citizenship/loss-of-u-s-citizenship/

Procedures can vary a bit from one consulate to the next, and some folks have reported that they don't always get too picky about back tax filings. But you can only tell by consulting the consulate you plan to go through.
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## BBCWatcher

celticweb said:


> My question is if i file 2012. 2013, 2014 now and then do 2015. Can I renounce now and then file 2016 next year or do I have to wait until next year 2017 after I have done 2016?


You can renounce any time you wish, and that renunciation is effective on the date of your last appearance at the U.S. embassy or consulate when you actually, officially renounce. However, to "close out" your tax and financial affairs you are required to file IRS Form 8854. Part IV Question 6 of Form 8854 requires you to certify that you have complied with all your tax obligations for the 5 preceding tax years. If you cannot truthfully certify as such, then the tax consequences are not great -- let's just put it that way. You're subject to U.S. tax and financial reporting requirements until Form 8854 is filed, so it's not good if you have to file 8854 and tick "No" to Question 6. To net it out, it's best to wait until you have those 5 years "in the bank" so you can close things out neatly, with a single, quickly filed 8854.

Given that fact, you have plenty of time to make what is an irrevocable decision. So take your time.


----------



## celticweb

Thanks Bev
very useful information and it says nothing about the filing requirement in terms of years, just if i settled what i owe with the IRS so best to wait until i have filed so i will be in a better position to see exactly what i might owe if anything. if it's nil every year, i can be certain it will be nil going forward because nothing much has changed and I can answer yes to that question knowing i don't owe.

and also gives me a few weeks to really decide.


----------



## celticweb

Thanks BBCWatcher and so true. i shouldn't jump into this. 

I can see my whole financial life being revolved around US tax and filling obligations now and that's not what I want. It's hard enough having to plan around the UK regime. even a simple decisions will become complicated. Even opening a bank account I am told will be complicated in some instances. Every American who lives in London, Zurich, Singapore or Hong Kong or wherever, for example, needs to have a bank account simply because they need to be able to receive wages, write cheques and pay utility bills just like anywhere else. Why should we be refused?

It's just too much. It has been such a shock. But at the same time I do remember so many happy times in America from my early years and I feel very sad. The only other thing to do is register to vote (so at least I feel somewhat American) and maybe building some ties in the USA to justify keeping the citizenship, perhaps a nice holiday home somewhere nice in the USA.


----------



## BBCWatcher

Um, I live in Singapore, and I have (or have had) bank accounts with several banks here. None of them have any problems with U.S. citizens. I can't even find anybody I know who's had a problem, and I know a lot of people.

Note: You (not the bank, and not the bank with you) would have a problem if you're a relatively well-to-do (or better) U.S. person living in a comparatively low tax jurisdiction who doesn't want to be asked if he/she is a U.S. person under penalty of local government perjury. Dig into these few reports even a bit and _that_ seems to be what the "problem" is.

You'll need time to get "8854 ready," so take your time. In the meantime, you've been a U.S. citizen since birth, with a U.S. birthplace. Has any bank refused your business yet?


----------



## maz57

Bevdeforges said:


> Procedures can vary a bit from one consulate to the next, and some folks have reported that they don't always get too picky about back tax filings. But you can only tell by consulting the consulate you plan to go through.


Consulate personnel are not supposed to discuss a person's tax situation at all except for advising that person that they should check with the IRS re: correctly exiting the tax system. The consulates are run by the US State Department and have nothing to do with taxes. It is the exit tax Form 8854 filed later with the IRS which asks the person to certify they have 5 years of tax compliance, i.e., it is not part of the renunciation process at the consulate. Upon finally issuing a CLN State Dept. will notify the IRS that the person has terminated their US citizenship.

This doesn't mean, however, that some overly-diligent official won't take it upon themselves to ask questions they shouldn't be asking. Some of the forms they may use ask if the person files US tax returns, but that is more related to establishing whether and to what degree the person has ties to the US.

One can renounce their US citizenship whether they have never filed anything, are partially up to date, or are completely up to date. For those intending to renounce, it is best to book an appointment at the earliest possible date because the wait times at many consulates are now as long as a year. There is plenty of time to work on the tax angle while waiting.

Many renounce and never file anything and while not recommended, there are no reports of the IRS going after people who skip the whole 5 years-Form 8854-certification rigamarole. Others make a half-hearted attempt to fill out the forms (they're complicated and confusing), dust their hands, and call it good. The reach of the IRS outside of the US is greatly exaggerated.


