Category Archives: Renounce U.S. citizenship

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

A History Of The Board Of Appellate Review And A Tribute To Chairman Alan James

Leave a reply

By: John Richardson – June 15, 2026

Prologue

On July 18, 2017 the Washington Post included a section describing:

“Notable Deaths in the Washington, area”

“Alan James, lawyer, State Dept. officer

Alan James, 96, a lawyer who specialized in admiralty law and a State Department officer who served as a delegate to international panels on laws of the sea, died June 13 at a hospital in Bethesda, Md. The cause was heart ailments, said a daughter, Anne James.

Mr. James, a Bethesda resident, was born in Brooklyn. In the 1950s, he began his State Department career as an administrative and political counselor specializing in maritime matters. He was a political counselor at U.S. embassies in London and Paris as well as a delegate to laws of the seas treaty conferences. From 1982 to 1995, he chaired the State Department Board of Appellate Review, which reviews individual nationality cases. He was an avocational scholar who specialized in the works of Henry James (no relation).”

https://wapo.st/4eKK4hG

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/notable-deaths-in-the-washington-area/2017/07/18/ecb73298-6bd2-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html

Continue reading →

How Expatriation Affects U.S. Social Security Benefits – A Podcast With Virginia La Torre Jeker

Leave a reply

Introduction and purpose …

Entitlement to U.S. Social Security (including spousal and survivor benefits) after expatriation has always been a difficult. During the months of January and February 2026 U.S. tax lawyer Virginia La Torre Jeker did a “deep dive” into how expatriation impacts entitlement to Social Security benefits and the way they are taxed. Expatriation (renouncing U.S. citizenship or Green Card abandonment), affects U.S. Social Security in at least two distinct ways:

– the transition from “U.S. Person” to a nonresident alien means that (from a purely U.S. perspective) will be Social Security will be taxed differently. The difference from the U.S. perspective may be modified by tax treaties

– your citizenship after expatriation matters. Citizens of some countries may be required to return to the United States every six months to continue to receive their benefits.

Therefore, the impact of expatriation on the taxation and access to U.S. Social Security must be understood prior to expatriation.

Spoiler alert: Expatriation will NOT impact the capacity to receive Social Security benefits for citizens found on “List 1” (discussed below). This includes citizens of Canada, the U.K., etc. …
Continue reading →

“13 Reasons Why” I Committed Citizide By Renouncing US Citizenship By Jane Doe

Leave a reply

13 Reasons Why I Committed Citizide

Note: The following brilliant essay was written by a former client of mine. I originally posted it in 2017 on Medium here. My introductory comments in 2017 are (I think) worth considering. If you want help with deciding whether to renounce U.S. citizenship feel free to reach out.

(Inspired by the television series, 13 Reasons Why)

Hey, it’s Jane. Jane Doe. Settle in because I’m about to tell you the story of my renunciation. More specifically, why I gave up my US citizenship. And if you’re reading this article, you’re probably thinking of doing it too. I can’t expect you to understand exactly how I feel; each person has a unique set of circumstances, a deeply personal mix of conflicting emotions, fears and problems that shape their response. But I can tell you why I did it. Let me start by saying, don’t believe everything you hear.

Continue reading →

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

Leave a reply

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 F – specifically 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 →

Exit Taxes As A Barrier To Emigration And The Need For An International Treaty To Create Uniformity And Certainty Surrounding Emigration

Leave a reply

Exit Taxes As A Barrier To Emigration And The Need For An International Treaty To Create Uniformity And Certainty Surrounding Emigration

This blog post was written for a presentation at the MigrationConference.net on June 12, 2025. Here are the slides that will be used:

A PDF version is here:

Migration Conference 2

Here is a recording of John’s brief presentation at the conference on June 12, 2025:

A more comprehensive blog post follows.

Outline:

Part A – Introduction
Part B – Emigration historically burdened by “exit taxes” (The Nazis and Soviets)
Part C – Modern Exit Taxes And First World Democracies (Canada, the United States, etc.)
Part D – A Tax Treaty Solution That Protects BOTH The Right Of Emigration And the Desire Of Governments To Tax Individuals On Gains Accruing While Living In The Country

Appendix – Human Rights Documents

Continue reading →

Canadian Snowbirds Now Subject To Form Crime For Failure To Register Their Stay In USA

1 Reply

Attention: Those Who Have Renounced U.S. Citizenship

The decision of the Trump administration to enforce “Immigration And Nationality Act – §1302” from 1955 (See Appendix A) means that you will likely be required to register and be fingerprinted if you spend more than 30 days in the United States.

