expatriation

Part II: Who is a “long-term” lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) and why does it matter?

Posted on

A post in August 2014 explained the basic rule of who is a  “long-term resident” as that technical term is defined for tax purposes in IRC Section 877 (e)(2).  There is much confusion about how the tax law defines a “lawful permanent resident” (“LPR”) versus Chart - USCs Who Renounce Compared to LPRs who Abandonhow immigration law defines what is almost the same concept.  The statutes are different and have definitions in two separate federal codes (Title 26, the federal tax provisions and Title 8, the immigration law provisions).

See   –

Who is a “long-term” lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) and why does it matter?

Posted on August 19, 2014

This follow-up comment is to highlight some key concepts about why it matters if you become a “long-term” resident as that term is defined in the tax law.

  • A LPR can reside for substantially shorter periods in the U.S. (shorter than the apparent 7 or 8 years identified in the statute), and still be a “long-term resident” per IRC Section 877 (e)(2) depending upon the facts of any particicular case.Table 4  Country of Brith of LPRs 2012

 

  • There are far more LPRs who abandon their status (formally) than U.S.  citizens who formally take the oath of renunciation.  See the table above reflecting those who have formally renounced U.S. citizenship versus those who have formally abandoned their LPR status.

 

  • Plenty of LPRs informally abandon their LPR status for immigration purposes by moving and living permanently outside the U.S.

 

 

  • There are plenty of timing issues for LPRs surrounding how and when they have “abandoned” their LPR status for purposes of IRC Section 877 (e)(2).  See –

Timing Issues for Lawful Permanent Residents (“LPR”) Who Never “Formally Abandoned” Their Green Card, Posted on August 15, 2015

 

 

 

Survey of the Law of Expatriation from 2002: Department of Justice Analysis (Not a Tax Discussion)

Posted on Updated on

Most discussions regarding renunciation/relinquishment of U.S. citizenship are highly focused towards the U.S. federal tax consequences.  Today, the focus is on a 2002 report prepared by the DOJ for the Solicitor General, who supervises and conducts government litigation in the United States Supreme Court.

The report is found here, and I have highlighted some key excerpts:  Survey of the Law of Expatriation: Department of Justice Analysis:World Map

You have asked us for a general survey of the laws governing loss of citizenship, a process known as “expatriation” (also known within the specific context of naturalized citizens as “denaturalization”). See, e.g.,Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 334 (1939) (“Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance.”). Part I of this memorandum provides a general description of the expatriation process. Part II notes the relative difficulty of expatriating a person on the grounds that he has either obtained naturalization in, or declared allegiance to, a foreign state, absent evidence of a specific intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship apart from the act of naturalization or declaration itself. Part III analyzes the expatriation of a person who serves in a foreign armed force
engaged in hostilities against the United States.1
*
1  Editor’s Note: The original footnote 1 has been removed in order to preserve the  confidentiality of  internal government deliberations.
* * *
*
. . . In 1868, Congress declared that “the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Act of July 27, 1868, ch. 249, pmbl., 15 Stat. 223, 223; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1481 note (2000) (quoting Rev. Stat. § 1999 (2d. ed. 1878), 18   Stat. pt. 1, at 350 (repl. vol.)) (same).US Citizens Who Renounced - Chart Qtr 3 - 2015
 *
That declaration further stated that “any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.” 15 Stat. at 224. Similarly, the Burlingame Treaty of 1868 between the United States and China recognized “the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance, and also the mutual advantage of . . . free migration and emigration . . . for purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent resident s.” U.S.-China, art. 5, July 28, 1868, 16 Stat. 739, 740. Congress provided specific legislative authority for nullifying citizenship when, in 1907, it enacted the predecessor of the modern federal expatriation statute.