----------



## celticweb

No, i haven't had a bank refuse me but my bank accounts were opened in the late 1980s in the UK before the strict banking laws started (it's called Fatca right?). In the late 1980s it was a different world. My first job was near the American embassy in London and there were no barricades or police with guns outside. You could walk around the area with ease. No one took any notice that I was born in the USA. 

The fact that the reason I found out about Citizen Tax is because of a letter from my bank requesting information on my tax residency most likely based on the fact that they have in their records that I was born in the USA shows it must be a real threat to the future. I nearly ignored the letter but decided to call and find out why I received it being a UK citizen. The bank explained that because I was born in the USA, i might be subject to citizen tax and that I should try to find out. I was completely shocked. That is the last I have heard from them but will happen if they choose to follow up on this initial enquiry, are they going to kick me out regardless of whether I have filed or not?

So I have no idea what would happen now if I tried to open a new account anywhere, or decided to move to Europe in retirement and take my business there. It's been reported that this is now happening everywhere.


----------



## iota2014

celticweb said:


> Thanks Bev
> very useful information and it says nothing about the filing requirement in terms of years, just if i settled what i owe with the IRS so best to wait until i have filed so i will be in a better position to see exactly what i might owe if anything. if it's nil every year, i can be certain it will be nil going forward because nothing much has changed and I can answer yes to that question knowing i don't owe.
> 
> and also gives me a few weeks to really decide.


Hi celticweb - Sounds like a good plan, to take some time to think it over and be sure of what you want to do. Once you've renounced, that's final, so don't do it until/unless you're sure that's what you want. There's no hurry. 

If you eventually decide to go ahead with renouncing, bear in mind you don't have to go to Grimsnor Square with all the jumpy-looking armed teenagers in the lobby. I treated myself to a City Break in Amsterdam, and it worked very well. The Consulate was just a normal building - no guns in sight and they were as nice as pie. And plenty of Amsterdam sightseeing five minutes walk away.


----------



## maz57

celticweb said:


> The fact that the reason I found out about Citizen Tax is because of a letter from my bank requesting information on my tax residency most likely based on the fact that they have in their records that I was born in the USA shows it must be a real threat to the future. I nearly ignored the letter but decided to call and find out why I received it being a UK citizen. The bank explained that because I was born in the USA, i might be subject to citizen tax and that I should try to find out. I was completely shocked. That is the last I have heard from them but will happen if they choose to follow up on this initial enquiry, are they going to kick me out regardless of whether I have filed or not?
> 
> So I have no idea what would happen now if I tried to open a new account anywhere, or decided to move to Europe in retirement and take my business there. It's been reported that this is now happening everywhere.


You are right; as far as your bank is concerned they have noticed what is known as "US indicia" attached to your account profile. Once the bank knows you have a US birthplace there is no way to erase that fact. What that means presently at your particular bank in practical terms is difficult to know and will probably change for the worse over time. 

I recently noticed that one of my own Canadian banks now refuses to accept any customer who admits to being a US citizen. Even though I got rid of US citizenship several years ago, I have no idea what they would do in my case and I am not about to raise the issue with them to find out.

All of this bank paranoia about US customers seems to be totally random ranging from "we don't accept any US customers" to "we will take you if you fill out a bunch of paperwork waiving your right to normal privacy rules so we can report you to the IRS". The banks are scared to death of running afoul of US laws and will happily sacrifice their US-tainted customers to avoid any risk of that. None of the financial institutions have the expertise to determine if a customer is a "US taxable person" and if so, whether or not that customer is "US tax compliant". It is far easier and safer for them to simply eliminate any person with the faintest whiff of "US-ness" altogether. The trend is definitely not in our favor.


----------



## iota2014

celticweb said:


> No, i haven't had a bank refuse me but my bank accounts were opened in the late 1980s in the UK before the strict banking laws started (it's called Fatca right?). In the late 1980s it was a different world. My first job was near the American embassy in London and there were no barricades or police with guns outside. You could walk around the area with ease. No one took any notice that I was born in the USA.
> 
> The fact that the reason I found out about Citizen Tax is because of a letter from my bank requesting information on my tax residency most likely based on the fact that they have in their records that I was born in the USA shows it must be a real threat to the future. I nearly ignored the letter but decided to call and find out why I received it being a UK citizen. The bank explained that because I was born in the USA, i might be subject to citizen tax and that I should try to find out. I was completely shocked. That is the last I have heard from them but will happen if they choose to follow up on this initial enquiry, are they going to kick me out regardless of whether I have filed or not?
> 
> So I have no idea what would happen now if I tried to open a new account anywhere, or decided to move to Europe in retirement and take my business there. It's been reported that this is now happening everywhere.


