Tag Archives: John Richardson

The Road To Tax Reform For Americans Abroad: Part 1 – The Problem Is The System And Not The Party

3 Replies

Introduction – The First Of A Series Of Short Posts

My name is John Richardson. I am a Toronto, Canada based lawyer. I am also a founding member of “SEAT” (“Stop Extraterritorial American Taxation”). I am an advocate for reforming the US laws which apply to US citizens who live outside the United States as permanent residents of other countries. The problems experienced by Americans abroad are at the “boiling point” and something must be done. This post is motivated by the following twitter thread which reveals the pain, desperation, anger and divisiveness experienced by Americans abroad:

This is the first of a series of short posts in which I will share my thoughts and suggestions for how to proceed. I welcome your comments both here and on twitter where I am @Expatriationlaw.

Blind Partisanship Is Not Productive

I want to state at the outset that I am an independent minded and am not officially a member of any political party. (That said I am proud to work with and support Republicans Overseas on their initiative to sever citizenship from tax residency.) I have been and continue to be supportive of independent candidates in Canada (and anywhere else). I state this because during this series of posts, I will express sentiments that are critical of political parties. When I criticize the Democrats it’s not because I am a Republican. It’s because the Democrats are deserving of criticism (or vice-versa). Healthy democracies are dependent on accurate observations and objective analysis. Excessive partisanship is simply an excuse for avoiding reasoned analysis. Simply following the position or platform of any political party is an excuse for reasoned analysis.

It is also clear that, for Americans abroad, allegiance to a political party (in a country where you don’t live) has the effect of “dividing and conquering” Americans abroad with respect to – U.S. citizenship taxation – the one issue that should unite them!

The truth is that, because of U.S. citizenship taxation:

What unites Americans abroad is FAR GREATER than what divides Americans Abroad!

The Difficulty Of Living As A US Citizen Outside The United States

First, if you are a “retiree living abroad” where all of your income is US sourced this post is NOT for you. You are filing the same US tax return while “retiring abroad” that you would if you were living in the USA. You are probably filing tax returns ONLY in the USA. Therefore, the US citizenship tax regime does not impact you in the same way. This post is for those who live permanently outside the United States and your income sources, assets and retirement planning are associated with the tax systems of other countries (foreign to the United States).

Second, As permanent residents of other countries, US citizens are treated as BOTH tax residents of the United States and tax residents of the countries where they live. In other words, they are subject to the full force of two (often incompatible) tax systems. Think of it. US citizens living outside the United States are subject to the tax systems of two countries at the same time. Leaving aside the anxiety this induces, the time that it takes to comply, the heightened threats of penalties and the outrageous costs of compliance (think tax accountants and lawyers), this puts Americans abroad in a position where:

1. They are subjected to a tax system that is more punitive than the tax system imposed on US residents

2. They are often subject to double taxation (the foreign tax credit rules and the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion do not prevent many forms of double taxation)

3. The US tax rules prevent them from engaging in the normal financial planning and retirement opportunities (Canadian TFSA and UK ISAs are not tax free for US citizens)

4. In many countries, because and only because of their US citizenship they are prevented from maintaining the normal financial accounts they need to live in a normal way (this is the direct result of the 2010 Obama FATCA law)

The cumulative weight of these problems is that US citizens living outside the United States are being constructively forced to renounce their US citizenship in order to survive. But, it gets worse. Since June 16, 2008 certain Americans abroad who renounce US citizenship (“covered expatriates“) are forced to pay a special expatriation tax on their non-US assets to achieve this goal. (You can find a video of my discussing US citizenship renunciation here.)

Americans abroad are NOT renouncing because they don’t want to be Americans. They are renouncing because the US tax and regulatory regime is forcing them out of their US citizenship!

It’s The System Not The Parties – Therefore, Citizenship Must Be Severed From Tax Residency!

Regardless of which political party is in power, tax laws will continue to change.

As long as the United States employs citizenship-based taxation, changes in US tax laws will continue to have dramatic (sometimes intended and sometimes unintended) effects on Americans abroad. These negative effects and outcomes will continue regardless of which political party is in power.

For example:

The 2017 TCJA became law under the Republicans. The effects on Americans abroad were horrible. (Examples include: Transition Tax, GILTI, those using the “Married Filing Separately” category were required to file with zero income)

The 2010 FATCA law was enacted under the Democrats. The effects on Americans abroad were horrible. (Examples include: Form 8938, FATCA bank account closures, etc.)

Therefore, it is a mistake to bicker over which political party has done more or less damage to Americans abroad (although it is clear that one of the parties had done far more damage than the other).

