5 U.S. Estate Tax Surprises For Nonresident Alien Investors
Foreign investors can win big with United States investments. While holding U.S. assets can be lucrative, the U.S. estate tax regime is complex and often misunderstood by nonresident alien investors. NRAs, those who are neither U.S. citizens nor residents for estate tax purposes, are often very surprised when they learn of the challenges imposed by the estate tax rules. This article summarizes 5 estate tax surprises that often catch the NRA investor off-guard. These include the limited exemption amount, common misconceptions about asset types, the requirement to disclose the value of worldwide assets on the NRA's estate tax return, and other pitfalls that can complicate estate planning.
One of the biggest surprises for NRA estates is the paltry $60,000 exemption amount for U.S. situs assets subject to estate tax. U.S. citizens and residents are taxed on the value of their assets owned worldwide, but they benefit from a very generous $13.61 million federal estate tax exemption (as of 2025), and under the Trump Administration, this may rise to an inflation-indexed $15 million in 2026.
NRAs are limited to a mere $60,000 exemption for U.S. situs assets. This means that if the total value of an NRA's U.S. situs assets exceeds $60,000 at the time of death, the excess is subject to U.S. estate tax at rates ranging from 18% to 40% based on a progressive table, with amounts exceeding $1 million taxed at the 40% rate.
Wealthy foreign investors typically hold significant U.S. assets such as real estate, stocks, or business interests. For them, the low exemption amount can result in substantial estate tax liability that could have been mitigated with proper advance planning and structuring. The harsh effect of the estate tax can be seen for example, by an NRA with $1.5 million in non-exempt U.S. situs assets. Assuming no treaty applied to reduce the tax and no deductions are taken, the estimated U.S. estate tax would be a punishing $532,800 (a tax hit that is over 35% of the U.S. investments, significantly eroding their value).
A very common source of confusion arises when identifying which assets are subject to, or exempt from, U.S. estate tax. Many NRAs mistakenly believe that cash-related holdings are exempt from the estate tax. They do not appreciate the subtle but highly important nuances. For example, bank deposits in a U.S. bank are generally not considered U.S. situs assets due to special rules. They are thus exempt from U.S. estate tax, provided they are not connected to a U.S. trade or business. Typically, this exemption applies to cash held in checking or savings accounts, certificates of deposit, or similar instruments.
Many NRAs mistakenly assume this exception applies to cash held in a U.S. brokerage account but are shocked to learn that this cash is treated differently. It is considered a U.S. situs asset subject to the estate tax. Estates of foreign uninformed investors will be faced with a surprise estate tax bill since the tax law's distinction transforms what seems like a 'safe' cash holding into a taxable asset.
The U.S. estate tax treatment of U.S. stocks, U.S. mutual funds, U.S. ETFs, and similarly structured U.S. vehicles is clear. These are U.S. situs assets subject to estate tax, regardless of where they are held. It will not be a shield from U.S. estate tax simply because the assets are held in a foreign brokerage account, or in the name of a nominee. Furthermore, the custodian will usually not release the assets to heirs without receiving what is called a Federal Transfer Certificate or other proof that U.S. estate tax has been fully paid. It can sometimes take well over a year for the NRA's U.S. estate tax return on Form 706-NA to be filed, tax paid and the matter to be fully resolved with the IRS.
This rule can and does, trap NRAs who hold substantial U.S. investment portfolios of through international accounts. Too many foreign investors are unaware of this exposure until it's too late. This is why advance planning should be undertaken. For example, use of a properly formed estate tax 'blocker' is often a simple and beneficial solution.
Perhaps one of the most jarring surprises for NRA estates is the requirement to disclose the value of the decedent's worldwide assets when filing the U.S. estate tax return. Only the assets treated as located within the U.S. are subject to the estate tax, but the IRS requires a complete picture of the decedent's global estate to determine the computation of the tax. This requirement is often viewed as very intrusive and if more investors were aware of it, they might reconsider U.S. investments or at least, implement ownership structures to avoid the estate tax.