NS&I closed quite a few Direct Saver accounts shortly after FATCA went into effect. They didn't close mine (probably because my place of birth wasn't in their records), but since the t&c had been changed to say "no US citizens", I closed the DS account myself. After renouncing, I reopened it.

Tax-free NS&I accounts aren't FATCA-reportable, so no problem.

I do think most UK banks will now be asking for place of birth for new accounts. That's actually how I first heard about Taxation-Based Citizenship and FATCA - I went into Yorkshire Building Society to open a savings account and was astonished to be told they would need my US Social Security number - first time I've ever been asked for it in fifty years of living here.


----------



## celticweb

That's my main reason for renouncing, before it gets very complicated with my bank and elsewhere.

Tax and filing tax returns are a part of life. I have no problem filing a few US forms to be told I am owed little to nil tax. What I don't want is to be kicked out of my bank, refused business elsewhere, refused investment opportunities all on the basis of being a US citizen. It seems crazy even writing this. Plus the invasion of privacy which I am certain in normal situations would only be available with a search warrant with evidence of wrong doing and most likely must be against the constitution.

I have been a customer for many years at my bank so not sure if they will be taking action and following up. They didn't seem that bothered on the phone with me replying quickly. But who is to know if another letter is on its way as I type this. In one sense it is good I found out from them and not from a letter from the IRS.

I will try to find out the appointment waiting times and book if it's a year ahead because that gives me plenty of time. and always an option to go to Amsterdam.

thank you again for your comments and advise.


----------



## BBCWatcher

Um, you can't erase a U.S. birthplace. You're still going to get _questions_, for life. Unless you're friends with Doctor Who. 

Banks ask questions. (So do in-laws.) Does this bother you? Why?


----------



## celticweb

Who cares if anyone asks questions, as long as they take your business, why should the fact that you are a US citizen create difficulties in retaining or opening a bank account? It used to be that holding a US passport was a ticket to opportunity and today it is nearly the opposite.

I am sure it is the same for others but all my life i have been asked questions, date of birth, address, place of birth, any allergies, or you or any medication, employed depending on who is asking, it could be a number of things asked.
but when the asking is causing someone to say, no thanks we don't want you solely based on a nationality, then it's an issue. 

I have to have a bank, so what am I to do if my bank closes my account? Renounce would be the only option.


----------



## maz57

An insurance company accidentally changed my name once upon a time, so a change of birthplace is theoretically possible. If having a US birthplace becomes enough of a problem, someone will figure out a way to make money solving that problem. Besides, isn't Usa a city in Japan?

In-law questions don't bother me; some bank questions do. Both need to be told to f-off once in a while.


----------



## BBCWatcher

To recap, you're going to get asked questions about your birthplace. There's nothing (legal) you can do about that. Renunciation won't change that.

Thanks to the OECD, banks (particularly outside the U.K.) will also start asking questions about your U.K. personhood. (Or Italian, Australian, French.... The U.S. was only slightly ahead of the OECD, that's all.) Those questions you _can_ actually forestall by renouncing your U.K. citizenship since you don't have a U.K. birthplace. Would you like to do that? 

Calm the (bleep) down, basically. Set this aside, and stop believing Internet rumors (or old hiccups). We Americans are doing fine opening and maintaining bank accounts practically everywhere, truly. Soon even in Havana, although maybe not in Pyongyang anytime soon.


----------



## JustLurking

BBCWatcher said:


> We Americans are doing fine opening and maintaining bank accounts practically everywhere, truly.


Very recent counter-example here. Dual US/UK citizen and UK resident refused an account by a UK bank, based on US citizenship.

Now, you can argue this is anecdotal if you wish. But it is hard to refute entirely that this is happening.


----------



## iota2014

BBCWatcher said:


> To recap, you're going to get asked questions about your birthplace. There's nothing (legal) you can do about that. Renunciation won't change that.



