United States citizens leaving after presidential elections?

Posted on November 14, 2016

The popular press has reported that the Canadian immigration service website crashed shortly after the results of the election.  See Fox News, Nov. 9, 2016, Canadian immigration website crashes during election

It will be interesting to see if there will be a surge in United States citizens, not just the accidental American living outside the U.S., who will be inclined to renounce citizenship?   These are not easy or legally simple steps, as various posts in this website explain.  At a minimum, the individual must have citizenship in at least one other country, so as not to be left stateless.

It could be very difficult to mathematically determine whether this comes to pass, simply since the data provided for all names of individuals, does not include where they reside currently and for how long, inside or outside of the United States.

Of course, some may desire to move and live outside United States, without actually remounting their United States citizenship.

Expatriation Tax Form 8854 is Part of Criminal Tax Case

Posted on November 8, 2016

The U.S. Department of Justice announced a US$100M FBAR penalty and criminal guilty plea in an international tax evasion case.  The government’s press release on November 4, 2016, provided as follows:

• A Rochester, New York emeritus professor of business administration pleaded guilty today to conspiring with others to defraud the United States and to submitting a false expatriation statement to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Caroline D. Ciraolo, head of the Justice Department’s Tax Division, and U.S. Attorney Dana J. Boente of the Eastern District of Virginia, after the plea was accepted by U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III. 

The case is extraordinary in the steps apparently taken by the business investor/professor in hiding some US$200M of assets overseas.  The facts are egregious as reported and tie directly to IRS Form 8854.  Hence, this seems to be a very good criminal tax case for the government.  See a prior post that briefly discusses IRC Section 7206(1), see, What could be the focal point of IRS Criminal Investigations of Former U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents?

Prior posts have discussed the importance of certifying truthfully and accurately as to all items of information requested on IRS Form 8854, Initial and Annual Expatriation Statement; which is made under penalties of perjury (like all U.S. tax statements).  See, Part II: C’est la vie Ms. Lucienne D’Hotelle! Tax Timing Problems for Former U.S. Citizens is Nothing New – the IRS and the Courts Have Decided Similar Issues in the Past (Pre IRC Section 877A(g)(4))

Also, prior posts have discussed the steps taken by the government to track taxpayers and their assets globally, to help assure they comply with U.S. federal tax law.  See a prior related post, 19 Jan 2014 – Should IRS use Department of Homeland Security to Track Taxpayers Overseas Re: Civil (not Criminal) Tax Matters? The IRS works with Department of Homeland Security with TECs Database to Track Movement of Taxpayers

The recent press release explains how a false IRS Form 8854 was prepared by a co-conspirator of the taxpayer, as follows:

• In 2013, the individual who had nominal control over Horsky’s accounts at the Zurich-based bank conspired with Horsky to relinquish the individual’s U.S. citizenship, in part to ensure that Horsky’s control of the offshore accounts would not be reported to the IRS.  In 2014, this individual filed with the IRS a false Form 8854 (Initial Annual Expatriation Statement) that failed to disclose his net worth on the date of expatriation, failed to disclose his ownership of foreign assets, and falsely certified under penalties of perjury that he was in compliance with his tax obligations for the five preceding tax years. 

The importance of a complete and accurate IRS Form 8854, is to enable a taxpayer (if they meet other statutory requirements) to avoid “covered expatriate” status.  See, the Tax Court case earlier this year 2016, Topsnik v. Commissioner (2016), where the Court found the taxpayer had failed to meet the certification requirements and was necessarily a “covered expatriate.” 

Whether criminally or civilly, taxpayers should never underestimate the importance of filing complete and accurate tax returns; specifically including IRS Form 8854, Initial and Annual Expatriation Statement.

Maybe most important of all, it is crucial the taxpayer understands the full range of legal and tax consequences to them regarding the important steps that might lead to “tax expatriation.”  The law is complex and fraught with potential minefields.  It’s always advisable to have thoughtfully analyzed and considered the consequences of “tax expatriation” long before taking specific steps (pre as opposed to post-expatriation) of renunciation of U.S. citizenship or abandonment of lawful permanent residency.

The U.S. Supreme Court and Tax Cases (e.g., Topsnik and Section 877A)

Posted on November 4, 2016

Individuals around the world are often curious about how and when the U.S. Supreme Court hears tax cases.  In some countries, tax cases represent the majority or large percentage of total cases heard by their Supreme Court (e.g., Mexico). 

The Supreme Court typically hears some 100-150 cases per year out of more than 7000 cases a year it is asked to review.  Many of these cases deal with the constitutionality of particular laws.  They rarely take up tax cases.

The 2013 term was unusual in that the Supreme Court heard three federal tax cases (U.S. v. Woods, U.S. v. Quality Stores, Inc. and U.S. v. Clarke).  Similarly, in 2015 the Supreme Court issued opinions in three tax cases (although each dealt with powers of states to impose taxation – Alabama Dept. of Revenue v. CSX Transportation, Inc. a property tax case; Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl  a sales tax case; and, Maryland v. Wynne an income tax case).

