Category Archives: Americans abroad

You Have Your Certificate Of Canadian Citizenship – What Next? Six Options For Newly Recognized Canadians

John Richardson, J.D. – August 13, 2026

Introduction and purpose

This is the third of a series of posts to help you understand Canadian citizenship by descent. Canada’s Bill C-3 which took effect on December 15, 2025 made major changes to Canada’s citizenship laws. By changing it’s “citizenship by descent” rules, Canada has created an opportunity for many U.S. citizens to be formally recognized as Canadian citizens. This series of posts has been designed to understand Canada’s Bill C-3 (effective December 15, 2025) and understand how and why these changes are so valuable for many U.S. citizens.

A series of posts

The first post focused on Understanding The Citizenship By Descent Provisions Of Bill C-3 – The Canada Citizenship Act. Specifically what factual conditions would result in an indiviudal being a Canadian citizen and therefore entitled to a Certificate of Canadian citizenship? (Note that with the exception of naturalization or direct grant, one would, under Canadian law, be a Canadian citizen from birth. Those born in the United States are U.S. citizens from birth. Hence, many people, recognized as Canadian citizens from birth, would be Canada/U.S. dual citizens from birth.)

Understanding The Citizenship By Descent Provisions Of Bill C-3 – The Canada Citizenship Act

The second post is a discussion of “Canadian Citizenship By Descent – A Search For Proof (To Prove The Truth)

Canadian Citizenship By Descent – A Search For Proof (To Prove The Truth) – 4 Perspectives

If citizenship cannot be proven, it has no functional or practical existence. Therefore, those seeking a Certificate of Canadian citizenship embark on “a search for proof”. Although the law does not establish a formal deadline to submit the application for a “Certificate of Canadian Citizenship”, I suggest applying as quickly as possible. Laws can and do change!

This third post is to explore why eligibility for a “Certificate of Canadian Citizenshp” matters. What good is it to be a Canadian citizen? What role could Canadian citizenship play in your life. So, you are a Canadian citizen? What do you do with it? How can it benefit you and your descendants? I suggest that (particularly as a U.S. citizen) that there are (at least) six ways that having a Canadian passport could enhance your life.

What does it mean to be a Canadian citizen? What does it mean to move to Canada as a Canadian citizen?

This post is organized in the following Parts.

Part A – Taxation is destiny – moving to another country always has tax implications

Part B – If you move to Canada and renounce U.S. citizenship you may be subject to the U.S. “Exit Tax” rules

Part C – A review of who IS a Canadian citizen and entitled to a Certificate of Canadian citizenship”

Part D – I have my certificate of Canadian citizenship – what do I do with it? How do I turn it into a family heirloom? How can I sponsor my spouse?

Part E – Six specific opportunities Canadian citizenship provides to U.S. citizens

Part F – Renouncing U.S. citizenship and having access to the United States as a Canadian citizen

Conclusion

Appendix A – The 877A U.S. Exit Tax Rules

Appendix B – The 877A “dual citizen from birth” exemption to the Exit Tax Rules

Appendix C – The legislative text of the “dual citizen from birth” exemption to “covered expatriate” status

Here we go …

Continue reading

Part 2: Inheriting From America AKA Anxiety On Steroids – Retain Or Renounce U.S. Citizenship? What About U.S. Tax Compliance?

Prologue

This is the Part 2 of two posts motivated by the story of a Canada/U.S. dual citizen living in Canada who sought help from the University of Washington “Low Income Tax Clinic” – “LITC”. The first post is here.

Part 1: The University Of Washington “Low Income Tax Clinic” And A Canadian Student

This was also discussed by “Tax Fairness Abroad“.

It’s worth reading the entire blog post from Tax Fairness Abroad titled “A summer job and bad advice land an American in Canada in international tax court“.

The post references a report from the University of Washington “Low Income Tax Clinic”. (Note that the “LITC” also provided assistance to Gabriel Morrow who is another American abroad who received advice from the clinic.)

