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?
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.
Depending upon the factual circumstances of each individual, they may be able to benefit from the international tax treaty law articulated by the U.S. Federal District Court in Aroeste v United States – Order (Nov 2023). Future posts will explore the legal relevance of some of the following questions to consider:
Has the individual filed any U.S. federal income tax returns since leaving the United States?
Was a professional tax return preparer hired or consulted about the filing of a federal income tax return (e.g., a certified public accountant, an enrolled agent, a full time tax return preparer, ta tax attorney, etc.)?
Has the individual been filing IRS Form 1040 Resident Tax Returns in the same way Mr. Aroeste was filing – based upon the advice (that turned out to be erroneous -although given in good faith) from their U.S. tax return preparer?
What steps if any have been taken to notify the U.S. federal government (irrespective of the agency) regarding their physical residency outside the United States?
This information is intended to provide general information about tax expatriation legal concepts under U.S. law to help readers better understand often very complex issues within the U.S. international tax field for citizens and lawful permanent residents. General legal information is not the same as legal advice, that is, the concrete application of law to a specific case with unique and particular facts.
Legal advice also should include strategic planning and advice to a particular case. A legal adviser should be able to assist an individual in taking important decisions and steps, related to the specific goals of the individual, while understanding the legal and tax consequences of each step. There are a range of consequences that the “U.S. tax expatriation” laws impose upon different types of transactions, transfers, reorganization of assets, etc. None of these items are discussed in this Tax-Expatriation.com This is not legal advice.
These thresholds differ significantly from those in 2014 due to the TCJA passed in 2017.
That blog post detailed specific requirements applicable only to U.S. resident individual taxpayers:
Any USC individual (and any LPR who does not live in a country with a U.S. income tax treaty) is obligated under the U.S. federal tax law to file a federal income tax return IRS Form Form 1040 if they meet minimum thresholds of income. The thresholds are low, and are reached once the gross income is at least the sum of (i) the “exemption” amount (currently US$3,900 per exemption) and (ii) the “standard deduction” amount.
Accordingly, even if a USC or LPR has even a modest sum of “gross income”, which equates to at least US$10,000 (in whatever currency earned), the USC or LPR will probably have a U.S. tax return filing requirement.
Several significant developments have occurred since the publication of that blog post. First, the federal tax reform primarily applicable for the 2018 tax year, the The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), substantially altered various tax concepts. Specifically, the TCJA eliminated the concept of “personal exemptions” for the taxpayer, spouse, and dependents. These were previously used to calculate income thresholds determining whether a U.S. resident taxpayer had to file a tax return or not. However, they are no longer applicable. The standard deduction is now key to determine who is required to file.
A recent federal report from Congressional Research Service (CRS Report explains -Nov. 2023): Under the TCJA, basic standard deduction amounts in 2018 were nearly doubled to $12,000 for single filers, $18,000 for head of household filers, and $24,000 for married joint filers. These amounts were annually adjusted for inflation after 2018. In 2024, these amounts are $14,600, $21,900, and $29,200, respectfully.
Hence, for U.S. residents, the filing thresholds have increased substantially for those required to file U.S. tax returns: $14,600 for single filers, $21,900 for head of household filers, and $29,200 for married joint filers for the 2024 tax year.
Non-residents have a completely different rule as to when they are required to file U.S. non-resident tax returns (1040NR), which will be discussed in a later blog. A non-resident can have as little as say US$1,500 of income sourced from the United States and have an obligation to file a tax return. Totally different thresholds and totally different rules are applicable.
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.
The Federal District Court made numerous key legal findings in its Order on November 20, 2023; in Aroeste v. United States, Case No. 22-cv-00682-AJB-KSC. One of the more significant findings was that IRS Notice 2009-85 is not binding authority. This blog is dedicated to tax expatriation related matters under U.S. law.
IRS Notice 2009-85 is Not Binding Authority per the Court
expatriation.com has represented him for several years throughout the IRS audits and the on-going U.S. Tax Court cases along with his wife.
