Being stopped, searched, interrogated or simply questioned by U.S. federal government agents can be intimidating.  Especially, if you do not know your legal rights.

It can be more intimidating on your arrival to the U.S. airport, if the CBP officer (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) demands that you physically “return voluntarily” your green card.  The consequences they tell you will be immediate deportation from the U.S. 

• Removal from the U.S. – is it voluntary or not, under these circumstances?

• What are the U.S. federal tax consequences if you “return voluntarily” your green card?

• What if the CBP officer pulls out Forms W-8s you previously signed with your foreign financial institution and presents them to you in the airport and asks the following questions:

• • Why did you certify “under penalty of perjury” you were not a United States person on your foreign bank produced documents (you received in France, Germany, the U.K., Canada, Mexico, Japan, Indonesia, Australia — or any other foreign country)?
  • 
• • The officer then asks for all of the envelopes and papers in your luggage and opens the letters and files in your possession – See, the U.S. Supreme Court decision United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977).
• •  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).

In Kawashima v. Holder (565 U.S. 478 (2012), the United States Supreme Court held that certain tax offenses committed by lawful permanent residents constitute crimes involving “fraud or deceit” for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Specifically, the Court concluded that lawful permanent residents (a husband and wife from Japan) who were convicted of filing false tax returns resulting in a tax loss exceeding $10,000 had been convicted of an “aggravated felony” within the meaning of the INA.

As a consequence, a conviction for such an aggravated felony renders a lawful permanent resident removable (deportable) from the United States under the immigration laws. Importantly, however, the criminal conviction itself does not automatically terminate lawful permanent resident status. Rather, it provides the legal basis for the Department of Homeland Security to initiate removal proceedings, after which an Immigration Judge may enter a final order of removal.

Once a final order of removal becomes effective, the individual’s lawful permanent resident status is considered to have been revoked. For U.S. federal income tax purposes, this generally results in the termination of lawful permanent resident status under 26 U.S.C. § 7701(b)(6)(B), which provides that an individual ceases to be a lawful permanent resident when “such status has been revoked or has been administratively or judicially determined to have been abandoned.” Accordingly, following a final order of removal, the individual is no longer treated as a lawful permanent resident for purposes of the tax law as summarized below:

The 2012 case involved Akio and Fusako Kawashima, Japanese citizens who had been lawful permanent residents since 1984. Mr. Kawashima pleaded guilty to willfully filing a false tax return under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), while Mrs. Kawashima pleaded guilty to aiding and assisting in the preparation of a false tax return under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2).  The immigration judge issued the order of removal.  The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Holding that convictions under 26 U. S. C. §§7206(1) and (2) in which the Government’s revenue loss exceeds $10,000 constituted aggravated felonies, the Ninth Circuit affirmed and ultimately so too did the SCOTUS in this decision. 

The Supreme Court concluded that these tax offenses necessarily involve fraud or deceit and, because the tax loss exceeded the statutory $10,000 threshold, they constituted aggravated felonies under immigration law. The Supreme Court of the U.S. therefore upheld the government’s order (which had been upheld through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) removing the Kawashimas to Japan.

This of course is important for U.S. “expatriation tax” purposes, since the “lawful permanent resident” status for tax purposes will necessarily terminate upon the final order of removal.  Not before.  Once LPR status terminates, the individuals will become covered expatriates, if they meet the time period under the statute to become “long term residents” as was the case for Mr. and Mrs. Kawashima and meet either of the three tests:  the tax liability, net asset and certifications of compliance with the federal tax laws.  See, Why a “long-term” LPR can NEVER avoid “Covered Expatriate” status under IRC Section 877A(g)(1)(B) if Asset or Tax Liability Test is Satisfied!

• Pathways to United States Citizenship – (USC): Focus on the EB-5

Every individual who ultimately becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen must first qualify for lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) status unless a narrow statutory exception applies. Although public attention frequently focuses on the EB-5 immigrant investor program, with the idea they are those with greater assets and income (contemplating taxes) EB-5 investors represent only a very small percentage of all individuals who become lawful permanent residents. Understanding the relative size of each immigration pathway is essential because every pathway ultimately raises many of the same U.S. tax issues—including worldwide income taxation, estate and gift taxation, and the tax consequences of later abandoning lawful permanent resident status or renouncing U.S. citizenship.

