Category Archives: Afroyim v. Rusk

Taxation Makes U.S. Citizenship A Caste System With Or Without Birthright Citizenship

Leave a reply

John Richardson – July 4, 2026

On June 30, 2026 the Supreme Court Of The United States released it’s decision in Trump v. Barbara. The complete decision can be read here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_4hdj.pdf

A June 30, 2026 discussion (with initial impressions) is found in the Appendix to this post.

It starts with the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. constitution starts with the following language:

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The decision should be interpreted in a very minimal way as follows:

– Five justices (Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson and Barrett) interpreted the 14th Amendment (the words “and subject to the jurisdiction” notwithstanding) to mean that birth on U.S. soil is a sufficient condition for U.S. citizenship (the number of dissenting decisions means that there is a good chance that this issue will be revisited)

– Four justices (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) ruled that the 14th Amendment should NOT be interpreted to mean that birth on U.S. soil was a sufficient condition for U.S. citizenship

– Justice Alito in particular was very skeptical of those who were born in the USA but were also born as citizens of another country. Justice Alito begins his dissent with:

JUSTICE ALITO, dissenting.

This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake. As interpreted by the Court today, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country, including the children of “birth tourists,” women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home. Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way. Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.

It is the inclusion of the words “owe allegiance solely to this country” with particular emphasis on the word “solely” that indicates the hostility toward “dual citizenship” at birth.

Yet, it is the combination of “birth on U.S. soil” coupled with being born as a citizen of another country that creates the most valuable form of U.S. citizenship!

America is taxation and taxation is America!

Yes, it’s the Internal Revenue Code that makes dual citizenship from birth so valuable. Under 877A(g)(1)(B)(i) an exemption to the Exit Tax rules is created for certain individuals who were born dual citizens. The specific text of the Internal Revenue Code which creates preferential treatment for dual citizens at birth is:

(i)the individual—

(I) became at birth a citizen of the United States and a citizen of another country and, as of the expatriation date, continues to be a citizen of, and is taxed as a resident of, such other country, and
(II) has been a resident of the United States (as defined in section 7701(b)(1)(A)(ii)) for not more than 10 taxable years during the 15-taxable year period ending with the taxable year during which the expatriation date occurs,

Those interested in a “deeper dive” might find this earlier post from this Citizenship Solutions blog interesting.

The narrow purpose of this post is to demonstrate that those who were born on U.S. soil as dual citizens from birth have a much higher standard of U.S. citizenship than those who were NOT born as dual citizens from birth. This is a shocking realization for a country that claims to have equality of citizenship. Because of the tax code, nothing could be further from the truth! The Internal Revenue Code generally (through complexity and exemptions) divides and conquers U.S. citizens. The United States is the only major country in the world that requires its citizens, who do NOT live in the country, to pay tax on their worldwide income to their country of citizenship.

In practical terms this means that:

– taxation is what distinguishes U.S. citizenship from other citizenships (If July 4 is considered to be a celebration of citizenship, then it should be considered to be a celebration of U.S. citizenship taxation);

– the only practical meaning of U.S. citizenship taxation is that the United States imposes direct taxation according to U.S. tax laws on (1) individuals who are tax residents of other countries and (2) on the non-U.S source income received by those individuals; and

– the United States imposes a more punitive form of taxation on U.S. citizens who live outside the United States than on U.S. citizens who live in the United States (PFIC, GILTI, Subpart F, phantom capital gains tax, FBAR, Form 8938, etc.)

(Incidentally those individuals are also subject to taxation in the countries where they reside.)

In short for U.S. citizens living outside the United States:

U.S. Citizenship = double taxation

A picture or chart is worth a thousand words

The following table will show why those “Born In The USA” and are ALSO born as citizens of another country are born as “preferred citizens”. Significantly they have both the right to NOT be stripped of U.S. citizenship AND the right to renounce U.S. citizenship without being subject to the 877A Exit Tax AND are not impacted by the 2801 “Covered Gift Tax” (meaning they are still permitted to make gifts and/or bequests to U.S. citizens.

Conclusion: The highest form of U.S. citizenship are U.S. citizens who were born with dual citizenship. Specifically those who (1) Became U.S. citizens by being “Born In The USA” and (2) were born as citizens of another country have a much higher standard of U.S. citizenship than any other level of U.S. citizenship. They cannot be stripped of their U.S. citizenship and they have the necessary condition required to expatriate without triggering the U.S.Internal Revenue Code 877A Exit tax or the U.S. Internal Revenue Code 2801 covered gift tax. This is the highest level of U.S. citizenship and is based ONLY on circumstances of birth.