It's not the US birthplace that's the problem. It's the fact that a US birthplace is regarded by the US as evidence of US citizenship, unless proved otherwise; coupled with the fact that the US regards local accounts held by a US citizen as grounds for suspicion of tax evasion.



> Thanks to the OECD, banks (particularly outside the U.K.) will also start asking questions about your U.K. personhood.


The OECD Common Reporting Standards are already in force in the UK. They have no effect at all, for UK residents holding UK bank accounts. 

It's only the people with US birthplaces who get POB-witch-hunted, and that's due to FATCA, not CRS.


----------



## celticweb

Exactly and the worst part is who is representing us abroad, no one, isn't that taxation without representation. My tax adviser said if i renounce and prove i renounced i won't have any more problems with my birth place. it's not the birth place, its the US citizenship part causing this headache.

My tax advisor also said they tried to make amendments to the Fatca law last year because American citizens abroad were having such adverse affects from Fatca, 

I don't know if I can post links here but Google "Fatca Relief Coming for U.S. Expats Via ‘Same Country Exception", 

My tax advisor said they started looking into things like this last year.


----------



## Bevdeforges

Place of birth is part of the normal identifying information in many countries (especially those that don't have a national "identity number" like the US social security number). 

However, due to the US policy of granting US citizenship to anyone born in the country, it will probably always be a matter of "proving a negative" (i.e. you have to have a CLN if you renounced) under the FATCA regs, even if they manage to get the "country of residence" exception through Congress - not that it has even been proposed yet. (Frankly, at the moment, I don't think Congress is capable of passing much of anything even a resolution in support of "Mother's Day", so I'm not holding my breath.) I just wonder what children of diplomats do - kids born in the US while Mummy and Dad were there on a diplomatic passport, which means they are the big exception to the droit de sol provision in the US. They can't renounce what they never had. (Maybe they have to keep a copy of Dad's diplomatic passport from the period?)

Thanks to the OECD, banks will probably make a bigger deal about new customers "proving" their tax residence, though many of us are used to this, so it won't make a big difference. And some banks are being more particular about routing out customers with US birthplaces than others. (Usually a function of how much in fines they have already paid to the US for other questionable practices.) The bilateral agreements actually exclude certain banks that don't market to an international audience - and often exclude reporting of certain common sorts of local tax-free savings accounts.
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## iota2014

Bevdeforges said:


> Thanks to the OECD, banks will probably make a bigger deal about new customers "proving" their tax residence, though many of us are used to this, so it won't make a big difference.


Four big differences with the CRS: 

a) accounts are only reportable if held by a person who's tax-resident in a different, CRS-participating, jurisdiction;

b) place of birth is used for identification purposes, not as a clue to be pursued in the hope of proving tax liability/criminality; 

c) the banks aren't threatened with massive US withholding penalties;

d) data protection/privacy laws are respected.



> And some banks are being more particular about routing out customers with US birthplaces than others. (Usually a function of how much in fines they have already paid to the US for other questionable practices.) The bilateral agreements actually exclude certain banks that don't market to an international audience - and often exclude reporting of certain common sorts of local tax-free savings accounts.


Ironically, it's the "deemed-compliant" banks who have a particularly nice incentice to refuse US citizens. One of the conditions for retaining the exempt status is to be able to show their customer base is local. This is presumably why the UK Treasury-owned NS&I bank turns away US citizens who apply for certain accounts - not because they're in danger of being fined by the IRS, but because it saves them the cost of implementing the FATCA due-diligence sweeps.


----------



## BBCWatcher

JustLurking said:


> Very recent counter-example here. Dual US/UK citizen and UK resident refused an account by a UK bank, based on US citizenship.


Maybe, but I'm not sure why the "savings bank" remained unnamed or even unplaced. (U.K. is an assumption but only that.) It could be a "rogue" employee, in which case the problem will never get resolved if nobody knows at least which bank was involved.

And all that's assuming the poster answered the bank's questions straightforwardly, had adequate evidence, and wasn't (shall we say) otherwise encumbered. There are a occasional cases when a bank doesn't want business for particular reasons, and a "convenient excuse" for denying service is only that.

In any case, the OECD will make sure that several other citizenships enjoy the same level of fun soon enough.


----------



## celticweb

And speaking of children, what about the young US children of today, what does this mean for them? Does this mean they won't be able to experience working abroad because they won't be able to open bank accounts in future.

