# For those who are not renouncing citizenship



## Vangrrl (Aug 23, 2011)

I know we've got a good number of posters who will be renouncing their USC shortly, if not already but I'm hoping that those of us who aren't will continue to stick around and at least check in periodically if something in the news catches your eye.

We Canadian dual-citizens are in a unique position and can probably save each other some significant accountant bills going forward by continuing sharing information here as tax changes and fatca and what-ever-the-heck-else comes up in the future.

Its reassuring to me to know that there are others out there like me who will be making a good-faith effort to navigate both countries laws. And I know I will need your help/advice going forward.

I can't guarantee that I will keep my USC forever, but for now I'm not willing to give it up based on speculation and fear or anger of how things may look going forward. I also have minor children who are USC so I will be navigating the system on their behalf for at least the next 15 or so years anyways. 

Anyways - just wanted to say thank you again to all of those here who have educated me tremendously on 1040s and fbars and all the rest of this mumbo-jumbo. You have kept me sane! And if you would, c heck in here please if you are planning on holding both citizenships for a while longer and let me know I'm not the only one!


----------



## Guest (Nov 6, 2011)

I plan to wait before I close my remaining bank accounts in the US. I thought about renouncing first and then transferring in order to avoid filing an FBAR, but I don't trust the US government to allow my money to go through. I am also waiting with interest to see what is in the new Super Committee's proposals for deficit reduction. This should be made public at the end of the this month and I fear that they may include some very damaging legislation to US citizens abroad.

I also will not be waiting forever to renounce though- I am in a fabulous position to do so now under the current rules since I only recently graduated from University and do not have years and years of back taxes to file or any FBAR penalties whatsoever since my non-US accounts were always under 10000 dollars. I may potentially get married in the coming years and one major factor for me is that I do not believe that the US government should have any right to access any non-US citizen future spouses' financial information. 

So, I am looking at probably renouncing sometime next year or in 2013, perhaps sooner if the Super Committee has something really damaging in mind. I am lucky in being based in Belgium since there are not many US citizens here so getting an appointment at the embassy here or in Luxembourg should be easy (unlike London with its 1 year wait!).

I am also concerned that by waiting too long that the US will change its policies and make it even harder to renounce citizenship, especially if this year's numbers are too embarrassing (which I am sure that they will be). The US scares me in this regard since there is no higher authority to check this sort of action as the US has not ratified the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which stipulates the right of people to renounce and change citizenship. If an EU country tried to do something like that there would be a recourse by going to the European Court. No such avenue with the US. I don't think it will get so bad that they will ban the ability to renounce citizenship, but they might make the exit tax worse and apply it everyone, not just those with 2 million dollars or more in assets. Who knows. 

Good post topic though- I'm curious as well to hear other peoples' reasons for waiting or deciding entirely against renouncing!


----------



## Orwell (Nov 5, 2011)

*Unoccupy America*



DonPomodoro said:


> I plan to wait before I close my remaining bank accounts in the US. I thought about renouncing first and then transferring in order to avoid filing an FBAR, but I don't trust the US government to allow my money to go through. I am also waiting with interest to see what is in the new Super Committee's proposals for deficit reduction. This should be made public at the end of the this month and I fear that they may include some very damaging legislation to US citizens abroad.
> 
> I also will not be waiting forever to renounce though- I am in a fabulous position to do so now under the current rules since I only recently graduated from University and do not have years and years of back taxes to file or any FBAR penalties whatsoever since my non-US accounts were always under 10000 dollars. I may potentially get married in the coming years and one major factor for me is that I do not believe that the US government should have any right to access any non-US citizen future spouses' financial information.
> 
> ...


I also worry about waiting too long to renounce. HEART came with relatively short notice. If the lines become long to get the interview and then get the CLN, we may find ourselves under another draconian exit regime.

Mind you - I don't want to renounce. But I have come accept it as both a prudent sacrifice for the sake of my family and to show solidarity with my fellow countrymen abroad.

One friend told Tim Kaine that there is a mounting "surge" of expatriation. He was quite prescient. I am not sure that a surge of expatriation is an effective protest, but it is perhaps our only collective protest. Call it "unoccupy America".


----------



## Mona Lisa76 (Mar 10, 2011)

I feel torn; renouncing would make my life far less complicated but I simply can't go through with it due to family ties. They would forgive me but also feel dishonored. As I haven't had children, I've concluded that I have a duty to be fully compliant, even if it means facing double taxation and thousands annually in professional fees. I don't have to leave a legacy so should be able to budget a few thousand per year if need be.

I could see them turning nasty by starting to actually enforce the law made back in 1996 which forbids ex-citizens from ever visiting the US if it's learned they renounced for tax reasons; they could also make a point of aggressively auditing them and trying to clobber them with any sort if penalty they can find for any supposed failure to report things correctly, even due to technicalities. With their exceptionalism, they will almist certainly become spiteful.

Or let's hope they go the other way and use positive incentives to encourage expats to keep their citizenship.

