Unplanned Expatriation: Lawful Permanent Residents’ Deportation Risks for Filing U.S. Federal False Tax Returns
One sure way to “get expatriated” as a lawful permanent resident (even if that was not the plan) is to file a false federal tax return, statement or provide false information to the government. U.S. citizens cannot be deported for filing false tax returns, due to Constitutional rights. 
Kawashima vs. Holder, (2012), is a story of a Japanese family that lived legally in the U.S. with lawful permanent residency status. According to the L.A. Times,
“Akio and Fukado Kawashima came to Southern California in 1984 as lawful Japanese immigrants determined to succeed in business. They operated popular sushi restaurants in Thousand Oaks and Tarzana and recently opened a new eatery in Encino.
But after they underreported their business income in 1991, they paid a hefty price. The Internal Revenue Service hit them with $245,000 in taxes and penalties. The couple pleaded guilty and paid in full. A decade later, the Immigration and Naturalization Service decided to deport them. . . “
The crucial mistake was the filing of a false return as defined under IRC Section 7206(1):
“(1) Declaration under penalties of perjury . . . Willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document . . . made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter . . . “
The Supreme Court ruled in this case that the false return that generated a revenue loss of at least US$10,000 for the government was properly classified by the government as an “aggravated felony.” In other words, the tax returns were materially false (which the taxpayers had plead to previously) and created an unpaid tax liability of at least US$10,000. The Supreme Court cited the immigration law (Title 8) and found such an offense to be a violation of Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) as an:
“(iii) Aggravated felony
Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.
The false tax return which created a tax liability of a relatively low threshold of US$10,000 therefore carries potentially sever consequences.
See a prior post that briefly discusses IRC Section 7206(1), see, What could be the focal point of IRS Criminal Investigations of Former U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents?
While most USCs residing overseas will never be concerned about deportation (which should generally not be available to the government, due to constitutional rights of the U.S. citizen) LPRs filing tax returns will indeed want to consider carefully the implications of ” . . . any [and all tax and other] return[s], statement[s], or other document[s] . . . ” submitted to the federal government.
Also, prior posts discussed the law and risks associated with filing or sending false documents, information or returns to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) –
See,Take Caution when Completing a “Tax Organizer” Provided by Your Tax Return Preparer, posted July 19, 2014;
*Is the new government focus on U.S. citizens living outside the U.S. misguided or a glimpse at the new future?* posted March 6, 2014, Will the Justice Department and Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS Turn Their Sights on USCs or LPRs living Overseas? posted March 19, 2014,
The relevance of the Kawashima case to readers of this blog, is how a “long-term resident” may inadvertently find they will trigger the “mark-to-market” tax on their worldwide assets and later cause their U.S. beneficiaries to be subject to what is currently a 40% tax on the receipt of certain gifts and inheritances. See, prior posts on LPR status – Who is a “long-term” lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) and why does it matter?, posted August 19, 2014.
Some prior news coverage of the Kawashima v. Holder case here:
Legal immigrants face deportation for filing false tax return
The Supreme Court rules against a couple who pleaded guilty and paid in full, saying the crime was an ‘aggravated felony’ subject to automatic deportation. Tax lawyers say the decision is ominous.
Taxpayer’s Burden of Proving the Impossible (?) – Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 (FATCA) Withholding Taxes Paid by Third Parties
The IRS has issued a Notice (Notice 2015-10) this year announcing its intention to modify the Treasury Regulations regarding tax refunds. This new series of rules, Guidance on Refunds and Credits Under Chapter 3, Chapter 4, and Related Withholding Provisions will complicate the lives of taxpayers significantly. 
Indeed, I have already seen and handled cases where the IRS asserts the taxpayer is not entitled to a tax refund, unless and until they can prove the third party who withheld and paid over the tax (issuing IRS Forms 1042 to all parties, including the IRS and the taxpayer) actually issued and deposited those payments.
