Liberty and justice for all United States persons abroad

The Isaac Brock Society

Recent News Suggesting Renounced U.S. Citizens Are Not Eligible For ESTA Visa Waiver

Posted on by Posted in Issues regarding US persons abroad 3 Comments

What is an ESTA? What is it for? Who might need it?

The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) enables most citizens or nationals of participating countries* to travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa. Travelers must have a valid Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) approval prior to travel and meet all requirements explained below. If you prefer to have a visa in your passport, you may still apply for a visitor (B) visa.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/tourism-visit/visa-waiver-program.html

For the “visa waiver” countries see the Appendix to this post.

 

Bulletin for those who have or are considering renouncing U.S. Citizenship

Today, Tuesday November 3, 2026 I became aware of anecdotal information that:

Individuals who renounce U.S. citizenship and are citizens of a “visa waiver country” may no longer be eligible for an ESTA (as a substitute for a visa) to enter the United States. (If true, this does not mean the individual cannot enter the United States. It would mean that a visa would be required to enter the United States.)

Online discussion of this is found here, here,  here and here. Nevertheless, I am not convinced that this represents a permanent policy shift.

Additional discussion (which falls far short of saying that this is a new policy)  is available on the Withers law firm site as follows:

“US Customs and Border Protection’s Office of Field Operations (CBP OFO) has confirmed that certain individuals with a connection to US citizenship may not be eligible to travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) using the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA).”

You can read the complete article in the at the following link:

https://www.withersworldwide.com/en-gb/insight/read/esta-visa-waiver-travel-may-be-unavailable-to-certain-current-or-former-u-s-citizens

 

The article does NOT say that renounced U.S. citizens are ineligible for ESTA. It does say there have been some circumstances where renounced U.S. citizens have been denied ESTA.

It is not clear whether the denials were because the person had renounced U.S. citizenship or whether the fact of renunciation may have contributed to uncertainty over U.S. citizenship status at the time of application for the visa.

I had the opportunity to discuss this issue with U.K. lawyer Diane Gelon. Our conversation was recorded as a podcast.

Important!!!

This does NOT impact Canadian citizens entering the USA. Canadians are in the privileged position of needing only a Canadian passport. Canadian citizens do NOT need ESTA. Canadian citizens do NOT need a visa to enter the United States.

London, UK based U.S. lawyer Diane Gelon offers some interesting insights in this podcast.

So, what’s my advice? If you are a former U.S. citizen living in a visa waiver country and wish to visit the United States be proactive. Take steps to find out. Do NOT assume that an ESTA is available to you.

John Richardson

 

Appendix – What are the visa waiver countries?

 

 

  • Andorra
  • Australia
  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Brunei
  • Chile
  • Croatia
  • Czech Republic
  • Denmark
  • Estonia
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Greece
  • Hungary
  • Iceland
  • Ireland
  • Israel
  • Italy
  • Japan
  • Latvia
  • Liechtenstein
  • Lithuania
  • Luxembourg
  • Malta
  • Monaco
  • Netherlands
  • New Zealand
  • Norway
  • Poland
  • Portugal
  • Qatar
  • San Marino
  • Singapore
  • Slovakia
  • Slovenia
  • South Korea
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • Taiwan*
  • United Kingdom**

The Original Brockers Were Canaries In A Coal Mine

Posted on by Posted in Issues regarding US persons abroad 3 Comments

Introduction

The Isaac Brock Society and “Brockers” generally were ahead of their time in realizing the danger and effects of the extra-territorial application of U.S. laws.  The pushback against the U.S. imposing taxation on Canadian residents and FATCA were really recognizing the importance of a free and independent Canada. Brockers were understanding a reality that it would take the rest of the world longer to see.

Part A – Canaries in a coal mine

In the early years of Brock it was said that:

“All homeland Americans need to understand their future is to see how the United States treats its citizens abroad.”

This can be considered from the perspectives of (1) the emotional fallout and (2) the actual substantive tax and compliance rules. Both are shocking!

