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?
No, not talking about Texas-Style Chili as reported in the – NYT Cooking Recipe.
Chile, the country in South America and the newest country to have an income tax treaty go into force with the United States. The U.S.-Chile Tax Treaty (in the works for more than a decade) went into force at the end of 2023, on 19 December 2023.
The question is how many “LPRs” are residing in a tax treaty country that are impacted favorably (presumably all of them) by the federal district court decisions we successfully handled against the IRS and DOJ, Tax Division: Aroeste v United States, 22-cv-00682-AJB-KSC (20 Nov. 2023)?
As previously explained, the Aroeste decision will affect potentially millions of “Green Card” holders (a subset of the 3.89M estimated by the government) living outside the U.S. Those who have not formally abandoned their lawful permanent residency status. See, “LPR Tax Limbo” – Formal Abandonment of LPR (Form I-407) – (2020). This “LPR Tax Limbo” is no longer the case after the Aroeste decision.
These individuals who are living in tax treaty countries are not in “LPR Tax Limbo” any more since the Court clarified when the individual is not a United States tax resident. The Court explained, that filing a “late” tax treaty position, does not cause the non-U.S. citizen to have waived the benefits of the income tax treaty. It is the tax treaty with each of the 66 countreis that has the potential of unlocking the “escape hatch” described by the Court.
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.
The court in Aroeste outlined a 5-step analysis that becomes crucial for the 3.89 million LPRs residing abroad in one of the 66 tax treaty countries, in determining whether they are “United States persons” under the law. This will be covered in Part II.
Millions of LPR Individuals Living in 66 Different Countries Could Be Impacted by Aroeste vs. U.S.
The United States has a total of 58 income tax treaties that covers 66 countries. See, Countries with U.S. Income Tax Treaties & Lawful Permanent Residents (“Oops – Did I Expatriate”?) (2014); ironically reflecting the same tax treaties in force in November 2023 as of 2014 (until the Chile treaty came into effect). The 1973 U.S. – U.S.S.R. income tax treaty applies to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
Importantly, anyone in these circumstances would be remiss, if they did not consider carefully the “mark to market” tax implications to them if they were to become a “covered expatriate” as defined in the law. These “mark to market” tax consequences can have potentially devastating consequences, including to U.S. beneficiaries in the future if not properly planned and considered.
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.
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.
Who is a “resident”? What is a “resident”? This sounds like such a basic question. It is not so simple for tax purposes; nor for other provisions of the law.
There is the colloquial meaning of resident. For instance, if Mr. Smith says, “I have been a resident of Montana on my ranch for 30 years”; to what does he refer? What if Mr. Smith has a house in California (which he has owned for 15 years) and another ranch in Alberta, Canada that he has owned for 45 years. Is he also a “resident” of Canada and California?
What if he is not a U.S. citizen but holds a particular type of visa, such as lawful permanent residency (an immigrant visa)? What if he has a non-immigrant visa, such as an E-2 visa? What if he only spends 4 months a year on his ranch in Montana, of where is he a “resident”?
Is he a “resident” in some or all of these scenarios? Why is this important in the context of “U.S. expatriation taxation”?
There are three sources of federal law where it becomes very important, which will be discussed in later posts:
In addition, various states, such as California, Texas and Washington D.C. (actually not a state; but all places I happen to be licensed to practice law) have their own definitions of who are “residents” for income tax and other purposes.
Subsequent posts will discuss the importance of understanding who is a “resident” and the implications under these various laws.
Laymen regularly have an idea of where they are “resident” – but that idea is often very different from definitions of “resident” under federal Titles 31, 26 and 8 and state laws (e.g., Texas, D.C., Florida, California, New York, etc.).
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 how 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).
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.
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 –
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.
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”) –
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:
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.
February 26, 2012|By David Savage and Catherine Saillant, Los Angeles Times
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.
how 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).
