Many individuals have no idea that, under the legal principles confirmed in the federal district court case I litigated — Aroeste v United States, 22-cv-00682-AJB-KSC (20 Nov. 2023) – they may already be treated as “covered expatriates” as a matter of law.
Along Comes Section 2801 – and 2025 Final Regulations – The “Forever Taint” to Family and Friends (Paying the Taxman)
Aroeste – Landmark Decision Confirms the Law – Tax Treaty Law Applies – Taxpayers Do Not Waive Benefits per Gov’t
These writings all addressed the same underlying legal and policy expectations that courts would eventually be required to confront — issues now directly addressed in Aroeste. The Aroestedecision is also consistent with positions I successfully advanced in three separate U.S. Tax Court cases involving green card holders, none of which resulted in published opinions because the government ultimately conceded to my arguments and my clients prevailed prior to trial.
This case law has great impact on green card holders who are living principally outside of the U.S. There are 3.88 million individuals who are living outside the U.S. – per the 2024 report by the U.S. federal government. Many of them live in a treaty country. Many of these individuals might be considering their immigration law consequences (particularly after the latest announcement from the USCIS – impact these immigration consequences: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Will Grant ‘Adjustment of Status’ Only in Extraordinary Circumstances (May 2026) Few have considered the tax law implications.
Those individuals who have green cards and live in and outside of the United States, should understand the tax and legal implications to them.
There are millions of individuals in this category. i.e., those who have “emigrated” with an “e” from the United States. There are 3.88 million of these green card holders, as of 2024 according to the U.S. federal government’s latest report. The statistics are striking – that so many individuals reside outside the U.S.
These nearly 4 million individuals who do not reside principally in the U.S. are similar to the fact pattern of Mr. Aroeste residing in Mexico City. See the case where yours truly, Patrick W. Martin, was lead counsel in that landmark case – and the analysis of the District Court in Aroeste v. United States. The government lost.
Today’s post is a series of simple and key questions for those with green cards, to help them better hone in on the legal issues and U.S. tax risks that may be applicable to them:
Am I still a U.S. taxpayer?
What does it mean to be a U.S. taxpayer, when there are technical tax terms such as “United States person” and an individual who is a “lawful permanent resident” (not defined in the immigration law)?
I have a green card but I’ve lived outside the U.S. for years — do I still have to file U.S. tax returns?
The date on my physical green card has expired – does that mean I am no longer a a “lawful permanent resident” for tax purposes?
Does it matter whether my green card is expired, taken back at the airport, or just sitting in a drawer overseas?
Is there a difference between “giving up” my green card and just letting it lapse?
Aroeste v. United States — what does it mean for me? –
Why are all of the above questions so important to me – since I previously obtained a “green card”?
Subsequent posts will address additional key questions that can have a significant legal consequence to individuals who had or have a green card and spend substantial time outside of the United States. For a preview, look at Oops.. .Did I Expatriate and Never Know It – International Tax Journal 2014
Sec. 2. Policy. (a) It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.
SCOTUS Announced it Will Hear Arguments on May 15, 2025
The Congressional Research Service has an excellent summary article it prepared in 2018, titled – The Citizenship Clause and “Birthright Citizenship”: A Brief Legal Overview (1 Nov. 2018). This report was drafted when President Trump during his first term questioned the validity of “birthright citizenship”. Below is an excerpt from that 2018 article, relevant to the:
Under federal law, nearly all people born in the United States become citizens at birth. This rule is known as “birthright citizenship,” and it derives from both the Constitution and complementary statutes and regulations. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), in turn, declares certain persons to be U.S. citizens and nationals at birth. INA § 301(a) more or less tracks the Citizenship Clause in stating that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a “national[] and citizen[] of the United States at birth.” (The INA also extends citizenship at birth to various persons not protected by the Citizenship Clause, such as those born abroad to some U.S. citizen parents.) Federal regulations—including those that govern the issuance of passports and access to certain benefits—implement the INA by providing that a person is a U.S. citizen if he or she was born in the United States, so long as the parent was not a “foreign diplomatic officer” at the time of the birth.
The report goes on to explain –
The weight of current legal authority suggests that these executive and legislative proposals to restrict birthright citizenship would contravene the Citizenship Clause. At least since the Supreme Court’s decision in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the prevailing view has been that all persons born in the United States are constitutionally guaranteed citizenship at birth unless their parents are us born individuals foreign diplomats, members of occupying foreign forces, or members of Indian tribes. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court held that a man born in the United States in 1873 to parents who were Chinese nationals acquired citizenship at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. The parents were ineligible to naturalize under the law of the time, but they had established “permanent domicile and residence in the United States.” The Court reasoned that the Citizenship Clause should be “interpret[ed] in light of the common law” and grounded its holding in the common law principle of jus soli or “right of the soil.” Pursuant to that principle, “every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
Tax Expatriation Consequences –
As to “tax expatriation” – of these individuals? I suspect these babies (i.e., those born after 30 days from the executive order; on or after February 19, 2025) will have bigger issues to worry about other than their U.S. tax issues if SCOTUS rules against them.
