ExpatriationLaw - X Spaces Lives Discussions - Ending Double Taxation Of Americans Abroad

Speakers include:Dr. Laura SnyderDr. Suzanne deTrevilleJohn RichardsonTim SmythThe Compliance Crisis: 2025 Report on Americans Abroad 1 source This transcript features a discussion among advocates regarding the 2025 National Taxpayer Advocate Report, which officially identifies the severe compliance burdens facing Americans living abroad as a major problem. The participants highlight how the U.S. citizenship-based taxation system creates “second-class citizens” who struggle with overwhelming reporting requirements, punitive penalties, and a lack of IRS support. A central focus is the report’s warning that the fear and frustration experienced by expats ultimately threatens the integrity of the entire U.S. tax system. The speakers emphasize the gross inequities of exit taxes, particularly regarding foreign pensions, which can make it financially impossible for many to either comply with the law or renounce their citizenship. Ultimately, the dialogue argues that the only true resolution is to separate citizenship from tax residency to end the extraterritorial reach of U.S. tax obligations. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

The Compliance Crisis: 2025 Report on Americans Abroad 1 source This transcript features a discussion among advocates regarding the 2025 National Taxpayer Advocate Report, which officially identifies the severe compliance burdens facing Americans living abroad as a major problem. The participants highlight how the U.S. citizenship-based taxation system creates “second-class citizens” who struggle with overwhelming reporting requirements, punitive penalties, and a lack of IRS support. A central focus is the report’s warning that the fear and frustration experienced by expats ultimately threatens the integrity of the entire U.S. tax system. The speakers emphasize the gross inequities of exit taxes, particularly regarding foreign pensions, which can make it financially impossible for many to either comply with the law or renounce their citizenship. Ultimately, the dialogue argues that the only true resolution is to separate citizenship from tax residency to end the extraterritorial reach of U.S. tax obligations._________________________________________________________________The report includes the following description of a hypothetical U.S. citizen abroad:“Sue, a U.S. citizen, has lived and worked in Australia for many years after marrying her Australian husband, Sam. As a dual citizen, Sue pays Australian income taxes on her wages but also remains subject to U.S. tax laws. They have been advised their income is always less than the foreign earned income exclusion. They have joint checking and savings accounts in an Australian bank, and on various paydays the combined balance of their joint accounts exceeds $10,000 USD. Sue participates in an Australian superannuation, a compulsory system for retirement savings. Three years ago, she inherited some stock shares from her Australian aunt, which she keeps in the same brokerage house that maintained her aunt’s account. Sue and Sam have not filed a U.S. income tax return or an FBAR. Sue eventually learns that because she is a U.S. citizen she must also file a U.S. tax return to report her Australian income, with Forms 3520, 3520-A, 8938, and 8621 (depending on the investment in the superannuation). They also must electronically file FinCEN Form 114 (FBAR) using FinCEN’s BSA E-Filing system. If they file tax returns, they may owe U.S. taxes and penalties thereon.They would also be subject to foreign trust penalties for failing to disclose Sue’s Australian pension plan, FATCA and FBAR penalties, and possibly foreign gift penalties for failure to disclose her Australian inheritance that is not subject to tax.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

In a recent legal discussion, experts analyzed the landmark Supreme Court case Afroyim v. Rusk, which established that the government cannot strip a person of their citizenship without their specific intent to give it up. The speakers highlighted how this ruling provides constitutional protection for dual nationals, making it significantly harder for the state to involuntarily revoke an individual's status. They noted that while this protects those born or naturalized in the United States, the same level of security may not apply to citizens born abroad who rely on statutory laws. Consequently, the experts recommend obtaining dual citizenship from birth to maximize legal options and ensure long-term global mobility. They concluded that while citizenship remains a fundamental right, its practical security often depends on maintaining robust documentation and navigating bureaucratic gatekeepers. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

This AI generated podcast is based on a SEAT post announcing our latest article published in Tax Notes. The article explains how President Trump’s pledge to end the double taxation of Americans abroad can be achieved by the U.S. waiving it’s “saving clause” rights under the treaty.https://seatnow.org/2025/10/06/a-simple-and-unilateral-treaty-fix-for-citizenship-taxation-richardson-snyder-and-alpert/To test your knowledge of the concepts, check out the flashcards at:https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/69edd0bf-f0b3-4855-b544-7f93b17485ea?artifactId=906feeb7-4ee8-40c7-b26e-a3edb8112701Unilateral Treaty Fix for Citizenship Taxation 1 source The source argues for a unilateral treaty fix to mitigate the effects of U.S. citizenship taxation on Americans living abroad, particularly focusing on how this causes double taxation. The authors contend that the U.S. Treasury can achieve this by simply declining to use the “saving clause” in tax treaties, which currently reserves the U.S.’s right to tax its citizens as residents regardless of treaty provisions. If the Treasury refrains from invoking this clause, U.S. citizens could be treated as “treaty nonresidents” like Green Card holders, allowing them to benefit from the treaty’s residency “tie breaker” rules. This administrative action is proposed as a way for the President to fulfill a pledge to end the double taxation of expats without requiring legislative or formal regulatory changes. The text explains that the current system, supercharged by the saving clause, forces U.S. citizens abroad into dual tax residency, leading to worldwide taxation and complexity, often on non-U.S. source income. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

Tim Symthe - @TpSmyth01David Bindel - @DavidBindelTxDr. Suzanne DeTreville - @SDeTrevilleJohn Richardson - Expatriation Law This podcast is largely based on a post that appeared on the SEAT site at:https://seatnow.org/2025/10/06/a-simple-and-unilateral-treaty-fix-for-citizenship-taxation-richardson-snyder-and-alpert/“This episode examines the U.S. tax treaty “saving clause,” which lets the United States deny treaty residency tiebreaker benefits to U.S. citizens and effectively causes double taxation for Americans living abroad.Speakers discuss history, practical harms (FBAR, pensions, capital gains), and a proposed executive-branch remedy: simply choosing not to invoke the saving clause so expats can rely on treaty tiebreakers, plus legal and durability considerations.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

This is an AI generated podcast from a presentation I created. The AI description of the presentation is:Renouncing US Citizenship: Reasons, Rules, and Risks 1 source “The provided document, primarily authored by John Richardson, offers a comprehensive guide to the decision and process of renouncing U.S. citizenship, focusing heavily on the complex tax implications for expatriates and long-term Green Card holders. The text outlines the statutory requirements for relinquishing nationality, noting that the act must be performed with the intent of abandoning U.S. nationality before a consular officer. A major theme is the potential for double taxation on worldwide income and assets that U.S. citizens living abroad face, which often prompts the consideration of renunciation, particularly as individuals age and accumulate more foreign assets. Significant attention is dedicated to the financial hurdles, especially the “Covered Expatriate” status which triggers the 877A Exit Tax and the associated wealth thresholds and tax compliance requirements. The guide also touches on the practical good and bad news related to income tax, estate tax, and immigration rights following renunciation, including the loss of the right to enter or live in the USA, alongside strategies for avoiding Covered Expatriate status through planning and family considerations.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

