International Tax · Citizenship Renunciation · LPR Abandonment
International Tax Shareholder
Why Long-Term Green Card Holders Cannot Escape the Exit Tax Rules
When long-term green card holders give up their green card, they face the same exit tax rules as US citizens who renounce citizenship. There is one exception in the law that allows certain dual citizens by birth to avoid covered expatriate status even if they meet the income or asset tests. Long-term green card holders cannot use it. Here is why.
When you give up your green card (or renounce US citizenship), the law determines whether you are a covered expatriate. You are a covered expatriate if you meet any one of three tests: an average annual income tax liability above an inflation-adjusted threshold, a net worth of $2 million or more on the date of expatriation, or a failure to certify 5 years of US tax compliance – where it is commonly certified on IRS Form 8854.
Meeting even one of these three tests makes you a covered expatriate. All three tests apply equally to US citizens who renounce and to long-term lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who give up their green card.
Is there an exception to the income and asset tests?
Yes, for some people. Under IRC Section 877A(g)(1)(B), certain individuals are exempt from the income and asset tests. If this exception applies to you, you can avoid covered expatriate status even if your net worth exceeds $2 million or your income exceeds the threshold. The certification requirement under Section 877(a)(2)(C) still applies to everyone, including those who qualify for this exception.
Who can use this exception?
The exception is narrow. Under the statute, it applies only to an individual who: became a citizen of the United States and a citizen of another country at birth; as of the date of expatriation, continues to be a citizen of and is taxed as a resident of that other country; and has been a US resident for no more than 10 taxable years during the 15-year period ending with the taxable year of expatriation. Only someone who acquired US citizenship automatically at birth, while also holding citizenship of another country from birth, can potentially qualify.
Why green card holders cannot use it
Lawful permanent residents are not US citizens. They hold a green card, which is a grant of permanent resident status, not citizenship. Because the exception in Section 877A(g)(1)(B) applies only to individuals who became US citizens at birth, long-term LPRs cannot satisfy this requirement by definition. The exception is simply not available to them.
What this means if you are a long-term green card holder
A long-term LPR who meets either the $2 million asset test or the income tax liability test will become a covered expatriate, even if they fully satisfy the 5-year certification requirement. Satisfying the certification requirement is necessary for everyone, but for long-term LPRs it is not sufficient on its own. If you also meet the income or asset test, you are a covered expatriate regardless.
The consequences include the mark-to-market exit tax on unrealized gains and the Section 2801 tax on covered gifts and bequests to US persons. These consequences can affect your US family members for decades. Understanding them well before you give up your green card, not after, is the only way to plan for them.
There are important unintended tax consequences that can befall individuals who have a green card depending upon their factual circumstances: 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):
This post provides general information only and is not legal advice. Consult an experienced attorney for guidance specific to your situation.
What Is FATCA and Why Is My Foreign Bank Asking Me About My US Status?
If you received a letter from your foreign bank asking whether you are a US person, FATCA is why. FATCA (the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) is a US law requiring foreign banks to identify and report their American clients’ account information to the IRS. This post explains what those letters mean, what your bank is reporting, and what you should know if you are a US citizen or green card holder living abroad.
FATCA stands for the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. It added Chapter 4 to Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code, which is why your bank’s letter may use that formal legal phrase. In practice, it means one thing: foreign financial institutions are required by US law to collect information about clients who are US persons and report that information to the IRS.
If your bank’s letter references “Chapter 4 of Subtitle A of the US Internal Revenue Code,” it is simply their way of citing the statute behind their request.
Why is my foreign bank sending me a letter about my US status?
Your bank is required to ask. Under FATCA, foreign financial institutions must identify which of their clients are US persons and report those accounts to the IRS.
For many people, this letter is a surprise. A large number of US-born individuals who have lived most of their lives abroad find out for the first time, through a letter like this, that they are US income tax residents. Under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, being born in the United States makes you a US citizen and a US tax resident, regardless of where you have lived since.
In many cases, people first learn about their US tax obligations when they open a new account and the foreign bank asks them to provide an IRS Form W-9 along with their Social Security number.
What information does my foreign bank have to report to the IRS?