Did USCs Born in the U.S. (not to USC Parents) – Accidentally “Expatriate” for U.S. Tax Purposes? – per President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14160
Will the “gold card” sell to ultra high net worth investors around the world who want U.S. citizenship (“USC”)? What are the tax costs of USC? * About the Author: Patrick W. Martin
President Trump again announced on April 3, aboard Air Force One his plan:
Whether the U.S. adopts a new “Gold Card” “For $5 million [that] we will allow the most successful job-creating people from all over the world to buy a path to U.S. citizenship,” is up to the U.S. government.
Congress can amend Title 8 and include a new “Gold Card” option.
Current law provides the EB-5 visa as one path towards a “green card” that ultimately can lead to U.S. citizenship through naturalization.
President Trump presented at his March 4th speech to a joint session of Congress, explaining the concept: “It’s like the green card, but better and more sophisticated. And these people will have to pay tax in our country.”
Sounds like a panacea to help the U.S. federal deficit problem? If 100,000 of these “Gold Cards” were sold for $5M each, and these funds were paid directly over to the federal government, that would raise $500 billion dollars. If 1 million were sold, that would be $5 trillion dollars to use to pay down the deficit (running annually at far greater than $1 trillion dollars since 2019).
To put that into perspective, the EB-5 visa that also leads to a “green card” that can further lead to U.S. citizenship through naturalization has an annual visa limit of about 10,000. See, USCIS’s article – (16 Aug 2024) – Annual Limit Reached in the EB-5 Unreserved Category There have been multiple years where the annual visa limit was not met. Prior to 2015, the 10,000 visa limit was never met and in several years there were less than 500 EB-5 visas issued annually.
There have been less than 150,000 EB-5 visas issued over the last 35 years since its adoption in 1990. Is it realistic to be able to “sell” even ten thousand $5M gold visas annually, when the “green EB-5 visa” costs $800,000 and has had less than 150,000 issued in nearly 35 years?
Equity Investment for EB-5 visa – $800,000 (Does NOT go to the Government)
The total required equity investment amount for an EB-5 visa in the qualifying project, is only $800,000 (if in a “TEA”). See, EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program, as published by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). See, USCIS’s Chapter 2 – Immigrant Petition Eligibility Requirements. It used to be only $500,000 (1/10th of $5M). A TEA is a targeted employment area (“TEA”) that meets specific requirements under the law. If the capital investment is not in a TEA, the required minimal capital investment amount is $1,050,000 that increases in January 1, 2027 and each 5 years thereafter. Still about 1/5th the cost of a “gold visa”.
U.S. Estate and Gift Tax Consequences for U.S. Citizens and those with a Green Card (“Gold Card”?)
Finally, maybe the biggest impact on who wants an investor visa that leads to U.S. citizenship depends largely upon the U.S. income tax and U.S. estate and gift tax consequences. There are many tax implications. See, my case Aroeste v United States – Order Nov 2023, that was appealed to the 9th Circuit by the Office of Solicitor General (DOJ). U.S. District Court ruled in favor of green card holder.
The value of a U.S. citizenship is known throughout the world. Immigrating to the U.S. is something that is valued by millions of individuals around the world. The following table from State Department data explains the principle reasons people chose to immigrate to the U.S. – to come to the U.S.:
The year before last, 2023, nearly 900,000 individuals became naturalized citizens. Many of these individuals who immigrate become naturalized citizens or lawful permanent residents (LPRs) ultimately leave the U.S.
See, the National Taxpayer Advocate blog report –
Filing and Paying Taxes for U.S. Citizens or Residents Living Abroad
There is an idea that only recently has permanent resident US immigration status into the United States grown substantially. The peak years were in the early 1990s as to absolute numbers. However, the greatest number of permanent residents as a relative percentage of the population was in the early 1900s; by far. See the chart below that I created from DHS immigration statistics data.
There were more LPRs admitted, in absolute terms in 1905 (1,026,499) than in 2022 (1,018,349).
[arm_restrict_content plan=”2,” type=”show”]
In percentage terms the total number of LPRs in 1905 compared to the total population was more than four times (4X) greater than in 2022 when it was (about 3/10th of 1 percent or 0.306%; versus a total population of 333 million) . In 1905 the total population was about 84 million, with newly admitted LPRs representing 1.225 percent of the entire resident population (1.225%; is greater than 4X the 2022 relative percentage).
The “Mark to Market” Tax that did NOT Exist in 1820, 1913, 1966 (Not Until 1996)
The US tax expatriation laws now impose a “mark to market” tax on so-called “long-term residents” who become “covered expatriates.” Such a concept in the tax law never existed in the early part of the 20th century, and indeed only became law in 1996. See an earlier post, The Foreign Investors Tax Act of 1966 (“FITA”) – The Origin of US Tax Expatriation law
This so-called Mark to Market tax is based upon a legal fiction, as if the individuals sold their worldwide assets on the “expatriation date.” It applies, even though there’s no current sale of assets, no disposition, transfer, change of ownership, change of title, or other “realization” event. The term “realization” is very significant in US tax law, including as recently discussed by the United States Supreme Court. See below and Moore v. the United States (2024) .
