The whole idea of the “escape hatch” for tax treaties is an excellent way of explaining how and when tax treaty law applies in different circumstances. Importantly, the U.S. federal government cannot deny an individual (or presumably a company either) from properly applying the law of a tax treaty – even if they “gave [an] untimely notice of his treaty position “. See further comments at the end of this post and the District Court’s opinion here – Aroeste v United States – Order (Nov 2023). Meanwhile, see below the 22 countries from where global readers viewed Tax-Expatriation.comduring the first full week of 2024.
Below is the list of 22 countries (including the United States) from where readers hailed, who read Tax-Expatriation.comduring the first week of 2024. All, but Brazil, Croatia, Nigeria, the United Arab Emirates, Colombia, Kenya and Bermuda have income tax treaties with the United States.
This means that all other individuals are connected with the following 14 countries that have tax treaties with the United States:
Mexico
India
Canada
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Australia
China
Spain
Turkey
Germany
Japan
Romania
Portugal
Netherlands
Further, all individuals who might have never formally abandoned their lawful permanent residency (“green card”), maybe never filed specific IRS tax forms, and yet reside in one of these fourteen (14) treaty countries could be eligible for the application and the specific benefits of international income tax treaty law. This, along the lines of the decision in Aroeste v United States (Nov. 2023). In addition, there could be other tax treaty benefits applicable to those individuals in these fourteen countries depending upon where are their assets, what type of income they have, where does the income come from, and where do they reside.
The tax treaty rights discussed here are established by law, as elucidated by the Federal District Court in Aroeste v United States (Nov. 2023). The Court determined that the IRS cannot simply assert an individual’s ineligibility for treaty law provisions based solely on the failure to file specific IRS forms within the government-defined “timely” period. The Court emphasized that there is no automatic waiver of treaty benefits as a matter of law, while acknowledging: “. . . Aroeste gave untimely notice of his treaty position. . .” For specific excerpts from the opinion, please refer to the highlighted portions below. To access the complete opinion, please consult Aroeste v United States – Order (Nov 2023).
* * * * * * * * *
B. Whether Aroeste Did Not Waive the Benefits of the Treaty Applicable to Residents of Mexico and Notified the Secretary of Commencement of Such Treatment.
To establish Mexican residency under the Treaty, and thus avoid the reporting requirements of “United States persons,” Aroeste must have filed a timely income tax return as a non-resident (Form 1040NR) with a Form 8833, Treaty-Based Return Position Case 3:22-cv-00682-AJB-KSC Document 90 Filed 11/20/23 PageID.2722 Page 8 of 17 9 22-cv-00682-AJB-KSC Disclosure Under Section 6114 or 7701(b). Indeed, Aroeste did not submit Form 8833 to notify the IRS of his desired treaty position for the years 2012 and 2013 until October 12, 2016, when he submitted an amended tax return for both years at issue. (Id.) The Government asserts that because Aroeste did not timely submit these forms, he cannot establish that he notified the IRS of his desire to be treated solely as a resident of Mexico and not waive the benefits of the Treaty. (Id. at 4.) The Government relies upon United States v. Little, 828 Fed. App’x 34 (2d Cir. 2020) (“Little II”), a criminal appeal in which the court held a lawful permanent resident of a foreign country was a “‘resident alien’ or ‘person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ with an obligation to file an FBAR.” Id. at 38 (quoting 31 C.F.R. § 1010.350(a), (b)(2)).
