Tag Archives: citizenship-based taxation

Wisdom of “Three Monkeys” explains why: Although there is little support for “citizenship-based taxation” repeal is difficult

The uniquely American practice of “imposing direct taxation on the citizen/residents of other nations” (“citizenship-based taxation”) has NO identifiable group of supporters (with the exception of a few academics who have never experienced it and do not understand it).

The Uniquely American practice of imposing direct taxation on the citizen/residents of other nations has large numbers of opponents (every person and/or entity affected by it). In addition to the submissions of Jackie Bugnion, “American Citizens Abroad“, “Democrats Abroad“, Bernard Schneider there is significant opposition found in the submissions of a large number of individuals. It is highly probable that the submissions come from those who are attempting compliance with the U.S. tax system.

The “imposition of direct taxation” on the “citizen/residents of other nations” evolved from “citizenship-based taxation”. “Citizenship-based taxation” was originally conceived as a “punishment” for those who attempted to leave the United States and avoid the Civil War. I repeat, it’s origins are rooted in PUNISHMENT and PENALTY and not as sound tax policy.

Continue reading

Jackie Bugnion 2017 Residence Based Taxation: To Chairman Hatch’s request for tax reform proposals

Introduction: It’s tax reform season and Senator Orrin Hatch wants to hear from you (again)

As reported on the Isaac Brock Society and other digital resources for those impacted by U.S. taxes, you have until July 17, 2017 to tell Senator Hatch what you think needs to be changed in the Internal Revenue Code. After great deliberation, it occurred to me that people who either are (or are accused of being) U.S. citizens or Green Card holders living outside the United States, might want the USA to stop taxing them. After all, they already pay taxes to the countries where they reside. This is your opportunity to “Let your voices be heard” (well maybe).

The Senate Finance Committee is yet again asking the general public to send comments on tax reform. The deadline is July 17, and the email address is taxreform2017@finance.senate.gov.


(July 17, 2017 is coming quickly. Please take a few moments to send your thoughts to Senator Hatch. Tell him you feel about FATCA, citizenship-based taxation, FBAR, etc.)

Speaking of “tax reform”: Introducing Jackie Bugion

Jackie Bugnion is a U.S. citizen who has lived in Switzerland for many many years. She has been a tireless advocate for “residence based taxation”. She worked with “American Citizens Abroad” for many years and has recently retired. She was recently honoured with the Eugene Abrams award by ACA – an event that was the subject of a post at the Isaac Brock Society – that described her many achievements (over a long career).

She was the principal organizer of the “Conference on Citizenship Taxation” which took place in Toronto, Canada in May of 2014. The Conference was widely discussed on the Isaac Brock Society here and here. The live video of the “Kirsch Schneider debate” is here.

I have reproduced a number of her written submissions and posts on this blog, specifically:

Jackie Bugnion – 2013 Submission to the House Ways and Means Committee – Explains the upcoming New American Revolution

The submission referenced in the above tweet describes the history of the construction of the U.S. “fiscal prison” brick by legislative brick! (Forward it to anybody and everybody with a interest in this.)

Jackie has returned with her 2017 submission to Senator Hatch.

Jackie Bugnion – 2017 submission to Chairman Hatch – reproduced with permission of Jackie Bugnion


Continue reading

How the “assistance in collection” provisions in the Canada US Tax Treaty facilitates “US citizenship based taxation”

The above tweet references the comment I left on an article titled: ”

Why is the IRS Collecting Taxes for Denmark?

which appeared at the “Procedurally Speaking” blog.

The article is about the “assistance in collection” provision which is found in 5 U.S. Tax Treaties (which include: Canada, Denmark, Sweden, France and the Netherlands). I am particularly interested in this because of a recent post at the Isaac Brock Society.

This post discusses the “assistance in collection” provision found in Article XXVI A of the Canada U.S. Tax Treaty. The full test of this article is:

Continue reading

Is it Congress or Treasury that is responsible for “taxation-based citizenship”? Perhaps change is through regulation and not law!

