
James F. McDonough
Of Counsel
732-568-8360 jmcdonough@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: James F. McDonough
Date: November 27, 2013

Of Counsel
732-568-8360 jmcdonough@sh-law.com
Recently, the Washington Post announced that Tina Turner relinquished her U.S. citizenship. Another publication stated that, for income tax purposes, there is a distinction between renouncing and relinquishing a person’s U.S. citizenship and that relinquishing has lesser adverse consequences.
§877 and §877A of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) were enacted to address the issue of expatriates and taxation. In 1966, §877 was enacted; however, IRS had to prove the principal purpose was tax avoidance and the statute was ineffective and unenforceable. Amendments were made in 1996, as part of HIPPA, that expanded the scope of coverage to include long-term residents as well as citizens. Second, IRS no longer had to prove motive. Instead a presumption of tax avoidance was created that applied when certain income and net worth levels were met. Third, U.S.-source income was more carefully defined and its scope was expanded. Amendments were made to estate tax provisions as well. §877 taxed the individual for a period of ten years after departure. In the years 1999-2004, numerous letter rulings were requested and issued on whether the individual overcame the presumption of tax avoidance. A favorable ruling caused §877 not to apply, while an adverse ruling or a “no-decision” ruling left one subject to tax.
In 2004, the American Jobs Creation Act modified the rules making them more objective, such as the elimination of the presumption and abolished ruling requests. Congress remained unsatisfied with §877. In 2008, Congress enacted §877A which imposed an exit tax calculated on a mark-to-market basis. Stated another way, an expatriate is deemed to sell his or her assets for fair market value on the day before expatriation. The exit tax was designed to make tax-motivated expatriations prohibitively expensive.
Now, back to Ms. Turner, who has lived in Switzerland for over twenty years and married a Swiss resident. To some, renunciation versus relinquishment may be a distinction without a difference. One should note that the U.S.-Swiss Tax Treaty was entered into in 1997 after the 1996 amendments. That treaty and six others did not reserve to the U.S. the right former residents. A curious question is whether or not Ms Turner renounced her citizenship under §349(9)(5) Immigration & Nationality Act. She reportedly stated that she had no ties to the U.S. but may not have “renounced.” An alternative to renunciation includes obtaining naturalization in a foreign state after age 18 and notifying the Department of State of such an act. One report was Ms. Turner advised that she is a citizen and resident of a foreign county under a U.S treaty without waiver of benefits.
The curious part of all of this is whether she was able to convert her intangible assets into foreign sited assets under the tax treaty. After all, she was a resident of Switzerland and intangibles are typically deemed sited where the individual is resident.
Determining when expatriation occurs is critical, especially with respect to the different versions of the statute and rules that may apply.
Ms. Turner is not the only person to expatriate from the U.S. We reported that Facebook co-founder, the Brazilian-born Edwardo Saverin, expatriated to Singapore in 2009. His departure occurred well before the Facebook IPO, no doubt a strategic move, as his renunciation in 2011 saved taxes.
We also reported in March of this year that Puerto Rico had enacted a special regime in order to attract wealthy persons to invest in the island. This regime, unlike economic citizenship programs of other countries, does not invoke §877A.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!