At least I spent my whole adult life so far living free. When i called my bank after the fatca letter, I was able to provide a national insurance number and this eased the inquisition for now and proof of British citizenship. I have to track my social security number down because having not been in the USA since age 13, never worked, i don't even know what it is. 

But I really fear this is only the beginning. They are going to have to do something if it gets worst. Otherwise they will be flooded with people renouncing.


----------



## iota2014

BBCWatcher said:


> Maybe, but I'm not sure why the "savings bank" remained unnamed or even unplaced. (U.K. is an assumption but only that.) It could be a "rogue" employee, in which case the problem will never get resolved if nobody knows at least which bank was involved.
> 
> And all that's assuming the poster answered the bank's questions straightforwardly, had adequate evidence, and wasn't (shall we say) otherwise encumbered. There are a occasional cases when a bank doesn't want business for particular reasons, and a "convenient excuse" for denying service is only that.
> 
> In any case, the OECD will make sure that several other citizenships enjoy the same level of fun soon enough.


Not correct. The OECD Common Reporting Standards don't require bank account information to be reported to a person's country of birth, or countr(ies) of citizenship. Only to jurisdictions where the person is tax-resident, and only if those jurisdictions are CRS participants.


----------



## BBCWatcher

celticweb said:


> And speaking of children, what about the young US children of today, what does this mean for them? Does this mean they won't be able to experience working abroad because they won't be able to open bank accounts in future.


Celtic, please. You're panicking for no good reason. I'm a U.S. citizen who has opened bank accounts outside the United States in more than one country, openly and forthrightly. I've never had a problem, even at the peak of banks' confusion over the FATCA legislation, now several years ago.

You have a U.S. birthplace. Have you had a problem, _ever_, based on that fact? You can test your paranoia easily. Go visit a U.K. high street bank and open a new account -- or three. Let us know how it goes.

By the way, here in Singapore banks ask "Are you Australian?" too. No, I don't know why. No, it's not a problem. Australians have lots of bank accounts in Singapore.

Good grief.


----------



## iota2014

celticweb said:


> And speaking of children, what about the young US children of today, what does this mean for them? Does this mean they won't be able to experience working abroad because they won't be able to open bank accounts in future.


Better in one way though, because nowadays there is information available via the internet. They can find out about FATCA and CBT, and make informed decisions about whether to remain US citizens or renounce. 



> But I really fear this is only the beginning. They are going to have to do something if it gets worst. Otherwise they will be flooded with people renouncing.


They're doing their best to stem the flow by creating unnecessary obstacles. There's a long wait for a renunciation appointment at some Embassies/Consulates, the cost of renouncing has shot up to US$2350, and it takes many months to get the document you've paid so much money for. 

Still good value though.


----------



## celticweb

i might try opening a new account just to see. My partner is with Halifax. maybe i try to open an account there and see if they let me.

I guess you could say that I am panicking but this is more to do with the shock of finding out that I am subject to citizenship tax. and the aftermath of what it means. and having to adjust my financial affairs around it.


----------



## BBCWatcher

Suffice it to say you're still in shock.


----------



## byline

celticweb said:


> Exactly and the worst part is who is representing us abroad, no one, isn't that taxation without representation.


Exactly. I and others have raised this point before, and I know the rebuttal that will be coming. Technically, yes, some of us can vote absentee, via one's last place of residence in the United States (and assuming one did not leave the U.S. prior to reaching voting age). But no one truly represents U.S. citizens living abroad because there is no practical reason for them to do so. Politicians represent their constituencies. U.S. citizens living abroad are neither a large enough number, nor reside in a geographical location common to any U.S. political representatives, to make it worth their while to take seriously. One has a far greater chance of true representation if one lives in the actual geographical area of one's representative. That's not the case for U.S. citizens living abroad ... especially those of us with no plans to move back.


----------



## JustLurking

BBCWatcher said:


> Maybe, but I'm not sure why the "savings bank" remained unnamed or even unplaced. (U.K. is an assumption but only that.)


How is UK an "assumption"? The OP in the posting cited clearly and unambiguously stated in their very first post that they were permanently resident in the UK, and a US/UK dual citizen, and in later follow-up that this was a UK bank.