The EB-5 visa has been a fixture of U.S. law since the early 1990s.  It was not until 2009 that a substantial number of EB-5 visas were issued in a given year, 4,218 to be exact.  Statistically, the  total  EB-5 visa leading to LPR status is  a fraction of the other categories as explained here.  For an excellent overview of the law and categories,  see  the  CRS  report-  Permanent Legal Immigration to the
United States: Policy Overview (Updated November 4, 2024)

• EB-5 Visa – to a “Green Card” then to United States Citizenship – (USC)

From the laws inception in 1992 through FY2004, there were only 6,024 EB-5 visas issued during that 12 year period.  That is an annual average of only approximately 500 persons.  See, the GAO Report on Immigrant Investors. As the program grew in popularity so too did the location of investors from around the world.  It was not until 2009 when the total number of investors started growing substantially.  Most significantly in 2009 when 4218 EB5 visas were issued, still less than 1/2 of the 10,000 allocated annually by the statute.

These numbers kept going at an annual pace especially starting in 2012, when 6,764 EB-5 visas were issued and then around 10K+/- annually for the last dozen years or so, up until the years that were impacted by a change in the law and a bit by COVID (2020 and 2021).  There are important tax consequences that can have unintended outcomes for individuals who get a green card:    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):

• Chinese Investors Have Dominated the total Group of EB-5 Investors

While investors come from most parts of the world, it is China that has dominated the total investment in EB-5 projects representing approximately 70% of total investors over the last 15 years.  See prior post which has a chart reflecting the total Chinese investors as a percentage of total –  Part II of Part II: The Gold Card – The U.S. Tax Costs – “It’s like the green card, but better and more sophisticated.”

The country-of-origin analysis is important because practitioners frequently advise clients from these jurisdictions regarding immigration planning, cross-border tax planning, and eventual expatriation planning with consequences in those countries.

I have compiled the total list of countries from which EB-5 visa investors came from as summarized in the Country of Origin global graphic for FYE 2024.  There are over 100 countries from which these investors came from, but again, China is the dominant country, followed by Vietnam, India, Taiwan and then South Korea as the countries with the greatest number of investors.  South Africa comes next, followed by Brazil and then Mexico, but each with less than 200 total investors, each country as follows:

The importance of this analysis is to help individuals (and their advisors) who fit into these categories, e.g., who have a pathway to a green card and then on to become a naturalized U.S. citizen, understand the potential “tax expatriation” consequences of their decisions over the long-run.

• • What are the U.S. “tax expatriation” consequences to individuals who go down these pathways, including to their dependent children, or spouses or any future beneficiaries who are “United States person”?

• • What are the tax expatriation consequences if the individual later decides they do not want to be a green card holder or a U.S. citizen and later wishes to abandon their lawful permanent residency status or formally renounce their U.S. citizenship?

These and many other questions should be considered, especially for long-term family planning.  Not just for the investor, but for their children and spouse, who may be eligible for the visa that can lead to LPR status and eventually to USC.  Facilitating younger children (under 21 years of age) is a common driver for EB-5 investors for families who want the United States to be a pathway for their children’s’ future.

• Why These Immigration Pathways Matter from a Tax Perspective

The purpose of this analysis extends beyond immigration statistics and EB-5 is only a small pathway.  For historical reference, see a prior post:  How Many Lawful Permanent Residents does the U.S. Receive (Per Year: 1820-2022)

Every pathway leading to lawful permanent resident status almost always subjects the individual to the comprehensive U.S. federal income tax system. Depending upon the individual’s assets, family structure, treaty residence, and future living plans, obtaining a green card will also have significant implications for:

• worldwide income taxation;
• estate and gift taxation;
• foreign trust reporting;
• information reporting obligations under various laws;
• controlled foreign corporation rules;
• PFIC reporting;
• exit tax planning; and
• long-term succession planning.

