Michael Borger
by Michael J. Borger
One of the most fascinating quirks of the United States tax regime is that an individual may be deemed a “resident alien” domiciliary for US income tax purposes but deemed a “non-domiciliary” for US estate, gift, and generation-skipping tax purposes. Indeed, the fact that an individual holds an immigration visa or has filed US income tax returns does not necessarily establish US domicile for estate and transfer tax purposes.
In Estate of Nienhuys, for example, the court articulated the fundamental principle that “a domicile once acquired is presumed to continue until it is shown to have been changed”. Accordingly, to establish US domicile for transfer tax purposes there must be: (1) a physical presence in the US, and (2) an intent to remain in the United States indefinitely. Both elements must be present, and one without the other is insufficient to establish a new domicile.
If it is determined that a taxpayer is a domiciliary of the United States for transfer tax purposes, the normal rules for US citizens apply. Transfer tax exposure generally reaches worldwide to all transfers of property, regardless of where such properties are located at the time of the transfers.
On the other hand, if it is determined that a taxpayer is a non-domiciliary of the US for transfer tax purposes, then their exposure to transfer tax liability is generally limited to transfers of properties located within the US (i.e. US-based bank accounts, real property, etc.), which may allow for greater opportunities to implement more sophisticated cross-border estate planning techniques.
While the courts and IRS take a “totality of the circumstances” approach when determining a taxpayer’s domicile for transfer tax purposes, residential property ownership in the US is one of the most important elements in the analysis. Thus, where a foreign national resides in the US and another country, the courts and the IRS will closely scrutinise many factors about each residence, including (1) the physical characteristics and relative sizes of an individual’s personal residences in their respective countries of citizenship; (2) whether the residences are owned or rented; (3) the aggregate amount of time the individual spends in each home; (4) the activities performed at or near each residence; and (5) the individual’s attitude toward each residence (i.e. which home does the individual intend to remain his or her domicile).
Although home ownership in the US is one of the most important factors to evaluate in the domicile analysis, it is not necessarily dispositive. Other factors to consider include where the taxpayer votes, maintains a driver’s license, maintains investment accounts, and lives in relation to his or her family members.
A proper analysis of whether a taxpayer is a US domiciliary for transfer tax purposes is critical in implementing an appropriate estate plan that will reduce exposure to transfer tax liability.
Michael J. Borger is an Associate at Moritt Hock & Hamroff LLP, where he concentrates his practice in sophisticated estate planning and complex litigation. He also serves as a court-appointed attorney for minors and intellectually disabled individuals in contested estate proceedings. Contact Michael.
GGI member firmMoritt Hock & Hamroff LLPGarden City (NY), New York (NY), USAT: +1 516 873 2000
Law Firm Services
Moritt Hock & Hamroff LLP is a full-service commercial law firm providing a wide range of legal services to businesses, corporations, and individuals worldwide. The firm has 19 practice areas.