As long as citizenship-based taxation continues and tax laws continue to evolve, whatever political party is in power will – by changing tax laws – continue to damage the lives and finances of Americans abroad.

Individual American Abroad Must Unite To Get This System Of Law Changed

Conclusion for today: The problem is the system! It’s not the political parties.

You have the right to vote. The question is not which party to vote for. The question is how can you most effectively use your vote to end US citizenship-based taxation and encourage FATCA repeal.

To be continued …

John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw

Considering renouncing US citizenship? Interesting discussion with Buffalo lawyer @JoeGrasmick

Leave a reply

In 2018 I had a discussion with Buffalo Immigration Lawyer Joe Grasmick about a number of issues including renouncing US citizenship. The discussion was videoed as part of my “Retain Or Renounce” series. It was a very interesting and balanced discussion. (We also discussed some of the dos and don’ts of Green Card abandonment.)

I wanted to share Joe’s LinkedIn post today (December 31, 2021). His post reinforces the reality that (although Americans abroad are clearly suffering from the tax and regulatory regime) US citizenship does have value.

I completely agree with Joe that the consequences of renouncing US citizenship (notwithstanding the problems) should be fully understood and appreciated.

Continue reading →

Republicans Overseas Begins Its Support and Advocacy for Pure Residence-based Tax

Leave a reply

This is an incredibly significant development. See the following posts on their Facebook site. They also have a new Twitter feed. Follow them at @RepOverseas.

Republicans Overseas position On What Pure Residence-based taxation means:

Tax Talk 1 – November 22, 2021

Tax Talk 2 – November 29, 2021

Tax Talk 3 – December 10, 2021

Tax Talk 4 – December 15, 2021

Tax Talk 5 – December 20, 2021

Tax Talk 6 – December 27 2021

Tax Talk 7 – January 3, 2022

Tax Talk 8 – January 21, 2022

Tax Talk – January 24, 2022

A simple regulatory fix for the problem of US citizenship taxation

1 Reply

Background

In 2016 I first made the suggestion that citizenship-based taxation could be changed through Treasury regulation. In October of 2020 John Richardson, Dr. Karen Alpert and Dr. Laura Snyder completed a paper titled “A Simple Regulatory Fix For Citizenship Taxation”. The idea advanced is that:

Although Congress and the Internal Revenue Code created the problem of “citizenship-based taxation”, Treasury has the authority and moral duty to fix the problems of citizenship-based taxation.

Discussion

In 1924 the Supreme Court of the United States considered U.S. citizenship-based taxation in the case of Cook v. Tait. Of course in 1924, the laws of both citizenship and taxation were very different. I have previously explored the evolution of citizenship, taxation and citizenship-based taxation.

The article has received fairly wide distribution (including in the academic community).

Abstract

This article explains the simple regulatory actions that United States Department of the Treasury can take that would, in the absence of legislative change, improve the lives of Americans living overseas and permit the IRS to better focus its limited resources to more effectively administer the U.S. tax system.

The article can be read at SSRN here.

The 2020 article can be at Tax Notes here.

I welcome your comments.

John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw

Understanding the 1996 Reed Amendment: A primer for those considering renouncing US citizenship AKA #citizide

Leave a reply

Updated January 28, 2026

When one renounces U.S. citizenship one becomes an “alien” under U.S. immmigration law. Aliens do NOT have a right to enter the United States. Rather they must be permitted to enter the United States in accordance with the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Those who renounce U.S. citizenship, will be treated as citizens of whatever country they are a citizen of. For example, if a Canada/U.S. dual citizen renounces U.S. citizenship, that person will (from the perspective of U.S. immigration law) be treated as a Canadian citizen. (At present Canadian citizens do NOT need any kind of visa and are permitted to enter the United States with a valid Canadian passport.) The rules that would apply to you depend on your citizenship.

There continue to be concerns about the relationship between renouncing U.S. citizenship and future admissibility to the United States. Much of this is the result from “fear mongering” from uninformed advisors and marketers.

The concern is based on a provision (referred to as the Reed Amendment) included in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. The history and context of the law is well documented in this article which includes:

The Reed Amendment, also known as the Expatriate Exclusion Clause, created a provision of United States federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10)(E)) attempting to impose an entry ban on certain former U.S. citizens based on their reasons for renouncing U.S. citizenship. Notably, entry can be denied to persons who renounced their U.S. citizenship to avoid paying income taxes. The United States is one of two countries in the world that taxes its citizens’ income earned abroad for citizens whose primary residence is abroad. The other country to do so is Eritrea.

