Monthly Archives: July 2025

Part 2: The Hurd Bill – H.R. 4501 Does NOT Protect Pope Leo From FBAR (And FATCA) Reporting

Part A – Purpose and Summary:

This is my second post on H.R. 4501. My first post was a general introduction and is here:

Colorado Congressman Jeff Hurd Recognizes Problems Of U.S. Citizenship Taxation

The purpose of this post is to argue that H.R.4501 does NOT protect U.S. citizen Pope Leo from the invasive reporting obligations which are at the heart of what it means to be a U.S. citizen. The Catholic Church may rue the day that it elected a U.S. citizen as pope.

To put it simply:

H.R.4501 exempts Pope Leo from Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code (the income tax). It does not:

1. Exempt him from Subtitle Fspecifically Chapter 61 – which is where the penalty-laden information reporting requirements are found; and

2. It does not exempt him from section 5314 of 31 U.S.C. which is where the FBAR requirements are found.

For H.R. 4501 to achieve the tax and reporting related aspects of its legislative purpose it must:

– either exempt him from Subtitle F in addition to exempting him from Subtitle A or exempt him entirely from Title 26 (The Internal Revenue Code); AND

– exempt him from 5314 of 31 U.S.C.

This post is organized as follows:

Part A – Purpose and Summary:
Part B – The Concerns Articulated By Representatives Of The Catholic Church And Others
Part C – Parsing H.R.4501 – why it does NOT achieve what it purports to achieve:
Part D- An X.com thread discussing this issue …

Continue reading

Part 1: Colorado Congressman Jeff Hurd Recognizes Problems Of U.S. Citizenship Taxation

Part A – Introducing H.R. 4501

H.R.4501 – To protect the citizenship of, and provide tax-exempt status to, any American elected as the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4501

Here is the text of the bill. It’s amazingly clear. It’s amazingly honest. It states that Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code will not apply to Pope Leo. It is certainly one of the most honest and clear carve outs I have ever seen. (Interestingly it would NOT exempt Pope Leo from subtitle F which contains the international information return reporting requirements.)

BILLS-119hr4501ih

Let’s break H.R.4501 down:

H.R.4501 – To protect the citizenship of, and provide tax-exempt status to, any American elected as the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.

H.R.4501 – To 1. protect the citizenship of (U.S. citizens abroad are being forced to renounce U.S. citizenship because of citizenship taxation) , and 2. provide tax-exempt status to (end U.S. citizenship tax jurisdiction over), any 3. American (U.S. citizen and possibly resident) 4. elected as the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church (appears to condition the benefit based on religion – 14th Amendment issue?).

At present there is no more information on the government site.

Part B – The tax exemption directly implicates the issue of citizenship taxation

The Internal Revenue Code (see section 1) clearly states that U.S. citizens are subject to taxation on their worldwide income. Therefore, for Pope Leo to NOT be considered a U.S. tax resident either:

1. The Internal Revenue Code would require some kind of amendment. The amendment might be a move to “residence-based taxation” or a special carve out for Pope Leo. (An example of a special carve out might be: “Individual” does not include a U.S. citizen Pope”); or

2. It could be incorporated into “A Simple Regulatory Fix For Citizenship Taxation“.

The point is that NO MATTER how this would be achieved it WILL require a rethinking of “citizenship taxation”. It will also require ensuring (if this is even possible that the amendment meet constitutional standards).

Part C – The statement of Congressman Hurd

H.R.4501 was introduced by Congressman Jeff Hurd from Colorado. The wikipedia article describes Hurd as being Catholic (presumably explaining his interest in this issue).

Interestingly, Congressman Hurd’s wife (by her own admission) was born in Czechoslovakia and may be a Czech citizen. If so, this might mean that Congressman Hurd’s five children are (by birth or naturalization) dual U.S./Czech citizens.

Further commentary about the possibility of U.S./Slovokia dual citizenship is here and here.

A press release describing H.R.4501 on his site states:

Rep. Hurd Introduces Holy Sovereignty Protection Act to Safeguard Citizenship for American Popes

July 18, 2025
Press Release

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Congressman Jeff Hurd (CO-03) introduced the Holy Sovereignty Protection Act (H.R. 4501), legislation to protect the U.S. citizenship of any American elected to serve as the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. The bill prohibits the revocation of citizenship during a papal tenure and exempts the individual from U.S. tax obligations while serving as pope, recognizing his unique role as both a religious leader and head of state.

