constitutional

How Many Lawful Permanent Residents does the U.S. Receive (Per Year: 1820-2022)

Posted on Updated on

There is an idea that only recently has permanent resident US immigration status into the United States grown substantially. The peak years were in the early 1990s as to absolute numbers. However, the greatest number of permanent residents as a relative percentage of the population was in the early 1900s; by far. See the chart below that I created from DHS immigration statistics data.

This is important for LPRs who come into the US and then stay long enough to become “long-term residents” as defined in the tax law. See, an earlier post – Who is a “long-term” lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) and why does it matter?

  • “Covered Expatriate” Status and Negative US Tax Consequences

Once these “long-term residents” leave the US they can typically be subject to various adverse tax consequences. See an earlier post: The “Hidden Tax” of Expatriation – Section 2801 and its “Forever Taint.”

There were more LPRs admitted, in absolute terms in 1905 (1,026,499) than in 2022 (1,018,349).

[arm_restrict_content plan=”2,” type=”show”] 

In percentage terms the total number of LPRs in 1905 compared to the total population was more than four times (4X) greater than in 2022 when it was (about 3/10th of 1 percent or 0.306%; versus a total population of 333 million) . In 1905 the total population was about 84 million, with newly admitted LPRs representing 1.225 percent of the entire resident population (1.225%; is greater than 4X the 2022 relative percentage).

  • The “Mark to Market” Tax that did NOT Exist in 1820, 1913, 1966 (Not Until 1996)

The US tax expatriation laws now impose a “mark to market” tax on so-called “long-term residents” who become “covered expatriates.” Such a concept in the tax law never existed in the early part of the 20th century, and indeed only became law in 1996. See an earlier post, The Foreign Investors Tax Act of 1966 (“FITA”) – The Origin of US Tax Expatriation law

This so-called Mark to Market tax is based upon a legal fiction, as if the individuals sold their worldwide assets on the “expatriation date.” It applies, even though there’s no current sale of assets, no disposition, transfer, change of ownership, change of title, or other “realization” event. The term “realization” is very significant in US tax law, including as recently discussed by the United States Supreme Court. See below and Moore v. the United States (2024) .

Below is a table of LPRs who were admitted to that status, per year, over the last 200+ years starting in 1820:


Are you or any of your family members one of these millions (more than 88 million) of LPR individuals represented in the above graph over the last 200+ years?

An increasing number of international tax scholars and practitioners are questioning the validity of this “mark to market” tax in light of recent US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) case law. See a recent post, Is the “Mark to Market” Expatriation Tax Unconstitutional? – through the Prism of Moore

[armelse]

Login to continue reading

Membership $100 USD per year

 
 
[/arm_restrict_content]

This entry was posted in 2024, constitutional, Covered Gifts and Bequests, Green Cards, Lawful Permanent Residents, SCOTUS, Tax Compliance and tagged , , .

Is the “Mark to Market” Expatriation Tax Unconstitutional? – through the Prism of Moore

Posted on Updated on

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.”

This entry was posted in 2024, Collateral Consequences - Non-Tax, constitutional, Lawful Permanent Residents, SCOTUS, Tax Compliance and tagged , , .