While many may consider this case to be a Title 31/FBAR case (which it is), it has greater ramifications under the tax expatriation laws in the author’s view. The finding by this Court regarding IRS Notice 2009-85 is significant with far reaching implications. The IRS Notice 2009-85 is broad in its scope and is more than 60 pages in length. It notes that, “Section 877A(i) provides that the Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of section 877A.” (p.4)
No Treasury Regulations Ever Issued – After 15 Years of IRS Notice 2009-85
The Treasury Department never issued regulations under 877A, which is now 15 years old. The notice provides the historical background as follows:
Notice 2009-85 PURPOSE Section 301 of the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008 (the “Act”) added new sections 877A and 2801 to the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), amended sections 6039G and 7701(a), made conforming amendments to sections 877(e) and 7701(b), and repealed section 7701(n) with respect to individuals who on or after June 17, 2008, relinquish U.S. citizenship or cease to be lawful permanent residents of the United States. This notice provides guidance for individuals who are subject to section 877A.
The Court in Aroeste concluded that Mr. Aroeste ceased to be a lawful permanent resident.
Specifically, the Court finds Aroeste . . . ceased to be treated as a lawful permanent resident of the United States because he commenced to be treated as a resident of Mexico under the Treaty, did not waive the benefits of such Treaty, and notified the Secretary of the commencement of such treatment.
Many practitioners have questioned the accuracy and validity of many of the conclusions asserted in the 2009 notice; such as the timing of when someone becomes a “covered expatriate”. How and why they become a “covered expatriate” by the concepts introduced in the 2009 notice. The multiple examples presented, reflecting various tax outcomes according to the IRS, were never commented on by the public.
Another question many have raised is the effectiveness of IRS Form 8854? Throughout the notice, the IRS uses the word “must” some 88 times regarding the individual who ceased to be a U.S. citizen or a “lawful permanent resident” (or in some instances references to third parties). Does the IRS imply that if any of these “must”/conditions imposed under the notice are not satisfied, the individual is necessarily a “covered expatriate” with the adverse tax consequences that might follow?
Are their other adverse tax consequences that might follow? For instance, can the IRS repeatedly assert international information penalties regarding the individual’s
companies in her own country,
beneficiary rights of a trust or an estate in her own country, or
other investment assets or financial accounts in her country of residence that might be deemed a “specified foreign financial asset” if the individual is a United States person”?
For instance, the 2009 notice provides that a “covered expatriate” must file a “dual status return” and file a Form 1040NR with a 1040 attached as a schedule for the “year of expatriation”. See, IRS Notice 2009-85, p. 49.
The IRS goes on to say in that notice that individuals “must file Form 8854 in order to certify, under penalties of perjury, that they have been in compliance with all federal tax laws during the five years preceding the year of expatriation.” Id., p. 50. The government asserts that if this condition is not satisfied, the individual will necessarily be treated as ” . . . covered expatriates within the meaning of section 877A(g) whether or not they also meet the tax liability test or the net worth test.“
These would be pretty damning consequences to an individual, if they otherwise met the statutory test of certifying compliance with the tax laws for the preceding five years.
Importantly, the Court in Aroeste v. United States concluded as a matter of law that 2009-85 is not binding authority as it fails to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). It concluded Mr. Aroeste did not need to file Form 8854 with his amended returns. He had filed Form 8833 – treaty based reporting.
The court cited to ” . . . Green Valley Investors, LLC v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 159 T.C. No. 5, at *4 (Nov. 9, 2022)) (under the APA, agencies must follow a three-step procedure for “notice-and-comment” rulemaking, but this requirement does not apply to “interpretive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.”).) The Court agrees. In Mann Construction, Inc. v. United States, 27 F.4th 1138 (6th Cir. 2022), the court found that Notice 2007-83 failed to comply with the APA’s notice-and-comment procedure. Similarly here, because Notice 2009-85 has not been subject to a notice-and-comment procedure, it does not comply with the APA and thus is not binding. As such, Aroeste was not required to file Form 8854 with his amended returns.”
None of these comments represent legal advice. Complex laws applied to specific facts require a legal expert to opine on the consequences and recommended courses of action. It is worth noting that individuals who have a “green card” and who have not previously articulated the application of a U.S. income tax treaty, should consider taking proactive steps to protect their rights under the law. Also, United States citizens who formally renounced their citizenship, who may never have taken specific tax reporting positions should consider taking proactive steps to help avoid the risk the IRS might assert substantial penalties or conclude the individual became a “covered expatriate”.