The exact legislation deems certain former citizens to be inadmissible to the United States in the following circumstance:

(E) Former citizens who renounced citizenship to avoid taxation

Any alien who is a former citizen of the United States who officially renounces United States citizenship and who is determined by the Attorney General to have renounced United States citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation by the United States is inadmissible.

What does it mean to “have renounced United States citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation by the United States?

Interestingly the U.S. Mexico tax treaty has some provisions that shed light on what it means to renounce U.S. citizenship to avoid United States taxation. Although beyond the scope of this post, dual citizenship from birth can rebut a presumption of a tax avoidance motive in renunciation.

The 1996 legislative context of the Reed Amendment

The Reed Amendment was part of Public Law 104-208 which was enacted on September 30, 1996. Notably this is during the same Congress (and one month after) the amendments to the Internal Revenue Code that created a rebuttable presumption of the intent to avoid taxation for certain individuals renouncing U.S. citizenship. From 2004 “intent” ceased to be relevant (under the Internal Revenue Code) in determining the tax consequences (if any) of renouncing U.S. citizenship.

On the one hand the renunciation of United States citizenship means a loss of the right to enter the United States. On the other hand there have been very few renunciants barred from the United States under U.S. immigration laws because of the Reed amendment (or because of renunciation of citizenship generally). The purpose of this post is to provide some additional commentary and (hopefully) allay your concerns.

What follows is a podcast that I did in 2020 with U.S. tax lawyer Virginia La Torre Jeker where we discuss the Reed Amendment.

The podcast refers to a November 30, 20215 document from the Department of Homeland Security titled:

Inadmissibility Of Tax-Based Citizenship Renunciants

Departmental Management and Operations (DMO) – Policy – Inadmissibility of Tax-Based Citizenship Renunciants_0

Concluding message:

The Reed Amendment has rarely been enforced. That said, in a renunciation interview one should NEVER suggest that avoiding U.S. taxation is a reason for renunciation. In reality, most Americans abroad who are renouncing don’t actually pay U.S. taxes. It’s the compliance burden that is the problem along with the inability to engage in financial planning in your country of residence.

Those interested in a “deeper dive” into this issue are invited to read the resources in the Appendixes below.

John Richardson – Follow me on X.com/expatriationlaw

Continue reading →

Seeking short social media – twitter and facebook posts – explaining why @citizenshiptax and #FATCA are wrong

8 Replies

On June 3, 2020 I plan to do a podcast with Anthony Scaramucci of Skybridge Capital and SALT Conference fame. The June 3 podcast has its roots in the following @Scaramucci tweet which was the subject of discussion at the Isaac Brock Society.

Mr. Scaramucci’s tweet generated a great deal of discussion. If you click on the tweet, you will see, what some of the responses were.

A third party individual has arranged for me to do a podcast with Mr. Scaramucci. This will take place on June 3. In order to provide background information for “citizenship taxation”, FATCA and how they impact Americans abroad, I would ask that you reply to the following tweet. It is your opportunity to contribute to the conversation.

Feel free to leave a comment to this post. I will ensure that it finds its way into the twitter thread.

John Richardson – Follow me on Twitter @Expatriationlaw

Part 15 in series: The Emotional Toll of US Non-Resident Taxation and Banking Policies – “I Just Wanted to Punch, Kick, Scream”

1 Reply

Before moving to the post, if you believe that Americans abroad are being treated unjustly by the United States Government: Join me on May 17, 2019 for a discussion of U.S. “citizenship-based taxation” as follows:

You are invited to submit your questions in advance. In fact, PLEASE submit questions. This is an opportunity to engage with Homelanders in general and the U.S. tax compliance community in particular.

Thanks to Professor Zelinsky for his willingness to engage in this discussion. Thanks to Kat Jennings of Tax Connections for hosting this discussion. Thanks to Professor William Byrnes for his willingness to moderate this discussion.

Tax Connections has published a large number of posts that I have written over the years (yes, hard to believe it has been years). As you may know I oppose FATCA, U.S. citizenship-based taxation and the use of FATCA to impose U.S. taxation on tax residents of other countries.
Tax Connections has also published a number of posts written by Professor Zelinsky (who apparently takes a contrary view).

You will find Part 1 to Part 14 of this series of posts here.

Laura Snyder discusses the “emotional toll of U.S. non-resident taxation and banking policies

Laura Snyder has written (in addition to her original four posts) a series of five posts describing and exploring “The Emotional Toll of US Non-Resident Taxation and Banking Policies“. Part 10 of this series (comments of Nando Breiter) was a prologue to Ms. Snyder’s five posts.

