Tag: Immigration

Nonimmigrant Visa Applicants May Have Longer Waits

President Donald Trump has issued an executive order striking the 80-percent/three-week goal for interviewing nonimmigrant visa applicants following submission of applications.

Since September 11, 2001, the State Department has given priority to security over quick visa adjudications. For many reasons, including heightened security, between 2001 and 2010, the U.S. share of the global tourism market had dropped markedly. The Obama Administration, concerned about the effect on the U.S. economy, took measures to “support a prosperous and secure travel and tourism industry in the United States.” The first steps were in 2010, when the National Export Initiative and the Travel Promotion Act became law. They mandated intergovernmental cooperation to work to establish a stronger brand identity for the U.S. and to promote exports. By 2012, President Barack Obama issued an executive order to continue the process of fostering more tourism and travel: Establishing Visa and Foreign Visitor Processing Goals and the Task Force on Travel and Competitiveness Order. One section ordered Consulates to “ensure that 80 percent of nonimmigrant visa applicants are interviewed within three weeks of receipt of application, recognizing that resource and security considerations . . . may dictate specific exceptions[.]”

Although the Obama EO contained a security waiver, on June 21, 2017, Trump signed his own EO, striking the 80 percent/three-week goal. This is being done in conjunction with the travel ban partially reinstated by the U.S. Supreme Court and the extreme vetting procedures instituted by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

Pursuant to extreme vetting, if deemed necessary to determine eligibility, visa applicants may be asked to supply:

  • Travel history during the last 15 years, including source of funding for travel;

  • Address history during the last 15 years;

  • Employment history during the last 15 years;

  • All passport numbers and country of issuance held by the applicant;

  • Names and dates of birth for all siblings;

  • Names and dates of birth for all children;

  • Names and dates of birth for all current and former spouses, or civil or domestic partners;

  • Social media platforms and identifiers, also known as handles, used during the last five years; and

  • Phone numbers and email addresses used during the last five years.

Assessing this amount of information and data obviously will take time. A White House spokesman stated that the elimination of the “arbitrary” three-week goal was needed because “[t]he president expects careful, accurate vetting of visa applicants, not a rushed process . . . .”

Business groups already troubled about possible deleterious effects from the travel ban and extreme vetting have expressed concern about additional delays in visa issuance. According to State Department’s own data, the nonimmigrant visa issuance rate has been dropping. In March, 907,166 were issued and the number was down to 735,000 in April.

This post was written by William J. Manning of Jackson Lewis P.C.

US State Department Clarifies Implementation of Travel Ban Exemptions

The diplomatic cable instructs consulates on how to interpret the US Supreme Court’s direction to enforce the restriction only against foreign nationals who lack a “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

This Immigration Alert serves as an addendum to our prior summary of the Supreme Court decision partially granting the government’s request to stay enforcement of two preliminary injunctions that temporarily halted enforcement of Executive Order (EO) No. 13780. As a result of this decision, foreign nationals from six countries (Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Iran, and Yemen) who cannot show bona fide ties to the United States may be denied visas or entry for 90 days starting Thursday, June 29 at 8:00 p.m. EDT.

The communication from the US Secretary of State’s office enumerates the following situations where the EO’s travel restrictions will not apply:

  • When the applicant has a close familial relationship in the United States, which is defined as a parent (including parent-in-law), spouse, fiancé, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, or sibling, whether whole or half. This includes step relationships, but does not include grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, or any other “extended” family members.

  • When the applicant has a formal, documented relationship with an entity formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading the EO. This includes established eligibility for a nonimmigrant visa in any classification other than a B, C-1, D, I, or K, as a bona fide relationship to a person or entity is inherent in the visa classification.

  • When there are eligible derivative family members of any exempt applicant.

  • When the applicant has established eligibility for an immigrant visa in the immediate relative, family-based, or employment-based classification (other than certain self-petitioning and special immigrant applicants).

  • When the applicant is traveling on an A-1, A-2, NATO-1 through NATO-6, C-2 for travel to the United Nations, C-3, G-1, G-2, G-3, or G-4 visa, or a diplomatic-type visa of any classification.

  • When the applicant has been granted asylum, is a refugee who has already been admitted to the United States (including derivative follow-to-join refugees and asylees), or is an individual who has been granted withholding of removal, advance parole, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Applicants admitted or paroled into the United States on or after the date of the Supreme Court decision are also exempted, as are those currently in the United States who can present a visa with a validity period that includes either January 27, 2017 (the day the EO was signed) or June 29, 2017. Any document other than a visa, such as an advance parole document, valid on or after June 29 will also exempt the holder.

As described in the prior alert, any lawful permanent resident or dual foreign national of one of the six named countries who can present a valid passport from a country not on the list is not impacted by the EO. The EO also permits consular officers to grant case-by-case waivers to otherwise affected applicants who can demonstrate that being denied entry during the 90-day period would cause undue hardship, that entry would not pose a threat to national security, and that their admission would be in the national interest.

This post was written by Eric S. Bord and Eleanor Pelta of  Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

President Trump Issues Executive Order Amending Executive Order 13597

On June 21, President Trump issued an Executive Order Amending Executive Order 13597. This Executive Order rescinds a  provision, subsection (b)(ii) of Section 2,  of an Obama Administration era Executive Order Establishing Visa and Foreign Visitor Processing Goals and the Task Force On Travel and Competitiveness that read, “ensure that 80 percent of nonimmigrant visa applicants are interviewed within three weeks of receipt of application.”

Many observers view this rescission as necessary due to conflicting timelines presented by the Executive Orders with ongoing more aggressive vetting of applicants.