These cases are like “proving a negative” since the withholding agent (typically a bank) who made and paid over the deposit, almost never makes single identifying payments for each amount of tax withheld. Typically, there are multiple taxpayers where the withholding tax was made and a single deposit made to the IRS. Those are indeed the specific rules set forth by the IRS. See, IRS Publication 515, withholding of tax on nonresidents
It gets even worse in Qualified Intermediary (“QI”) cases, where a large pool of withholding taxes are made. Typically, I have found the financial institution keeps detailed records of the payments and deposits (along with IRS Forms 1042s), but never has a payment specific to a particular taxpayer, as the deposit payments correspond to multiple taxpayers at once. Indeed, the IRS has acknowledged this treatment in this notice when it states:
Under the existing information reporting, withholding, and deposit procedures, a withholding agent does not indicate to which beneficial owner the deposit of tax relates, and such information is not reported on Form 1042 or 1042-S. Under the existing procedures, therefore, an amount deducted by the withholding agent with respect to a payment to the beneficial owner cannot be matched with an amount of tax deposited in the withholding agent’s Form 1042 account.
See page 5 of (Notice 2015-10).
There is a huge incentive for withholding agents to timely pay and deposit the taxes. There are harsh penalties levied against the withholding agent if they do not timely deposit and pay over the taxes, as follows:
Penalty rate. If the deposit is:
- 1 to 5 days late, the penalty is 2% of the underpayment,
- 6 to 15 days late, the penalty is 5%, or
- 16 or more days late, the penalty is 10%.
However, if the deposit is not made within 10 days after the IRS issues the first notice demanding payment, the penalty is 15%.
In short, the proposal in the form of modifying the regulations puts the burden on the nonresident taxpayer to prove the tax was withheld, before he or she will be entitled to a refund.
This is a new development in a series of developments where the IRS and Treasury simply issue regulations in areas of the law they do not seem to like. Further, it puts an unrealistic burden on nonresident taxpayers who are relying upon the third party withholding agent who makes the payment of taxes.
The long term affect of this rule, will be to force more taxpayers to file suits for refund in the Court of Federal Claims or U.S. District Court, which is necessarily complicated and costly.
More posts to come on this Notice 2015-10 and amendments to the Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 (FATCA) withholding tax regulations.
Finally – Proposed Regulations for “Covered Gifts” and “Covered Bequests” Issued by Treasury Last Week (Be Careful What You Ask For!)
The U.S. Treasury department has issued proposed regulations implementing the tax on “covered gifts” and “covered bequests.” There have been numerous posts about this tax that was first created in 2008 by new IRC Section 2801 (which has it’s own chapter in Title 26 – aka the Internal Revenue Code or “IRC”: Chapter 15, Gifts and Bequests from Expatriates). The regulations can be reviewed here – Guidance under Section 2801 Regarding the Imposition of Tax on Certain Gifts and Bequests from Covered Expatriates
See prior posts, When does “Covered Expatriate” Status -NOT- matter?, (May 2015); See, The “Hidden Tax” of Expatriation – Section 2801 and its “Forever Taint.” (April 2014) and Proposal to U.S. Treasury and IRS: awaits Final Regulations on “Covered Gifts” and “Covered Bequests” (December 2014).
The tax is levied currently at 40% and can be a big surprise to U.S. beneficiaries who receive so-called “covered gifts” and “covered bequests.” The actual implementation of the tax and its enforcement was suspended until Treasury issued regulations. That day has now come and final regulations will follow shortly.
The proposed regulations create an ingenious mechanism by which assets that are received from foreign trusts (which make an election to be taxed as domestic trusts) cannot escape the 40% taxation. Specifically, there was concern expressed to me by Treasury officials drafting the regulations, when I had submitted a proposal to the U.S. Treasury on the subject in May of 2014. See, COVERED GIFTS & BEQUESTS: THE NEED FOR GUIDANCE (5+ YEARS OUT)
* * *
There was concern by the U.S. Treasury that U.S. persons could escape the tax when assets are received by foreign trusts which elect to be taxed as domestic trusts. In those cases, the statute imposes the tax liability on the trust and not the U.S. beneficiary. Hence, the concern expressed by some of the key drafters at U.S. Treasury of the regulations, was that a foreign trust would make the election and purposefully NOT pay the tax imposed by the statute, since the trustee would be outside the U.S. and largely outside the jurisdiction of the IRS.
The proposed regulations create a mechanism by which the trustee cannot slip away so easily, as they will NOT be treated as a domestic trust (versus a foreign trust) in such circumstances where the tax is not actually paid. In those cases, the U.S. beneficiary will be liable for the tax.