Equally important, many lawful permanent residents eventually decide to return permanently to their country of origin or another foreign jurisdiction. Those individuals—and frequently their spouses and dependent children—must carefully consider the tax consequences of formally abandoning lawful permanent resident status or, after naturalization, renouncing U.S. citizenship.  The sooner individuals and their advisors realize these consequences, the better they can plan for important life decisions.

Those tax consequences are collectively referred to as the U.S. tax expatriation rules, and they form the principal subject of this website.

The legal pathways towards lawful permanent residency status can be broken down into the following categories and the EB-5 category is a fraction (only about 1%) of the total pool leading to LPR status:

A. Family-Sponsored Immigration

This is the most common pathway used for spouses, unmarried children who are under twenty-one years of age and parents of an adult U.S. citizen.  See, 8 U.S. Code § 1153(a).  The table below further breaks down immediate relatives (which has no cap) versus family preferences (F1-F4) which has strict statutory limits of the total issued.  See, U.S. Department of State, Visa Bulletin For June 2026, describing these limits including the per country limits.  Approximately 64% of all green card holders come through this family sponsored category according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Homeland Security Statistics (OHSS), Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Table 6 (Persons Obtaining LPR Status by Type and Major Class of Admission).

B. Employment-Based Immigration (Including EB-5)

This category includes EB-1 through EB-5 categories that include individuals with extraordinary ability, certain professionals, other skilled workers. The  chart  I prepared  here  reflects  the total number of EB-5 visas issued cumulative. This chart reflects the total number of cumulative EB-5 visas that have been issued through the FYE 2024 of approximately 131K.  This does not take into consideration how many of these were issued to the principle investor versus spouses and children under twenty-one years of age.  See, 8 U.S. Code § 1153(b).

EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3 represent the greatest group of individuals who obtained LPR status (e.g., approximately 5X, each category compared to the EB-5 category).  See Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Table 6.

For instance, annually the EB-1 through EB-3 categories are processing about 50K per year of each, and the EB-5 category is only 131K over most of its 25 year life (or about 10K per year – for more recent years). Approximately  16% of all green card holders come through these employment based preferences.

Table –  Approximate Decade-Average Share by Category, FY2014–FY2023

C. Diversity Immigrant Program

The annual diversity lottery, allocated by random selection, to natives of countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States.  See, 8 U.S. Code § 1153(c).   The Attorney General plays a key role by statute in this determination.  There is a statutory maximum of 55,000 and only represents about 4% of all LPRs compared to the larger pool.  This program is on hold as of December 19, 2025 when the USCIS policy memorandum (PM-602-0193) directs officers to place an immediate hold on pending adjustment of status, ancillary benefits and associated waiver applications for individuals applying through the Diversity Immigrant Visa program.  [1, 2]

D. Humanitarian and Special Pathways: Refugees/Asylees

Several routes proceed outside the preference system (the three categories above). Refugees and asylees adjust under a specific statutory regime; self-petitioning abused spouses and children proceed under other provisions; victims of qualifying crimes and of trafficking can adjust from U and T nonimmigrant status; and certain children subject to qualifying juvenile-court findings can qualify, among others.  There are statutory limits placed on this group.

Whatever category one uses for LPR status, there will be important U.S. federal tax consequences to them and typically their family members.  That’s the large part of the focus on this forum where the author has written about the subject of how it all ties to “tax expatriation”.  As previously reported,   there are 3.88 million “LPR” individuals who are living outside the U.S. – per the 2024 report by the U.S. federal government.  Many of them live in a treaty country. See, Table 1 of the Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics –  Estimates of the Lawful Permanent Resident Population in the United States and the Subpopulation Eligible to Naturalize: 2024, and Revised 2023.

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.