“The election of Pope Leo XIV marks a historic moment not only for the Catholic Church but for America,” said Rep. Hurd. “This legislation ensures that any American who answers the call to lead more than a billion Catholics worldwide can do so without risking his citizenship or facing unnecessary tax burdens. This legislation recognizes the extraordinary nature of the papacy—a role at the intersection of faith, leadership, and global responsibility.”

Significantly, the press release acknowledges Congressman Hurd’s belief and understanding that:

– certain activities can trigger the involuntary relinquishment of U.S. citizenship (not the case since the 1967 decision in Afroyim v. Rusk); and

– the problematic nature of U.S. citizenship taxation (specifically the imposition of U.S. worldwide taxation on U.S. citizens living outside the United States).

Part D – Why H.R.4501 is helpful to Americans abroad and the fight for residence-based taxation

The introduction of H.R. 4501 is a clear recognition that citizenship-based taxation presents unnecessary problems (and burdens) for Americans abroad. Although Congressman Hurd does NOT suggest that Americans abroad are renouncing their citizenship because of the U.S. extra-territorial regime, the quest to “Save The Pope” is a clear recognition of the problems caused by the exiting regime.

Given that H.R.4501 appears to provide a benefit based solely on affiliation with a specific religion, I suspect that it is dead on arrival. That said, it can (and should) be used to raise the question of why ANY U.S. citizen living outside the United States should be subject to the U.S. worldwide/extra-territorial taxation regime.

Specifically, H.R.4501 is support for both President Trump’s pledge to end the double taxation of Americans abroad and the LaHood bill which was introduced in December of 2018. I suggest that it be interpreted in this spirit.

Part E – What Americans abroad and their champions should do

This is simple. As a Catholic Congressman Hurd has an interest in maintaining the viability of a U.S. citizen Pope. As a father Congressman Hurd has an interesting in enhancing the life opportunities of his children to ensure that their life opportunities are not dampened by U.S. citizenship taxation.

I would reach out to Congressman Hurd and enlist his aid in supporting the ending of the double taxation of Americans abroad!

John Richardson – Follow me on X.com @ExpatriationLaw

Appendix

Here is a July 30, 2025 “X Spaces” discussion about the Hurd bill:

Accidental Americans, FATCA, The GDPR And The Netherlands Decision Of July 25, 2025

Part A – Prologue – It’s not about FATCA. It’s about U.S. citizenship taxation

U.S. citizenship taxation is a mechanism that is used by the United States to:

1. Capture the residents of OTHER countries and claim they are really U.S. residents; and

2. Impose U.S.taxation on the non-US source income actually received (or in the case of GILTI, transition tax, foreign trust rules, etc. not actually received) by those residents of other countries.

In simple terms:

U.S. citizenship based taxation is when the U.S. imposes worldwide taxation on (1) people who live in other countries and (2) on the non-U.S. source income received by those residents of other countries.

FATCA is a mechanism used by the United States to force other countries to search for and locate their own residents who are (because of a U.S. birth place) effectively the property of the United States. In practical terms, the mechanism used is the “FATCA IGA” and the countries who sign the “FATCA IGA” are partner countries. The job of the partner country is three-fold:

(i) to locate and determine which of their residents are either U.S. citizens or are suspected to be U.S. citizens

(ii) to report their financial information to the Internal Revenue Service of the United States

(iii) to deny bank services to those individuals who do not cooperate with the FATCA inquisition.

In effect, (as the court decision makes clear) the purpose and effect of FATCA is to assist with exporting U.S. citizenship taxation into other countries. In the same way that modern extradition treaties are used to export U.S. criminal law around the world, FATCA is used to export U.S. citizenship taxation around the world. The following post also argues that U.S. citizenship taxation (if it matters) is a violation of international law.

Toward An Argument That US Citizenship Taxation Violates International Law

On July 25, 2025 a Dutch court confirmed its view that the Netherland’s FATCA IGA with the United States is NOT subject to any provisions of the GDPR. In other words, U.S. citizens, who are residents of the Netherlands and call the Netherlands home do NOT have the same rights as citizens of other countries!

In paragraph 7 of its decision, the court confirms that Accidental Americans in the Netherlands are NOT afforded the same rights as other Dutch residents as follows:

Beoordeling door de rechtbank

7. De rechtbank stelt voorop dat zij begrip heeft voor de op zitting door eisers geuite gevoelens van frustratie en onvrede. Eisers hebben duidelijk gemaakt dat zij door het hebben van een dubbele nationaliteit nadelige gevolgen ondervinden als gevolg van Amerikaanse wetgeving. De rechtbank kan begrijpen dat de uitwisseling van financiële gegevens van eisers met de VS door de Belastingdienst een zekere impact kan hebben op eisers. Dat laat onverlet dat de rechtbank de beroepen moet beoordelen aan de hand van de aangevoerde beroepsgronden en de toepasselijke wet- en regelgeving (het toetsingskader).

