In 2025, dual citizenship continues to offer individuals opportunity, security, and mobility, but it also places them at the intersection of increasingly complex tax regimes. Governments are tightening enforcement of residency rules, scrutinizing cross-border financial flows, and applying exit tax regimes that can result in life-changing liabilities.
While the appeal of holding two or more passports remains strong for entrepreneurs, families, and professionals, the tax implications have grown too significant to ignore. This release examines how residency tests, treaty tie-breakers, and exit tax traps affect dual citizens today, and what practical strategies are necessary for those navigating this intricate landscape.
The Evolution of Dual Citizenship and Taxation
For much of the 20th century, dual citizenship was viewed with suspicion and often discouraged as a potential source of conflict of loyalty. Many states even required naturalized citizens to renounce prior nationalities. That picture has changed dramatically. Globalization, migration, and economic interdependence have normalized multiple citizenships. In 2025, more than 100 countries permit dual or multiple nationalities without restriction. This acceptance has transformed dual citizenship into a powerful tool for global mobility, economic opportunity, and security planning.
At the same time, tax authorities worldwide have grown wary. Multiple nationalities increase the likelihood of conflicting obligations and create opportunities for individuals to shift income and assets across borders. Governments facing rising fiscal pressure have responded with new enforcement measures, cross-border data exchange programs, and treaty renegotiations. The result is a tax landscape where dual citizens often find themselves targeted by overlapping claims, sometimes with little clarity about which country has the primary right to tax their income or gains.
Tax Residency Tests: The Starting Point
The foundation of taxation for dual citizens lies in residency determination. Countries apply different tests, and failure to understand them can result in double taxation or accusations of tax evasion.
The 183-Day Test
Many jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and much of Latin America, rely on the 183-day rule, which states that individuals spending more than half the year in the country are considered tax residents. This bright-line test seems simple, but it can be misleading. For example, time spent in transit, or in the country due to circumstances beyond one’s control, may still count. During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments clarified that “stranded days” could create unintentional residency, a precedent that continues to influence enforcement in 2025.
Permanent Home Test
Other jurisdictions examine whether the individual maintains a permanent home in the country. Even if not physically present, maintaining a long-term lease or family residence may trigger residency. This test often catches expatriates who continue to strengthen family ties or own unused property in their country of origin.
Center of Vital Interests
Perhaps the most subjective test is the “center of vital interests.” Authorities consider the individual’s personal and economic ties, including family location, business operations, and cultural participation. For dual citizens, this test often leads to disputes, as relations can be substantial in more than one country.
Habitual Abode
Some countries evaluate the location of the “habitual abode,” or where the person spends the most significant number of days over a given period. This test is frequently used when both countries assert residency, and the matter escalates to a treaty application.
Citizenship as a Residual Test
When other criteria do not resolve the issue, citizenship often becomes the final determinant of tax residency. For dual citizens, this can result in continued exposure to taxation from a country of origin even after long-term residence abroad. The United States is a prominent example, applying worldwide taxation based on citizenship, regardless of residency.
Case Study: The Tech Entrepreneur
A dual citizen of Germany and the United States relocated to Singapore in 2021 to expand his company. By 2023, he had spent less than 100 days in the United States, believing this ended his tax obligations. However, due to U.S. citizenship-based taxation, he remained subject to IRS reporting requirements. Simultaneously, Germany considered him a tax resident under the “center-of-vital-interests” test, citing his ongoing family and property ties. Without careful planning, he faced taxation in three jurisdictions. Ultimately, only a treaty tie-breaker resolved the matter, but the legal costs and stress were significant. His case highlights how residency tests, layered across national systems, create substantial risks for dual citizens.
Treaty Tie-Breakers: Navigating Conflicts
The OECD Model Tax Convention provides mechanisms to resolve conflicts when two countries both assert residency. Known as tie-breaker rules, these provisions are embedded in thousands of bilateral tax treaties.
Step One: Permanent Home Availability
The treaty first examines where the individual has a permanent home available. If only one country qualifies, residency is assigned to that country.
Step Two: Center of Vital Interests
If permanent homes exist in both, the next step evaluates where personal and economic ties are closer. This often requires a detailed analysis of family residence, business ownership, and social integration.
Step Three: Habitual Abode
If ties remain unclear, the treaty considers where the individual has a habitual abode or spends more time.
Step Four: Citizenship
When prior steps fail, citizenship may determine the outcome. For dual citizens, this step rarely resolves the matter, as both states may claim them as their own. In such cases, the dispute escalates to mutual agreement procedures (MAP), where competent authorities negotiate a resolution.
Practical Challenges
While treaties provide frameworks, implementation can be slow and unpredictable. MAP cases often last years, leaving taxpayers in uncertainty. Furthermore, not all countries consistently apply tie-breakers. Some jurisdictions, including the United States, continue to assert taxation based on citizenship even if treaty residency is allocated elsewhere.
Case Study: The Family Relocation
A Canadian-Italian family relocated to Spain in 2022 for educational opportunities. Spain considered them residents under its center-of-vital-interests test, while Canada continued to assert residency due to ongoing ownership of businesses and bank accounts. With Italy also claiming ties, the family faced triple exposure. Only through the Canada-Spain treaty’s tie-breaker provisions did they achieve clarity, though the process took over 18 months. The delay caused financial strain, as they were required to pay tax installments in multiple jurisdictions before resolution.