The next level of U.S. citizenship is U.S. citizens born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent who were also born as citizens of another country – dual citizens from birth.

Bottom line: Dual citizenship from birth is extremely valuable. There is NO question that the citizens who Justice Alito finds the most objectionable are the ones who hold the highest level of U.S. citizenship!

Q. Is U.S. citizenship a “caste” system of citizenship?

A. Based on the definition of “caste” found here, it may very well be.

Significantly, what Justice Alito finds problematic (being born a citizen of another country) is precisely the most valuable form of U.S. citizenship.

Bottom line: Not all U.S. citizenship is the same!

________________________________________________________________

Protection of 14h Amendment - cannot be stripped of citizenshipEligible to be PresidentAble to expatriate and not trigger 877A Exit TaxAble to expatriate and not trigger 2801 covered gift tax
USC - Born In USAYesYesYes if also citizen of another country at birthYes if also citizen of another country at birth
USC - Born Outside USA to USC abroadNoYesYes if also citizen of another country at birthYes if also citizen of another country at birth
Born as citizen of another countryYes if also born in the USAYes if also born as a USC (think Ted Cruz)Yes if also citizen of USA at birthYes if also citizen of USA at birth
Naturalized USCYesNoNo - but tax applies only to period of "US Personness"No
Born outside of USA to a USC parent and becomes US citizen at birth but NOT a citizen of another countryNoYes (think George Romney and John McCain)No because not born a dual citizen from birthNo

John Richardson – Follow me X at @Expatriationlaw

Appendix – Discussion of the Trump v. Barbara case on June 30, 2026

Justice Warren’s Dissent In Perez v. Brownell Supports Right To Renounce Citizenship

Leave a reply

Introduction

More and more U.S. citizens are relinquishing their U.S. citizenship. The mechanism to do this is found in S. 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. A statutory right to expatriation does not imply a constitutional right to expatriation. In the last few years (specifically in the Roger case and the Accidental Americans case) the U.S. government has denied that there is a constitutional right to expatriation.

The Constitutional Right To Retain U.S. Citizenship May NOT Include A Constitutional Right To Relinquish U.S. Citizenship

It’s likely that the constitutional status of the right to relinquish U.S. citizenship will be litigated!

It is likely that (sooner or later) the courts will rule on whether U.S. citizens have a constitutional right to expatriate. In that spirit, I believe that the then Chief Justice Warren’s dissent in Perez v. Brownell should be remembered.

The 1967 case of Afroyim v. Rusk overruled the 1958 decision in Perez v. Brownnell

U.S citizenship stripping – 1958 to 1967

The 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Afroyim v. Rusk specifically overruled the 1958 Supreme Court decision in Perez v. Brownell. The majority in the 1958 decision in Perez v. Brownell affirmed the right of Congress to strip U.S. citizens of their citizenship. The majority in the 1967 decision in Afroyim ruled that Congress could not strip a U.S. citizen who born or naturalized in the United States of their citizenship. The majority decision in Afroyim was written by Justice Black who was part of the Warren minority in Brownell.

U.S. citizenship relinquishment in a post-FATCA world – 2010 and onwards

More than half a century later, many U.S. citizens are constructively forced to renounce their U.S. citizenship. Recent litigation (Roger Ver, Accidental Americans, etc.) has raised the issue of whether U.S. citizens have a constitutional right to expatriate.

It is worth remembering Justice Warren’s dissent in Perez v. Brownell. In Perez, Justice Warren stated that U.S. citizens DO have the right to expatriate! I agree that Justice Warren was writing the dissent. I also agree that the right of expatriation was NOT the precise issue in Perez v. Brownell. That said, Perez v. Brownell is an example where a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States has considered the right of expatriation and stated that U.S. citizens do have a right to expatriate.

