# PSA for anyone considering renouncing their US citizenship



## JustLurking (Mar 25, 2015)

From American Expat Financial News Journal:


> *U.S. gov't announces intent to slash citizenship renunciation fee by four-fifths, ahead of Monday hearing*
> In one of the most potentially significant moves thus far by the U.S. government aimed at helping so-called "accidental Americans" and other expats who have been struggling since 2010 with their tax reporting obligations, the U.S. State Department has announced its "intent" to reduce the fee it charges those seeking to renounce their citizenships to US$450, from its current US$2,350.


State Department blinks first in the face of renunciation fee court case.

_If_ intent becomes reality, anyone currently heading towards renunciation might want to look at finessing the timelines as best they can for a net saving of $1,900.

And anyone on the fence might want to think about acting sooner rather than later, just in case this is a limited-time offer -- see also Reed Amendment, mostly unenforced and unenforceable, and Ex-PATRIOT, currently unpassed but could rise from the dead.

All this aside, it is of course also possible that continuation of the lawsuit might result in the State Department having to entirely remove all fees, at which point even $450 will look expensive. Which it is; it's only cheap in comparison to the current extortionate rate.

Anyway, finally a tiny bit of good news for some US expats (probably).


----------



## Moulard (Feb 3, 2017)

I doubt they will remove fees entirely. Congress currently mandates that USCIS is effectively self funded through the fees it charges. (about 90% of its operating budget comes from fees)

Fees are meant to basically recover the cost of providing the service, and so I have always thought it incredulous that the cost to vet an vetting an applicant for citizenship by naturalisation was between two and four times that to relinquish/renounce citizenship (depending on which specific charges that you decided to include)


----------



## Harry Moles (11 mo ago)

Wouldn't it be nice if they made this retroactive and sent everyone refunds. (Not likely, I know.)


----------



## Bevdeforges (Nov 16, 2007)

I honestly hope that they carry through with this "proposal" - but given that I can only find this on expat types of websites, I wouldn't hold my breath on having this pass. (Yeah, forget about any retroactive refunds - the Chinese are mad at Elon Musk for cutting the price of his Teslas and not refunding recent purchasers who paid full price, too.) Given the current situation in the US Congress I suspect this sort of "reasonable and logical" move on the part of the State Department will probably go down in flames if the House gets wind of it.


----------



## JustLurking (Mar 25, 2015)

Harry Moles said:


> Wouldn't it be nice if they made this retroactive and sent everyone refunds. (Not likely, I know.)


Not just nice, but I'd argue it's a moral imperative, if not a legal one.

Reducing the fee now, and in present circumstances, is an open admission of past overcharging which should be remedied. Courts ought to expect any organisation, commercial or governmental, that operated an illegal overcharging scheme to at minimum refund its customers.



Bevdeforges said:


> I honestly hope that they carry through with this "proposal" - but given that I can only find this on expat types of websites, I wouldn't hold my breath on having this pass.


The _statement of intent_ is certainly real. You can find a copy of it here: AAA vs DOS Declaration of R. BItter.pdf.

Of course, the _statement_ being real doesn't necessarily indicate that the _intent_ is real. No timescale or deadline. No commitment not to run down the clock with the existing higher charge for renunciations already booked. No mention of whether relinquishment will go back to $0 (as was the case before Nov 2015). And the inevitable rider that "_the Department will consider any necessary changes to this fee, as appropriate, in a future rulemaking,_" which leaves the door wide open to unlimited fee increases again as soon as the threat of court cases has subsided.

And even if _intent_ is real, some excuse may later arise as to why it can't happen.

No wonder the AAA decided to ignore this, and proceed as planned with the scheduled hearing.


----------



## Moulard (Feb 3, 2017)

whoops, I got the order or direction wrong... but I think you figured it out.


----------