It also has some unique concepts that are not necessarily intuitive under the law. For instance, those individuals who are not U.S. citizens, yet live in the U.S. on a nearly full time basis, might still be able to avoid the application of the tax (at least in certain circumstances) if they are not “domiciled” in the U.S. The term “domicile” is a key estate and gift tax term of tax residency, that is not tied to the number of days an individual spend in the U.S. Rather, it is tied to the subjective intention of whether they expect to spend the rest of their lives in the U.S. See, Section 28.2801-2(b) of the proposed regulations which defines residents as those under “Chapter 11” and “Chapter 12”; which are the rules of “domicile” for transfer tax purposes. These are different from the rules of income tax residency found in IRC Section 7701.
The operative definition is found in (b)(1) of the Regulations: 26 CFR 20.0-1 – Introduction.:
“A person acquires a domicile in a place by living there, for even a brief period of time, with no definite present intention of later removing therefrom. Residence without the requisite intention to remain indefinitely will not suffice to constitute domicile, nor will intention to change domicile effect such a change unless accompanied by actual removal.”
Notice, there is no reference to the number of days physically spent in the U.S.
More to be discussed on the proposed regulations in later posts.
CORRECTION TO A PRIOR POST – How Many of the 5,211 Former U.S. Citizens (who Renounced in 2014 and 2015) are Still U.S. Taxpayers?
My goal is to provide useful information on U.S. federal tax law provisions for U.S. citizens who renounce. As this blog provides, it does not provide legal advice specific to any individual circumstances.
A prior post (How Many of the 5,211 Former U.S. Citizens (who Renounced in 2014 and 2015) are Still U.S. Taxpayers?) erroneously indicated that many of these individuals continue to be U.S. persons for federal income tax purposes.
This is not necessarily the case, depending upon when the U.S. citizenship terminated; i.e., when was the “expatriation date” as provided for in the statute. It is very possible that individuals who have renounced citizenship and did not certify under Section 877(a)(2)(C) are “covered expatriates” with all of the adverse tax consequences that befall that status (including to any future U.S. beneficiaries).
They will not necessarily continue to be “U.S. persons” for other purposes of Title 26.
I will run a series of posts over the next month or so that will discuss some of the vexing timing issues in the statute in this regard.
Letter from Your Non-U.S. Bank Regarding Chapter 4 of Subtitle A of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code – aka – “FATCA”
Financial institutions, outside the U.S. have been taking numerous steps to advise their U.S. born clients and U.S. resident clients about the reporting of their account information to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.
These letters take various forms, depending upon the institution. In short, they normally say that as a result of the “Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act” (aka – FATCA, which comes from the newly created Chapter 4 of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26) they will be providing various account information to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.
Some institutions are accelerating the information provided to include the account number, account holders/owners, balances and income from all sources. FATCA does not require all of this information until it is fully phased in over the next couple of years.
Many U.S. born individuals who have resided virtually all of their lives outside the U.S., often find out for the first time they are U.S. income tax residents by virtue of their birth and the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. See, Co-author. “Tax Simplification: The Need for Consistent Tax Treatment of All Individuals (Citizens, Lawful Permanent Residents and Non-Citizens Regardless of Immigration Status) Residing Overseas, Including the Repeal of U.S. Citizenship Based Taxation,” by Patrick W. Martin and Professor Reuven Avi-Yonah, September 2013.
In many cases, I have seen and advised individuals who are first learning of these obligations when they open new accounts and the financial institution outside the U.S. requests an IRS Form W-9 with a U.S. taxpayer identification number, i.e., the social security number for U.S. citizens. See an older post (23 July 2014) – Why do I have to get a Social Security Number to file a U.S. income tax return (USCs)?