The complete text of the “LITC” report AKA the drama of taxing Americans abroad

“Taxpayer is a dual US-Canada citizen; TP is a long-term resident of Canada and is employed there. TP’s father passed away in 2020 and client received an inherited retirement account in 2021 (approximately $110K). TP was misinformed by the retirement account custodian that the “taxes have been paid” (when,in reality, this was just the tax withholding from the transaction). TP believed that taxes had been reported and paid; the retirement account was not included in the 2021 tax return. TP also did not include 1099-income earned while doing a summer job in Canada for a U.S. domiciled company. TP received a notice of deficiency, and a tax court petition was filed. Unfortunately, the TP has a deficiency because the retirement account; nonetheless, IRS appeals refused to apply the LITC’s treaty claim in regard to the 1099 income and is invoking the US-Canada Treaty savings clause. The LITC will be requesting a competent authority determination on this issue (Revenue Procedure 2015-40, Section 6.04(3) and related IRM provisions). However, the TP will still have a liability because of the retirement account taxable income—this liability process will continue through appeals while the competent authority determination is submitted and a determination is received from the IRS.”

000001

What facts can we glean from the report?

It appears that this dual Canada/U.S. citizen who resides in Canada filed a U.S. tax return for the 2021 year. That return omitted both distributions from the U.S. IRA AND income from the summer emmployment performed in Canada. It is likely that the IRS was able to match his Social Security Number with the information returns that had been filed for both the IRA distributions and the wages from the U.S. based employer. Put another way: the existence of the information returns combined with the Social Security Number on the U.S. tax return, alerted the IRS to the two specific income sources that should have been included on the tax return.

Question: What does this imply for Americans abroad who stand to inherit retirement plans or other income generating assets (for example a stock portfolio) from a U.S. relative? This is a recurring question. What about long term Americans abroad who may not be current on their U.S. tax returns? Should those people renounce U.S. citizenship prior to inheriting these assets? Should they remain American? If so, how do they manage U.S. tax compliance? Inheriting assets of a kind that would generate income and require the reporting of that U.S. source income implicates the question of U.S. tax compliance.

Two background points that are worthy of note:

1. The United States does NOT impose tax on the value of an inheritance. Rather it taxes the income generated from that inheritance. As per 102 of the Internal Revenue Code:

Gross income does not include the value of property acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or inheritance.

(Note that your country of residence may impose an inheritance tax.)

2. In most states, depending on the circumstances, it is possible to “disclaim” an inheritance. As always, the Internal Revenue Code – section 2518 – imposes specific procedural requirements. If you want to completely avoid these issues (perhaps because the amount of the inheritance is very small) you should be aware that a disclaimer is possible. That said, to disclaim an inheritance – although there may be good reasons to disclaim an inheritiance – is an erosion of your wealth.

The inheritance from America – The Good, The Bad And The Ugly

Inheritances (and gifts) can be income producing or non-income producing. It seems likely that inheritances that are non-income producing will not produce income tax (and therefore tax filing) consequences. For example, if a U.S. citizen were to receive personal property that would not be used to generate income there would be no presumptive income issues. The problem is more likely to arise where the American abroad receives assets that are (1) income producing and (2) reported as income producing. An obvious example of an income producing inheritance would be an IRA.

This purpose of this post is to discuss the quesion of “income producing inheritances” from various perspectives. The “LITC” case of the Canadian student reinforces why “information returns matter. The effect of the information return (reporting the fact of the inheritance of the IRA and the fact of the employment) is that the IRS would have a reason to expect income to be reported on a U.S. tax return.

If you are a U.S. citizen living outside the United States you should consider the implications of receiving any inheritance, but most particulary an inheritance from the United States. I suggest that the implications should be considered from the following perspectives in Category A, Category B and Category C.

Continue reading

Part 1: The University Of Washington “Low Income Tax Clinic” And A Canadian Student

Prologue

This is the first of two blog posts (Part 1 and Part 2) that discuss the University of Washington Low Income Tax Clinic report referencing a dual Canada/U.S. citizen student living and working in Canada.

