Source: http://citizenshiptaxation.ca/why-boris-johnson-must-relinquish-us-citizenship-on-the-occasion-of-his-appointment-as-british-foreign-minister/?shared=email&msg=fail
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 12:09:20+00:00

Document:
While it appears that the petitioner removed his residence to France in the year 1924, it is undisputed that he was, and continued to be, a citizen of the United States. He continued to owe allegiance to the United States. By virtue of the obligations of citizenship, the United States retained its authority over him, and he was bound by its laws made applicable to him in a foreign country. Thus, although resident abroad, the petitioner remained subject to the taxing power of the United States. Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47, 54 , 56 S., 44 S. Ct. 444. For disobedience to its laws through conduct abroad, he was subject to punishment in the courts of the United States. United States v. Bow- [284 U.S. 421, 437] man, 260 U.S. 94, 102 , 43 S. Ct. 39. With respect to such an exercise of authority, there is no question of international law,2 but solely of the purport of the municipal law which establishes the duties of the citizen in relation to his own government. 3 While the legislation of the Congress, unless the contrary intent appears, is construed to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, the question of its application, so far as citizens of the United States in foreign countries are concerned, is one of construction, not of legislative power. American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 357 , 29 S. Ct. 511, 16 Ann. Cas. 1047; United States v. Bowman, supra; Robertson v. Labor Board, 268 U.S. 619, 622 , 45 S. Ct. 621. Nor can it be doubted that the United States possesses the power inherent in sovereignty to require the return to this country of a citizen, resident elsewhere, whenever the public interest requires it, and to penalize him in case of refusal. Compare Bartue and the Duchess of Suffolk’s Case, 2 Dyer’s Rep. 176b, 73 Eng. Rep. 388; Knowles v. Luce, Moore 109, 72 Eng. Rep. 473.4 What in England was the prerogative of the sov- [284 U.S. 421, 438] ereign in this respect pertains under our constitutional system to the national authority which may be exercised by the Congress by virtue of the legislative power to prescribe the duties of the citizens of the United States. It is also beyond controversy that one of the duties which the citizen owes to his government is to support the administration of justice by attending its courts and giving his testimony whenever he is properly summoned. Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 281 , 39 S. St. Ct. 468. And the Congress may provide for the performance of this duty and prescribe penalties for disobedience.
Dual Citizenship: What is the “effect” of a U.S. citizen also holding the citizenship of another nation?
I am assuming that he became both a U.S. and U.K. citizen by birth. I also assume that he remains both a U.S. and a U.K. citizen.
A U.S. Centric Perspective: As a U.S. citizen, Mr. Johnson is defined primarily in terms of taxation. On the occasion of Mr. Johnson’s recent appointment as the U.K. Foreign Minister, the Washington Times published the following article.
Britain's new foreign minister avoided paying his U.S. taxes for years https://t.co/T34cgebJVG – But, he has never lived in the USA!
A non-U.S. Centric Perspective: Mr. Johnson is a “poster boy” for the problems of the U.S. “place of birth taxation” (AKA “taxation-based citizenship”). Mr. Johnson’s “IRS Problems” resulted in raising the profile and awareness of U.S. tax policies. A particularly interesting article written by Jackie Bugnion and Roland Crim of “American Citizens Abroad”.
At a minimum, Mr. Johnson is subject to IRS jurisdiction, IRS reporting requirements, IRS threats and penalties and IRS assessments.
How does his United States citizenship impact on this situation? Is it possible for him to be both a U.S. citizen and the British foreign minister? The “logical answer” is “Yes he can”. That said, having a U.S. citizen as the U.K. foreign minister raises many questions.
1. What effect (if any) does Mr. Johnson’s acceptance of this position have on his retention of United States citizenship as a matter of U.S. law?
2. If his acceptance of the position were a “relinquishing act” (under U.S. law) would Mr. Johnson be subject to the United States S. 877A Exit Tax?
3. Assuming that Mr. Johnson were to retain “dual” U.S./U.K. citizenship, how would his “divided loyalties” impact on this ability to serve as the British foreign minister?
4. Assuming that Mr. Johnson were to retain “dual” U.S./U.K. citizenship, how does the fact that the IRS has the jurisdiction to threaten him with fines and penalties impact the situation? What about the reporting requirements?
5. Should Boris Johnson formally relinquish his U.S. citizenship in order to avoid the conflict of interest that would arise because of divided loyalties?
Normally the State Department works with an “administrative presumption” that a U.S. citizen who commits an expatriating act does so with the intention of retaining U.S. citizenship. In other words, although the United States does not like “dual citizenship”, it accepts that dual citizenship exists.
The “administrative presumption” that one intends to retain U.S. citizenship does NOT apply when a U.S. citizen accepts a “policy level” position in a foreign government. As “Foreign Minister” Mr. Johnson has accepted a “policy level” position.
Therefore, the State Department would be required to explore whether Mr. Johnson accepted the role of British foreign minister with the intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship. If Mr. Johnson agreed that he intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship by becoming the British foreign minister, it is likely that the State Department would determine that he had relinquished.
2. If his acceptance of the position of “foreign minister” were a “relinquishing act” (under U.S. law) would Mr. Johnson be subject to the United States S. 877A Exit Tax?
Whether by “accident” or whether by “design”, it’s application is particularly punitive in relation to Americans abroad. To put it simply: The S. 877A Exit Tax operates to virtually confiscate the non-U.S. pensions and the non-U.S. assets of Americans abroad. The Exit Tax is designed to create disincentives to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Of course, by remaining a U.S. citizen, Mr. Johnson as Britain’s foreign minister, would remains subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Remember our assumption that Mr. Johnson was born BOTH a U.S. and U.K, citizen. This fact (along with additional circumstances found in the statute including U.S. tax compliance) allows him to relinquish U.S. citizenship and avoid the S. 877A “Exit Tax”.
Since British foreign policy will necessarily diverge from U.S. foreign policy, Mr. Johnson simply cannot have allegiance to both nations and be the foreign minister of one nation.
This is clearly an intolerable situation.
Congress is saying that: When it comes to the reporting requirements, and U.S. citizens living outside the United States, the laws of the United States take precedence over the laws of the country where the person resides. This is true even when the individual is a citizen of that other nation and has never lived in the United States!
“Why Boris Johnson must relinquish US citizenship on the occasion of his appointment as British Foreign Minister”.
His relinquishment may be accomplished in one of two ways.
2. He can formally renounce U.S. citizenship.
Since he is now the British foreign minister, it is incumbent on him to inform the people of the U.K. how he is resolving the question of his U.S. citizenship. He simply cannot allow the United States to continue jurisdiction over him!
Previous Previous post: Is the State Department Shutting Down Expatriation Appointments in Canada?
Next Next post: Don’t let fear push you into overcomplying, overpaying and losing your sanity!

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.