Exit Tax Traps
Exit taxes represent one of the most significant but least understood risks for dual citizens. These taxes treat individuals as if they have sold all their assets upon expatriation, capturing any unrealized gains.
The U.S. Exit Tax
Under Internal Revenue Code Section 877A, U.S. citizens who renounce citizenship may be subject to an exit tax if they meet certain thresholds, including a net worth above $2 million or an average annual tax liability exceeding approximately $200,000. Covered expatriates must recognize unrealized gains on worldwide assets, which can often trigger millions in liabilities. The exit tax applies even if the individual has not sold assets, creating liquidity challenges.
Canadian Departure Tax
Canada applies a departure tax when residents emigrate, treating them as if they have disposed of most of their assets. While some deferrals are possible, the rules can create heavy burdens for individuals who leave Canada while holding appreciated investments or business interests.
Australia’s Capital Gains Regime
Australia imposes capital gains tax on certain assets upon departure. Like Canada, deferrals are possible, but the risk remains significant for individuals relocating without proper planning.
European Union Trends
Several EU countries, including Spain and France, impose exit taxes on individuals who transfer their tax residence abroad. These regimes often mirror OECD guidance, emphasizing the prevention of tax avoidance through the artificial relocation of assets.
Case Study: The U.S. Expatriate
An American entrepreneur with dual Irish citizenship decided to renounce U.S. nationality in 2024. His net worth exceeded $5 million, triggering the U.S. exit tax. Although his assets were primarily illiquid (shares in a private company), he was deemed to have sold them, creating a multi-million-dollar liability.
Unable to raise liquidity quickly, he faced severe financial distress. His Irish passport allowed him to continue international business, but the exit tax consequences overshadowed the benefits. His experience underscores the importance of pre-expatriation planning, including restructuring holdings and considering gifting strategies.
Case Study: The Digital Nomad
A dual citizen of Brazil and Portugal embraced remote work, moving frequently across Asia. Believing he was “stateless” for tax purposes, he failed to declare residency anywhere. By 2025, Brazil pursued him for worldwide taxation, citing citizenship, while Portugal asserted residency due to habitual family ties. Worse, several countries he stayed in temporarily applied local taxation on income earned while present. Without a clear strategy, he became a global tax target, his accounts frozen, and his reputation compromised. His situation demonstrates that the digital nomad lifestyle requires precise residency planning, rather than relying on assumptions of invisibility.
Human Rights and Fairness Issues
The taxation of dual citizens raises questions of fairness. Citizenship-based taxation, as practiced by the United States, imposes obligations even on individuals with tenuous ties to the country. Exit taxes penalize mobility, arguably restricting the right to leave a country. Simultaneously, double taxation disputes can last years, leaving families in limbo.
Human rights bodies have not provided consistent answers. Courts generally uphold states’ rights to tax, but pressure is mounting for more proportionality. Advocacy groups argue that excessive taxation and reporting obligations disproportionately burden dual citizens, particularly those who acquired nationality involuntarily through descent or birthplace.
Practical Strategies for Dual Citizens
In 2025, dual citizens should consider the following measures:
- Map Residency Tests: Analyze the criteria in each country of nationality and in potential residence countries.
- Use Treaties Proactively: Structure affairs with treaty provisions in mind, documenting the ties between one jurisdiction and another.
- Plan for Exit Taxes: Engage advisors before expatriation to restructure assets, utilize available exemptions, and manage liquidity effectively.
- Maintain Documentation: Keep records of travel, residence, and business operations to defend residency claims.
- File Consistently: Ensure tax filings are aligned across jurisdictions to avoid appearing deceptive.
- Monitor Legal Changes: Governments regularly amend residency and exit tax rules, requiring vigilance.
Case Study: The Entrepreneurial Family
A South African-British couple relocated to Dubai in 2023 to expand their business. South Africa imposed an exit tax, while the United Kingdom continued to assert taxation due to ties. By proactively structuring business ownership and documenting residence in the UAE, they minimized liabilities. Their case demonstrates that, with careful planning, families can effectively navigate competing rules.
The Future of Dual Citizenship and Taxation
Looking forward, the trajectory is clear. Artificial intelligence and global data-sharing networks will continue to reduce the space for ambiguity. The OECD is developing new frameworks to coordinate residency determinations, while FATF pressure ensures that financial institutions scrutinize second passports more closely. Digital identity systems may link taxation directly to biometric verification, leaving no room for non-disclosure. For dual citizens, the future requires aligning opportunities with compliance. Second passports will remain valuable, but they will demand discipline, transparency, and strategic foresight.
Conclusion
In 2025, dual citizenship represents both opportunity and obligation. Residency tests can create overlapping claims, treaty tie-breakers provide imperfect solutions, and exit taxes impose heavy burdens on those seeking mobility. The lesson for individuals and families is clear: second passports must be paired with robust tax planning and compliance strategies. Without them, the benefits of dual nationality risk being overshadowed by financial, legal, and reputational consequences.
Contact Information
Phone: +1 (604) 200-5402
Signal: 604-353-4942
Telegram: 604-353-4942
Email: info@amicusint.ca
Website: www.amicusint.ca