The Canadian income tax system has a sensible rule that treats immigrants into the country “as if” they had sold their non-Canadian assets just prior to becoming a Canadian income tax resident.

The Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) explains it as follows:

• If you owned certain properties, other than taxable Canadian properties, while you were a non-resident of Canada, we consider you to have sold the properties and to have immediately reacquired them at a cost equal to their fair market value on the date you became a resident of Canada. This is called a deemed acquisition.

• Usually, the fair market value is the highest dollar value you can get for your property in a normal business transaction.

• You should keep a record of the fair market value of your properties on the date you arrived in Canada. The fair market value will be your cost when you calculate your gain or loss from selling the property in the future.

The U.S. does not have such a rule generally for immigrants coming to America.  Instead, the non-U.S. citizen will typically have their historic tax basis (by applying U.S. tax principles) in the property they own prior to coming to the U.S.   For instance, an immigrant from the South American continent who owns real estate in their country of citizenship, may have a large “unrealized gain” in that property for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

This means that if the South American sells the real estate, while being a U.S. income tax resident (after immigrating to the U.S.), the gain in the South American real estate will be subject to taxation in the U.S.  This is very different from the sensible Canadian rule, which exempts the appreciation in the property of the immigrant while living outside of the North American continent.

This can be a very bad result for the uninformed immigrant, since the example above can get worse, when the immigrant to the U.S. has received properties in the form of gifts (e.g., from their family members) which could have very low tax bases per U.S. tax law.   Assume a gift of South American real estate received by the immigrant prior to moving to the U.S. with a low historic basis of US$500K.  Assume further it is sold for US$3.3M while the immigrant is residing in the U.S.  If the property was worth US$3.2M when she immigrated to the U.S., only US$100K of appreciation occurred while residing in the U.S.  Nevertheless, under U.S. law, the entire US$2.8M gain (US$2.7M of which occurred while living outside the U.S.) will generally be subject to U.S. federal income tax.

This comes as quite a surprise to many. 

An immigrant to Canada in the same case, would only have US$100K of taxable gain, with the US$2.7M gain being free from taxation under Canada’s “deemed acquisition” rules.

There is one exception in the U.S. tax law.  Unfortunately, it applies to “covered expatriates” who readers of this site understand, that the U.S. tax regimes are typically quite undesirable.  They are as follows:

• The “Mark to Market” taxation on unrealized gains of worldwide assets, arising from the renunciation of U.S. citizenship or termination of “long-term residency” status  (i.e., the so-called “exit tax”);  See, Inflation Adjusted Exclusion Amounts Since Inception of 2008 “Mark to Market” Expatriation Tax Law: Example   and

• The tax payable by U.S. beneficiaries whenever they receive so-called “covered gifts” and/or “covered bequests.”  See, The “Hidden Tax” of Expatriation – Section 2801 and its “Forever Taint.” (April 2014) and a post from September 2015, Finally – Proposed Regulations for “Covered Gifts” and “Covered Bequests” Issued by Treasury Last Week (Be Careful What You Ask For!).

The statutory provision under IRC Section 877A(h)(2)  provides relief from the first tax; for purposes of calculating the “mark to market” tax.  It provides in relevant part that the “covered expatriate” –

• . . . shall be treated as having a basis on such date [the date of immigration to the U.S. in the first place] of not less than the fair market value of such property on such date . . .”

Accordingly, the appreciation of the property owned by the immigrant (see, US$2.7M example above – who is in the process of emigrating out of the U.S. -by way of “covered expatriate” status)  will generally escape income taxation under IRC Section 877A(h)(2)  on the unrealized gain in the property that arises prior to moving to the U.S. in the first place.   This limited rule is similar to the sensible Canadian “deemed acquisition” rules.

Unfortunately, there is no such rule as this “deemed acquisition” concept that could reduce the future tax payable by U.S. beneficiaries of “covered gifts” and “covered bequests.”

The world is starting to wake up to better understand how the U.S. Treasury negotiated so-called “bilateral” FATCA Intergovernmental Agreements (“IGAs”) with some 113  countries around the world.  The list of all countries can be found here at the Treasury website –  Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)

Not all of these countries have actually signed the IGAs.  Many of them have what the U.S. Treasury calls an “agreement in substance.”

How does this impact USCs and LPRs residing outside the U.S.?  Many ways.

First, extensive information is being collected by foreign financial institutions (FFIs – non-U.S. financial institutions) throughout the world to identify “U.S. Persons” and “Substantial U.S. Owners.”  The IGAs use the term “Specified U.S. Person”  with respect to what are defined as “U.S. Reportable Accounts.”  See as an example, the Treasury FATCA IGA with Colombia, which is largely identical in form to almost all other IGAs.

Second, many FFIs have adopted a policy to no longer accept or retain U.S. accounts, due to the cost of compliance associated with U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.  Also, many FFIs simply want to avoid the risk of being penalized heavily by the U.S. federal government for having U.S. taxpayers and being charged with some type of wrongdoing; namely aiding and abetting U.S. taxpayers to evade U.S. tax obligations.  See, Jack Townsend’s thoughtful website Federal Tax Crimes that reviews in detail the various cases with foreign banks, with a particular focus on Swiss banks, U.S. DOJ Program for Swiss Banks .

Now to the “dirty little secret” of FATCA IGAs.  They are not bilateral in the sense that U.S. banks do not need to provide the same detailed information on their non-U.S. clients (e.g., UK, French, Canadian, Mexican, Chinese, Dutch, Spanish, Colombian, Brazilian, residents, etc.) as do FFIs regarding “U.S. accounts.”  This is no real secret, since a simple reading of the FATCA IGAs will get you to this conclusion by simply understanding the difference between what is defined as a “U.S. Reportable Account” (which is extraordinarily broad) compared to “Country X Reportable Account.”  The latter definition, e.g., a Colombian Reportable Account, only obligates U.S. banks to send information of individual residents on U.S. source income under chapter 3 and certain accounts of Colombian entities. 

Hence, all non-U.S. source income to a Colombia resident individual is not subject to reporting by the U.S. financial institution.  She could have a portfolio of US$150M in non-U.S. mutual funds, ADRs traded on the NYSE and have no reporting of all of her income going back to the Colombian government.  Also, stock sales of U.S. corporations (e.g., Apple, Ford or Microsoft) is not treated as “U.S. source income” defined under chapter 3.  Plus, a Colombian resident who has an offshore corporation (e.g., a BVI company) that owns the investments, NO reporting is required of the U.S. financial institution; even if the entire US$150M portfolio were invested in U.S. stocks, U.S. treasuries, and other American made financial investments.