I thought it would be interesting to have AI create a podcast of Professor Edward Zelinsky’s 2024 paper titled:Defending U.S. Citizenship-Based Taxation in Theory and in Practice: An Essay on Fiscal Citizenship in a FATCA WorldHere is the AI description:“Defending Citizenship-Based Taxation in a FATCA World 1 source The provided text is an academic essay arguing in favor of the United States' citizenship-based taxation of its citizens living abroad, justifying it through the concept of "fiscal citizenship," which asserts that membership in a political community entails a duty of tax support. The author contends that the U.S. system is more administratively efficient and less unique or harsh than critics claim, pointing out that other nations like Canada, Australia, and the U.K. achieve similar worldwide taxation results via complex residence and domicile rules. Furthermore, the essay discusses how U.S. tax treaties and the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) mitigate some problems for overseas citizens and argues that the generous Section 911 exclusion for foreign earned income makes the U.S. system uniquely taxpayer-friendly compared to other nations. Ultimately, the piece frames the debate as a fundamental disagreement over whether U.S. citizenship is a "one-way street" granting rights without corresponding duties.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

The following AI Generated podcast is based on a presentation that I delivered 10 years ago in London, UK. Not much has changed.Here is the AI generated description of the presentation:Sacred Trust: Counselling Through U.S. Citizenship Trauma Abroad1 sourceThe provided text, "Sacred Trust: Counselling Clients Through the “Trauma of U.S. Citizenship Abroad” in a FATCAesque World," by John Richardson, outlines the significant challenges faced by U.S. citizens living abroad due to the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). It details how financial institutions worldwide are identifying individuals with U.S. indicia, leading to many discovering they are considered U.S. persons and are therefore subject to U.S. taxation. The document emphasizes the emotional and financial "trauma" associated with this realization, including the complex decisions regarding renunciation of citizenship and the potential for a hefty "Exit Tax" for "Covered Expatriates." Ultimately, the text highlights the specialized and sensitive counseling required for these individuals, stressing that advisors act as life counselors guiding clients through profound and often life-altering decisions. The source also touches on the negative impact U.S. citizenship abroad has on financial and business opportunities. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

4 minutes agoAugust 15, 2025 - AI Generated Podcast ...This podcast is a discussion of a recent 2025 paper by Professors Ruth Mason of the University of Virginia and Tsilly Dagan of the University of Oxford title:Reconsidering Citizenship TaxationBoth the paper and the AI generated podcast based on the paper are interesting. The paper discusses citizenship taxation as a theoretical concept. It in no way discusses the reality of citizenship taxation.To put it simply:A discussion of how citizenship taxation actually works and its effects on the lives of those inpacted by it is most notable in its absence.________________________________________________Citizenship Taxation: A Flawed Solution for Global Mobility 1 source The provided text explores citizenship taxation as a potential remedy for the challenges that global mobility and digitalization of work pose to traditional tax systems. It examines how taxation based solely on citizenship aims to prevent tax base erosion by taxing citizens worldwide, regardless of their residence, but argues that this approach is too simplistic and faces significant administrative hurdles, as seen in the United States' experience. The text also highlights how wealthy nations are better equipped to implement such systems unilaterally, potentially exacerbating global disparities, and questions whether multilateral cooperation would genuinely benefit all states equally. Ultimately, it suggests that a combination of citizenship and residence-based taxation might offer a fairer and more effective solution by better aligning tax obligations with actual community membership. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

August 8, 2025 - Speakers Include:Alex Ugorji - @AlexUgorjiDavid Bindel - @DavidBindelTxMat Farel - @MatFarelParviz Malakouti - @ParvizMalakoutiJohn Richardson - @ExpatriationLawAI Description:"Join Citizenship and Immigration Attorney Parviz Malakouti in a deep dive into the complexities surrounding citizenship renunciation. In this insightful episode, recorded on August 8th, Malakouti, alongside experts Alex Ugorji and John Richardson, explore the intricate web of laws and obligations that trap individuals in unwanted citizenships, highlighting the often-overlooked complications of extraterritorial obligations.The discussion spans various geopolitical contexts, from the U.S. to Argentina, and delves into the unforeseen difficulties of acquiring and relinquishing multiple citizenships in today's interconnected world. Listen as experts debate the potential threats and strategic considerations for individuals seeking mobility and freedom in an era where citizenship laws are under increasing scrutiny.Discover why more citizenships might not always offer more freedom, the looming threat of legal obligations that transcend borders, and why relinquishing citizenship can be a daunting task. Whether you're an aspiring global citizen or just curious about international law, this episode offers valuable insights into a rapidly evolving landscape." This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

July 30, 2025 - Speakers Include:Dr. Laura Snyder - @TAPInternationParviz Malakouti - @ParvizMalakoutiBitCoin Backpacker - @BitCoinBackpackerJohn Richardson - @ExpatriationLawOn July 17, 2025 Representative Hurd of Colorado introduced Bill H.R. 4501. The purposes of the bill would include the exemption of U.S. citizen Pope Leo from taxation under the Internal Revenue Code.Congressman Hurd’s bill is discussed here:https://citizenshipsolutions.ca/2025/07/29/colorado-congressman-jeff-hurd-recognizes-problems-of-u-s-citizenship-taxation/This was an interesting and lively discussion which considered how Americans abroad might make use of H.R. 4501 in their mission to end U.S. citizenship taxation. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

July 24, 2025This is a recording of a discussion an “ X.com Space” hosted by U.S. immigration Parviz Malakouti. I (John Richardson) contributed to the discussion.When exactly does a U.S. citizen relinquish U.S. citizenship?X.com Handles:Parviz Malakouti - @ParvizMalakoutiJohn Richardson - @ExpatriationLaw This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

July 21, 2025This is a recording of a discussion an “ X.com Space” hosted by U.S. immigration Parviz Malakouti. I (John Richardson) contributed to the discussion.X.com HandlesParviz Malakouti - @ParvizMalakoutiJohn Richardson - @ExpatriationLaw This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

Warning!! This is incredibly technical and is NOT for the “faint of heart”.The 2017 TCJA - repealed IRC 958(d)(4). All of a sudden many corporation became CFCs.The 2025 “OBBB” - The U.S. taxation of “U.S. Person” shareholders (whether individual or corporation) continues to become more complex. The “OBBB” created a new “form” of of Subpart F income. The is described in 951B. 951B is a direct reaction to the creation of “downward attribution” from a foreign person to a U.S. person. This was created by the repeal of 958(d)(4). In my attempt to understand the new 951B, I have taken a trip down “memory lane” to better understand how the repeal of 958(d)(4) resulted in the creation.What follows is the AI description of the source used for the podcast.Downward Attribution Under Section 958: Guidance and Considerations 1 source This source provides an overview of the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act (TCJA) repeal of Section 958(b)(4), which eliminated the prohibition on downward attribution of stock ownership from non-U.S. persons to U.S. persons. The webinar materials explain how this repeal broadened the definition of a Controlled Foreign Corporation (CFC) and U.S. shareholder status, leading to unintended consequences for multinational businesses. It details proposed regulations (REG-104223-18) and Revenue Procedure 2019-40 issued by the IRS to address and mitigate some of these unintended impacts, particularly concerning reporting requirements (Form 5471) and the calculation of Subpart F and GILTI income. The presentation also discusses other areas affected, such as intercompany transactions, M&A considerations, and the portfolio interest exemption, offering insights into practical considerations for businesses. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