The disclosure of worldwide asset value is required for the IRS to determine whether certain deductions and treaty-based benefits may apply and specifically to calculate the amount of allowable deductions under a special proportional deduction rule. If the estate wants to benefit from these, the disclosure must be made. Although the worldwide disclosure is technically required only if the estate claims deductions or treaty benefits, omitting the information can possibly cause the return to be treated as incomplete. This can jeopardize the estate's ability to claim any of these benefits at a later time, for example, on audit. As such, full disclosure of the value of the decedent's worldwide asset value is generally the safest course.
Sophisticated investors often use blocker structures, for example, holding U.S. assets through a foreign corporation. This permits the investor to avoid U.S. estate tax entirely. At death, the decedent owns shares in a non-U.S. corporation. Since shares of a foreign corporation are generally not U.S.-situs property, they are not subject to U.S. estate tax.
By holding the U.S. assets indirectly through such entities, NRA investors can avoid both the estate tax on death and the intrusive requirement to disclose worldwide assets. Such strategies are commonly used by high-net-worth individuals who want to tap the U.S. market but wish to avoid triggering the U.S. estate tax regime.
Think you're good because of a treaty? Think again!
Another unwelcome surprise for the foreign estate lies in the limited scope of estate tax treaties. It is true that the U.S. has estate tax treaties with certain countries to mitigate double taxation, but too often they provide less relief than expected, and as discussed, claiming treaty relief means significant disclosure about the value of worldwide wealth.
Some treaties allow for a prorated exemption based on the ratio of U.S. situs assets to worldwide assets. For high-net-worth taxpayers, this may not significantly reduce the U.S. estate tax burden.
Complications also when the decedent's home country also imposes estate or inheritance taxes on the assets. Quite often there is a mismatch and the lack of coordination between the two tax systems can lead to double taxation, unless specific treaty provisions apply. The foreign estate may be surprised to find that the home country's tax authorities and the IRS both claim a share of the estate.
Careful planning is needed when foreign laws and U.S. laws overlap and sometimes collide. Many possibilities exist, including ownership structures and certain investments, but taxpayers must be proactive in learning and implementing the plan beforehand.
For example, one lesser known but welcome surprise is the treatment of life insurance proceeds paid out on an NRA's life. Even if paid by a U.S. insurer, these proceeds are typically exempt from U.S. estate tax. The use of such insurance can provide a robust planning tool for NRAs with significant U.S. assets since the life insurance can provide liquidity to cover the U.S. estate tax without itself being taxable. Get the proper advice so that efficient planning strategies are not overlooked!
Stay on top of tax matters around the globe.
Reach me at vljeker@us-taxes.org
Visit my U.S. tax blog www.us-tax.org
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Guide to dollar-cost averaging: Use this strategy to build wealth over time
Dollar-cost averaging is a popular investing strategy that entails buying new investments at regular intervals, such as once a month. If you have a 401(k), you're already dollar-cost averaging with every paycheck. But you can also use the practice in a typical brokerage account, individual retirement account (IRA) or any other type of investing account. You can implement the strategy manually or set your brokerage account to automatically invest at regular intervals. Dollar-cost averaging is one of the easiest techniques to boost your returns without taking on extra risk, and it's a great way to practice buy-and-hold investing. Dollar-cost averaging can be especially beneficial for people who want to set up their investments and deal with them infrequently. Here's what dollar-cost averaging is and how to use it to maximize your investment gains. Dollar-cost averaging is the practice of putting a fixed amount of money into an investment on a regular basis, such as monthly or even bi-weekly. Over time, the strategy allows you to spread out when you buy — which means you'll do so at market lows and highs — averaging your purchase prices. Because you're always investing the same amount of money, when prices are lower, you'll buy more shares, and when they're higher, you'll buy fewer shares. It's the opposite of timing the market, which entails trying to predict in which direction prices are headed next risking losses if stock prices fall. By setting up a regular buying plan when the markets (and you) are calm, you'll avoid this psychological bias and take advantage of falling stock prices when everyone else becomes scared. If you have a 401(k) retirement account, you're already