Contrast that with what is defined as a “U.S. Reportable Account” that would include a U.S. Person that is a “Controlling Person” of a “Non-U.S. Entity.”  Take the same example in reverse; a Colombian bank must identify all of its clients with Non-U.S. Entities (undertake an expensive due diligence process) to then identify whether such entities (e.g., a BVI company) has a “Specified U.S. Person”.   Plus, it does not matter if the income is from Colombian sources or non-Colombian sources.  Income is income and must be reported by the FFI.

Accordingly, Banks around the world in at least 113 countries  (e.g., UK, French, Mexican, Chinese, Dutch, Spanish, Colombian, Brazilian, Cayman, Singapore, Guatemala, Hong Kong, etc.) are required to drill down and collect detailed information on beneficial owners of basically all companies, trusts and other legal entities.  This work is required, so as to identify who are “U.S. persons” to identify “substantial U.S. owners” as that term is defined in the FATCA regulations.  The IGAs call these essentially “U.S. Reportable Accounts.” In the case of FFIs, U.S. taxpayers cannot hide behind offshore opaque legal entities (e.g., which would generally be illegal for USCs to form and hold assets in a foreign corporation and not report the assets, activities and earnings of the foreign corporation, which would generally be a CFC or possibly a PFIC).  See prior post:  March 30, 2015, The Problem with PFICs! “Avoid PFICs Like the Plague”

The FATCA IGAs, require these FFIs to provide extensive information on all income on these “U.S. Reportable Account” to the IRS, either directly or indirectly through their own governments.

In contrast, individuals resident in any foreign country (e.g., UK, French, Mexican, Chinese, Dutch, Spanish, Colombian, Brazilian, Belgium, Guatemala, Luxembourg, etc.) can generally hold their ownership interests of U.S. investment assets in U.S. banks and financial institutions through opaque legal structures and hide behind the entity without worrying that a U.S. financial institution has any duty to identify and disclose who are the beneficial owners to the tax authorities of those residents.  See Colombian individual scenario above with a BVI company.

• Why did the Treasury purposefully create this limited reporting obligations for U.S. financial institutions while creating extensive and detailed reporting obligations for FFIs?
• Why are U.S. financial institutions not required under FATCA IGAs to identify the beneficial owners of opaque legal structures to report the income and gains to foreign tax authorities?
• Why are U.S. financial institutions not required under FATCA IGAs to identify the and report non-U.S. source income in their U.S. accounts?
• Why has the U.S. refused to participate in the OECD common reporting standards?
• Why did the U.S. federal government wait until just this month of May 2016, to say it will start increasing the ” . . . transparency [of] the “beneficial ownership” of companies formed in the United States by requiring that companies know and report their true owners . . . “?
• Why is the White House just now saying it is going to be “Closing a Loophole that Enables Foreigners to Hide Behind Anonymous Entities Formed in the United States”  when from inception, starting in 2012 all of the FATCA IGAs (which were drafted and negotiated exclusively by the U.S. Treasury) have always allowed foreigners with accounts and investments in the U.S. to hide behind anonymous entities?

Read the Q&A format here.

Previous posts have briefly discussed passive foreign investment companies (PFICs”).  See,  – “PFICs” – What is a PFIC – and their Complications for USCs and LPRs Living Outside the U.S. (28 March 2014)

and

 The Problem with PFICs! “Avoid PFICs Like the Plague”  (30 March 2015).

This discussion will be the first part of a series of key points that will delve into some of the important details.

To begin with, it is important to note the following “new” requirements, if you have an investment that falls into the category of a “PFIC.”

•  Annual reporting of PFICs is now required under the new regulations.  See,  Regulations §1.1291–0T, et. seq.

• The regulations require the “. . . United States person must file a separate IRS Form 8621 for each PFIC . . .” investment.  See, Treas. Reg. §1.1298–1T(e) –(e) Separate annual report for each PFIC—(1) General rule. If a United States person is required under section 1298(f) and these regulations to file Form 8621 (or successor form) with respect to more than one PFIC, the United States person must file a separate Form 8621 (or successor form) for each PFIC.

** This means that if the individual has a portfolio of 14 different mutual funds that are PFICs, the taxpayer has to prepare 14 different IRS Forms 8621.

Various financial institutions are just now starting to advise their clients who are U.S. citizens (commonly residing outside the U.S.) of these complex reporting rules.  See for instance, Fidelity’s website; Passive Foreign Investment Company, Fidelity is helping investors comply with U.S. PFIC tax rules

The information featured on this blog is designed to orient U.S. citizens (“USCs”) and U.S. lawful permanent residents, i.e., “green card” holders (“LPRs”) to important U.S. federal tax consequences to them.  It’s primary focus relates to those USCs or LPRs who are contemplating renouncing their citizenship or abandoning their permanent residency status.

There are many complex federal tax rules that are often overlooked in the international area.  One of those is the excise tax that is payable by the USC or LPR individual, not the non-U.S. insurance company, when premiums are paid to an insurance company.   The IRS takes the position that the ” . . .  the Service will generally seek payment of the excise tax from the U.S. person making the premium payment . . .” See, IRS Foreign Insurance Excise Tax- Audit Technique Guide.

This is a 1% excise tax on the premiums paid for each life insurance, sickness or accident insurance or contracts.  See, IRC Section 4371.  If you reside in London and buy life insurance with a UK life insurance carrier (or Paris with a French insurance company, Toronto with a Canadian insurance company, etc.) in your home country, you are probably not thinking that you need to pay Uncle Sam a tax on what you perceive as a “run of the mill” insurance coverage.

Indeed your life insurance company in your country of residence will not be advising that as a USC or LPR, you should be paying Uncle Sam.

If the insurance contract is a casualty policy, the excise tax is 400% greater than the 1% tax on life insurance premiums; i.e., a 4% excise tax.  The payment of the tax is made on IRS Form 720, Federal Excise Tax Return.

In my experience, I never find that any individuals who are USCs and LPRs living around the world are aware of this obscure tax.  When the tax is not paid the IRS has unlimited time to assess tax and penalties, including late payment penalties, late filing penalties and negligence penalties.  Plus, interest that accrues on the unpaid tax and penalties can grow the amounts owing over time.  See, When the U.S. Tax Law has no Statute of Limitations against the IRS; i.e., for the U.S. citizen and LPR residing outside the U.S., posted March 24, 2014.

The excise tax amount may not seem too significant.  However, if it is not timely paid, there will be late payment and late filing penalties (e.g., for failure to file the excise tax return).  This 1% or 4% excise tax is on the gross premium payment.  This tax amount  can certainly add up when insurance premiums are paid annually and over many decades.