(1) Emotional fallout

Most Americans abroad know that the U.S. treatment of its citizens abroad is shocking and unconscionable. In the words of Toronto psychologist Dr. Donald Young:

For those U.S citizens who have elected  to live abroad, be it in Canada or elsewhere, American tax policy can place such individuals in a position that engenders constant and severe emotional stress. The vindictiveness of the U.S. position, its unfairness and irrationality, the fact that neither the U.S. government nor tax and legal experts  even know the rules and how to rationally proceed, and the constant threat of economic calamity are all factors that can be emotionally devastating. From my observations over the years in people ensnared in this situation, and I would count myself among us, it is common to experience substantial anxiety, depression, feelings of panic and foreboding, guilt over being branded a cheat and a criminal, fear, anger, resentment, and general feelings of helplessness and confusion. I have in fact seen some people who  have become virtually suicidal at the prospect of losing everything for the “crime” of not paying taxes to a country they have not lived in for decades if ever at all.

I am a clinical psychologist licensed to practice in Ontario with 35 years of experience. I have also been appointed an assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto. In recent years I have had the opportunity to discuss and address these problems with many individuals who are are trapped in these tragic circumstances.
Along with John I am happy to make myself available in any of the forums or meetings that will be forthcoming. There is always strength in numbers and sometimes much can be gained by discussing common problems together in a group. I am also happy to chat or work with people individually with these concerns.

Dr. Young describes the emotional fallout experienced by Americans abroad.

(2) The tax rules that actually apply to Americans abroad

Yes, Americans abroad are subjected to U.S. citizenship taxation. But, Americans abroad are actually subjected to a more punitive form of taxation than are U.S. residents. Americans abroad were the early recipients of a “form” (pun intended) of viciousness from the United States that both resident Americans and the rest of the world are now experiencing.

Sooner or later how the U.S. treats Americans abroad will be extended to other groups (and countries

Americans abroad saw the viciousness  first and experienced it first. They had their collective OMG moment in 2011. Now the rest of the world is having its collective OMG moment.

2025 – The Erosion Of Trust And The Year Of The International Oh My God (“OMG”) Moment

 

In a real sense,  the original Brockers were “canaries in a coal mine“.

Part B – The cost to America – We can afford to lose money, but we can’t afford to lose reputation – Warren Buffett

The strength of a country is based largely on the strength of its alliances. It’s obvious that the current administration has accelerated the decline in America’s reputation. It has accelerated the decline in the trust that people and other countries have in America.

In short, the United States of America is eroding its most important form of capital which is trust and reputation. This was evidenced (in part)  in Prime Minister Carney’s Davos speech.

The Green Grocer And The Power Of The Powerless – Mark Carney’s Speech At Davos

 

Part C – Additional Commentary – A fascinating interview with Oxford professor Margaret MacMillan

This is a great interview from outside the USA looking in.

It’s too bad that so many Americans can only see America from the inside looking in.

 

John Richardson

 

Opportunity To Support A Regulatory Fix To Soften Citizenship Taxation

Posted on by Posted in Issues regarding US persons abroad 2 Comments

Republicans Overseas is petitioning the Treasury and IRS to endorse residence-based-taxation and propose legislative language to Congress:

We invite you to join us in signing the RO Petition letter (see the text of the letter below) to the U.S. Treasury and IRS for the purpose of ending double taxation by clicking this link: https://speak4.app/lp/4d01inqk

For further information and background see my post at CitizenshipSolutions.ca

 

 

Your immediate help is needed to visibly support ending the @doubletaxation of Americans abroad!

The deadline is apparently October 30, 2026.

 

John Richardson

 

Proposed Legislation Would Allow Limited Penalty Relief For Americans Held Hostage Abroad

Posted on by Posted in Issues regarding US persons abroad 2 Comments

It’s truly “The American Way”

Citizenship taxation is the defining feature of U.S. citizenship. U.S. citizens are subject to U.S. taxes, forms and penalties without regard to where they live in the world. The reason for being outside the country is irrelevant.

What if an American is incarcerated or otherwise held hostage abroad?

Equality demands that ALL Americans be treated the same. All Americans are required to comply. The story of Jack Swigert failing to file his tax return is amusing. But, this leads to an interesting question:

Q. What if a U.S. citizen is held hostage outside the United States or otherwise incarcerated and simply cannot file a tax return an/or pay his taxes?

A. The Internal Revenue Code absolutely requires that the individual be subject to interest and penalties for not filing. Yes, it’s true. It’s part of the beauty of citizenship taxation.

This important principle (reinforcing the equality of American citizenship) is explained in the following NPR article which includes:

 

When journalist Jason Rezaian returned to the U.S. in 2016 after being wrongfully imprisoned in Iran for 544 days, he got a surprise from the U.S. government.

“I got one of those bills from the IRS saying, you owe this much on this year, you owe this much on this year because of failure to pay on time — here’s the interest that’s accrued,” he told NPR.