In addition, substantial information-reporting obligations often accompany U.S. tax residency. Incorrectly certifying non-U.S. tax status through a Form W-8 may create significant civil and potentially criminal consequences. See e.g., W-8s for U.S. Citizens Abroad: Filing False Information with Non-U.S. Banks (2016) and IRS Form W-8 or W-9? “Green Card” Holders (LPRs) – Certifications Re: Tax Status after Aroeste v. United States

Why Have So Few Gold Cards Been Issued (Just 1 – as of June 2026)?

The limited number of approvals may provide some insight into market demand.

Recent testimony from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick reportedly indicated that, despite hundreds of applications being processed, only one applicant had been formally approved. See,   –Approvals: Lutnick admitted that only one person has been officially approved for the Gold Card visa, despite hundreds of applications being processed. [1, 2]

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).

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.

As the world’s athletes have arrived to perform on U.S. soil, the U.S. tax system is a broad net.  The 2026 FIFA World Cup—hosted across the United States, Mexico, and Canada—is a useful occasion to revisit a question that recurs every time a global athlete or entertainer steps onto a U.S. field, stage, or court: what does the United States get to tax, what forms govern the answer, and when does a visiting performer or athlete cross the line from nonresident into resident – including if they hold a lawful permanent resident card?

This blog is dedicated to issues of “tax expatriation” which crosses into different professions and global lifestyles.  See, for instance the following prior blogs:

• Why Sir Paul McCartney would have to give up his Knighthood – if he were to become a U.S. Citizen?

• Famous Americans who Renounced U.S. Citizenship – Elizabeth Taylor!

There are of course many famous athletes who were not U.S. citizens and then became green card holders and oftentimes then became naturalized U.S. citizens.  Since the Knicks just won the NBA championship after 53 years, one of their greatest, Patrick (mi tocayo) Ewing left Jamaica as a boy, became a green card holder and then a naturalized citizen.  A 1985 New York Times article, A Favorite Son Goes Home, describes his first return to the island since a boy.

Soccer players, have moved all over the world and Alejandro Zendejas is a current U.S. World Cup player born in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, at the border who later obtained lawful permanent residency and also became a naturalized citizen.  That means (as a result of his naturalized U.S. citizenship) if he were ever to renounce his U.S. citizenship, he would necessarily become a “covered expatriate” as defined in the tax statute.

See an earlier blog –

• What Happens If You Become a Covered Expatriate?

Athletes and entertainers are specially taxed in the U.S. in the sense they typically receive few benefits from the U.S. income tax treaty network.  For instance, a world famous Norwegian soccer player such as Erling Haaland who has already equaled the Norwegian record (in just his first match) for most World Cup goals, previously belonging to midfielder Kjetil Rekdal is presumably subject to the U.S.-Norway treaty. The U.S.-Norwegian Income Tax Treaty is one of the very old tax treaties (1971) still on the books and has an “old fashioned” artist/entertainer/athlete provisions imbedded in the independent services provision that allows each government to specially tax artists and athletes if they earn over US$3,000.

A protocol to the treaty adopted in 1980 has a “new” article 14A specific to artists and athletes as reflected here in its entirety allowing the government to tax athletes and entertainers when they perform in the country (overriding other protective provisions of the treaty – e.g., Business Profits Art. 5, Independent Personal Services Art. 13 and Dependent Personal Services Art. 14):

The IRS also adopted a specific program, called the Central Withholding Agreement (“CWA”) program created by Revenue Procedure 89-47 specific to artists and athletes.  I personally think it is a program that is not authorized by the statute and often applied by the IRS in a manner that violates the withholding tax regime we have in Chapter 3 of our statutory tax law, Subtitle A.  In practice, third parties are subject to the 30% withholding tax on certain gross proceeds paid to companies other than the artist or athlete, if the athlete or artist doe not participate with the IRS in their CWA.

In the case of global soccer players, even one with a “lawful permanent resident” card (i.e., a “green card”) they may be subject to the Chapter 3 withholding tax rules if the athlete is like Mr. Aroeste (Aroeste v. United States (Case No. 22-cv-00682-AJB-KSC)) holding a green card in his pocket, but not a U.S. income tax resident by application of the residency rules set forth in an income tax treaty.  Will the soccer player become a “covered expatriate” and not even know it (oops)?! It can get tricky quickly.   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).