Proposed Bill Would Create Safeguards Against Agricultural Worker Deportation

In early May, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced the Agricultural Worker Program Act (AWPA), a piece of legislation that will provide undocumented workers with heightened protection from deportation and aid them in obtaining legal status and citizenship. Specifically, the AWPA allows farmworkers who have worked in agriculture for at least one hundred (100) days of the past two years to earn lawful “blue card” status. Farmworkers who maintain this “blue card” status for five years may then become eligible to adjust to permanent residency or to a “green card” status. In a press release, Feinstein stated, “By protecting farmworkers from deportation, our bill achieves two goals – ensuring that hardworking immigrants don’t live in fear and California’s agriculture industry has the workforce it needs to thrive.” Bennet remarked that, “The failure to fix our broken immigration system has had real economic consequences for our farmers and ranchers. This bill serves as a necessary step until we can enact a long-term solution by passing comprehensive immigration reform.”

Advocates for the bill include Arturo Rodriguez, United Farm Workers (UFW) President, stating that “the United Farm Workers strongly supports and cheers Senator Feinstein’s introduction of the Agricultural Worker Program Act of 2017 because the act recognizes that the people who feed our nation should be able to earn the opportunity to gain legal status.” Nonetheless, others remain less optimistic for the Act, and project that the Act is unlikely to be passed under the Trump administration. The Colorado Springs Gazette remarked that the bill “has virtually no chance of becoming law, however, with President Trump in the White House and his fellow Republicans in charge of the House and Senate.” The complete text of the bill is available on Feinstein’s website.

This post was written by Aaron M. Phelps of Varnum Law.

Fourth Circuit Ruling Continues Star-Crossed Fate of Trump Administration Travel Ban

On May 25, 2017 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a lower court’s nationwide injunction against the Trump administration’s executive order (EO) suspending entry into the United States of foreign nationals from six designated countries: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. This ruling maintains the current status quo under which key provisions of the travel ban have been blocked. As a result, employees from the designated countries remain free to travel to and request admission into the United States.

The EO at issue in the case, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” is a revised version of the original executive order that had also encountered legal obstacles. Under the revised version of the executive order, the Trump administration had attempted to address some of the early objections to the original executive order by excluding certain foreign nationals from its scope, such as those who already had visas, or who were green card holders or dual nationals traveling on a passport from a non-designated country. Despite those changes, the revised EO, issued on March 6, 2017, met with challenges and legal objections similar to the original. Section 2(c) of the revised EO, “Temporary Suspension of Entry for Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern During Review Period,” was the central focus in this case.

While the court was not directly evaluating the constitutionality of the travel ban, the judges took a close look at the strength of the plaintiff’s Establishment Clause claim against the EO. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. In defense of the EO, the administration has asserted a need to accord deference to the president’s actions taken to protect the nation’s security. The court, however, noted that the president’s authority cannot go unchecked, and included an examination of past statements made by President Donald Trump in its analysis.

Stating that the Trump administration’s travel ban was rooted more in the intent to bar Muslims from the country rather than in the government’s asserted national security interest, the court found that the public interest argued in favor of upholding the district court’s preliminary injunction.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a statement confirming that the government intends to appeal the Fourth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. A separate nationwide injunction against the EO is currently under appeal in the Ninth Circuit. Oral arguments were heard in that case on May 15, 2017, and a decision is pending. Because the case is still ongoing, this latest decision should not be considered a final determination of the EO’s fate.

This post was written by Jordan C. Mendez and Lowell Sachs of  Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

State Department Makes Predictions about EB Cut-Off Date Movement

Notably, the State Department stated with certainty that the EB-2 Rest of the World category likely will retrogress in the coming months.

At a recent American Immigration Lawyers Association meeting, the US Department of State made comments about Employment-Based (EB) cut-off date movement in the final third of the fiscal year. This Immigration Alert summarizes the comments made by the State Department and what they could mean for EB cut-off date movement in the upcoming months.

EB-1: China and India

US Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that the “final action date” of January 1, 2012 will control for the China and India EB-1 categories. These have apparently exhausted close to 50% of the entire EB-1 limit for the 2017 fiscal year. This cut-off date is expected to be maintained until the end of September, when the fiscal year ends. The final action cut-off date for the China and India EB-1 categories may once again become current at the start of the new fiscal year on October 1, 2017, but there is no guarantee that this will happen.

EB-1: Rest of the World

The EB-1 Rest of the World category (i.e., countries other than China, India, Mexico, the Philippines, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) should remain current for the foreseeable future.

EB-2: India

A slight advancement in the EB-2 India category will occur in June, but it is unlikely that this category will once again reach the most advanced final action cut-off date that was reached last year. The State Department stated that it may maintain the existing final action date through the end of September, but there is no guarantee that this will occur.

EB-2: China

EB-2 China will advance by less than one month to March 1, 2013 in June. The State Department noted that the EB-2 China category should continue to advance slowly and will probably exhaust its per-country limit before the end of the year.

EB-3: China

EB-3 China’s final action date of October 1, 2014 will continue to apply in June. As a result of a significant EB-3 downgrade volume, retrogression in this category is possible in the final months of the fiscal year.

EB-2: Worldwide

The State Department noted that the EB-2 category has experienced significant usage, and stated with certainty that a final action cut-off date will be imposed for the EB-2 Rest of the World category in August—or even as early as July. This cut-off date, once imposed, should remain unchanged through the end of September, with a small advancement possible in September and a return to currency in October.

EB-3: Rest of the World

The EB-3 Rest of the World category will move forward by one month in June to April 15, 2017. The State Department expects further forward movement in this category for the rest of the fiscal year.