This AI generated podcast is based on a paper written by Professor Leopoldo Parada. Although a “saving clause” has been a feature of U.S. tax treaties for years, the OECD Model Treaty did not have a “saving clause” before 2017. Interestingly, the OECD commentary suggests that the purpose of the “saving clause” was to allow for the taxation of controlled foreign corporations. The U.S. treaties exploit their version of he “saving clause” as a mechanism to employ U.S. citizenship taxation. The abstract of Dr. Parada’s paper includes:“The 'OECD Saving Clause': An American-Tailored Provision Made to Measure the WorldRivista di Diritto Finanziario e Scienza delle Finanze, LXXVIII 1, I, 13-52 (2019)41 Pages Posted: 18 Jul 2019Leopoldo ParadaKing's College LondonDate Written: July 1, 2019AbstractThis article argues that the “saving clause” provision introduced in the 2017 OECD Model conflicts with the entitlement to double taxation relief under Article 23 OECD Model, especially in cases involving the use of hybrid entities. Although this issue is pragmatically solved in the new paragraph 11.1 of the commentaries on Articles 23A and 23B OECD Model, which provides no obligation for the Contracting States to relieve double taxation to the extent that taxation is based exclusively on the residence of the taxpayer, it leaves the taxpayer in the residence state with a potential permanent double taxation status. The foregoing may be however avoided with an optional “reverse saving clause”. Such an option seems to be not only more coherent with the traditional object and purpose of tax treaties (double taxation relief), but it also reflects the tax treaty practice already in force in some countries around the world.”The AI generated description of the paper (upon which the podcast is based) includes:“The OECD Saving Clause: An American-Tailored Provision 1 source This text provides an in-depth analysis of the "saving clause" in the 2017 OECD Model Tax Convention, comparing it to the United States' version. The author argues that the OECD's saving clause conflicts with double taxation relief, especially when dealing with hybrid entities. While the OECD commentaries offer a pragmatic solution, it can lead to permanent double taxation for taxpayers. The article proposes an optional "reverse saving clause" as a more coherent and equitable solution, aligning with the traditional purpose of tax treaties: avoiding double taxation.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

This AI generated podcast is from a John Richardson presentation about “Green Card Abandonment”. The presentation - “Understanding The Green Card (if you can)” - took place on May 1, 2024 on the IRS Medic Podcast.The AI description of the presentation was:The Green Card: Navigating US Tax Residency and Expatriation 1 source This document provides an overview of the U.S. Green Card, focusing on its significant tax implications for holders. It clarifies that possessing a Green Card automatically confers U.S. tax residency since 1984, leading to worldwide taxation regardless of where one lives. The text outlines the "life cycle" of a Green Card, discussing pre-immigration planning, tax considerations while living in America, and the complexities of "leaving America" while either maintaining or abandoning the Green Card. A major point of emphasis is the distinction between "long-term residents" and others, detailing the severe consequences, including the "Exit Tax", for "covered expatriates" who are long-term residents abandoning their Green Card. The document repeatedly stresses the complexity of these tax laws and strongly advises seeking professional guidance. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

This AI generated podcast is based on an article written by John Richardson on March 12, 2019 at Citizenship Solutions. It was republished on March 13, 2019 post at Tax Connections. The Tax Connections version received a lot of comments. You can find the article on Tax Connections here. The comments are extremely interesting.What follows is an AI generated description of the article.Punitive US Taxation for Americans Abroad 1 source The provided text from John Richardson's "Americans Abroad More Punitive Taxation" argues that the United States imposes a uniquely punitive and separate tax system on its citizens residing abroad compared to those living domestically. This system results in significant financial burdens and discriminatory treatment for Americans overseas, including higher tax liabilities, increased reporting requirements, and potential confiscation of foreign assets. The author details twelve specific examples illustrating how various financial instruments and life events are taxed more harshly for expatriates. Ultimately, Richardson contends that U.S. citizens abroad are among the most heavily taxed individuals globally due to this dual taxation and complex compliance. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

In November of 2020, SEAT members John Richardson, Karen Alpert and Laura Snyder published “A Simple Regulatory Fix For Citizenship Taxation”. This was the first article (and possibly suggestion) that the problems of Americans abroad could be solved through regulation. We participated in a video podcast with Robert Goulder at Tax Notes.Here is the AI Description of the article.A Simple Regulatory Fix For Citizenship Taxation 1 source This Tax Notes Federal article by John Richardson, Laura Snyder, and Karen Alpert examines the complex challenges faced by U.S. citizens living abroad due to America's citizenship-based taxation system. The authors argue that this system disproportionately burdens expatriates with duplicative and intricate tax compliance, often leading to double taxation and hindering their ability to engage in normal financial activities in their countries of residence. They propose that the U.S. Treasury has the regulatory authority and moral imperative to implement a "qualified nonresident" status, which would exempt these citizens from U.S. taxation on non-U.S. source income, thereby alleviating burdens on both expatriates and the IRS. Additionally, the article suggests several alternative regulatory changes to reduce specific compliance issues, such as those related to foreign bank accounts, retirement plans, mutual funds, and small business filings, highlighting that the IRS currently lacks the resources and expertise to effectively administer global tax enforcement. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

July 12, 2025 - Participants include:Virginia La Torre Jeker - @VLJekerJohn Richardson - @ExpatriationLaw_________________________________________________Introduction:The Trump administration has served notice of its focus on stripping certain U.S. citizens of their citizenship. This comes on the heels of increased aggression toward Green Card holders. Both citizens and Green Card holders are subject to punitive taxation on the loss of their status.Today (July 12/25), Virginia published a fascinating article in Forbes which discusses what could happen if a naturalized citizen is denaturalized. The immigration consequences are understood. What are the tax consequences of a U.S. citizen being denaturalized. What are the tax consequences of a a Green Card holder losing his/her immigration status?This raises questions of great interest. This podcast is a supplement to Virginia's Forbes article describing how this could work.https://www.forbes.com/sites/virginialatorrejeker/2025/07/12/bombshell-denaturalized-citizen-forced-to-exit-cant-escape-exit-tax/AI Description:"Welcome to our latest podcast episode where tax attorney Virginia LaTorre Jeker joins John Richardson to discuss a pressing issue: the U.S. government's efforts to revoke citizenship of naturalized Americans. While this may initially seem like an immigration issue, Virginia highlights the intertwining of tax and immigration laws, focusing on the possible tax implications for those who face denaturalization.The conversation navigates through the complexities of what losing U.S. citizenship means under expatriation (877A Exit Tax and 2801 Covered Gift) rules, exploring how these individuals face potential exit taxes. Virginia sheds light on how the tax code distinctly imposes punitive taxes on the loss of U.S. citizenship, raising intriguing questions on the potential financial burdens, not just for those being denaturalized, but also for their families."We delve into real-world scenarios, legal precedents, and hypothetical situations to provide a comprehensive look at this multifaceted topic, tailored for both tax professionals and the general audience. Tune in for insights that may redefine the way you see the intersection of immigration and tax laws." This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

