Source: https://tax-expatriation.com/2016/11/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 20:22:24+00:00

Document:
Individuals who do not specialize in U.S. federal tax law, often have little detailed understanding of the U.S. federal “Chapter 3” (long-standing law regarding withholding taxes on non-resident aliens and foreign corporations and foreign trusts) and “Chapter 4” (the relatively new withholding tax regime known as the “Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act”) rules.
Plus, the IRS forms have been significantly modified over the years; with increasing factual representations that must be made by individuals who sign the forms under penalty of perjury. They are complex and not well understood. For instance, the older 2006 IRS Form W-8BEN for companies was one page in length and required relatively little information be provided.
The entire form is reproduced here; indicating how foreign taxpayer information was optional and generally there was no requirement to obtain a U.S. taxpayer identification number. It was governed exclusively by Chapter 3 and the regulations that had been extensively produced back in the early 2000s.
The forms were even easier before those regulations (see old IRS Form 1001). No taxpayer identification numbers were ever required and virtually no supporting information regarding reduced tax treaty rates on U.S. sources of income.
Life was simple back then – compared to today!
The one thing all of these forms have in common is that all information was provided and certified under penalty of perjury. Current day IRS Forms W-8s can typically be completed accurately by experts who understand the complex web of rules. Plus, multiple versions of W-8s exist today; most running some 8+ pages in length.
Making certifications under penalty of perjury are more complex, the more and more factual information that is being certified. If I certify the dog I see in front of me is “white and black” that is not a complex certification, if I see the dog and see the “white and black”. If the dog also has some brown coloring, my certification would necessarily not be false.
However, if I have to certify as to the colors of each dog in a pack of 8 dogs (and each and every color that each dog is/was), that becomes a much more complicated certification.
That’s my analogy for the old IRS Forms W-8s and the current day IRS Forms W-8s.
Compare that form, of just 10 years ago, with what is required and must be certified to under current law. It can be daunting.
Now to the rub. Individuals who certify erroneously or falsely, can run a risk that the government asserts such signed certification was done intentionally. I have seen it happen in real cases; even though the individual layperson (particularly those who speak little to no English and live outside the U.S.) typically has little understanding of these rules. They typically sign the documents presented to them by the third party; usually the banks and other financial institutions.
The U.S. federal tax law has a specific crime, for making a false statement or signing a false tax return or other document – which is known as the perjury statute (IRC Section 7206(1)). This is a criminal statute, not civil. Some people are also under the misunderstanding that a false tax return needs to be filed. The statute is much broader and includes “. . . any statement . . . or other document . . . “.
Willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter; or . . .
Therefore, if a U.S. citizen living overseas (or anywhere) signs IRS Form W-8BEN (or the bank’s substitute form, which requests the same basic information), that signature under penalty of perjury will necessarily be a false statement, as a matter of law. Why? By definition, the statute says a U.S. citizen is a “United States person” as that technical term is defined in IRC Section 7701(a)(30)(A). Accordingly, IRS Form W-8BEN, must only be signed by an individual who is NOT a “United States person”; who necessarily cannot be a United States citizen. To repeat, a United States citizen is included in the definition of a “United States person.” Plus, the form itself, as highlighted at the beginning of the form, warns against any U.S. citizen signing such form.
Accordingly, if a U.S. citizen were to sign IRS Form W-8BEN which I have seen banks erroneously request of their clients, they run the risk that the U.S. federal government will argue that such signatures and filing of false information with the bank was intentional and therefore criminal under IRC Section 7206(1). See a prior post, What could be the focal point of IRS Criminal Investigations of Former U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents?
This entry was posted in Collateral Consequences - Non-Tax, Criminal Tax Considerations, FATCA - Chapter 4, Penalties, Tax Compliance and tagged criminal, FATCA, federal tax, Form W8, IRS Form W8, penalty of perjury.
Part II: Who is a “long-term” lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) and why does it matter?
A post in August 2014 explained the basic rule of who is a “long-term resident” as that technical term is defined for tax purposes in IRC Section 877 (e)(2). There is much confusion about how the tax law defines a “lawful permanent resident” (“LPR”) versus how immigration law defines what is almost the same concept. The statutes are different and have definitions in two separate federal codes (Title 26, the federal tax provisions and Title 8, the immigration law provisions).
This follow-up comment is to highlight some key concepts about why it matters if you become a “long-term” resident as that term is defined in the tax law.
A LPR can reside for substantially shorter periods in the U.S. (shorter than the apparent 7 or 8 years identified in the statute), and still be a “long-term resident” per IRC Section 877 (e)(2) depending upon the facts of any particicular case.
There are far more LPRs who abandon their status (formally) than U.S. citizens who formally take the oath of renunciation. See the table above reflecting those who have formally renounced U.S. citizenship versus those who have formally abandoned their LPR status.
Plenty of LPRs informally abandon their LPR status for immigration purposes by moving and living permanently outside the U.S.
An individual who has/had LPR status, has no control over the timing of when their status ends; if it is determined to have been legally abandonmened by a federal immigration judge. See, The dangers of becoming a “covered expatriate” by not complying with Section 877(a)(2)(C).