EB-3: India

The State Department noted that the EB-3 India category will advance in June from March 25, 2005 to May 15, 2005. Continued forward movement is expected in July and August. The State Department predicts that the July cut-off date for the EB-3 India category will advance to October 15, 2005.

How This Affects You

It is highly likely that the cut-off date movement predicted by the State Department will occur. Persons seeking permanent residence through the EB process should take note of this predicted movement and plan accordingly. In particular, persons in the EB-2 Rest of the World category may wish to consider filing adjustment of status applications before the anticipated retrogression in this category occurs in July or August. Once this retrogression occurs, only persons with priority dates before the new cut-off date will be able to file such applications.

This post was written by A. James Vázquez-Azpiri of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Estate Tax Planning for Non-United States Citizen Spouses: QDOT-ting I’s and Crossing T’s

estate tax planning non us citizensIndividual and corporate citizens from countries around the world have moved to North Carolina and contributed materially to our state’s economic, educational, and cultural growth. Foreign direct investment (“FDI”) in North Carolina generally surpasses $1 billion annually, which boosts our state’s private sector employment by hundreds of thousands of workers. In recent years companies based in Canada, Denmark, Germany, India, Japan, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, among others, have invested in a range of industry projects “from Manteo to Murphy.”

Accompanying this foreign investment are individuals who are not United States (“U.S.”) citizens who establish residence here and who are known as “resident aliens” under U.S. tax law. In addition, nonresident, non-U.S. citizens (“nonresident aliens”) sometimes invest in real and personal property situated in our state—everything from vacation homes to ownership interests in North Carolina holding or operating companies. This increased foreign business and personal investment requires heightened attention to the complex Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) requirements applicable to non-U.S. citizens for income and transfer tax purposes.

The corporate and individual income tax issues surrounding such entities and persons have garnered much attention. For example, compliance with the sweeping changes under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) continues to affect U.S. citizen and resident alien taxpayers with foreign accounts and other foreign assets. Equally important are the tax issues that impact non-U.S. citizens in connection with transfers of money or property during lifetime or at death. This article is an overview of recurring basic considerations in estate and gift tax planning for non-U.S. citizen spouses. It is not intended to be an exhaustive treatment of this complex area of law, nor is it intended to address income tax planning for non-U.S. citizen spouses.

In general, the U.S. imposes estate and gift tax on the worldwide assets of U.S. citizens and resident aliens. A critical step in the estate planning process is the determination of the citizenship of a client and, if the client is married, that of the client’s spouse. The estate and gift tax implications largely depend on the type of tax, domicile tests, marital status, property ownership and situs tests, and treaty provisions.

With respect to the U.S. estate and gift tax rules, “residence” and “domicile” are threshold considerations that only a qualified tax professional should evaluate. The tests to determine “residence” in the U.S. income tax context are largely objective (e.g., the “substantial presence test”), but determining “residence” for transfer tax purposes is more subjective. For U.S. gift tax purposes, an individual donor is a U.S. resident if the donor is “domiciled” in the U.S. at the time of the gift. For U.S. estate tax purposes, a deceased person is a U.S. resident decedent if the person was “domiciled” in the U.S. at death. U.S. Treasury Regulations define “domicile” as living in a country without a definite present intention of leaving. The determination requires a facts-and-circumstances analysis of one’s “intent to leave” as demonstrated, for example, in visa status, tax returns, length of U.S. residence, social and religious affiliations, voter registration, and driver’s license issuance. Holding a “green card,” (i.e., status as a “lawful permanent U.S. resident” authorized to live and work here), though compelling, is not determinative evidence of U.S. domicile.

Tax treaties between the U.S. and other countries sometimes modify the Code provisions governing the transfer taxation of non-U.S. citizens. The treaties often explain concepts such as domicile, set forth which country taxes certain types of property, and relieve individuals from double taxation. The U.S. has entered into tax treaties with over 70 other countries. However, not all the treaties address estate and gift tax issues, including, significantly, the recent Code provisions regarding portability of a deceased spouse’s unused exclusion (“DSUE”). A recent check of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) website reveals that treaties with at least 19 countries either contain estate and gift tax provisions or are freestanding estate and/or gift tax treaties.

To understand the general estate and gift tax rules applicable to non-U.S. citizen spouses, it is helpful first to review those applicable to U.S. citizen spouses.

The following examples illustrate the general rules relating to lifetime gifts:

EX. 1: LIFETIME GIFT FROM U.S. CITIZEN TO U.S. CITIZEN SPOUSE

Al, a U.S. citizen and resident, is married to Bea, also a U.S. citizen and resident. In 2017, Al Gives Bea $200,000, payable by check.

For U.S. gift tax purposes, Al’s gift to Bea does not trigger U.S. gift tax because Bea is a U.S. citizen spouse. The gift qualifies for the unlimited U.S. gift tax marital deduction applicable to gifts from one spouse to a U.S. citizen spouse.

The result would be the same if Al were a resident alien married to Bea, so long as she is a U.S. citizen. A gift from a resident alien to U.S. citizen spouse also qualifies for the unlimited U.S. gift tax marital deduction.

EX. 2: LIFETIME GIFT FROM U.S. CITIZEN TO NON-SPOUSE U.S. CITIZEN

Al, a U.S. citizen and resident, has an adult daughter, Claire, also a U.S. citizen and resident. In 2017, Al gives Claire $200,000, payable by check.

For U.S. gift tax purposes, $14,000 of the $200,000 qualifies for the U.S. present interest gift tax annual exclusion, while the remaining $186,000 must be reported on a U.S. gift tax return in 2018. Assuming no prior taxable gifts and a U.S. estate tax exemption of $5,490,000 (2017), the $186,000 reduces the U.S. estate tax exemption available at Al’s death from $5,490,000 to $5,304,000.

