International Tax · Citizenship Renunciation · LPR Abandonment
International Tax Shareholder
Part II of Part II: The Gold Card – The U.S. Tax Costs – “It’s like the green card, but better and more sophisticated.”
See Part I for the background discussion, which was published more than a year ago.
This article focuses on the tax consequences of the “Trump Gold Card” program and, in particular, the implications if participation ultimately leads to U.S. citizenship (“USC”).
The final version of the Gold Card program requires a $1 million contribution to the federal government, rather than the $5 million amount initially discussed in April 2025. See the government website, The Trump Gold Card is Here.
It is also important to note that President Trump established the Gold Card program through Executive Order 14351 in September 2025. Congress did not enact the program through legislation.
The Cost of a Trump Gold Card
For a $15,000 Department of Homeland Security processing fee and, following successful background review, a $1 million contribution to the federal government, an applicant may obtain U.S. permanent residence through the Gold Card program.
Why Would an Ultra-High-Net-Worth Individual Voluntarily Enter the U.S. Tax Net?
A fundamental question arises: Why would an ultra-high-net-worth (“UHNW”) individual contribute $1 million to obtain U.S. residence and potentially U.S. citizenship, thereby becoming subject to one of the world’s most expansive tax systems?
For many individuals, acquiring U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) status can result in exposure to:
U.S. income taxation on worldwide income;
U.S. gift taxation on worldwide transfers of property; and
U.S. estate taxation on worldwide assets at rates that currently reach 40%.
U.S. Estate and Gift Taxation of Worldwide Assets
The United States generally imposes estate and gift taxes on the worldwide assets of U.S. citizens. In addition, lawful permanent residents who are domiciled in the United States may become subject to the same worldwide transfer tax regime.
Unlike many countries, the United States generally does not permit its citizens to escape worldwide taxation simply by relocating abroad. Most U.S. income tax treaties and estate and gift tax treaties contain a “savings clause” that preserves the right of the United States to tax its citizens notwithstanding treaty provisions.[1]
U.S. Estate and Gift Taxation of Worldwide Assets
As a result, the worldwide assets of a U.S. citizen may be included in the U.S. transfer tax system under IRC §§ 2001 and 2031 (estate tax) and IRC §§ 2501 and 2511 (gift tax).
Consider a U.S. citizen who owns:
a residence in Norway;
shares of a Mexican corporation;
a bank account in Singapore;
an interest in a Liechtenstein foundation (Stiftung);
a portfolio of securities held through a London financial institution; and
an apartment in Dubai.
Subject to applicable valuation and ownership rules, each of these assets generally forms part of the individual’s worldwide taxable estate for U.S. estate tax purposes.
By contrast, a non-U.S. citizen who is not domiciled in the United States generally would not be subject to U.S. estate tax on any of these assets, unless they include U.S.-situs property such as stock issued by U.S. corporations.
The difference can be dramatic: no U.S. estate tax exposure versus potential exposure to a 40% U.S. estate tax on worldwide assets.
U.S. Income Taxation of Worldwide Income
The contrast is equally significant in the income tax context.
A nonresident generally is subject to U.S. income taxation only on limited categories of U.S.-source income and income effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business.
A U.S. citizen, however, remains subject to U.S. federal income taxation on worldwide income regardless of where the individual resides.
Consequently, a foreign entrepreneur, investor, or family office principal who acquires U.S. citizenship will find that income earned from businesses, investments, trusts, partnerships, and financial accounts throughout the world generally becomes reportable to the Internal Revenue Service and subject o U.S. income taxation.
That result raises an obvious question: if the program is available, why have so few ultra-high-net-worth individuals pursued it successfully?
The most obvious explanation is that the long-term U.S. tax consequences may outweigh the perceived immigration benefits for many globally mobile individuals.
Comparison to the EB-5 Program
Different applicants may have different motivations.
The traditional EB-5 immigrant investor program generally requires a qualifying investment that, if successful, may ultimately be recovered. The program also requires satisfaction of statutory requirements, including job creation. Approximately 200,000+/- individuals have obtained a green card through the EB-5 program. There are important unintended tax consequences that can befall individuals here: see, Oops…Did I “Expatriate” and Never Know It: Lawful Permanent Residents Beware!International Tax Journal, CCH Wolters Kluwer, Jan.-Feb. 2014, Vol. 40 Issue 1, p9).
EB-5 Visa Applicants by Country
By contrast, the Gold Card program requires a direct contribution to the federal government.
