Sec. 2. Policy. (a) It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.
SCOTUS Announced it Will Hear Arguments on May 15, 2025
The Congressional Research Service has an excellent summary article it prepared in 2018, titled – The Citizenship Clause and “Birthright Citizenship”: A Brief Legal Overview (1 Nov. 2018). This report was drafted when President Trump during his first term questioned the validity of “birthright citizenship”. Below is an excerpt from that 2018 article, relevant to the:
Under federal law, nearly all people born in the United States become citizens at birth. This rule is known as “birthright citizenship,” and it derives from both the Constitution and complementary statutes and regulations. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), in turn, declares certain persons to be U.S. citizens and nationals at birth. INA § 301(a) more or less tracks the Citizenship Clause in stating that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a “national[] and citizen[] of the United States at birth.” (The INA also extends citizenship at birth to various persons not protected by the Citizenship Clause, such as those born abroad to some U.S. citizen parents.) Federal regulations—including those that govern the issuance of passports and access to certain benefits—implement the INA by providing that a person is a U.S. citizen if he or she was born in the United States, so long as the parent was not a “foreign diplomatic officer” at the time of the birth.
The report goes on to explain –
The weight of current legal authority suggests that these executive and legislative proposals to restrict birthright citizenship would contravene the Citizenship Clause. At least since the Supreme Court’s decision in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the prevailing view has been that all persons born in the United States are constitutionally guaranteed citizenship at birth unless their parents are us born individuals foreign diplomats, members of occupying foreign forces, or members of Indian tribes. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court held that a man born in the United States in 1873 to parents who were Chinese nationals acquired citizenship at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. The parents were ineligible to naturalize under the law of the time, but they had established “permanent domicile and residence in the United States.” The Court reasoned that the Citizenship Clause should be “interpret[ed] in light of the common law” and grounded its holding in the common law principle of jus soli or “right of the soil.” Pursuant to that principle, “every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
Tax Expatriation Consequences –
As to “tax expatriation” – of these individuals? I suspect these babies (i.e., those born after 30 days from the executive order; on or after February 19, 2025) will have bigger issues to worry about other than their U.S. tax issues if SCOTUS rules against them.
Did USCs Born in the U.S. (not to USC Parents) – Accidentally “Expatriate” for U.S. Tax Purposes? – per President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14160
Will the “gold card” sell to ultra high net worth investors around the world who want U.S. citizenship (“USC”)? What are the tax costs of USC? * About the Author: Patrick W. Martin
President Trump again announced on April 3, aboard Air Force One his plan:
Whether the U.S. adopts a new “Gold Card” “For $5 million [that] we will allow the most successful job-creating people from all over the world to buy a path to U.S. citizenship,” is up to the U.S. government.
Congress can amend Title 8 and include a new “Gold Card” option.
Current law provides the EB-5 visa as one path towards a “green card” that ultimately can lead to U.S. citizenship through naturalization.
President Trump presented at his March 4th speech to a joint session of Congress, explaining the concept: “It’s like the green card, but better and more sophisticated. And these people will have to pay tax in our country.”
Sounds like a panacea to help the U.S. federal deficit problem? If 100,000 of these “Gold Cards” were sold for $5M each, and these funds were paid directly over to the federal government, that would raise $500 billion dollars. If 1 million were sold, that would be $5 trillion dollars to use to pay down the deficit (running annually at far greater than $1 trillion dollars since 2019).
To put that into perspective, the EB-5 visa that also leads to a “green card” that can further lead to U.S. citizenship through naturalization has an annual visa limit of about 10,000. See, USCIS’s article – (16 Aug 2024) – Annual Limit Reached in the EB-5 Unreserved Category There have been multiple years where the annual visa limit was not met. Prior to 2015, the 10,000 visa limit was never met and in several years there were less than 500 EB-5 visas issued annually.
There have been less than 150,000 EB-5 visas issued over the last 35 years since its adoption in 1990. Is it realistic to be able to “sell” even ten thousand $5M gold visas annually, when the “green EB-5 visa” costs $800,000 and has had less than 150,000 issued in nearly 35 years?