Under FATCA, your bank reports your name, your account number, your taxpayer identification number (such as your Social Security number), and income earned from your account. Some institutions are also reporting account balances, even where FATCA does not yet require it.
Your bank will ask you to certify under penalty of perjury whether you are a US person or not. That is a legally significant step, not a routine form.
Who counts as a US person under FATCA?
If you were born in the United States, you are a US person, unless one of two things is true:
You were born to diplomatic parents who were on a formal diplomatic assignment in the US at the time of your birth, or
If neither exception applies to you, you are a US person under FATCA, regardless of how long you have lived outside the United States.
What is a FATCA intergovernmental agreement?
A FATCA intergovernmental agreement (IGA) is an agreement between the US Treasury and a foreign government to exchange financial information. These agreements work in both directions: your foreign bank reports your US accounts to the IRS, and US banks may report your accounts there to your local tax authority.
This means FATCA letters are not only going to Americans with accounts abroad. Citizens of other countries are also receiving notifications that information about their US-held accounts will be shared with their home country’s tax authority. For a deeper look at how these agreements operate in practice, see The Dirty Secret of US FATCA IGAs.
What should I do if I receive a FATCA letter from my bank?
A FATCA letter is not a tax bill or a penalty notice. It means your bank is complying with its legal obligations, and that the IRS may receive information about your account.
If you are a US citizen or green card holder living abroad and have not been filing US tax returns or FBARs (FinCEN Form 114, the Foreign Bank Account Report), receiving this letter is a signal to act. Consult an experienced international tax attorney about your options.
This post provides general information only and is not legal advice. Consult an experienced attorney for guidance specific to your situation.
Form W-8 or W-9? Why the Wrong Choice Could Cost Green Card Holders Abroad
The choice between Form W-8 and Form W-9 comes down to one thing: your U.S. tax residency status, not your immigration status. Green card holders living abroad may be able to sign Form W-8 under a U.S. income tax treaty, but picking the wrong form means signing a false statement under penalty of perjury. And claiming treaty benefits carries a risk that many people never see coming. Consulting an experienced attorney before signing anything is essential.
What is the difference between Form W-8 and Form W-9?
Both forms tell your bank or financial institution whether you are a U.S. tax resident or not. Form W-9 is for U.S. residents, who must pay U.S. taxes on income they earn anywhere in the world. Form W-8BEN is for non-residents, who generally only pay U.S. taxes on certain types of income that come from U.S. sources. The form you sign has real legal consequences, not just administrative ones.
What happens if you sign the wrong form?
Signing either form is a certification made under penalties of perjury. If you are a U.S. tax resident and you sign Form W-8, you are making a false statement, and serious legal consequences may follow.
Why is this more complicated for green card holders living abroad?
U.S. citizens always sign Form W-9, with no exceptions. For everyone else, it depends on tax residency status. Green card holders are generally treated as U.S. tax residents even while living in another country, which would normally mean they sign Form W-9. But there is an important exception: if the country where they live has an income tax treaty with the United States, they may be able to claim non-resident status under that treaty and sign Form W-8 instead. There are important unintended tax consequences that can befall individuals here: 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).
The United States has 58 income tax treaties that together cover 66 countries. That includes the 1973 U.S. and U.S.S.R. income tax treaty, which still applies today to nine former Soviet republics: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
What did the court decide in Aroeste v. United States, and why does it matter?
Aroeste v. United States (Case No. 22-cv-00682-AJB-KSC) is a federal court decision that established a 5-step analysis for green card holders who have not formally given up their green card but are living abroad. The key question the court addresses is whether a green card holder qualifies to be treated as a resident of a foreign country under an applicable U.S. income tax treaty. This ruling matters for the more than 3 million LPRs who are living outside the United States.
What are the benefits of successfully claiming non-resident status under a treaty?
If a green card holder qualifies as a non-resident under a tax treaty, they may be able to stop filing U.S. federal income tax returns on their worldwide income. They may also no longer be required to file the Foreign Bank Account Report, known as the FBAR, which would help them avoid the significant penalties that come with missing that filing. The court in Aroeste laid out the specific steps required to make this claim correctly.
