Liberty and justice for all United States persons abroad

The Isaac Brock Society

Author Archives: JohnRichardson

Taxpayer Advocate To IRS: Your Task Is To Administer A Worldwide Tax System. Do it!

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

On February 23, 2026 SEAT President Dr. Laura Snyder published an excellent article in Tax Notes.  The article discussed  the recent Taxpayer Advocate report which was sympathetic to the tax situation of Americans abroad. (I previously posted on the 2025 Taxpayer Advocate Report noting that: The IRS Has An Obligation To Meet Taxpayers Where They Are, But Is Not Doing So For Americans Abroad.)

Dr. Snyder expands the discussion …

The article examines the National Taxpayer Advocate’s 2025 Annual Report to Congress, which spotlights the difficulties faced by overseas taxpayers as one of the most serious problems of U.S. tax administration. The IRS’s failure to administer a worldwide tax system raises constitutional issues and has serious repercussions not only for overseas Americans but also for the tax system as a whole.

Her article is available here:

Taxpayer Advocate to IRS: Your Task Is to Administer a Worldwide Tax System. Do It.

 

John Richardson

 

AARO White Paper Explains Why The Voting Rights Of Americans Abroad Are Under Attack

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

Question –  what truly defines an American voter?


Answer – an American voter is a U.S citizen who does NOT have a constitutional right to vote.

 

_______________________________________________________

Lobbying for a statutory right to vote …

AARO (Association of Americans Resident Overseas) is a Paris based organization with a long history of lobbying for and protecting the voting rights of Americans abroad. A previous post on Brock detailed AARO’s efforts in 1975 to secure voting rights for Americans abroad.

The above video is based on the following research published by AARO in 2026.

Direct link to AARO paper

Click to access STATE_OF_PLAY_2026_FEB_16_FINAL.pdf

The problem in a nutshell …

The reality is that not all Americans abroad have ever had the opportunity to vote. In fact, in the last election, Americans abroad in 13 states were not eligible to vote.

The current administration is proposing various new laws that make  it more difficult to vote for two reasons:

1. Proof of citizenship: This is much ore difficult for Americans abroad. Would you want to send a copy of your passport to the USA?

2. Some Americans abroad being forced to vote in DC. There are no representatives of DC in Congress.

At a minimum for Americans abroad this means:

“Taxation without representation!”

 

A longer post on this topic is available on my Citizenship Solutions site:

AARO White Paper Explains Why The Voting Rights Of Americans Abroad Are Under Attack

Warning!! Voting in a U.S. election after the commission of an expatriating act will make it impossible to argue for a CLN based on a past relinquishment.

 

John Richardson

 

 

 

 

All Roads Lead To Renunciation AND The Reduction Of The Fee To Issue A “CLN”

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

My January 4, 2026 post titled “Americans Abroad Aren’t Renouncing Because They Want To – They Are Renouncing Because They Have To” included a discussion of the State Department’s promise to reduce the fee to issue a CLN from $2350 to $450.

Americans Abroad Aren’t Renouncing Because They Want To. They Are Renouncing Because They Have To!

Today, I am pleased to report that “All Roads Lead To A Reduction In The Fee To Issue A CLN”.

Q. How much longer will it take?

A. I don’t know. But, I do note that the United States was able to put a man on the moon in ten years. Clearly, the reduction of the renunciation fee is a project of equal complexity.

The following link reveals that the fee reduction appears to have been approved on February 25, 2026.

 

 

John Richardson

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bruyea Case Argued – March 3, 2026 at 10 am Eastern – Here Are The Recordings

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

In a post published on January 11, 2026 I discussed the problem of the United States attempt to deny U.S. citizens in Canada a foreign tax credit for Canadian tax paid on Canadian investment income. The post is here:

Does The Canada U.S. Tax Treaty Allow A Foreign Tax Credit Against The Net Investment Income Tax?

I mentioned that a U.S. court had ruled in “Bruyea” that the United States was obligated – as per the terms of the treaty – to allow a tax credit against U.S. tax for Canadian tax paid on that same income. Obviously, this decision was a threat to what the U.S. regards as it s right to impose double taxation on Americans abroad generally and on U.S. citizens living in Canada specifically.

