U.S. Hikes Fee To Renounce Citizenship By 422%

[Ares]

Over the last two years, the U.S. has had a spike in expatriations. It isn’t exactly Ellis Island in reverse, but it’s more than a dribble. With global tax reporting and FATCA, the list of the individuals who renounced is up. For 2013, there was a 221% increase, with record numbers of Americans renouncing. The Treasury Department is required to publish a quarterly list, but these numbers are under-stated, some say considerably.

The presence or absence of tax motivation is no longer relevant, but that could change. After Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin departed for Singapore, Senators Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey introduced a bill to double the exit tax to 30% for anyone leaving the U.S. for tax reasons. That hasn’t happened, but taxes are still a big issue for many.

To leave America, you generally must prove 5 years of U.S. tax compliance. If you have a net worth greater than $2 million or average annual net income tax for the 5 previous years of $157,000 or more for 2014 (that’s tax, not income), you pay an exit tax. It is a capital gain tax as if you sold your property when you left. At least there’s an exemption of $680,000 for 2014. Long-term residents giving up a Green Card can be required to pay the tax too.

Now, the State Department interim rule just raised the fee for renunciation of U.S. citizenship to $2,350 from $450. Critics note that it’s more than twenty times the average level in other high-income countries. The State Department says it’s about demand on their services and all the extra workload they have to process people who are on their way out.

The notice says:

1. Consular officers must confirm that the potential renunciant fully understands the consequences of renunciation, including losing the right to reside in the United States without documentation as an alien.

2. Consular officers must verify that the renunciant is a U.S. citizen and they must conduct a minimum of two intensive interviews with the potential renunciant. Consular officers must even review at least three consular systems before administering the oath of renunciation.

3. The final approval of the loss of nationality must be done within the Directorate of Overseas Citizens Services in Washington, D.C. After that, the case is returned to the Consular officer overseas for final delivery of the Certificate of Loss of Nationality to the renunciant.

4. These steps add to the time and labor be involved in the process. Accordingly, the Department is increasing the fee for processing such requests from $450 to $2,350.

Apparently, dual citizens in Canada trying to shed their U.S. citizenship have created a backlog at the U.S. consulate in Toronto that stretches into the third week of January 2015. A decision to expatriate should never be taken lightly. Taxes or not, it can be a big step. And around the world, more people are talking about taking it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/08/28/u-s-hikes-fee-to-renounce-citizenship-by-422/

[palani]

Illusion.

It is hard to renounce that which you never had to begin with.

Read that as IMPOSSIBLE and then see what the ruling of the law is with respect to impossibilities.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Illusion.

It is hard to renounce that which you never had to begin with.

Read that as IMPOSSIBLE and then see what the ruling of the law is with respect to impossibilities.

Palani, if you are arguing that you have to proactively seek citizenship to have it, then I can think of two conditions where that happens, although I am not sure of how many people each condition covers. The first is a 'naturalized' citizen, who actually asks for citizenship, and gets a 'Certificate' (that looks like a diploma) proclaiming his citizenship. The second instance is anybody who asks for a passport. The State Department considers a passport 'proof' of citizenship.

I agree with you that if you never have claimed to be a citizen, there is no way to renounce that citizenship. But, don't most people just assume they are citizens. without any legal support for that assumption.


Hatha

[palani]

The first is a 'naturalized' citizen, who actually asks for citizenship, and gets a 'Certificate' (that looks like a diploma) proclaiming his citizenship. Naturalized U.S. citizens existed prior to the 14th amendment. The office was actually nothing more than a pool from which state citizens were selected.


The second instance is anybody who asks for a passport. The State Department considers a passport 'proof' of citizenship. The Secretary of State also issues a different color passport for individuals who consider themselves nationals rather than citizens. This is the route this guy proposes ... http://sovereign2serf.wordpress.com/


I agree with you that if you never have claimed to be a citizen, there is no way to renounce that citizenship. But, don't most people just assume they are citizens. without any legal support for that assumption.
Even had you made such a claim at some point in time ... the passage of time and events tend to change that claim. They (TPTB) seem to require periodic affirmations of your (slave) status.

In any court of law the one affirming has the burden of proof. There is no duty (and few ways) of proving you are NOT a citizen. The one claiming you ARE a citizen is who must prove it.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I actually bought the Sovereign To Serf book by Roger Sayles and read it since I posted above. It refreshed my mind about what I had read previously about citizenship. Reminded me that it is a very confusing and convoluted topic. There are apparently, as you say, Palani, two kinds of citizens: The 'statutory' citizen as defined in the 14th Amendment, and the Constitutional citizen as described in the constitution. When you apply for a passport, the government lets you know that the passport is for two types of people--US Citizens and non-citizen Nationals. The first is a statutory citizen, the second is a constitutional citizen. They obfuscate the non-citizen National category, and are reluctant to tell you anything about it because if you knew, that is what you would be if you valued your freedom. The government wants to trick you into thinking and acting like you are a 'statutory' citizen. It is important to them because this is how they trick you into paying taxes. There is a lawyer named Mitchell in Seattle who wrote a book called The Federal Zone where he describes how you get tricked into agreeing that you are a resident of ;the District' of Columbia, when you sign your Form 1040 tax return. Being a resident of DC gives them jurisdiction over you and the right to tax you because you agree you live in the Federal zone and are therefore a Statutory Citizen. Lots of legal chicanery going on concerning citizen status. There is also a factor of Domicile, and citizenship of States. All the words have legal meanings, and some of them have more than one depending on context. This is a fascinating area to study because you can unravel the deceit of the government in its relations with the people.


