The U.S. Treasury and IRS took more than a decade to finalize, and more than 15 years after the statute was adopted in 2008. See the new Treasury Regulations here.
This Novel Tax Now Only Applies on 2025 Transfers (and thereafter). The rules are not retroactive, after all, as the prior draft regulations contemplated. Any taxable transfer made after the adoption of the statute and the implementation of these regulations, escape taxation. See, § 28.2801-1(b) – Tax on certain gifts and bequests from covered expatriates.
Transfers made prior to 2025 on “covered bequests” and “covered gifts” will escape taxation under the law that was passed back in 2008!
Sec. 2. Policy. (a) It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.
SCOTUS Announced it Will Hear Arguments on May 15, 2025
The Congressional Research Service has an excellent summary article it prepared in 2018, titled – The Citizenship Clause and “Birthright Citizenship”: A Brief Legal Overview (1 Nov. 2018). This report was drafted when President Trump during his first term questioned the validity of “birthright citizenship”. Below is an excerpt from that 2018 article, relevant to the:
Under federal law, nearly all people born in the United States become citizens at birth. This rule is known as “birthright citizenship,” and it derives from both the Constitution and complementary statutes and regulations. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), in turn, declares certain persons to be U.S. citizens and nationals at birth. INA § 301(a) more or less tracks the Citizenship Clause in stating that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a “national[] and citizen[] of the United States at birth.” (The INA also extends citizenship at birth to various persons not protected by the Citizenship Clause, such as those born abroad to some U.S. citizen parents.) Federal regulations—including those that govern the issuance of passports and access to certain benefits—implement the INA by providing that a person is a U.S. citizen if he or she was born in the United States, so long as the parent was not a “foreign diplomatic officer” at the time of the birth.
The report goes on to explain –
The weight of current legal authority suggests that these executive and legislative proposals to restrict birthright citizenship would contravene the Citizenship Clause. At least since the Supreme Court’s decision in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the prevailing view has been that all persons born in the United States are constitutionally guaranteed citizenship at birth unless their parents are us born individuals foreign diplomats, members of occupying foreign forces, or members of Indian tribes. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court held that a man born in the United States in 1873 to parents who were Chinese nationals acquired citizenship at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. The parents were ineligible to naturalize under the law of the time, but they had established “permanent domicile and residence in the United States.” The Court reasoned that the Citizenship Clause should be “interpret[ed] in light of the common law” and grounded its holding in the common law principle of jus soli or “right of the soil.” Pursuant to that principle, “every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
Tax Expatriation Consequences –
As to “tax expatriation” – of these individuals? I suspect these babies (i.e., those born after 30 days from the executive order; on or after February 19, 2025) will have bigger issues to worry about other than their U.S. tax issues if SCOTUS rules against them.
Did USCs Born in the U.S. (not to USC Parents) – Accidentally “Expatriate” for U.S. Tax Purposes? – per President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14160
Will the “gold card” sell to ultra high net worth investors around the world who want U.S. citizenship (“USC”)? What are the tax costs of USC? * About the Author: Patrick W. Martin
President Trump again announced on April 3, aboard Air Force One his plan:
Whether the U.S. adopts a new “Gold Card” “For $5 million [that] we will allow the most successful job-creating people from all over the world to buy a path to U.S. citizenship,” is up to the U.S. government.
Congress can amend Title 8 and include a new “Gold Card” option.
Current law provides the EB-5 visa as one path towards a “green card” that ultimately can lead to U.S. citizenship through naturalization.
President Trump presented at his March 4th speech to a joint session of Congress, explaining the concept: “It’s like the green card, but better and more sophisticated. And these people will have to pay tax in our country.”
Sounds like a panacea to help the U.S. federal deficit problem? If 100,000 of these “Gold Cards” were sold for $5M each, and these funds were paid directly over to the federal government, that would raise $500 billion dollars. If 1 million were sold, that would be $5 trillion dollars to use to pay down the deficit (running annually at far greater than $1 trillion dollars since 2019).