An English translation of Paragraph 7 is:

7. The court first of all states that it understands the feelings of frustration and dissatisfaction expressed by the plaintiffs at the hearing. The plaintiffs have made it clear that they suffer adverse consequences as a result of American legislation due to their dual nationality. The court understands that the exchange of the plaintiffs’ financial data with the US by the Dutch Tax Authorities may have a certain impact on the plaintiffs. Nevertheless, the court must assess the appeals on the basis of the grounds for appeal put forward and the applicable laws and regulations (the assessment framework).

The decision of the Dutch court underscores the simple reality that U.S. citizenship is indeed a disability in the 21st Century.

Part B – A brief summary of the decision – Accidental Americans in the Netherlands do NOT have rights under Article 18 of the GDPR

In summary:

Because the Netherlands has signed a FATCA IGA with the United States, individuals described in the IGA (U.S. Citizens) have NO rights under Article 18 of the GDPR!

https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2025:5881

A podcast with former KLM Captain Ronald Aries, describing the circumstances leading up to the court hearing is in Appendix A of this post.

Part C – Commentary from Mr. Aries’s lawyer Ellen Timmer

Continue reading

U.S. Australian Extradition Treaty: 1974 Original Treaty And 1997 – How Does It Apply To Dan Duggan?

Introduction and purpose:

Some more background …

The U.S. indictment (containing their version of the facts) of Dan Dugan is here.

Mr. Duggan’s citizenship status is an issue …

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/backgroundbriefing/notorious-04-from-top-gun-to-wanted-man/104036632

https://mediacore-live-production.akamaized.net/audio/01/va/Z/ui.mp3

24:34 to about 27:10 – begins talking about U.S. citizenship relinquishment in January 26, 2012. He gets the certificate in 2016. U.S. claiming that he is a citizen until gets a CLN.

https://www.listennotes.com/podcast-clips/notorious-04-from-top-gun-to-wanted-man-P24udWMzkDw/
https://audio.listennotes.com/e/p/a72a45e1cc694f65876a5706e9418203/

The case of Dan Duggan continues. His case involves many issues. An excellent summary and analysis appeared on July 22, 2025 in an article by Paul Degrorie – an Australian based journalist.

https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/duggan-remains-imprisoned-without-charge-after-1000-days-to-satisfy-our-imperial-masters/

One of the issues is whether Mr. Duggan was a U.S. citizen at the time of alleged offenses.

Australia has a number of “international crime” agreements. A partial description of what they are and how they work is here. The purpose of this post is to consolidate the 1974 Australian U.S. extradition treaty and the 1997 protocol to have the provisions in one place. Extradition is complicated. Changes in the law of one country can affect whether the extradition may apply. For example, here is a situation where a chnage in Mexico’s laws impacts whether the U.S. has rights of extradition under the U.S. Mexico extradition treaty.

Consolidation of the 1974 U.S./Australian Extradition Treaty with 1974 original treaty and 1997 protocol included:

Note: See Appendix C for a description of HOW the United States interprets the treaty.

________________________________________________________________________-

The parts of the 1974 treaty that have been deleted appear with a line drawn through them.

The parts of the 1997 protocol that are new appear in italics.

The parts that are unaffected remain the same.

TREATY ON EXTRADITION BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

AUSTRALIA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, desiring to make more effective the cooperation of the two countries for the reciprocal extradition of offenders, agree as follows:

Continue reading

The New “Seniors” $6000 Deduction Is NOT Available to “Married” U.S. Citizens Living In Canada Unless They File Jointly

Summary:

In countries where – as per the tax treaty – the U.S. does not have taxing rights to U.S. Social Security and “Social Security Like” equivalents, the standard deduction coupled with the new $6000 bonus $12000 if married and filing jointly) may exclude large numbers of Americans abroad from actually having to pay U.S. tax. My initial reaction is that it will NOT have any impact on the requirement to file a U.S. tax return.

Of particular relevance to Americans abroad (who if married are more likely to use the “married filing separately” category) is that:

If one is married, one MUST file jointly in order to be eligible for this benefit. 71013 of the “Big Beautiful Bill” includes:

v) Married individuals.–If the taxpayer is a married individual (within the meaning of section 7703), this subparagraph shall apply only if the taxpayer and the taxpayer’s spouse file a joint return for the taxable year.

