Alecca

Is it possible to get dual citizenship? AussieGirl's post had me wondering about this. We're doing the K1 visa. We've not really discussed whether or not Steve will do the US citizenship thing, but I think dual citizenship would be the ideal solution.

Thanks

Alecca

Found the answer here, sorry, I totally forgot about the search function.

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...al+citizenship

meauxna

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...hreadid=164511

FAQ=Frequently Asked Questions

Alecca

Yeah, I checked there - Under the dual citizenship link: "The page cannot be found

The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. "

Folinskyinla

Hi:

I'm a lawyer but I am NOT conversant in UK law -- so part of this is based upon observation and experience.

In order to become a US citizen, the naturalization process requires a formal renunciation of prior citizenship and allegance. Please note that this is a UNITED STATES procedure.

The question on dual nationality then becomes: will the UNITED KINGDOM recognize the renuciation.

My understanding is that the US will require you to tell Liz to go to hell, and Liz will say "you can't do that." End result is "dual nationality."

BTW, the US and the UK had a dispute back in 1812 which included this issue revolving around the right of the Royal Navy to "impress" [conscript] British subjects into service. After the White House was set on fire, the dispute was settled, but I understand they never really settled that issue.

I have two relatives who are dual nationals -- but one was born in the US of UK parents while dad was here on an H-1 visa many years ago. She later married my relative who was born in the US and he later naturalized in the UK. They both carry both passports.

Rete

:-) taking the PLS off will bring you to:

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/

I have fixed the READ page to reflect this change.

Rete

Alecca

Danke Rete

Rich Wales

"Folinskyinla" wrote:

> In order to become a US citizen . . . the US will require
> you to tell Liz to go to h***, and Liz will say "you can't
> do that." End result is "dual nationality."

More precisely, the UK does have a procedure for renouncing British
citizenship, but the renunciatory statement in the US naturalization
oath is not recognized by the UK because it was not made before
British officials in the form and manner prescribed by British law.

Thus, if a Brit becomes a naturalized US citizen, he/she is still a
citizen of the UK as far as the UK is concerned. This is also the
case, BTW, with citizens of Canada and numerous other countries.

Additionally, although the US naturalization oath does require a
renunciatory statement, the current policy of the US government
(State Dept.) is that the renunciation is not enforced in any
meaningful way. The US does not require, expect, or even ask a
new US citizen to take any steps to rid him/herself of a previous
citizenship, other than to take the US naturalization oath with
its renunciatory statement.

Further, if a new US citizen's "old country" refuses to recognize
the renunciation in the US oath, the US currently does not care or
mind if the person continues to acknowledge his/her old citizenship
(such as when travelling to/from the old country) -- as long as
he/she always deals with the US as a US (not foreign) citizen.

> BTW, the US and the UK had a dispute back in 1812 which
> included this issue revolving around the right of the
> Royal Navy to "impress" [conscript] British subjects
> into service.

Britain's traditional nationality doctrine was one of "perpetual
allegiance" (i.e., no right to renounce allegiance to one's
native country). However, this is no longer a part of British
law. It may also be worth noting that the US didn't have a
formal procedure for renouncing US citizenship until the 1860's.

Rich Wales [email protected] http://www.richw.org/dualcit/
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

The law of expatriation [loss of citizenship] is a fascinating subject. Besides formal renunciation, there are "expatriating acts" which can be found at section 349 of the Immigration & Nationality Act. However, under various decisions from the Supreme starting with Afroyim v. Rusk, proving expatriation is hard to do.

I would mention that although the US may not strictly enforce the expatriation provisions, the US DOES care about it -- but the direction of that care has flipped towards often NOT wanting to show expatriation for a simple reason: money. US citizens are subject to tax on worldwide income.

The last case of which I am personally aware of where the US gov't actively pushed expatriation and the person in question contested it was that of Mier Kahane -- Kahane wanted to be free to travel to the US and the US government wanted to keep him out -- so the US passport was the key. However, the litigation was never completed due to Kahane's assasination.

Dave

Alecca <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Is it possible to get dual citizenship? AussieGirl's post had me
    > wondering about this. We're doing the K1 visa. We've not really
    > discussed whether or not Steve will do the US citizenship thing, but I
    > think dual citizenship would be the ideal solution.
    >
    >
FWIW, and in case you haven't considered it, the US taxes its
citizens, whether or not they actually reside in the US, on their
worldwide income. This could be important, if at some point in the
future, you and your spouse plan on residing outside the US. If you
plan to reside in the US for the rest of your lives, I don't think
there are any drawbacks to naturalization, especially if having dual
citizenship is possible.