I need to know I can visit my parents plus if I renounced, I believe that any US inheritance would be witheld at 30% on everything above $60,000. So whatever I decide, I'm going to be screwed financially so I might as well keep my options open and retain my citizenship.

I completely sympathize with others choosing to renounce though. However, I also agree with Vanngirl that we should try to reform things instead of quitting. In spite of my frustrations, it's still a privelege to have US citizenship and if it means I have to incur ongoing costs to retain it, then so be it.


----------



## Mona Lisa76 (Mar 10, 2011)

I would like to believe that the IRS will be merciful with those of us who've made honest, good faith disclosures -- especially as we're not their main target. Renouncing on other hand might seem to imply something to hide, etc.

Bev certainly seems to think so, plus there have been independent reports of the London IRS office being quite reasonable: on here; another expat forum; plus what my accountant and adviser have heard, themselves. They're probably not going to clobber people for fbar if lack of disclosure was done unintentionally, etc.


----------



## Ladyhawk (Sep 11, 2011)

At this point I have no plans to renounce and it would tear me apart to do so. I visit family and friends at least once a year, and I have no children. All my closest relatives are in the US. I want to be able to move back to the US if my circumstances, in my old age, require me to seek help and support from family. I do not wish to be forced to die in a Canadian nursing home far from my loved ones. I am not even sure I'll be able to afford a nursing home. I will need help from my nephews and nieces and any surviving siblings, and I need the comfort of their company more and more as the years pass.

I have watched with mounting distress over the years as the health care situation in the US deteriorates. If I need to move back there, I am not sure how I would afford it, but certainly it would cost me all my resources. Nevertheless it would be my choice if I am widowed and become infirm. I have wonderful friends here, but it's not the same as family.

Having said that, if the IRS does something truly spiteful in the future, like insist on fully taxing all my income regardless of how heavily I am taxed in Canada, and a looming change in my tax burden threatens to bankrupt me, I would see no choice but to renounce simply to survive. 

Then again, if 11 million illegal immigrants can manage to thrive in America, why not me?


----------



## Vangrrl (Aug 23, 2011)

Thanks for replying everyone! 

My situation is different from most here in that I'm neither American or Canadian by heritage - I just happened to be born in the US and then my parents just happened to immigrate to Canada. We had no ties to either country before moving here. I have no financial ties to the US whatsoever (no inheritance issues, since my parents are Canadian now).

That said, we probably travel to the US 10+ times a year. Our best friends live in Seattle (moved from Vancouver), my brother lives in California (he's Canadian), my husband's sister just got her US citizenship (also Canadian). We both attend professional conferences in the US a couple of times a year. I just can't see putting myself in a position where I risk not being able to travel to the US. Hubby won't let me forego the option of ever moving to the US. He grew up abroad and generally finds Canada too cold  I may dislike the US government but I quite like Americans and always enjoy visiting the US.

We finally decided that a little bit of financial planning and account simplication and filing zero owing tax returns going forward was easy enough and the best way to maintain our life in the status quo. Of course things might change in the future so I will be keeping my options open always.

Maybe its the fact that husband and I both comes from immigrant families (who lived in places far less politically or economically stable than Canada or the US) that we have a higher tolerance for uncertainty. And if its something our parents have taught us, is that you don't burn your bridges. No matter how good things are now, you always want to keep options open for you and your family  I completely appreciate why people are worried over this (I am still worried too), but the practical side of me just doesn't see there being much to fear for people like us.


----------



## The_Animal (Nov 7, 2011)

Mona Lisa76 said:


> I would like to believe that the IRS will be merciful with those of us who've made honest, good faith disclosures -- especially as we're not their main target. Renouncing on other hand might seem to imply something to hide, etc.


That's the IRS's opinion and they're entitled to it, but my wife has been up here for 11 years, her children were born in Canada and her spouse (me) is a Canadian.  The only ties that she has back to the States is the fact that her mother still lives there. She is renouncing strictly for family and as far as she's concerned that's the absolute truth. The IRS can twist the reasoning and logic into a pretzel as much as she gives a hoot.


----------



## Fifi_in_Victoria (Oct 10, 2011)

I haven't decided what I'm going to do, although I am leaning towards renouncing. I feel more Canadian than I do American; I've lived more than half my life here; I like it better here; and basically, I think having only one citizenship to contend with is best for me.


----------



## Mona Lisa76 (Mar 10, 2011)

Ladyhawk said:


> At this point I have no plans to renounce and it would tear me apart to do so. I visit family and friends at least once a year, and I have no children. All my closest relatives are in the US. I want to be able to move back to the US if my circumstances, in my old age, require me to seek help and support from family. I do not wish to be forced to die in a Canadian nursing home far from my loved ones. I am not even sure I'll be able to afford a nursing home. I will need help from my nephews and nieces and any surviving siblings, and I need the comfort of their company more and more as the years pass.
> 
> I have watched with mounting distress over the years as the health care situation in the US deteriorates. If I need to move back there, I am not sure how I would afford it, but certainly it would cost me all my resources. Nevertheless it would be my choice if I am widowed and become infirm. I have wonderful friends here, but it's not the same as family.
> 
> ...