Although it is obvious why this provision is included, it is a negative for Americans abroad who are more likely to use the “married filing separately” category. To put it simply:

If you are an American abroad who is married you benefit from this provision ONLY if you file jointly with your spouse.

Part I – Possible payment of U.s. tax

1. The $6000 is per person ($12000 for a married couple filing jointly) and is an additional deduction from income. (Not available for those who file “married filing separately”!)

2. In Canada: U.S. Social Security, Canada Pension Plan, OAS and certain other pensions are taxed ONLY by Canada. See the U.S./Canada tax treaty – Article XVIII

3. This means that a U.S. citizen living in Canada who is a “Senior” effectively has (explained by the AARP as follows):

Does it replace the existing extra standard deduction for people 65 and older?

No. The new deduction is in addition to the existing extra standard deduction for people age 65-plus. For the 2025 tax year, that’s $2,000 for single taxpayers and $1,600 per qualifying spouse for married couples filing jointly.

As a result, the new $6,000 deduction is stacked on top of both the regular standard deduction — $15,750 for single filers or $31,500 for married couples filing jointly in 2025 — and the 65-plus addition.For instance, a 65-year-old single taxpayer who qualifies for the full $6,000 deduction would be able to deduct a total of $23,750 from these three tax breaks on their 2025 tax return. A qualifying 65-year-old couple could deduct up to $46,700.

What if I’m itemizing?

You can claim the new deduction regardless of whether you itemize your taxes or claim the standard deduction.

If you itemize, you stack the new deduction on top of your itemized deductions. Let’s say you’re single, 65 years old, eligible for the full $6,000 deduction and have $40,000 of itemized deductions. If you have no other deductions, you can lower your taxable income by a total of $46,000.

Bottom line: For $23,750 USD is the deduction from income. This is approximately $32,585.13 CDN (as of today’s exchange rate). Again, this means that a U.S. citizen living in Canada would have to have $32,585.12 (at today’s exchange rates) to have taxable income in the United States.

Benefit: This could really simplify the tax filing because:

– Neither form 2555 nor the FTC 1116 forms might not need to be filed

– meaning the return could conceivably be as simple as: 1040, Schedule B, Form 8333 (possibly) Form 8938, and FBAR. (Depending on your activities other forms might be still be required: Form 8621, Form 5471, etc.

You might be able to file yourself!!


Part II – Who is required to file a U.S. tax return?

According to HR Block (July of 2025):

Do I have to file taxes? Minimum income to file taxes

When it comes to filing, the following taxable income thresholds determine whether you should file a federal return depending on your filing status.

Single filing status:
$14,600 if under age 65
$16,550 if age 65 or older
Married Filing Jointly:
$29,200 if both spouses are under age 65
$30,750 if one spouse is under age 65 and one is age 65 or older
$32,300 if both spouses are age 65 or older
Married Filing Separately — $5 regardless of age
Head of Household:
$21,900 if under age 65
$23,850 if age 65 or older
Qualifying Surviving Spouse:
$29,200 if under age 65
$30,750 if age 65 or older

Some odds and ends:

1. if you are “self-employed” and have more than $400 of income then you are required to file.

2. Note that if your are “married filing separately” you are required to file if your income hits the $5 threshold.

https://www.hrblock.com/tax-center/income/other-income/how-much-do-you-have-to-make-to-file-taxes/

John Richardson – Follow me on X.com/expatriationlaw

__________________________________________

Appendices Generally show that the $6000 is a deduction that is:

1. Separate from the standard deduction; and

2. Is applied in addition to either the standard deduction or itemized deduction

Appendix A – Internal Revenue Code 63 – The Role Of The Standard Deduction

26 U.S. Code § 63 – Taxable income defined

(a) In general

Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

(b) Individuals who do not itemize their deductions In the case of an individual who does not elect to itemize his deductions for the taxable year, for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means adjusted gross income, minus—

(1) the standard deduction,

(2) the deduction for personal exemptions provided in section 151,

(3) any deduction provided in section 199A, and
(4) the deduction provided in section 170(p).
(c) Standard deduction For purposes of this subtitle—
(1) In general Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the term “standard deduction” means the sum of—
(A) the basic standard deduction, and
(B) the additional standard deduction.
(2) Basic standard deduction For purposes of paragraph (1), the basic standard deduction is—
(A) 200 percent of the dollar amount in effect under subparagraph (C) for the taxable year in the case of—
(i) a joint return, or
(ii) a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
(B) $4,400 in the case of a head of household (as defined in section 2(b)), or
(C) $3,000 in any other case.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/63

JR Commentary: The “standard deduction” is different from this new deduction for Seniors