* * *

 *
II. Foreign Naturalization or Declaration of Foreign Allegiance
 *
Under federal law, a U.S. citizen can lose his nationality if he voluntarily “obtain[s] naturalization in a foreign state… after having attained the age of eighteen years.” 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(1). Likewise, a citizen of the United States could be expatriated if he voluntarily “tak[es] an oath or mak[es] an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years.” Id. § 1481(a)(2). In either case, however, no loss of citizenship may result unless the citizen acts “with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.” Id. § 1481(a).
 *
The most common obstacle to expatriation in cases involving foreign naturalization or declaration of foreign allegiance is sufficient proof of a specific intention to renounce U.S. citizenship. Intent need not be proved with direct evidence, to be sure. It can be demonstrated circumstantially through conduct.  Thus, in some cases, such as service in a hostile foreign military at war with the United States, the act of expatriation itself may even constitute “highly persuasive evidence…of a purpose to abandon citizenship.” Terrazas , 444 U.S. at 261 (quotations omitted).
*
* * *
Dual nationality, the Supreme Court has explained, is “a status long recognized
in the law.” Kawakita, 343 U.S. at 723. See also id. at 734 (“Dual nationality . . . is
the unavoidable consequence of the conflicting laws of different countries. One
who becomes a citizen of this country by reason of birth retains it, even though by
the law of another country he is also a citizen of it.”) (citation omitted); Savorgnan, 338 U.S. at 500 (although “[t]he United States has long recognized the general undesirability of dual allegiances[,] . . . [t]emporary or limited duality of citizenship has arisen inevitably from differences in the laws of the respective nations as to when naturalization and expatriation shall become effective . . .
*
For some prior related posts, see: The Semantically Driven Vortex of “Relinquishing” vs. “Renouncing”, June 21, 2014 and various posts that highlight the statutory tax rules requiring notice be provided to the IRS (which is typically emphasized by an officer at the U.S. Department of State as part of the consulate interview to renounce U.S. citizenship); Part I: Tax Timing Problems for Former U.S. Citizens is Nothing New – the IRS and the Courts Have Decided Similar Issues in the Past (Pre IRC Section 877A(g)(4)), Oct 16, 2015.

See WSJ = World/Expats – For an Excellent Overview of U.S. Taxation for U.S. Citizen Individuals in Plain English

Posted on

For an excellent overview (without penalty hype or exaggeration of the U.S. tax law), read the following article from Eric Scali of H&R Block’s expat-focused service titled –Puncturing 7 Common Myths about U.S. Expat Tax Rules, Nov. 15, 2015, WSJ = Globe, EXPAT, For global nomads everywhereI-407 Abandonment Form

The following 7 myths are accurately addressed with respect to U.S. citizens residing outside the U.S. (although caution should be taken if you are a lawful permanent resident – “LPR”- residing inside a country with a U.S. income tax treaty – see, Does the IRS have access to the USCIS immigration data for former lawful permanent residents (LPRs)?, posted April 11, 2015 and the discussion of how many LPR individuals will have “expatriated” without actually having filed USCIS Form I-407.  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):

Myth #1: Individuals living outside of the U.S. and filing tax returns with a foreign government don’t have to file annual U.S. tax returns. 

Myth #2: Expats only need to report their U.S. income on their U.S. tax return.

Myth #3: If their foreign income is below the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (FEIE), expats don’t need to file a U.S. tax return.IRS Form 1040 p1

Myth #4: Work performed by an expat within the U.S. but paid by an expat’s foreign employer is foreign income because it’s paid by the foreign employer and not issued on a W-2.

Myth #5: Expats’ non-U.S.-based pension plans have the same tax treatment in the U.S. as they do in their country of residence.

Myth #6: When expats receive certain items of income, they’re only taxable in their country of residence under the rules provided for in the income tax treaty the foreign country has with the U.S.

Myth #7: An expat’s foreign investments are treated the same as they are in the foreign country.