The Bruyea is an incredibly significant case for both individuals living under the sanction of U.S. citizenship taxation and the countries where those U.S. citizens live.

The case was argued today March 3, 2026.

Here are the recordings of the oral arguments. Very interesting!

____________________________________________________

 

Here is a podcast based on a March 4, 2026 X Spaces discussion about the cases that I had with Tim Smyth.

 

 

John Richardson

 

 

 

Does Renunciation Of U.S. Citizenship Or Green Card Abandonment Affect U.S. Social Security Benefits?

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

 

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 – in a series of three posts – did a “deep dive” into how expatriation impacts entitlement to Social Security benefits and the way they are taxed. The posts are available here, here and here.

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) U.S. Social Security will be taxed differently. The difference from the U.S. perspective may be modified (example Canada) by tax treaties

– your citizenship (as distinct from your residence) 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 in Virginia’s first blog post). This includes citizens of Canada, the U.K., etc. …

Please note that the neither the podcast nor Virginia’s post discuss the question of Social Security spousal or survivor benefits. We will leave that to another day.

 

 

John Richardson

 

Newspapers Without Government Is Preferable To Government Without Newspapers

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

 

The purpose of this post is three-fold:

1. To reinforce the importance of independent journalism

2. To provide a relevant and current example where independent journalism is clearly doing what traditional journalism cannot or will not do

3. To argue that the current behaviour of the United States has made it essential that countries cease sending FATCA data (about their own residents) to the United States

Continue reading →

Major @WSJ Article About Americans Moving Abroad Fails To Mention Citizenship Tax and FATCA

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

This is a very interesting article. Here is a “Gift Link” so that readers can access it.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/americans-leaving-the-us-migration-a5795bfa?st=QnAjWM&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

It is very clear that the community of Americans Abroad has utterly failed to educate resident Americans and the U.S. government about “America’s Dirty Little Secret” – Citizenship Taxation.  It is beyond my comprehension that an article that was the result of this amount of incredible research could have omitted mention that U.S. citizens are not free to leave the United States and integrate their lives into a new country and tax system.

I will be adding to this post in the next day or so. But, the article is a clear opportunity to comment on the WSJ site (and comment here if you are so inclined).

Perhaps there is no mention of citizenship taxation because Americans do in fact see themselves as nothing but tax subjects?

John Richardson

 

 

FATCA Reporting, The Banks And Their U.S. Citizen Customers: The Saga Continues

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

https://twitter.com/twitter/status/2026056963977560353

In October I published a post about the U.K. division of Fidelity cleansing itself of U.S. citizen customers. Since the beginning, it has been clear that FATCA has made U.S. citizen customers a problems for non-U.S. banks. Today I was informed that FATCA reporting to the IRS has begun to find its way to U.S. citizens directly. As the above post from X.com indicates, some individual U.S. citizens are receiving communications from the IRS. The communication notes the existence of the “foreign financial asset” and that the asset should have been reported.

Significantly the letter notes the bank where the unreported account was located. In this case the bank was “Bank Hapoalim B.M” which is apparently one of Israel’s largest banks.

Interestingly on April 30, 2020 Bank Hapoalim admitted to helping U.S. citizen customers hide assets and avoid U.S. taxation. This resulted in a deferred prosecution agreement and a penalty. (The Department Of Justice Press Release is available online.) A reading of the press release strongly suggests that customers of this bank may be presumed to be guilty by association.

This is interesting news.

Of course:

“To be FORMwarned Is To Be Forearmed!”

John Richardson

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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:

<a href=”http://citizenshipsolutions.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/ARC_Publication-2104_2025_Web.pdf”>ARC_Publication-2104_2025_Web</a>

Podcast discussing the report

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

<!–more–>

 

The report includes the following description (sound familiar?) of a hypothetical U.S. citizen abroad:

 

“Sue, a U.S. citizen, has lived and worked in Australia for many years after marrying her Australian husband, Sam. As a dual citizen, Sue pays Australian income taxes on her wages but also remains subject to U.S. tax laws. They have been advised their income is always less than the foreign earned income exclusion.