Equity Investment for EB-5 visa – $800,000 (Does NOT go to the Government)
The total required equity investment amount for an EB-5 visa in the qualifying project, is only $800,000 (if in a “TEA”). See, EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program, as published by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). See, USCIS’s Chapter 2 – Immigrant Petition Eligibility Requirements. It used to be only $500,000 (1/10th of $5M). A TEA is a targeted employment area (“TEA”) that meets specific requirements under the law. If the capital investment is not in a TEA, the required minimal capital investment amount is $1,050,000 that increases in January 1, 2027 and each 5 years thereafter. Still about 1/5th the cost of a “gold visa”.
U.S. Estate and Gift Tax Consequences for U.S. Citizens and those with a Green Card (“Gold Card”?)
Finally, maybe the biggest impact on who wants an investor visa that leads to U.S. citizenship depends largely upon the U.S. income tax and U.S. estate and gift tax consequences. There are many tax implications. See, my case Aroeste v United States – Order Nov 2023, that was appealed to the 9th Circuit by the Office of Solicitor General (DOJ). U.S. District Court ruled in favor of green card holder.
There is an idea that only recently has permanent resident US immigration status into the United States grown substantially. The peak years were in the early 1990s as to absolute numbers. However, the greatest number of permanent residents as a relative percentage of the population was in the early 1900s; by far. See the chart below that I created from DHS immigration statistics data.
There were more LPRs admitted, in absolute terms in 1905 (1,026,499) than in 2022 (1,018,349).
[arm_restrict_content plan=”2,” type=”show”]
In percentage terms the total number of LPRs in 1905 compared to the total population was more than four times (4X) greater than in 2022 when it was (about 3/10th of 1 percent or 0.306%; versus a total population of 333 million) . In 1905 the total population was about 84 million, with newly admitted LPRs representing 1.225 percent of the entire resident population (1.225%; is greater than 4X the 2022 relative percentage).
The “Mark to Market” Tax that did NOT Exist in 1820, 1913, 1966 (Not Until 1996)
The US tax expatriation laws now impose a “mark to market” tax on so-called “long-term residents” who become “covered expatriates.” Such a concept in the tax law never existed in the early part of the 20th century, and indeed only became law in 1996. See an earlier post, The Foreign Investors Tax Act of 1966 (“FITA”) – The Origin of US Tax Expatriation law
This so-called Mark to Market tax is based upon a legal fiction, as if the individuals sold their worldwide assets on the “expatriation date.” It applies, even though there’s no current sale of assets, no disposition, transfer, change of ownership, change of title, or other “realization” event. The term “realization” is very significant in US tax law, including as recently discussed by the United States Supreme Court. See below and Moore v. the United States (2024) .
Below is a table of LPRs who were admitted to that status, per year, over the last 200+ years starting in 1820:
Are you or any of your family members one of these millions (more than 88 million) of LPR individuals represented in the above graph over the last 200+ years?
No Court in the land has explicitly ruled on whether the “mark to market” tax under Section 877A is unconstitutional. However, many international tax minds (myself included) have doubted the ability of Congress to levy a tax on unrealized wealth in light of Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920) and the language of the amendment ratified in 1913 to the Constitution.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
16th Amendment of the Constitution [emphasis added]:
One of the exceptional international tax minds, Professor Reuven S. Avi-Yonah has been writing a lot about this issue after submitting an amicus brief along with Professor Bret Wells to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in the Moore case which was decided last week. Moore v. United States, No. 22-800 (06/20/2024). Moore was not about “expatriation taxes” but rather a “mandatory repatriation tax” (“MRT”) under Section 965.
Moore argued some of the fundamental issues that lie at the core, in my view, of whether Congress has the legal authority to impose taxation (as an income tax) based upon the increased value of assets as of the date, the individual becomes a “covered expatriate”. How does the individual have any income (see, Eisner v. Macomber) by merely holding and having the same assets on the day prior to “expatriation” as the day after? No sales, no exchanges, no dispositions, no transfers, no gifting, etc. – and yet 26 U. S. C. § 877A imposes taxation on “income.”
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?
This 1998 U.S. Treasury report was written before the IRS and the Department of Justice started enforcing what has now become numerous international information reporting penalty provisions in the law. The author watched the change over these years, and the introduction of some new statutory penalties (e.g., 26 USC § 6039F in 1996; § 6039D in 2010; § 6039G in 1996; and major modifications in 2010 to § 6048, among others and increased FBAR penalties). Most importantly, the biggest change was how international individual taxpayers can (and often are) severely penalized by the IRS.