Part 1 (this) will discuss the report generally and how the circumstances actually trigger the Canada/U.S. tax treaty. Think of it! A few thousand dollars of summer income received by a Canadian student implicates an international tax treaty. Only in America!

Interestingly, the specific factual circumstances include an example of what happens when a U.S. citizen living outside the United States receives a U.S. inheritance that generates U.S. source income. This is a concern for many Americans abroad. It is a complicated area.

Mostly Part 1 will discuss the “LITC” Report. Specifically how the “LITC” viewed the issue. How they incorrectly tried to apply the U.S. Canada tax treaty (apparently) without regard to the “saving clause” which is included in all U.S. tax treaties.

The report seems to say that the taxpayer filed a U.S. tax return for the 2021 tax year and filed to include income which (because of information reporting) the IRS was aware of. This should be of concern to Americans abroad generally. I will discuss this aspect more fully in Part 2.

Part 2 will discuss the specific problem of a U.S. citizen abroad inheriting (or anticipating inheriting) U.S. assets (whether income producing or not). I am making this a separate post because it is a complicated topic. The most rational response to this situation is highly dependent on your factual situation.

Part 2: Inheriting From America AKA Anxiety On Steroids – Retain Or Renounce U.S. Citizenship? What About U.S. Tax Compliance?

In any case, we begin with Part 1 …
Continue reading

You Know A Tax System Is Broken When People Fear Tax Compliance As Much As They Fear Noncompliance

When tax compliance is weaponized because of the "status" of an individual there is a risk in attempting compliance and a risk in non-compliance. The undocumented in the USA have a lot in common with US citizens outside the USA. (NYTImes.com gift article)www.nytimes.com/2026/04/14/u…

John Richardson (@expatriationlaw.bsky.social) 2026-04-17T12:52:36.628Z

U.S. citizens living outside the United States and “undocumented U.S. residents” have a great deal in common. They are both subjected to (1) more punitive taxation than U.S. residents with legal immigration status and (2) are forced to pay for programs they will never benefit from.

In addition, the integrity of tax systems is (I believe) dependent on their being focused on tax administration and not being used for other (including immigration) purposes. The New York Times article (referenced above) is an excellent example of using tax information for other purposes and who this creates disincentives to tax compliance.

I discuss this problem in more detail in the following post published at the Isaac Brock Society.

You Know A Tax System Is Broken When Individuals Fear Tax Compliance As Much As They Fear Tax Noncompliance

John Richardson – Follow me on X.com/ExpatriationLaw

Bonjour Part 7 – Bruyea and Chrisensen Cases Argued March 3, 2026

Introduction

___________________________________________________________________________

Today March 3, 2026 the Christensen (France) and Bruyea (Canada) appeals were argued. The issue is whether FTCs can be used to offset the 3.8% NIIT. The NIIT is found in Chapter 2A of the Internal Revenue Code instead of Chapter 1 which has the the FTC rules. Of course, FTCs (foreign tax credits) are available only as a credit against foreign taxes paid on foreign source income. In the context of the NIIT, it appears well settled (under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code) that because the NIIT is found in Chapter 2A, that foreign tax credits cannot be used as a credit against U.S. tax owing. To put it simply, in enacting the NIIT, Congress imposed pure double taxation on “foreign” net investment income. Think of it (like PFIC) as a “tariff” on investing in foreign financial assets. This is a huge problem for Americans abroad because their assets (and income streams) are more likely to be foreign. Hence, it is no surprise that this litigation arises from the circumstances of American citizens living outside the United States. Both Mr. Bruyea and the Christensens are Americans abroad.

Hence, the issue in both Bruyea and Christensen is whether the tax treaties provide a foreign tax credit, where the Internal Revenue Code does not.

Do tax treaties create a foreign tax credit under circumstances where the U.S. Internal Revenue Code would NOT allow a foreign tax credit?