They have joint checking and savings accounts in an Australian bank, and on various paydays the combined balance of their joint accounts exceeds $10,000 USD. Sue participates in an Australian superannuation, a compulsory system for retirement savings. Three years ago, she inherited some stock shares from her Australian aunt, which she keeps in the same brokerage house that maintained her aunt’s account. Sue and Sam have not filed a U.S. income tax return or an FBAR. Sue eventually learns that because she is a U.S. citizen she must also file a U.S. tax return to report her Australian income, with Forms 3520, 3520-A, 8938, and 8621 (depending on the investment in the superannuation). They also must electronically file FinCEN Form 114 (FBAR) using FinCEN’s BSA E-Filing system. If they file tax returns, they may owe U.S. taxes and penalties thereon.

They would also be subject to foreign trust penalties for failing to disclose Sue’s Australian pension plan, FATCA and FBAR penalties, and possibly foreign gift penalties for failure to disclose her Australian inheritance that is not subject to tax.”

Commenting on Sue’s circumstances the Taxpayer Advocate states:

Sue’s situation is not unlike that of many average domestic citizens who work, contribute to a retirement plan, and maintain bank accounts. Yet taxpayers living abroad face significant compliance challenges and potentially severe penalties that domestic taxpayers do not. To avoid bringing a non-citizen spouse’s income and property Taxpayer Advocate Service into the U.S. tax system, some taxpayers abroad may choose to file married-filing-separate (MFS).

Further, to avoid the burdens of the IIR requirements and potential penalties, some may choose not to participate in retirement plans or to transfer their income and assets into their non-U.S. citizen spouse’s name. This approach may reduce their U.S. filing obligations, but could also jeopardize their legal and financial independence and security.

Congress established the IIR penalty regime primarily to combat offshore tax avoidance and discourage U.S. taxpayers from hiding income and assets abroad. However, ordinary taxpayers like Sue, who are not offshore tax evaders the laws were designed to combat, are severely burdened by the IIR requirements. As a result, taxpayers living abroad may not be able to maintain joint bank accounts, hold stock, own property, or even contribute to their own retirement accounts. Further, because of the overwhelming requirements of these laws and severe financial consequences of running afoul of them, taxpayers abroad may simply decide not to file.

In summary:

The Taxpayer Advocate report is proof positive that the advocacy work of various Americans abroad and their advocates is slowly having an effect!!

This post is reposted from my Citizenship Solutions blog.

 

John Richardson

 

Trump Logic – Understanding The President’s Rationale For Tariffs

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

Davos Day 2 – The Arrival Of President Trump

My last post included Prime Minister Carney’s speech at Davos of January 21, 2025. His speech induced a tremendous amount of interesting commentary which is worthy of a separate post. We have not heard the last of that speech!

Today’s post will focus on President Trump’s speech. The speech was a classic Trumpian speech which included a healthy mix of:

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

In this post I  focus on one five minute segment of the speech where the President explained:

– his general attitude toward other countries selling their goods into the U.S. market (penetrating “Fortress America”) ; and

– his justification for imposing tariffs (costs) on goods entering “Fortress America”

Generally, this reveals much of what he understands the tariffs/costs of entering “Fortress America” to be.

Spoiler alert: The President seems to mistakenly believe that tariffs are primarily a tax/sanction on the country wishing to export goods into the United States. He doesn’t appear to understand tariffs to be largely a tax paid by the U.S. importer.

That tariffs are paid by U.S. consumers does NOT mean that they are of no cost to the exporting country. On the contrary. As the costs of importing a good increases, the demand for that good will decrease. Hence, trading nations are greatly concerned with the costs one must pay to import a product from outside the United States. In some cases the exporter may lower the cost to the importer by reducing the price. This is why the effect of the additional costs that tariffs represent must be determined on a “product by product” basis.

In summary:

A tariff is a tax paid by the U.S. importer on the cost of the import. In some cases, the exporter may lower the cost to mute the added cost imposed on the importer.

Part A – The President’s stated rationale for tariffs

Here is the where the rationale for his tariffs begins. I suggest you listen for about five minutes (to the 1:05 minute mark) before reading on.

A summary of what President Trump is saying …

Continue reading →