Introduction:This is an AI generated podcast which is based on a submission I made in April of 2024 explaining “Why non-resident citizens should be exempted from the FBAR”What follows is the AI description of the podcast ….Exempt Non-Resident Citizens From FBAR: A Crucial Argument 1 source The source critiques the Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) reporting requirements, specifically arguing for the exemption of non-resident U.S. citizens. It highlights that the current FBAR rules, designed in 1970, are outdated for today's globalized world and disproportionately burden U.S. citizens living abroad by requiring them to report everyday local bank accounts. The author asserts that the U.S. Treasury Secretary possesses the authority to modify these regulations, advocating for a system based on actual connection to the U.S. rather than solely citizenship status, as many individuals with stronger U.S. ties are currently exempt while non-resident citizens are not. The text also explains the Paperwork Reduction Act process for renewing information collection, framing the current period as an opportunity to influence the FBAR rules. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

This is an AI generated podcast based on the following X.com thread from June 19, 2023:https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1670801303306477571.htmlThis was motivated largely by my lunch meeting with Jim and Christine Bennet:https://x.com/ExpatriationLaw/status/1669784804429053952Here is the AI generated description of the X.com thread:The FairTax: A Solution for Americans Abroad 1 source The provided text, primarily from John Richardson's ExpatriationLaw tweets, advocates for the FAIRtax, a proposed consumption-based tax system in the United States. Richardson emphasizes that the current tax system is overly complex and burdensome, leading to high compliance costs and a lack of transparency. The FAIRtax, detailed as either a 30% tax on the purchase price or 23% of total expenditure, aims to replace all existing federal taxes like income, estate, and payroll taxes, simplifying the system dramatically. A significant benefit highlighted is that this would eliminate U.S. taxation on Americans abroad and remove the need for compliance with FATCA and citizenship-based taxation. Despite potential concerns about its impact on different economic classes, proponents argue it would be a transfer of power back to the people and could attract more business to America, with a "prebate" system designed to protect lower-income individuals. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

This is an AI generated podcast of a 2014 paper written by Professor Bret Wells and Cym Lowell titled: “Income Tax Treaty Policy in the 21st Century: Residence vs. Source”Why this is important:The Trump administration recently proposed (as part of the “OBBB”) a provision that would impose tax penalties on residents of countries that had DSTs (“Digital Services Taxes”). The U.S. objection to DSTs is largely based on the provisions in tax treaties which give the “source country” (where the profits are generated) the right to tax those profits only if the corporation as a PE (“Permanent Establishment”) in that country. Of course, Google, Microsoft, et al do NOT have a “permanent establishment” in Canada, UK, India, etc. As a result many countries (because they cannot tax the income of U.S. multitionals) have enacted DSTs which are a tax NOT income but rather on revenue.Yes, the standard tax treaties (which are 100 years old) deny the source country taxing rights (absent a PE). But, why is this? Does it make sense in 2025 to deny the source country taxing rights over income?I came across a FANTASTIC article written by Professor Brett Wells and Cym Lowell which provides some historical perspective on this issue:https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2380241I then ran it through AI and here is the summary. The AI description is:Income Tax Treaty Policy: Residence vs. Source 1 source The provided text explores the historical evolution of international income tax treaty policy, focusing on the shift from source-based taxation to residence-based taxation following World War I. It highlights how the League of Nations' model, which favored residence countries (often capital-exporting nations) and introduced the concept of Permanent Establishment (PE), largely superseded an earlier International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) proposal for profit-split methodologies. The text argues that this historical policy choice, coupled with the later rise of "interim holding companies," inadvertently led to the creation of "homeless income"—profits that escape taxation in both source and residence countries. Ultimately, it suggests that a re-examination of these foundational principles is necessary to address current global tensions surrounding multinational corporations' tax planning strategies and to foster more balanced and equitable international tax policies for the 21st century. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

June 12, 2025 - Participant includes:John Richardson - @ExpatriationLawOn June 12, 2025 SEAT members Laura Snyder and John Richardson separately gave presentations at the Migration Conference held at the University of Greenwich in London, UK.A complete description may be found on the SEAT site here.A brief outline of John's presentation (and the slides used) may be found in the blog post here.This podcast is a recording of John's presentation.AI description:"Join lawyer John Richardson from Toronto, Canada, as he delves into a vital yet overlooked issue impacting global mobility: taxation as destiny. This episode explores the rarely discussed concept of exit taxes, which pose significant barriers to emigration for people seeking to move from their country of citizenship. John sheds light on how these taxes affect individuals, especially middle-class citizens, preventing them from pursuing new opportunities abroad.Through his experiences from attending various international conferences, John highlights the importance of establishing multilateral treaties to address this growing concern. He argues for the rights of middle-class individuals to move freely without the fear of punitive taxes on their hard-earned pensions and assets. With examples from history, John draws attention to the urgent need for international cooperation in mitigating these financial barriers, advocating for fair and just treatment of migrating populations worldwide." This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

On June 12, 2025 SEAT members Laura Snyder and John Richardson separately gave presentations at the Migration Conference held at the University of Greenwich in London, UK.A complete description may be found on the SEAT site here.This podcast is a recording of Laura’s presentation.An AI summary of her presentation is:"In this episode, Laura Snyder delves into the intricacies of immigration, exploring two compelling stories of migration to and from the United States. The first tale takes us back to the 19th century, unraveling the challenges faced by immigrants arriving in America, particularly the risk of conscription by foreign powers like Britain during the Napoleonic Wars. Snyder highlights the enduring issue of dual nationality and the resulting impact on individuals with ties to their homeland.The narrative progresses to the 20th century and beyond, addressing the modern-day struggle of U.S. citizens living abroad who face the burden of being taxed on their worldwide income. Despite living outside the U.S., Americans grapple with a complex tax system, leading many to contemplate renouncing their citizenship. Snyder reflects on the parallels between historical conscription and current taxation policies, emphasizing the need for evolving international perceptions of citizenship and allegiance.Through historical insights and contemporary analysis, this episode challenges listeners to reconsider the implications of perpetual allegiance and the responsibilities of both host and origin countries in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of immigrants." This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

A wide ranging discussion, including:* history of exit taxes and aspects of 877A* why an international treaty governing exit taxation would be in the interest of the world* Citizenship for tax purposes vs. citizenship for immigration purposes* The income tax is dead, but the obituary hasn’t been written* The future of taxation and the principles for a good tax This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