In either case, the successful applicant receives lawful permanent resident status. However, if the Gold Card ultimately serves as a pathway to naturalized U.S. citizenship, the applicant may become subject to the unique worldwide taxation regime applicable to U.S. citizens.
The Expatriation Problem
If Gold Card holders ultimately naturalize as U.S. citizens, future departure from the U.S. tax system will necessarily become significantly more complicated.
Individuals who later seek to relinquish U.S. citizenship will necessarily face the expatriation rules of IRC § 877A and be tainted with “covered expatriate” status.
As discussed in earlier posts, covered expatriate status can have substantial long-term tax consequences for both the expatriating individual and future recipients of gifts and inheritances.
Legal Questions Surrounding the Program
The Gold Card program also raises constitutional and statutory questions.
Unlike the EB-5 program, which was enacted by Congress, the Gold Card program was created through executive action. Congress did not amend Title 8 of the United States Code to establish a new immigrant category.
Whether the Executive Branch possesses sufficient statutory authority to create such a program remains an open legal question (I am doubtful it will be sustained – if challenged) and will likely be the subject of continued litigation and judicial review.
The outcome of pending litigation involving other immigration-related executive actions may provide useful guidance regarding the scope of presidential authority in this area. We await the outcome of the latest case litigated through the courts. See, Supreme Court appears likely to side against Trump on birthright citizenship which was also issued by an executive order.
Who Truly Benefits?
Who is the ideal candidate for a Trump Gold Card? Only one person thus far has one.
For almost all HNW individuals, the immigration benefits, travel flexibility, business opportunities, and potential pathway to U.S. citizenship would rarely justify the cost. Someone with assets below US$20M might find it attractive.
For almost all others—particularly those with substantial foreign businesses, investment portfolios, trusts, and family wealth located outside the United States—the long-term consequences of worldwide U.S. income, estate, and gift taxation will almost always substantially outweigh the advantages.
As a result, any prospective applicant for a Trump Gold Card should carefully evaluate not only the immigration benefits of the program (+ the uncertainty in the law), but particularly the tax consequences that will follow for decades thereafter.
Does “covered expatriate” status only matter for wealthy people?
No. It is easy to assume the US expatriation tax rules only reach the rich, the wealthy, and the private-jet set. The press usually features wealthy renouncers like Tina Turner and Eduardo Saverin, the co-founder of Facebook, which fuels that assumption. But wealth is not the trigger. The rules can reach the poorest former US citizen, and certain long-term green card holders, wherever they live, if they fail the certification requirement in IRC Section 877(a)(2)(C).
What are the net worth and income tax tests people usually focus on?
Most coverage of expatriation focuses on two dollar thresholds. The first is the net worth test of US$2 million. The second is the income tax liability test of roughly US$125,000 of average annual net income tax. A “covered expatriate” is a former US citizen, or long-term green card holder, who on giving up that status either crosses one of those dollar thresholds or fails to certify tax compliance under Section 877(a)(2)(C). Because the headlines fixate on the dollar tests, the certification path is the one people miss.
Can you be a covered expatriate if you have no assets?
Yes. The certification requirement under Section 877(a)(2)(C) applies regardless of wealth. A former US citizen, or certain long-term green card holder, who cannot certify compliance becomes a “covered expatriate” even with almost nothing to their name. This is why the rules can reach so-called Accidental Americans who have spent little or no time in the US. The dollar thresholds are only one way in; failing to certify is another.
Does US expatriation tax apply to green card holders too?
Yes. The expatriation tax rules reach certain long-term lawful permanent residents (green card holders), not only US citizens. When a long-term LPR relinquishes or abandons their green card, the same certification requirement under Section 877(a)(2)(C) applies. A long-term LPR who cannot certify compliance becomes a covered expatriate on the same terms as a citizen who renounces.
If you have no assets, do you owe US income tax when you expatriate?
No. The expatriation income tax runs through a “mark-to-market” regime, which taxes unrealized gains as if you sold everything the day before you leave. With no assets, there are no unrealized gains, no tax base, and so no exit income tax. Even cash produces none. US dollars carry a tax basis equal to their face amount, so there is no unrealized gain on cash to tax.
What are the two points where expatriation can trigger US tax?
There are two. The first is the moment a US citizen or green card holder expatriates, that is, leaves the US tax system. This is the exit tax on unrealized gains, and it produces nothing for a person with no unrealized gains. The second arrives later, when a US person receives a covered gift or bequest from the covered expatriate under IRC Section 2801. That second point can land decades after the expatriation event.
