Many individuals have no idea that, under the legal principles confirmed in the federal district court case I litigated — Aroeste v United States, 22-cv-00682-AJB-KSC (20 Nov. 2023) – they may already be treated as “covered expatriates” as a matter of law.
Along Comes Section 2801 – and 2025 Final Regulations – The “Forever Taint” to Family and Friends (Paying the Taxman)
Aroeste – Landmark Decision Confirms the Law – Tax Treaty Law Applies – Taxpayers Do Not Waive Benefits per Gov’t
These writings all addressed the same underlying legal and policy expectations that courts would eventually be required to confront — issues now directly addressed in Aroeste. The Aroestedecision is also consistent with positions I successfully advanced in three separate U.S. Tax Court cases involving green card holders, none of which resulted in published opinions because the government ultimately conceded to my arguments and my clients prevailed prior to trial.
This case law has great impact on green card holders who are living principally outside of the U.S. There are 3.88 million 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. Many of these individuals might be considering their immigration law consequences (particularly after the latest announcement from the USCIS – impact these immigration consequences: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Will Grant ‘Adjustment of Status’ Only in Extraordinary Circumstances (May 2026) Few have considered the tax law implications.
Those individuals who have green cards and live in and outside of the United States, should understand the tax and legal implications to them.
There are millions of individuals in this category. i.e., those who have “emigrated” with an “e” from the United States. There are 3.88 million of these green card holders, as of 2024 according to the U.S. federal government’s latest report. The statistics are striking – that so many individuals reside outside the U.S.
These nearly 4 million individuals who do not reside principally in the U.S. are similar to the fact pattern of Mr. Aroeste residing in Mexico City. See the case where yours truly, Patrick W. Martin, was lead counsel in that landmark case – and the analysis of the District Court in Aroeste v. United States. The government lost.
Today’s post is a series of simple and key questions for those with green cards, to help them better hone in on the legal issues and U.S. tax risks that may be applicable to them:
Am I still a U.S. taxpayer?
What does it mean to be a U.S. taxpayer, when there are technical tax terms such as “United States person” and an individual who is a “lawful permanent resident” (not defined in the immigration law)?
I have a green card but I’ve lived outside the U.S. for years — do I still have to file U.S. tax returns?
The date on my physical green card has expired – does that mean I am no longer a a “lawful permanent resident” for tax purposes?
Does it matter whether my green card is expired, taken back at the airport, or just sitting in a drawer overseas?
Is there a difference between “giving up” my green card and just letting it lapse?
Aroeste v. United States — what does it mean for me? –
Why are all of the above questions so important to me – since I previously obtained a “green card”?
Subsequent posts will address additional key questions that can have a significant legal consequence to individuals who had or have a green card and spend substantial time outside of the United States. For a preview, look at Oops.. .Did I Expatriate and Never Know It – International Tax Journal 2014
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.
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).
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
Please first read Part I of this series: Most important Questions for “Green Card” Holders (“lawful permanent residents”): Part I of VI, which outlines some of the foundational questions every green card holder should consider before addressing the additional issues questions below.
Many individuals have no idea that, under the legal principles confirmed in the federal district court case I litigated — Aroeste v United States, 22-cv-00682-AJB-KSC (20 Nov. 2023) – they may already be treated as “covered expatriates” as a matter of law.
renouncing USC and triggering the U.S. “expatriation tax” that is the primary focus of these materials. See, these regulations – here: Guidance Under Section 2801 Regarding the Imposition of Tax on Certain Gifts and Bequests From Covered Expatriates
