New relinquishment fee

... is a dual UK/US citizen, permanently resident in the UK, still an "American resident in the UK"? Enter the Act of 1868. Is the US practicing the “ancient English doctrine of perpetual and unchangeable allegiance to the government of one’s birth, a citizen being precluded from renouncing his allegiance without permission [via a $2,350 fee) of that government.”

Unfortunately, the Hague Convention firmly supports the right of every nation to determine who is or is not a citizen of that nation.  (http://eudo-citizenship.eu/InternationalDB/docs/Convention%20on%20certain%20questions%20relating%20to%20the%20conflict%20of%20nationality%20laws%20FULL%20TEXT.pdf)

Article 2
Any question as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular State shall be determined in accordance with the law of that State.

In effect, being precluded from renouncing one's allegiance to the government of one's birth without the permission of that government is in accordance with international law.

CBT is a different kettle of fish of course.

Unfortunately, the Hague Convention firmly supports the right of every nation to determine who is or is not a citizen of that nation

Be careful, the US is a member of the Hague Convention, but it is not a parties to everything in the Convention. (I'll leave it to you to sort its position re: citizenship.) Note again: The US is a member of the OECD and supported the Common Reporting Standard, but it is not a signatory to the CRS (do as we say, not as we do).

In effect, being precluded from renouncing one's allegiance to the government of one's birth without the permission of that government is in accordance with international law.

There are also other international laws guaranteeing an individual's right to renounce citizenship. Check the UN position on this.

There is also the Master Nationality Law. from the below article:

"The UK Home Office explains this rule as "the practical effect of this Article is that where a person is a national of, for example, two States (A and B), and is in the territory of State A, then State B has no right to claim that person as its national or to intervene on that person's behalf. " This relies on Article 4 of the Hague Convention.

http://js-nationalitylawmustknows.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/master-nationality-law.html

Overall, it's a muddled mess. The US will do as it wishes (law or not, practice or not) until it is successfully challenged in the courts. CBT will not change (for now).

Be careful, the US is a member of the Hague Convention, but it is not a parties to everything in the Convention.

No, the US is not a signatory to this part of the Convention, but the point is, other nations do the same.  You can't renounce unless you do it according to the laws of the nation whose citizenship you're renouncing.

There are also other international laws guaranteeing an individual's right to renounce citizenship. Check the UN position on this.

Do you have a link?

There is also the Master Nationality Law. from the below article:

"The UK Home Office explains this rule as "the practical effect of this Article is that where a person is a national of, for example, two States (A and B), and is in the territory of State A, then State B has no right to claim that person as its national or to intervene on that person's behalf. " This relies on Article 4 of the Hague Convention.

http://js-nationalitylawmustknows.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/master-nationality-law.html

Hmm.  Article 4 says:

Article 4
A State may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its nationals against a State whose nationality such person also possesses.

Which appears to me to mean that the UK, for example, can't intervene to protect dual US/UK citizens from the demands of the US. And this position is explicitly stated in my UK passport:

British nationals who are also nationals of another country cannot be protected by H.M.'s Representatives against the authorities of that country.  If, under the law of that country, they are liable for any obligation (such as military service [or CBT - my parenthesis]), the fact that they are British nationals does not exempt them from it.

The US is not trying to offer diplomatic protection to its dual-nationality citizens against the demands of their other government, and nor is the UK against the demands of their other government.  So Article 4 does not seem to me to be relevant either to the question of renunciation or the question of CBT. 

CBT will not change (for now).

Sadly, I agree. 

I got to thinking of what the rest of the world ought to do if the US starts applying FATCA and does that 30% withholding of money going into non-compliant banks/countries - those countries should then do the same back and pass a law that does the same for money going INTO the US from that country. If enough countries do that then there will likely be a change of heart.

With the conflicting points between iota and theOAP, here's what I think it means for someone with multiple citizenships:

TheOAP is right when it comes to for example the UK government as long as you remain physically in the UK - they do not have to allow the other government to protect you nor do they have to assist in the enforcement of the other government's responsibilities on you (FATCA is an attempt to circumvent that, and for that reason and others such as privacy issues is being contested in court).

Iota is right once you physically travel to the US - if the US decides to prosecute you for example then the UK cannot "bail you out" of your responsibilities or the consequences for noncompliance thereof. Thus in the example upthread of someone who attests to their relinquishment but has not obtained a CLR from the US government, the UK may see that as someone who is no longer a US person, but if the US government doesn't recognize that statement this person risks trouble if he or she ever decides to travel to the US again even for a brief visit.

It's a bit trickier in a "third country" that you do not have citizenship to - it depends on that government's policy and their treaties as to which government they'd side with.

The passport statement iota quoted is there for the reasons in the last two paragraphs - by leaving the UK you open the doors to the other country taking adverse action against you.

Unfortunately, the Hague Convention firmly supports the right of every nation to determine who is or is not a citizen of that nation.  (http://eudo-citizenship.eu/InternationalDB/docs/Convention%20on%20certain%20questions%20relating%20to%20the%20conflict%20of%20nationality%20laws%20FULL%20TEXT.pdf)

In effect, being precluded from renouncing one's allegiance to the government of one's birth without the permission of that government is in accordance with international law.