I feel similarly in that I may prefer to spend my final days back with my niece/nephews back in 
America because we never had children and, with my spouse 14 years older, there's a probability I'll wind up widowed. 

As for taxation, even if the IRS decided to end foreign tax credits, I would have thought that the CRA would still allow at least some of the US taxation to be offset.


----------



## Mona Lisa76 (Mar 10, 2011)

Vangrrl said:


> Thanks for replying everyone!
> 
> My situation is different from most here in that I'm neither American or Canadian by heritage - I just happened to be born in the US and then my parents just happened to immigrate to Canada. We had no ties to either country before moving here. I have no financial ties to the US whatsoever (no inheritance issues, since my parents are Canadian now).
> 
> ...


Yes, I too don't want to risk losing the ability to regularly visit the US which renouncing could cause.


----------



## Mona Lisa76 (Mar 10, 2011)

Yes, in a nut shell, I've concluded that in my situation I'm better off keeping my US citizenship because I am due a substantial inheritance including property; if I renounced, I would probably lose at least a third of it in witholding taxes. I also realize that renouncing wouldn't relieve me of my earliet tax obligations.

And in spite of everything, I still love my homeland. I have decided to become completely compliant with my investments with a brokerage who will produce a 1099 for me (as well as produce UK tax certificates to satisfy HMRC). I realise I will suffer higher charges and will probably also stick with my accountant because I want a quiet life. I'm very disorganised plus a natural worrier so realise I may need to rely on professionals more than others with more straightforward situations.

I almost wish I'd never invested or started a pension fund because the IRS could argue that these are foreign grantor trusts which involve the odious 3520/3520A forms which would added pribably an extra couple thousand pounds to my annual accounting fees. Wish I had just kept my money in straightforward savings accounts...:'(


----------



## Peg (Sep 22, 2011)

Interesting that one reason for me to renounce is because I will not get any US inheritance but could potentially get Canadian inheritance(s) that could put me into the Exit Tax category.


----------



## Orwell (Nov 5, 2011)

*Don't Die American*



Peg said:


> Interesting that one reason for me to renounce is because I will not get any US inheritance but could potentially get Canadian inheritance(s) that could put me into the Exit Tax category.


Another reason to renounce is if you have a non-US spouse or children and they could be hit with inheritance taxes from the US on your home or other assets.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2011)

Orwell said:


> Another reason to renounce is if you have a non-US spouse or children and they could be hit with inheritance taxes from the US on your home or other assets.



Not only that but if your child is dual.....this is the one thing I did not think of until just the other day.....working on finding ways to keep that money CDN
my son doesn't want to renounce right now, which makes sense as he is just starting his career


----------



## The_Animal (Nov 7, 2011)

nobledreamer said:


> Not only that but if your child is dual.....this is the one thing I did not think of until just the other day.....working on finding ways to keep that money CDN
> my son doesn't want to renounce right now, which makes sense as he is just starting his career


In my case, I have 4 children who are considered dual (even though they were born in Canada) due to "birthright" as a result of their mother's USC-ship. Since the ramifications of being unable to apply for their American citizenship if they renounce it; it makes sense for my sons and daughter to hold it for now, even if it means filing a return for them this year and every year henceforth for the taxes and FBAR (due to their RESP) until such time as they reach an age where they can make their own "informed decision" as to whether or not they wish to retain their US citizenship or whether they want to denounce as well. But my wife says, *she's* getting out! 

I don't suspect that birthright citizenship abroad is lost by the children of the US Citizen parent denouncing if the "former" US Citizen parent has satisfied the residency requirement "prior" to the birth of the children in question (no matter where they were born). Of course if they did lose it...it would be a much simpler matter.

According to the US Government, a child (mine are 9, 7, 2 and 15 months) cannot renounce as easily as an adult as they are unaware of what the decision entails. And that is understandable. Trying to explain the ramifications to my 2 oldest sons is difficult enough, but my two youngest won't be able to understand a single thing. "Parents are unable to denounce on behalf of their children". That says it clearly enough. The US Government has us by the short and curlies (pardon my expression).


----------



## Mona Lisa76 (Mar 10, 2011)

If I had no ties then renouncing would be the easiest way out of this mess but with family and an inheritance, I would risk losing even more if I did. After all, I wouldn't put it put it past them to become spiteful by making it difficult for former citizens to enter into America or to make it harder to get assets out of the country.

As others have mentioned, it wouldn't surprise me if laws are passed to make it even harder to renounce. The propaganda will brand expats and accidental Americans as tax cheats or selfish at the very least.