Hatha

[palani]

Evidently the State department would have you believe that a U.S. national must come from Guam or American Samoa.

For myself, I established my place of birth as not within a political subdivision but rather a watershed, as watersheds were how the French 'sold' my place of birth to the United States. Not only that but if you examine every state boundary for each state within the union of the U.S. you will find none of them include any watershed(s). My interpretation is that watersheds are apolitical boundaries that are not within the state and that the U.S. has abandoned them.

Now as to the state ... The U.S. has guaranteed we inhabitants of the watersheds "shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States and admitted as soon as possible according to the principles of the federal Constitution to the enjoyment of all these rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States". I see few principles of the federal constitution as it existed in 1803 being practices lately so I see no difficulty in waiting for the 'mean time' to come to an end.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Thank you Palani. I'm still chuckling from your dry wit about watersheds. Was that the Missouri river watershed sold to the Feds as the Louisiana Purchase? I suppose this way, you can not only avoid Federal jurisdiction, you can also avoid state jurisdiction as well. Your jurisdiction is the watershed, which has no government to torment you. Way to go Palani--you are truly a free man.


I have a friend who came from Venezuela and became a naturalized citizen. I am trying to understand how she could get a passport claiming that she is a non-citizen national. Specifically, I am trying to understand if naturalized citizens are 'Statutory' citizens (under the 14th Amendment) or Constitutional citizens. The State Department has to trick you into declaring you are a statutory citizen in your passport application. Do they also trick you into declaring the same thing when you are naturalized?

I also know that when you sign your IRS form 1040 when you file your tax return, you declare that you are domiciled in the District (of Columbia) thereby accepting federal jurisdiction, and obligating you to pay federal taxes. If you did not sign your form 1040, but filed it unsigned, would you be legally obliged to pay taxes you calculated on that form? Or would they make you go immediately to Jail without passing Go and collecting your $200? Is my knowledge faulty? Am I being deceived here as well?

Hatha

[palani]

Thank you Palani. I'm still chuckling from your dry wit about watersheds. Was that the Missouri river watershed sold to the Feds as the Louisiana Purchase? The area sold includes west bank of the Mississippi River, Missouri, Red and White Rivers. The purpose of Lewis and Clark was to do a bit of surveying to actually see what the French sold them. This was largely unknown territory and so to describe it the watershed was the most accurate and expedient method.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/LouisianaPurchase.png



I suppose this way, you can not only avoid Federal jurisdiction, you can also avoid state jurisdiction as well. Your jurisdiction is the watershed, which has no government to torment you. Way to go Palani--you are truly a free man.
The point is not to avoid federal jurisdiction but rather to be able to point out limitations to it that they agreed to by treaty ... and not only that but ... they paid hard cash for the obligation as well as the benefits.

The Louisiana Purchase is a conveyance. In law conveyances never expire and neither do the conditions annexed to them. There are several conditions I am interested in. One is that inhabitants "shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the Religion which they profess" and the other establishes a duty of the federal government to insure that the principles of the federal constitution are upheld when the independent political subdivisions called 'states' are formed. Bait and switch is a fraudulent tactic. None of the several States in the so called union presently live up to the expectations. They are all bankrupt commercial entities.

[palani]

Here is a good one. Read this description ... http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Louisiana_Purchase.aspx


LOUISIANA PURCHASE. A watershed event in American history, the purchase of the Louisiana Territory from France in 1803 nearly doubled the land mass of the young nation: for a purchase price of $15 million, the United States increased its size by some 828,000 square miles. The region included the Mississippi River and its tributaries westward to the Rocky Mountains, and extended from the Gulf of Mexico at New Orleans up the Red River to the Canadian border.

Double speak. The Louisiana Purchase was 'a watershed event'.

[Shami-Amourae]

Illusion.

It is hard to renounce that which you never had to begin with.

Read that as IMPOSSIBLE and then see what the ruling of the law is with respect to impossibilities.

Try saying that bullshit to these guys:
http://media.nj.com/ledgerupdates_impact/photo/2012/09/11598163-large.jpg

[palani]

Try saying that bullshit to these guys

Silent leges inter arma. Laws are silent amidst arms.

When the arms go away reason returns.