In response, Aroeste asserts that while he agrees with the Government that I.R.C. § 6114 requires disclosure of a treaty position, he disagrees as to the consequences for a taxpayer’s failure to timely file the disclosure. (Doc. No. 75-1 at 6.) While the Government asserts the failure to timely file Forms 1040NR and 8833 deprives individuals of the Treaty benefits provided, Aroeste argues instead that I.R.C. § 6712 provides explicit consequences for failure to comply with § 6114. Specifically, § 6712 states that “[i]f a taxpayer fails to meet the requirements of section 6114, there is hereby imposed a penalty equal to $1,000 . . . on each such failure.” I.R.C. § 6712(a). Based on the foregoing, Aroeste argues the taxpayer does not lose the benefits or application of the treaty law.1 (Doc. No. 75-1 at 6.) In United States v. Little, 12-cr-647 (PKC), 2017 WL 1743837, at *5 (S.D. N.Y. 1 Aroeste further asserts that published agency guidance, letter rulings, and technical advice support his position. (Doc. No. 75-1 at 7.) For example, in 2007, an IRS agent sought advice from IRS Counsel asking, “Do we have legal authority to deny a tax treaty because Form 8833 is not attached or the treaty is claimed on the wrong Form (1040EZ or 1040)?” Legal Advice Issued to Program Managers During 2007 Document Number 2007-01188, IRS. IRS Counsel responded, “No, you cannot deny treaty benefits if the taxpayer is entitled to them. You may impose a penalty of $1,000 under section 6712 of the Code on an individual who is obligated to file and does not.” Id. As to this, the Court finds it has no precedential value under I.R.C. § 6110(k)(3), which states that “a written determination may not be used or cited as precedent.” See Amtel, Inc. v. United States, 31 Fed. Cl. 598, 602 (1994) (“The [Internal Revenue] Code specifically precludes [plaintiff] and the court from using or citing a technical advice memorandum as precedent.”) Case 3:22-cv-00682-AJB-KSC Document 90 Filed 11/20/23 PageID.2723 Page 9 of 17 10 22-cv-00682-AJB-KSC May 3, 2017) (“Little I”), a criminal case for the plaintiff’s willful failure to file tax returns, the court stated the plaintiff’s same argument “that the failure to take a Treaty position can result only in a financial penalty also lacks merit. 26 U.S.C. § 6712(c) expressly states that ‘[t]he penalty imposed by this section shall be in addition to any other penalty imposed by law.’” (emphasis added).
I have been consulted over the years by other taxpayers which are cited now as published decisions by the government and the Federal District Court (Southern District of California). These cases are referenced and cited in my own most recent case of Aroeste v United States (Nov. 2023).
However, in Little I, the plaintiff never attempted to take a treaty position. Next, in Shnier v. United States, 151 Fed. Cl. 1, 21 (2020), the court denied the plaintiffs’ claims for relief based on tax treaties because they failed to disclose a treaty based position on their tax returns pursuant to I.R.C. § 6114 “and did not attempt to cure this omission in their briefing[.]” Although the plaintiffs in Shnier were naturalized U.S. citizens who attempted to recover their income taxes under I.R.C § 1297, the court’s brief discussion of I.R.C. § 6114 in relation to a treaty-based position is instructive that an untimely notice of a treaty position does not bar the individual from taking such position. Moreover, in Pekar v. C.I.R., 113 T.C. 158 (1999), the court noted that a taxpayer who fails to disclose a treaty-based position as required by § 6114 is subject to the $1,000 penalty, but stated “there is no indication that this failure estops a taxpayer from taking such a position.” Id. at 161 n.5.2 The Court agrees with Aroeste.
Although Aroeste gave untimely notice of his treaty position, the Court finds this does not waive the benefits of the Treaty as asserted by the Government. Rather, I.R.C. § 6712 provides the consequences for failure to comply with I.R.C. § 6114, namely a penalty of $1,000 for each failure to meet § 6114’s requirements of disclosing a treaty position.
* * * * * * * * *
For individuals living in any of these 14 tax treaty countries (or any of the total 67 income tax treaty countries), the key takeaway is that, based on their specific circumstances, they might be eligible to leverage the international tax treaty principles outlined in the Aroeste v United States case (Nov. 2023). The forthcoming post will pose questions for consideration by the potentially millions of individuals affected by these rules of law.
Successful athletes, singers, writers, actors, artists and other talented individuals from outside the United States rarely consider becoming a U.S. citizen unless they plan on living permanently in the U.S. for the rest of their lives. The reason can often be found in how the U.S. federal tax regime (particularly estate and gift taxes) can apply on their worldwide assets and worldwide income. These talented individuals typically generate income from around the world, most every major country and therefore will have business and investment interests around the world.