This entry was posted in Certification Requirement of Section 877(a)(2)(C), Immigration Law Considerations, Lawful Permanent Residents, Tax Compliance and tagged abandonment, expatriation, immigration, taxation.
The 12th annual international tax conference was held on campus on October 20 & 21st, 2016: The University of San Diego School of Law – Procopio International Tax Institute.
Act of Abandonment for Immigration Law Purposes?
Permanent resident card is not a tourist visa.
DHS will make a finding of abandonment following a single trip outside the U.S. of more than one year.
Rebuttable presumption of abandonment following a single trip outside the U.S. of six months to one year.
Residency may be deemed abandoned following multiple trips abroad, even if no single trip exceeds six months.
–Filing a U.S. income tax return as a tax nonresident alien raises a rebuttable presumption of abandonment.
This entry was posted in Certification Requirement of Section 877(a)(2)(C), Collateral Consequences - Non-Tax, Immigration Law Considerations, Lawful Permanent Residents, Tax Compliance.
United States citizens leaving after presidential elections?
It will be interesting to see if there will be a surge in United States citizens, not just the accidental American living outside the U.S., who will be inclined to renounce citizenship? These are not easy or legally simple steps, as various posts in this website explain. At a minimum, the individual must have citizenship in at least one other country, so as not to be left stateless.
It could be very difficult to mathematically determine whether this comes to pass, simply since the data provided for all names of individuals, does not include where they reside currently and for how long, inside or outside of the United States.
Of course, some may desire to move and live outside United States, without actually remounting their United States citizenship.
A Rochester, New York emeritus professor of business administration pleaded guilty today to conspiring with others to defraud the United States and to submitting a false expatriation statement to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Caroline D. Ciraolo, head of the Justice Department’s Tax Division, and U.S. Attorney Dana J. Boente of the Eastern District of Virginia, after the plea was accepted by U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III.
The case is extraordinary in the steps apparently taken by the business investor/professor in hiding some US$200M of assets overseas. The facts are egregious as reported and tie directly to IRS Form 8854. Hence, this seems to be a very good criminal tax case for the government. See a prior post that briefly discusses IRC Section 7206(1), see, What could be the focal point of IRS Criminal Investigations of Former U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents?
In 2013, the individual who had nominal control over Horsky’s accounts at the Zurich-based bank conspired with Horsky to relinquish the individual’s U.S. citizenship, in part to ensure that Horsky’s control of the offshore accounts would not be reported to the IRS. In 2014, this individual filed with the IRS a false Form 8854 (Initial Annual Expatriation Statement) that failed to disclose his net worth on the date of expatriation, failed to disclose his ownership of foreign assets, and falsely certified under penalties of perjury that he was in compliance with his tax obligations for the five preceding tax years.
Whether criminally or civilly, taxpayers should never underestimate the importance of filing complete and accurate tax returns; specifically including IRS Form 8854, Initial and Annual Expatriation Statement.
Maybe most important of all, it is crucial the taxpayer understands the full range of legal and tax consequences to them regarding the important steps that might lead to “tax expatriation.” The law is complex and fraught with potential minefields. It’s always advisable to have thoughtfully analyzed and considered the consequences of “tax expatriation” long before taking specific steps (pre as opposed to post-expatriation) of renunciation of U.S. citizenship or abandonment of lawful permanent residency.
Individuals around the world are often curious about how and when the U.S. Supreme Court hears tax cases. In some countries, tax cases represent the majority or large percentage of total cases heard by their Supreme Court (e.g., Mexico).
The Supreme Court typically hears some 100-150 cases per year out of more than 7000 cases a year it is asked to review. Many of these cases deal with the constitutionality of particular laws. They rarely take up tax cases.
The 2013 term was unusual in that the Supreme Court heard three federal tax cases (U.S. v. Woods, U.S. v. Quality Stores, Inc. and U.S. v. Clarke). Similarly, in 2015 the Supreme Court issued opinions in three tax cases (although each dealt with powers of states to impose taxation – Alabama Dept. of Revenue v. CSX Transportation, Inc. a property tax case; Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl a sales tax case; and, Maryland v. Wynne an income tax case).
None of these cases or any Supreme Court case before them has dealt with the U.S. “exit tax” arising out of IRC Sections 877, 877A, 2801, et. seq. Indeed, to date, there have been few cases heard by other courts regarding these provisions. One of the most important and relevant is the Topsnik v. Comm’r (146 T.C. No. 1) case published this year. The Topsnik case will be discussed in more detail in a later post. The short version is that the taxpayer in Topsnik lost the case and was found to have been a “covered expatriate” with the consequent adverse tax consequences that follow.
Taxpayers have a right of appeal from the U.S. Tax Court. If a case is appealed from the U.S. Tax Court, e.g., Topsnik or another federal court (e.g., from Court of Federal Claims) it will go to one of 13 appellate courts. An appeal from one of these 13 appellate courts will lie with the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court is generally not obliged to review cases (per the Certiori Act of 1925), including tax cases, and will rarely take up a tax case, whether or not it addresses a Constitutional question. Hence, a case like Topsnik will almost certainly never become binding precedent to all the courts in the land, e.g., the Court of Federal Claims.
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.
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.
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!).
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.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.