Paragraph 1 of Article XXIV of the Canada/U.S. Tax Treaty reads as follows:

Elimination of Double Taxation

1. In the case of the United States, subject to the provisions of paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, double taxation shall be avoided as follows: In accordance with the provisions and subject to the limitations of the law of the United States (as it may be amended from time to time without changing the general principle hereof), the United States shall allow to a citizen or resident of the United States, or to a company electing to be treated as a domestic corporation, as a credit against the United States tax on income the appropriate amount of income tax paid or accrued to Canada; and, in the case of a company which is a resident of the United States owning at least 10 per cent of the voting stock of a company which is a resident of Canada from which it receives dividends in any taxable year, the United States shall allow as a credit against the United States tax on income the appropriate amount of income tax paid or accrued to Canada by that company with respect to the profits out of which such dividends are paid.

The France U.S. tax treaty has a similar provision which INCLUDES as follows:

ARTICLE 24

Relief From Double Taxation

1. (a) In accordance with the provisions and subject to the limitations of the law of the United States (as it may be amended from time to time without changing the general principle hereof), the United States shall allow to a citizen or a resident of the United States as a credit against the United States income tax:
(i) the French income tax paid by or on behalf of such citizen or resident;

U.S. Treasury position’s is that the language in italics In accordance with the provisions and subject to the limitations of the law of the United States allows the United States to DENY a foreign tax credit if a foreign tax credit is not allowed under the Internal Revenue Code. Obviously this interpretation would make Article XXIV meaningless. Why would it be needed? In fact, it would turn Article XXIV, which purports to be a vehicle for the “Elimination of Double Taxation”, into an Article which would guarantee double taxation. Nevertheless, that is the Orwellian position of U.S. Treasury.

On March 3, 2026 the United States Court of Appeals heard the appeals from BOTH Bruyea (Canada) and Christensen (France). The decisions of the courts of first instance (which conflicted on this question) were:

Bruyea (Canada)– The words In accordance with the provisions and subject to the limitations of the law of the United States should NOT be read to allow the United States to deny a foreign tax credit; and

Christensen (France) – The words In accordance with the provisions and subject to the limitations of the law of the United States SHOULD be read to allow the United States to deny a foreign tax credit. (The Christensen’s were successful based on arguing that a second section of the “double taxation” clause created an independent treaty based foreign tax credit.)

In accordance with the provisions and subject to the limitations of the law of
the United States

The meaning of those words is what the court has been asked to resolve. Specifically, do treaties create a foreign tax credit that extends beyond what is allowed under the IRC. If you are interested in this issue, I think you will find the oral arguments in Bruyea and Christensen interesting. They were heard back to back.

The cases are huge and the stakes are very high! If Bruyea and/or Christensen lose, I would think think that the terms of the treaty would allow the USA to deny a foreign tax credit by simply keeping a tax out of Chapter 1.

Interested to hear your thoughts on the prognosis and/or how you handle the issue of the NIIT payable on non-U.S. source income now.
Continue reading

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

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”

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

A Simple And Unilateral Fix For Citizenship Taxation – Richardson, Snyder and Alpert – Join Us On October 8, 2025

A Simple Tax Treaty Fix To Citizenship Taxation

The problem of citizenship taxation for Americans abroad is acute. Many people agree that citizenship taxation must end. Citizenship taxation is a combination of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (imposing punitive taxation on non-U.S. assets and income streams), Regulations (the Internal Revenue Code gives Treasury broad regulatory authority) and tax treaties (the treaty “saving clause” denies U.S. citizens most of the benefits of the tax treaties. Unsurprisingly, various remedies have been proposed.

Legislative Fix (a change to the Internal Revenue Code):

Examples of proposals that are legislative fixes include the 2018 Holding bill and the 2024 LaHood bill. Significantly, neither bill ends citizenship as a sufficient condition for U.S. tax residency.