Meanwhile, Mexico and the U.S. have both advanced to the knockout round.

Canada plays Switzerland and presumably has a 99% chance of advancing to the Round of 23.

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.”

The U.S. tax law is complex, including when an individual (i) becomes and (ii) ceases to be, a U.S. income tax resident (USITR). USITR is not a technical term used under the tax law. The U.S. tax and information reporting requirements are very different depending the status of an individual. Anyone who is not a United States citizen, is either a –

• “Resident alien“, or a
• “Nonresident alien” as the tax law defines both of these categories.

You can’t be both.

“Resident aliens” are generally also “United States persons” (both technical terms in the federal tax law).

“Non-resident aliens” as defined are necessarily not “United States persons.”

Being one versus the other has huge U.S. tax and reporting consequences.

An individual who is a “lawful permanent resident” as referenced in the tax law (Section 7701(b)(6)) cross-references the U.S. immigration law. The first requirement of that statutory tax rule in § 7701(b)(6)(A)) is that “(A) such individual has the status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws [such status not having changed]. . .[emphasis added]” This means the tax definition is dependent upon the immigration laws, which are found in Title 8, Immigration and Nationality Act. Importantly, the last part of that sentence (i.e., [such status not having changed] is a requirement in the immigration law (Title 8), but does not appear in the tax definition.

The term “lawful permanent resident” cannot be found in Title 8 as a noun or object (i.e., the individual). Instead, the immigration law defines the status of a person in 8 U.S. Code § 1101(a) as follows:- “. . . (20) The term “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” means the status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, such status not having changed.“

This analysis is fundamental to be able to determine whether an individual who holds a “green card” in their pocket even has the status of being “lawfully admitted for permanent residence . . . such status not having changed.” It’s a fundamental legal question under immigration law that must be answered first, to then be able to answer the tax question.

Each form an individual files or does not file (e.g., IRS tax form 1040 v. 1040NR; 8833, 5471, 8854, 8621, 3520, 8864, 8858 and FinCEN forms 114; and immigration forms, e.g., I-485, I-407, etc.) can have a potential impact on the tax residency status of an individual.

The immigration law and when forms, such as Form I-485,  Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status are submitted to the U.S. federal government can have an impact on this determination. The government can use it against the individual as they did unsuccessfully in Aroeste (see below – Pages 9 and 11 of 17); asserting that Mr. Aroeste waived the treaty by not submitting certain forms.

See an earlier post that explains in some detail how and when an individual can cease to be a “United States person” if they live in a country with an income tax treaty and yet retained their “green card” in their pocket: Federal District Court Rules in Favor of Mexican Citizen – Aroeste vs. United States (LPR) – Tax Treaty Applies: Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied

The entire case from the Federal District Court can be read here: Aroeste v. United States, 22-cv-00682-AJB-KSC (20 Nov. 2023):

The tax residency analysis for those who have kept their “green card” in their pocket, can be even more complex as was analyzed by the Court. There are additional provisions of the law that must be considered including old Treasury Regulations that pre-date many provisions of various U.S. income tax treaties.

For instance, each of the following federal tax statutory rules, which will be considered in more detail in later posts (II and III):

• 26 U.S. Code § 894 – Income affected by treaty
• 26 U.S. Code § 7852(d) – Other applicable [treaty] rules

Additional posts will review the impact of these provisions in the law and how various immigration forms (including I-485 and I-407, Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status) and tax forms (including 1040 v. 1040NR; 8833, 5471, 8854, 8621, 3520, 8864, 8858) and FinCEN form 114, can impact the determination of whether someone who has a “green card” in their pocket is or is not a United States person.

The whole idea of the “escape hatch” for tax treaties is an excellent way of explaining how and when tax treaty law applies in different circumstances. Importantly, the U.S. federal government cannot deny an individual (or presumably a company either) from properly applying the law of a tax treaty – even if they “gave [an] untimely notice of his treaty position “. See further comments at the end of this post and the District Court’s opinion here – Aroeste v United States – Order (Nov 2023). Meanwhile, see below the 22 countries from where global readers viewed Tax-Expatriation.com during the first full week of 2024.