Unfortunately, I have heard all of these and more (many times over) during my professional career as an international tax lawyer (and an accountant in the late 1980s) from both individuals and their tax advisers both inside the U.S. and outside the U.S.  As someone who lives with their family outside the U.S., I have a good understanding about the difficulty of finding good U.S. tax resources that accurately and simply explain these very complex laws.

IT AIN’T FAIR: First (1) taxing me as a U.S. citizen and then (2) taxing me on my relinquishment or renunciation of U.S. citizenship or LPR abandoment and further (3) taxing my children on their inheritance from me!@!@!

Posted on Updated on

This sums up the argument of many critics of U.S. citizenship based taxation of worldwide income.

Many may agree with this conclusion from an equity or sense of fairness argument.  See proposal below at the end of this post.  IRS Form 1040 p1

However, the argument of fairness has little place in interpretations of Title 26, the U.S. federal tax law.  For example, the U.S. Tax Courts are not courts of equity.  See, The United States Tax Court – An Historical Analysis, Dubroff and Hellwig, footnote 668.

Also, virtually no courts of the U.S. find U.S. tax laws to be unconstitutional.  It is a very rare occurrence that the U.S. Supreme Court even takes up a tax case to determine its constitutionality.  The “Obamacare” with broad application throughout society was a case heard by the Supreme Court which upheld a law signed by President Obama on March 23, 2010, more correctly called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  That law increased Medicare taxes and imposed a penalty surcharge on individuals who do not maintain certain health coverage.

In contrast, U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs) residing overseas are a relatively small population of the U.S. taxpayer population.  Accordingly, it was only until late the U.S. government even began focusing on this population to collect taxes from them.  See, 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.  Form 8854 Yr 2013

Finally, see various proposals to modify the law:  e.g., U.S. Citizenship Based Taxation – Proposals for Reform –   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.

Executive Summary

This paper proposes to eliminate the U.S. citizenship based taxation and create a consistent exit tax system.  The complex web of the current U.S. tax law has made it nearly impossible for all but the most sophisticated U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (“LPRs”) residing overseas to file complete and accurate tax returns. The proposal should bring consistency, tax simplicity for taxpayers residing outside the U.S., and do so in part by eliminating the U.S. citizenship based tax system, which is unique in the world, dates to the civil war and is inappropriate for the global world we live in.

  • Summary of Current Status of the Law

To date, there is no serious and comprehensive proposal to modify the U.S. federal tax law imposing U.S. taxation of the worldwide income of USCs and LPRs residing outside the U.S. 

There are also no serious proposals to repeal the current U.S. “expatriation tax” on (1) mark to market income and gains (When does “Covered Expatriate” Status -NOT- matter?) and (2) the 40% tax on covered gifts and inheritances (see, Proposed Regulations for “Covered Gifts” and “Covered Bequests” Issued by Treasury Last Week (Be Careful What You Ask For!)

Part II: C’est la vie Ms. Lucienne D’Hotelle! Tax Timing Problems for Former U.S. Citizens is Nothing New – the IRS and the Courts Have Decided Similar Issues in the Past (Pre IRC Section 877A(g)(4))

Posted on Updated on

This is Part II, a follow-on discussion of older U.S. case law and IRS rulings that address how and when individuals are subject to U.S. taxation before and after they assert they are no longer U.S. citizens.

I might point out that I am of the belief that we humans always like to hear the news we want to hear; and/or interpret it in the way we find most beneficial to us.  Who doesn’t like good news versus bad news?  Whether we (laypeople and tax lawyers alike) interpret Section 877A(g)(4) in any particular way; it is of no real consequence when it is the IRS that will enforce the law and ultimately the Department of Justice, Tax Division who will handle any such case interpreting this provision before a U.S. District Court or the Court of Federal Claims.  For those who have not litigated before these Courts and seen how aggressive are the government lawyers in advocating for the government, the following discussion will hopefully be illustrative.Europe Map

See, Part I: Tax Timing Problems for Former U.S. Citizens is Nothing New – the IRS and the Courts Have Decided Similar Issues in the Past (Pre IRC Section 877A(g)(4)), dated October 16, 2015.