This post is a continuation to my recent post: “The Internal Revenue Code does not explicitly define “citizen”, “citizenship” or require “citizenship-based taxation“. That post was reposted at the Isaac Brock Society, and received a comment which included:

Your statement that the IRC does not explicitly define citizenship is technically correct. It is also misleading. When the IRC was codified in 1939, the Secretary of Treasury was given an order to issue all needful regulations. That mandate is now found at 26 USC 7805. The needful regulation of the Secretary, Treasury Regulation, 26 CFR 1.1-1(c) explicitly defines citizenship in terms of the 14th Amendment and it included the term subject. 26 CFR 1.1-1(a) explicitly states that the tax imposed by section 1 of the IRC imposes the tax on citizens and residents. It does not list any other type, class or category of person upon the tax may be imposed by force.

In the original post I had demonstrated why taxation based on “citizenship” was a reasonable inference from Sections 1 and 2 of the Internal Revenue Code. The basic reasoning from Sections 1 and 2 of the Internal Revenue (without consideration of outside sources) is reflected in the following syllogism:

1. All individuals with the exception of non-resident aliens are subject to U.S. taxation.

2. Citizens are individuals who are NOT “nonresident aliens”

Therefore, citizens are subject to taxation.

Nevertheless, the comment raises a very interesting question. To put it simply the question is:

Could U.S. Treasury/IRS by regulation exempt Americans abroad from U.S. taxation?

The purpose of this post is to explore this very interesting question.

Let’s work with the information in the comment.

1. S. 7805 of the Internal Revenue Code gives U.S. Treasury the authority to make regulations to implement the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.

(a) Authorization

Except where such authority is expressly given by this title to any person other than an officer or employee of the Treasury Department, the Secretary shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title, including all rules and regulations as may be necessary by reason of any alteration of law in relation to internal revenue.

2. The regulation made to interpret S. 7805 of the Internal Revenue Code is:

§ 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.

(a) General rule.

(1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual. …

(JR Note: This does NOT say ONLY “citizen or resident”, but okay.)

(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States. …

(c) Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401-1459). For rules governing loss of citizenship, see sections 349 to 357, inclusive, of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1481-1489), Schneider v. Rusk, (1964) 377 U.S. 163, and Rev. Rul. 70-506, C.B. 1970-2, 1. For rules pertaining to persons who are nationals but not citizens at birth, e.g., a person born in American Samoa, see section 308 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1408). For special rules applicable to certain expatriates who have lost citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding certain taxes, see section 877. A foreigner who has filed his declaration of intention of becoming a citizen but who has not yet been admitted to citizenship by a final order of a naturalization court is an alien.

All well and good, what might this mean? Why might this be helpful?

A possible conclusion:

In the above regulation Treasury appears to have restricted the meaning and scope of the word “individual” to “citizen or resident”. For example a U.S. national is a broader term than citizen. (Confirmed by S. C of the above regulation “For rules pertaining to persons who are nationals but not citizens at birth“). Yet, in this regulation Treasury appears to have excluded “nationals”, who clearly are “individuals”, from payment of the income taxes imposed in Subtitle A of Title 26. Yet, U.S. “nationals” are clearly “individuals”.

Put it another way: In this Treasury regulation, Treasury is excluding at least one class of “individuals” (“nationals”) from the Income Tax. If Treasury can exclude one class of persons from the meaning of “individuals” for the purposes of S. 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, then why can’t it exclude another class of individuals?

I nominate Americans abroad as a class of “individuals” that Treasury could ALSO exempt from taxation under Subtitle A of Title 26 (the income tax).

To put it another way:

Could “taxation-based citizenship” be abolished by Treasury/IRS regulation? This seems like a simple argument. Why has this argument not been made before?

Afterthought …

In the last two Obama budgets, the White House has recognized the injustice of imposing “U.S. taxation” on certain “accidental Americans“. If Treasury believes it can define “individuals” in a way that excludes certain “individuals” from U.S. Income tax, then why not let the Obama government solve this problem through regulation (which he loves doing anyway) rather than waiting for Congress to change the law (at best as part of major tax reform) or through the Alliance For The Defeat of Citizenship Taxation lawsuit.

