As of September 2026, the U.S. Department of State has reduced the U.S. citizenship renunciation fee from $2,350 to $450. Adjusted for inflation since the 2014 increase, $450 today is equivalent to approximately $320 in 2014 dollars — the lowest real-terms cost for renunciation in more than a decade.
This is what the updated government website provides regarding renunciation:
Overview
Relinquishment of U.S. citizenship by performing certain statutory expatriating acts, including taking the oath of renunciation, voluntarily and with the intent of relinquishing U.S. citizenship, is a personal right that cannot be exercised on a person’s behalf. For example, a person’s parent(s) or legal guardian may not take the oath of renunciation for that person. A Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) approved by the Department of State is the final agency determination of loss of U.S. nationality.
NOTE: STEPS 1-4 below outline the process for requesting a CLN based on taking an oath of renunciation before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer abroad under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 349(a)(5), 8 USC 1481(a)(5). For information on the parallel process to request a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) on the basis of the commission of another potentially expatriating act under INA 349(a)(1)-(4), 8 USC 1481(a)(1)-(4), please contact your location by selecting it below.
Oath of Renunciation of U.S. Nationality
Embassy, consulate, or office providing consular services process requests to take the oath of renunciation of U.S. citizenship. Minors, individuals who do not read or write English, individuals with mental health or cognitive disability or impairment and/or guardianship, and those for whom loss of U.S. nationality would result in statelessness are invited to contact your location to discuss taking the oath of renunciation.
Taking an oath to renounce U.S. nationality before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer overseas is a serious and irrevocable act. Therefore, you should carefully consider and fully understand the consequences and ramifications of this act prior to your decision to begin the process.
Steps to Take
STEP 1: Review the legal requirements and consequences/ramifications of taking the oath of renunciation of U.S. citizenship.
Please read the information provided by the embassy, consulate, or office providing consular services and available online at the Department of State and Internal Revenue Service links below regarding the legal requirements for taking the oath of renunciation before beginning this process. Loss of U.S. nationality is irrevocable, and you should fully understand the consequences and ramifications before beginning this process.
The Court agrees. In Mann Construction, Inc. v. United States, 27 F.4th 1138 (6th Cir. 2022), the court found that Notice 2007-83 failed to comply with the APA’s notice-and-comment procedure. Similarly here, because Notice 2009-85 has not been subject to a notice-and-comment procedure, it does not comply with the APA and thus is not binding. As such, Aroeste was not required to file Form 8854 with his amended returns.]
[See, Aroeste v. United States – where IRS Form 8854 is not binding as IRS Notice 2009-85 is invalid.]
STEP 2: Email your locationto initiate the process and receive instructions. Gather and submit scanned copies of the required documents and schedule your first interview.
To schedule an initial interview, which will be conducted by telephone or in-person at the embassy, consulate, or office providing consular services, please send an email to your location. Canada, Bern, Berlin, Amsterdam, Australia (Sydney and Melbourne), Singapore, Brussels, and Paris provide electronic first interviews
Applicants should personally review all documents and prepare all forms provided by the embassy, consulate, or office providing consular services in accordance with the instructions. DO NOT SIGN ANY FORMS BEFORE YOUR FINAL INTERVIEW.
STEP 3: Schedule and attend the final interview at the embassy, consulate, or office providing consular services with all required original documents and pay the fee.
Schedule your final interview appointment according to embassy, consulate, or office providing consular services instructions. On the day of your final interview appointment, you must bring all of the original documents you previously submitted by email. You will be asked to reschedule if you do not have the required documents at the time of your final interview appointment.
Your Consular Report of Birth Abroad, and Certificate of Naturalization or Citizenship, if applicable, generally will be retained by the embassy, consulate, or office providing consular services during the remainder of the process and then returned to you. Your U.S. passport also will be retained and, if your Certificate of Loss of Nationality is approved by the Department of State, it will be canceled before it is returned to you upon your request. If you need to travel to the United States on your U.S. passport after the second interview but before the Certificate of Loss of Nationality has been approved, please so advise the embassy, consulate, or office providing consular services at the second interview.
You will meet with a consular officer for your second interview and you will be given another opportunity to review the documents that you have already filled out (but not signed) Form DS-4079, Questionnaire; Loss of United States Nationality; Attestations prior to signing them and taking the oath of renunciation.
Fee: Immediately after taking the oath of renunciation, you must pay the non-refundable current fee of US $450 for administrative processing of a request for a Certificate of Loss of Nationality. The fee is not waivable, nor is it refundable if your request for a Certificate of Loss of Nationality is denied.