The bill was for more than $6,000 — representing late penalties and interest on taxes he wasn’t able to file while imprisoned. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle say it’s an unjust reality of U.S. law but a bill to fix the issue remains stalled in the House.

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/11/nx-s1-4964638/americans-detained-abroad-tax-penalties

Deleware Senator Chris Coons provided the initiative for legislation called the  “Stop Tax Penalties For Hostages Act”. The purpose of the Act was to ensure that Americans held hostage abroad would NOT be subject to interest and penalties on taxes owed while they were held hostage. The following article is really interesting. For a synopsis of the legislation see Appendix A.

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/11/nx-s1-4964638/americans-detained-abroad-tax-penalties

It appears that Senator Coon’s “Stop Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act of 2025″ has become Title VIII of the 2026 “Taxpayer Assistance And Service Act”.

 

The Taxpayer Assistance And Service Act

On September 30, 2026 the Senate passed “The Taxpayer Assistance And Service Act” which includes a number of provisions to benefit U.S. taxpayers. (The legislation includes a section mandating the research of tax issues impacting Americans abroad.)

Notably the legislation includes Title VIII:

TITLE VIII—HOSTAGES

Sec. 801. Postponement of tax deadlines for hostages and individuals wrongfully detained abroad.

Sec. 802. Refund and abatement of penalties and fines paid by eligible individuals.

Title VIII appears on pages 154 – 162. Yes, it takes eight pages to describe the relief. You can see the full text of the legislation at the PDF below.

Click to access s5441thetaxpayerassistanceandserviceact.pdf

s5441thetaxpayerassistanceandserviceact

Conclusion

The proposed relief is (of course) narrow. Notably it does NOT and CANNOT include FBAR relief. (FBAR is in Title 31 and not Title 26.)

That said, Title VIII is proposing a movement towards a kinder and gentler “form” (pun intended) of citizenship taxation.

Who knows? If Congress can provide relief for hostages, perhaps it can provide relief for “some”  Americans abroad?

 

John Richardson

Appendix A – “Stop Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act Of 2025”

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/655

A summary of the bill follows …

Introduced in Senate (02/20/2025)

Stop Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act of 2025

This bill extends certain federal tax deadlines for U.S. nationals who are unlawfully or wrongfully detained abroad or held hostage abroad and their spouses. The bill also allows for an abatement and refund of additional taxes, interest, and penalties assessed to such individuals for failing to meet a federal tax deadline during a period of detention.

Specifically, under the bill, the time period during which a U.S. national is unlawfully or wrongfully detained abroad or held hostage abroad is disregarded in determining certain federal tax deadlines, including deadlines for

  • filing a return for and paying federal income, estate, gift, employment, or excise taxes;
  • a tax credit or refund claim; and
  • the determination, assessment, and collection of additional taxes, interest, or penalties.

The bill requires the Department of State and the Department of Justice to annually provide the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with lists to identify U.S. nationals who qualify for an extension.

The bill also requires the IRS to (1) abate and refund additional taxes, interest, and penalties assessed for any tax year ending during a period of detention for which an extension of a federal tax deadline is permitted; and (2) establish a program allowing U.S. nationals unlawfully or wrongfully detained abroad or taken hostage abroad (or their spouse or dependent) to claim a refund of additional taxes, interest, and penalties assessed for any tax year ending during a period of detention from 2021 to the bill’s enactment date

The Tyranny Of FORMPlexity – What FATCA And Food Stamp Administration Have In Common

Posted on by Posted in Issues regarding US persons abroad 2 Comments

Prologue – Conditioning Food Stamp Eligibility On Compliance Conditions

Suggest listening to the following New York Times podcast which is based on the this  New York Times article about access to food stamps.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/05/podcasts/the-daily/arizona-food-stamp-snap.html

 

What is striking is the interaction among sanctions imposed on the State as the administrator of the the program, eligibility for food stamps conditioned on meeting difficult compliance requirements and access to food stamps.

Although not focused on forms on compliance, this podcast makes it very clear that requirements must be defined in a way that makes it possible for individuals to comply.

The story is remarkably similar to implementation of FATCA and the impact on foreign banks and Americans abroad.

In both cases we have individuals needing a service from a third party when that third party can be sanctioned by the U.S. government for failing to meet standards of due diligence in providing that service. Americans abroad need bank accounts. Arizona residents need food stamps.