The tax treatment changes if one spouse is not a U.S. citizen.

EX. 3: LIFETIME GIFT FROM U.S. CITIZEN (OR RESIDENT ALIEN) TO RESIDENT ALIEN SPOUSE

Al, a U.S. citizen, is married to Dot, a citizen of Country X. They live in the U.S. Dot holds a “green card” and does not intend to leave the U.S. In 2017, Al gives Dot $200,000, payable by check.

Dot is a resident alien, so Al’s gift to her does not qualify for the unlimited U.S. gift tax marital deduction. For U.S. gift tax purposes, Al’s gift to Dot is subject to the special present interest U.S. gift tax annual exclusion for lifetime transfers to non-U.S. citizen spouses. In 2017, this special annual exclusion is ,000.

Accordingly, $149,000 of the $200,000 gift qualifies for the special U.S. present interest gift tax annual exclusion, while Al must report as a taxable gift the remaining $51,000 on a U.S. gift tax return in 2018. Assuming no prior taxable gifts, the ,000 reduces the U.S. estate tax exemption available at Al’s death from $5,490,000 to $5,439,000.

The result would be the same if both Al and Dot were married resident aliens.

The result also would be the same if Al were a nonresident U.S. citizen and Dot were a nonresident alien.

EX. 4: LIFETIME GIFT FROM U.S. CITIZEN (OR RESIDENT ALIEN) TO NON-SPOUSE RESIDENT ALIEN

Al, a U.S. citizen, has a cousin, Eva, a citizen of Country X. Both are U.S. residents. Eva holds a “green card” and does not intend to leave the U.S. In 2017, Al gives Eva $200,000, payable by check.

For U.S. gift tax purposes, Al’s gift to Eva, a non-spouse resident alien, is treated the same as if Eva were a non-spouse U.S. citizen. Thus $14,000 of the $200,000 gift qualifies for the present interest U.S. gift tax annual exclusion, while the remaining $186,000 must be reported as a taxable gift on a U.S. gift tax return in 2018. Assuming no prior taxable gifts, the $186,000 reduces the U.S. estate tax exemption available at Al’s death from $5,490,000 to $5,304,000.

EX. 5: LIFETIME GIFT OF U.S.-SITUS PROPERTY FROM U.S. CITIZEN TO NONRESIDENT ALIEN SPOUSE

Al, a U.S. citizen and resident, is married to Fay, a citizen of Country X. Both are residents of Country X but own personal and real property located in the U.S. In 2017, Al gives Fay $200,000 (payable by check drawn on a U.S. bank).

Al’s gift to Fay, a nonresident alien spouse, does not qualify for the unlimited U.S. gift tax marital deduction. For U.S. gift tax purposes, Al’s gift to Fay is subject to the special U.S. present interest gift tax annual exclusion for lifetime transfers to non-U.S. citizen spouses. In 2017, this special annual exclusion is $149,000.

Accordingly, $149,000 of the $200,000 gift qualifies for the special U.S. present interest gift tax annual exclusion, while Al must report as a taxable gift the remaining $51,000 on a U.S. gift tax return in 2018. Assuming no prior taxable gifts, the $51,000 reduces the U.S. estate tax exemption available at Al’s death from $5,490,000 to $5,439,000.

EX. 6: LIFETIME GIFT OF U.S.-SITUS PROPERTY FROM U.S. CITIZEN TO NONRESIDENT ALIEN NON-SPOUSE

Al, a U.S. citizen and resident, has a cousin, Grace, a citizen and resident of Country X. In 2017, Al gives Grace $200,000 (payable by check drawn on a U.S. bank).

For U.S. gift tax purposes, Al’s gift to Grace, a non-spouse nonresident alien, is treated the same as if Grace were a U.S. citizen. Thus $14,000 of the $200,000 gift qualifies for the present interest U.S. gift tax annual exclusion, while the remaining $186,000 must be reported as a taxable gift on a U.S. gift tax return in 2018. Assuming no prior taxable gifts, the $186,000 reduces the U.S. estate tax exemption available at Al’s death from $5,490,000 to $5,304,000.

EX. 7: LIFETIME GIFT OF U.S.-SITUS PROPERTY FROM NONRESIDENT ALIEN TO U.S. CITIZEN SPOUSE

Hope, a citizen and resident of Country X, is married to Al, a U.S. citizen. They live in Country X. In 2017, Hope gives Al real property located in the U.S. worth $200,000.

For U.S. gift tax purposes, Hope’s gift of U.S.-situs real property to Al, a U.S. citizen spouse, qualifies for the unlimited U.S. gift tax marital deduction.

EX. 8: LIFETIME GIFT OF U.S.-SITUS PROPERTY FROM NONRESIDENT ALIEN TO U.S. CITIZEN NON-SPOUSE

Ida, a citizen of Country X, has a cousin, Al, a U.S. citizen. They live in Country X. In 2017, Ida gives Al $200,000 (payable by check drawn on a U.S. bank).

Ida and Al are not married. Whether the U.S. gift tax applies to the transfer depends on whether the transferred property is situated in the U.S. The situs rules are complex and are not necessarily the same for U.S. estate tax and U.S. gift tax purposes. Ida’s gift to Al, cash held in a U.S. bank, is considered U.S.-situs “tangible personal property” for U.S. gift tax purposes. Therefore, after utilization of the $14,000 U.S. gift tax present interest annual exclusion available to Ida as a nonresident alien donor, the remaining $186,000 of the $200,000 gift is subject to U.S. gift tax payable in 2018 by Ida as a nonresident alien donor.