Last week (Nov. 20, 2023), Judge Battaglia in the Southern District of California (San Diego) ruled in favor of our client Mr. Alberto Aroeste regarding the application of the U.S.-Mexico Tax Treaty. The DOJ, Tax Division arguments on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service in the case (and their Motion for Summary Judgment – MSJ) were largely rejected by the Court.
A thorough read of the Order from the Court is recommended to understand the substantial legal findings and legal analysis made by the Court relevant to those who possess a “green card” referred to as “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” in Title 8, § 1101(a)(13) [Immigration and Nationality Act]. Key to this case, Title 26, § 7701(b)(6) [Federal Tax Code] then rather contorts the concept by saying an individual is a “lawful permanent resident” in accordance with immigration laws; but then goes on to put conditions on who apparently is a “lawful permanent resident” for federal tax purposes. While immigration law requires the individual be ” . . . accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, such status not having changed”; the tax definition seems to ignore that status (i.e., has it changed and is the personal no longer accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the U.S.?).
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the “Board”), has long recognized that an alien’s status may change by operation of law, such that an alien may abandon his LPR status without a finding of removability (or, formerly, deportability or excludability) after a formal adjudicatory process. See United States v. Yakou, 428 F.3d 241, 247 (D.C. Cir. 2005); at 247-51 (discussing case law regarding abandonment and holding that an alien may abandon LPR status without formal administrative action); see also Matter of Quijencio, 15 I. & N. Dec. 95 (B.I.A. 1974); Matter of Kane, 15 I. & N. Dec. 258 (B.I.A. 1975); Matter of Muller, 16 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1978); Matter of Abdoulin, 17 I. & N. Dec. 458, 460 (B.I.A. 1980); Matter of Huang, 19 I. & N. Dec. 749 (B.I.A. 1988).
The Court did not need to get into the nuances of immigration law to rule against the government in this case.
Some of the substantial takeaways from the decision are:
Waiver of the Tax Treaty: The government cannot assert an individual waived the treaty law because she initially filed the wrong IRS forms (1040) instead of the non-resident form (1040NR) and IRS Form 8833.
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.
Aroeste v United States – Order 20 Nov 2023 (p. 17)
Expatriation Tax form – IRS Form 8854: Validity and its Failure to Comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)
C. Whether Aroeste Was Required to File Form 8854 The Government next argues that even if the IRS had accepted Aroeste’s amended returns, neither amended return would have properly notified the IRS of a commencement of treaty benefits because both failed to attach Form 8854, as required by IRS Notice 2009-85. (Doc. No. 76-1 at 4–5.) The Government concedes Aroeste attached Form 8833 to both amended forms. (Id.) Aroeste responds that Notice 2009-85 is not binding authority as it fails to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). (Doc. No. 78-1 at 8 (citing Green Valley Investors, LLC v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 159 T.C. No. 5, at *4 (Nov. 9, 2022)) (under the APA, agencies must follow a three-step procedure for “notice-and-comment” rulemaking, but this requirement does
not apply to “interpretive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.”).) The Court agrees. In Mann Construction, Inc. v. United States, 27 F.4th 1138 (6th Cir. 2022), the court found that Notice 2007-83 failed to comply with the APA’s notice-and-comment procedure. Similarly here, because Notice 2009-85 has not been subject to a notice-and-comment procedure, it does not comply with the APA and thus is not binding. As such, Aroeste was not required to file Form 8854 with his amended returns.