Beginning on page 66 Chief Justice Warren stated:

There is no question that citizenship may be voluntarily relinquished. The right of voluntary expatriation was ‘recognized by Congress in 1868.1 Congress declared that “the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people .” ,, Although the primary purpose of this declaration was the protection of our naturalized citizens from the claims of their countries of origin, the language was properly regarded as establishing the reciprocal right of American citizens to abjure their allegiance. 1 In the early days of this Nation the right of expatriation lad been a matter of controversy. The common-law doctrine of perpetial allegiance was evident in the opinions of this Court. 2 And, although impressment of naturalized American seamen of British birth was a cause of the War of 1812, the executive officials of this Government were not unwavering in their support of the right of expatriation.” Prior to 1868 all efforts to obtain congressional enactments concerning expatriation failed. 4 The doctrine of perpetual allegiance, however, was so ill-suited to the growing nation whose doors were open to -immigrants from abroad that it could not last. Nine years before Congress acted Attorney General Black stated the American positiori in a notable opinion:

“Here, in the United States, the thought of giving it [the right of ‘expatriation] up cannot be entertained for a moment. Upon that principle this country was populated. We owe to it our existence as a nation. Ever since our independence we have upheld and maintained it by every form of words and acts. We have constantly promised full and complete protection to all persons who should come here and seek it by renouncing their natural allegiance and transferring their fealty to us. We stand pledged to it in the face of the whole world.”

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep356/usrep356044/usrep356044.pdf

The complete PDF of the decision is available here:

service-ll-usrep-usrep356-usrep356044-usrep356044

Justice Warren’s dissent includes the building blocks of an argument that expatriation is a constitutional right.

I suspect that I (and perhaps others) will reread this post in the years to come!

John Richardson – Follow on X.com/ExpatriationLaw

Restore U.S. Citizenship

Leave a reply

Part 1 – Why have many U.S. citizens abroad relinquished their U.S. citizenship?

FATCA was passed into law as part of the HIRE Act on March 18, 2010. The implementation began in 2014 in the form of FATCA IGAs (“Inter-Governmental Agreements”). The implementation of FATCA and the IGAs was NOT free from controversy. I – John Richardson – was a witness at a Canadian House of Commons Hearing about FATCA in 2014. The complete text of my 2014 statement is here.

FATCA has caused enormous problems for U.S. citizens living outside the United States. These problems have led to an increasing number of U.S. citizens renouncing U.S. citizenship.

The problems caused by FATCA. leading to citizenship renunciation, fall into at least three distinct categories.

First, many U.S. citizens living outside the United States have difficulty maintaining access to regular bank and financial accounts. This has caused great disruption and inconvenience in their lives. Many people have renounced their U.S. citizenship in order to have the access to the bank and financial accounts needed to live their daily lives.

Second, along with FATCA came an awareness of U.S. citizenship taxation. Prior to FATCA citizenship taxation was neither well known nor enforced. By causing an awareness of citizenship taxation, more U.S. citizens abroad have entered the U.S. tax system. The consequence of entering the U.S. tax system has caused difficulties for many Americans abroad. These difficulties include double taxation, U.S. taxation of retirement planning accounts (example TFSA in Canada). Generally, this has disadvantaged U.S. citizens abroad in their country of residence. It caused many U.S. citizens abroad to relinquish/renounce their U.S. citizenship.

Third, as discussed in Helen Burggraf’s American Expat Finance News Journal, FATCA facilitated the expansion of the U.S. tax base into other countries.

The combination of these circumstances has incentivized (and in some cased forced) many U.S. citizens abroad to relinquish/renounce their U.S. citizenship.

Part 2 – The legal test for relinquishment/renunciation

Continue reading →

“The IRS has an obligation to meet taxpayers where they live, but it is not doing so for taxpayers living abroad”

Leave a reply

So states the 2025 report of the Taxpayer Advocate!

A January tradition

January is the month that the IRS Taxpayer Advocate release its report for the previous year. In keeping with tradition the Taxpayer Advocate released the 2025 report this week.

Bottom Line:

The report is extraordinary in its recognition of the problems of Americans abroad. The problems are recognized as one of the ten most significant categories of problems experienced by taxpayers generally. The Taxpayer Advocate does a wonderful and powerful job of recognizing the injustices of the U.S. tax system as it applies to taxpayers living outside the United States. The report is available here.

A pdf version of the Taxpayer Advocate report is here:

ARC_Publication-2104_2025_Web

Podcast discussing the report

A condensed version of the podcast is captured in this AI generated video:

Continue reading →

Thoughts On Ohio Senator Moreneo’s “Exclusive Citizenship Act Of 2025”

1 Reply

Background

On December 1, 2025 Ohio Senator Bernie Moreno, tabled his “Exclusive Citizenship Act Of 2025″.

A pdf of the proposed legislation is available here:

Exclusive-Citizenship-Act-of-2025

The progress of the legislation (if any) may be followed here.

It was immediately understood that the Moreno bill would affect both Melania and Baron Trump, each of whom has dual U.S./Slovenian citizenship.