Step 4: Receive the Certificate of Loss of Nationality if approved by the Department of State
The Department of State will review each request for a Certificate of Loss of Nationality to determine whether there is a legal basis to approve it. This step may take several months or more. The embassy, consulate, or office providing consular services may contact you for further information before the Department of State decides your case. The embassy, consulate, or office providing consular services will email you if and when your request has been approved. If your request is denied, the embassy, consulate, or office providing consular services will send you an email attaching a denial letter.
NOTE: STEPS 1-4 above outline the process for requesting a CLN based on taking an oath of renunciation before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer abroad under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 349(a)(5), 8 USC 1481(a)(5). For information on the parallel process to request a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) on the basis of the commission of another potentially expatriating act under INA 349(a)(1)-(4), 8 USC 1481(a)(1)-(4), please contact your location for inquiries.
Fees (Prices in U.S. Dollars)
Non-refundable fee of $450 USD at the time of the appointment.
What the Fee Reduction Does Not Change
The $450 consular fee covers only the State Department’s administrative processing of the renunciation appointment. It has no effect on the U.S. tax consequences of renunciation, which are governed entirely by separate federal tax law.
A U.S. citizen who renounces citizenship in 2026 still faces the same IRS obligations as before the fee change. Form 8854, the Initial and Annual Expatriation Information Statement, must still be filed. The five-year tax compliance certification is still required. If the renouncing individual qualifies as a covered expatriate under the three IRS tests — net worth, average annual tax liability, and compliance certification — the Section 877A mark-to-market exit tax still applies in full.
The fee reduction makes the administrative step of renouncing less expensive. It does not reduce the tax cost.
Is the $450 Fee the Only Cost of Renouncing?
No. The consular fee is the smallest cost most people encounter. The substantive costs of renunciation depend entirely on the individual’s financial situation and filing history. For individuals who are covered expatriates, the Section 877A exit tax can represent a significant liability. For individuals with unfiled FBARs or unreported foreign accounts, FBAR penalties may apply separately.
Attorney fees for proper pre-renunciation planning, tax preparation for Form 8854, and any exit tax liability are the costs that vary significantly from person to person. The $450 appointment fee is the one cost that is the same for everyone.
When Did the Fee Change Take Effect?
The State Department updated its fee schedule in September 2026, reducing the U.S. citizenship renunciation fee from $2,350 to $450 effective immediately. The $2,350 fee had been in place since September 2014, when it was increased by more than 500 percent from the prior $450 level. In real terms, adjusted for inflation since 2014, the current $450 fee is equivalent to approximately $320 in 2014 dollars.
How Many Lawful Permanent Residents does the U.S. Receive (Per Year: 1820-2022)
There is an idea that only recently has permanent resident US immigration status into the United States grown substantially. The peak years were in the early 1990s as to absolute numbers. However, the greatest number of permanent residents as a relative percentage of the population was in the early 1900s; by far. See the chart below that I created from DHS immigration statistics data.
There were more LPRs admitted, in absolute terms in 1905 (1,026,499) than in 2022 (1,018,349).
[arm_restrict_content plan=”2,” type=”show”]
In percentage terms the total number of LPRs in 1905 compared to the total population was more than four times (4X) greater than in 2022 when it was (about 3/10th of 1 percent or 0.306%; versus a total population of 333 million) . In 1905 the total population was about 84 million, with newly admitted LPRs representing 1.225 percent of the entire resident population (1.225%; is greater than 4X the 2022 relative percentage).
The “Mark to Market” Tax that did NOT Exist in 1820, 1913, 1966 (Not Until 1996)
The US tax expatriation laws now impose a “mark to market” tax on so-called “long-term residents” who become “covered expatriates.” Such a concept in the tax law never existed in the early part of the 20th century, and indeed only became law in 1996. See an earlier post, The Foreign Investors Tax Act of 1966 (“FITA”) – The Origin of US Tax Expatriation law
This so-called Mark to Market tax is based upon a legal fiction, as if the individuals sold their worldwide assets on the “expatriation date.” It applies, even though there’s no current sale of assets, no disposition, transfer, change of ownership, change of title, or other “realization” event. The term “realization” is very significant in US tax law, including as recently discussed by the United States Supreme Court. See below and Moore v. the United States (2024) .
Below is a table of LPRs who were admitted to that status, per year, over the last 200+ years starting in 1820:
Are you or any of your family members one of these millions (more than 88 million) of LPR individuals represented in the above graph over the last 200+ years?