The question is what is the correct date of “relinquishment of citizenship” as defined in the statute; IRC Section 877A(g)(4)?  Many argue the law cannot be applied retroactively?

However, the specific case discussed here, did just that; applied the law retroactively to determine U.S. citizenship status of an individual and corresponding tax obligations.  This was also in a time of a much simpler tax code with (i) no international information reporting requirements (e.g., IRS Forms 8938, 8858, 5471, 8865, 3520, 3520-A, 926, 8621, etc.), (ii) no Title 31 “FBAR” reporting requirements and (iii) no constant drumbeat by the IRS of international taxpayers and enforcement.  See, recent announcement by IRS on Oct. 16, 2015 (one day after tax returns were required to be filed by many) Offshore Compliance Programs Generate $8 Billion; IRS Urges People to Take Advantage of Voluntary Disclosure Programs.  However, for cautionary posts on the IRS OVDP and the deceptive numbers published (e.g., “$8 Billion”), see  posted May 10, 2014 and The 2013 GAO Report  of the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program, International Tax Journal, CCH Wolters Kluwer, January-February 2014.   PDF version here.

Of course, the answer to this question helps determine if and when will the individual be subject to the federal tax laws of the U.S. on their worldwide income and global assets.  In the case of Ms. Lucienne D’Hotelle (an interesting 1977 appellate opinion from the firs circuit) she had spent little time in the U.S. and had sent a letter in her native language French to the U.S. Department of State, which stated “I have never considered myself to be a citizen of the United States.”  This is  not unlike many individuals around the world today;  at least as of late – in the era of FATCA, who assert they are not a U.S. citizen because they “relinquish[ed] it by the performance of certain expatriating acts with the required “intent” to give up the US citizenship” and did not notify the U.S. federal government.

The Court nevertheless found Ms. Lucienne D’Hotelle retroactively subject to U.S. income taxation on her non-U.S. source income (up until she received a certificate of loss of nationality from the Department of State); for specific years even when the immigration law provisions of the day said she was no longer a U.S. citizen during that same retroactive period.

There have been many contemporary commentators who argue an individual does not need to (i) have, (ii) do, or (iii) receive any of the following, and yet still should be able to successfully argue they have shed themselves of U.S. citizenship and hence the obligations of U.S. taxation and reporting on their worldwide income and global assets –

(i) receive a U.S. federal government issued document (e.g., a certificate of loss of nationality “CLN” per 877A(g)(4)(C)),

(ii) receive a cancelation of a naturalized citizen’s certificate of naturalization by a U.S. court (per 877A(g)(4)(D)),

(iii) provide a signed statement of voluntary relinquishment from the individual to the U.S. Department of State (per 877A(g)(4)(B)), or

(iv) provide proof of an in person renunciation before a diplomatic or consular officer of the U.S. (per  paragraph (5) of section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5)), in accordance with 877A(g)(4)(C)).

Some older tax cases that interpreted similar concepts are worthy of consideration.  They will certainly be in any brief of the attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division and/or Chief Counsel lawyers for the IRS in any case where the individual challenges that none of the above items are required in their particular case to avoid U.S. taxation and reporting requirements.Graph - Foreign Earned Income By Country - IRS Report

The D’Hotelle case is illustrative of the efforts taken by the Department of Justice, Tax Division in collecting U.S. income tax on a naturalized citizen.  You will notice they did not take a sympathetic approach to her case.   Ms. Lucienne D’Hotelle was born in France in 1909 and died in 1968 in France, yet the U.S. government continued to pursue collection of U.S. income taxation on her foreign source income from the Dominican Republic, France and apparently Puerto Rico even after her death during a period of time when she used a U.S. passport.  Lucienne D’Hotelle de Benitez Rexach, 558 F.2d 37 (1st Cir.1977).  She, not unlike many individuals today, claimed she was not a U.S. citizen – or at least stated “I have never considered myself to be a citizen of the United States.