----------



## The_Animal (Nov 7, 2011)

Mona Lisa76 said:


> If I had no ties then renouncing would be the easiest way out of this mess but with family and an inheritance, I would risk losing even more if I did. After all, I wouldn't put it put it past them to become spiteful by making it difficult for former citizens to enter into America or to make it harder to get assets out of the country.
> 
> As others have mentioned, it wouldn't surprise me if laws are passed to make it even harder to renounce. The propaganda will brand expats and accidental Americans as tax cheats or selfish at the very least.


Not to make this political, but my wife is very adamant that they renounce by the age of 16. If the draft is reinstituted, that could potentially mean that our kids would be dragooned by the US Military into any war that the U.S. thinks is justified and my apologies to any veteran who is in this situation of being a dual citizen. I don't want my sons fighting for the United States. 

I respect the veterans. My father-in-law was a WWII US Army veteran fighting the Japanese (I'm Japanese-Canadian), in Burma and I respect all veterans. But I do not want my sons fighting in the US Army. And that is MY right of opinion as a father.


----------



## Vangrrl (Aug 23, 2011)

The_Animal said:


> In my case, I have 4 children who are considered dual (even though they were born in Canada) due to "birthright" as a result of their mother's USC-ship. Since the ramifications of being unable to apply for their American citizenship if they renounce it; it makes sense for my sons and daughter to hold it for now, even if it means filing a return for them this year and every year henceforth for the taxes and FBAR (due to their RESP) until such time as they reach an age where they can make their own "informed decision" as to whether or not they wish to retain their US citizenship or whether they want to denounce as well. But my wife says, *she's* getting out!
> 
> I don't suspect that birthright citizenship abroad is lost by the children of the US Citizen parent denouncing if the "former" US Citizen parent has satisfied the residency requirement "prior" to the birth of the children in question (no matter where they were born). Of course if they did lose it...it would be a much simpler matter.
> 
> According to the US Government, a child (mine are 9, 7, 2 and 15 months) cannot renounce as easily as an adult as they are unaware of what the decision entails. And that is understandable. Trying to explain the ramifications to my 2 oldest sons is difficult enough, but my two youngest won't be able to understand a single thing. "Parents are unable to denounce on behalf of their children". That says it clearly enough. The US Government has us by the short and curlies (pardon my expression).


If your kids are born in Canada and have no identifying American documents, then I would consider them to be free and clear of any US tax reporting/filing unless they are going to be receiving a US inheritance that might cause further scrutiny, then I would treat them as Canadian. I've posted elsewhere that I have one Canadian born kid and one American born. My Canadian kid is CANADIAN and that's that. I refuse to let anyone (including US border agents who have asked) tell me otherwise. No one has bothered me when I have flat out told them "NO she is Canadian" and moved on. My other kid.... well, can't do much about that one for now.

I'm pretty sure the RESP is included in the parent (or whoever opened the account's) return and fbar. The children only report it after they are 18 and eligible to withdraw from it. I'm not filing US tax returns for my kid.

I imagine you know this already, but both parents don't have to be on the RESP account. We moved our kids RESPs to my husband's name as I'm not ready to renounce right now.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2011)

The_Animal said:


> In my case, I have 4 children who are considered dual (even though they were born in Canada) due to "birthright" as a result of their mother's USC-ship. Since the ramifications of being unable to apply for their American citizenship if they renounce it; it makes sense for my sons and daughter to hold it for now, even if it means filing a return for them this year and every year henceforth for the taxes and FBAR (due to their RESP) until such time as they reach an age where they can make their own "informed decision" as to whether or not they wish to retain their US citizenship or whether they want to denounce as well. But my wife says, *she's* getting out!
> 
> I don't suspect that birthright citizenship abroad is lost by the children of the US Citizen parent denouncing if the "former" US Citizen parent has satisfied the residency requirement "prior" to the birth of the children in question (no matter where they were born). Of course if they did lose it...it would be a much simpler matter.
> 
> According to the US Government, a child (mine are 9, 7, 2 and 15 months) cannot renounce as easily as an adult as they are unaware of what the decision entails. And that is understandable. Trying to explain the ramifications to my 2 oldest sons is difficult enough, but my two youngest won't be able to understand a single thing. "Parents are unable to denounce on behalf of their children". That says it clearly enough. The US Government has us by the short and curlies (pardon my expression).


That's true, they are too young to renounce. Did your wife/you register them with a US Consulate/Embassy as Report Of Birth Abroad? The other thing is, as minors, I do not think they would be required to file a tax return or an FUBAR. I can check with my sis, a CPA. In any event, they will have to have a SSN to file. This can only be done at US Social Security posts in various cities close to the CDN border.
I wouldn't have a clue about your wife renouncing and it having an effect on theirs, are u absolutely sure your wife satisfies the timeframe for them to be automatic citizens? They have changed it several times. Maybe you'll get lucky


----------



## The_Animal (Nov 7, 2011)

nobledreamer said:


> That's true, they are too young to renounce. Did your wife/you register them with a US Consulate/Embassy as Report Of Birth Abroad? The other thing is, as minors, I do not think they would be required to file a tax return or an FUBAR. I can check with my sis, a CPA. In any event, they will have to have a SSN to file. This can only be done at US Social Security posts in various cities close to the CDN border.
> I wouldn't have a clue about your wife renouncing and it having an effect on theirs, are u absolutely sure your wife satisfies the timeframe for them to be automatic citizens? They have changed it several times. Maybe you'll get lucky


The law says that the U.S. citizen parent has been *"physically present"[6] in the U.S. before the child's birth for a total period of at least 10 years* (my wife was born in 1976, and at least four of those ten years were after the U.S. citizen parent's fourteenth birthday. They changed it to 5 years for those parents born after 1986. 