For those interested in more, read on …

Continue reading →

Reminding Of The Dangers Of Applying For A “Back Dated” CLN

Posted on by Posted in Issues regarding US persons abroad Leave a comment

In January of 2025 Pacifica, wrote a post reporting my warnings about requesting a CLN based on a previous relinquishing act. (This is sometimes referred to as a “back dated” relinquishment.) This is a scenario where an individual (for example) requests a CLN based on previously naturalizing as a citizen of another. country, government employment, etc.

Pacifica’s post, based on my post at Citizenship Solutions, is here:

John Richardson’s Observations on Current Processing of Relinquishment-Based CLN Applications

We are now in September of 2026. I wanted to provide an update confirming that:

I see NO evidence that individuals are currently successful in obtaining a CLN based on a past relinquishing act. This change seems appears to have happened during 2022.

The law has not changed. What has changed is that the State Department appears to not process requests for a CLN based on past relinquishing acts.  In other words, these requests appear to land on a desk where nobody sits. This change in State Department procedure took place before the introduction of the DS-4079 which came into effect on November 1, 2024.

The DS-4079 – in use since November 1, 2024 – provides an option to treat a past relinquishing act as grounds for obtaining a CLN. The form provides some clues for what might meet the evidentiary standard to prove voluntariness and intention.

Yet, what appears to be happening, is that the State Department is accepting applications for a CLN based on a past relinquishing act, but not processing them. I actually know people who have been waiting close to three years for a response. Obviously, I can report only on my experience and those who I have assisted. Nevertheless, it’s clear that the path of least resistance (by far) is to simply renounce U.S. citizenship.

It’s also important to note that a CLN based on a past relinquishing act could help you (from a tax perspective) ONLY if the relinquishing act was documented as being prior to June 3, 2004. Note also, that a documented relinquishing act prior to June 3, 2004 would mean that you would not be eligible to use the 2019 “IRS Relief Procedures For Former Citizens” (which requires a relinquishing act after March 18, 2010).

In any case, this post is simply a friendly reminder, based on observations of what is really “going on in the trenches”, that a formal renunciation of U.S. citizenship is BY FAR the “path of least resistance”.

 

John Richardson

 

United States Court Of Appeals Confirms U.S. Citizens In Canada Subject To Double Taxation On Non-US Source Investment Income

Posted on by Posted in Issues regarding US persons abroad 1 Comment

Introduction and context

I have written numerous posts about the double taxation and the Net Investment Income Tax on my citizenship solutions blog.

 

__________________________________________

On August 3, 2026 Petros wrote about how the U.S. taxation of the gains on the sale of a principal residence causes Americans abroad to do things that may be contrary to their interest. His post was about an American abroad wishing to avoid U.S. taxation on the sale of her principal residence.

An August 31, 2026 ruling from the United States Court of Appeals, has made the U.S. taxation of the gains on the sale of a principal residence even more problematic for U.S. citizens living in Canada and other countries of the world.

On August 31, 2026 the United States Court of Appeals, per Judge Stark, delivered the long anticipated rulings in the Bruyea (Canada) and the Christensen (France) rulings.

Mr. Bruyea and the Christensen’s are U.S. citizens living outside the United States. These decisions reflect an unusually vicious assault (even by U.S. standards) on the lives of U.S. citizens who are tax residents of another country.

Pure double taxation on Americans abroad with non-U.S. investments

Specifically the court ruled that the U.S. tax treaties with Canada and with France (and by extension other countries) do NOT prevent the United States from subjecting Americans abroad to double taxation. In these decisions the contest is double taxation on their “non-U.S. source” investment income. Double taxationis accomplished by denying U.S. citizens (wherever they may live) the opportunity to use tax paid in Canada, France (or any other country) as a “foreign tax credit” to offset the 3.8% Obamacare surtax on Net Investment Income (“NIIT”). Note that the “NIIT” is designed to fund Obamacare. In general, Americans abroad cannot participate in Obamacare.

To put it simply, Judge Stark’s ruling means that:

If a U.S. citizen generates “foreign” income subject to the 3.8% “Net Investment Income Tax”,

THEN the individual must pay a 3.8% tax to the United States PLUS any tax payable to the foreign country.

This can reasonably be viewed as a 3.8% tariff on investing on non-U.S. investments!