A nonresident alien may use the U.S. gift tax present interest annual exclusion ($14,000), but the Code prohibits a nonresident alien from using the $5,490,000 lifetime U.S. gift tax exemption that is available to U.S. citizens and resident aliens.

EX. 9: LIFETIME GIFT OF U.S.-SITUS PROPERTY FROM NONRESIDENT ALIEN TO NONRESIDENT ALIEN SPOUSE

Al and Jane are married citizens of Country X. In 2017, Al gives Jane real property located in the U.S. worth $200,000.

Al and Jane are married nonresident aliens, so Al’s gift of U.S.-situs real property to Jane does not qualify for the unlimited U.S. gift tax marital deduction. For U.S. gift tax purposes, Al’s gift to Jane is subject to the special U.S. present interest gift tax annual exclusion for lifetime transfers to non-U.S. citizen spouses. In 2017, this special annual exclusion is $149,000.

There is no lifetime gift tax exemption for a nonresident alien’s gift of U.S.-situs property to another nonresident alien. Thus, $149,000 of the $200,000 gift qualifies for the U.S. special present interest gift tax annual exclusion for non-U.S. citizen spouses. The remaining $51,000 of value is subject to U.S. gift tax. It is reportable and payable by Al as a nonresident alien donor on a U.S. gift tax return in 2018.

The examples above illustrate the general rules applicable to gratuitous lifetime transfers of property, or gifts. The following examples illustrate the general rules applicable to transfers at death:

EX. 10: TRANSFER AT DEATH FROM U.S. CITIZEN TO U.S. CITIZEN SPOUSE

Carl, a U.S. citizen and resident, is married to Dawn, also a U.S. citizen and resident. Carl dies in 2017 with a gross estate valued at $7,000,000. His will, revocable trust, and beneficiary designations leave his real and personal property to Dawn.

The U.S. imposes estate tax on the transfer of the taxable estate of every U.S. citizen or resident decedent. The taxable estate is reduced by the value of any property that passes from the decedent to a U.S. citizen surviving spouse. This is called the unlimited U.S. estate tax marital deduction.

Accordingly, the “date of death value” of the property passing from Carl to Dawn, $7,000,000, qualifies for the unlimited U.S. estate tax marital deduction. No U.S. estate tax is due upon Carl’s death. Furthermore, assuming no prior taxable gifts, Carl’s DSUE, $5,490,000 (the applicable amount for 2017), is “portable,” that is, transferable, to Dawn for use upon Dawn’s death in addition to Dawn’s available U.S. estate tax exemption.

The result would be the same if Carl, a resident alien, were married to Dawn, a US citizen.

EX. 11: TRANSFER AT DEATH FROM U.S. CITIZEN TO RESIDENT ALIEN (OR NONRESIDENT) ALIEN SPOUSE

Carl, a U.S. citizen and resident, is married to Evelyn, a citizen of Country X and U.S. resident (i.e., a “resident alien”). Carl dies in 2017 with a gross estate valued at $7,000,000. His will, revocable trust, and beneficiary designations leave his real and personal property to Evelyn.

Absent proper U.S. estate tax planning (i.e., “QDOT” structure described below), and assuming no prior taxable gifts, the property passing at Carl’s death to Evelyn, a resident alien spouse, would NOT be eligible for the unlimited U.S. estate tax marital deduction. Specifically, Carl’s available U.S. estate tax exemption, $5,490,000, would be consumed fully, leaving $1,510,000 subject to U.S. estate tax (top rate of 40%) with the balance passing to Evelyn.

If both Carl and Evelyn were married resident aliens, the result would be the same.

Why QDOT Planning Matters

In Example 11 above, proper planning with a “qualified domestic trust” (“QDOT”) could have preserved eligibility for the U.S. estate tax marital deduction and avoided the onerous U.S. estate tax imposed.

The QDOT is an exception to the non-U.S. citizen spouse exception to the U.S. estate tax marital deduction. The U.S. estate tax marital deduction operates to defer estate tax until the death of the surviving spouse. When Congress enacted the non-U.S. citizen spouse exception to the U.S. estate tax marital deduction (disallowing the U.S. estate tax marital deduction for non-U.S. citizen spouses), it did so to avoid the scenario where a non-U.S. citizen spouse inherits untaxed property then leaves the U.S. for a country without a treaty in place to facilitate the collection of U.S. estate tax upon the surviving spouse’s death.

In general, U.S. estate tax would be paid upon actual distributions of QDOT principal to the non-U.S. citizen spouse or upon the death of the surviving spouse. The QDOT enables deferral of the U.S. estate tax, as the exception to the U.S. estate tax marital deduction for non-U.S. citizen spouses does not apply when property passes to a properly drafted QDOT for the surviving spouse’s benefit.

To qualify as a QDOT, the trust must meet four general requirements:

• At least one trustee must be a U.S. citizen or a U.S. corporation;
• No distribution of trust property may be made unless the U.S. trustee has the right to withhold U.S. estate tax payable on account of the distribution;
• The trust must meet security requirements set out in the U.S. Treasury Regulations to ensure the collection of U.S. estate tax; and,
• The decedent’s executor must make an irrevocable election on Schedule M of IRS Form 706, the U.S. estate tax return.

The substantive provisions of a QDOT must meet the requirements of a marital trust intended to qualify for the U.S. estate tax marital deduction. A QDOT is often designed as a Qualified Terminable Interest Property (“QTIP”) martial trust of which the spouse is the sole beneficiary entitled to receive trust income. Other QDOT trust designs meeting the marital deduction requirements are available as well. It is essential that a QDOT is drafted with care. For example, to avoid being deemed a “foreign trust” under U.S. tax law, certain powers should be limited to U.S. persons and the trustee should be prohibited from moving the trust to a country beyond the reach of the U.S. courts.