Finally, be aware that the IRS is focusing on this excise tax on insurance contracts, at least within its OVDP program where IRS revenue agents are asserting that 25%, 27.5% or 50% of the value of the entire asset (e.g., the cash surrender value of the insurance policy) is subject to the “in lieu of penalty”.

There has been a media frenzy around the world since the story broke of the so-called “Panama Papers.”  It’s not clear, to date, what will become the underlying consequences for U.S. citizens (“USCs”) and lawful permanent residents (“LPRs”) residing around the world, outside the U.S.  Indeed, there is now a Wikipedia website dedicated to identifying famous people linked to the “Panama Papers”.  See, List of people named in the Panama Papers

So far, that Wikipedia list does not identify USCs or LPRs, as far as I can tell.

I have read numerous international articles, but none (that I have found) have articulated that USCs and LPRs have been engaged in large scale U.S. tax evasion and fraud; unlike the stories of UBS, Credit Suisse, Julius Baer, Wegelan Bank (that went bankrupt) and other Swiss banks.  See, for instance, How will USCs and LPRs living overseas be affected? Credit Suisse is reportedly in talks to pay well over $ 1 billion to resolve tax transgressions with the U.S. Department of Justice, posted 11 May 2014.  Of course, Credit Suisse ended up paying over US$2 billion to the U.S. federal government.

There is bound to be a major response by various countries about how is the best way to respond to their taxpayers from their countries who are not complying with their laws.  The Panama Papers might become the U.S.’s version of the Swiss bank fiasco that largely started in 2009?  Only time will tell.

For any USC or LPR, they simply need to be aware of the obligations of U.S. law regarding reporting and identifying assets located throughout the world, including their country of residence (e.g., their normal bank accounts), including any ownership in companies that may be formed in any particular jurisdiction outside the U.S., whether that be France, UK, Mexico, Colombia, Panama, South Africa, BVI, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Canada, Spain, etc.

For a primer for USCs and LPRs residing outside the U.S, the following blog  posts identify various U.S. legal obligations reporting non-U.S. assets:

1.  Why Most U.S. Citizens Residing Overseas Haven’t a Clue about the Labyrinth of U.S. Taxation and Bank and Financial Reporting of Worldwide Income and Assets, 2 Nov 2015;
2.  USCs and LPRs Living Outside the U.S. – Key Tax and BSA Forms , 17 March 2014;
3.  USCs and LPRs residing outside the U.S. – and IRS Form 8938, 2 April 2014;
4.   Nuances of FBAR – Foreign Bank Account Report Filings – for USCs and LPRs living outside the U.S, 3 April 2014;
5.   U.S citizens (USCs) and Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs): Caution When Making Gifts. US Tax Court Recently Ruled a 1972 Gift by Sumner Redstone Still Open to IRS Challenge, 26 Dec 2016.

This post is written simply because so many U.S. citizens residing overseas are reasonably confused about the complexity of U.S. tax law.  The mere requirement to file U.S. income tax returns for those overseas often comes as a great surprise.  My non-U.S. born wife is an exception (as she also lives outside the U.S.) simply because I have repeatedly told her for our 20 some years of marriage. 

Some in the IRS erroneously think U.S. citizens residing overseas do and should understand U.S. tax law.  I posed one simple scenario to a very sophisticated IRS attorney not very long ago who specializes in the FATCA rules.

Her view is (hopefully was) that U.S. citizens throughout the world know or should know the U.S. tax laws because the instructions to IRS Form 1040 are clear.

This thought knocked me off my figurative chair onto the floor!  Smack. 

My surprise is based upon my own experience working with individuals and families throughout the world, in numerous countries.  I have noticed a number of notions, based upon these andectodal experiences as follows:

1. A minority of U.S. citizens (unless they lived most of their lives in the U.S. and recently moved overseas as an “expatriate”) have no real basic idea of how the U.S. federal tax laws work; let alone to their assets and income in their country of residence.  See USCs and LPRs Living Outside the U.S. – Key Tax and BSA Forms
2. There are indeed plenty of immigrant U.S. residents (certainly less than 50% by my own experience – especially when concepts of PFICs and foreign tax credits start being discussed) who even understand the basics of U.S. international tax law.
3. If they reside in an English speaking country that has relatively strong family or historical ties to the U.S. (e.g., England, Ireland, Scotland, and Canada, etc.) they are likely to have a better idea of the U.S. federal tax laws, but still the majority don’t know key concepts.  See, Nuances of FBAR – Foreign Bank Account Report Filings – for USCs and LPRs living outside the U.S.
4. Even those in English speaking countries that have less historical or family ties to the U.S. have a lesser understanding (e.g., New Zealand, Australia, Kenya, South Africa, India, etc.).
5. Those who do not speak English know even less about U.S. tax laws and how they apply to them.
6. Many individuals who learn of these requirements overseas are sometimes driven to great despair.  The message they receive is not a correct one under the law in my view: as they read IRS materials (for instance, see FAQs 5, 6 and and former 51.2 from the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program Frequently Asked Questions and Answers 2014) and come to the conclusion they will soon be going to jail, criminally prosecuted or otherwise be subject to tens of thousands of dollars worth of penalties for their failure to file a range of tax forms.
7. Literally, sometimes as a tax lawyer I feel more like a psychologist, when these individuals come to me saying they can’t sleep, they can’t eat, they are seeing a cardiologist for high blood pressure, etc. and even in a most extreme case they thought suicide was a solution.  See, How is the offshore voluntary disclosure program really working? Not well for USCs and LPRs living overseas.
8. Individuals around the world (even tax professionals) and certainly laypeople, are not commonly reading TaxAnalysts (nor would they subscribe) or other tax professional publications that explain many of the intricacies of U.S. tax laws.
9. Learning and understanding U.S. tax laws, including just the basics, requires a great deal of time, aptitude for nuances and details, literacy, patience and a level of aptitude for such matters that simply escape many people around the world (most I would say).  see, “PFICs” – What is a PFIC – and their Complications for USCs and LPRs Living Outside the U.S.  I can relate to this personally, as I am an international tax professional (indeed I even studied a post graduate law course outside the U.S. in a non-English language), have spent my entire professional career of more than 25 years in the area, and yet only generally have a very superficial understanding of tax laws throughout the countries where I am dealing with clients.  I don’t try to understand the details of those laws. 
10. Many people are angry and frustrated (justifiably so, in my view, in many cases) after learning they are subject to these rules.  See comment above about being a psychologist.  Plus, USCs and LPRs residing outside the U.S. – and IRS Form 8938. In addition, see, Taxpayer Advocate Report on Burdens of Benign Taxpayers who Make Mistakes

Back to the intelligent IRS tax attorney.  My question to her was:  “Why would you, as a U.S. born individual not be reviewing the tax laws, tax forms and tax instructions of the country where your parents were born prior to immigrating to the U.S.?”  I asked:  “Are you not reviewing those laws in the original language of your parents (not English, but the other language of your parent’s country) to understand what tax forms and returns you should be filing?”