Attention: Canadian Snowbirds And Non-U.S. Citizens Spending More Than 30 Days In The USA

There is a good chance (See Appendix C below) that you are members of the group that will have to be registered with the U.S. Government and subject to fingerprinting!

To be “FORMWarned” is to be “FORMArmed!”

For further explanation or if you are a Canadian Snowbird, read on …

______________________________________________________________________

Introduction – The Context

So, How Is The United States Treating Its Friends Compared To Its Enemies?

A recent media article includes:

An estimated one million Canadian “snowbirds” – seniors and retirees who winter in southern states such as Florida and Arizona – inject billions in tourism spending during their months-long stays in the United States. But under an executive order from President Donald Trump, these visitors will soon have to register to travel south of the border, as part of an effort to curb illegal immigration.

Mr. Trump’s order, called Protecting the American People Against Invasion, is believed to be the first time in history that the United States has included Canadians in a crackdown on undocumented migrants. Immigration lawyers in the U.S. said the order targets the wrong people and will further hurt the disintegrating Canada-U.S. relationship.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canadian-snowbirds-caught-up-in-new-registration-requirements/?intcmp=gift_subscribed

As Of February 25, 2025 The U.S. Government Has Clarified That:

Who must apply for registration

All aliens 14 years of age or older who were not registered and fingerprinted (if required) when applying for a visa to enter the United States and who remain in the United States for 30 days or longer. They must apply before the expiration of those 30 days.
The parents and legal guardians of aliens less than 14 years of age who have not been registered and remain in the United States for 30 days or longer, prior to the expiration of those 30 days.
Any alien, whether previously registered or not, who turns 14 years old in the United States, within 30 days after their 14th birthday.

Who is not registered?

Anyone who has not been issued one of the documents designated as evidence of registration under 8 CFR 264.1(b) and has not submitted one of the forms designated at 8 CFR 264.1(a) and provided fingerprints (unless waived) is not registered. Aliens who have not registered include:

Aliens who are present in the United States without inspection and admission or inspection and parole;
Canadian visitors who entered the United States at land ports of entry and were not issued evidence of registration; and,
Aliens who submitted one or more benefit requests to USCIS not listed in 8 CFR 264.1(a), including applications for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or Temporary Protected Status, who were not issued evidence of registration.

https://www.uscis.gov/alienregistration

Yes, Canadian Snowbirds are ABSOLUTELY required to register and be fingerprinted!!

What’s Going On? An Explanation From President Nixon’s Old Law Firm:

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, that directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to ensure foreign nationals in the U.S. comply with the obligation to register, pursuant to Section 262 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and that failure to register be treated as a civil and criminal enforcement priority. In response, on February 25, 2025, DHS laid out more specifics about the proposed alien registration requirement, including additional guidance about who is required to register and the process to register.

What is the registration requirement?

Section 262 of the INA, originally enacted in 1952, mandates the registration and fingerprinting of certain foreign nationals in the U.S. In addition, the INA mandates that foreign nationals eighteen (18) years of age and over carry evidence of registration. With the exception of the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), enacted by the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11 and requiring the registration of men over the age of sixteen (16) on nonimmigrant visas from 24 countries declared “havens for terrorists,” the U.S. has not previously enforced the INA’s registration requirement or provided a process for foreign nationals to register. The Trump administration has proposed to change that by providing a tool to register online and announcing the intention to enforce penalties for failure to register.

https://www.nixonpeabody.com/insights/articles/2025/03/03/dhs-announces-alien-registration-requirement

Continue reading →

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 →

Extreme Caution Should Be Exercised In Applying For Non-Renunciation “Relinquishments” Of U.S. Citizenship

Leave a reply

January 25, 2025

Keeping this short, sweet and to the point:

I recommend NOT applying for Certificates Of Loss Of Nationality (“CLNs”) based on a past relinquishing act. Past relinquishing acts include ANY form of relinquishment that is not a present day “renunciation” of U.S. citizenship. (See the appendix to this post.)

If you need help with this problem feel free to reach out to me.