practicing dollar-cost averaging, by adding to your investments with each paycheck. You're also already using the strategy if you reinvest your dividends, since those payouts are invested back into the market at regular intervals, likely each quarter. Imagine an employee who earns $3,000 each month and contributes 10 percent of that to their 401(k) plan, choosing to invest in an S&P 500 index fund. Because the price of the fund moves around, the number of shares purchased isn't always the same, but each month $300 is invested. The table below shows this example over a 10-month period. Month Contribution Price of fund Shares bought Shares held Total value 1 $300.00 $100.00 3 3 $300.00 2 $300.00 $97.50 3.08 6.08 $592.80 3 $300.00 $101.30 2.96 9.04 $915.75 4 $300.00 $85.45 3.51 12.55 $1,072.40 5 $300.00 $91.23 3.29 15.84 $1,445.08 6 $300.00 $93.20 3.22 19.06 $1,776.39 7 $300.00 $96.50 3.11 22.17 $2,139.41 8 $300.00 $100.54 2.98 25.15 $2,528.58 9 $300.00 $101.43 2.96 28.11 $2,851.20 10 $300.00 $105.00 2.86 30.97 $3,251.85 You can see that the value of the employee's investments went up 8.4 percent on their $3,000 in total contributions, despite the fund only increasing 5 percent over the period. That's because the employee was able to buy a greater number of shares when the price was lower, taking advantage of the market volatility. MORE: Bankrate's list of the best online brokers It can depend on your specific situation, but dollar-cost averaging has been a successful way for many people to invest over time. The question is about whether you should time your purchases based on market conditions or just buy consistently over time using the dollar-cost averaging method. Timing the market has proven to be very difficult and most people are better off with a consistent investment plan. Another issue is that most people are investing money as they earn it, likely through a workplace retirement plan such as a 401(k). Dollar-cost averaging makes sense here because you're investing what you can as soon as it's available to be invested. However, if you inherited a large sum of money, say $100,000, you wouldn't want to spread that out to be invested over years. In that scenario, it's best to get it invested relatively quickly, but you could still spread out purchases over a few months to take advantage of potential volatility. Dollar-cost averaging can make sense for a lot of investors, but it does come with some downsides: Waiting to buy can mean missing opportunities. In a market that generally rises over time, you'll likely be better off being fully invested as soon as possible. But because most people are saving and investing as they earn money, dollar-cost averaging is the next best option. Your investment choices determine performance. If you're dollar-cost averaging into a poor investment, the strategy in which you bought in (dollar-cost averaging) won't be able to boost your investment's performance. The approach works best with broad-based funds such as an S&P 500 index fund, which has performed well over long time periods. There are two ways that you can set up dollar-cost averaging for your account: manually and automatically. If you opt for the manual route, you'll just pick a regular date (monthly, bi-weekly, etc.) and then go to your broker, buy the stock or fund and then you're done until the next date. If you opt to go the automatic route, it requires a little more time upfront, but it's much easier later on. Plus, it will be easier to continue buying when the market declines, since you don't have to act. While setting up your automatic buying may seem like a chore, it's actually easy. Almost any broker can set up an automatic buying plan, so use Bankrate's reviews of the major players to find brokers that provide other features such as great customer service and educational tools. Here are the steps to make dollar-cost averaging fully automatic. First, you'll want to determine what you're buying. Do you want to buy stock? Or will you go with an exchange-traded fund (ETF) or mutual fund? If you opt to buy an individual stock, it's more likely to fluctuate significantly than a fund is. But it may be difficult to find a brokerage that allows you to buy stocks on autopilot. If you buy a fund, it should fluctuate less than an individual stock and it's also more diversified, so your portfolio likely won't drop as much if any single stock in the fund declines a lot as it would if you only invested in that stock. Less-experienced investors usually opt for a fund, and some of the most diversified funds are based on the Standard & Poor's 500 index. This index includes hundreds of companies across all major industries, and it's the standard for a diversified portfolio of companies. If you want to buy an S&P index fund, here are some of the top choices. In either case, you'll need to note the ticker symbol for the security; that's the short-hand code for the stock or fund. So, you've made your choice of investment. Now see if your broker will allow you to set up an automatic purchase plan for that investment. If so, then you're ready to move on to