Dave

Rich Wales

"Dave" wrote:

> FWIW, and in case you haven't considered it, the US
> taxes its citizens, whether or not they actually
> reside in the US, on their worldwide income.

Not quite.

While it's true that the US federal tax law claims jurisdiction
over the total worldwide income of all US citizens, there exist
provisions in the law which shield most non-US-resident citizens
from double taxation.

For example, the "Foreign Earned Income Exclusion" (IRS Form 2555)
allows an American living and working full-time outside the US to
deduct his/her "earned income" (salary/wages) from the US-taxable
"adjusted gross income", up to a ceiling of about US$80K/year (the
actual amount goes up slightly every year).

And if that doesn't suffice to reduce one's US tax to zero, the
"Foreign Tax Credit" (IRS Form 1116) allows the recipient of
non-US-source income to deduct foreign tax liabilities from his/
her US federal tax bill.

Rich Wales [email protected] http://www.richw.org/dualcit/
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

This is way outside of my expertise, but do remember that the "earned income" is for just that -- salaries and wages. There can be other taxable events that create "income" that is taxable and you have no cash to pay them. Conversion of favorable stock options just before the stock tanks caught a lot of "dot-commies" is one example.

Also, the tax systems between two countries can vary so much that a foreign tax will NOT be allowed to be credited.

Bottom line: each case is different and should be reviewed with a qualified consultant.

Blatt

Folinskyinla <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > This is way outside of my expertise, but do remember that the "earned
    > income" is for just that -- salaries and wages. There can be other
    > taxable events that create "income" that is taxable and you have no cash
    > to pay them. Conversion of favorable stock options just before the
    > stock tanks caught a lot of "dot-commies" is one example.

Unlikely to be relevant to anyone employed overseas.

    > Also, the tax systems between two countries can vary so much that a
    > foreign tax will NOT be allowed to be credited.

This has to do with inconsistent characterisation of income: as in the
decade before the US-Canada tax protocol that allowed crediting
Canadian capital gains tax on deemed gains at death against US estate
tax. (It really was an unfair and unexpected burden on many
snowbirds).

    > Bottom line: each case is different and should be reviewed with a
    > qualified consultant.

Most are, unfortunately, incompetent. And few understand the
significance of Alternative Minimum Tax -- the biggest trap for the
unwary, getting worse by the year and unlikely to be resolved in the
context of deepening federal budget deficits. A true "stealth tax",
unaddressed by any tax treaty.

Stephen Gallagher

    >
    > > FWIW, and in case you haven't considered it, the US
    > > taxes its citizens, whether or not they actually
    > > reside in the US, on their worldwide income.
    >
    > Not quite.
    >
    > While it's true that the US federal tax law claims jurisdiction
    > over the total worldwide income of all US citizens, there exist
    > provisions in the law which shield most non-US-resident citizens
    > from double taxation.

That's correct. But, at the same time, let's remember that
there is a subtle difference between the way that that the US
handles the policy of taxing non-resident citizens and how nearly
every other country handles it.

Most countries impose income tax based either on source of income,
or on residency.

"Source of income" taxation means that if income is
generated within a country's territory, then they reserve the
right to tax that income, regardless of the citizenship or
resident status the person who earned that income.

"Residency" taxation means that if a person resides
within a country's territory, then his worldwide income
is subject to income tax in that country. When such a person
becomes a non-resident of that country then his worldwide
income is no longer subject to tax in that country. He would
only have to continue to pay taxes on income sourced in that
country.

Most countries also follow the policy that the
country where the income is earned (source country)
has the primary claim on any taxes on that income.
When a country does impose tax based on residency, they
will usually allow a person to subtract any taxes paid
to the source country from any taxes due on that income
to the residency country. This is referred to as a
foreign tax credit.

Where the United States differs is that they consider the
worldwide income of all US citizens to be subject to US
income tax, even if that person does not reside in the US,
and even if the income is not from US sources. This places
an additional level of tax complexity on US citizens who
live abroad, that most other people who live outside their
country of citizenship do not have to face.

As was already stated, there exist several exemptions and
credits that will usually, but not always, eliminate any
US income tax due on non-US sourced income earned by a
US citizen who resides outside the US, or who pays foreign
income tax on that non-US income. Still, under certain
circumstances,a US citizen who lives outside the US, can
end up paying US income tax on non-US sourced income, simply
because of his citizenship.

Stephen Gallagher