Is the “Mark to Market” Expatriation Tax Unconstitutional? – through the Prism of Moore
No Court in the land has explicitly ruled on whether the “mark to market” tax under Section 877A is unconstitutional. However, many international tax minds (myself included) have doubted the ability of Congress to levy a tax on unrealized wealth in light of Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920) and the language of the amendment ratified in 1913 to the Constitution.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
16th Amendment of the Constitution [emphasis added]:
One of the exceptional international tax minds, Professor Reuven S. Avi-Yonah has been writing a lot about this issue after submitting an amicus brief along with Professor Bret Wells to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in the Moore case which was decided last week. Moore v. United States, No. 22-800 (06/20/2024). Moore was not about “expatriation taxes” but rather a “mandatory repatriation tax” (“MRT”) under Section 965.
Moore argued some of the fundamental issues that lie at the core, in my view, of whether Congress has the legal authority to impose taxation (as an income tax) based upon the increased value of assets as of the date, the individual becomes a “covered expatriate”. How does the individual have any income (see, Eisner v. Macomber) by merely holding and having the same assets on the day prior to “expatriation” as the day after? No sales, no exchanges, no dispositions, no transfers, no gifting, etc. – and yet 26 U. S. C. § 877A imposes taxation on “income.”
Does TIGTA have the Answer: to the Question – How many former U.S. citizens and long-term lawful permanent residents have filed and should have filed IRS Form 8854?
The short answer to the question above – is NO!
The government does not know how many IRS Forms 8854 should have been filed.
Note the total numbers of 8854 returns filed as reported in Figure 2 of the TIGTA Report were less than 25,000 during a ten year period. This report focuses really only on former U.S. citizens (“USC”) who have renounced their citizenship. Not on lawful permanent residents (“LPRs), which during that same ten year period there were around 200,000 who filed USCIS Form I-407.
* How Many Individuals Should have Filed Form 8854?
These regulations are extensive and provide an explanation of the purpose of these rules.
II. Purpose of Foreign Gift and Trust Provisions
During the mid- to late-1990s, abusive tax schemes, including offshore schemes involving foreign trusts, reemerged in the United States after reaching their last peak in the 1980s. GAO, Efforts to Identify and Combat Abusive Tax Schemes Have increased, but challenges remain, GAO–02–733 (Washington, DC: May 22, 2002). In these schemes, foreign trusts were used to transfer large amounts of assets abroad, where it was much more difficult for the IRS to identify whether U.S. persons owned a trust.
interest in such trusts, and whether such persons were reporting and paying the required taxes on their income from such trusts. Many of the foreign trusts were established in tax haven jurisdictions with bank secrecy laws. Before the 1996 Act amended sections 6048 and 6677, there was no Form 3520-A), which was limited to five percent of the transfer or corpus of the trust, as applicable, not to exceed $1,000. In light of this, it was difficult for the IRS to obtain information about income earned by U.S.-owned foreign trusts and distributions to U.S. beneficiaries from foreign trusts, and Sections 6048 and 6677 were generally ineffective in ensuring that U.S. persons provided this information. information. The result was “rampant tax evasion.” 141 Cong. Rec. S13859 (daily edition of September 19, 1995) (comments by Senator Moynihan). Requirement for U.S. Persons to Report Distributions from Foreign Trusts and the Penalty for Failure to Report Transfers to a Foreign Trust or an Annual Foreign Trust Information Statement (in Federal Register/Vol. 89, No. 90/Wednesday, May 8 of 2024/Proposed Rules and 141 Cong. Rec. S13859 (daily edition of September 19, 1995) (comments by Senator Moynihan).
What’s Your Probability of an IRS Tax Audit? Taboo – to say? . . . . shhhhh . . . . “Covered Expatriates”
Many tax practitioners think they are prohibited from discussing with a taxpayer the probability or likelihood that a tax return, tax position or a form (e.g., IRS Form 8854, Initial and Annual Expatriation Statement) will be audited by the IRS.
Many practitioners think such a statement is somehow taboo – and cannot be answered when a client asks the question: “Will my tax return get audited?”
Someone who has become a “covered expatriate” might want to know – whether the IRS audit of expatriate tax returns is high or low? What if I do not even have a social security number (e.g., as a U.S. citizen born outside the U.S.) from my date of birth, and I have lived outside the U.S. almost all of my life? Will that impact the chances of tax audit? Can answers be provided to these logical questions raised by taxpayers?
First, no one ever knows whether any tax return or position will get audited. The answer necessarily requires the ability to peer into the future.