A non-citizen artist or entertainer can usually enter into the U.S. for performances and employment opportunities on a range of visa options. For instance, many of these individuals can typically get an O-1 visa, because of their extraordinary abilities.
The petitioner must provide evidence demonstrating your extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, business, education, or athletics, or extraordinary achievement in the motion picture industry.
Back to British knighthoods and damehoods. British nationals can receive these honors from the British Crown, as did Paul McCartney from the Queen in 1997. Individuals who are British nationals and citizens of commonwealth countries (e.g., Canada, Australia and New Zealand) are eligible for these UK Honors. However, it appears that U.S. citizens (who are not also nationals of the UK or a commonwealth country), will not be eligible for these formal UK honors. There are many honorary UK honors granted to various U.S. citizens over the last several decades, including –
There are terms used throughout the law of immigration and citizenship; indeed including the term “citizen” as found in the U.S. Constitution, which can seem ambiguous. The term “citizen” is found throughout the U.S. Constitution (e.g., in Articles I, II, III, IV and various Amendments). Nowhere is the term “national” used in the constitution.
A legal scholar wrote about the term citizen and national in an article several decades ago:
“Under the Immigration and Nationality Act 1952, a distinction is drawn between a national and a citizen of the U.S.A. Nationality is a broader concept than citizenship being based on permanent allegiance, and a national of the U.S.A. includes both an United States citizen and a non-U.S. citizen who owes permanent allegiance to the United States.”
Meher K. Master, United States Citizenship, 5 Int’l L. 324 (1971)
The example this author uses is of a British subject citizen of the U.K. and Colonies who becomes a naturalized United States citizen; thereby creating a person with dual citizenship (and dual nationality). In contrast, the author goes on to take the nearly identical example, except of a British subject, citizen of no country, may become a naturalized U.S. citizen. He would have dual nationality but not dual citizenship, as only a citizen of the United States.
To this author, this explanation leaves the distinction between a (i) “citizen” and (ii) “national” as clear as mud. A difference without a distinction? The example does not explain, what is the distinction between a national and a citizen of the United States? What makes them different? The statement only references a “U.K. subject” who is not a citizen of the U.K.
The D.C. Circuit Court opined on a narrow issue tied to this distinction asking these questions:
In our constitutional republic, Justice Brandeis observed, the title of citizen is superior to the title of President. Thus, the questions “[w]ho is the citizen[?]” and “what is the meaning of the term?” Aristotle, Politics bk. 3, reprinted in part in Readings In Political Philosophy 55, 61 (Francis W. Coker ed., 1938), are no less than the questions of “who constitutes the sovereign state?” and “what is the meaning of statehood as an association?” We are called upon to resolve one narrow circumstance implicating these weighty inquiries.
The 1986 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was adopted with section 101(a)(22) that provides
“the term ‘national of the United States’ means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.”
That still does not answer the question of who is a national of the United States? It just provides that there is a category of persons who are nationals who are not necessarily also citizens. See the definition in (B).
The US Department of State has its own comments on this language and they state (based upon the statutory language of the INA – Section 101(a)(22) that “U.S. citizens are also [necessarily] U.S. nationals.”
Therefore, it must follow that not all U.S. nationals are necessarily U.S. citizens. But who then is a national and not also a citizen? The answer in part is found in Section 101(a)(20) of the INA that defines an “outlying possession” as American Samoa and Swains Island.
There are historical reasons related to the creation of American Samoa. Footnote 1. See, Tuaua Id., for a discussion by the D.C. Circuit concluding that individuals born in America Samoa are nationals, but do not have “birthright citizenship”. This with reference to Section 101(a)(20) of the INA.
Hence, the statement by the US Department of State that – “Non-citizen nationality status refers only to individuals who were born either in American Samoa or on Swains Island to parents who are not citizens of the United States. ” See, FAM 308.2 – Acquisition by Birth in American Samoa and Swains Island.