My wife was 24 when she moved up to Canada from Louisiana and was born in Texas, so she has been a US Citizen for 24 years prior to meeting me and moving up to Canada. So she has satisfied the criteria by more than 5 years. It does not say "Immediately" before. And when I asked the INS agent way back in 2006 when we still were looking at potentially moving down to the States. The INS agent said that my wife and kids counted as US Citizens living abroad. Thank goodness we nixed the idea of moving to the States in the bud. I'm hoping that if they don't have to file...a FuBAR or a tax return (as you so quaintly put it  ) that they can slide through the system and hopefully renounce at the age of 15 provided that they can prove to the INS agent that they are truly renouncing because they don't want to be US citizens and not because MOM and DAD forced them to.


----------



## Stargazer (Jan 10, 2009)

I can't imagine I would ever renounce. We have applied for Canadian citizenship and we'll be dual. But I'm an American first and foremost. Doing two sets of taxes every year is a pain but I've gotten used to it.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2011)

Stargazer said:


> I can't imagine I would ever renounce. We have applied for Canadian citizenship and we'll be dual. But I'm an American first and foremost. Doing two sets of taxes every year is a pain but I've gotten used to it.


Welcome Stargazer. For many of us, it's not about the tax returns. Have you been filing FBARS?


----------



## Stargazer (Jan 10, 2009)

nobledreamer said:


> Welcome Stargazer. For many of us, it's not about the tax returns. Have you been filing FBARS?


Yes, as far as I know, I am currently compliant with the tax returns, the 8891s, FBARs, etc.


----------



## Mona Lisa76 (Mar 10, 2011)

You're very lucky to have understood all the obligations. In many ways I feel badly let down by both countries because I feel that things should have been made more clear to me such as when I was investing into UK funds. To be fair, they probably did say something in the small print but it was never brought to my attention. I suppose where I went wrong is that I didn't ever use a financial advisor and had, instead, used brokerage accounts. I'd assumed that my sitaution was straightforward until recently with all this.


----------



## Stargazer (Jan 10, 2009)

Mona Lisa76 said:


> You're very lucky to have understood all the obligations. In many ways I feel badly let down by both countries because I feel that things should have been made more clear to me such as when I was investing into UK funds. To be fair, they probably did say something in the small print but it was never brought to my attention. I suppose where I went wrong is that I didn't ever use a financial advisor and had, instead, used brokerage accounts. I'd assumed that my sitaution was straightforward until recently with all this.


Totally understandable. I am lucky, I could have been in your shoes. 

Do you have a Canada connection? I see you are an American in the UK. I would recommend this site/forum to you. American Expats In The UK Forum (Since 2001) - Powered by vBulletin I haven't been on there for a while but they used to have a money section.


----------



## Mona Lisa76 (Mar 10, 2011)

Stargazer said:


> Totally understandable. I am lucky, I could have been in your shoes.
> 
> Do you have a Canada connection? I see you are an American in the UK. I would recommend this site/forum to you. American Expats In The UK Forum (Since 2001) - Powered by vBulletin I haven't been on there for a while but they used to have a money section.


Thanks for the tip! Perhaps I've been a bit of a post whore on here too


----------



## Arlington (Aug 30, 2011)

nobledreamer said:


> Did your wife/you register them with a US Consulate/Embassy as Report Of Birth Abroad? In any event, they will have to have a SSN to file. This can only be done at US Social Security posts in various cities close to the CDN border.


That's the sticking issue for me . . having to apply for a social security number in person (my three sons are all adults). The requirements for proving their American citizenship are also expensive - certified copies of our marriage certificate (from Geneva, Switzerland) and others (all costing money). It's tedious and annoying and I'll repeat - expensive. Especially the requirement to apply in person. One son lives 2000 kms north of the border.

All three sons were born in Canada. Two were registered as American Born Abroad and the rules at the time were they had to make a decision at age 18 (I think) if they wanted to remain Americans. They did nothing. Now the rules have changed . .but nobody told us. It irks me that the rules were changed retroactively. Our two older sons decided to be Canadians. Only. Period. Now they're not. Some choice. 

I figure if they want the three of them to be American and file taxes provide them with a social security number - for free. OR let them apply for ITIN's and file their taxes. I could live with that. Sort of.