Some of the particularly interesting facts relevant to Ms. D’Hotelle, a naturalized citizen, which are relevant to the question of U.S. taxation of citizens, were set forth in the appellate court’s decision as follows:

Lucienne D’Hotelle was born in France in 1909. She became Lucienne D’Hotelle de Benitez Rexach upon her marriage to Felix in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1928. She was naturalized as a United States citizen on December 7, 1942. The couple spent some time in the Dominican Republic, where Felix engaged in harbor construction projects. Lucienne established a residence in her native France on November 10, 1946 and remained a resident until May 20, 1952. During that time s 404(b) of the Nationality Act of 19402 provided that naturalized citizens who returned to their country of birth and resided there for three years lost their American citizenship. On November 10, 1947, after Lucienne had been in France for one year, the American Embassy in Paris issued her a United States passport valid through November 9, 1949. Soon after its expiration Lucienne applied in Puerto Rico for a renewal. By this time she had resided in France for three years.

                                         * * *

On May 20, 1952, the Vice-Consul there signed a Certificate of Loss of Nationality, citing Lucienne’s continuous residence in France as having automatically divested her of citizenship under s 404(b). Her passport . . . was confiscated, cancelled and never returned to her. The State Department approved the certificate on December 23, 1952. Lucienne made no attempt to regain her American citizenship; neither did she affirmatively renounce it.

                                         * * *

Predictably, the United States eventually sought to tax Lucienne for her half of that income. Whether by accident or design, the government’s efforts began in earnest shortly after the Supreme Court invalidated *40 the successor statute4 to s 404(b). In in Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964), the Court held that the distinction drawn by the statute between naturalized and native-born Americans was so discriminatory as to violate due process. In January 1965, about two months after this suit was filed, the State Department notified Lucienne by letter that her expatriation was void under Schneider and that the State Department considered her a citizen. Lucienne replied that she had accepted her denaturalization without protest and had thereafter considered herself not to be an American citizen.

There are other facts that make clear the government was not fond of her husband, the income that he earned and how he managed his and his wife’s assets during and after her death.  The Court also discusses at length the fact that she had used a U.S. passport during the years when she alleges she was not a U.S. citizen.  The Court goes on to analyze her U.S. citizenship, and the following discussions are illustrative of the ultimate tax consequences.

LUCIENNE’S CITIZENSHIP

The government contends that Lucienne was still an American citizen from her third anniversary as a French resident until the day the Certificate of Loss of Nationality was issued in Nice. This case presents a curious situation, since usually it is the individual who claims citizenship and the government which denies it. But pocketbook considerations occasionally reverse the roles. United States v. Matheson, 532 F.2d 809 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied 429 U.S. 823, 97 S.Ct. 75, 50 L.Ed.2d 85 (1976). The government’s position is that under either Schneider v. Rusk, supra, or Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 87 S.Ct. 1660, 18 L.Ed.2d 757 (1967), the statute by which Lucienne was denaturalized is unconstitutional and its prior effects should be wiped out. Afroyim held that Congress lacks the power to strip persons of citizenship merely *41 because they have voted in a foreign election. The cornerstone of the decision is the proposition that intent to relinquish citizenship is a prerequisite to expatriation.

12 Section 404(b) would have been declared unconstitutional under either Schneider or Afroyim. The statute is practically identical to its successor, which Schneider condemned as discriminatory. Section 404(b) would have been invalid under Afroyim as a congressional attempt to expatriate regardless of intent. Likewise it is clear that the determination of the Vice-Consul and the State Department in 1952 would have been upheld under then prevailing case law, even though Lucienne had manifested no intent to renounce her citizenship. Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 36 S.Ct. 106, 60 L.Ed. 297 (1915). Accord, Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491, 70 S.Ct. 292, 94 L.Ed. 287 (1950). See also Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 78 S.Ct. 568, 2 L.Ed.2d 603 (1958), overruled, Afroyim v. Rusk, supra.