Below is a table of LPRs who were admitted to that status, per year, over the last 200+ years starting in 1820:
Are you or any of your family members one of these millions (more than 88 million) of LPR individuals represented in the above graph over the last 200+ years?
Assets and income earned in high tax states such as California and New York, are taxed very differently compared to low-tax states such as Texas, Nevada, Florida or Tennessee. Focusing on “expatriation” (e.g., renouncing USC or abandoning LPR status) of the individual might be misplaced if the person wants to live mostly in the United States. See earlier post, Form 8854 Filing: TIGTA Report Reveals Compliance Gap
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?
This 1998 U.S. Treasury report was written before the IRS and the Department of Justice started enforcing what has now become numerous international information reporting penalty provisions in the law. The author watched the change over these years, and the introduction of some new statutory penalties (e.g., 26 USC § 6039F in 1996; § 6039D in 2010; § 6039G in 1996; and major modifications in 2010 to § 6048, among others and increased FBAR penalties). Most importantly, the biggest change was how international individual taxpayers can (and often are) severely penalized by the IRS.
This 1998 report is full of sensible ideas. The Treasury explains the complex tax laws applicable to United States citizens (“USCs”) and lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) residing outside the U.S. The report has suggestions on how to best educate international taxpayers living overseas who are impacted by these laws.
Fast forward more than 25 years later (post 9/11/2001; post USA Patriot Act of 2001; post Swiss Bank scandals 2009+; post FATCA 2010+, etc.) and we are in a world of international tax penalties galore.
The U.S. international tax world in 2024 is a very different world, even though the core of the U.S. international tax law of how much tax is owing has largely remained the same for individuals. The calculation of income taxes for USCs and LPRs living overseas in 2024 is largely the same as it was in 1998. Plus, the IRS reports that only 10,684 resident income tax returns (IRS Form 1040) were filed by these individuals living overseas in the last year the IRS Office of Statistics reporting tax returns with IRS Form 2555 (Foreign Earned Income).
What has changed over these years is the IRS enforcement and easy found money on penalty collections. One example is the penalty for reporting tax-free gifts and inheritances. The reporting requirement of that law (26 U.S. Code § 6039F – Notice of large gifts received from foreign persons) was adopted in 1996.
The IRS has been increasingly aggressive in asserting international tax penalties: The available data shows . . . there were over 4,000 penalties assessed against individuals and businesses, totaling $1.7 billion [just for this penalty under 6039F]. During this period, the average penalty was . . . $426,000 . . .
Taxpayer Advocate Report (2023): Most Serious Problem #8 – The IRS’s Approach to International Information Return Penalties Is Draconian and Inefficient
The IRS assessed US$1.7 billion of penalties for this simple 6039F reporting violation over the four years of 2018-2021. The 2018 amounts tripled or quadrupled in subsequent years (e.g., $77M v. $238M v. 282M). Not all of these taxpayers are residing overseas, but certainly USCs and LPRs residing outside the U.S. are likely to encounter foreign gifts and foreign bequests, simply because their lives are foreign!
On the flip side, there have been few favorable changes to the U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) living outside the U.S. over these 25 years.
The most favorable developments have come in the last year or so. Importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the IRS interpretation of multiple per year non-willful FBAR penalties inUnited States v. Bittner, 143 S. Ct. 713 (2023). The author of this blog worked on the ACTEC amicus brief in Bittner, cited by the majority opinion (Justice Gorsuch) and the dissent (Justice Sotomayor).
Also of significance for individuals living in tax treaty countries is the case of Mr. Aroeste. The author of this blog represents the Mexico City resident who had not formally abandoned his LPRs. The case law provides significant relief for different groups of international taxpayers pursuant per the ruling by the federal district court in Aroeste v United States, 22-cv-00682-AJB-KSC (20 Nov. 2023). That case had over $3M of penalties assessed for IRS Forms 5471, 3520 and FBAR filings.
Plus, the DOJ conceded the penalty assessed against a Polish immigrant for a foreign gift in Wrzesinski v. United States, No. 2:22-cv-03568, (E.D. Pa. Mar 7, 2023) for not filing IRS Form 3520 based upon reasonable cause. Finally, the U.S. Tax Court decision in Farhy v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (2023) concluded the IRS could not automatically assess penalties for not filing IRS Form 5471.
Indeed, the international tax world has changed much over this past quarter century since the 1998 U.S. Treasury report. These recent string of cases in favor of international taxpayers is starting to look like a positive trend. See, Six Weeks, Three International Information Reporting Decisions (18 Sept. 2023).
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.
Many individuals have no idea that, under the legal principles confirmed in the federal district court case I litigated — 