the next step. However, some brokers allow you to set up an automatic plan only with mutual funds. In that case, you might consider opening another brokerage account that allows you to do exactly what you want. There are other solid advantages to having multiple brokerage accounts, too, and you can usually get a lot of value by having multiple accounts. Now that you've got a broker who can execute your automatic trading plan, it's time to figure out how much you can regularly invest. With any kind of stock or fund, you want to be able to leave your money in the investment for at least three to five years. Since stocks can fluctuate a lot over short periods, try to allow the investment some time to grow and get over any short-term declines in price. That means you'll need to be able to live only on your uninvested money during that time. So starting with your monthly budget, figure how much you can devote to investing. Once you have an emergency fund in place, how much can you invest and not need? Even if it's not a lot at first, the most important point is to begin investing regularly. Dollar-cost averaging is now cheaper than ever, since all major brokers now charge no commissions on stock and ETF trades and the best brokers for mutual funds allow you to skip the fees for thousands of mutual funds. That means you really can start with any amount of money and begin building your nest egg. You can set up the automatic trading plan at your broker using the ticker symbol for the stock or fund, how much you want to purchase on a regular basis and how often you want the trade to execute. The exact process for setting this up varies by broker, but these are the basics that you'll need in any case. If you have further questions, your broker can help. And if your stock or fund pays dividends, it can be a good time to set up automatic dividend reinvestment with your broker. Any cash dividend will be used to purchase new shares, and you can often even buy fractional shares — putting the whole value of the dividend to work, rather than having it sit for a long time in cash earning little or next to nothing. So even as soon as the next dividend, your dividend will be earning dividends. MORE: Bankrate's list of the best robo-advisors Dollar-cost averaging is a simple way to help reduce your risk and increase your returns, and it takes advantage of a volatile stock market. If you set up your brokerage account to buy stocks or funds automatically and regularly, then you can sit back and do the things you love, rather than spend your time investing. In investing, you can often get better results with less effort. Note: Bankrate's Brian Baker and Mallika Mitra contributed to an update of this article. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate releases major changes to Trump's tax bill as negotiations heat up
WASHINGTON — The Senate Finance Committee released the long-awaited tax portion of its reconciliation bill on Monday, setting the stage for drawn-out negotiations with their House colleagues after changing several key provisions in the 549-page bill. The text release starts the clock for senators to finalize the package, get it approved by the Senate parliamentarian, and vote on the measure before the end of next week to meet Republicans' self-imposed deadline of July 4. The parliamentary process could take several days as each provision must be reviewed by the Senate adviser to ensure they adhere to the strict rules of reconciliation. Once the package passes the Senate, it will then be returned to the House for consideration. From there, Republicans will likely need to convene what is known as a conference committee between House and Senate leaders to negotiate a compromise package in order to avoid a legislative tennis match. That could be easier said than done as there are several provisions in the Senate version that have already angered House Republicans who spent weeks negotiating with GOP leaders to include their priorities. Here are some of the changes that could be the biggest sticking points for House Republicans: As expected, the Senate text aims to eliminate hundreds of billions of dollars previously approved under former President Joe Biden and criticized by some conservatives as 'Green New Deal subsidies.' However, the Senate text appears to shift the timeline for when many of those clean energy tax credits could be phased out, giving business owners who benefit from the credits more time to adjust. 