One important note: if you claim non-resident status under a treaty but fail to report that treaty position to the IRS on time, you face a separate penalty under IRC Section 6712(a) of $1,000 for each failure to timely file. Claiming treaty status correctly and reporting it on time are both required.
What is the risk on the other side?
Claiming treaty-based non-resident status may also legally end your U.S. tax residency. Under IRC Section 7701(b)(6), this shift may cause you to cease to be a lawful permanent resident of the United States. That change may trigger the U.S. expatriation tax rules under IRC Section 877A(g)(3), which could classify you as a covered expatriate. The Aroeste court did not address these consequences because they were not part of that case, but they are real and potentially serious.
What does covered expatriate status mean for your family?
Covered expatriate status does not only affect you. If your family members or friends in the United States later receive gifts or an inheritance from you, they may owe U.S. tax on those transfers under the covered gift and covered bequest rules. This may affect children, spouses, and anyone else who would receive something from you.
Do you need an attorney before making this decision?
The answer depends on which country you live in, which treaty applies, the value of your assets, and your long-term plans. Getting it wrong may trigger exit taxes, affect your family’s inheritance, and have consequences that cannot easily be undone. This post explains the framework but is not a substitute for legal advice specific to your situation.
Green Card Holders (Abandonment) – so Many More than U.S. Citizens who Renounce: The Topsnik Problem(s)!
I have previously written (pre-Aroeste v. United States) about the thorny issues that LPRs face when spending substantial time outside the United States. See an earlier post titled:
I highlighted some key concepts about why it matters if you become a “long-term” resident as that term is defined in the tax law and now the case law in Aroeste makes these risks clear as confirmed in the landmark case.
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 particular 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 –
* More Green Card Holders Abandon Status Than Citizens Renounce Citizenship
A frequently overlooked fact is that:
Formal Abandonment of LPR Status Is More Common Than Citizenship Renunciation
Each year, substantially more lawful permanent residents formally abandon their green cards than U.S. citizens formally renounce citizenship. The focus in the press and media is typically U.S. citizens who formally renounce. Here is my most recently compiled graph, the total number of U.S. citizens renouncing is typically in the thousands (few) each year. It has trended downward post-COVID.
However, with LPRs, formal recognition of abandonment by filing Form I-407 (not including informal abandonments which are multiple times greater) is multiple times greater.
The graph I created several years ago, shows that formal LPR abandonments are mlutiple times greater than citizenship renunciation. I made a FOIA request with the government to request information about the number USCIS Forms I-407 that are filed with the government. See, also quarterly statistics of the USCIS – Form I-407, Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status (partial information for years 2016-2019).
I have made a new FOIA request for more recent records, since this data is no longer public after the year 2019 year.
The statistics reflected above demonstrate that:
Formal green card abandonment significantly exceeds formal citizenship renunciations.
The population potentially affected by the expatriation rules is therefore much larger than many individuals around the world appreciate.
Lack of Control Over the Timing of Termination
One of the greatest risks for green card holders is that they often do not control the legal date on which their LPR status terminates, especially if they reside in a tax treaty country, per the analysis in the landmark case:
If abandonment is later determined by tax treaty law, effectively an CPB officer, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) immigration court, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)or a even a Federal District Court:
The taxpayer may not control the effective date of termination – “expatriation”.
If they are a “covered expatriate” or not.
The tax consequences may arise unexpectedly.
The timing can directly impact whether the tax expatriation rules apply and all of the potential consequences.
These timing issues become important when the IRS challenges tax positions taken on tax returns filed (or filed late) as was the case in Topsnik v. Commissioner (143 T.C. 240 (2014) – “Topsnik I”) and the subsequent case of Topsnik v. Commissioner (146 T.C. No. 1, 2016) – “Topsnik II”). In Topsnik II, Judge Kerrigan agreed with the IRS and ” . . . determined that P [taxpayer] was a “covered expatriate” who expatriated in 2010 and must recognize gain on the deemed sale of his installment obligation on the day before his expatriation under I.R.C. sec. 877A.” The U.S. Tax Court cited IRS Notice 2009-85 and explained it was not legally binding as follows:
We are not bound by Notice 2009-85, supra, see Compaq Computer Corp. v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 363, 372 (1999), but it is an official statement of the Commissioner’s position and we may let it persuade us, see Nationalist Movement v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 558, 583 (1994), aff’d, 37 F.3d 216 (5th Cir.1994).