The financial institution will have them certify under penalty of perjury their status as a U.S. person or not. If the individual was born in the U.S., they will necessarily be a U.S. person unless (i) they were born to diplomatic parents who were on diplomatic assignment in the U.S., or (ii) they renounced their U.S. citizenship and obtained a Certificate of Loss of Nationality from the U.S. Department of State. See, The Importance of a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (“CLN”) and FATCA – Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act
These FATCA letters are no longer just for U.S. taxpayers with non-U.S. accounts. Countries throughout the world are using the exchange of information agreements between the U.S. Treasury and other countries, the Intergovernmental Agreements to notify their taxpayers that soon information about their U.S. accounts will be made available to their tax authorities. See, recent Mexican articles released including August 26, 2015, in the El Siglo de Torreón, titled Preparan SAT y EU auditorías: ”
“El Servicio de Administración Tributaria (SAT) realizará el primer intercambio de información con Estados Unidos en septiembre para las primeras auditorías de personas con cuentas bancarias en Estados Unidos a partir del próximo año, aseguró Aristóteles Núñez, jefe del fisco.
“Vamos a poder conocer quiénes tienen cuentas en Estados Unidos y con ello empezar a revisar quién ha pagado sus impuestos y si no lo ha hecho habrá auditorías.”
FATCA Driven (Even More . . . ) – New IRS Forms W-8BEN versus W-8BEN-E versus W-9 (etc. etc.) for USCs and LPRs Overseas – It’s All About Information and More Information (Part III)
Information and more information is the mantra of revised IRS Forms as a result of FATCA. See, FATCA Driven – New IRS Forms W-8BEN versus W-8BEN-E versus W-9 (etc. etc.) for USCs and LPRs Overseas – It’s All About Information and More Information
U.S. citizens residing outside the U.S. along with lawful permanent residents (“LPRs”) are not the only
persons who need to understand the IRS forms referenced above. Indeed, all entities and institutions, whether they are small privately held companies or large and traditional financial institutions are required to complete and have signed a range of IRS forms.
The forms can be either the actual IRS form, or a satisfactory substitute form. Many individuals are of the erroneous view that if they are not financial institutions, they do not need to concern themselves with these classifications.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. Also, these classification rules apply to the surprise of many, if there are (or are not) U.S. persons involved.
In addition to a basic understanding of U.S. laws, it is also crucial that the parties see if their country has entered into an IGA. For instance, if we examine the tiny little country of Liechtenstein which has a relatively large financial sector, it is necessary to first classify the type of entity.
For instance, if it is a Liechtenstein Stiftung, it will probably (but not necessary) be a trust and not a corporation. See the IRS Memorandum from 2009 that provides that a Liechtenstein Stiftung will be classified as a trust, if its primary purpose is to protect or conserve the property transferred to the Stiftung for the Stiftung’s beneficiaries and is usually not established primarily for actively carrying on business activities.[1]
[1] See Memorandum Number: AM2009-012, dated October 16, 2009, issued by the Office of Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service.
Next, in this example, with a Liechtenstein Stiftung, the country of Liechtenstein has entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (“IGA”).
Hence, the terms of the IGA are most important. Under the IGA, as is the case generally for FATCA, the entity has to be either an Foreign Financial Institution (“FFI” or “FI”) or a Non-Financial Foreign Entity (“NFFE”).
1) Definition of Financial Institution (“FI”)
A financial institution is any entity that:
- Accepts deposits in the ordinary course of a banking or similar business (“Depository Institution”);[1]
- Holds, as a substantial portion of its business financial assets for the benefit of one or more other persons (“Custodial Institution”);[2]
- Is an investment entity; or
- Is an specified insurance company or holding company that is a member of an expanded group;[3]
[1] See Article 1(i), IGA.
[2] See Article 1(h), IGA.
[3] See Article 1(k), IGA.
Generally a private Liechtenstein Stiftung would not satisfy any of these requirements (although it could conceivably be the case that one could be an “investment entity”). Hence, it would generally be an NFFE and not an FI.
NFFEs can be passive or active. The kind of compliance obligations varies depending on the type of NFFE (passive or active).
- Passive NFFEs
A passive NFFE is an NFFE which is not an active NFFE or a withholding foreign partnership or withholding foreign trust.[1]
There are several criteria under which a NFFE can be classified as an active NFFE. The following explain the most relevant criteria.
- Active NFFEs
Among the criteria that the IGA establishes, under which a NFFE can be considered as an Active NFFE, are the following:
1) If less than 50% of the NFFE’s gross income is passive income and less than 50% of the assets held by the NFFE are assets that produce or are held for the production of passive income during the preceding calendar year. A
2) Substantially all of the activities of the NFFE consist of holding (in whole or in part) the outstanding stock of, or providing financing and businesses other than the business of a Financial Institution.