What is the Section 2801 tax on covered gifts and bequests?
IRC Section 2801, enacted in 2008, taxes the US person who receives a gift or bequest from a covered expatriate. The recipient pays effectively 40% of the fair market value of the property received. There are virtually no deductions or exemptions, so the 40% applies to the full value. The gift or bequest can be direct or indirect, for example through a trust. Treasury has a proposed-regulation project underway under Section 2801.
Can someone with significant assets still owe no exit income tax?
Yes. Unrealized gains, not wealth, drive the exit income tax. Compare USC “A” with US$5,000 in total assets and USC “B” with US$15 million of cash in the bank and nothing else. Both owe the same exit income tax: US$0. Cash carries a tax basis equal to its amount, so neither has any unrealized gain to tax. And if neither can satisfy the certification requirement under Section 877(a)(2)(C), both are covered expatriates just the same.
Why would a covered expatriate with no assets ever create a future tax bill?
Because the Section 2801 tax can land long after expatriation, on assets you do not have yet. Two things change over time. You may grow or inherit assets after expatriating, while no longer a US citizen, ending up with far more than you hold today. And people in your life, family or friends, may become US residents even if none are today. Either shift can set up a future covered gift or bequest from you to a US person.
How much tax could a modest future inheritance trigger?
Take USC “A,” who renounces and, 40 years later, leaves a US$120,000 bequest to a daughter who has since moved to the US. Under Section 2801, the daughter would owe more than US$40,000 in tax on that inheritance, roughly 40%, with virtually no deductions or exemptions. That is a heavy burden on a relatively modest inheritance. It is one of several scenarios that show how covered expatriate status can matter over the long run.
How realistic is it that a future heir becomes a US person?
It is common. One family member moves to the US temporarily for work or graduate school, gets married, and decides to stay, even for a while. Often they have children, who are US citizens by birth in the US. A US person is now part of the family tree. A future gift or bequest from a covered expatriate to that person can fall under Section 2801, decades after the expatriation itself.
What is the certification requirement under Section 877(a)(2)(C)?
A former U.S. citizen or long-term green card holder (a lawful permanent resident, or LPR) becomes a “covered expatriate” under Section 877(a)(2)(C) if they fail to certify, under penalty of perjury, that they have met their federal tax requirements for the 5 preceding taxable years. The statute treats a person as covered if “(C) such individual fails to certify under penalty of perjury that he has met the requirements of this title for the 5 preceding taxable years or fails to submit such evidence of such compliance as the Secretary may require.” A “covered expatriate” is a person who triggers the U.S. exit tax rules on giving up citizenship or LPR status.
What makes someone a “covered expatriate”?
If you expatriated after June 16, 2008, the expatriation rules apply if any one of these statements is true:
Your average annual net income tax liability for the 5 tax years ending before the date of your expatriation is more than the listed amount.
Your net worth is $2 million or more on the date of your expatriation.
You fail to certify on Form 8854 that you have complied with all of your federal tax obligations for the 5 tax years preceding the date of your expatriation.
The third test is the certification requirement, and it is the one tied to the timing question below.
Does an IRS form or its instructions carry the “force of law”?
An IRS form and its conditions may not carry the “force of law.” Treasury and the IRS cannot create law by publishing a substantive rule in a form. The statute is what binds. This matters because a form instruction can state a condition that the statute itself does not, and anyone citing a form will want to keep that distinction in mind.
Do the Form 8854 instructions require tax compliance before the expatriation date?
The instructions read that way. The Form 8854 instructions state that the certification must reflect that you have “complied with all of your federal tax obligations for the 5 tax years preceding the date of your expatriation.” Taken literally, that language points to compliance completed before the expatriation or renunciation date. The statute, Section 877(a)(2)(C), does not specify whether the certification has to be made before or after the date of loss of nationality.
Can you come into compliance after renouncing and still avoid covered expatriate status?
This is the open question the form instructions raise. If the instructions are correct, a person could not satisfy the rule by attempting to comply with all federal tax obligations after renouncing. Under that reading, coming into compliance for 5 years and then filing Form 8854, all after taking the oath of renunciation, would not let the person avoid “covered expatriate” status. The statute itself does not say the certification must come before the date of loss of nationality, so whether the instructions can impose that timing is unsettled.
Are there Treasury regulations that settle this question?
No. Treasury has issued no regulations on this point to date. There are only a few notices. One of them is IRS Notice 2009-85 on expatriation, and its own “force of law” is itself open to question. Without regulations, a form instruction is not the same as binding law.