To put that into perspective, the EB-5 visa that also leads to a “green card” that can further lead to U.S. citizenship through naturalization has an annual visa limit of about 10,000. See, USCIS’s article – (16 Aug 2024) – Annual Limit Reached in the EB-5 Unreserved Category There have been multiple years where the annual visa limit was not met. Prior to 2015, the 10,000 visa limit was never met and in several years there were less than 500 EB-5 visas issued annually.
There have been less than 150,000 EB-5 visas issued over the last 35 years since its adoption in 1990. Is it realistic to be able to “sell” even ten thousand $5M gold visas annually, when the “green EB-5 visa” costs $800,000 and has had less than 150,000 issued in nearly 35 years?
Equity Investment for EB-5 visa – $800,000 (Does NOT go to the Government)
The total required equity investment amount for an EB-5 visa in the qualifying project, is only $800,000 (if in a “TEA”). See, EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program, as published by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). See, USCIS’s Chapter 2 – Immigrant Petition Eligibility Requirements. It used to be only $500,000 (1/10th of $5M). A TEA is a targeted employment area (“TEA”) that meets specific requirements under the law. If the capital investment is not in a TEA, the required minimal capital investment amount is $1,050,000 that increases in January 1, 2027 and each 5 years thereafter. Still about 1/5th the cost of a “gold visa”.
U.S. Estate and Gift Tax Consequences for U.S. Citizens and those with a Green Card (“Gold Card”?)
Finally, maybe the biggest impact on who wants an investor visa that leads to U.S. citizenship depends largely upon the U.S. income tax and U.S. estate and gift tax consequences. There are many tax implications. See, my case Aroeste v United States – Order Nov 2023, that was appealed to the 9th Circuit by the Office of Solicitor General (DOJ). U.S. District Court ruled in favor of green card holder.
The value of a U.S. citizenship is known throughout the world. Immigrating to the U.S. is something that is valued by millions of individuals around the world. The following table from State Department data explains the principle reasons people chose to immigrate to the U.S. – to come to the U.S.:
The year before last, 2023, nearly 900,000 individuals became naturalized citizens. Many of these individuals who immigrate become naturalized citizens or lawful permanent residents (LPRs) ultimately leave the U.S.
See, the National Taxpayer Advocate blog report –
Filing and Paying Taxes for U.S. Citizens or Residents Living Abroad
There is an idea that only recently has permanent resident US immigration status into the United States grown substantially. The peak years were in the early 1990s as to absolute numbers. However, the greatest number of permanent residents as a relative percentage of the population was in the early 1900s; by far. See the chart below that I created from DHS immigration statistics data.
There were more LPRs admitted, in absolute terms in 1905 (1,026,499) than in 2022 (1,018,349).
[arm_restrict_content plan=”2,” type=”show”]
In percentage terms the total number of LPRs in 1905 compared to the total population was more than four times (4X) greater than in 2022 when it was (about 3/10th of 1 percent or 0.306%; versus a total population of 333 million) . In 1905 the total population was about 84 million, with newly admitted LPRs representing 1.225 percent of the entire resident population (1.225%; is greater than 4X the 2022 relative percentage).
The “Mark to Market” Tax that did NOT Exist in 1820, 1913, 1966 (Not Until 1996)
The US tax expatriation laws now impose a “mark to market” tax on so-called “long-term residents” who become “covered expatriates.” Such a concept in the tax law never existed in the early part of the 20th century, and indeed only became law in 1996. See an earlier post, The Foreign Investors Tax Act of 1966 (“FITA”) – The Origin of US Tax Expatriation law
This so-called Mark to Market tax is based upon a legal fiction, as if the individuals sold their worldwide assets on the “expatriation date.” It applies, even though there’s no current sale of assets, no disposition, transfer, change of ownership, change of title, or other “realization” event. The term “realization” is very significant in US tax law, including as recently discussed by the United States Supreme Court. See below and Moore v. the United States (2024) .