May 27, 2025Note this is an AI generated summary of a presentation. There are some things in it that are not entirely accurate. That said, the main points are there.Navigating US Citizenship Tax: Options and Challenges 1 source The author argues that the United States' approach to taxation based on citizenship, rather than residency, creates significant burdens for Americans living abroad. This citizenship taxation is presented as a form of ownership over individuals. While long-term prospects for a shift to residence-based taxation (RBT) are seen as positive, legislative change has been slow. The author discusses potential options for U.S. persons abroad, including citizenship renunciation, which severs the tax tie, and citizenship deletion, a non-compliant path. Renunciation is advised, particularly before reaching certain financial thresholds, to avoid the Exit Tax and related complications. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

May 21, 2025 …X Spaces discussion devoted to the problem of U.S. citizens playing specific roles in society. FBAR, taxation and more … This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

Introduction:Part of the "Big Beautiful Bill" introduced by the Trump administration includes a 5% tax on "remittance transfers". Contrary to the publicity, this provision is NOT restricted to "illegal aliens" and is NOT restricted to remittances sent outside the United States.It is easy to imagine that this could have a "mission creep" that would eventually result in complete capital controls in the United States.The following links will be helpful in understanding:- what the proposal means- who is affected by it- compliance concerns- evolutionhttps://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/The-One-Big-Beautiful-Bill-Section-by-Section.pdfhttps://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/05/one-big-beautiful-bill-is-a-once-in-a-generation-chance/https://punchbowl.news/wp-content/uploads/SMITMO_017_xml.pdfhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1693o-1https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-D/chapter-36AI Description:"Join John Richardson from Toronto, Canada, as he delves deep into the implications of the recently introduced but contested "big, beautiful bill" alongside Dr. Laura Snyder, President of SEAT. This episode focuses on "SEC. 112105. EXCISE TAX ON REMITTANCE TRANSFERS" of the "Big Beautiful Bill" concerning the new excise tax on remittance transfers.Throughout the conversation, John and Laura unpack the details and potential consequences of this legislation. They explore its broader impacts, notably on legal immigrants, green card holders, and even U.S. citizens residing abroad. The discussion highlights concerns about the tax's possible contradictions with equal protection rights under U.S. law and the logistical challenges individuals may face when trying to secure tax credits.This episode provides insights into how the remittance tax, under the guise of targeting illegal immigrants, effectively broadens its reach, complicating financial transactions for many, and raising questions around citizenship taxation policies. Tune in to understand better these unfolding legislative changes and their far-reaching effects." This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

May 16, 2025 - Participants include:Virginia La Torre Jeker - @VLJekerJohn Richardson - @ExpatriationlawOn May 4, 2025 Virginia and I did a podcast about the possibility of a U.S. citizen being appointed Pope. You can access that first podcast here:https://prep.podbean.com/e/a-us-citizen-as-pope-exploring-tax-implications-and-controversies/This podcast on May 16, 2025 continues our discussion. Of course, a U.S. citizen is now Pope.Here is our discussion.AI Generated:"Join host John Richardson from Toronto and special guest Virginia La Torre Jeker, a U.S. tax lawyer based in Dubai, as they delve into the unique challenges faced by Pope Leo, the first American pope. In this engaging discussion, they explore the implications of U.S. tax laws on the Pope's situation, particularly focusing on the Foreign Bank Account Report (FBAR) obligations that accompany his American citizenship.As they sift through the complexities of U.S. tax reporting, John and Virginia evaluate the broader impacts these regulations have on Americans living abroad, drawing attention to the broader scope and potential need for reform. They also spotlight the recent Wall Street Journal article by Laura Saunders, which adds depth to the debate on whether or not the Pope is required to file U.S. taxes given his vow of poverty.This riveting episode not only addresses the pope's tax conundrum but also questions the ethics and practicality of the current citizenship-based tax regime, prompting listeners to rethink the rules of the game." This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

On April 9, 2025 President Trump issued the following Executive Order:https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/reducing-anti-competitive-regulatory-barriers/As a result, on April 11, 2025 the “Office Of Management And Budget” issued the following public request for information:https://www.regulations.gov/document/OMB-2025-0003-0001The request for comments includes:SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Americans are the most inventive, hardworking, and industrious people in the world. For too long, American dynamism and creativity have been stunted by onerous and unnecessary regulations. With this document, OMB seeks proposals to rescind or replace regulations that stifle American businesses and American ingenuity. We seek comment from the public on regulations that are unnecessary, unlawful, unduly burdensome, or unsound. Comments should address the background of the rule and the reasons for the proposed rescission, with particular attention to regulations that are inconsistent with statutory text or the Constitution, where costs exceed benefits, where the regulation is outdated or unnecessary, or where regulation is burdening American businesses in unforeseen ways.Russell T. Vought,Director. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

US Citizenship Taxation and International Law Violations1 sourceThis source material critically examines United States citizenship-based taxation and its potential conflict with international law, particularly as it applies to individuals residing in other countries. The author argues that this form of taxation, which claims non-resident citizens as U.S. tax residents solely based on citizenship, likely violates customary international law (CIL) by contravening established norms of tax residency tied to physical presence or economic connection. The discussion covers the failure of FATCA litigation to address this underlying issue, the unique nature of U.S. tax treaties with their "saving clause," and the implications for national sovereignty and individual human rights, specifically the right to renounce citizenship without undue burden. Ultimately, the author proposes that the U.S.'s practice of citizenship taxation represents an outdated approach out of step with modern international tax principles._______________________________________________Based on:https://citizenshipsolutions.ca/2025/04/20/toward-an-argument-that-us-citizenship-taxation-violates-international-law/ This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

Introduction …In 1980 President Jimmy Carter filed a report on the topic of "U.S. Law Affecting Americans Living and Working Abroad".The Carter report was …“A legislative effort by Senator George McGovern required the President to conduct a thorough study of laws governing U.S. citizens abroad. This report by President Jimmy Carter was the first under that law - a painstaking review of the many legal provisions affecting U.S. citizens residing abroad. Issues include loss of citizenship by children born abroad, income tax, social security, veterans benefits and many other matters - and very little has changed since this report was written, so this is still a valuable legal guide for any American taking up foreign employment or residence.”The book is available here.It is a fascinating report in terms of its content. In addition, to the content it reveals the impressive work done by "American Citizens Abroad" in its formative years. Significantly, many of the problems that exist today were identified in 1980. Very little has changed for the better.Significantly the report is based on a world BEFORE:* FBAR enforcement AKA The Obama/Biden “FBAR Fundraiser”* the creation of the PFIC rules in 1986 (Reagan tax reform)* Obama/Biden FATCA in 2010* the Clinton Treasury Foreign Trust rules of 1996* the Clinton Entity classification regulations of 1996* the Obama OVDI/OVDP programs beginning in 2009* Trump administration Transition Tax/GILTI rules of 2017Note that EVERY ONE of these things is the result of U.S. citizenship taxation.The ONLY solution is a complete separation/severance of citizenship from tax residency. Hate to say it, but there is NO OTHER option._______________________________________On April 12, 2025 Dr. Suzanne de Treville led a discussion about the Carter report. Her discussion specifically referenced a presentation and spreadsheet which are at the following two links:https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_fN0iCzcBhftbiemFYEm9B7dQsCQp9O8bV7D0a70JV8/edit?usp=sharinghttps://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tCwz7RM2Uc1RV8o0rY7BBprVv3_357TSAJ-D4-eZicM/edit?usp=sharingIn addition, Dr. de Treville referenced the earlier work of AARO, which is documented in the following post.https://citizenshipsolutions.ca/2024/01/21/the-unknown-ambassadors-a-saga-of-citizenship-phyllis-michaux/ This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

