As awareness of the problems associated with the Obama-era law known as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) has gradually become more widespread, there's been more discussion about the possibility of the U.S. moving away from its globally-all-but-unique citizenship-based tax regime, to one based on residency. The proposal has even begun to crop up in discussions with some of the candidates who are hoping to win the Democratic party's nod for president this year.

As such discussions have become more frequent, so too has the use of the term "revenue-neutral" – the idea being that the U.S. could move to a residence-based scheme only if it were to mean that the U.S. Treasury would not lose so much as a penny from its coffers in the process.

Here, three regular commentators on U.S. expat tax issues – Toronto-based citizenship lawyer and tax expert John Richardson, Australia-based tax-fairness crusader Karen Alpert, and Paris-based IRS Taxpayer Advocacy Panel overseas representative Laura Snyder – explain why they believe it is unfair to America's estimated 9 million expatriates to insist that such a move only be done in such a way as to spare Homeland taxpayers the potential obligation to make up for any tax revenue shortfall that might result...

New York Representative Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat who is co-chair of a Congressional group known as the Americans Abroad Caucus, is planning to re-introduce two bills of interest to Americans abroad, one of which calls for the creation of a "standing commission" that would review all laws that are currently having an adverse impact on Americans resident abroad, and also work to prevent new laws from being enacted that inadvertently harm non-resident Americans.