Could the IRS still challenge someone who complies after renouncing?
Yes. Even where a form instruction may not carry the force of law, the IRS may still challenge a former U.S. citizen or LPR who does not also meet the condition set out in the IRS’s own instructions. The agency could argue that the person failed the certification requirement of Section 877(a)(2)(C) by not satisfying tax compliance before the expatriation date.
Why does this matter before taking the oath of renunciation?
The timing of tax compliance is a detail a former U.S. citizen or green card holder may want to weigh carefully before renouncing. The statute is silent on whether the certification must come before the date of loss of nationality, while the form instructions point to compliance before that date, so the literal-statute reading and the form-instruction reading can diverge. Consult an experienced attorney before rushing off to take the oath of renunciation.
Not everyone who renounces US citizenship faces the same tax consequences. People who qualify as “covered expatriates” face significant additional obligations. Here is what that means and how even modest individuals can end up in this category.
One of the greatest risks for anyone who wants to give up US citizenship is Section 877(a)(2)(C). Even the most economically modest individual, with little assets or income, can fall into this trap. No one at the US Department of State will provide tax advice or interpret Section 877(a)(2)(C) for you. The renunciation appointment itself is straightforward. The tax consequences are not.
What are the three tests for covered expatriate status?
Under Section 877(a)(2), you are a covered expatriate if any one of the following is true:
(A) Your average annual net income tax liability is greater than $124,000;
(B) Your net worth is $2,000,000 or more as of your expatriation date; or
(C) You fail to certify under penalty of perjury that you have met all US tax requirements for the 5 preceding taxable years, or fail to submit the required evidence of compliance.
Any individual who meets any one of these tests will be a covered expatriate and subject to the taxation and reporting requirements under Sections 877, 877A, and 2801.
What happens at the embassy or consulate?
When you take the renunciation oath at a US embassy or consulate, the Foreign Affairs Manual provides only standard overview language about “special tax consequences.” The consular officer will not explain the specific rules of Section 877(a)(2)(C) or tell you whether you will be a covered expatriate. This is worth understanding well before going to take the oath.
This post provides general information only and is not legal advice. Consult an experienced attorney for guidance specific to your situation.
Why Long-Term Green Card Holders Cannot Escape the Exit Tax Rules
When long-term green card holders give up their green card, they face the same exit tax rules as US citizens who renounce citizenship. There is one exception in the law that allows certain dual citizens by birth to avoid covered expatriate status even if they meet the income or asset tests. Long-term green card holders cannot use it. Here is why.
When you give up your green card (or renounce US citizenship), the law determines whether you are a covered expatriate. You are a covered expatriate if you meet any one of three tests: an average annual income tax liability above an inflation-adjusted threshold, a net worth of $2 million or more on the date of expatriation, or a failure to certify 5 years of US tax compliance – where it is commonly certified on IRS Form 8854.
Meeting even one of these three tests makes you a covered expatriate. All three tests apply equally to US citizens who renounce and to long-term lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who give up their green card.
Is there an exception to the income and asset tests?
Yes, for some people. Under IRC Section 877A(g)(1)(B), certain individuals are exempt from the income and asset tests. If this exception applies to you, you can avoid covered expatriate status even if your net worth exceeds $2 million or your income exceeds the threshold. The certification requirement under Section 877(a)(2)(C) still applies to everyone, including those who qualify for this exception.
Who can use this exception?
The exception is narrow. Under the statute, it applies only to an individual who: became a citizen of the United States and a citizen of another country at birth; as of the date of expatriation, continues to be a citizen of and is taxed as a resident of that other country; and has been a US resident for no more than 10 taxable years during the 15-year period ending with the taxable year of expatriation. Only someone who acquired US citizenship automatically at birth, while also holding citizenship of another country from birth, can potentially qualify.
Why green card holders cannot use it
Lawful permanent residents are not US citizens. They hold a green card, which is a grant of permanent resident status, not citizenship. Because the exception in Section 877A(g)(1)(B) applies only to individuals who became US citizens at birth, long-term LPRs cannot satisfy this requirement by definition. The exception is simply not available to them.
What this means if you are a long-term green card holder
A long-term LPR who meets either the $2 million asset test or the income tax liability test will become a covered expatriate, even if they fully satisfy the 5-year certification requirement. Satisfying the certification requirement is necessary for everyone, but for long-term LPRs it is not sufficient on its own. If you also meet the income or asset test, you are a covered expatriate regardless.