Aroeste v United States – Order 20 Nov 2023 (p. 11)
Tax Treaty Law Applies – Article 4 Regarding Tax Residency
Various detailed analysis and discussions from the Court –
Aroeste v United States – Order 20 Nov 2023 (p. 11-14)
The Preamble to the FBAR Regulations is Not the Law –
. . . the Government points to the preamble to the 31 C.F.R. Part 1010 regulations, providing that “[a] legal permanent resident who elects under a tax treaty to be treated as a non-resident for tax purposes must still file the FBAR.” Amendment to the Bank Secrecy Act Regulations—Reports of Foreign Financial Accounts, 76 Fed. Reg. 10234-01 (Feb. 24, 2011). The Court finds this unavailing. The Government’s argument does not refute the plain language of the FBAR regulations, which explicitly invoke provisions of Title 26, including the provision that requires consideration of an individual’s status under an applicable tax treaty for the purpose of determining whether an individual is a “United States person” subject to FBAR filing. Specifically, Title 31 C.F.R. § 1010.350, which governs reporting of FBARs, subsection (b)(2) states that a “resident of the United States is an individual who is a resident alien under 26 U.S.C. 7701(b) and the regulations thereunder . . . .” The Government fails to cite to any case law or statue indicating otherwise, and the Court finds none. As such, because the Court finds the Treaty applicable to Aroeste, then the residence provisions of the Treaty, or the “tie breaker rules” dictates whether Aroeste may be treated as a nonresident alien.
Aroeste v United States – Order 20 Nov 2023 (p. 14)
This is the third court case (the other two were in U.S. Tax Court) I have had over the last several years where the IRS tried to assess substantial penalties and taxes against LPRs who resided substantially outside the United States. The other two cases were conceded by the IRS prior to going to trial. One case had over US$40M at stake as assessed by the IRS. This case, in federal district court, was pushed all the way to this favorable (to Mr. Aroeste and those around the world in similar circumstances) outcome by the government. We were successful with all of these non-U.S. citizen cases (two brothers from Mexico and an individual from Germany).
On Monday 11 Sept 2023, Robert Goulder wrote a detailed article about the implications of what he calls “The Green Card From Hell”! His article can be reviewed in its entirety through the subscription service provided by Tax Notes International – FBAR Madness: We Need to Chat About Aroeste.
Goulder made some key observations that are worth repeating for anyone who has been a green card holder for basically more than seven years. That can trigger the “expatriation” tax provisions – the focus of this blog.
The facts of the case of Mr. Alberto Aroeste are covered extensively and accurately in Goulder’s article.
He noted:
This week’s article concentrates on the novel FBAR issue that will be decided in Aroeste v. United States, an illegal exaction suit before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.7 The case has garnered attention for good reason. It pushes back against the government’s dubious policy of requiring individuals treated as nonresidents under a U.S. tax treaty to provide FBAR filings. Let’s note the futility of the financial information which the government seeks from these folks. It concurrently exempts treaty nonresidents from the need to file IRS Form 8938 (“Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets”), the tax code’s counterpart to the FBAR.8 It remains problematic that the government should demand reporting from treaty nonresidents as if they were residents.9
The one issue not explained well relates to how and when lawful permanent residency (i.e. a “green card”) under Title 8 is even valid in the first place. Goulder’s article explains some of the rights of lawful permanent residency status, but also addresses some key areas of the immigration law the same as most tax law experts cover a different area of the law. See, SCOTUS’ observations of the law in this context: Unplanned Expatriation: Lawful Permanent Residents’ Deportation Risks for Filing U.S. Federal False Tax Returns
For instance, Goulder claims green card holders cannot be deported as long as the immigration status remains valid. True – but what is not explained is how easy it is to cease to have a valid one in the first place. What he doesn’t explain is how and when an individual can “abandon” or “relinquish” the status as a green card holder (as a matter of law) by not residing permanently in the United States. See, Fundamentals of Immigration Law, written by Charles A. Wiegand, III, Former Immigration Judge, Oakdale, Louisiana. The law is complex as described by Wiegand.
Goulder does not seem to find the government’s arguments persuasive (“ain’t buying it“!):
For Aroeste, there seems to be little doubt his closer personal and economic ties are with Mexico. The IRS knows this. An analysis conducted by an IRS agent concluded that he spent no more than 67 days in the United States during 2012 and 57 days in the United States in 2013, with three-quarters of the remaining time spent in Mexico.