Sometimes trusts or Stiftungs will also participate in or hold interests in companies, some of which may engage in active trades or businesses or simply hold passive investments. On the contrary, the companies/subsidiaries only hold other assets from which they derived passive income (e.g., dividends, interests, rents, royalties, etc.).[2]
This will determine if a Stiftung will be classified as a Passive NFFE or not under FATCA regulations and the IGA.
[1] It also can make a difference if the trust (or Stiftung in this example) is a so-called “withholding” foreign trust; which generally requires an agreement with the IRS.
[2] Treas. Reg. § 1.1472-1.
Not surprisingly, the above analysis is complex, because the rules are complex. Accordingly, it has been the author’s experience, that many institutions around the world which request one or more of the above IRS Forms have great difficulty in even implementing these rules. Most of their employees seem to have little understanding of what is a very complex area of law, even when their resident country has issued extensive regulations or guidance about how the terms of the IGA are to be implemented.
How Many of the 5,211 Former U.S. Citizens (who Renounced in 2014 and 2015) are Still U.S. Taxpayers?
CORRECTION TO THIS POST: If you renounced your U.S. citizenship, you may think you cease to be a U.S. taxpayer. This depends upon when the termination of citizenship occurred.
More posts will follow addressing these issues.
Unfortunately, the law is not that simple, regardless of your wealth, income, assets or future inheritances or gifts.
The way the federal tax law works, is that the U.S. “expatriation tax law” applies to the poorest former U.S. citizen (and certain long-term LPRs), wherever they reside if they do not comply with the certification requirements of Section 877(a)(2)(C). See, Why “covered expat” (“covered expatriate”) status matters, even if you have no assets! The “Forever Taint”!
The law continues to obligate certain former U.S. citizens to be subject to the U.S. taxation laws on a worldwide bases, unless and until they notify the IRS and certify under penalty of perjury. This depends upon the time of the renunciation.
Part II: U.S. Department of State has Allowed (Starting in at least 2013) USCs to Keep their U.S. Passports After Oath and Prior to Receiving CLN
See the first post on this topic: U.S. Department of State has Allowed (Starting in at least 2013) USCs to Keep their U.S. Passports After Oath and Prior to Receiving CLN, Posted on March 17, 2015
A U.S. citizen is required to have a U.S. passport to enter the U.S., according to the immigration law regulations 22 CFR § 53.1 require that a U.S. citizen have a U.S. passport to enter or depart the United States. 
The relevant part of the regulations is § 53.1(a) which provides as follows:
Passport requirement; definitions.
The U.S. Department of State does not always provide any specific document, e.g., a certified copy of any of the following documents, after you take the oath of renunciation:
Form DS-4080, Oath of Renunciation of the Nationality of the United States.
Not having a U.S. passport can of course be problematic if the individual needs to travel in or out of the U.S. for a period of time after taking the oath, but before receiving the CLN. See, The Importance of a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (“CLN”) and FATCA – Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, Posted on June 1, 2014
Fortunately, I have been told by several Chiefs of American Citizen Services in different U.S. Consulates and U.S. Embassies that they have been advised from Washington that they are NOT required to physically take the U.S. passport, until after the issuance of the CLN. This now seems to be consistent practice throughout the world, and most all Chiefs of American Citizen Services use this approach, based upon my personal experience with different clients.
Timing Issues for Lawful Permanent Residents (“LPR”) Who Never “Formally Abandoned” Their Green Card
The “tax expatriation” statutory provisions are fraught with ambiguity and incomplete answers for those individuals who have cases that span different time periods. This is because the law has been changed numerous times over the last several years and ad hoc concepts added, including the technical concept of “long-term residents” for the first time in 1996. As has been previously explained, the first “expatriation tax” law was not adopted until 1966 as part of the The Foreign Investors Tax Act of 1966 (“FITA”) – The Origin of U.S. Tax Expatriation Law (Posted on April 6, 2014).
