Why would the government do this other than to mess with him? Is it because of his connection to Bitcoin or because he renounced his citizenship? If you renounce your citizenship you can't go to the U.S. anymore?
It's because he clearly and admittedly renounced his citizenship
for the purpose of not paying U.S. taxes. That bolded part is important. We don't need any conspiracy theories here, it's been U.S. policy for many years that if you renounce your citizenship for the purpose of not paying U.S. taxes you are not to be admitted back into the country. Eduardo Saverin (co-founder of Facebook) is likely in the same boat, since he also clearly renounced his citizenship to avoid taxes.
Of course, it could also have something to do with the fact that Ver was convicted of selling explosives on eBay, that's something I'd think most governments (not just the U.S.) wouldn't take too lightly.. but no, let's forget about any plausible explanations based on long-standing U.S. laws and policies and just assume it's a conspiracy against Bitcoin.
Correct.
The expert says:
http://www.nestmann.com/the-real-reasons-americans-give-up-their-us-citizenshipIn 2012, and again in 2013, Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Bob Casey (D-PA) introduced legislation that would retroactively punish wealthy expatriates like Saverin. Under their most recent proposal, expatriates with a net worth exceeding $2 million, or with an average income tax liability exceeding $155,000 for the five years preceding expatriation, would be presumed to have given up US citizenship for tax avoidance purposes. If they couldn't prove otherwise to the IRS, they would be permanently barred from ever coming back to the US – even as visitors.
Such “covered” expatriates would also face a 30% percent tax on future gains from US investments, no matter where they live. In contrast, all other non-US citizens who invest in the US enjoy substantial tax advantages.
And get this… both the tax and re-entry provisions are retroactive for anyone who expatriated during the 10-year period prior to the time the law comes into effect.
I’m not aware of any effort by Schumer or Casey to introduce similar legislation in 2014. But, of course, we still have nine months to go.
http://www.nestmann.com/getting-out-is-hard-getting-back-in-is-harderIf you enter the USA with a foreign passport that shows that you were born in the USA, you’ll receive even greater scrutiny.
My friend and colleague P.T. Freeman, who gave up his US citizenship more than a decade ago, was intensively questioned on his most recent entry into the USA.
The first official he spoke to noticed that his foreign passport showed US heritage. The official—whom he actually knew from previous visits— informed P.T. that he needed to use his US passport to enter the USA. P.T. told the official that he had given up his US citizenship, along with the right to use a US passport, many years ago.
The official informed him that a directive sent out to border officials last month set out a new policy for anyone entering the USA with a passport showing a US birthplace. That policy requires that anyone entering the USA with this status automatically be diverted to secondary inspection.
As I’ve written
previously, it’s becoming much more difficult for everyone—especially former US citizens—to obtain a visitor’s visa to the USA.
Non-resident aliens (NRAs) with previous U.S. nationality or permanent residence once were treated virtually the same as other NRAs for purposes of entry or re-entry to the United States.
This status began to change in 1996, when Congress enacted the Reed Amendment to the Immigration & Nationality Act. The amendment gives the U.S. Attorney General the discretion to deny re-entry into the United States to a former U.S. citizen who renounced U.S. citizenship in order to avoid U.S. taxation. Exclusion is limited to former U.S. citizens and doesn't include former Green Card holders. (The Attorney General’s authority transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security under the Homeland Security Act of 2002.)
While the authority of the Reed Amendment has never officially been issued, some U.S. consular officials have denied visa applications from former U.S. citizens, apparently using the Reed amendment as an excuse. This is despite the fact that according to the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual,
"The Department of Homeland Security has not published implementing regulations on INA 212(a)(10)(E) (8 U.S.C. 1182), so no procedures implementing this law are currently in effect."
Then, only a few weeks ago, Senators Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) introduced legislation (The "Ex-PATRIOT Act") that would permanently bar "covered expatriates" from ever returning to the United States. What's more, the law would be retroactive to anyone expatriating up to ten years prior to its enactment. However, in common with the Reed Amendment, it would apply only to former U.S. citizens—not to former green card holders.
Fortunately, the Ex-PATRIOT Act hasn't been enacted. But even without it, I've recently learned of a few examples where former U.S. citizens have been denied a re-entry visa to the United States. Visa denial hasn't been based on the Reed Amendment or any other tax or wealth-related justification. Instead, it's been based on section 214(b) of the Immigration & Nationality Act. In visa denials under this provision, the applicant:
"…did not overcome the presumption of immigrant intent, required by law, by sufficiently demonstrating that you have strong ties to your home country that will compel you to leave the United States at the end of your temporary stay."
In one case, the applicant had very strong ties to his adopted country, and could prove it. However, he didn't bring sufficient evidence of these ties to his visa interview, and thus was denied re-entry. Returning a few days later with a residence permit, driver's license, employment contract, rental contract, etc., he succeeded in obtaining a visitor's visa.
Therefore, if you expatriate and want to return to the United States to visit, bring as much evidence as possible to prove you're completely bound to your new country of residence. Increasingly, other countries—especially in the European Union—are demanding similar proof of permanent ties to another country before granting visitor's visas.
Perhaps you dream of "living nowhere" as a "perpetual traveler" with no ties to any country. That strategy won't work if you need to apply for visitor's visas from most countries. It can work, at least to some extent, if you have a passport that provides visa-free entry to the countries to which you wish to travel. That way, you avoid needing to apply for a visitor's visa. For instance, if you want to travel visa-free to the United States, then you should get a passport from one of the countries on this list. Unfortunately, none of these passports are easy to acquire.
The bottom line is that if you expatriate from the United States, be mentally prepared never to return. Current policy merely makes it difficult to qualify for a visitor's visa, but legislation now before Congress may place you in permanent exile.
http://www.nestmann.com/why-uncle-sam-wants-these-citizenship-programs-shut-downIn November 2014, Canada imposed visa requirements on citizens of St. Kitts & Nevis. It cited “identity management practices within its Citizenship by Investment program” as the reason for ending visa-free travel to Canada by St. Kitts & Nevis passport holders.
The announcement didn’t describe the “identity management practices” with which it was concerned, but it seems safe to assume that one practice that Canada deemed objectionable was that, since 2012, St. Kitts & Nevis has issued passports that don’t display the passport-holder’s place of birth. Nor do the passports show any legal name changes.
That seems a safe assumption, because only days after Canada imposed visa restrictions, the St. Kitts & Nevis government recalled all passports issued between January 2012 and July 2014. The passports will be reissued to add the place of birth of the passport holder and to list any name changes on the observation page. After January 31, 2015, the old passports will be invalid.
http://www.nestmann.com/heres-one-fight-uncle-sam-cant-winOn May 20, FinCEN issued an “Advisory” that warned banks worldwide to apply special scrutiny to individuals identifying themselves as citizens of St. Kitts & Nevis.
Apparently, FinCEN doesn’t believe that St. Kitts & Nevis is trying hard enough to exclude Iranians from its economic citizenship program. And there’s more than just a hint of hypocrisy in that position. At least one other entrant in the economic citizenship market – Antigua – has no outright prohibition against Iranian applicants.
http://www.nestmann.com/second-passports-does-uncle-sam-need-to-knowHaving a second passport and citizenship is not a reason to panic when it comes time to renew your US passport. Nothing changes, really, except for the fact that you need to include the sworn affidavit with your US passport renewal application. You do not even need to come face to face with a State Department official unless you do not qualify to renew by mail.