Goulder –
The IRS doesn’t care where Aroeste had closer personal and economic ties. That’s because it doesn’t care about the tiebreaker. As the government sees it, the treaty is a distraction that has no meaningful role to play in this litigation. The plaintiff’s immigration status is conclusive, end of story. His green card settles the matter, such that all further inquiries are superfluous and should cease.
Id.
What bothers me about that argument is how the government’s position selectively wishes away the existence of the U.S. tax treaty network — but only for application of the FBAR regime. The Mexico treaty would still mean something in another context, but not on the pivotal issue of Aroeste’s status as a U.S. person for FBAR purposes. Sorry, I ain’t buying it.
Id.
The government argues the treaty is only relevant for income and excise tax purposes, and what we have here are penalties based on violations of the Bank Secrecy Act — not the Internal Revenue Code. As the government sees it, no plaintiff can successfully challenge penalties authorized by Title 31 with legal remedies based on Title 26. I’m still not buying it.
Id, Goulder
I would recommend you take a read through his article that also addresses a discussion on how the government prefers to keep internal memoranda from the eyes of the public. He discusses at some length – Tax Analysts and Coastal States. How the Court in Aroeste took an approach different from the D.C. Circuit in articulating 9th Circuit law regarding attorney client privileged documents in the possession of the government.
There have been numerous posts about how Lawful Permanent Residents (“LPRs”) who have not formally abandoned their green card might have adverse U.S. tax consequences as part of the U.S. “expatriation tax.”
The U.S. Treasury issued new Regulations that can impact LPRs who have previously filed U.S. 1040NR tax returns under an applicable income tax treaty. On December 13, 2016, the these final regulations require foreign-owned, single-member U.S. limited liability companies (“SM-LLCs”) that are treated as disregarded entities for U.S. tax purposes to file an information return to report certain transactions.
An individual who is a LPR can fall into this category in certain circumstances; namely where they cease to be a “U.S. person” under IRC Section 7701(b)(6).
Accordingly, the regulations treat such SM-LLCs as domestic corporations and require them to file IRS Form 5472, Information Return of a 25% Foreign-Owned U.S. Corporation or a Foreign Corporation Engaged in a U.S. Trade or Business. The regulations also require these SM-LLCs to maintain records with respect to the reported information.
Lawful permanent residents may erroneously think they have not “expatriated” for U.S. tax purposes, as long as they have not returned it to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) – i.e., formally abandoned their green cards. Unfortunately, for these individuals, they can be in for a rude awakening regarding the application of IRC Section 7701(b)(6) that was added by Congress in 2008.
The relevant portion of the statute provides as follows:
An individual shall cease to be treated as a lawful permanent resident of the United States if such individual commences to be treated as a resident of a foreign country under the provisions of a tax treaty between the United States and the foreign country, does not waive the benefits of such treaty applicable to residents of the foreign country, and notifies the Secretary of the commencement of such treatment.
This statutory language has three tests for when the individual is no longer a LPR for federal tax purposes:
The individual is treated as a resident of a foreign country under the provisions of a tax treaty;
The individual does not waive the benefits of the treaty, and
Notifies the Secretary of the commencement of such treatment.
Each of the above tests seem to be satisified by any “green card” holder who files IRS Form 1040NR as a non-resident, when they live in a country with a U.S. income tax treaty. A list of treaty countries is to follow in a later post.
There can be a host of unintended consequences to the individual who falls into this category; i.e., who ceases to be a “lawful permanent resident” under the federal tax law. The expatriation provisions of Section 877A and 2801 (among others) can be implicated, along with many other provisions of the law. See, Accidental Americans” – Rush to Renounce U.S. Citizenship to Avoid the Ugly U.S. Tax Web”International Tax Journal, CCH Wolters Kluwer, Nov./Dec. 2012, Vol. 38 Issue 6, p45.
For those who wish to formally abandon their LPR, there is a specific DHS/USCIS form (I-407) that is used for this purpose:
ar case. A legal adviser should be able to assist an individual in taking important decisions and steps, related to the specific goals of the individual, while understanding the legal and tax consequences of each step. There are a range of consequences that the “U.S. tax expatriation” laws impose upon different types of transactions, transfers, reorganization of assets, etc. None of these items are discussed in this Tax-Expatriation.com This is not legal advice.