This provides context for the statement that only individuals born in these two islands are nationals but not U.S. citizens of the U.S. Can someone who is not a citizen of the U.S., but a national (i.e., from American Samoa or Swains Island) become a dual national? Presumably yes – and the U.S. Department of State will also issue U.S. passports to these non-citizens (instead of a Certificate of Non Citizen Nationality).
For a more detailed discussion generally about dual nationals see, the US Department of State’s discussion regarding Dual Nationality which are consistent with the SCOTUS decision in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) discussed in a prior post:
U.S. law does not impede its citizens’ acquisition of foreign citizenship whether by birth, descent, naturalization or other form of acquisition, by imposing requirements of permission from U.S. courts or any governmental agency. If a foreign country’s law permits parents to apply for citizenship on behalf of minor children, nothing in U.S. law impedes U.S. citizen parents from doing so.
As a final note, the “U.K. subject” discussion explains how other countries might have different legal definitions of a “citizen” versus a “national” versus a “subject”? At least in the U.S. the distinction between a citizen and a national of the United States seems more clear.
Footnote 1. See, Villazor, Rose Cuison (March 2017). “American Nationals and Interstitial Citizenship”. Fordham Law Review. New York, New York: Fordham University School of Law. 85 (4): 1673–1724.
Small businesses around the world commonly operate through companies established in their country of operation. According to the U.S. Tax Foundation, with admittedly outdated information from the year 2014, there were 1.7 million traditional C corporations, compared to 7.4 million partnerships and S corporations; even more sole proprietorships operating in the U.S.
I could not find similar data for other countries around the world, which is where Section 965 takes us.
USCs who live outside the U.S. and operate a business through a corporate entity in their country of residence (e.g., Canada, Mexico, UK, France, South Africa, Japan, Brazil, Hong Kong, Sweden, etc.) can be shocked when they learn how the new tax provision of IRC Section 965 works.
Hence, new IRC Section 965 imposes a one-time mandatory repatriation tax on accumulated earnings and profits of foreign corporations. The tax is paid by the U.S. shareholder. This makes policy sense, if the goal is to tax U.S. based taxpayers, especially mega companies with billions or 100s of millions of dollars of offshore un-taxed cash. In the past, much of these offshore profits could avoid U.S. taxation indefinitely as long as they were not actually repatriated in the form of dividends to the U.S. shareholder(s).
However, most people at the time were not expecting that this same repatriation tax would befall USCs living overseas arising from their local business operations.
Probably Congress and the Administration did not contemplate the fallout to these USC taxpayers. They were focusing on a different group of taxpayer. Nevertheless, Section 965 imposes immediate U.S. individual taxation on the “phantom income” (i.e., when no dividends are distributed to the USC shareholder) of the USC shareholder.
The next few posts will be dedicated to trying to explain in plain English how the “965 Hammer” (as I am affectionately calling it) applies to USCs residing in their home country with a business or investment assets held in a corporation.
The due date under the statute for paying this 965 tax has “come and past”; however, the IRS has granted certain extensions of time. These will be discussed in subsequent posts.
Importantly, a timely election under Section 965(h)(1) must be made by the due date (including extensions) for filing the return for the relevant year. For USCs residing outside the U.S., that due date was June 15th, 2018 and hopefully all USCs filed an automatic extension (IRS Form 4868) by that date, which would extend your due date to October 15, 2018 and the time to file the 965(h)(1) election.
. . . However, the IRS has determined that, if an individual’s net tax liability under section 965 in the individual’s 2017 taxable year is less than $1 million, the individual makes a timely election under section 965(h), and the individual did not pay the full amount of the first installment by the due date under section 965(h)(2), the failure to make the payment will not result in an acceleration event under section 965(h)(3) so long as the individual pays the full amount of the first installment (and its second installment) by the due date for its 2018 return (determined without regard to extensions). . .
A USC’s extensions and elections are very important here. A later post will explain how a USC residing outside the U.S. can obtain an additional extension at the discretion of the IRS. This can extend the due date of the 2017 income tax returns (IRS Form 1040) from the extended October 15th date to a further extended date of December 15th, 2018; for which the 965 election must be correctly made by the USC individual shareholder of a non-U.S. corporation.