None of these cases or any Supreme Court case before them has dealt with the U.S. “exit tax” arising out of IRC Sections 877, 877A, 2801, et. seq. Indeed, to date, there have been few cases heard by other courts regarding these provisions.  One of the most important and relevant is the Topsnik v. Comm’r  (146 T.C. No. 1) case published this year.  The Topsnik case will be discussed in more detail in a later post.  The short version is that the taxpayer in Topsnik lost the case and was found to have been a “covered expatriate” with the consequent adverse tax consequences that follow.

Taxpayers have a right of appeal from the U.S. Tax Court.  If a case is appealed from the U.S. Tax Court, e.g., Topsnik  or another federal court (e.g., from Court of Federal Claims) it will go to one of 13 appellate courts.  An appeal from one of these 13 appellate courts will lie with the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court is generally not obliged to review cases (per the Certiori Act of 1925), including tax cases, and will rarely take up a tax case, whether or not it addresses a Constitutional question.  Hence, a case like Topsnik  will almost certainly never become binding precedent to all the courts in the land, e.g., the Court of Federal Claims.

Like Canada’s “Deemed Acquisition” Rules: IRC Section 877A(h)(2)

Posted on November 3, 2016

The Canadian income tax system has a sensible rule that treats immigrants into the country “as if” they had sold their non-Canadian assets just prior to becoming a Canadian income tax resident.

The Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) explains it as follows:

• If you owned certain properties, other than taxable Canadian properties, while you were a non-resident of Canada, we consider you to have sold the properties and to have immediately reacquired them at a cost equal to their fair market value on the date you became a resident of Canada. This is called a deemed acquisition.

• Usually, the fair market value is the highest dollar value you can get for your property in a normal business transaction.

• You should keep a record of the fair market value of your properties on the date you arrived in Canada. The fair market value will be your cost when you calculate your gain or loss from selling the property in the future.

The U.S. does not have such a rule generally for immigrants coming to America.  Instead, the non-U.S. citizen will typically have their historic tax basis (by applying U.S. tax principles) in the property they own prior to coming to the U.S.   For instance, an immigrant from the South American continent who owns real estate in their country of citizenship, may have a large “unrealized gain” in that property for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

This means that if the South American sells the real estate, while being a U.S. income tax resident (after immigrating to the U.S.), the gain in the South American real estate will be subject to taxation in the U.S.  This is very different from the sensible Canadian rule, which exempts the appreciation in the property of the immigrant while living outside of the North American continent.

This can be a very bad result for the uninformed immigrant, since the example above can get worse, when the immigrant to the U.S. has received properties in the form of gifts (e.g., from their family members) which could have very low tax bases per U.S. tax law.   Assume a gift of South American real estate received by the immigrant prior to moving to the U.S. with a low historic basis of US$500K.  Assume further it is sold for US$3.3M while the immigrant is residing in the U.S.  If the property was worth US$3.2M when she immigrated to the U.S., only US$100K of appreciation occurred while residing in the U.S.  Nevertheless, under U.S. law, the entire US$2.8M gain (US$2.7M of which occurred while living outside the U.S.) will generally be subject to U.S. federal income tax.

This comes as quite a surprise to many. 

An immigrant to Canada in the same case, would only have US$100K of taxable gain, with the US$2.7M gain being free from taxation under Canada’s “deemed acquisition” rules.

There is one exception in the U.S. tax law.  Unfortunately, it applies to “covered expatriates” who readers of this site understand, that the U.S. tax regimes are typically quite undesirable.  They are as follows:

• The “Mark to Market” taxation on unrealized gains of worldwide assets, arising from the renunciation of U.S. citizenship or termination of “long-term residency” status  (i.e., the so-called “exit tax”);  See, Inflation Adjusted Exclusion Amounts Since Inception of 2008 “Mark to Market” Expatriation Tax Law: Example   and

• The tax payable by U.S. beneficiaries whenever they receive so-called “covered gifts” and/or “covered bequests.”  See, The “Hidden Tax” of Expatriation – Section 2801 and its “Forever Taint.” (April 2014) and a post from September 2015, Finally – Proposed Regulations for “Covered Gifts” and “Covered Bequests” Issued by Treasury Last Week (Be Careful What You Ask For!).

The statutory provision under IRC Section 877A(h)(2)  provides relief from the first tax; for purposes of calculating the “mark to market” tax.  It provides in relevant part that the “covered expatriate” –

• . . . shall be treated as having a basis on such date [the date of immigration to the U.S. in the first place] of not less than the fair market value of such property on such date . . .”

Accordingly, the appreciation of the property owned by the immigrant (see, US$2.7M example above – who is in the process of emigrating out of the U.S. -by way of “covered expatriate” status)  will generally escape income taxation under IRC Section 877A(h)(2)  on the unrealized gain in the property that arises prior to moving to the U.S. in the first place.   This limited rule is similar to the sensible Canadian “deemed acquisition” rules.

Unfortunately, there is no such rule as this “deemed acquisition” concept that could reduce the future tax payable by U.S. beneficiaries of “covered gifts” and “covered bequests.”