Quaint?: U.S. Treasury 1998 Report: Income Tax Compliance by U.S. Citizens and U.S. Lawful Permanent Residents Residing Outside the United States and Related Issues (Part I of Part II)
This is a classic report that now reads quaintly.
This 1998 U.S. Treasury report was written before the IRS and the Department of Justice started enforcing what has now become numerous international information reporting penalty provisions in the law. The author watched the change over these years, and the introduction of some new statutory penalties (e.g., 26 USC § 6039F in 1996; § 6039D in 2010; § 6039G in 1996; and major modifications in 2010 to § 6048, among others and increased FBAR penalties). Most importantly, the biggest change was how international individual taxpayers can (and often are) severely penalized by the IRS.
This 1998 report is full of sensible ideas. The Treasury explains the complex tax laws applicable to United States citizens (“USCs”) and lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) residing outside the U.S. The report has suggestions on how to best educate international taxpayers living overseas who are impacted by these laws.
Fast forward more than 25 years later (post 9/11/2001; post USA Patriot Act of 2001; post Swiss Bank scandals 2009+; post FATCA 2010+, etc.) and we are in a world of international tax penalties galore.
The U.S. international tax world in 2024 is a very different world, even though the core of the U.S. international tax law of how much tax is owing has largely remained the same for individuals. The calculation of income taxes for USCs and LPRs living overseas in 2024 is largely the same as it was in 1998. Plus, the IRS reports that only 10,684 resident income tax returns (IRS Form 1040) were filed by these individuals living overseas in the last year the IRS Office of Statistics reporting tax returns with IRS Form 2555 (Foreign Earned Income).
What has changed over these years is the IRS enforcement and easy found money on penalty collections. One example is the penalty for reporting tax-free gifts and inheritances. The reporting requirement of that law (26 U.S. Code § 6039F – Notice of large gifts received from foreign persons) was adopted in 1996.
The IRS has been increasingly aggressive in asserting international tax penalties: The available data shows . . . there were over 4,000 penalties assessed against individuals and businesses, totaling $1.7 billion [just for this penalty under 6039F]. During this period, the average penalty was . . . $426,000 . . .
Taxpayer Advocate Report (2023): Most Serious Problem #8 – The IRS’s Approach to International Information Return Penalties Is Draconian and Inefficient
The IRS assessed US$1.7 billion of penalties for this simple 6039F reporting violation over the four years of 2018-2021. The 2018 amounts tripled or quadrupled in subsequent years (e.g., $77M v. $238M v. 282M). Not all of these taxpayers are residing overseas, but certainly USCs and LPRs residing outside the U.S. are likely to encounter foreign gifts and foreign bequests, simply because their lives are foreign!
On the flip side, there have been few favorable changes to the U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) living outside the U.S. over these 25 years.
The most favorable developments have come in the last year or so. Importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the IRS interpretation of multiple per year non-willful FBAR penalties inUnited States v. Bittner, 143 S. Ct. 713 (2023). The author of this blog worked on the ACTEC amicus brief in Bittner, cited by the majority opinion (Justice Gorsuch) and the dissent (Justice Sotomayor).
Also of significance for individuals living in tax treaty countries is the case of Mr. Aroeste. The author of this blog represents the Mexico City resident who had not formally abandoned his LPRs. The case law provides significant relief for different groups of international taxpayers pursuant per the ruling by the federal district court in Aroeste v United States, 22-cv-00682-AJB-KSC (20 Nov. 2023). That case had over $3M of penalties assessed for IRS Forms 5471, 3520 and FBAR filings.
Plus, the DOJ conceded the penalty assessed against a Polish immigrant for a foreign gift in Wrzesinski v. United States, No. 2:22-cv-03568, (E.D. Pa. Mar 7, 2023) for not filing IRS Form 3520 based upon reasonable cause. Finally, the U.S. Tax Court decision in Farhy v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (2023) concluded the IRS could not automatically assess penalties for not filing IRS Form 5471.
Indeed, the international tax world has changed much over this past quarter century since the 1998 U.S. Treasury report. These recent string of cases in favor of international taxpayers is starting to look like a positive trend. See, Six Weeks, Three International Information Reporting Decisions (18 Sept. 2023).
How Many LPRs are Living in Tax Treaty Countries like Aroeste (Now including Chile)? What are the Legal-Tax Consequences? (Part I of II)
No, not talking about Texas-Style Chili as reported in the – NYT Cooking Recipe.