QDOT planning is most effective when planning for gross estate values around, above, or expected to be above the U.S. estate tax exemption. However, if the date of death value of worldwide property owned by a U.S. citizen or resident is substantially below the U.S. estate tax exemption, then the U.S. citizen or resident may decide to leave such property outright to the non-U.S. citizen spouse, which would consume the decedent’s available U.S. estate tax exemption (illustrated in Example 11 above).

If the date of death value of property passing to the QDOT exceeds $2,000,000 (not adjusted for inflation) (known as a “large QDOT”), then additional requirements apply to secure payment of U.S. estate taxes attributable to the transferred property. At least one U.S. trustee must be a U.S. bank (several of which offer corporate trustee services to North Carolina residents). Alternatively, the U.S. trustee can furnish a bond or a letter of credit meeting certain conditions. These additional requirements also apply to smaller QDOTs where foreign real property holdings exceed 35% of trust assets.

If a decedent’s estate elected QDOT treatment and portability of DSUE on a U.S. estate tax return, then the estate also must report a preliminary DSUE that is subject to decrease as QDOT distributions occur or even modification by tax treaty. The DSUE amount is determined finally upon the surviving spouse’s death or other termination of the QDOT. The intersection of the QDOT rules and portability of unused estate tax exemption requires careful analysis upon filing the estate tax return and thereafter when planning for the non-U.S. citizen surviving spouse during the QDOT administration, including if the spouse attains U.S. citizenship.

Nonresident decedents are subject to U.S. estate tax on the value of U.S.-situs assets valued in excess of $60,000. The Code’s rules applicable to nonresident alien decedents are complex and should be analyzed with care. The analysis may include, for example, the types of U.S. property treated as U.S.-situs property subject to U.S. estate tax, whether any tax treaty modifies U.S.-situs property classification and the taxing jurisdiction, and whether a nonresident alien formerly a U.S. citizen or long-term resident alien is subject to the Code’s “covered expatriate” rules.

The following example illustrates these general rules and assumes no treaty between the U.S. and the foreign country.

EX. 12: TRANSFER AT DEATH OF U.S.-SITUS PROPERTY FROM A NONRESIDENT ALIEN TO A NONRESIDENT ALIEN SPOUSE

Carl, a nonresident alien, is married to Fran, also a nonresident alien. Carl leaves his worldwide assets, including U.S.-situs real and personal property, to Fran. His gross estate is valued at $7,000,000.

A nonresident alien decedent’s U.S.-situs property is subject to U.S. estate tax. Absent proper estate tax planning (i.e., QDOT structure described above), the U.S.-situs property passing at Carl’s death to Fran, a nonresident alien spouse, is ineligible for the unlimited U.S. estate tax marital deduction.

Specifically, Carl’s available U.S. estate tax exemption—only $60,000 for nonresident aliens—would be consumed fully, leaving $6,940,000 subject to U.S. estate tax (top rate of 40%) with the balance passing to Fran.

If Carl, a nonresident alien, were married to Fran—this time a U.S. citizen—the result generally would be the same except the U.S. estate tax marital deduction would apply only to U.S.-situs property.

In either scenario above, Carl’s executor must file IRS Form 706-NA, the U.S. estate tax return for nonresident alien decedents, and pay the U.S. estate tax due.

United States tax law is changing while families and businesses continue to move among countries. Estate planning for non-U.S. citizens is multidimensional and demands attention right here in North Carolina. The QDOT is a powerful U.S. estate tax planning technique to help certain non-U.S. citizen spouses defer taxes and preserve wealth in the face of such change.

ARTICLE BY John R. Cella, Jr. of Ward and Smith, P.A.

© 2017 Ward and Smith, P.A.. All Rights Reserved.

USCIS Announces FY 2018 H-1B Cap Lottery Completed and Total Filed Numbers

USCIS H1-B capUnited States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced on April 17, 2017, that it had completed its annual H-1B lottery and had selected a sufficient number of H-1B petitions to meet the 65,000 petition bachelor’s degree cap and the 20,000 petition U.S. master’s degree cap. In total, USCIS received 199,000 petitions this year during the filing period that ran from April 3, 2017, until April 7, 2017. On April 11, 2017, the agency completed its random computerized lottery to select the cap petitions. The 20,000 U.S. master’s cap petitions were randomly selected first. All unselected U.S. master’s petitions plus the bachelor’s petitions were then pooled and subjected to the general lottery where 65,000 petitions were selected.

The 199,000 total H-1B petitions filed this year represents 37,000 fewer petitions than were received during last year’s filing period.

USCIS will now begin its process of formally receipting all the selected H-1B petitions, and will reject and return all unelected petitions including filing fees.

Please note that, as of April 3, 2017, USCIS temporarily suspended premium processing on all H-1B petitions, both cap and non-cap cases. Thus, all cases selected under the lottery will be processed under the regular processing timeline.

ARTICLE BY Andrew G. Drozdowski & Amy R. Dalal of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

© 2017, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

Tips for Surviving in a Time of Immigration Uncertainty

immigration travel banWe planned to write a blog about the revised travel ban Executive Order as soon as it came out. That the revised order was delayed for several weeks until March 6 highlights the uncertainty we face in 2017.[1] Below we try to answer various questions we regularly receive about immigration issues.