A truly fascinating discussion primarily by Brent Vanderbrook about the "ideology" of U.S. citizenship taxation.How does one engage in a discussion with people inside the USA (particularly US Treasury) about changing citizenship taxation? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&context=ljTaxation and the Human Right to Renounce Citizenship 1 source This law journal article from Saint Louis University examines the legality of the United States' "exit tax" imposed on individuals who renounce their citizenship. The author, William Thomas Worster, analyzes this taxation in the context of international human rights law, particularly the right to change nationality and the right to leave one's country. The article explores the evolution of U.S. tax laws targeting expatriation and then investigates the international legal framework protecting the right to renounce citizenship, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Ultimately, the piece argues that the U.S. exit tax regime infringes upon the fundamental human right to renounce nationality as it cannot be justified under permissible limitations in international law. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

“Cook v. Tait: Citizenship, Sovereignty, and Taxation 1 source This source examines the Cook v. Tait Supreme Court case, arguing it's fundamentally about the meaning of US citizenship and the allegiance citizens owe to the nation, rather than solely about taxation. The author contends that in the early 20th century, citizenship was viewed more in terms of the state's rights over individuals. The article highlights how this perspective, as seen in Justice McKenna's opinions in Cook v. Tait and MacKenzie v. Hare, contrasts with the post-World War II emphasis on individual rights against the state, suggesting a need to reconsider citizenship-based taxation in this evolved context.”__________________________________________________Here is the original 2022 blog post on which this AI generated podcast is based …https://citizenshipsolutions.ca/2022/09/06/cook-v-tait-more-about-the-meaning-of-citizenship-than-about-the-scope-of-taxation/Cook v. Tait: More About The Meaning Of Citizenship Than About The Scope Of TaxationLeave a replyIntroduction And PurposeThe focus of this blog has always been on citizenship, taxation and citizenship taxation. Although taxation has always been perceived as a necessary burden, citizenship has sometimes been a benefit and sometimes been a burden. James Dale Davidson, writing in “The Sovereign Individual”, expressed the view that in the 20th Century US citizenship was generally a benefit. In the 21st (digital) century US citizenship based taxation has transformed US citizenship into a burden. The numbers of people renouncing US citizenship are a testament to this new reality.The Weaponization Of US Citizenship – Two MethodsThe history of US citizenship as documented in Amanda Frost’s “You Are NOT American”, is an epic story of the “weaponization of citizenship”. I highly recommend Professor Frost’s book – “You Are NOT American” to those interested in the evolution of US citizenship.Method 1: Weaponization By Claiming The Individual Does NOT Meet The Requirements Of CitizenshipRegardless of the benefits or burdens of US citizenship, it is clear that the United States has a long history of “weaponizing US citizenship”. Professor Amanda Frost in her superb book “You Are NOT American” provides many examples of how the United States has used the concept and status of citizenship to either punish or reward individuals. Generally, Professor Frost describes a history where the use (or misuse) of America’s “nationality laws” has created hardships for people. Citizenship is a part of who people are. It’s part of their personal identity. Citizenship (presumptively) gives people a place or country they can call home. Citizenship (presumptively) gives people a place where they can live without fear of removal. Citizenship matters and the loss of citizenship can be a frightening and destabilizing event in the lives of an individual. It was not until 1967 that the United States Supreme Court in Afroyim ruled that US citizenship was conferred by the Constitution, belonged to the individual and could not (at least if born or naturalized in the US) be taken by the Government. (Of course that is of little comfort to those who can’t prove their US citizenship.)Method 2: Weaponization By Claiming The Individual Does Meet The Requirements Of CitizenshipA minority of countries in the world confer citizenship based on and only on birth in the country.Only two countries in the world impose worldwide taxation based on and only on the fact of citizenship.The United States is the ONLY country that does both!FATCA assisted the United States in exporting US taxation into other countries and on to the individuals who live in and are tax residents of those countries. In short: the accusation of being a US citizen living outside the United States subjected one to the “disabilities” and “criminalization” imposed by the US extra-territorial tax regime.The US Supreme Court, Justice Joseph McKenna, And Citizenship In The Early Part Of 20th CenturyFrom Dred Scott to Afroyim v. Rusk, the Supreme Court of the United States has played a vitally important role in being the tribunal of last resort in matters of citizenship. Between 1915 and 1924 the Supreme Court presided over two significant cases where US citizenship was either the primary issue or the primary consideration. These cases are MacKenzie v. Hare (decided in 1915) and Cook v. Tait (decided in 1924). Interestingly, both of the decisions were written by Justice Joseph McKenna. Justice McKenna was not considered to be one of the stronger judges of the US Supreme Court. His appointment was generally regarded as an appointment based on politics and not based on merit.* Like all judges he surely addressed the issues in the context of the world in which he lived.The World Of Justice McKenna And The Meaning Of Citizenship Under International Law In The 1920sAfter the end of World War 1 the international community began to consider/reconsider international rules regarding nationality. Those interested in a “deep dive” are invited to read the following report – which included a draft “nationality” convention – which originated at Harvard University.harvardnationalityproposalleagueofnations23ajilss13That proposed treaty was composed of 22 Articles. Significantly, the proposed treaty focused on the rights of the state in relation to its citizens and NOT on the rights of the citizens in relation to the state! (It was not until the 1948 Universal Declaration Of Human Rights that the international community focused on the rights of individual citizens.)For example, Article 1 of the Harvard proposal states:As the terms are used in this convention,(a) nationality is the status of a natural person who is attached to a state by the tie of “allegiance”;(b) a “national” of a state is a natural person attached to that state by a tie of “allegiance”.(c) “naturalization” is the process by which a state confers its nationality upon a natural person after birth.There is a clear emphasis on “allegiance”. In addition, other Articles (notably Articles 12 and 13) express clear presumptions against having more than one nationality. It is reasonable to infer that the period that Justice McKenna’s understanding of citizenship was that: (1) it was largely about the rights of countries/states (2) citizenship was the “allegiance” the citizen had to the country and (3) the concept of “allegiance” seemed to create strong presumptions against dual nationality. It is probable that these principles supplied the lens through which Justice McKenna understood citizenship.Therefore, it is likely that Justice McKenna would have thought about “citizenship issues” in terms of the rights of the state in the individual or the obligations of the citizen to the state. A reasonable extension of this principle would have been that the state would represent the individual to other nation states. It is unlikely that Justice McKenna would have considered that citizens had rights as individuals. (I was not until after World War 2, that the world began to consider the rights of the individual.)Therefore the 1920s was characterized by a “culture of citizenship” in which individual citizens were considered to be the property and responsibility of the state and not as individuals with rights against the state. This is the context in which Justice McKenna considered the cases of MacKenzie v. Hare and Cook v. Tait.MacKenzie v. Hare – 1915As described in Professor Frost’s book, Ms. MacKenzie was born in the United States and was therefore – as per the 14th Amendment – born a US citizen. She married a non-citizen. The US expatriation laws of the time mandated that any US citizen woman who married a non-citizen would automatically lose her US citizenship. Interestingly this provision of US law conflicted with Article 19 of the Harvard draft nationality convention. Article 19 specifically stated that:Article 19A woman who marries an alien shall, in the absence of a contrary election on her part, shall retain the nationality which she possessed before marriage, unless she becomes a national of the state where her husband is a national and establishes or maintains a residence of a permanent character in the territory of that state.The issue was heard by the US Supreme Court in 1915. The decision, written by Justice McKenna, ruled that Ms. MacKenzie did, notwithstanding her birth in the United States, lose her US citizenship by marrying a non-citizen.Mr. Justice McKenna’s ruling and conclusion in MacKenzie v. Hare is captured in the following paragraph:It would make this opinion very voluminous to consider in detail the argument and the cases urged in support of or in attack upon the opposing conditions. Their foundation principles, we may assume, are known. The identity of husband and wife is an ancient principle of our jurisprudence. It was neither accidental nor arbitrary, and worked in many instances for her protection. There has been, it is true, much relaxation of it, but in its retention, as in its origin, it is determined by their intimate relation and unity of interests, and this relation and unity may make it of public concern in many instances to merge