The consequences include the mark-to-market exit tax on unrealized gains and the Section 2801 tax on covered gifts and bequests to US persons. These consequences can affect your US family members for decades. Understanding them well before you give up your green card, not after, is the only way to plan for them.
There are important unintended tax consequences that can befall individuals who have a green card depending upon their factual circumstances: see, Oops…Did I “Expatriate” and Never Know It: Lawful Permanent Residents Beware!International Tax Journal, CCH Wolters Kluwer, Jan.-Feb. 2014, Vol. 40 Issue 1, p9):
This post provides general information only and is not legal advice. Consult an experienced attorney for guidance specific to your situation.
Form W-8 or W-9? Why the Wrong Choice Could Cost Green Card Holders Abroad
The choice between Form W-8 and Form W-9 comes down to one thing: your U.S. tax residency status, not your immigration status. Green card holders living abroad may be able to sign Form W-8 under a U.S. income tax treaty, but picking the wrong form means signing a false statement under penalty of perjury. And claiming treaty benefits carries a risk that many people never see coming. Consulting an experienced attorney before signing anything is essential.
What is the difference between Form W-8 and Form W-9?
Both forms tell your bank or financial institution whether you are a U.S. tax resident or not. Form W-9 is for U.S. residents, who must pay U.S. taxes on income they earn anywhere in the world. Form W-8BEN is for non-residents, who generally only pay U.S. taxes on certain types of income that come from U.S. sources. The form you sign has real legal consequences, not just administrative ones.
What happens if you sign the wrong form?
Signing either form is a certification made under penalties of perjury. If you are a U.S. tax resident and you sign Form W-8, you are making a false statement, and serious legal consequences may follow.
Why is this more complicated for green card holders living abroad?
U.S. citizens always sign Form W-9, with no exceptions. For everyone else, it depends on tax residency status. Green card holders are generally treated as U.S. tax residents even while living in another country, which would normally mean they sign Form W-9. But there is an important exception: if the country where they live has an income tax treaty with the United States, they may be able to claim non-resident status under that treaty and sign Form W-8 instead. There are important unintended tax consequences that can befall individuals here: see, Oops…Did I “Expatriate” and Never Know It: Lawful Permanent Residents Beware!International Tax Journal, CCH Wolters Kluwer, Jan.-Feb. 2014, Vol. 40 Issue 1, p9).
The United States has 58 income tax treaties that together cover 66 countries. That includes the 1973 U.S. and U.S.S.R. income tax treaty, which still applies today to nine former Soviet republics: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
What did the court decide in Aroeste v. United States, and why does it matter?
Aroeste v. United States (Case No. 22-cv-00682-AJB-KSC) is a federal court decision that established a 5-step analysis for green card holders who have not formally given up their green card but are living abroad. The key question the court addresses is whether a green card holder qualifies to be treated as a resident of a foreign country under an applicable U.S. income tax treaty. This ruling matters for the more than 3 million LPRs who are living outside the United States.
What are the benefits of successfully claiming non-resident status under a treaty?
If a green card holder qualifies as a non-resident under a tax treaty, they may be able to stop filing U.S. federal income tax returns on their worldwide income. They may also no longer be required to file the Foreign Bank Account Report, known as the FBAR, which would help them avoid the significant penalties that come with missing that filing. The court in Aroeste laid out the specific steps required to make this claim correctly.
One important note: if you claim non-resident status under a treaty but fail to report that treaty position to the IRS on time, you face a separate penalty under IRC Section 6712(a) of $1,000 for each failure to timely file. Claiming treaty status correctly and reporting it on time are both required.
What is the risk on the other side?
Claiming treaty-based non-resident status may also legally end your U.S. tax residency. Under IRC Section 7701(b)(6), this shift may cause you to cease to be a lawful permanent resident of the United States. That change may trigger the U.S. expatriation tax rules under IRC Section 877A(g)(3), which could classify you as a covered expatriate. The Aroeste court did not address these consequences because they were not part of that case, but they are real and potentially serious.
What does covered expatriate status mean for your family?
Covered expatriate status does not only affect you. If your family members or friends in the United States later receive gifts or an inheritance from you, they may owe U.S. tax on those transfers under the covered gift and covered bequest rules. This may affect children, spouses, and anyone else who would receive something from you.
Do you need an attorney before making this decision?
The answer depends on which country you live in, which treaty applies, the value of your assets, and your long-term plans. Getting it wrong may trigger exit taxes, affect your family’s inheritance, and have consequences that cannot easily be undone. This post explains the framework but is not a substitute for legal advice specific to your situation.