  1. Is domestic airplane travel OK? This may sound like a simple question, but recent events suggest more caution may be wise. For example, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents recently met a plane landing at JFK Airport in New York City, and asked everyone about their immigration status.[2] The agents were looking for someone who had an old deportation order, but it is possible that anyone without evidence of status could have faced delays. This is a good time to remind ourselves that the law requires anyone who is not a U.S. citizen to carry evidence of status at all times (green card, Employment Authorization Document (EAD), Form I-94 or electronic I-94 printout, valid, unexpired nonimmigrant DHS admission or parole stamp in a foreign passport, etc.).[3] Try to make it easy for a government officer.

  2. Isn’t that overreacting based on one incident? Maybe, but the bigger picture is that immigration enforcement agents have more discretion and wider operating room than before.[4] Two memos issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on February 20 allow for “expedited removal,” which is a fast track process that skips a hearing with an immigration judge.[5] Expedited removal now can apply to anyone who entered the country within the past 2 years (used to be 2 weeks), and anywhere in the United States (used to be within 100 miles of the border).[6] Expedited removal happens quickly, sometimes within a matter of days. Having a copy of a document showing status and that you have been in the United States more than two years could help avoid questioning and expedited removal.

  3. How about electronic devices? Can those be searched at the airport or border? The simple answer is “yes,” and this is happening more often.[7] We recommend that private information, such as a doctor with patient information, should be encrypted. According to the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) website,[8] CBP officers may search laptops, cell phones, or other electronic devices. CBP may not select someone for a personal search or secondary inspection based on religion, race, national origin, gender, ethnicity, or political beliefs. U.S. citizens may also be questioned and have their devices seized for refusal to provide passwords or unlock devices, but cannot be prevented from entering the United States. Noncitizens may, however, be denied entry. Adding to the uncertainty about how this will play out is a section in one of the January Executive Orders that directs federal government agencies to make sure they “exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents” from Privacy Act protections concerning personal information.

  4. What does this mean for people from the six countries covered by the new travel ban? Will the court battle still continue? The new order clarifies that green card holders and Iraqis are NOT affected by the visa ban, and that people who had visas revoked or cancelled by the first order may be able to get a travel letter to return. The new order takes effect March 16, 2017, and lasts for 90 days. People with valid visas stamps in their passports can still use them, but new visa stamps will not be issued with very limited discretionary exceptions. The Visa Interview Waiver program is suspended for all countries, and the order states that DHS may add countries to the list after further review. People who are citizens of the six countries can still face additional questioning when they enter the United States as part of a general pattern of enhanced vetting. Travel for citizens of the six countries remains a calculated risk.

We expect that court challenges will continue. The ban still focuses on six predominently Muslim countries, which some see as a religious-based action.[9] There are still arguments about the negative effects on U.S. business and academic programs.

  1. What does this all mean for DACA recipients? The January Executive Orders state that the deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) program remains in effect, but that DACA “will be addressed in future guidance.” This is good news for the 750,000 plus people who have DACA. However, continuation of the program is not guaranteed. And the January Executive Orders call for greater enforcement against anyone with any kind of criminal issue or with a previous deportation order. Some DACA recipients have minor criminal issues – will they be able to renew? Some recipients have previous deportation orders – how will they be treated? DACA recipients should carry their DACA approval and work card with them, should keep investigating ways to get back into status, and talk to an attorney or legal service agency if they have ANY criminal issue, no matter how minor.

  2. What does this mean for undocumented parents of students who want to fly within the United States for their child’s graduation? Some of them have traveled before with no problems. President Obama’s “Priorities Memo” used the idea of prosecutorial discretion to give some level of comfort to those at the bottom of the priority list for enforcement. The new orders make clear that there is a top of the list, but no bottom. The law is the law, and anyone undocumented who is caught could be removed. Anyone who is undocumented who is considering traveling should talk to an attorney or legal service agency to evaluate their own particular situation. For example, immigrationlawhelp.org has a list of accredited agencies. Also, this is not a completely new situation. Every year we see family members abroad who do not receive tourist visas to come to the United States. For those situations, some schools have set up a Skype feed of the ceremony through someone’s cell phone, or sent the family a photo of the student graduating, or other clever ways of trying to include the family in the event.

  3. Speaking of DACA, can many of them really move beyond DACA now? It is certainly worth asking. Many filed for DACA on their own, and have never had a legal consultation despite the fact that their immigration histories can be incredibly complicated. Most interestingly, a growing number of DACA recipients got DACA under age 18½ and now have degrees. Those people MAY (emphasize “may”) not have what is called “unlawful presence,” and MAY be able to consular process an employment based visa or green card.

  4. Going beyond travel, are there any other ways campuses can prepare for new immigration enforcement priorities, short of declaring a “sanctuary campus”? Yes, there are some basic steps that campuses can take. One set of model guidelines focuses on interaction with government officials.[10] Campus response has varied but generally been strong in favor of international education and diversity. A Washington Post article found that the vast majority of schools have made some kind of statement.[11] Some schools have been concerned about the political effects of opposing the travel bans. They worry that if they declare themselves immigration sanctuaries they may put a target on their backs. While some schools may be less vocal in their responses, most are supporting students and scholars who are concerned, and connecting students with extra services including counseling and legal services.

  5. If I feel my school is not doing enough, what can I do? In immigration, stories matter. For example, an Iranian graduate student may be thinking of leaving the United States to do a post doc in another country, or cannot travel to present work at a conference abroad, or is simply not sleeping or eating well out of concern, or have a spouse is not still able to enter the United States. These stories help show the real impact of the travel ban. And facts matters – there are some good articles and websites that provide data on the basis of the travel ban and the effects, and also on the positive impact of immigrants on our economy.[12]

  6. I heard the Executive Orders canceled all of President Obama’s orders except for DACA. Does that include the “sensitive locations” memo that said enforcement should not take place at sensitive locations such as campuses, churches, and hospitals? It appears that the ban on enforcement at sensitive locations survives. This policy is still on the ICE website, and in a DHS Q&A.[13] We hope this will continue.