their identity, and give dominance to the husband. It has purpose if not necessity in purely domestic policy; it has greater purpose, and, it may be, necessity, in international policy. And this was the dictate of the act in controversy. Having this purpose, has it not the sanction of power?Plaintiff contends, as we have seen, that it has not, and bases her contention upon the absence of an express gift of power. But there may be powers implied, necessary or incidental to the expressed powers. As a government, the United States is invested with all the attributes of sovereignty. As it has the character of nationality, it has the powers of nationality, especially those which concern its relations and intercourse with other countries. We should hesitate long before limiting or embarrassing such powers. But monition is not necessary in the present case. There need be no dissent from the cases cited by plaintiff; there need be no assertion of very extensive power over the right of citizenship or of the imperative imposition of conditions upon it. It may be conceded that a change of citizenship cannot be arbitrarily imposed — that is, imposed without the concurrence of the citizen. The law in controversy does not have that feature. It deals with a condition voluntarily entered into, with notice of the consequences. We concur with counsel that citizenship is of tangible worth, and we sympathize with plaintiff in her desire to retain it and in her earnest assertion of it. But there is involved more than personal considerations. As we have seen, the legislation was urged by conditions of national moment. And this is an answer to the apprehension of counsel that our construction of the legislation will make every act, though lawful, as marriage, of course, is, a renunciation of citizenship. The marriage of an American woman with a foreigner has consequences of like kind, may involve national complications of like kind, as her physical expatriation may involve. Therefore, as long as the relation lasts, it is made tantamount to expatriation. This is no arbitrary exercise of government. It is one which, regarding the international aspects, judicial opinion has taken for granted would not only be valid, but demanded. It is the conception of the legislation under review that such an act may bring the government into embarrassments, and, it may be, into controversies. It is as voluntary and distinctive as expatriation, and its consequence must be considered as elected.Judgment affirmed.Of particular significance are the following two sections:First, finding that the nationality of the wife follows the nationality of the husband …The identity of husband and wife is an ancient principle of our jurisprudence. It was neither accidental nor arbitrary, and worked in many instances for her protection. There has been, it is true, much relaxation of it, but in its retention, as in its origin, it is determined by their intimate relation and unity of interests, and this relation and unity may make it of public concern in many instances to merge their identity, and give dominance to the husband. It has purpose if not necessity in purely domestic policy; it has greater purpose, and, it may be, necessity, in international policy.Second, reasoning that if wife and husband have the same nationality and that if the husband is not a US citizen that this could create difficulties for the United States in its interaction with other nations …As a government, the United States is invested with all the attributes of sovereignty. As it has the character of nationality, it has the powers of nationality, especially those which concern its relations and intercourse with other countries. We should hesitate long before limiting or embarrassing such powers.He seems to be saying that issues surrounding nationality are an attribute of the sovereignty of nation states and that the nation state represents its citizens alone in interactions with other nation states.Foreshadowing Afroyim v. Rusk, in MacKenzie v. Hare, Ms. MacKenzie argued (in part) that the 14th Amendment gave her a constitutional right to her US citizenship and that Congress did NOT have the authority to strip her of her citizenship. (Note that this was the same argument that was the basis of the decision in the 1967 decision in Afroyim v. Rusk.) Justice McKenna seems to recognize that this is one of Ms. MacKenzie’s arguments when he wrote:An earnest argument is presented to demonstrate its invalidity. Its basis is that the citizenship of plaintiff was an incident to her birth in the United States, and, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, it became a right, privilege, and immunity which could not be taken away from her except as a punishment for crime or by her voluntary expatriation.Notably Justice McKenna appeared to “side step” this issue by reasoning that Ms. MacKenzie was NOT stripped of her citizenship. Rather she voluntarily performed an expatriating act with “notice of the consequences”.Cook v. Tait – 1924Any discussion of US citizenship based taxation begins with an acknowledgement and discussion of Cook v. Tait. Cook v. Tait was a 1924 US Supreme Court decision which is always cited for the legal proposition that:US citizenship based taxation: Constitutional or an attribute of the sovereignty of nationsCook v. Tait was the subject of a series of posts published at the Isaac Brock Society. The series of posts included a fascinating discussion of what the decision in Cook v. Tait actually means/says.https://casetext.com/case/cook-v-taitWe may make further exposition of the national power as the case depends upon it. It was illustrated at once in United States v. Bennett by a contrast with the power of a State. It was pointed out that there were limitations upon the latter that were not on the national power. The taxing power of a State, it was decided, encountered at its borders the taxing power of other States and was limited by them. There was no such limitation, it was pointed out, upon the national power; and the limitation upon the States affords, it was said, no ground for constructing a barrier around the United States “shutting that government off from the exertion of powers which inherently belong to it by virtue of its sovereignty.”The contention was rejected that a citizen’s property without the limits of the United States derives no benefit from the United States. The contention, it was said, came from the confusion of thought in “mistaking the scope and extent of the sovereign power of the United States as a nation and its relations to its citizens and their relations to it.” And that power in its scope and extent, it was decided, is based on the presumption that government by its very nature benefits the citizen and his property wherever found, and that opposition to it holds on to citizenship while it “belittles and destroys its advantages and blessings by denying the possession by government of an essential power required to make citizenship completely beneficial.” In other words, the principle was declared that the government, by its very nature, benefits the citizen and his property wherever found and, therefore, has the power to make the benefit complete. Or to express it another way, the basis of the power to tax was not and cannot be made dependent upon the situs of the property in all cases, it being in or out of the United States, and was not and cannot be made dependent upon the domicile of the citizen, that being in or out of the United States, but upon his relation as citizen to the United States and the relation of the latter to him as citizen. The consequence of the relations is that the native citizen who is taxed may have domicile, and the property from which his income is derived may have situs, in a foreign country and the tax be legal — the government having power to impose the tax.Judgment affirmed.May 5, 1924Notably the judgment includes:Or to express it another way, the basis of the power to tax was not and cannot be made dependent upon the situs of the property in all cases, it being in or out of the United States, and was not and cannot be made dependent upon the domicile of the citizen, that being in or out of the United States, but upon his relation as citizen to the United States and the relation of the latter to him as citizen.Justice McKenna appears to base his decision on the meaning of citizenship and not on the effect of taxation. In other words, the decision is based on who the citizen is (a natural person who has allegiance to the United States) and NOT on the activity in question or whether the citizen receives any benefits in return for the payment of taxes.What MacKenzie v. Hare and Cook v. Tait have in commonThe result in each decision is based on the concept that individual citizens have legal significance as being citizens of a nation state and they owe their allegiance to the nation state. To put it simply: Individual citizens were the property of the state and that property interest was recognized as an aspect of the sovereignty of the state. MacKenzie v. Hare was NOT about citizenship per se. Cook v. Tait was NOT about taxation. Justice McKenna’s decisions in both cases was based on the relationship as citizens of the United States Ms. McKenzie and Mr. Cook and not the specific circumstances of what each was trying to do (remain a citizen) or not do (pay taxes as a citizen).It’s simple: As citizens of the United States – at least as citizenship was understood a century ago – the individual was the property of the United States and subject to all laws prescribed by the United States.Therefore, Cook v. Tait is NOT a case about taxation. It is a case about the meaning of citizenship. The meaning of citizenship has clearly evolved in the last hundred years. Therefore, it is reasonable to reconsider whether citizenship taxation should be considered to be an attribute of the relationship between the citizen and the United States. This is particularly true in light of the evolution of US taxation.Citizenship and the 1948 Declaration Of Human RightsThe post World War 2, Universal Declaration Of Human Rights introduced the idea that citizens as individuals had rights vis-a-vis the state. I would have been interesting to see if this might have changed the result in Cook v. Tait.John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