The IRS attorney’s response was:  “What:  of course, I am not reviewing such tax forms or filing information or tax laws, as I would have no tax obligations in that foreign country where I have no income, no assets or no bank or financial accounts!”

My follow-up question was a simple one:  “Don’t you realize that U.S. federal tax law (Title 26) and financial bank reporting laws (Title 31) do just that!”

“Hmm she paused: how can that be?”  I don’t recall if she said this out loud, or just said it with her puzzled expression.

The answer of course is that through citizenship (including derivative citizenship through a U.S. parent even though the child never spent a single day of residence in the U.S., let alone received any income or assets); that same individual in the mirror position as that IRS attorney is subject to a host of U.S. federal tax and financial reporting laws.  See, Sir Winston Churchill – Famous People. Did he become a U.S. citizen at birth via “derivative citizenship”? Did he file U.S. income tax returns?

Here is the big disconnect.    It’s not just among the ill-informed or those lesser educated on the fine points of law.  I had the pleasure this week along with my wife to host two educated, worldly and engaging individuals who have been married some 20 years together.  They are well read and highly educated.  Both are lawyers by training, one practices law that often pushes him fairly deeply into the tax law and his wife is a wonderful and experienced judge in the California state courts.

I asked them (as I like to ask people around the world) if they had ever heard or understood that the U.S. federal tax law imposes taxation and very detailed reporting on the worldwide income and assets of U.S. citizens who reside outside the U.S.  I discussed Cook v. Tait and the U.S. Civil War a bit.  See both Supreme Court’s Decision in Cook vs. Tait and Notification Requirement of Section 7701(a)(50) and The U.S. Civil War is the Origin of U.S. Citizenship Based Taxation on Worldwide Income for Persons Living Outside the U.S. ***Does it still make sense?

All of it was a great surprise to them! They were in utter shock and both are residents in the U.S., highly educated in the law and are like the vast majority of the world, including U.S. citizens who reside outside the U.S.

This is the common response for many U.S. citizens residing overseas.

There has been a case floating around since a complaint was filed this summer by Senator Rand Paul (current Presidential candidate) and various other current and former U.S. citizens including a Mr. Kisch who is resident in Toronto, Canada and a Mr. Crawford who lives in Albania; along with other individuals.  Crawford v. United States Dep’t of the Treasury, 2015 U.S. Dist.  The complaint asked for declaratory and injunctive relief.

The District Court granted neither and dismissed the case in favor of the government in a bold fashion upholding FATCA and FBAR/Title 31 reporting and information requirements.   Importantly, the Court concluded by saying ” . . . The FATCA statute, the IGAs, and the FBAR requirements encourage compliance with tax laws, combat tax evasion, and deter the use of foreign accounts to engage in criminal activity. A preliminary injunction would harm these efforts and intrude upon the province of Congress and the President to determine how best to achieve these policy goals.”

See a prior post regarding how FATCA affects United States citizens (USCs) and lawful permanent residents (LPRs) residing outside the U.S.; as was the case of many of the complainants in the case, Part 1- Unintended Consequences of FATCA – for USCs and LPRs Living Outside the U.S., posted August 13, 2014.

Also, the tax publication/resource, Tax Analysts summarized the original complaint (which can be read in its entirety here) as follows:

           The FATCA suit makes the following claims:

• the IGAs are unconstitutional sole executive agreements because they exceed the scope of the president’s independent constitutional powers, and because they override FATCA;
• the heightened reporting requirements for foreign financial accounts deny U.S. citizens living abroad the equal protection of the laws;
• the FATCA FFI penalty, passthrough penalty, and willfulness penalty are all unconstitutional under the excessive fines clause;
• FATCA’s information reporting requirements are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment; and
• the IGAs’ information reporting requirements are also unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

See, complete Tax Note’s article of July 15, 2015:  Sen. Paul Files Lawsuit Challenging FATCA, by William R. Davis and Andrew Velarde.

Not unsurprisingly, the District Court ruled in favor of the government and dismissed the majority of the claims by a finding that the parties lacked standing to bring the suit and that ” . . . The FATCA statute, the IGAs, and the FBAR requirements encourage compliance with tax laws . . .”

Some highlights of the Court’s opinion [with my emphasis added] are set out below:

* * *

1. Background

A. FATCA Statute and Regulations

Congress passed the Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) in 2010 to improve compliance with tax laws by U.S. taxpayers holding foreign accounts. FATCA accomplishes this through two forms of reporting: (1) by foreign financial institutions (FFIs) about financial accounts held by U.S. taxpayers or foreign entities in which U.S. taxpayers hold a substantial ownership interest, 26 U.S.C. § 1471; and, (2) by U.S. taxpayers about their interests in certain foreign financial accounts and offshore assets. 26 U.S.C. § 6038D.

1. FATCA

President Obama signed FATCA into law on March 18, 2010. Senator Carl Levin, a co-sponsor of the FATCA legislation, declared that “offshore tax abuses [targeted by FATCA] cost the federal treasury an estimated $100 billion in lost tax revenues annually” 156 Cong. Rec. 5 S1745-01 (2010). FATCA became law as the IRS began its Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP), which since 2009 has allowed U.S. taxpayers with undisclosed overseas assets to disclose them and pay reduced penalties. By 2014, the OVDP collected $6.5 billion through voluntary disclosures from 45,000 participants. “IRS Makes Changes to Offshore Programs; Revisions Ease Burden and Help More Taxpayers Come into Compliance,” http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/IRS-Makes-Changes-to-Offshore-Programs;-Revisions-Ease-Burden-and-Help-More-Taxpayers-Come-into-Compliance (last visited Sept. 15, 2015). The success of the voluntary program has likely been enhanced by the existence of FATCA.