  7. Is it true that the Administration and Congress plan to cut back F-1 STEM OPT and the H-1B program, and raise the minimum salaries for H-1B workers? A lot of ideas and draft memos are floating around Washington how to “fix” immigration, including the H-1B system. Bills pending in Congress would amend the H-1B process. The White House may ask DHS to conduct a study of the visa process to determine which visa regulations may or may not be in the national interest, and to make recommendations on how to improve visa systems, including the H-1B system. Are we sure that nothing like this will happen quickly, surprising us the way the travel ban did? Not sure, but passing legislation in Congress and amending federal regulations are normally long-term projects. Remember, the Obama administration was successfully sued for trying to make big changes without formal procedures.

  8. That’s 11 questions – anything else I should know? We all need to remember the energy it takes to operate in uncertainty. In a recent presentation at a university, the director of the counseling center explained that uncertainty can be more tiring and emotionally challenging than bad news. At least with bad news, we can focus attention on how to address it. So hang in there!

ARTICLE BY  Steve Yale-Loehr of Miller Mayer LLP & Dan Berger of Curran & Berger, LLP
© Copyright 2013 – 2017 Miller Mayer LLP. All Rights Reserved.

[1] The new executive order is at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states (Mar. 6, 2017).

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/papers-please/517887/?utm_source=fbb.

[3] INA § 264(e) provides: “Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.” 8 C.F.R. § 264.1(b) lists the acceptable types of “registration” document that must be carried.

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/us/ice-immigrant-deportations-trump.html.

[5] The DHS memos and accompanying fact sheets and Q&As are at https://www.dhs.gov/executive-orders-protecting-homeland.

[6] For an article discussing whether expedited removal is constitutional, see David Savage, Trump’s fast-track deportations face legal hurdle: Do unauthorized immigrants have a right to a hearing before a judge?, Mar. 3, 2017, http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-deport-legal-20170302-story.html.

[7] For general information on the rights of travelers regarding social media accounts and electronic devices, see https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-when-encountering-law-enforcement-airports-and-other-ports-entry-us. For an interesting NPR piece on this issue, see http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/02/16/border-agent-unlock-phone.

[8] https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states.

[9] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-evidence-for-trumps-travel-ban-simply-isnt-there/2017/02/27/90e228ac-fd36-11e6-8f41-ea6ed597e4ca_story.html; http://wapo.st/2mZbkx8.

[10] https://www.nilc.org/issues/immigration-enforcement/campus-safe-zones-language-college/.

[11] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/20/universities-overwhelmingly-objected-to-the-trump-travel-ban-here-are-the-values-they-emphasized/

[12] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/visas-impact/; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-31/trump-s-immigration-ban-could-cost-u-s-colleges-700-million; immigrationimpact.org.

[13] https://www.ice.gov/ero/enforcement/sensitive-loc; https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/02/21/qa-dhs-implementation-executive-order-border-security-and-immigration-enforcement (Question 28).

New USCIS Policy Announced at March 3, 2017 Stakeholders Meeting: Regional Center Geography

boardroom, EB5 Stakeholder Meeting immigrationAt the EB-5 Stakeholders Meeting in Washington DC on March 3, 2017, USCIS announced that I-526 petitions filed for a regional center project in an area not already within the regional center’s approved geography may be denied if filed on or after December 23, 2016.

Under the newly announced policy, a regional center must first have received approval of its expanded geography before I-526 petitions may be filed.  Petitions filed before geographic amendment approval will be deniable due to ineligibility at the time of filing.

The announced policy reverses the policy in the May 30, 2013 USCIS EB-5 Policy Memorandum which states that “formal amendments to the regional center designation, however, are not required when a regional center changes its industries of focus, its geographic boundaries, its business plans, or its economic methodologies” (emphasis added).   Notwithstanding, investor petitions filed in reliance upon this written guidance are subject to denial if filed after December 23, 2016.

Why did USCIS use December 23, 2016 as the effective date for this new policy?  According to Investor Program Office (IPO) officials present at the March 3 meeting, the instructions to new Form I-924 which became effective on December 23, 2016 should have alerted stakeholders of the change.   However, stakeholder surprise and dismay at the March 3 meeting indicate that a policy change announced by instructions on a form is insufficient notice for a full reversal of prior policy by memorandum.

Rather, filing fee increases, filing place address changes, or even changes in filing procedure are more in the vein of changes typically made in new form instructions.   Moreover, a form instruction that directly contravenes final written authority, such as the May 2013 Policy Memorandum, cannot itself be said to provide notice of policy change.  Finally, while the instructions state that an amendment must be filed to “change the geographic area of a regional center,” the instructions do not also state that associated I-526 petitions must wait until such an amendment is approved.   Neither is this requirement made in the instructions to the new Form I-526, also made effective on December 23, 2016.

USCIS may change its policy.  However, it must do so transparently. The integrity of EB-5 adjudication is compromised when USCIS changes its policy without notice and applies those changes retroactively, as it has done here.  Past examples of retroactive policy changes include denials based on findings of “indebtedness,” “tenant occupancy,” and “material change.”  Unfortunately, we now add “unapproved geography” to the list.  Hearing stakeholder feedback, USCIS will hopefully either revert to prior policy or at least rescind the December 23, 2016 effective date for a prospective one.

Stakeholder feedback on the March 3 meeting may be sent to ipostakeholderengagement@uscis.dhs.gov.

ARTICLE BY Carolyn S. Lee of Miller Mayer LLP

© Copyright 2013 – 2017 Miller Mayer LLP. All Rights Reserved.