A question for President Obama and Democrats who have caused all the problems:

Cook v. Tait just means that the U.S. had (at least in 1924) the constitutional right to impose citizenship-based taxation. This does not mean that the U.S. is required to have citizenship-based taxation.

How about abolishing citizenship-based taxation through regulation?

With the stroke of a pen you could solve this problem – that is if you want to!

In fact, here is recent precedent of your attempting to amend the Internal Revenue Code by regulation:

Yes we can!!!

John Richardson

The Internal Revenue Code does NOT explicitly define “citizen”, “citizenship” or require “citizenship-based taxation”


It is widely understood that the United States Internal Revenue Code requires that “U.S. citizens” are subject to U.S. taxation wherever they may live in the world. Although this is true, Subtitle A (Income Taxes) of the Internal Revenue Code:

  1. Does NOT explicitly say that U.S. citizens are subject to U.S. taxation on their world income wherever they reside; and
  2. Does NOT explicitly define the term “citizen” or “U.S. citizen”. (This contrasts with the the terms: “U.S. Person”, “Permanent Resident”, “Substantial presence”, etc. that ARE explicitly defined in the Internal Revenue Code here and here. This means that the starting point for the definition of “U.S. citizen” is in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and the United States Immigration and Nationality Act.

(Interestingly it appears that only the “Estate Tax” provisions in Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code (Internal Revenue Code S. 2001) specifically impose tax liability on the “taxable estate of every decedent who is a citizen or resident of the United States”.)

Some thoughts on each of these points …

Continue reading

Obama budget: “Dual citizens from birth” who are NOT “US residents” should be taxed as non-residents


“It’s unjust, it’s inhumane, I didn’t choose where I was born!”

This accurately describes the sentiments of those who are the target of FATCA Hunt. “Place Of Birth Taxation” is unfair to ALL those it affects. The most visible and egregious example of the unfairness is it’s application to “Accidental Americans“.

The context just imagine …

Imagine having been born in the United States, never having lived in the United States and then being “captured in FATCA Hunt”. It appears that the Obama administration has realized that the most visible unfairness of “place of birth” taxation is the application to Accidental Americans.

As a result, both the 2016 and 2017 Obama budget proposals have contained provisions to allow “Accidental Americans” to relinquish U.S. citizenship without being subject to the S. 877A Exit Tax or without having to certify U.S. tax compliance with respect to worldwide income. Those who qualify would be required to certify U.S. tax compliance on the basis that they were/are subject to the U.S. tax system as “non-resident aliens”. This raises the twin questions of:

1. Who is a “non-resident” alien? – See Internal Revenue Code S. 7701(b); and

2. How is a “non-resident” alien taxed? – See Internal Revenue Code S. 2(d) and S. 871.

I wrote a detailed post, referenced by the following tweet, about this issue in 2015.

Continue reading

Tax Haven or Tax Heaven 3: Why the USA is an attractive place to lure “foreign capital” and keep that “foreign capital” secret

The United States as a “poacher” (AKA Tax Haven) of the capital of other nations

The above tweet references the following article which includes:

Leaving income-producing assets in the US may be advantageous for foreigners. If you are a foreigner who owns financial assets in the United States, you are not subject to the capital gains tax and interest on bank accounts is also tax free. You will, however, be charged at a rate of up to 30% for dividends. If there is a treaty between your home country and the US, then this tax rate could be reduced to 10% to 15%. You may also recover this tax as a credit in your country of residence.

This is found in Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter N, Part II, Subpart A of the Internal Revenue Code.


The following section of the Internal Revenue Code applies to “NON-RESIDENT ALIENS AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS”. Interestingly this part of the Internal Revenue Code also includes the S. 877A and S. 877 Expatriation Tax provisions. Interestingly both S. 871 and S. 877 were enacted in 1966 as part of the Foreign Investors Tax Act of 1966, Public Law 89-809. It is reasonable to infer that that the enactment of both S. 871 and S. 877 as part of the 1966 Foreign Investors Tax Act, eventually evolved into the S. 877A Exit Tax of today.