Only one of my sons wants to be an American (dual). Of course, he's the youngest, the one I didn't register as an American born abroad. He was delighted to find out about his options - figured when he finishes law school he could work in Canada or the US. Well, good luck with that - there aren't any lawyer jobs in the states so I can tell him that's a moot point. Plus he'd have to pass the bar in whatever state he wanted to work in. 

I read somewhere that the easiest way to get a social security number is to get a passport first (more money) . . but it's still onerous to prove American citizenship. ARgggghhhh . . . .


----------



## Guest (Nov 10, 2011)

Arlington said:


> That's the sticking issue for me . . having to apply for a social security number in person (my three sons are all adults). The requirements for proving their American citizenship are also expensive - certified copies of our marriage certificate (from Geneva, Switzerland) and others (all costing money). It's tedious and annoying and I'll repeat - expensive. Especially the requirement to apply in person. One son lives 2000 kms north of the border.
> 
> All three sons were born in Canada. Two were registered as American Born Abroad and the rules at the time were they had to make a decision at age 18 (I think) if they wanted to remain Americans. They did nothing. Now the rules have changed . .but nobody told us. It irks me that the rules were changed retroactively. Our two older sons decided to be Canadians. Only. Period. Now they're not. Some choice.
> 
> ...


I sympathize with your feelings of irritation at the cost and the process. I was less than thrilled when I realized the only way to get it done quickly was to drive to Ottawa, then NY, gas, hotel, etc etc. Your one son living 2000 kms from the border is likely to be quite a problem. However, I would be less concerned about the taxes (unless they will owe) and more concerned about the FUBARs, which do not _require_ a SSN; one can list the number of a foreign passport - the horrid fees are for not filing these. Maybe they can get started here in the meantime?

I do not understand, if your adult sons are applying why would they need a copy of your marriage certificate? If two were registered and have the Certificate of Birth Abroad, that is one thing they can use to prove USC. My son (born in Canada) was not asked to bring a copy of our marriage certificate and other than the Certificate of Birth Abroad he did not have other US id so they told us to bring his birth certificate, CDN drivers license, health insurance card and his Canadian passport. I am guessing that your sons probably have those. They will not let the older two file for ITIN's because they're not foreigners...

I have the same concerns for my son - he wants to remain dual. He's just starting out in his career and wants to keep his options open. I can understand that but I am concerned about FUBAR penalties, future changes (including harder to renounce laws) and the inheritance issues. If I don't renounce and die first, my Canadian husband will have to claim/file for $ he gets from me. And if I renounce, my son will have to pay tax on anything he inherits. It's a mess, eh?

:mmph:


----------



## 416 (Sep 20, 2011)

Before we go any further, I should point out that renunciants can't buy guns in the U.S. or be licenced to transport dangerous goods*. I've made my peace with this, but others may not - it's a personal decision. 

* What moonbat legislator thought _that _was a priority?


----------



## Arlington (Aug 30, 2011)

416 said:


> Before we go any further, I should point out that renunciants can't buy guns in the U.S. or be licenced to transport dangerous goods*. I've made my peace with this, but others may not - it's a personal decision.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> That is HILARIOUS.


----------



## Arlington (Aug 30, 2011)

nobledreamer said:


> However, I would be less concerned about the taxes (unless they will owe) and more concerned about the FUBARs, which do not _require_ a SSN; one can list the number of a foreign passport - the horrid fees are for not filing these. Maybe they can get started here in the meantime?
> 
> I do not understand, if your adult sons are applying why would they need a copy of your marriage certificate? If two were registered and have the Certificate of Birth Abroad, that is one thing they can use to prove USC. My son (born in Canada) was not asked to bring a copy of our marriage certificate and other than the Certificate of Birth Abroad he did not have other US id so they told us to bring his birth certificate, CDN drivers license, health insurance card and his Canadian passport. I am guessing that your sons probably have those. They will not let the older two file for ITIN's because they're not foreigners...
> 
> ...


All good information. They will all be required to file FBAR's starting in the 2011 tax year (inheritance). Good to know they can just use a Canadian passport number. 

The certificate of marriage, etc., would be for the one son not registered as an American born abroad. You would think if his brothers can prove they are Americans, he could, too. He didn't actually have two American parents when he was born . .by then his father had become Canadian and under the laws of the time, was no longer American. And now he is. I hate this retroactive stuff.

Yeah . .sucks to be the son up in the Yukon. Maybe someday on a trip to Vancouver he can go to Bellingham.

Thanks again for the information.


----------



## Pacifica (Oct 19, 2011)

Mona Lisa76 said:


> Thanks for the tip! Perhaps I've been a bit of a post whore on here too


Hope you stay with the Canada forum as well ... you're a great contributer to it!


----------



## Mona Lisa76 (Mar 10, 2011)

Pacifica said:


> Hope you stay with the Canada forum as well ... you're a great contributer to it!


Ah cheers  I've joined the other place too, paid my subscription but will take a few days for it to register me on.  It looks like it might also come in useful.


