Can you keep your green card and still “expatriate” for US tax purposes?
Yes. Many lawful permanent residents (LPRs, or green card holders) assume they have not “expatriated” for US tax purposes as long as they have not handed their green card back to US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). That assumption can lead to a rude awakening. Under IRC Section 7701(b)(6), a green card holder can cease to be treated as a lawful permanent resident for federal tax purposes without ever formally abandoning the card with USCIS. See, an article written by Patrick W. Martin on this subject a dozen years ago: 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).
What is IRC Section 7701(b)(6)?
IRC Section 7701(b)(6) is a provision Congress added in 2008 that says when a green card holder stops being treated as a lawful permanent resident for federal tax purposes. The relevant part provides that an individual shall cease to be treated as a lawful permanent resident if the individual commences to be treated as a resident of a foreign country under a tax treaty between the United States and that country, does not waive the benefits of the treaty applicable to residents of the foreign country, and notifies the Secretary of the commencement of such treatment.
What are the three tests for losing LPR status under Section 7701(b)(6)?
The statutory language sets out three tests. A green card holder is no longer an LPR for federal tax purposes when all three are met:
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 that treaty; and
The individual notifies the Secretary of the commencement of such treatment.
It can get more complicated than this too – depending upon the interpretation of the laws in various tax treaties.
Can filing Form 1040NR end your green card status for tax purposes?
It can. Each of the three tests under Section 7701(b)(6) appears to be satisfied by a green card holder who files IRS Form 1040NR as a non-resident while living in a country that has a US income tax treaty. In that situation the individual may be treated as having ceased to be a lawful permanent resident for federal tax purposes, even though the green card itself was never returned to USCIS.
What happens once you stop being a lawful permanent resident under the tax law?
There can be a host of unintended consequences for an individual who ceases to be a lawful permanent resident under the federal tax law. The expatriation provisions of Section 877A and Section 2801, among others, can be implicated, along with many other provisions of the law. For background, 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.
How does a green card holder formally abandon LPR status?
For those who wish to formally abandon their lawful permanent resident status, there is a specific DHS/USCIS form used for that purpose: Form I-407. Filing this form is the route to formally relinquishing the green card with the immigration authorities, which is separate from the tax-law treatment described above under Section 7701(b)(6).
Not everyone who renounces US citizenship faces the same tax consequences. People who qualify as “covered expatriates” face significant additional obligations. Here is what that means and how even modest individuals can end up in this category.
One of the greatest risks for anyone who wants to give up US citizenship is Section 877(a)(2)(C). Even the most economically modest individual, with little assets or income, can fall into this trap. No one at the US Department of State will provide tax advice or interpret Section 877(a)(2)(C) for you. The renunciation appointment itself is straightforward. The tax consequences are not.
What are the three tests for covered expatriate status?
Under Section 877(a)(2), you are a covered expatriate if any one of the following is true:
(A) Your average annual net income tax liability is greater than $124,000;
(B) Your net worth is $2,000,000 or more as of your expatriation date; or
(C) You fail to certify under penalty of perjury that you have met all US tax requirements for the 5 preceding taxable years, or fail to submit the required evidence of compliance.
Any individual who meets any one of these tests will be a covered expatriate and subject to the taxation and reporting requirements under Sections 877, 877A, and 2801.
What happens at the embassy or consulate?
When you take the renunciation oath at a US embassy or consulate, the Foreign Affairs Manual provides only standard overview language about “special tax consequences.” The consular officer will not explain the specific rules of Section 877(a)(2)(C) or tell you whether you will be a covered expatriate. This is worth understanding well before going to take the oath.
This post provides general information only and is not legal advice. Consult an experienced attorney for guidance specific to your situation.
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.
The U.S. Treasury and IRS took more than a decade to finalize, and more than 15 years after the statute was adopted in 2008. See the new Treasury Regulations here.
This Novel Tax Now Only Applies on 2025 Transfers (and thereafter). The rules are not retroactive, after all, as the prior draft regulations contemplated. Any taxable transfer made after the adoption of the statute and the implementation of these regulations, escape taxation. See, § 28.2801-1(b) – Tax on certain gifts and bequests from covered expatriates.
Transfers made prior to 2025 on “covered bequests” and “covered gifts” will escape taxation under the law that was passed back in 2008!
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.
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?
These regulations are extensive and provide an explanation of the purpose of these rules.
II. Purpose of Foreign Gift and Trust Provisions
During the mid- to late-1990s, abusive tax schemes, including offshore schemes involving foreign trusts, reemerged in the United States after reaching their last peak in the 1980s. GAO, Efforts to Identify and Combat Abusive Tax Schemes Have increased, but challenges remain, GAO–02–733 (Washington, DC: May 22, 2002). In these schemes, foreign trusts were used to transfer large amounts of assets abroad, where it was much more difficult for the IRS to identify whether U.S. persons owned a trust.
interest in such trusts, and whether such persons were reporting and paying the required taxes on their income from such trusts. Many of the foreign trusts were established in tax haven jurisdictions with bank secrecy laws. Before the 1996 Act amended sections 6048 and 6677, there was no Form 3520-A), which was limited to five percent of the transfer or corpus of the trust, as applicable, not to exceed $1,000. In light of this, it was difficult for the IRS to obtain information about income earned by U.S.-owned foreign trusts and distributions to U.S. beneficiaries from foreign trusts, and Sections 6048 and 6677 were generally ineffective in ensuring that U.S. persons provided this information. information. The result was “rampant tax evasion.” 141 Cong. Rec. S13859 (daily edition of September 19, 1995) (comments by Senator Moynihan). Requirement for U.S. Persons to Report Distributions from Foreign Trusts and the Penalty for Failure to Report Transfers to a Foreign Trust or an Annual Foreign Trust Information Statement (in Federal Register/Vol. 89, No. 90/Wednesday, May 8 of 2024/Proposed Rules and 141 Cong. Rec. S13859 (daily edition of September 19, 1995) (comments by Senator Moynihan).
Federal Court Determines IRS “Guidance for Expatriates Under Section 877A” – IRS Notice 2009-85: “Is Not Binding Authority”
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”.
The federal tax law has a very transparent system of reporting and identifying former U.S. citizens who have renounced their citizenship. The data with the names of each individual are published quarterly on the federal government’s website as Required by Section 6039G. The complete set of lists including thousands of names of former U.S. citizens going back to the mid-1990s can be reviewed here. Quarterly Publications. Quarterly Publication of Individuals, Who Have Chosen to Expatriate.
See previous posts regarding the numbers of USCs who were renouncing at an increasingly rapid pace starting at just around and just before the year 2010. The FATCA transparency laws were passed in 2010 and so too were more international information reporting requirements (IRC 6038D) and strong enforcement efforts overseas by the IRS and DOJ Tax Division; which could be part of a cause and effect consequence? See, CHAPTER 4—TAXES TO ENFORCE REPORTING ON CERTAIN FOREIGN ACCOUNTS (§§ 1471 – 1474)
Posted on : The current renunciations and now steep decline starting in 2018 may be temporary or part of a trend?
Subsequent posts will discuss the new trend of how relatively fewer lawful permanent residents (“LPRs”) are formally abandoning their status compared to USCs who formally renounce. This is true even though the number of USCs renouncing is in decline.
Many individuals have no idea that, under the legal principles confirmed in the federal district court case I litigated — 