For a pdf of the 1966 Foreign Investors Tax Act …

Foreign Investors Tax Act 1966 809


The text of S. 871 of the Internal Revenue Code is here. The IRS interpretation of S. 871 along with the requirements for when the non-resident alien is required to file a 1040-NR return are here.

The definition of “Non-resident alien” is found in S. 7701(b) of the Internal Revenue Code.

What does this mean from the perspective of a “non-resident alien”?

Very interesting. Rather than invest his capital at home (where he is certain to be taxed), he might consider investing in the United States where:

A. His interest and capital gains are NOT subject to U.S. taxation (this is how the U.S. attracts the capital of other nations to the United States); and

B. The U.S. will not (in the absence of a specific treaty) report your investment account information to the tax authority of your country (making it easier to escape any taxation on the investments).

Not bad at all!! It would appear that (1) this is a mechanism to “poach” capital from other nations and (2) make tax evasion (assuming the non-resident alien fails to report the income to his country of residence) much easier!

The United States certainly complained that Switzerland was doing the same thing.

It’s easy to understand why:

But, “Not all Tax Havens are the same!”

Some countries are more “TaxHavenly” (or is that more “Tax Heavenly” than others!

Hmmm …

Voluntary “poaching” of capital – The Tax Haven

Because the United States encourages and facilitates the “poaching” of capital, the United States is most certainly a major “Tax Haven”. Note that “Tax Havens” lure capital to the Tax Haven in question. The “transfer of capital” to the “Tax Haven” is voluntary.

The United States of America:

1. Is a “Public Tax Haven” because, by NOT taxing certain forms of investment income it “lures” capital to the United States.

2. Is a “Private Tax Haven” because it will NOT (with the exception of certain treaties) disclose the identity of depositors to the tax authorities of other nations. This is one of the many problems of FATCA. Although other countries are required to disclose “U.S. Accounts”, the United States is NOT obligated to disclose the accounts of tax residents of other nations.

Involuntary “poaching” of capital – “citizenship-based taxation”

U.S. citizenship-based taxation ALSO results in the direct “poaching of capital” from other nations! A thoughtful post describing the cost of U.S. “poaching” to Canada is here. This topic of – how “U.S. citizenship-based taxation” steals the capital of other nations – is deserving of a separate post!


John Richardson

Part 1: Cook v. Tait 1924 – The evolution of Citizenship, Taxation and “Citizenship Taxation”


Part 1 – The Evolution of Taxation

As goes taxation, so goes society

As Charles Adams argued in his classic book, “For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes On The Course Of Civilization“, as go the taxing practices of a nation, so goes the nation. Given that taxes are a certainty, tax laws are a certainty, and those laws speak volumes about the “state of the nation” and the “values of the nation”. Tax laws evolve on an almost daily basis. The changes in tax laws reflect changes in societal values.

In 1924, the Supreme Court of the United States, per Justice McKenna ruled in Cook v. Tait that U.S. “citizenship taxation” was constitutional. Since that time Cook v. Tait has been cited to justify the constitutionality, although not necessarily the propriety, of “citizenship taxation”. Note that “citizenship taxation” contains both the words “citizenship” and “taxation”. As a result, Justice McKenna’s decision along with the relevant statutes, may tell us a great deal about what “taxation” and “citizenship” meant in 1924.

This is Part 1 of a two part series. Part 1 will focus on the evolution of taxation. Part 2 will focus on the evolution of citizenship.

Continue reading

Taxation of #AmericansAbroad in the 21st Century: “Country of birth” Taxation vs. “Country of Residence” Taxation

Prologue – The “Story Of The Century

Since July 1, 2014, the United States via threats threats of the FATCA Sanction, has begun a “world wide hunt” for people born in the United States. The U.S. legal justification is two-fold:

1. Those born in the United States are U.S. citizens.

2. Citizens of the United States are obligated to pay taxes to the United States regardless of where they live in the world. Furthermore, regardless of where they live, the U.S. government has the right to control their lives and activities under the guise of “citizenship-based taxation”.

As the article referenced in the above tweet makes clear, many people “claimed” by the United States have never had any connection to the United States except that they were born there. The article includes:

Continue reading