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?
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.
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:
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 15th 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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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 . . .”
U.S. Citizens Overseas who Wish to Renounce without a Social Security Number (“SSN”) will Necessarily be a “Covered Expatriate”
The Dilemma of SSNs, TINs and USCs Residing Overseas
The prior post discussed some of the complications of United States Citizens (“USCs”) who reside outside the U.S. and do not have a social security number (“SSN”) . This dilemma exists, even though USCs are not generally required to file for or obtain a SSN (e.g., at birth – See, SSA Publication – “Social Security Numbers For Children” page 2, It is not obligatory to file for a SSN at birth. “Must my child have a Social Security number? No. Getting a Social Security number for your newborn is voluntary. But, it is a good idea to get a number when your child is born. . . . ).
. . . the IRS’ increased focus on international tax compliance has made clear that USCs residing overseas have U.S. tax return filing obligations, even if they have no assets, no income, or no real personal connections in or with the U.S. See IRS notice from 2011 which addresses numerous aspects of tax compliance for USCs overseas, including various penalties under the law[1]:
. . . U.S. Citizens or Dual Citizens Residing Outside the U.S. . . .
The IRS is aware that some taxpayers who are dual citizens of the United States and a foreign country may have failed to timely file United States federal income tax returns or Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBARs), despite being required to do so. . . .2. Penalties imposed for failure to file income tax returns or to pay tax . . . 3. Possible additional penalties that may apply in particular cases . . . 6. Possible penalties for failure to file FBAR . . . 7. New reporting requirement for foreign financial assets . . . [emphases added]
USCs residing overseas are subject to the range of tax penalties that apply to all individual taxpayers (e.g., negligence penalties, failure to file penalties, late payment or failure to pay penalties, etc.).[2] Additionally, USCs residing overseas are subject to other, typically much harsher penalties for not timely filing U.S. federal information returns regarding assets located outside the U.S.[3]; alluded to above in the IRS 2011 notice.[4]
These civil penalties typically are a minimum of US$10,000 per statutory violation. USCs who live outside the U.S. necessarily have assets, such as financial accounts in their country of residence. These Title 26 information reporting requirements[5] are referred to herein as “International Information Returns.”
The IRS will not process federal tax returns and International Information Returns without a valid TIN.[6] Plus, the law does not provide for an exception for USCs overseas who do not file returns, if they do not have a SSN. Late filed, or incomplete International Information Returns and tax returns (e.g., lacking a SSN) will typically subject USCs to these penalties even in those cases when the taxpayer has no federal income tax liability.[7]
[1]See, IRS FS-2011-13, December 2011, updated February, 2014.
[2]See, IRS FS-2011-13 and as a sample of some of the many statutory penalties that could typically apply, IRC §§ 6048, 6652(f), 6677, 6654, 6655, 6698, 6699, 6166, 6653, 6675, 6715, 6715A, 6717, 6718, 6719, 6720A, 6725, et. seq.
[7]See, IRC §§ 911 (foreign earned income exclusion) and 901 (foreign tax credit), et. seq. A USC residing overseas may have no actual federal income tax liability (for various reasons), typically due to the foreign earned income exclusion and/or foreign tax credit calculation.
The above explains fairly clearly the dilemma facing USCs residing overseas.
The complexity of getting a SSN and the requirements are covered in more detail in the paper. Some key points are:
I. 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.[1] The Social Security Administration (SSA) provides a detailed chronology of the major changes in policy and procedures regarding filing for and obtaining a SSN.[2] 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.” [3]
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.[4]
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.
[2]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.
[4] 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 . . .”
The Necessary “Covered Expatriate Status” of a USC without a SSN
If a USC has no SSN, they by definition will never be able to comply with the Certification Requirement of Section 877(a)(2)(C) since they will not be able to comply with IRC § 6109(a) and Treas. Reg. § 301.6109-1. As the SSN/TIN paper explains:
All United States citizens (“USCs”) must have a social security number (“SSN”) under current law as their TIN to file a federal income tax return.[1]
[1] See, IRC § 6109(a) and Treas. Reg. § 301.6109-1.