This 1998 report is full of sensible ideas. The Treasury explains the complex tax laws applicable to United States citizens (“USCs”) and lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) residing outside the U.S. The report has suggestions on how to best educate international taxpayers living overseas who are impacted by these laws.
Fast forward more than 25 years later (post 9/11/2001; post USA Patriot Act of 2001; post Swiss Bank scandals 2009+; post FATCA 2010+, etc.) and we are in a world of international tax penalties galore.
The U.S. international tax world in 2024 is a very different world, even though the core of the U.S. international tax law of how much tax is owing has largely remained the same for individuals. The calculation of income taxes for USCs and LPRs living overseas in 2024 is largely the same as it was in 1998. Plus, the IRS reports that only 10,684 resident income tax returns (IRS Form 1040) were filed by these individuals living overseas in the last year the IRS Office of Statistics reporting tax returns with IRS Form 2555 (Foreign Earned Income).
What has changed over these years is the IRS enforcement and easy found money on penalty collections. One example is the penalty for reporting tax-free gifts and inheritances. The reporting requirement of that law (26 U.S. Code § 6039F – Notice of large gifts received from foreign persons) was adopted in 1996.
The IRS has been increasingly aggressive in asserting international tax penalties: The available data shows . . . there were over 4,000 penalties assessed against individuals and businesses, totaling $1.7 billion [just for this penalty under 6039F]. During this period, the average penalty was . . . $426,000 . . .
Taxpayer Advocate Report (2023): Most Serious Problem #8 – The IRS’s Approach to International Information Return Penalties Is Draconian and Inefficient
The IRS assessed US$1.7 billion of penalties for this simple 6039F reporting violation over the four years of 2018-2021. The 2018 amounts tripled or quadrupled in subsequent years (e.g., $77M v. $238M v. 282M). Not all of these taxpayers are residing overseas, but certainly USCs and LPRs residing outside the U.S. are likely to encounter foreign gifts and foreign bequests, simply because their lives are foreign!
On the flip side, there have been few favorable changes to the U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) living outside the U.S. over these 25 years.
The most favorable developments have come in the last year or so. Importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the IRS interpretation of multiple per year non-willful FBAR penalties inUnited States v. Bittner, 143 S. Ct. 713 (2023). The author of this blog worked on the ACTEC amicus brief in Bittner, cited by the majority opinion (Justice Gorsuch) and the dissent (Justice Sotomayor).
Also of significance for individuals living in tax treaty countries is the case of Mr. Aroeste. The author of this blog represents the Mexico City resident who had not formally abandoned his LPRs. The case law provides significant relief for different groups of international taxpayers pursuant per the ruling by the federal district court in Aroeste v United States, 22-cv-00682-AJB-KSC (20 Nov. 2023). That case had over $3M of penalties assessed for IRS Forms 5471, 3520 and FBAR filings.
Plus, the DOJ conceded the penalty assessed against a Polish immigrant for a foreign gift in Wrzesinski v. United States, No. 2:22-cv-03568, (E.D. Pa. Mar 7, 2023) for not filing IRS Form 3520 based upon reasonable cause. Finally, the U.S. Tax Court decision in Farhy v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (2023) concluded the IRS could not automatically assess penalties for not filing IRS Form 5471.
Indeed, the international tax world has changed much over this past quarter century since the 1998 U.S. Treasury report. These recent string of cases in favor of international taxpayers is starting to look like a positive trend. See, Six Weeks, Three International Information Reporting Decisions (18 Sept. 2023).
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.
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):
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.comduring 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.comduring 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 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
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)
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.
The implications of the Aroeste v United States – Order (Nov 2023) particularly for millions of taxpayers globally and “U.S.” taxpayers affected by pertinent tax treaty provisions, will be a focal point of discussion at the upcoming international tax conference in February.
The University of San Diego School of Law – Chamberlain International Tax Institute will take place on February 19th and 20th, 2024, at the International Convention Center in Mérida, Yucatán, México. You can register for the conference – HERE –
Among the courses offered, there will be a detailed examination of- Aroeste v. the United States: Limits on Government Authority Re: Tax Treaty Law ++– along with other international tax topics and sessions featuring much Moore:
United States Supreme Court – Tax Decisions & Moore
International Tax Reporting: New Reporting of International Partnerships – K-2s & K-3s
United States-based Cross-Border Real Estate Investments (Advanced)
U.S. Investor Visa Options and Limitations
California, Texas & Florida Probate Proceedings of Cross-Border Estates