* * *

C. Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Account

The third body of law at issue in this case pertains to the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Account (FBAR) requirements.  U.S. persons who hold a financial account in a foreign country that exceeds $10,000 in aggregate value must file an FBAR with the Treasury Department reporting the account. See 31 U.S.C. § 5314; 31 C.F.R. § 1010.350; 31 C.F.R. § 1010.306(c). The current FBAR form is FinCEN Form 114. The form has been due by June 30 of each year regarding accounts held during the previous calendar year. § 1010.306(c). Beginning with the 2016 tax year, the due date of the form will be April 15. Pub. L. No. 114-41, § 2006(b)(11). A person who fails to file a required FBAR may be assessed a civil monetary penalty. 31 U.S.C. § 5321(a)(5)(A). The amount of the penalty is capped at $10,000 unless the failure was willful. See 5321(a)(5)(B)(i), (C). A willful failure to file increases the maximum penalty to $100,000 or half the value in the account at the time of the violation, whichever is greater. § 5321(a)(5)(C). In either case, whether to impose the penalty and the amount of the penalty are committed to the Secretary’s discretion. See § 5321(a)(5)(A) (“The Secretary of the Treasury may impose a civil money penalty[.]”) & § 5321(a)(5)(B) (“[T]he amount of any civil penalty . . . shall not exceed” the statutory ceiling). Plaintiffs seek to enjoin enforcement of the willful FBAR penalty under § 5321(a)(5). Prayer for Relief, part Q. They also ask for an injunction against “the FBAR account-balance reporting requirement” of FinCen Form 114. Prayer for Relief, part W.

      The Government asserts that the information in the FBAR assists law enforcement and the IRS in identifying unreported taxable income of U.S. taxpayers that is held in foreign accounts as  well as investigating money laundering and terrorism.

* * *

     Mark Crawford decries his bank’s policy against taking U.S. citizens as clients and claims the denial of his application for a brokerage account may have “impacted Mark financially,” ¶ 21, any such harm is not fairly traceable to an action by Defendants, which are not responsible for decisions that foreign banks make about whom to accept as clients. Crawford cannot establish standing indirectly when third parties are the causes of his alleged injuries. See Shearson, 725 F.3d at 592. Moreover, his discomfort with complying with the disclosures required by FATCA, see ¶23, does not establish the concrete, particularized harm that confers standing to sue. See, e.g., Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561 (requiring “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent” injury). Even if Crawford fears “unconstitutionally excessive fines imposed by 31 U.S.C. § 5321 if he willfully fails to file an FBAR,” ¶ 24, there is no allegation that he failed to file any FBAR that may have been required, much less that the Government has assessed an “excessive” FBAR penalty against him. Any harm that may come his way from imagined future events is speculative and cannot form the foundation for his lawsuit.

* * *

    None of the allegations states that Kuettel is presently being harmed by FATCA or the Swiss IGA, and neither FATCA nor the IGA apply to him as a non-U.S. citizen. See ¶¶ 51-58.  His assertion of past harm because he was “mostly unsuccessful” in refinancing his mortgage due to FATCA does not convey standing. If that was a harm, it was due to actions of third-party foreign banks not those of Defendants. Regardless, having now renounced his American citizenship and obtained refinancing on terms he found acceptable, any past harm is not redressable here. See Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 210-11 (1995) (“[T]he fact of past injury . . . does nothing to establish a real and immediate threat that he would again suffer similar injury in the future.” (quotation omitted)). This leaves Kuettel’s claims concerning the FBAR requirement, in Counts 3 and 6, for which the Government concedes Kuettel has standing. Response, ECF 16, at 15, PAGEID 216.

* * *

    Donna-Lane Nelson is a citizen of Switzerland who has also renounced her U.S. citizenship. ¶ 59. She alleges that her Swiss bank “notified her that she would not be able to open a new account if she ever closed her existing one because she was an American. Fearing that she would eventually not be able to bank in the country where she lived, she decided to relinquish her U.S. citizenship.” ¶ 65. After she renounced, a Swiss bank “offered investment opportunities that were not available to her as an American.” Id. She “resents having to provide” “explanations” to Swiss banks that have requested information on her past U.S. citizenship and payments to her daughter, who lives in the United States, and she sees “threats implied by these requests which appear to be prompted by FATCA.” ¶ 68. Like other Plaintiffs, Nelson does not want to disclose financial information to the Government, and she fears willful FBAR penalties, even though no such penalty has been imposed or threatened against her. ¶¶ 69, 70. Unlike the preceding Plaintiffs, however, she adds that she fears the 30% withholding tax may be imposed against her “if her business partner,” who is now her husband, and with whom she has joint accounts, “opts to become a recalcitrant account holder.” ¶

* * *

L. Marc Zell states that he is a practicing attorney and a citizen of both the United States and Israel who lives in Israel. He alleges that: (1) he and his firm have been required by Israeli banking institutions to complete IRS withholding forms for individuals whose funds his firm holds in trust, regardless of whether the forms are legally required, causing certain clients to leave his firm, ¶¶ 79 & 81; (2) Israeli banks have required his firm to close accounts, refused to open others, and requested conduct contrary to banking regulations, ¶¶ 79-80; and, (3) the compelled disclosure of his fiduciary relationship with clients impinges on the attorney-client relationship, ¶ 82. On request of clients, who claim their rights are violated by FATCA, Zell “has decided not to comply with the FATCA disclosure requirements whenever that alternative exists.” ¶ 83. He fears that the FATCA 30% withholding tax on pass-through payments to recalcitrant account holders could be imposed due to his refusal to provide identifying information about a client to an Israeli bank. ¶ He also has refused to provide information to his own bank and “fears that he will be classified as a recalcitrant account holder,” ¶ 85. Like the other Plaintiffs, he does not want his financial information disclosed, ¶ 86, and fears an FBAR penalty if the IRS determines that he willfully failed to file an FBAR, ¶ 87.

     The majority of Zell’s allegations concern conduct of Israeli banks and his belief that the actions have been unfair to him or his clients. But conduct of third parties (even if related to the banks’ compliance with FATCA) does not confer standing to bring suit against Defendants. See, e.g., Ammex Inc. v. United States, 367 F.3d 530, 533 (6th Cir. 2004). Nor may Zell seek redress on behalf of third parties who have allegedly suffered harm, including unidentified clients. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975). The third parties who have allegedly suffered harm are not plaintiffs, thus, alleged harm to them does not provide a basis for Zell to maintain this suit. The contention that disclosure of the identity of clients for whom Zell holds funds in trust violates the attorney-client privilege is also without merit. He gives no example of harm that has occurred or how he was harmed by disclosure of clients’ identities. He cannot raise the attorney-client privilege on his clients’ behalf, nor is the fact of representation privileged. See In re Special Sept. 1978 Grand Jury (II), 640 F.2d 49, 62 (7th Cir. 1980) (“[A]ttorney-client privilege belongs to the client alone[.]”); United States v. Robinson, 121 F.3d 971, 976 (5th Cir. 1997) (“The fact of representation . . . is generally not within the privilege.”). It is the fiduciary relationship, not the attorney-client relationship, that is the basis for the reporting requirement.