Appendix B – Internal Revenue Code 151 – Additional Personal Deductions

26 U.S. Code § 151 – Allowance of deductions for personal exemptions

(a) Allowance of deductions

In the case of an individual, the exemptions provided by this section shall be allowed as deductions in computing taxable income.
(b) Taxpayer and spouse

An exemption of the exemption amount for the taxpayer; and an additional exemption of the exemption amount for the spouse of the taxpayer if a joint return is not made by the taxpayer and his spouse, and if the spouse, for the calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer begins, has no gross income and is not the dependent of another taxpayer.
(c) Additional exemption for dependents

An exemption of the exemption amount for each individual who is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer for the taxable year.
(d) Exemption amount For purposes of this section—
(1) In general

Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the term “exemption amount” means $2,000.
(2) Exemption amount disallowed in case of certain dependents

In the case of an individual with respect to whom a deduction under this section is allowable to another taxpayer for a taxable year beginning in the calendar year in which the individual’s taxable year begins, the exemption amount applicable to such individual for such individual’s taxable year shall be zero.
(3) Phaseout
(A) In general

In the case of any taxpayer whose adjusted gross income for the taxable year exceeds the applicable amount in effect under section 68(b), the exemption amount shall be reduced by the applicable percentage.
(B) Applicable percentage

For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term “applicable percentage” means 2 percentage points for each $2,500 (or fraction thereof) by which the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income for the taxable year exceeds the applicable amount in effect under section 68(b). In the case of a married individual filing a separate return, the preceding sentence shall be applied by substituting “$1,250” for “$2,500”. In no event shall the applicable percentage exceed 100 percent.
(C) Coordination with other provisions

The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply for purposes of determining whether a deduction under this section with respect to any individual is allowable to another taxpayer for any taxable year.
(4) Inflation adjustment Except as provided in paragraph (5), in the case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 1989, the dollar amount contained in paragraph (1) shall be increased by an amount equal to—
(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, by substituting “calendar year 1988” for “calendar year 2016” in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof.

(5) Special rules for taxable years 2018 through 2025In the case of a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026—
(A) Exemption amount

The term “exemption amount” means zero.
(B) References

For purposes of any other provision of this title, the reduction of the exemption amount to zero under subparagraph (A) shall not be taken into account in determining whether a deduction is allowed or allowable, or whether a taxpayer is entitled to a deduction, under this section.

(e) Identifying information required

No exemption shall be allowed under this section with respect to any individual unless the TIN of such individual is included on the return claiming the exemption.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/151

Appendix C – Relevant Text Of The OBBB

SEC. 70103. TERMINATION OF DEDUCTION FOR PERSONAL EXEMPTIONS OTHER THAN
TEMPORARY SENIOR DEDUCTION.
(a) In General.–Section 151(d)(5) is amended–
(1) by striking “2018 through 2025” in the heading and
inserting “beginning after 2017”,
(2) by striking “, and before January 1, 2026”, and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

(C) Deduction for seniors.–
“(i) In general.–In the case of a taxable year
beginning before January 1, 2029, there shall be allowed a
deduction in an amount equal to $6,000 for each qualified
individual with respect to the taxpayer.
“(ii) Qualified individual.–For purposes of clause
(i), the term `qualified individual’ means–

“(I) the taxpayer, if the taxpayer has attained
age 65 before the close of the taxable year, and
“(II) in the case of a joint return, the
taxpayer’s spouse, if such spouse has attained age 65
before the close of the taxable year.

“(iii) Limitation based on modified adjusted gross
income.–

“(I) In general.–In the case of any taxpayer for
any taxable year, the $6,000 amount in clause (i) shall
be reduced (but not below zero) by 6 percent of so much
of the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income as
exceeds $75,000 ($150,000 in the case of a joint
return).
“(II) Modified adjusted gross income.–For
purposes of this clause, the term `modified adjusted
gross income’ means the adjusted gross income of the
taxpayer for the taxable year increased by any amount
excluded from gross income under section 911, 931, or
933.

“(iv) Social security number required.–

“(I) In general.–Clause (i) shall not apply with
respect to a qualified individual unless the taxpayer
includes such qualified individual’s social security
number on the return of tax for the taxable year.
“(II) Social security number.–For purposes of
subclause (I), the term `social security number’ has
the meaning given such term in section 24(h)(7).

“(v) Married individuals.–If the taxpayer is a
married individual (within the meaning of section 7703),
this subparagraph shall apply only if the taxpayer and the
taxpayer’s spouse file a joint return for the taxable
year.”.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text

PLAW-119publ21