BBCWatcher, you have begun to remind me of a holocaust denier. Just because something hasn't happened to you personally, doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all. There are now many well documented cases in the UK of financial institutions systematically excluding US citizens from services, with several stating this upfront in their T&Cs. Perhaps this doesn't fall within the term 'practically everywhere' that you used upthread. But if 'practically everywhere' excludes ones own country of residence then the fact that it includes any other countries is completely irrelevant.

Take it from me, UK banks and other UK financial institutions are starting to rid themselves of 'US person' accounts. You can choose to believe it or you may not, but your belief or disbelief does not alter the truth. Whether their actions are the start of a flood or a flash in the pan remains to be seen.


----------



## Bevdeforges

celticweb said:


> i might try opening a new account just to see. My partner is with Halifax. maybe i try to open an account there and see if they let me.
> 
> I guess you could say that I am panicking but this is more to do with the shock of finding out that I am subject to citizenship tax. and the aftermath of what it means. and having to adjust my financial affairs around it.


Don't panic - at least not yet. The banks are still kind of thrashing out for themselves exactly what they need to do to comply with the FATCA requirements while covering their own butts. And, there are sometimes national laws regarding banking that ultimately will bail you out if you're looking to open a new account somewhere and initially get turned down by one or more banks.

There is also the issue of exactly what the local banks and/or national bank authority winds up reporting to the IRS (or not). They may simply do a "data dump" or they may report only selected data, according to the relevant bilateral agreement. In any event, there is also the question of what the IRS plans on doing with all this spiffy data they will be receiving (or getting dumped on with). There is only so much they can do with the time and resources they have.

Sometimes you just have to wait and see how these sorts of things roll out. But so far there appears to be no great effort to "nail" anyone who clearly has no particular ties to the US other than perhaps a birthplace.
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## celticweb

yes, UK resident since age 13, dual citizen but unaware of filing obligations until the Fatca letter. My education was art college, didn't learn international tax at university, i work in the arts, don't associate with other US citizens here who might have alerted me to the fact that I have filing obligations. 

I haven't opened any accounts since the 1980s, 1990s and all UK banks. Don't know what would happen if I try now. Getting the Fatca letter was scary to say the least. i thought it was HMRC investigating me, the words tax resident and compliant just stood out.

I was told they mailed that letter to all account holders that were over a certain threshold in their accounts (maybe the $10,000?). They have been working their way through the list since 2015. Not even sure they know my birthplace but I am certainly not lying if asked. 

So not good news for a number of reasons, privacy invasion being one.


----------



## exp1010

celticweb,

I'm in a very similar situation, got a fatca letter as I was switching current accounts. It all sounds scarier than it is. There will always be a solution if you get turned down by your bank. I have managed to open other UK accounts that don't ask for your place of birth or dual citizenship with no problem.

Best thing to do is to do your research and understand what the best way forward is given your own current and future expected circumstances. From what I have seen so far, if you have not been intentionally hiding things and would not have owed any tax anyways, you are unlikely to face any penalties.


----------



## BBCWatcher

byline said:


> I and others have raised this point before, and I know the rebuttal that will be coming.


Well yeah, because it's deserved if you're going to misrepresent facts.



> Technically, yes, some of us can vote absentee, via one's last place of residence in the United States (and assuming one did not leave the U.S. prior to reaching voting age).


No, all adult U.S. citizens who previously resided in a U.S. state, at any age (even if it was as an infant), are eligible to vote in their state and district of previous residence. Most U.S. citizens born overseas who have never stepped foot in the United States can vote in their U.S. citizen-parent's state and district of previous residence. All U.S. citizens living overseas have the option to declare residence in South Dakota (and vote there) with as little as one day of physical presence in South Dakota.

That's far more voting power and rights than actual residents of the District of Columbia have.

There is no serious, logical, rational argument here.



> But no one truly represents U.S. citizens living abroad because there is no practical reason for them to do so.


Wrong. So many cohorts don't have a caucus in Congress, but overseas Americans do. One of the two major political parties even allocates convention delegates exclusively to its members living overseas.


----------



## iota2014

exp1010 said:


> I have managed to open other UK accounts that don't ask for your place of birth or dual citizenship with no problem.


Nowadays they're all supposed to ask for place of birth and the jurisdictions in which the applicant is tax-resident. (And US citizens are always US-tax-resident.)

But supplying this information won't necessarily cause any problems. Accounts which aren't available for US citizens should have that stated in the t&c, which can be examined before applying for an account.