----------



## Stargazer (Jan 10, 2009)

Mona Lisa76 said:


> Ah cheers  I've joined the other place too, paid my subscription but will take a few days for it to register me on.  It looks like it might also come in useful.


I wasn't trying to push you away...just give another resource.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2011)

The_Animal said:


> The law says that the U.S. citizen parent has been *"physically present"[6] in the U.S. before the child's birth for a total period of at least 10 years* (my wife was born in 1976, and at least four of those ten years were after the U.S. citizen parent's fourteenth birthday. They changed it to 5 years for those parents born after 1986.


Does anyone else think that the US has the most bizarre laws in terms of how one acquires citizenship? I find it ridiculous to accept someone as a citizen just because he or she is born in the US, but then have these weird rules and proofs that one needs to show if one is born abroad to someone with an actual connection to the US.

I think they should immediately scrap jus soli citizenship laws and make it so that the US is like most EU countries where you can register as a citizen at 18 years' of age if you have been resident there your whole life and not sooner. At a minimum there should be a way for parents to opt of US citizenship for a child born in the US. This is very important for parents from countries like Monaco or Japan where you simply cannot hold two citizenships, even if you acquired both at birth. 

Conversely, I think it is actually positive from a taxes perspective that the US limits citizenship jure sanguinis in terms of how many generations it can be passed down with the arbitrary physical prescence tests. Many EU countries do not have restrictions on how many generations a citizenship can be passed down even if the family has not lived in the country for decades. For this reason there are currently millions of potential European citizens in the Americas with European heritage (especially those with Spanish, Greek, Irish and Italian heritage), many of whom are applying for EU citizenship in these countries as we speak. 

If the so-called "PIIGS" countries had the same taxation rules as the US they would now have millions of "sleeper citizens" abroad who they could hit with FBARs, FATCA and penalties and probably get _billions_ in revenue from people who never knew that they were citizens, and whose closest European ancestor might be a great-great grandparent. Tell me that they wouldn't be tempted to do that instead of impose more austerity at home if they could get away with it :tongue1:

Imagine if the US makes it so that citizenship continues forever as well and US emmigration increases in the coming decades: millions of sleeper citizens to tap into when times get rough and the coffers are empty in the near and distant future. I think it is very good that the US, Canada, UK and other countries limit the number of generations that citizenship can be passed down exactly for these sorts of reasons.


----------



## AmTaker (Aug 17, 2011)

DonPomodoro said:


> Does anyone else think that the US has the most bizarre laws in terms of how one acquires citizenship? I find it ridiculous to accept someone as a citizen just because he or she is born in the US, but then have these weird rules and proofs that one needs to show if one is born abroad to someone with an actual connection to the US.


Every country has its own rules regarding citizenship. I don't think the US is unusual in that respect. The birthright citizenship is guaranteed in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, so there is little that can be changed about that , the other rules are not that odd when compared to the rules of other countries. I just saw that 8M people applied for a US green card lottery that had 50-75K green cards (not citizenship ), so there are people who value US 'personhood'. 

The real problem is US tax rules, which are unique in taxing people on non US income when outside the country. That is very unusual and obnoxious.


----------



## Peg (Sep 22, 2011)

AmTaker said:


> The real problem is US tax rules, which are unique in taxing people on non US income when outside the country. That is very unusual and obnoxious.


Canada may confer citizenship on children of Canadian parents but not the taxation aspect. So civilized! 

:canada:


----------



## Vangrrl (Aug 23, 2011)

AmTaker said:


> Every country has its own rules regarding citizenship. I don't think the US is unusual in that respect. The birthright citizenship is guaranteed in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, so there is little that can be changed about that , the other rules are not that odd when compared to the rules of other countries. I just saw that 8M people applied for a US green card lottery that had 50-75K green cards (not citizenship ), so there are people who value US 'personhood'.
> 
> *The real problem is US tax rules, which are unique in taxing people on non US income when outside the country. That is very unusual and obnoxious.*


I agree.

The physical presence test business for parents passing citizenship to children born abroad (which Canada now has as well) is to avoid well-documented situations where multiple generations of families are living overseas all with Canadian citizenship, all thanks to one single family member who lived in Canada for the requisite number of years in order to acquire citizenship (as a grad student, I believe) and then passed on automatic citizenship to his kids and then to their kids etc...

There was the very expensive evacuation of Lebanese Canadians from Lebanon a few years back - the majority of whom did not live in Canada and never had.


----------



## Peg (Sep 22, 2011)

DonPomodoro said:


> Many EU countries do not have restrictions on how many generations a citizenship can be passed down even if the family has not lived in the country for decades. For this reason there are currently millions of potential European citizens in the Americas with European heritage (especially those with Spanish, Greek, Irish and Italian heritage), many of whom are applying for EU citizenship in these countries as we speak.


Could I be a triple citizen? quadruple?