The IRS will not process federal tax returns and “International Information Returns”, as defined below, without a valid TIN[1]; which currently must be a SSN for a USC.
This article reported that his U.S. tax bill was at issue – :
In case you missed it: London Mayor Boris Johnson has said he will renounce his U.S. citizenship following a high-decibel tax squabble with his country of birth. At issue: a tax bill U.S. tax authorities claimed he owed on some London property. The mayor will (of course) keep his citizenship in the U.K. as his political ambitions continue to play out.
Surely, he will be careful and thoughtful about the steps he is taking as part of his U.S. citizenship renunciation. His reported response to the news reporter last year could prove risky under U.S. law, to the extent he intentionally refuses to file U.S. income tax returns and pay taxes. The following line of questions and answers could be quite damning for him:
Presenter Susan Page then pressed him whether he would pay the bill, to which he said: “I think it’s outrageous.
“Well, I’m – no is the answer. Why should I? I haven’t lived in the United States for, you know, well, since I was five years old.
“I could but I pay – I pay the lion’s share of my tax, I pay my taxes to the full in the United Kingdom where I live and work.”
Here, the London Mayor has indicated he is not filing tax returns, yet knows he has a legal duty to file them and pay a tax owing under U.S. law. He goes further to say “I could . . . pay . . .” While rarely used standing alone by prosecutors (without other criminal claims brought), it is a crime that carries up to a 12 month prison sentence, to not file a U.S. return, supply information or pay tax; see, IRC § 7203. The relevant language of the statute is as follows:
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
Here, the government has yet another stick it can pull from its bag of sticks to be used against current and former U.S. citizens residing outside the U.S. It is of course, very common, that individuals who have spent most of their lives outside the U.S. have not filed any U.S. tax returns nor paid any U.S. income taxes. At what point, might these individuals have U.S. civil tax liability and what facts are necessary to give rise to criminal tax liability?
The vast majority of U.S. citizens residing overseas owe little to no U.S. income taxes because (i) modest income amounts and the impact of the “foreign earned income exclusion” or (ii) they reside in a country with higher taxes and tax rates than the U.S. because of the “foreign tax credit”. See, USCs and LPRs Living Outside the U.S. – Key Tax and BSA Forms
A couple observations about London Mayor Boris Johnson. First, he would be well advised not to make public statements about filing [or not] U.S. tax returns or paying [or not] U.S. taxes. Second, he will want to carefully consider completing and filing accurate U.S. tax returns as part of his formal renunciation process; particularly for the year in which he sold his London home tax free under UK laws. Third, he will want to understand carefully, the details of what is and should be filed on IRS Form 8854, after he has visited the U.S. embassy and files his Form DS-4080, Oath of Renunciation of the Nationality of the United States.
Finally, the case could present a unique international political and public relations nightmare for the U.S. Department of Justice, if they decided to bring any sort of criminal tax charges against the London Mayor. It would seem highly unlikely in my opinion.
“. . . The Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division . . . must approve any and all criminal charges that a United States Attorney intends to bring against a defendant in connection with conduct arising under the internal revenue laws, regardless of which criminal statute(s) the United States Attorney proposes to use in charging the defendant. See 28 C.F.R. § 0.70.
Also, only the Tax Division can authorize warrants of public officials, which presumably would extend to London Mayor Boris Johnson. See, See, 6-4.130, Search Warrants.
The list of all countries can be found here at the Treasury website – Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)
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 .
See prior post: March 30, 2015, The Problem with PFICs! “Avoid PFICs Like the Plague”
(“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.
obtain a SSN (e.g., at birth – See, SSA Publication – “Social Security Numbers For Children” page 2, It is not obligatory to file for a SSN at birth. “Must my child have a Social Security number? No. Getting a Social Security number for your newborn is voluntary. But, it is a good idea to get a number when your child is born. . . . ).
regarding filing for and obtaining a SSN.[2] 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.