Below is the list of 22 countries (including the United States) from where readers hailed, who read Tax-Expatriation.com during the first week of 2024. All, but Brazil, Croatia, Nigeria, the United Arab Emirates, Colombia, Kenya and Bermuda have income tax treaties with the United States.

This means that all other individuals are connected with the following 14 countries that have tax treaties with the United States:

• Mexico
• India
• Canada
• United Kingdom
• Switzerland
• Australia
• China
• Spain
• Turkey
• Germany
• Japan
• Romania
• Portugal
• Netherlands

Further, all individuals who might have never formally abandoned their lawful permanent residency (“green card”), maybe never filed specific IRS tax forms, and yet reside in one of these fourteen (14) treaty countries could be eligible for the application and the specific benefits of international income tax treaty law. This, along the lines of the decision in Aroeste v United States (Nov. 2023). In addition, there could be other tax treaty benefits applicable to those individuals in these fourteen countries depending upon where are their assets, what type of income they have, where does the income come from, and where do they reside.

The tax treaty rights discussed here are established by law, as elucidated by the Federal District Court in Aroeste v United States (Nov. 2023). The Court determined that the IRS cannot simply assert an individual’s ineligibility for treaty law provisions based solely on the failure to file specific IRS forms within the government-defined “timely” period. The Court emphasized that there is no automatic waiver of treaty benefits as a matter of law, while acknowledging: “. . . Aroeste gave untimely notice of his treaty position. . .” For specific excerpts from the opinion, please refer to the highlighted portions below. To access the complete opinion, please consult Aroeste v United States – Order (Nov 2023).

* * * * * * * * *

B. Whether Aroeste Did Not Waive the Benefits of the Treaty Applicable to Residents of Mexico and Notified the Secretary of Commencement of Such Treatment.

To establish Mexican residency under the Treaty, and thus avoid the reporting requirements of “United States persons,” Aroeste must have filed a timely income tax return as a non-resident (Form 1040NR) with a Form 8833, Treaty-Based Return Position Case 3:22-cv-00682-AJB-KSC Document 90 Filed 11/20/23 PageID.2722 Page 8 of 17 9 22-cv-00682-AJB-KSC Disclosure Under Section 6114 or 7701(b). Indeed, Aroeste did not submit Form 8833 to notify the IRS of his desired treaty position for the years 2012 and 2013 until October 12, 2016, when he submitted an amended tax return for both years at issue. (Id.) The Government asserts that because Aroeste did not timely submit these forms, he cannot establish that he notified the IRS of his desire to be treated solely as a resident of Mexico and not waive the benefits of the Treaty. (Id. at 4.) The Government relies upon United States v. Little, 828 Fed. App’x 34 (2d Cir. 2020) (“Little II”), a criminal appeal in which the court held a lawful permanent resident of a foreign country was a “‘resident alien’ or ‘person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ with an obligation to file an FBAR.” Id. at 38 (quoting 31 C.F.R. § 1010.350(a), (b)(2)).