The Tax Court went on to conclude these facts caused the court to conclude and uphold the IRS assessment of the “exit tax” on the German citizen Mr. Topsnik as a “covered expatriate” quoted as follows:
Notice 2009-85, sec. 8, 2009-45 I.R.B. at 611, explains that for purposes of certifying tax compliance for the five years before expatriation pursuant to section 877(a)(2)(C):
All U.S. citizens who relinquish their U.S. citizenship and all long-term residents who cease to be lawful permanent residents of the United States (within the meaning of section 7701(b)(6)) 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. Individuals who fail to make such certification will be treated as covered expatriates within the meaning of section 877A(g) * * *
For the year of his expatriation petitioner failed to complete and file a Form 8854 certifying under penalties of perjury that he has complied with all of his U.S. Federal tax obligations for the five taxable years preceding the taxable year that includes his expatriation date. Respondent [IRS] has provided evidence that petitioner did not file all of his U.S. income tax returns before expatriatingand was not in payment compliance for taxes owed for the five years before expatriation in taxable year 2010. Thus petitioner could not have certified under penalties of perjury on a Form 8854 that he had been in tax compliance for the five years before expatriation. Consequently, because petitioner failed to certify tax compliance for the five years before expatriation, he is a “covered expatriate” as defined by section 877A(g)(1)(A).
Importantly, the court in Aroeste concluded IRS Form 8854 was not required to be filed (even though the DOJ attorney argued it was required – as set forth in the instructions to the form) as explained below:
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.
Both the Green Valley Investors LLC case and Mann Construction were 2022 cases, some 6 years after Topsnik II.
My law firm, Chamberlain Hrdlicka, successfully represented the taxpayers in Green Valley and of course in Aroeste.
Practical Lessons for Green Card Holders
The combined lessons from Aroeste, Topsnik I, and Topsnik II are significant.
Before Obtaining a Green Card
Individuals should understand:
The long-term resident rules and their U.S. tax obligations and reporting obligations;
The expatriation tax provisions and how they generally apply;
The “covered expatriate” tax regime and what steps to take;
The impact of income tax treaties with countries in the United States.
Before Formally Reporting the Abandonment (or Informally Abandoning) a Green Card
Individuals should carefully evaluate:
The date expatriation may occur;
Whether Form I-407 should be filed;
Tax compliance under U.S. tax laws (and what that means), including for the preceding five years to abandonment;
What notifications should be provided and when (not necessarily formal tax form filings);
Potential exit tax exposure – depending upon total assets, liabilities, type of assets and anticipated future income and gains;
Treaty residency positions and the particular facts of each case;
Reporting obligations, and which ones are mandatory or not – including IRS Forms 8833 and 8854.
Most Important Takeaway?
A green card holder does not necessarily need to spend seven or eight years physically living in the United States before becoming subject to the long-term resident and expatriation tax rules. The interaction of immigration law, tax law, treaty provisions, and reporting requirements can produce unexpected results. The recent landmark decision in Aroeste that I handled, confirms that these issues are not merely theoretical—they are increasingly becoming the subject of significant litigation and judicial scrutiny.
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.
Most important Questions for “Green Card” Holders (“lawful permanent residents”): Part I of VI
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
Did USCs Born in the U.S. lately (not to USC Parents) – Accidentally “Expatriate” for U.S. Tax Purposes? – per President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14160
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
Part I of Part II: The Gold Card – “It’s like the green card, but better and more sophisticated.”
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.
Burdens of U.S. International Tax Compliance: Why some USCs residing overseas ultimately renounce U.S. citizenship (dizzying tax compliance)
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
How Many Lawful Permanent Residents does the U.S. Receive (Per Year: 1820-2022)
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?
Many individuals have no idea that, under the legal principles confirmed in the federal district court case I litigated — 