* * *

   “We begin, of course, with the presumption that the challenged statute”—FATCA—“is  valid. Its wisdom is not the concern of the courts; if a challenged action does not violate the Constitution, it must be sustained[.]” INS v. Chadha, 426 U.S. 919, 944 (1983); see also National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius 132 S. Ct. 2566, 2594 (2012) (“‘[E]very reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.’” (quoting Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 657 (1895))).

* * *

Plaintiffs decry that U.S. citizens living in foreign countries are in this manner treated differently than U.S. citizens living in the United States. According to Plaintiffs, the federal government has no legitimate interest in knowing the amount of any income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit recognized on a foreign account, whether a foreign account was opened or closed during the year, or the balance of a foreign account.

       Plaintiffs contend that the “heightened reporting requirements” imposed by FATCA, the FBAR information-reporting requirements, and the Canadian, Swiss, Czech, and Israeli IGAs, violate the Fifth Amendment rights of “U.S. citizens living in a foreign country” and should be enjoined. See Complaint ¶¶ 124-130

* * *

Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims fail because the statutes, regulations, and executive agreements that they challenge simply do not make the classification they assert. None of the challenged provisions single out U.S. citizens living abroad. Instead, all Americans with specified foreign bank accounts or assets are subject to reporting requirements, no matter where they happen to live. The provisions Plaintiffs contend discriminate against “U.S. citizens living abroad” actually apply to all U.S. taxpayers, no matter their residence.

* * *

The distinction that the regulations do make is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The U.S. tax system is based in large part on voluntary compliance: taxpayers are expected to disclose their sources of income annually on their federal tax returns. The information reporting required by FATCA is intended to address the use of offshore accounts to facilitate tax evasion, and to strengthen the integrity of the voluntary compliance system by placing U.S. taxpayers that have access to offshore investment opportunities in an equal position with U.S. taxpayers that invest within the United States. Third party information reporting is an important tool used by the IRS to close the tax gap between taxes due and taxes paid. The knowledge that financial institutions will also be disclosing information about an account encourages individuals to properly disclose their income on their tax returns. See Leandra Lederman, Statutory Speed Bumps: The Roles Third Parties Play in Tax Compliance, 60 STAN. L. REV. 695, 711 (2007).

       Unlike most countries, U.S. taxpayers are subject to tax on their worldwide income, and their  investments have become increasingly global in scope. Absent the FATCA reporting by FFIs, some U.S. taxpayers may attempt to evade U.S. tax by hiding money in offshore accounts where, prior to FATCA, they were not subject to automatic reporting to the IRS by FFIs. The information required to be reported, including payments made or credited to the account and the balance or value of the account is to assist the IRS in determining previously unreported income and the value of such information is based on experience from the DOJ prosecution of offshore tax evasion. See Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations bipartisan report on “Offshore Tax Evasion: The Effort to Collect Unpaid Taxes on Billions in Hidden Offshore Accounts,” February 26, 2014; see also Cal. Bankers Ass’n v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 29 (1974) (“when law enforcement personnel are confronted with the secret foreign bank account or the secret foreign financial institution they are placed in an impossible situation…they must subject themselves to time consuming and often times fruitless foreign legal process.”).

The FBAR reporting requirements, likewise, have a rational basis. As the Supreme Court noted in California Bankers, when Congress enacted the Bank Secrecy Act (which provides the statutory basis for the FBAR), it “recognized that the use of financial institutions, both domestic and foreign, in furtherance of activities designed to evade the regulatory mechanism of the United States, had markedly increased.” Id. at 38. The Government has a legitimate interest in collecting information about foreign accounts, including account balances held by U.S. citizens, for the same reason that it requires reporting of information on U.S.-based accounts. The information assists law enforcement and the IRS, among other things, in identifying unreported taxable income of U.S. taxpayers that is held in foreign accounts. Without FBAR reporting, the Government’s efforts to track financial crime and tax evasion would be hampered.

* * *

In Count Six, Plaintiffs contend that the FBAR “Willfullness Penalty” is unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines Clause. Plaintiffs decry that 26 U.S.C. § 5321 imposes a penalty of up to $100,000 or 50% of the balance of the account at the time of the violation, whichever is greater, for failures to file an FBAR as required by 26 U.S.C. § 5314 (the FBAR “Willfulness Penalty”). 31 U.S.C. § 5321(b)(5)(C)(i). 31

Plaintiffs allege the Willfulness Penalty is designed to punish and is therefore subject to the Excessive Fines Clause. Plaintiffs further allege the Willfulness Penalty is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense.

Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claims, however, are not ripe for adjudication because no withholding or FBAR penalty has been imposed against any Plaintiff . . .

* * *

IV. Conclusion

Plaintiffs have failed to establish that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction . . .  The FATCA statute, the IGAs, and the FBAR requirements encourage compliance with tax laws, combat tax evasion,37 and deter the use of foreign accounts to engage in criminal activity. A preliminary injunction would harm these efforts and intrude upon the province of Congress and the President to determine how best to achieve these policy goals. Thus, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF 8, is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Tuesday, September 29, 2015.

* * *

Crawford v. U.S. Department of Treasury, 15-cv-00250, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio (Dayton).

For those U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents residing outside the U.S. who expected the Courts to be sympathetic to their legal arguments somehow invalidating  Chapter 4/FATCA and the FBAR filing requirements under Title 31, they will surely be disappointed by the result.

The prior post noted that both a social security number (“SSN”) and a U.S. passport is required to enter the U.S. for U.S. citizens (“USCs”).

Please note that the current application for passports include the following language and provisions throughout the application (which have been partially reproduced below):

International tax lawyer, Roy Berg at Moody’s in Calgary, Alberta, Canada brought my attention to several key issues regarding this assertion:

• Senate Finance Chairman Hatch’s amendment to the trade bill that recently passed the Senate with a favorable vote of 79:21, S.1269 – Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 provides the following:

(e) Revocation Or Denial Of Passport In Case Of Individual Without Social Security Account Number.—

(1) DENIAL.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided under subparagraph (B), upon receiving an application for a passport from an individual that either—

(i) does not include the social security account number issued to that individual, or

(ii) includes an incorrect or invalid social security number willfully, intentionally, negligently, or recklessly provided by such individual, the Secretary of State is authorized to deny such application and is authorized to not issue a passport to the individual.