In response, Aroeste asserts that while he agrees with the Government that I.R.C. § 6114 requires disclosure of a treaty position, he disagrees as to the consequences for a taxpayer’s failure to timely file the disclosure. (Doc. No. 75-1 at 6.) While the Government asserts the failure to timely file Forms 1040NR and 8833 deprives individuals of the Treaty benefits provided, Aroeste argues instead that I.R.C. § 6712 provides explicit consequences for failure to comply with § 6114. Specifically, § 6712 states that “[i]f a taxpayer fails to meet the requirements of section 6114, there is hereby imposed a penalty equal to $1,000 . . . on each such failure.” I.R.C. § 6712(a). Based on the foregoing, Aroeste argues the taxpayer does not lose the benefits or application of the treaty law.1 (Doc. No. 75-1 at 6.) In United States v. Little, 12-cr-647 (PKC), 2017 WL 1743837, at *5 (S.D. N.Y. 1 Aroeste further asserts that published agency guidance, letter rulings, and technical advice support his position. (Doc. No. 75-1 at 7.) For example, in 2007, an IRS agent sought advice from IRS Counsel asking, “Do we have legal authority to deny a tax treaty because Form 8833 is not attached or the treaty is claimed on the wrong Form (1040EZ or 1040)?” Legal Advice Issued to Program Managers During 2007 Document Number 2007-01188, IRS. IRS Counsel responded, “No, you cannot deny treaty benefits if the taxpayer is entitled to them. You may impose a penalty of $1,000 under section 6712 of the Code on an individual who is obligated to file and does not.” Id. As to this, the Court finds it has no precedential value under I.R.C. § 6110(k)(3), which states that “a written determination may not be used or cited as precedent.” See Amtel, Inc. v. United States, 31 Fed. Cl. 598, 602 (1994) (“The [Internal Revenue] Code specifically precludes [plaintiff] and the court from using or citing a technical advice memorandum as precedent.”) Case 3:22-cv-00682-AJB-KSC Document 90 Filed 11/20/23 PageID.2723 Page 9 of 17 10 22-cv-00682-AJB-KSC May 3, 2017) (“Little I”), a criminal case for the plaintiff’s willful failure to file tax returns, the court stated the plaintiff’s same argument “that the failure to take a Treaty position can result only in a financial penalty also lacks merit. 26 U.S.C. § 6712(c) expressly states that ‘[t]he penalty imposed by this section shall be in addition to any other penalty imposed by law.’” (emphasis added).

I have been consulted over the years by other taxpayers which are cited now as published decisions by the government and the Federal District Court (Southern District of California). These cases are referenced and cited in my own most recent case of Aroeste v United States (Nov. 2023).

However, in Little I, the plaintiff never attempted to take a treaty position. Next, in Shnier v. United States, 151 Fed. Cl. 1, 21 (2020), the court denied the plaintiffs’ claims for relief based on tax treaties because they failed to disclose a treaty based position on their tax returns pursuant to I.R.C. § 6114 “and did not attempt to cure this omission in their briefing[.]” Although the plaintiffs in Shnier were naturalized U.S. citizens who attempted to recover their income taxes under I.R.C § 1297, the court’s brief discussion of I.R.C. § 6114 in relation to a treaty-based position is instructive that an untimely notice of a treaty position does not bar the individual from taking such position. Moreover, in Pekar v. C.I.R., 113 T.C. 158 (1999), the court noted that a taxpayer who fails to disclose a treaty-based position as required by § 6114 is subject to the $1,000 penalty, but stated “there is no indication that this failure estops a taxpayer from taking such a position.” Id. at 161 n.5.2 The Court agrees with Aroeste.

Although Aroeste gave untimely notice of his treaty position, the Court finds this does not waive the benefits of the Treaty as asserted by the Government. Rather, I.R.C. § 6712 provides the consequences for failure to comply with I.R.C. § 6114, namely a penalty of $1,000 for each failure to meet § 6114’s requirements of disclosing a treaty position.

* * * * * * * * *

For individuals living in any of these 14 tax treaty countries (or any of the total 67 income tax treaty countries), the key takeaway is that, based on their specific circumstances, they might be eligible to leverage the international tax treaty principles outlined in the Aroeste v United States case (Nov. 2023). The forthcoming post will pose questions for consideration by the potentially millions of individuals affected by these rules of law.

Clear U.S. tax and legal relief now exists for a significant portion of the 3.89 million Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) who never formally abandoned their U.S. immigration status. This relief stems from two sources in the law:

(i) Tax treaty laws that apply to individuals residing in one of the 67 income tax treaty countries with the United States, recently including Chile.

(ii) Legal principles, recently confirmed by the Federal Court in Aroeste v. United States, that establish that individuals can apply tax treaty laws (when applicable) even if they missed certain filing deadlines set by the Internal Revenue Service. The Court termed this provision an “escape hatch,” allowing individuals, depending on specific circumstances, to be considered non-residents of the United States (not “United States persons”). This can be true under the relevant treaty, even if they never formally abandoned their LPR status.