----------



## iota2014

UK residents trying to understand how they're affected by the various reporting requirements may find it useful to read through https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...Exchange_of_Financial_Account_Information.pdf

This covers FATCA and DAC/CRS.


----------



## maz57

BBCWatcher said:


> No, all adult U.S. citizens who previously resided in a U.S. state, at any age (even if it was as an infant), are eligible to vote in their state and district of previous residence. Most U.S. citizens born overseas who have never stepped foot in the United States can vote in their U.S. citizen-parent's state and district of previous residence. All U.S. citizens living overseas have the option to declare residence in South Dakota (and vote there) with as little as one day of physical presence in South Dakota.
> 
> That's far more voting power and rights than actual residents of the District of Columbia have.
> 
> There is no serious, logical, rational argument here.


Just because it is technically possible for an expat to vote doesn't mean there is any effective representation. Even if every expat exercised that right, all those expat votes would be so scattered across all the Congressional districts that anyone running for office can safely ignore them with impunity. A handful of votes in each district is insignificant; they have absolutely no bearing on the outcome of an election. 

Its questionable whether voters who live inside the US even have any "real" representation anymore. The voters themselves don't seem to think so, but rather that the game is now "rigged" and has been for some time. Its apparent that many now believe that Congress is filled with members who represent wealthy corporate donors and lobbyists for special interest groups rather than the "little guy". The surprising success of anti-establishment types like Trump and Sanders is evidence of that.


Somebody recently said that if you really want to be heard, send a letter to the NSA. That is the only part of the US government that is presently listening to the people.


----------



## byline

maz57 said:


> Just because it is technically possible for an expat to vote doesn't mean there is any effective representation. Even if every expat exercised that right, all those expat votes would be so scattered across all the Congressional districts that anyone running for office can safely ignore them with impunity. A handful of votes in each district is insignificant; they have absolutely no bearing on the outcome of an election.


Yup. Thanks for phrasing that far better than I did.


----------



## BBCWatcher

maz57 said:


> Just because it is technically possible for an expat to vote doesn't mean there is any effective representation.


So what makes overseas Americans -- particularly the relatively well-to-do ones, or better, who might owe a bit of U.S. tax on non-U.S. source income -- so much more special than firefighters, veterans, school teachers, and vision impaired voters, as examples?

This is ridiculous! Of course overseas Americans have full democratic representation in Washington -- equal to their domestically resident counterparts in the 50 states (but with much easier, consistent, streamlined voting thanks to FVAP), more than the residents of the District of Columbia and U.S. territories have. And they have _exactly the same_ political subdivision characteristics every other geographically dispersed cohort of Americans have, which is true of most cohorts. Like American tennis players, carpenters, and spelling bee contestants, to pick three more examples.

Mitt Romney even held a fundraiser -- er, fundraisers -- in Europe for/with overseas Americans in the 2012 presidential campaign. He certainly didn't have a fundraiser and talk privately with school teachers in Saginaw.

There might be some valid, logical, reasonable complaints, but this isn't one of them.



> Its apparent that many now believe that Congress is filled with members who represent wealthy corporate donors and lobbyists for special interest groups rather than the "little guy".


So true! As evidence of that, only the top 6% of overseas Americans owe _any_ U.S. tax. Back in the 1970s that figure was a lot higher. (There was no Foreign Earned Income Exclusion.) And the 6% that do owe anything pay much lower effective tax rates than they did back then since top marginal tax rates used to be a lot higher. Those wealthy overseas Americans sure have done a great job getting _their_ special interests served by their taskmasters in Washington, haven't they? But of course they're still not satisfied, because rich people are never satisfied.

....See how this works?


----------



## maz57

BBCWatcher said:


> ....See how this works?


Yup..... that's why I'm no longer a US citizen.


----------



## iota2014

BBCWatcher said:


> ... only the top 6% of overseas Americans owe _any_ U.S. tax. Back in the 1970s that figure was a lot higher.


Part of a sad story by no means limited to America.



> Those wealthy [..] Americans sure have done a great job getting _their_ special interests served by their taskmasters in Washington, haven't they?


Yep. Together with those wealthy Europeans, Middle Easterners, Chinese, Russians, and the rest. A systematic takeover.



> But of course they're still not satisfied, because rich people are never satisfied.


Evidently.



> ....See how this works?


Yep.


----------