(B) EMERGENCY AND HUMANITARIAN SITUATIONS.—Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the Secretary of State may issue a passport, in emergency circumstances or for humanitarian reasons, to an individual described in subparagraph (A).

(2) REVOCATION.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of State may revoke a passport previously issued to any individual described in paragraph (1)(A).

(B) LIMITATION FOR RETURN TO UNITED STATES.—If the Secretary of State decides to revoke a passport under subparagraph (A), the Secretary of State, before revocation, may—

(i) limit a previously issued passport only for return travel to the United States; or

(ii) issue a limited passport that only permits return travel to the United States.

(f) Effective Date.—The provisions of, and amendments made by, this section shall take effect on January 1, 2016.

Finally, Mr. Berg also noted that there is a procedure for USCs without SSNs, at least currently, to apply for U.S. passports; albeit subject to the US$500 money penalty described above.  See, proposed Form 13997 by the U.S. Treasury Department and the comments:

The purpose of this form,and the necessity to collect information, is to obtain a valid SSN, TIN, a written statement of reasonable cause, or an explanation from the individual as to why they don’t have a SSN or TIN.

As previous posts have mentioned, U.S. citizens (USCs) residing overseas can only comply with U.S. tax law and FATCA certifications if they have a social security number (SSN).  See, U.S. Citizens Overseas who Wish to Renounce without a Social Security Number will Necessarily be a “Covered Expatriate”

See key excerpts of the paper titled URGENT NEED FOR U.S. CITIZENS RESIDING OUTSIDE THE U.S. TO BE ABLE TO OBTAIN A TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (“TIN”) OTHER THAN A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER  that explains this dilemma:

This dilemma affects numerous USCs throughout the world, which is now compounded by the certification and reporting requirements of USCs and third parties, such as FFIs and NFFEs^[2] under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”).

* * *

The regulations provide the specific rule that all USCs must have a SSN^[1] as their TIN. There are no general exceptions in the regulations to the requirement that a USC must have a SSN as their TIN.

This regulatory requirement specifically directs the USC to the forms that must be completed and filed with the SSA, in order to obtain a SSN, as follows:^[2] 

(1) Social security number.   Any individual required to furnish a social security number pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section shall apply for one, if he has not done so previously, on Form SS-5, which may be obtained from any Social Security Administration or Internal Revenue Service office. He shall make such application far enough in advance of the first required use of such number to permit issuance of the number in time for compliance with such requirement. The form, together with any supplementary statement, shall be prepared and filed in accordance with the form, instructions, and regulations applicable thereto, and shall set forth fully and clearly the data therein called for. Individuals who are ineligible for or do not wish to participate in the benefits of the social security program shall nevertheless obtain a social security number if they are required to furnish such a number pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section. [emphasis added]

These Title 26 regulations discuss individuals requesting forms from “any Social Security Administration or Internal Revenue Service office” which clearly implies that the SSA and the IRS have offices overseas.

Unfortunately, this is not the case, as the IRS recently announced it is closing its full-time walk-in offices in London, Frankfurt and Paris, as the office in Beijing, China was closed in 2014.^[3] Similarly, the SSA has no overseas offices, but does have limited field office operations in Canada, the British Virgin Islands and Samoa.^[4] 

Therefore, it is clear that the above regulations are speaking to individuals who reside and live in the U.S., and not USCs residing overseas when it requires USCs to “ . . . make such application far enough in advance of the first required use of such number to permit issuance of the number in time for compliance with such requirement. ^[5]

These Title 26 regulations require the application be made well in advance of any tax filing requirements are not realistic for USCs residing overseas as is explained herein. This author has seen the issuance of SSNs take more than 6 months, even when the USC could have an interview in their country of residence.

More importantly, there are very few countries (only 17) where in-person interviews can even be held. See, discussion below.

USCs who have lived most, if not all of their lives outside the U.S., commonly do not have a SSN. The procedural requirements imposed by the SSA to obtain a SSN in these cases are complicated and unrealistic for USCs living overseas.[6] This author has seen cases where USCs residing overseas have even spent the money and resources and time to travel to the U.S. to apply for a SSN, yet were turned away by the SSA, due to various procedural requirements which were not satisfied.  

Often times obtaining a SSN overseas is nearly impossible, depending upon which country and where within that country the USC resides.    

A.            Obtaining a SSN Outside the US by a USC – Much More than Just Filing SSA Form SS-5

The SSA does not have offices outside the U.S. although they have a so-called “Office of International Operations.”[7] The focus of OIO is the administration of social security benefits, not obtaining SSNs for USCs residing overseas. Since the SSA is assisted by the U.S. Department of State (who are not SSN experts), USCs have to rely upon various U.S. embassies and consulate offices around the world, as they try to obtain a SSN.

B.            Tax Return Filing Requirements – Minimum Gross Income

Any USC individual is obligated under the U.S. federal tax law to file a federal income tax return IRS Form 1040 if they meet minimum thresholds of income. For the tax year 2015, the thresholds are low, and are reached once the gross income is at least the sum of (i) the “exemption” amount (currently $4,000) and (ii) the “standard deduction” amount (currently $6,300 for single and married filing jointly and $12,600 for married couples filing jointly).[8]

This is true, even if all of the income is earned income and eligible for the foreign earned income exclusion, which is $100,800 for the tax year 2015. [9]

Additionally, USCs living overseas necessarily have a U.S. tax return filing requirement, when they meet these low thresholds of gross income. In these cases, tax returns that are not filed by the 15^th of June are not considered timely filed.^[10]

II.           The Social Security Administration Rules Make it Nearly Impossible for Many USCs Overseas to Reasonably Obtain a SSN

The policy and procedures of the SSA regarding issuing SSNs have changed significantly over the years.^[11] The Social Security Administration (SSA) provides a detailed chronology of the major changes in policy and procedures regarding filing for and obtaining a SSN.^[12]   One of the most significant revisions in the last decade came from The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458), which imposes various standards for the verification of documents or records submitted by an individual.

A.            Only a Few Countries Around the World have Personnel at U.S. Embassies or Consulate Offices that Can Process SSN Applications – SSA Form SS-5-FS

Applying for SSNs overseas is severely restricted compared to an application in the U.S.

According to the U.S. Department of State, Foreign Affairs Manual (“FAM”), only certain “Claims-Taking Posts” in specific countries “may” include “processing applications for Social Security Numbers.” [13]

These 17 countries (and a city in the case of Jerusalem) with Claims-Taking Posts include:

“Austria, Argentina, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jerusalem, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.”