This recommendation is based on experiences in Canada:

– knowing several cases where the Consular appointments documenting the past relinquishing act took place almost two years ago. The individuals have still, despite repeated inquiries, NOT had a response from the State Department! To be clear, two of these were based on naturalizations as Canadian citizens after June 16, 2008 (meaning they were clearly subject to U.S. taxation up to the date of the appointment and were in fact tax compliant!)

– the new rules (using a new DS-4079) which took effect on November 1, 2024 make it VERY clear that the State Department is reviewing the evidence of voluntariness and intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship. The voluntariness and intent must be proven at the moment of the expatriating act!

– I know people who submitted applications to renounce U.S. citizenship (in Canada) prior to November 1, 2024 (and therefore prior to the beginning of the new DS-4079), who are awaiting appointments to renounce. They have subsequently received messages asking them (in anticipation of their renunciation appointments) to complete the new DS-4079. The message to them also included the statement that:

The Department of State will only have a legal basis to approve a CLN in your name if the preponderance of evidence shows that you voluntarily performed a potentially expatriating act with the intent to relinquish U.S. nationality.

Notice that the burden of proof is on the person seeking the CLN. The State Department decides what it takes to satisfy the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. This is a difficult burden to meet when the relinquishing act was many years ago. It appears that the facts of “NOT exercising any rights of U.S. citizenship” (after the relinquishing act) are insufficient to meet the evidentiary standard.

For many years I was able to assist (many) people in getting CLNs based on “relinquishing acts in the past”. The law has not changed. What appears to have changed is what the State Department will accept as evidence of meeting the “burden of proof” of voluntariness and intent. The shift in the State Department attitude appears to have started about two years ago. It is clearly expressed in the new DS-4079. I have been warning people about this for the last year or so. I strongly suggest that people exercise extreme caution in applying for CLNs based on relinquishing acts in the past. This is particularly true for those who need a CLN relatively quickly.

Bottom line: You should renounce!

At this point my suggestion is (assuming you qualify):

Renounce and use the 2019 “IRS Relief Procedures For Former Citizens“. Current information on the “Relief Procedures For Former Citizens” program is here.

If you need help, feel free to contact me.

John Richardson – Follow me on X.com @ExpatriationLaw

Appendix – 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

What follows is the statute governing relinquishment of U.S. citizenship. I have added “JR Commentary in italics“.

Notice that paragraph (b) describes the “burden of proof”.

I suggest using (5) renunciation as your method of relinquishment. The other options are now presenting hurdles that are difficult to meett.

§1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality–

JR Commentary: The general test is that the expatriating act must be or have been performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

JR Commentary: This is a past relinquishing act. I know of people who have relied on this and are having difficulty getting CLNs.

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

JR Commentary: This is a past relinquishing act. I know of people who have relied on this and are having difficulty getting CLNs.

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

JR Commentary: Again, only in the most extraordinary circumstances will this succeed.

(4)(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or

JR Commentary: This depends on the nature of the work for the foreign government. Only specific kinds of employment have a chance of success (and even then there is the problem of proof).

(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or

JR Commentary: So far I have never had a renunciation, at the Consulate rejected. If you want a CLN quickly this is the way to go.

(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

___________________________________________________________

(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

JR Commentary: It appears that the focus of the State Department is now squarely on whether the individual seeking the CLN has met this burden of proof.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 3, §349, 66 Stat. 267 ; Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1256, §2, 68 Stat. 1146 ; Pub. L. 87–301, §19, Sept. 26, 1961, 75 Stat. 656 ; Pub. L. 94–412, title V, §501(a), Sept. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1258 ; Pub. L. 95–432, §§2, 4, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046 ; Pub. L. 97–116, §18(k)(2), (q), Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1620 , 1621; Pub. L. 99–653, §§18, 19, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3658 ; Pub. L. 100–525, §§8(m), (n), 9(hh), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2618 , 2622.)

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1481&num=0&edition=prelim

Some IRS Medic Livestream Videos – 2026 to 2023

Leave a reply

Introduction:

Over the years I have been a guest on the IRS Medic Youtube Channel a number of times. The topics have been varied and of relevance to Americans abroad. I thought I would collect “some” of the videos in one post. If you scroll down, I expect that you will some topics of interest to you. Many if not most of the topics have included written presentations in PDF format. I will add those when I have the time and am able to locate them.

If after watching any of these, if you want to schedule a consultation to discuss your situation:

https://www.calendly.com/renounceUScitizenship

ExpatriationLaw.com

__________________________________________________________________

Continue reading →