Below is a table of LPRs who were admitted to that status, per year, over the last 200+ years starting in 1820:
Are you or any of your family members one of these millions (more than 88 million) of LPR individuals represented in the above graph over the last 200+ years?
No Court in the land has explicitly ruled on whether the “mark to market” tax under Section 877A is unconstitutional. However, many international tax minds (myself included) have doubted the ability of Congress to levy a tax on unrealized wealth in light of Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920) and the language of the amendment ratified in 1913 to the Constitution.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
16th Amendment of the Constitution [emphasis added]:
One of the exceptional international tax minds, Professor Reuven S. Avi-Yonah has been writing a lot about this issue after submitting an amicus brief along with Professor Bret Wells to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in the Moore case which was decided last week. Moore v. United States, No. 22-800 (06/20/2024). Moore was not about “expatriation taxes” but rather a “mandatory repatriation tax” (“MRT”) under Section 965.
Moore argued some of the fundamental issues that lie at the core, in my view, of whether Congress has the legal authority to impose taxation (as an income tax) based upon the increased value of assets as of the date, the individual becomes a “covered expatriate”. How does the individual have any income (see, Eisner v. Macomber) by merely holding and having the same assets on the day prior to “expatriation” as the day after? No sales, no exchanges, no dispositions, no transfers, no gifting, etc. – and yet 26 U. S. C. § 877A imposes taxation on “income.”
Assets and income earned in high tax states such as California and New York, are taxed very differently compared to low-tax states such as Texas, Nevada, Florida or Tennessee. Focusing on “expatriation” (e.g., renouncing USC or abandoning LPR status) of the individual might be misplaced if the person wants to live mostly in the United States. See earlier post, Form 8854 Filing: TIGTA Report Reveals Compliance Gap
Does TIGTA have the Answer: to the Question – How many former U.S. citizens and long-term lawful permanent residents have filed and should have filed IRS Form 8854?
The short answer to the question above – is NO!
The government does not know how many IRS Forms 8854 should have been filed.
Note the total numbers of 8854 returns filed as reported in Figure 2 of the TIGTA Report were less than 25,000 during a ten year period. This report focuses really only on former U.S. citizens (“USC”) who have renounced their citizenship. Not on lawful permanent residents (“LPRs), which during that same ten year period there were around 200,000 who filed USCIS Form I-407.
* How Many Individuals Should have Filed Form 8854?
These regulations are extensive and provide an explanation of the purpose of these rules.
II. Purpose of Foreign Gift and Trust Provisions
During the mid- to late-1990s, abusive tax schemes, including offshore schemes involving foreign trusts, reemerged in the United States after reaching their last peak in the 1980s. GAO, Efforts to Identify and Combat Abusive Tax Schemes Have increased, but challenges remain, GAO–02–733 (Washington, DC: May 22, 2002). In these schemes, foreign trusts were used to transfer large amounts of assets abroad, where it was much more difficult for the IRS to identify whether U.S. persons owned a trust.
interest in such trusts, and whether such persons were reporting and paying the required taxes on their income from such trusts. Many of the foreign trusts were established in tax haven jurisdictions with bank secrecy laws. Before the 1996 Act amended sections 6048 and 6677, there was no Form 3520-A), which was limited to five percent of the transfer or corpus of the trust, as applicable, not to exceed $1,000. In light of this, it was difficult for the IRS to obtain information about income earned by U.S.-owned foreign trusts and distributions to U.S. beneficiaries from foreign trusts, and Sections 6048 and 6677 were generally ineffective in ensuring that U.S. persons provided this information. information. The result was “rampant tax evasion.” 141 Cong. Rec. S13859 (daily edition of September 19, 1995) (comments by Senator Moynihan). Requirement for U.S. Persons to Report Distributions from Foreign Trusts and the Penalty for Failure to Report Transfers to a Foreign Trust or an Annual Foreign Trust Information Statement (in Federal Register/Vol. 89, No. 90/Wednesday, May 8 of 2024/Proposed Rules and 141 Cong. Rec. S13859 (daily edition of September 19, 1995) (comments by Senator Moynihan).