'The legislation also achieves significant savings by slashing Green New Deal spending and targeting waste, fraud and abuse in spending programs while preserving and protecting them for the most vulnerable,' Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said in a statement. Under the House resolution, the credits are each given specific expiration dates whereas in the Senate version they are given a certain number of days after enactment. For example, the elimination of tax credits for residential clean energy could be eased under the Senate bill, softening the blow for the repeal of renewable energy sources such as solar panels, solar water heaters, geothermal heat pumps, and more. While the House bill would eliminate those credits by the end of 2025, the Senate version would expire the credit six months after the bill is signed — giving the credits a moving deadline and a slower phaseout. The Senate text also appears to change the timeline for several tax credits incentivizing the usage of clean vehicles, including credits for purchasing used clean energy vehicles; new clean vehicles; commercial vehicles; and more. Many of those provisions were set to expire by the end of the year under the House proposal, but now would also expire between 90-180 days after the bill is signed. The bill would ease the expiration of tax credits on fueling equipment for alternative vehicles such as electric cars. Similar to other language, the Senate text would implement a more flexible phaseout to eliminate the tax credit one year after the bill is signed rather than at the end of this year, which is the date currently proposed in the House version. Those eased timelines, along with others tucked in the bill, were likely included to win over Republicans in the Senate such as Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, who pushed for relaxed phaseouts. If the tax credits were eliminated immediately, Curtis and others argued, it could cause a surge in utility prices. However, it's not clear how that will go over with fiscal conservatives in the House, who have called for the immediate elimination of clean energy credits. The Senate Finance Committee summary does tout provisions to boost nuclear energy and support 'consistent energy sources' to reduce market distortions. It also includes language that 'stops penalizing fossil fuels in favor of intermittent green energy.' The Senate tax portion made a number of significant changes to the House language on Medicaid, including one controversial proposal to help pay for Republicans' proposed tax cuts. In the newly released text, Republicans are proposing to lower the Medicaid provider tax to 3.5%, far below the current 6% tax. That could raise concerns among some lawmakers who have already voiced concerns about reduced funding for Medicaid in some states. Medicaid provider taxes are taxes placed by states on medical providers like hospitals and clinics that then boost reimbursement from the federal government. The bill would also implement stricter requirements for eligibility screening and verification as part of an effort to ensure undocumented immigrantss cannot be approved for benefits. For the most part, Senate Republicans left much of the language in the House surrounding Medicaid untouched. For example, the language maintains provisions establishing new work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, requiring at least 80 hours a month or some other activity, such as community service. The bill would also maintain restrictions introduced by the House to ban Medicaid funds going toward abortion procedures or gender transitions. One of the most politically potent issues tucked into the reconciliation bill is the proposed expansion of federal deductions for state and local taxes paid, also known as SALT. The Senate version includes language to extend the current deduction cap, which sits at $10,000 per household. That proposal has already set off a firestorm among blue-state Republicans in the House who have demanded a much higher limit — even going so far as to threaten voting against the full package if a higher deduction is not included. House Republican leaders offered to increase the current deduction cap to $40,000 for individuals who make $500,000 or less a year. The cap would then increase by 1% every year over the next decade and remain permanent after that period. That proposal was met with skepticism in the Senate, prompting many fiscal conservatives to push for a lower number to reduce costs. The $10,000 proposal is meant to be a starting point for negotiations, Senate aides say, but it has already been met with anger from SALT proponents in the House. 'That is the deal, and I will not accept a penny less,' Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., said of the House-negotiated deal. 'If the Senate reduces the SALT number, I will vote NO, and the bill will fail in the House.' Other New York Republicans called the deal 'insulting,' arguing it is a 'slap in the face' to the blue-state Republicans who handed the GOP a majority in the House. 'If we want to be the big tent party, we need to recognize that we have members representing blue states with high taxes that are subsidizing many red districts across the country with constituents who benefit from refundable tax credits despite paying zero in taxes,' Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., said in a statement. House Republican leaders have warned for months not to make drastic changes to SALT policy, warning it could be tough to sell anything less than what was already negotiated — especially with only a three-vote margin in the House. 'I'm very concerned about what they might do on the SALT number and any number of other provisions in the bill,' House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told the Deseret News last week. 'I've been very consistent publicly and privately. They need to hopefully modify it as little as possible, but I also understand that, you know, it's a separate chamber, and they're going to do their thing.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans balk at changes to Trump tax bill as deadline nears