My comments on the proposed legislation fall into ten categories:

1. What the Bill is intended to achieve

2. What the Bill assumes about the meaning of citizenship

3. Constitutionality – Conflicts with the 14th Amendment

4. Inside Looking Out (American dual citizens living inside the United States)

5. Outside looking in (Americans Dual Citizens Abroad)

6. Effect on Green Card Holders – Will they naturalize as U.S. citizens?

7. Creating a data base of citizenship and multiple citizenships

8. Creating a situation where the laws of another country could impact who can enter politics and serve in public office in the United States

9. Effect on Internal Revenue Code 877A – Will an Exit Tax be payable if a U.S. citizen is deemed to have relinquished U.S. citizenship?

10. The Secretary Of State and the authority to make regulations

Possible conclusion:

Should the Moreno bill be enacted it would fundamentally change the nature of U.S. citizenship which already carries significant restrictions and obligations. It would certainly associate U.S. citizenship with a general loss of freedom.

It is blatantly obvious that in the 21st century that U.S. citizenship is NOT compatible with the freedom of the individual.

Continue reading →

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

Leave a reply

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:

Part 6 – What Would A Ban On Dual Citizenship Mean For U.S. Citizens?

Leave a reply

The Little Red Dual Citizenship Book

See the Appendix for a list of posts making up the “Little Red Dual Citizenship Book”

Whether or not it’s “fake news” …

It started with what purported to be a post by President Trump on “Truth Social” that he was going to attempt to end dual citizenship. This was immediately exposed as a “Fake Post”. Nevertheless, I came across an interesting video of what it would mean if Americans were somehow banned from being dual citizens. Without regard to the “fakeness” of the claim that President Trump was interested in ending dual citizenship, the video is interesting.

John Richardson – Follow me on X.com @ExpatriationLaw

Appendix – Posts That Make Up The “Little Red Dual Citizenship Book”

Part 1 – Dual Citizenship Reporting

Part 1 – Citizenship-based reporting: Russia’s "citizenship reporting" requirements – will the United States be next?

Part 2 – Under What Circumstances Is Citizenship By Ancestry Justified?

Part 2 – Citizenship Matters With @RonanMcCrea: Citizenship By Descent Can Be High Risk For A Country In A Less Global World

Part 3 – Could U.S./Canada Dual Citizens Residing In Canada Determine The Outcome Of A U.S. Election? (The Democrats Hope So)

Part 3 – Could The November 3, 2020 US Election Be Decided By Canadian Residents With US/CDN Dual Citizenship?


Part 4 – A Change In Canadian Law Increase Canadian “Citizenship Through Ancestry” Options For Americans

Part 4 – Canada Bill – C71 Will Increase Citizenship By Descent Options For US Citizens Seeking Canada/US Dual Citizenship

Part 5 – When Dual Citizenship For The Individual, Becomes “Duel Citizenship” For The State

Part 5 – The Clash Of Citizenships: When Dual Citizenship For The Individual Becomes Duel Citizenship For The State

Part 6 – What Would Ending Dual Citizenship Look Like For U.S. Citizens?

Part 6 – What Would A Ban On Dual Citizenship Mean For U.S. Citizens?

The Constitutional Right To Retain U.S. Citizenship May NOT Include A Constitutional Right To Relinquish U.S. Citizenship

Leave a reply

The Readers Digest Version

In his motion to dismiss the indictment against him, Roger Ver has argued that the U.S. 877A Expatriation Tax, is an unjustifiable burden on a constitutionally protected right to renounce his U.S. citizenship. (His motion for dismissal also includes a separate and distinct alternative argument that the 877A expatriation tax is unconstitutional because it creates taxation without a “realization event”. This is the issue that formed the basis of the appeal in the Moore case. I will NOT consider that issue in this post.)

The government in reply has argued that no such constitutional right to renounce U.S. citizenship exists. Additional commentary about the background to the Ver indictment is provided by U.S. lawyer Virginia La Torre Jeker here.

The U.S. Constitution, U.S. Citizenship And Constitutional Issues Surrounding U.S. Citizenship

The 14th Amendment is a constitutional provision that prohibits the U.S. government from stripping U.S. citizens of their citizenship (provided that their citizenship is the result of birth or naturalization in the USA.

The 5th Amendment has been used to argue that there is a constitutional right to relinquish U.S. citizenship. To date no court has expressly ruled that there is a constitutional right to relinquish.

Fortunately, INA 349(a) gives U.S. citizens a statutory right to relinquish their citizenship.

It is an open question whether the U.S. government could prohibit ALL relinquishments of U.S. citizenship.

Continue reading →