Chile, the country in South America and the newest country to have an income tax treaty go into force with the United States. The U.S.-Chile Tax Treaty (in the works for more than a decade) went into force at the end of 2023, on 19 December 2023.
The question is how many “LPRs” are residing in a tax treaty country that are impacted favorably (presumably all of them) by the federal district court decisions we successfully handled against the IRS and DOJ, Tax Division: Aroeste v United States, 22-cv-00682-AJB-KSC (20 Nov. 2023)?
As previously explained, the Aroeste decision will affect potentially millions of “Green Card” holders (a subset of the 3.89M estimated by the government) living outside the U.S. Those who have not formally abandoned their lawful permanent residency status. See, “LPR Tax Limbo” – Formal Abandonment of LPR (Form I-407) – (2020). This “LPR Tax Limbo” is no longer the case after the Aroeste decision.
These individuals who are living in tax treaty countries are not in “LPR Tax Limbo” any more since the Court clarified when the individual is not a United States tax resident. The Court explained, that filing a “late” tax treaty position, does not cause the non-U.S. citizen to have waived the benefits of the income tax treaty. It is the tax treaty with each of the 66 countreis that has the potential of unlocking the “escape hatch” described by the Court.
The Court agrees with Aroeste. Although Aroeste gave untimely notice of his treaty position, the Court finds this does not waive the benefits of the Treaty as asserted by the Government. Rather, I.R.C. § 6712 provides the consequences for failure to comply with I.R.C. § 6114, namely a penalty of $1,000 for each failure to meet § 6114’s requirements of disclosing a treaty position.
The court in Aroeste outlined a 5-step analysis that becomes crucial for the 3.89 million LPRs residing abroad in one of the 66 tax treaty countries, in determining whether they are “United States persons” under the law. This will be covered in Part II.
Millions of LPR Individuals Living in 66 Different Countries Could Be Impacted by Aroeste vs. U.S.
The United States has a total of 58 income tax treaties that covers 66 countries. See, Countries with U.S. Income Tax Treaties & Lawful Permanent Residents (“Oops – Did I Expatriate”?) (2014); ironically reflecting the same tax treaties in force in November 2023 as of 2014 (until the Chile treaty came into effect). The 1973 U.S. – U.S.S.R. income tax treaty applies to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
Importantly, anyone in these circumstances would be remiss, if they did not consider carefully the “mark to market” tax implications to them if they were to become a “covered expatriate” as defined in the law. These “mark to market” tax consequences can have potentially devastating consequences, including to U.S. beneficiaries in the future if not properly planned and considered.
What Questions Need to be Asked if You Live (with a “green card”) in one of the 67 Countries – with a U.S. Income Tax Treaty?
Depending upon the factual circumstances of each individual, they may be able to benefit from the international tax treaty law articulated by the U.S. Federal District Court in Aroeste v United States – Order (Nov 2023). Future posts will explore the legal relevance of some of the following questions to consider:
Has the individual filed any U.S. federal income tax returns since leaving the United States?
Was a professional tax return preparer hired or consulted about the filing of a federal income tax return (e.g., a certified public accountant, an enrolled agent, a full time tax return preparer, ta tax attorney, etc.)?
Has the individual been filing IRS Form 1040 Resident Tax Returns in the same way Mr. Aroeste was filing – based upon the advice (that turned out to be erroneous -although given in good faith) from their U.S. tax return preparer?
What steps if any have been taken to notify the U.S. federal government (irrespective of the agency) regarding their physical residency outside the United States?
This information is intended to provide general information about tax expatriation legal concepts under U.S. law to help readers better understand often very complex issues within the U.S. international tax field for citizens and lawful permanent residents. General legal information is not the same as legal advice, that is, the concrete application of law to a specific case with unique and particular facts.
Legal advice also should include strategic planning and advice to a particular case. A legal adviser should be able to assist an individual in taking important decisions and steps, related to the specific goals of the individual, while understanding the legal and tax consequences of each step. There are a range of consequences that the “U.S. tax expatriation” laws impose upon different types of transactions, transfers, reorganization of assets, etc. None of these items are discussed in this Tax-Expatriation.com This is not legal advice.
consulate, or office providing consular services will email you if and when your request has been approved. If your request is denied, the embassy, consulate, or office providing consular services will send you an email attaching a denial letter.
ar case. A legal adviser should be able to assist an individual in taking important decisions and steps, related to the specific goals of the individual, while understanding the legal and tax consequences of each step. There are a range of consequences that the “U.S. tax expatriation” laws impose upon different types of transactions, transfers, reorganization of assets, etc. None of these items are discussed in this