WASHINGTON — Senate Republican leaders are in crunch time as they attempt to get all corners of their party to agree on key provisions of President Donald Trump's signature tax bill. The Senate Finance Committee released its long-awaited tax portion of the reconciliation bill on Monday, making a number of changes to the version passed by their House colleagues last month. However, those changes have not been met with open arms by several in the GOP conference — which could threaten its passage if Senate leaders bring it to the floor for a vote next week. One of the thorniest issues tucked into the latest iteration is a proposal to lower the Medicaid provider tax to 3.5%, far below the current 6% tax. That has raised concerns among some lawmakers from states they say rely on that tax to provide health coverage. Medicaid provider taxes are taxes placed by states on medical providers like hospitals and clinics that then boost reimbursement from the federal government. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has been a vocal opponent to paring back the tax, although she declined to elaborate on her current stance. However, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., expressed his frustration with the proposal, arguing it would disadvantage rural hospitals. 'I've talked to our leadership constantly about this. And I was told, we've got a fix on the provider tax issue, we're gonna help rural hospitals,' Hawley told reporters on Tuesday. 'There's nothing in here for rural hospitals. In fact, what they're doing is lowering the provider tax to make it even worse.' It's not clear if that language will be amended before it's voted on. Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said on Tuesday they are 'vetting' the text. Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, met with Senate Republicans during their weekly lunch on Tuesday to assuage any concerns on proposed cuts. When asked if there is any chance Republicans will change language related to the provider tax, Oz brushed off those concerns. 'Well, the details of the language are up to the leadership, but the specifics, the framework of addressing the legalized money laundering with state-directed payments and provider taxes must be in this bill,' Oz said. 'It should be in this bill.' Vice President JD Vance also attended the lunch, telling reporters they would 'work through' any concerns with the current language related to Medicaid. 'If we can't address that concern in your preferred way, is there another way that we can fix it,' Vance told reporters. 'That's just part of the legislative process' Meanwhile, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, predicted: 'I don't think it's going to stay in this form.' One of the other politically potent issues tucked into the reconciliation bill is the proposed expansion of federal deductions for state and local taxes paid, also known as SALT. While House Republicans proposed increasing the cap to $40,000 — with some income limits — the Senate lowered that number to just $10,000, which is the cap currently in place. That provision has already been rejected by the SALT Caucus in the House, which has enough lawmakers to tank the bill if they don't get their requested amount. Crapo said those provisions would continue to be worked out in the Senate and the House, acknowledging 'that's a very big piece, obviously.' 'We will work it out,' Crapo said. Republican leaders must also deal with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who has said he would vote against the package so long as it contains language raising the debt ceiling. The Senate version includes language to raise the debt limit to $5 trillion, even higher than the $4 trillion ceiling proposed by the House. 'We roll around to 2026 elections, what are they going to say? 'Oh Democrats, you know, they're for borrow and spend,'' Paul said on Tuesday. 'But now the Republicans will have joined the Democrats in being for borrow and spend.' The text release starts the clock for senators to finalize the package, get it approved by the Senate parliamentarian, and vote on the measure before the end of next week to meet Republicans' self-imposed deadline of July 4. The parliamentary process could take several days as each provision must be reviewed by the Senate adviser to ensure they adhere to the strict rules of reconciliation. Once the package passes the Senate, it will then be returned to the House for consideration. From there, Republicans will likely need to convene what is known as a conference committee between House and Senate leaders to negotiate a compromise package in order to avoid a legislative tennis match.