Noticeably absent are many Western European countries, virtually all of Latin America, virtually all of Asia, virtually all of Eastern Europe, all of the Middle East (except Jerusalem), all of the African continent, all of the Australian continent and surrounding island countries and Russia, among many other significant countries, including OECD member countries.[14]

Nothing in the FAM requires any of these “Claims-Taking Posts” to actually process applications for a SSN. Plus, there are of course hundreds of other countries throughout the world, not listed above, which do not have such a U.S. Department of State Post. For these reasons, USCs in countries such as China must travel to a U.S. Department of State Post (e.g., the Philippines) which is able to process applications for SSNs.

B.            In Person Interview Required for Individuals Older than 11 Years Old

Individuals who are older than 11 years old must personally go to the U.S. Embassy or Consulate with a Claims-Taking Post.  See 7 FAM 530, pages 7, 12, 13 and 7 FAM EXHIBIT 530(D)   Mandatory In-Person Interview Worksheet SSN Applicant Age 12 or Older – Original SSN * * *

All of these rules makes you wonder whether foreign born individuals, such as actress Kim Cattrall from Sex & the City  fame would have ever obtained a social security number overseas while she lived in Canada or the UK.

[1] See, Treas. Reg. § 301.6109-1(a)(1)(ii)(A).

[2] See, Treas. Reg. § 301.6109-1(d)(1).

[3] See, Bloomberg article, 14 January 2015 by Kocieniewski, IRS Will Shut Last Overseas Taxpayer-Assistance Centers: “After budget reductions over the last four consecutive years, the IRS is forced to make tough choices during this period of fiscal austerity and these closures have relatively little impact on taxpayers and treaty partners,” said Julianne Breitbeil, an IRS spokeswoman. Also, see IRS website that still reflects the London and Paris offices as open http://www.irs.gov/uac/Contact-My-Local-Office-Internationally.

[4] See, SSA website, Service Around the World, http://www.ssa.gov/foreign/

[5] See, Treas. Reg. § 301.6109-1(d)(1).

[6] See discussion below, regarding requirements to obtain a SSN. I.II, I.I,The Social Security Administration Rules Make it Nearly Impossible for Many USCs Overseas to Reasonably Obtain a SSN

[7] See SSA website, “Office of International Operations” – http://www.ssa.gov/foreign/ “Service Around the World – Welcome to SSA’s Office of International Operations (OIO) home page. The purpose of this site is to assist Social Security customers who are outside the U.S. or planning to leave the U.S. OIO is responsible for administering the Social Security program outside the U.S. and for the implementation of the benefit provisions of international agreements. Since SSA has no offices outside the U.S., OIO is assisted by the Department of State’s embassies and consulates throughout the world.”

[8] See, IR-2014-104, Oct. 30, 2014 and IRS Publication 501.

[9] See, IRC § 911 and IRS Publication 54.

[10] See, Treas. Reg. § 1.6081-5.

[11] See, SSA website, The Story of the Social Security Number, by Carolyn Puckett, Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 69 NO. 2, 2009 (http://ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v69n2/v69n2p55.html.

[12] See, SSA website, Significant Milestones in Social Security Number Policy. A detailed chronology of the major changes in policy and procedures. http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/ssnchron.html.

[13] See 7 FAM 530, page 2 of 64.

[14] In contrast to these 17 countries (and one city – Jerusalem) where a USC residing overseas must travel to apply for a SSN, the Treasury Department has announced it has around 100 countries that have signed, or “have reached agreements in substance” a FATCA IGA. USCs throughout the world are required by the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FACTA”) to provide their U.S. TIN to financial institutions throughout the world (on IRS Form W-9, or its equivalent), which under current law necessarily must be a SSN. Of course, if they have no SSN, they cannot sign IRS Form W-9 which provides in Part II: “Under penalties of perjury, I certify that: 1. The number shown on this form is my correct taxpayer identification number . . .”

[15] See, 7 FAM 534.3 e.

The IRS has key tax return filing information in their current records; pre-FATCA flow of financial information.  Various reports indicate there are probably around 6-7 million U.S. citizens residing overseas, although there is no certainty in these numbers.  See, Taxpayer’s Advocate Annual Report of 2012 – that discussed both the number and type of individuals overseas, and potentially unidentified individuals.

The IRS tracks and keep information on U.S. income tax returns filed by U.S. individual taxpayers overseas.

The information is not only the number of tax returns (head count), but also the amount of income reported.  For instance, TAS reported about 700,000 returns were filed in 2010 by U.S. taxpayers abroad, while estimating about 6.32 million U.S. citizens reside abroad.  See, p. 37 of the Taxpayer’s Advocate Annual Report of 2012 –

These numbers do not even try to quantify the number of lawful permanent residents (“green card holders”) who reside around the world, who are not filing U.S. income tax returns.  In 2012, the estimated number of LPRs was 13.3 million as reported by the Office of Statistics of the DHS. See, Estimates of the Legal Permanent Resident Population in 2012

How many of these LPRs are living outside the U.S. and not filing or reporting their worldwide income on U.S. income tax returns?

In addition, for the tax year 2011, the IRS Tax Statistics (“SOI”) in the “SOI Tax Stats – International Individual Tax Statistics”  reported that only about 450,000 returns were filed with the foreign earned income exclusion.  See, The Foreign Earned Income Exclusion is Only Available If a U.S. Income Tax Return is Filed

A detailed report of these statistics commissioned by the IRS and prepared by Scott Hollenbeck and Maureen Keenan Kahr titled Individual Foreign-Earned Income and Foreign Tax Credit, 2011 provides numerous insights about the likely under reporting and non-filers of U.S. income tax returns.

This report provides the following information reflecting the UK as the number one country with foreign earned income (Section 911) followed by Canada.  Ironically Afghanistan (presumably due to the U.S. citizens working in that country as a result of the war?) is the country in the 4th location, ahead of Hong Kong and Japan.

Noticeably absent from that graph is Mexico, which reportedly has the largest number of  U.S. citizens residing in any particular country.  Canada is the second most populated country with U.S. citizens according to numerous reports.

Only about 46,000 returns were filed by Canadian residents claiming the foreign earned income exclusion, and even more surprising are the mere 7,000 returns from Mexican based U.S. taxpayers.   See Table 2 of the report – Individual Foreign-Earned Income and Foreign Tax Credit, 2011

These are the two most populated countries with U.S. citizens.

As the IRS receives information around the world from governments and financial institutions via FATCA, of U.S. citizens and their bank accounts, it will be fairly easy for them to start targeting certain countries and commence tax audits against residents in those countries.