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).
“LPR Tax Limbo” – Formal Abandonment of LPR (Form I-407) – BIG GAP with Actual Emigration of LPRs
Millions of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who have left the U.S. and not “formally abandoned” their LPR status (by filing Form I-407, Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident) typically remain in some kind of “LPR U.S. tax limbo.” How many individuals worldwide are in this LPR U.S. tax limbo?
Why are these numbers important for the tax-expatriation analysis? See, a recent post, Why Most LPRs Residing Overseas Haven’t a Clue about the Labyrinth of U.S. Taxation and Bank and Financial Reporting of Worldwide Income and Assets (Part I). Indeed, most individuals probably do not think they are a U.S. federal income tax resident when they leave the U.S. to reside overseas back to their home country. Why would they? There is no tax training manual provided to LPRs who leave the U.S. and no tax advisories – reflected on the card itself (unlike the last page of the U.S. passport, paragraph D). More precisely, most are probably not giving much, if any thought, to the complex U.S. federal tax residency rules and their extraterritorial application.
The “big gap” referred to above can be identified from the the Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) report titled: Estimates of the Lawful Permanent Resident Population in the United States and the Subpopulation Eligible to Naturalize: 2015-2019. According to the report, more than 1 million individuals become LPRs each year. Between naturalization, mortality and emigration the report shows that the LPR population, year over year, has remained stable. In 2019 the total number of LPRs per this report was 13.6 million, up from just 13.0 million in 2015.
The “gap” is the difference between the numbers of LPRs who have left-emigrated the U.S. (some 3+ million) compared to something like an annual average of 15-19 thousand who have filed Form I-407. The gap is in the millions of persons who are in LPR U.S. tax limbo.
Mexico
The report is also worth reading if you want to understand the demographics of the LPR population. Mexico has about 2.5 million (which is by far the greatest number) of the total 13+ million LPR population.
As the report points out there is no reliable direct measurements of LPR emigration. They do not exist. This lack of information is what drove me to file a FOIA request with the government to request information about the number USCIS Forms I-407 that are filed with the government. See, also quarterly statistics of the USCIS – Form I-407, Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status (partial information for years 2016-2019).
The information I obtained in the FOIA response was surprising, since the government had records showing only 46,364 Forms I-407 were filed in the years 2013 through 2015, as follows:
SOURCE: Federal Government Response to FOIA Request: Office of Performance and Quality (OPQ), Performance Analysis and External Reporting (PAER), JJ
This represents an average of only 15,455 individuals who formally abandoned their LPR status. Contrasted with more than 3.6 million estimated to have emigrated in 2019 per the DHS report leaves a massive gap of well over 3 million persons who held a “green card” and have left. They are now in LPR U.S. tax limbo.
What about the tax consequences? How many of these LPRs who left the U.S. know, understand or have any idea whatsoever of the federal tax filing obligations regarding their status?
What is the takeaway from the DHS report and LPR – I-407 information provided to me by the FOIA response? There is a discrepancy in the millions of people. Millions of individuals who actually leave or have left the U.S. to reside somewhere else around the world; compared to only some tens of thousands of individuals who have formally filed Form I-407, Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident.
What can these individuals do to get out of the LPR U.S. tax limbo?
New Treasury Regulations Can Effect Some Long-Term Residents (“Green Card” Holders)
There have been numerous posts about how Lawful Permanent Residents (“LPRs”) who have not formally abandoned their green card might have adverse U.S. tax consequences as part of the U.S. “expatriation tax.”
The U.S. Treasury issued new Regulations that can impact LPRs who have previously filed U.S. 1040NR tax returns under an applicable income tax treaty. On December 13, 2016, the these final regulations require foreign-owned, single-member U.S. limited liability companies (“SM-LLCs”) that are treated as disregarded entities for U.S. tax purposes to file an information return to report certain transactions. These Treasury Regulations, 26 CFR § 1.6038A-1(c) require these foreign-owned SM LLCs to be treated as if they are a separate domestic “C” corporation specifically for reporting purposes.
Treasury Regulations, 26 CFR § 1.6038A-1(c) require foreign-owned SM LLCs to be treated as if they are a domestic “C” corporation for reporting purposes (Form 5472)
An individual who is a LPR can fall into this category in certain circumstances; namely where they cease to be a “U.S. person” under IRC Section 7701(b)(6). See, IRS Form 5472 directly here –