My grandparents were born and raised in England. Other ancestors in Ireland but farther back.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2011)

Peg said:


> Could I be a triple citizen? quadruple?
> 
> My grandparents were born and raised in England. Other ancestors in Ireland but farther back.


I have a stepson who was born in Canada of an English mother (my ex-wife) and a Canadian husband. His maternal grandparents were English (grandfather) and Irish (grandmother). Through his mother and grandfather he got an English passport; through his grandmother he got an Irish passport and hence an EU passport. Plus of course he has a Canadian passport. He's now a wellhead engineer for a British energy consulting firm, currently working in the Mediterranean oil fields (he got a general arts degree from McGill and an engineering degree from the University of Edinburgh).

Not sure how far back the Irish go or the English, but check it out ... ask the Irish Embassy or the British High Commission.


----------



## Orwell (Nov 5, 2011)

*‘Swearing out’ for U.S. citizens held in Toronto*

Check out Bill Mann's piece in MarketWatch. I cannot yet post a URL, but the op-ed piece is very timely to this expatforum thread.

The author got at least two things wrong:
1) People do not live in Switzerland or the Caribbean to dodge US tax. The vast majority of Americans living there are ordinary middle class (using local definitions) and owe no US income tax. Switzerland's income tax is much higher than the US.

The author builds a great argument and then destroys it in single quip. It's like writing a brilliant op-ed against discrimination on Irish people and then saying "don't go after the Irish; go after the Scottish". But no matter...

2) He says, "Wealthy individuals, defined as those with annual income of about $150,000 or net worth of at least $2-million, also have to pay an exit tax."

This is a common misunderstanding. It's not 150k USD in income. It's 150k in annual income tax. i.e. your income would have to be something like 600k USD per year.

By the way, it's the 2 million that is the snag. If you have 2 million saved and you live in the US, you can probably retire comfortably. However, if you have 2 million US dollars saved and you live in Zurich,... keep your job and keep saving.

It's getting so hard to set up the renunciation, I wonder if the US will continue to organize these events in Canada and other countries. If so, then we could travel to those countries and get the renunciation process completed a lot faster than the 2 year waits in many local consulates.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2011)

Peg said:


> Could I be a triple citizen? quadruple?
> 
> My grandparents were born and raised in England. Other ancestors in Ireland but farther back.


You're not entitled to citizenship directly, but rather to what is called an "Ancestry Visa" for the UK based on your grandparents. It is for 5 years after you which you obtain permanent residency and then a year later and apply for full citizenship. Your parent (s), however, could register tomorrow as UK citizens if they wanted to. 

UK Ancestry / Grandparent

Ireland allows you register directly if your grandparents were born there, but you'll have trouble if your parents are not already registered with the Irish authorities. They allow it to pass down for infinite generations but after grandparents your parents needed to be registered first. The last Irish PM was talking about extending it back to great-grandparents, but I doubt that that is on the agenda for the new Irish government since they have other priorities now!

Irish citizenship through birth or descent


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2011)

AmTaker said:


> Every country has its own rules regarding citizenship. I don't think the US is unusual in that respect. The birthright citizenship is guaranteed in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, so there is little that can be changed about that , the other rules are not that odd when compared to the rules of other countries. I just saw that 8M people applied for a US green card lottery that had 50-75K green cards (not citizenship ), so there are people who value US 'personhood'.
> 
> The real problem is US tax rules, which are unique in taxing people on non US income when outside the country. That is very unusual and obnoxious.


Going to have to disagree with your rather law attitude there: I was never asked to confirm that I wanted US citizenship, and my parents had no intention of registering me as such when they were finishing up doctoral work in the US as students. I did not know that I was a US citizen until I was 14 and my family applied for visas to go there for a few years since my father's company posted him there. 

"Birthright citizenship" is the past. It is antiquated. It was abused and it is dying around the world. The past 30 years the UK, Ireland, France and every other European and almost every Asian country have got rid of birthright citizenship since it makes no sense to give somebody citizenship just because he or she was born in that country. It is now restricted only to the Americas:

File:Jus soli world.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I support the way that the UK, Italy and Germany treat citizenship: As a bond between the individual and state that can only be solidified through an actual connection like descent from a citizen or registering yourself as a citizen upon reaching 18 and having lived your whole life in that country. The US cheapens its citizenship by making access to it so easy, and I and many others in this forum never had any desire to become US citizens nor did my parents have any intention of registering me as such. Jus soli citizenship automatically conferred without consent at the age of majority should be made an offense against international law and done away with the world round. The only case where it is supportable is if a child born in the territory of a country would be stateless. 

And don't tell me that scrapping this in the US wouldn't drastically reduce illegal immigration there - After the UK scrapped birthright citizenship all of the illegal immigrants who wanted to move to the EU always went to Ireland to give birth in order to ensure that their kids had EU citizenship. Now that Ireland switching to jus sanguinis they have nowhere left to go in Europe and have to immigrate legally (or sneak in on a student visa and have no intention of studying...).


----------