Chapter 1, Article 6 also states that:

Without prejudice to the liberty of a State to accord wider rights to renounce its
nationality, a person possessing two nationalities acquired without any voluntary act
on his part may renounce one of them with the authorisation of the State whose
nationality he desires to surrender.
This authorisation may not be refused in the case of a person who has his habitual and
principal residence abroad, if the conditions laid down in the law of the State whose
nationality he desires to surrender are satisfied.

Thus the question is the $2,350 fee imposed by the US government a permissible "condition" to renouncing US citizenship (acquired by birth or descent, not by naturalization or other voluntary means) under international law or not?

The passport statement applies even if you never leave the UK.  Whether it might be possible to mount a successful challenge - for instance, a Human Rights case - I suspect we won't know until/unless someone tries and gets a court ruling.  But being realistic, IMO governments simply can't afford to get into disputes over the rights of dual nationals, as they don't want to endanger their own controls over citizenship.

I'm inclined to agree the most likely outcome is the ACA's "same country" proposal.  That wouldn't rock too many boats, and would be a big help to duals, though of course it wouldn't offer any relief with regard to citizenship or CBT.

Thus the question is the $2,350 fee imposed by the US government a permissible "condition" to renouncing US citizenship (acquired by birth or descent, not by naturalization or other voluntary means) under international law or not?

Human Rights law, you mean?  I don't think the US recognises HR law.  The convention itself doesn't stipulate anything about permissibility.

Believe me I really wish these pernicious fees could be ruled unacceptable.  But can't see who could possibly do that, other than the US Congress.

Human Rights law, you mean?  I don't think the US recognises HR law.  The convention itself doesn't stipulate anything about permissibility.

Believe me I really wish these pernicious fees could be ruled unacceptable.  But can't see who could possibly do that, other than the US Congress.

Or the federal courts (as I mentioned upthread), since the fee is set by an agency and is not coded into law (and may conflict with another statute or maybe even the Constitution).

@iota - Perhaps I should've described it as while a country may choose not to aid in the physical enforcement of the other citizen country's laws they can't intervene with the efforts beyond the scope of the resident country's powers (e.g. seizing money that travels through the US). That's the way FATCA is being enforced.

@iota - Perhaps I should've described it as while a country may choose not to aid in the physical enforcement of the other citizen country's laws they can't intervene with the efforts beyond the scope of the resident country's powers (e.g. seizing money that travels through the US). That's the way FATCA is being enforced.

It appears to me that FATCA is being enforced in the UK by being mediated through the IGA.

1. The IRS tells the banks to implement the FACTA reporting requirements, and cleanse their books of any accounts held by a US Person who doesn't co-operate.

2. This would be illegal under UK law, but the banks can't afford to refuse because they're all up to their necks in the US financial system, therefore no protection against the 30% withholding threat.  The UK really really doesn't want another banking meltdown, and also really really wants to get in on Automatic Worldwide Big Data Exchange.

3. Enter the IGA: UK-enacted legislation, making it legal for the banks to comply with the requirements of FATCA.

Personally, I don't expect FATCA to be successfully challenged, but I would very much like to be proved wrong.

So far me and someone else have commented (based on the counter at this page) but neither comment has been publicly posted (as of when I made this reply). Being pessimistic maybe they're trying to censor the public comments (even though it doesn't say that they don't post comments for that reason)? Being optimistic maybe they're actually reviewing and considering the public suggestions?

So far me and someone else have commented (based on the counter at this page) but neither comment has been publicly posted (as of when I made this reply). Being pessimistic maybe they're trying to censor the public comments (even though it doesn't say that they don't post comments for that reason)? Being optimistic maybe they're actually reviewing and considering the public suggestions?

Being processed, I'd imagine. 

Once your comment is received, the appropriate agency must process it before it is posted to Regulations.gov. Given the fact that certain regulations may have thousands of comments, processing may take several weeks before it may be viewed online.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!faqs

Don't hold your breath. Hundreds of people submitted objections to the "consultation" on raising the fee for renouncing citizenship to $2350. Only a very few of the submissions were ever shown on the site and most, if not all, of those were mailed-in submissions rather than those posted electronically through the website. Mine never showed up nor did those from any of my friends or extended family. So much for having a say.

Don't hold your breath. Hundreds of people submitted objections to the "consultation" on raising the fee for renouncing citizenship to $2350. Only a very few of the submissions were ever shown on the site and most, if not all, of those were mailed-in submissions rather than those posted electronically through the website. Mine never showed up nor did those from any of my friends or extended family. So much for having a say.

There's a link from the FAQ page to a page about what use is made of comments.  http://www.regulations.gov/docs/FactSheet_Public_Comments_Make_a_Difference.pdf

Agencies respond to comments by categories in the preambles of final rules.

The price increase is labeled as an "interim final" rule, so eventually (I'm guessing) it may resurface as a "final rule" which could in theory include responses to points raised in the comments.

Realistically though, the chances of any significant changes may be quite slim, given that us would-be relinquishers/renunciants are not people the rulemakers need to listen to.