The 2023 DHS report estimates that nearly 4 million individuals have emigrated from and left the United States and are now living somewhere around the world. Notably, Mexico constitutes the largest share at about 25% of the total LPR population who have left the United States.

The United States has a total of 59 income tax treaties covering 67 countries. See, Countries with U.S. Income Tax Treaties & Lawful Permanent Residents (“Oops – Did I Expatriate”?) (2014).

The DHS report allows the reader to extrapolate that around 1 million individuals, similar to Mr. Aroeste, are living in Mexico and did not formally abandon their LPR status by filing Form I-407, Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident.

Aroeste v. United States is the third case I’ve litigated, examining whether individuals with a “green card” residing outside the United States in a tax treaty country are considered U.S. income tax residents. The previous two cases (involving Mexican and German citizens) didn’t progress to the oral argument stage; as the government conceded both before trial. See, IRS Chief Counsel Concedes Tax Treaty Residency Position for LPR German Taxpayer in Tax Court

How many individuals currently living in Mexico have not officially abandon their LPR status by filing  Form I-407, Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident? See an earlier post reflecting different legal consequences to these individuals: Few LPRs Who Leave (Emigrate from) the U.S. Formally Abandon their Immigration Status: Important Tax Consequences (Part I) See notations below from Table 1 and throughout the Full Report here: Estimates of the Lawful Permanent Resident Population in the United States and the Subpopulation Eligible to Naturalize: 2023

A FOIA response yielded surprising information; the government records indicate that only 46,364 Forms I-407 were filed from 2013 to 2015.

(Source: Federal Government Response to FOIA Request: Office of Performance and Quality (OPQ), Performance Analysis and External Reporting (PAER), JJ)

What can we glean from the DHS report and the LPR – I-407 information obtained through the FOIA response? There is a substantial gap in the millions; millions of individuals who have physically left the U.S. to reside elsewhere globally, compared to the relatively smaller number of tens of thousands who have officially filed Form I-407, Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident.

• Conclusion

Importantly, now under the legal principles established in Aroeste v. United States, individuals residing in one of the 67 countries covered by an income tax treaty have specific legal relief from the worldwide reporting of income to the United States government.

Who is a “resident”?  What is a “resident”?  This sounds like such a basic question. It is not so simple for tax purposes; nor for other provisions of the law.

There is the colloquial meaning of resident.  For instance, if Mr. Smith says, “I have been a resident of Montana on my ranch for 30 years”; to what does he refer?  What if Mr. Smith has a house in California (which he has owned for 15 years) and another ranch in Alberta, Canada that he has owned for 45 years.  Is he also a “resident” of Canada and California?

What if he is not a U.S. citizen but holds a particular type of visa, such as lawful permanent residency (an immigrant visa)?  What if he has a non-immigrant visa, such as an E-2 visa?  What if he only spends 4 months a year on his ranch in Montana, of where is he a “resident”?

Is he a “resident” in some or all of these scenarios?   Why is this important in the context of “U.S. expatriation taxation”?

There are three sources of federal law where it becomes very important, which will be discussed in later posts:

• Title 31 – which is the “bank secrecy” law that creates the “FBARs” – see a prior post, Nuances of FBAR – Foreign Bank Account Report Filings – for USCs and LPRs living outside the U.S.
• Title 26 – federal tax law that has a myriad of definitions regarding “residents”; 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.
• Title 8 – federal immigration law; see, Part II: Who is a “long-term” lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) and why does it matter?

In addition, various states, such as California, Texas and Washington D.C. (actually not a state; but all places I happen to be licensed to practice law) have their own definitions of who are “residents” for income tax and other purposes.  

Subsequent posts will discuss the importance of understanding who is a “resident” and the implications under these various laws.

Laymen regularly have an idea of where they are “resident” – but that idea is often very different from definitions of “resident” under federal Titles 31, 26 and 8 and state laws (e.g., Texas, D.C., Florida, California, New York, etc.).