Introduction …Assuming the correctness of the AI interpretation of the report (it is reasonably accurate) it’s important to recognize that the report is based on the state of the world in 1980. This means that it is based on a world BEFORE:* FBAR enforcement AKA The Obama/Biden “FBAR Fundraiser”* the creation of the PFIC rules in 1986 (Reagan tax reform)* Obama/Biden FATCA in 2010* the Clinton Treasury Foreign Trust rules of 1996* the Clinton Entity classification regulations of 1996* the Obama OVDI/OVDP programs beginning in 2009* Trump administration Transition Tax/GILTI rules of 2017Note that EVERY ONE of these things is the result of U.S. citizenship taxation.The ONLY solution is a complete separation/severance of citizenship from tax residency. Hate to say it, but there is NO OTHER option.(To conclude that the USA has a hatred for its citizens abroad would be an understatement.)__________________________________________________________________The Carter report was … “A legislative effort by Senator George McGovern required the President to conduct a thorough study of laws governing U.S. citizens abroad. This report by President Jimmy Carter was the first under that law - a painstaking review of the many legal provisions affecting U.S. citizens residing abroad. Issues include loss of citizenship by children born abroad, income tax, social security, veterans benefits and many other matters - and very little has changed since this report was written, so this is still a valuable legal guide for any American taking up foreign employment or residence.”AI Summary of the book:🌎 Americans Abroad: Laws and Issues 1 source The primary source is a 1980 document containing letters and reports regarding how U.S. law impacts American citizens living and working abroad, stemming from a congressional mandate for the President to identify discriminatory statutes. It includes an initial presidential report from 1979 detailing specific federal provisions perceived as unfair in areas like citizenship, veterans' benefits, and social security. The document further contains responses and concerns from American Citizens Abroad (ACA), highlighting numerous perceived inequities and competitive disadvantages faced by overseas Americans, particularly concerning taxation. Additionally, it features a report from the President's Export Council focusing on the detrimental effects of U.S. tax policy on Americans working overseas and its impact on American exports. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

From AI - Generated from the actual transcript of the hearingTaxation of Expatriated Citizens: Senate Finance Committee Hearing, 1995 1 source The provided text consists of excerpts from a 1995 Senate Finance Committee hearing regarding the tax treatment of U.S. citizens who renounce their citizenship. The hearing addresses various proposed bills (S. 453, S. 700, H.R. 831, H.R. 981, H.R. 1535, and H.R. 1812) aimed at preventing tax avoidance through expatriation. Testimonies from Leslie B. Samuels (Treasury Department) and Kenneth J. Kies (Joint Committee on Taxation) present the Administration's and Congressional perspectives on the issue, discussing the shortcomings of existing law, the mechanics and potential revenues of different proposals, and concerns about fairness and international law. The discussion highlights differing approaches, such as taxing unrealized gains versus taxing U.S.-source income for a period after expatriation, as well as challenges in enforcement and potential loopholes. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

🌎 Digital Nomads: Tax and Residency ConsiderationsThis podcast has been created from an outline I prepared in April 2025. Once again, there are some inaccuracies (or at the least some things that should have been expressed better. It’s interesting that is definitely going outside the structure of the document to create the podcast.In any case, I think this podcast is a very good starting pointing for understanding digital nomads. According to AI:This document distinguishes digital nomads from remote workers, highlighting that nomads are self-employed and location-independent, facing unique tax and immigration considerations compared to traditional remote employees. It emphasizes that while immigration status grants permission to be in a country, tax residency determines where income is taxable, noting that these are separate issues. The text specifically addresses the tax obligations of U.S. and Canadian citizen digital nomads, pointing out the U.S.'s worldwide taxation but potential for the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, contrasting it with Canada's difficulty in severing tax residency and lack of a similar exclusion. Practical advice for digital nomads includes maintaining a financial center in their home country to simplify banking and tax obligations. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

Note: This is an experimental technology. Curious to see how this works and whether it has value. In this presentation I tried to expain:* what residence-based taxation is and what it is not* what citizenship-based taxation isWhy “dual tax residency” means double taxation.I would be grateful for your thoughts on this AI generated podcast. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

This is an experimental AI conversion from a presentation that I made on April 30, 2024. Please do NOT rely on it. For the most part it’s a good job. But I do not some mistakes (I think).Grateful for any comments. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

An “X Spaces” discussion based in part on my submission to Senate Finance as follows …https://citizenshipsolutions.ca/2025/04/01/my-submission-to-senate-finance-discussion-draft-taxpayer-assistance-and-service-act/ This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit expatriationlaw.substack.com