Continue reading →

U.S. double taxation costs a mother and her children their home: Testimonial at Tax Fairness for Americans Abroad

Posted on by Posted in Issues regarding US persons abroad 3 Comments

The story of an Israeli with a US parent showed up on my Facebook timeline this morning. She moved to UK with her husband, and they put their house in his name due to bad advice to put the assets in the non-USA spouse’s name. I recall suggesting that was a bad idea over a decade ago, and here it is played out in a real life situation:

When we bought a home there (UK), we were advised that the safer course was to put it in his name alone. The reason was simple: if the house rose in value, the United States could tax me on that gain, as though our family home were the foreign investment portfolio of a multimillionaire rather than the modest house of a family living on one salary. So that is what we did. I signed away my name on my own home because of a tax law written six thousand kilometres away, for a country I had lived in for one year of my life.

A few years later my husband went through a severe midlife crisis. We divorced. He moved abroad, leaving me in England with our children. Because the house was in his name, I could do nothing to stop him from selling it. My children and I lost our home. I want you to hear this clearly: that upheaval was entirely avoidable. It happened because I was warned away from owning the place where my own children slept.

Read the whole story at Tax Fairness for Americans Abroad.

The IRS Has Ended The “Delinquent FBAR Submissions Program”

Posted on by Posted in Issues regarding US persons abroad 1 Comment

Introduction and purpose

As important as this post is, it will be of interest to only a limited number of people.

 

The statement from Bloomberg that “IRS Retains Relief for Late FBAR Reports” is misleading. It makes it sound as they the removal of the “Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures” doesn’t matter. It matters hugely! Many individuals must now rely on defending FBAR penalties on the basis of “reasonable cause” arguments. This is very difficult and very expensive.

Here is the Bloomberg article:

IRS Retains Relief for Late FBAR

About the “Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures” progam

For many years the IRS has had informal programs that have allowed individuals with “foreign asset reporting and foreign income” issues to come into compliance in a “penalty free way”. The “Streamlined Program” and the “Relief Procedures For Former Citizens” programs are examples. Unsurprisingly, until June 30, 2026 the IRS also had an “Delinequent FBAR Submission Procedure” which (in limited but common circumstances) allowed individuals to file “delinquent” FBARs in a penalty free way.

The bottom line is this:

Effect July 1, 2026 the “Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures” program was removed from the IRS site. This means that the IRS no longer has a program that comes with an advance offering of no penalty for late filed FBARs. This means that individuals no longer have assurance in advance that they will not be assessed FBAR penalties. Delinquent FBARs may or may not result in penalties (likely not). But, whether penalties can be assessed cannot be known in advance.

Does that matter? If so, how much? Are people likely to be assessed FBAR penalties?

For the moment I suspect that it doesn’t matter a great deal. It will likely be “business as usual” where FBARs can be filed without penalty. I am NOT “sounding a penalty alarm”. That said, the removal of the program has made it more difficult to understand how to approach the problem of “unfiled FBARs”.

What has happened is that:

  1. Late FBARs (unless they are filed under the “Streamlined Program”) will be treated under normal IRS procedures. This means that FBAR penalties may or may not be  levied.
  2. The world has reverted to what it was before the “Delinquent FBAR Submission” proecures.

The whole purpose of the “Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures” was to provide an assurance that penalties would not be imposed provided that the conditions to use the procedures were satisfied.

Bottom line: It is unlikely that people will be penalized. But, the guarantee of a late “penalty free FBAR submission” is over.

 

For a more detailed discussion of the end of the “Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures“:

IRS Ends “Delinquent FBAR Submission Procedures” Leaving No “Guaranteed Penalty Free Option”

In addition, here is a podcast I did with U.S. tax lawyer Virginia La Torre Jeker:

 

In Conclusion …

At a bare minimum, after July 1, 2026 one must be more thoughtful in terms of managing FBAR non-compliance.

John Richardson – Follow me on X.com/Expatriationlaw

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Saga Continues – What To Hold And What NOT To Hold In A TFSA Or ISA

Posted on by Posted in Issues regarding US persons abroad 2 Comments

Purpose and summary

This post is motivated by another incredibly frustrating discussion I had with someone this morning. The problem is aggravated by the reliance on a financial planner selecting the composition of a TFSA portfolio aggravated by what (in my opinion) is unnecessary churning of the account.

While it is important that U.S. citizens in Canada DO have TFSAs, it is important that they keep track of the income earned in the TFSA. It is also important that they do NOT invest in mutual funds or ETFs inside the TFSA or ISA*. People should invest in individual stocks which pay dividends. I will now explain why.

Continue reading →