Next, 1996 amendments kept the basic regime but added a number of key concepts, including “long-term residents”. The changes in the law in 2004 made significant changes and in 2008 the first “mark to market” regime was adopted. Each time, the concept of “long-term residents” was maintained, but without clear thought as to the meaning and timing of “expatriation” in various cases. See, Timeline Summary of Changes in Tax Expatriation Provisions Since 1996, (Posted on April 9, 2014)
Unfortunately, none of these amendments to the law over the years carefully incorporated transition and timing rules for cases where the individual has lived in (or had U.S. citizenship or LPR) during one more of these time periods:
- 1966-1996
- 1996-2004
- 2004-2008
- 2008-present
There are many inconsistent concepts among the law and one clear example is demonstrated by an individual who became a lawful permanent resident prior to 1996 and prior to amendments in the definition of a “resident alien” which was adopted generally in the federal tax in the law in 1984. This 1984 definition was not part of any specific “expatriation tax” provisions.
Remember, the technical definition of who is a “resident alien” is the basic definition of who is generally subject to U.S. income taxation on their worldwide income. See, Co-author. “Tax Simplification: The Need for Consistent Tax Treatment of All Individuals (Citizens, Lawful Permanent Residents and Non-Citizens Regardless of Immigration Status) Residing Overseas, Including the Repeal of U.S. Citizenship Based Taxation,” by Patrick W. Martin and Professor Reuven Avi-Yonah, September 2013.
Prior to 1984, a LPR was not necessarily an income tax resident of the U.S. This concept of LPR (i.e., a “green card”) driving U.S. income tax residency was adopted in 1984, long before Congress became obsessed with U.S. individual tax expatriation. For background in the law, see the 1985 Penn State Law Review Article – Internal Revenue Code 7701(b): A More Certain Definition of Resident
The Joint Committee on Taxation report on the 1984 changes in the tax law (“General explanation of the revenue provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 : (H.R. 4170, 98th Congress; Public Law 98-369)“) addressing the tax residency test of “lawful permanent residency” rules provides the following language:
. . . The Act defines “lawful permanent resident” to mean an individual who 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, if such status has not been revoked or administratively or judicially determined to have been abandoned. Therefore, an alien who comes to the United States so infrequently that, on scrutiny, he or she is no longer legally entitled to permanent resident status, but who has not officially lost or abandoned that status, will be a resident for tax purposes. The purpose for this requirement of revocation or determination is to prevent aliens from attempting to retain an apparent right to enter or remain in the United States while attempting to avoid the tax responsibility that accompanies that right.
The logic of the LPR test is clear based upon this explanation. If one has the right to live in the U.S., they cannot avoid the tax responsibility that accompanies that right. However, as immigration lawyers will explain, there is no right to enter the U.S. after you have abandoned your LPR status and moved outside the U.S. on a permanent basis.
At the same time, there is other discussion in the report that would support the position that these provisions only apply for the years 1985 and thereafter (long after many individuals obtained LPR status, but who moved out of the country – e.g., in cases where individuals obtained LPR in the 1970s and left before 1985). Specifically, the explanation in the Joint Committee of Taxation is as follows:
. . . The purpose of this effective date rule is to delay tax resident status for only new green cardholders for a short time. Congress understood further that an alien may acquire lawful permanent resident status for immigration purposes before U.S. presence. Congress sought to impose tax resident status on all lawful permanent residents once they arrive in the United States. The Act does not affect the determination of residence, even for green card holders, for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1985.
Of course, the report by the Joint Committee on Taxation (“JCT”) is not the law and does not bind the IRS or the taxpayer. However, the JCT usually get their explanations of the law right.
Why is all of this important for LPRs who never formally abandoned their “green card”? The IRS might well try to argue they never terminated their U.S. federal income tax residency for purposes of the “tax expatriation provisions”, as later versions of the statute impose an obligation to notify the IRS. If the individual never notified the IRS, the government might ar
See, for instance Section 7701(b)(6) with specific rules for LPR individuals who live in a country with a U.S. income tax treaty. Importantly, the definition of a lawful permanent resident for tax purposes (as defined in Section 7701(b) ) is not identical to the definition for immigration law purposes as the legislative history to the 1984 amendments to the law explains.
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.
Finally, the information required as part of the process of formal abandonment is much more extensive than in the past.
A prior post discussed the published USCIS immigration form I-407 for LPRs who must now use it when formally abandoning LPR status. See, More Information and More Information: USCIS Creates New Form for Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Residency
See, new I-407 Form requires that much more information and is 2 pages in length.