Regulatory Fix (mitigating the problems of citizenship taxation by regulation):

In 2020, Dr. Laura Snyder, Dr. Karen Alpert and John Richardson published “A Simple Regulatory Fix For Citizenship Taxation”. In this paper we demonstrated how Treasury through its regulatory authority could change the impact of the U.S. (domestic) Internal Revenue Code on on Americans abroad.

A Tax Treaty Fix To Citizenship Taxation:

In 2025, Dr. Laura Snyder, Dr. Karen Alpert and John Richardson published “A Simple and Unilateral Treaty Fix for Citizenship Taxation”. Both the paper and discussion is available at the SEAT site. Notably, this approach changes neither U.S. domestic law nor regulations. Rather, it simply argues that U.S. Treasury could refrain from exercising its rights under the “saving clause” found in U.S. tax treaties. The “saving clause” gives the United States the right (but not the obligation) to impose U.S. taxation on U.S. citizens abroad as though the treaty did not exist. Notably, this prevents U.S. citizens from using “tax treaty residency tie break” provisions to elect to be treated as tax residents of ONLY their country of residence. Incredibly, Green Card holders ARE permitted to (effectively) “opt in” to residence-based taxation.

The SEAT argument is that:

The United States could end the double taxation of Americans abroad simply by electing to NOT exercise its rights under the “saving clause”. This would allow President Trump to fulfill his pledge to end the “double taxation” of Americans abroad by NOT invoking the “saving clause”.

The argument is explained here:

A Simple and Unilateral Treaty Fix for Citizenship Taxation

Join us for discussion on October 8, 2025 – Two opportunities

1. Wednesday October 8, 2025 Youtube – 7:30 am Eastern (Toronto and New York) time

2. Wednesday October 8, 2025 – X. Spaces – 10:00 am Eastern (Toronto and New York) time

Slides for both presentations …

This is important! Hope you can make one or both of the discussions.

John Richardson – Follow me on X.com/@ExpatriationLaw

Shedding Light On The U.S. Citizenship Tax System And Prospects For Reform In Australia And More: Latife Hayson and Seth Hertz

Reproduced from SEATNow.org

Introduction and purpose

In the summer of 2025 Latife Hayson of The Interchange, an Australian living in the United STates included an episode about U.S. citizenship taxation. Although mainly from an Australian perspective, the video (and shorts) will be of interest to U.S. citizens living all over the world.

Full Video:

US Expat Tax Explained: Navigating Citizen-Based Tax Traps & the Push for Residency-Based Taxation

Shorts:

Continue reading

From The OVDI Trauma Of 2011 To The Continuing Trauma Of U.S. Citizenship Abroad Today

Prologue – August 2011

Today is August 26, 2025. This coming weekend is Labour Day weekend. It was almost 14 years ago to the day that many U.S. citizens (and some former citizens) in Canada and around the world were being pressured to enter into the 2011 OVDI (“Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative”). Those who entered that program, offered a substantial percentage of their wealth to the IRS, to avoid punishment. The punishment would have been for the failure to comploy with laws they had no way of knowing existed. Shockingly, many who entered the OVDI program agreed to penalties that were completely disproportionate to their noncompliance. Interestingly, many who (1) entered the program and (2) used the opt out provision paid little or no penalties.

The OVDI program was predicated on the generation of penalty threats from the IRS and the tax advisers delivering those threats to the individuals impacted. The nature of the threats evolved. Toward the deadline for entering OVDI the IRS offered increased penalty to nonresidents who didn’t know they were U.S. citizens. As noted by Robert Wood on August 11, 2011 writing in Forbes, the IRS agreed that individuals who didn’t know they were U.S. citizens would pay a reduced rate of 5% for the privilege of participating in the OVDI program. Mr. Wood describes this special concession to those who didn’t know they were U.S. citizens as follows:

You are invited to read the complete post on the Isaac Brock Society here.

From The OVDI Trauma Of 2011 To The Continuing Trauma Of U.S. Citizenship Abroad Today

John Richardson – Follow me on X.com @Expatriationlaw