411 F.Supp. at 1293. However, the district court went too far in viewing the equities as between Lucienne and the government in strict isolation from broad policy considerations which argue for a generally retrospective application of Afroyim and Schneider to the entire class of persons invalidly expatriated. Cf. Linkletter v. Walker, supra. The rights stemming from American citizenship are so important that, absent special circumstances, they must be recognized even for years past. Unless held to have been citizens without interruption, persons wrongfully expatriated as well as their offspring might be permanently and unreasonably barred from important benefits.6 Application of Afroyim or Schneider is generally appropriate.* * *

During the interval from late 1949 to mid-1952, Lucienne was unaware that she had been automatically denaturalized.                                        

* * *

Fairness dictates that the United States recover income taxes for the period November 10, 1949 to May 20, 1952. Lucienne was privileged to travel on a United States passport; she received the protection of its government.
_
It’s quite interesting that the Court uses and focuses on fairness as to the U.S. government, more than a discussion of “fairness” to the individual.  The use of the passport seems to be an integral fact.  Here, the Court determined she was retroactively a U.S. citizen and hence subject to taxation on her worldwide income during those crucial periods (1949 through 1952) even though (1) the U.S. Department of State said she was not a U.S. citizen during that time, and (2) she stated “I have never considered myself to be a citizen of the United States.” 
_
101112 Although the government has not appealed the decision with respect to taxes from mid-1952 through 1958, the district court was presented with the issue. We wish to explain why the government should be allowed to collect taxes for the two and one-half year interval but not for the subsequent period. The letter from Lucienne to the Department of State official in 1965, which appears in English translation in the record, states that after the Certificate of Loss of Nationality, “I have never considered myself to be a citizen of the United States.” We think that in this case this letter can be construed as an acceptance and voluntary relinquishment of citizenship. We also find that in this particular case estoppel would have been proper against the United States. Although estoppel is rarely a proper defense against the government, there are instances where it would be unconscionable to allow the government to reverse an earlier position. Schuster v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 312 F.2d 311, 317 (9th Cir. 1962). This is one of those instances. Lucienne cannot be dunned for taxes to support the United States government during the years in which she was denied its protection. In Peignand v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 440 F.2d 757 (1st Cir. 1971), this court refused to decide whether estoppel could apply against the government. A decision on the question was unnecessary, since the petitioner had not been led to take a course of action he would not otherwise have taken. Id. at 761. Here, Lucienne severed her ties to this country at the direction of the State Department. The right hand will not be permitted to demand payment for something which the left hand has taken away. However, until her citizenship was snatched from her, Lucienne should have expected to honor her 1952 declaration that she was a taxpayer.
_
Of particular note, the Court highlighted that the Department of State (one hand) cannot take away citizenship, the individual’s passport and issue a certificate of loss of nationality (“CLN”), and the IRS (on the other hand) impose taxation for the time period after the CNL was issued.
One point of emphasis by the Court was how U.S. citizenship rights are a highly protected right; as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court.  That high protection granted, serves to aid those individuals who defend against a government arguing they somehow ceased to be a U.S. citizen.  Of course, for those trying to escape U.S. taxation, the result is not a desired one. . . a curious situation, since usually it is the individual who claims citizenship and the government which denies it. . . “
C’est la vie Ms. Lucienne D’Hotelle!

How Many of the 5,211 Former U.S. Citizens (who Renounced in 2014 and 2015) are Still U.S. Taxpayers?

Posted on Updated on

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.IRS Form 8854 Part IV- Including Certification

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.

Timing Issues for Lawful Permanent Residents (“LPR”) Who Never “Formally Abandoned” Their Green Card

Posted on Updated on

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).New LPR Abandonment Form P1

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.