Now over to Laura …

Continue reading →

Part 14 in series: The Emotional Toll of US Non-Resident Taxation and Banking Policies – “Maybe that’s the Only Way Out”

Leave a reply

Before moving to the post, if you believe that Americans abroad are being treated unjustly by the United States Government: Join me on May 17, 2019 for a discussion of U.S. “citizenship-based taxation” as follows:


You are invited to submit your questions in advance. In fact, PLEASE submit questions. This is an opportunity to engage with Homelanders in general and the U.S. tax compliance community in particular.
Thanks to Professor Zelinsky for his willingness to engage in this discussion. Thanks to Kat Jennings of Tax Connections for hosting this discussion. Thanks to Professor William Byrnes for his willingness to moderate this discussion.
Tax Connections has published a large number of posts that I have written over the years (yes, hard to believe it has been years). As you may know I oppose FATCA, U.S. citizenship-based taxation and the use of FATCA to impose U.S. taxation on tax residents of other countries.
Tax Connections has also published a number of posts written by Professor Zelinsky (who apparently takes a contrary view).
You will find Part 1 to Part 11 of this series of posts here.
Laura Snyder discusses the “emotional toll of U.S. non-resident taxation and banking policies
Laura Snyder has written (in addition to her original four posts) a series of five posts describing and exploring “The Emotional Toll of US Non-Resident Taxation and Banking Policies“. Part 10 of this series (comments of Nando Breiter) was a prologue to Ms. Snyder’s five posts.
Now over to Laura …
Continue reading →

Part 13 in series: The Emotional Toll of US Non-Resident Taxation and Banking Policies – “I Made a Poisoned Gift to My Daughter”

Leave a reply

Before moving to the post, if you believe that Americans abroad are being treated unjustly by the United States Government: Join me on May 17, 2019 for a discussion of U.S. “citizenship-based taxation” as follows:

You are invited to submit your questions in advance. In fact, PLEASE submit questions. This is an opportunity to engage with Homelanders in general and the U.S. tax compliance community in particular.

Thanks to Professor Zelinsky for his willingness to engage in this discussion. Thanks to Kat Jennings of Tax Connections for hosting this discussion. Thanks to Professor William Byrnes for his willingness to moderate this discussion.

Tax Connections has published a large number of posts that I have written over the years (yes, hard to believe it has been years). As you may know I oppose FATCA, U.S. citizenship-based taxation and the use of FATCA to impose U.S. taxation on tax residents of other countries.
Tax Connections has also published a number of posts written by Professor Zelinsky (who apparently takes a contrary view).

You will find Part 1 to Part 12 of this series of posts here.

Laura Snyder discusses the “emotional toll of U.S. non-resident taxation and banking policies

Laura Snyder has written (in addition to her original four posts) a series of five posts describing and exploring “The Emotional Toll of US Non-Resident Taxation and Banking Policies“. Part 10 of this series (comments of Nando Breiter) was a prologue to Ms. Snyder’s five posts.

Now over to Laura …

Continue reading →

Part 12 in series: The Emotional Toll of US Non-Resident Taxation and Banking Policies – “I Love the US but Feel Betrayed”

Leave a reply

Before moving to the post, if you believe that Americans abroad are being treated unjustly by the United States Government: Join me on May 17, 2019 for a discussion of U.S. “citizenship-based taxation” as follows:

You are invited to submit your questions in advance. In fact, PLEASE submit questions. This is an opportunity to engage with Homelanders in general and the U.S. tax compliance community in particular.

Thanks to Professor Zelinsky for his willingness to engage in this discussion. Thanks to Kat Jennings of Tax Connections for hosting this discussion. Thanks to Professor William Byrnes for his willingness to moderate this discussion.

Tax Connections has published a large number of posts that I have written over the years (yes, hard to believe it has been years). As you may know I oppose FATCA, U.S. citizenship-based taxation and the use of FATCA to impose U.S. taxation on tax residents of other countries.
Tax Connections has also published a number of posts written by Professor Zelinsky (who apparently takes a contrary view).

You will find Part 1 to Part 11 of this series of posts here.

Laura Snyder discusses the “emotional toll of U.S. non-resident taxation and banking policies

Laura Snyder has written (in addition to her original four posts) a series of five posts describing and exploring “The Emotional Toll of US Non-Resident Taxation and Banking Policies“. Part 10 of this series (comments of Nando Breiter) was a prologue to Ms. Snyder’s five posts.

Now over to Laura …

Continue reading →