Phil Hodgen’s Blog

When to file Form 8854

We get questions. Some of them are answered on the weekly Expatriation Only email list (subscribe!). Here is one that I’ll just answer here as a blog post. It is from reader R.T.:

Hi, I am planning on abandoning my green card this July, 2014. The latest dates of expatriation in Part 1, #4 are from January 1, 2013 – December 31, 2013. Should I just check this box?

Thanks, R.T.–I always appreciate questions and comments.

R.T. is referring to Form 8854. He is looking at the 2013 version of Form 8854. On Form 8854 you are supposed to tell the IRS when you renounced citizenship or abandoned your green card. The 2013 form doesn’t have a place for this person to answer the question accurately. What does he do?

The answer: wait until next year

R.T., you’re too eager. You don’t have to file Form 8854 yet. Wait until 2015.

When someone expatriates (renounces U.S. citizenship or abandons a green card after holding it for a long time), there is one eternal truth:

You still have to file a U.S. income tax return for the final year that you were a citizen or a green card holder, even if it is only for part of the year. This is usually (but not always) a dual-status tax return. See IRS Publication 519, Chapter 6.

The Form 8854 is filed along with that final tax return. From the Instructions to the 2013 Form 8854, at page 3, in the right hand column:

When To File

If you expatriated after June 16, 2008, attach Form 8854 to your income tax return (Form 1040 or Form 1040NR) for the year that includes your expatriation date, and file your return by the due date of your tax return (including extensions). Also send a copy of your Form 8854 to the address in Where To File, later. If you are not required to file Form 1040NR or Form 1040, send your Form 8854 to the address in Where To File, later, by the date your Form 1040NR (or Form 1040) would have been due (including extensions) if you had been required to file. (See Resident Alien or Nonresident Alien in the Instructions for Form 1040NR.)

Emphasis in original.

For someone who expatriates in 2014, that final tax return will be due in 2015. The filing deadline will either be April 15, 2015 or June 15, 2015, depending on circumstances. An extension request can be made, giving you until October 15, 2015. A further extension request is possible to December 15, 2015.

This means that R.T. will not have to file his final (2014) income tax return and his Form 8854 until sometime in 2015. By then the IRS will have published the 2014 version of Form 8854 and there will be a box to check for R.T. to tell the IRS that he expatriated in 2014.

Common question

This is a common question. People who expatriate often assume that they must handle their tax filings immediately after their expatriation date. Not so. The final year’s tax filings are done in the following year.

Careful: Form W-8CE

There is one exception to this rule: Form W-8CE.

If you are a covered expatriate and you have deferred compensation plans (think “pension” in plain English), you must file Form W-8CE with the compensation plan administrator within 30 days of your expatriation date.

If you do this, your U.S. income tax on pension distributions will be 30%, as the payments

are made to you. If you miss the 30 day deadline, you are treated as if you received a giant lump sum distribution of your entire lifetime’s worth of pension payments. This will create a Godzilla-sized income tax payment that the IRS will be keenly interested in receiving promptly.

The problem is a cash flow problem. If you are receiving dribbly-drabbly payments every month for the rest of your life, you probably don’t have the cash available to pay some hundreds of thousands of dollars in income tax today.

Expatriation by minors–possible but difficult

We get questions. Some of them are answered on the weekly Expatriation Only email list (subscribe!). Here is one that I’ll just answer here as a blog post. It is from reader N.

Hi Phil, I have an expatriation-related question for you:

I am a US citizen (naturalized at age 13) who moved to Canada as an adult, married a Canadian, and had two children in Canada. [Stuff removed from the question by me].

If I decide to expatriate myself (still deciding… my entire family and many friends are still in the US, and I visit regularly), should I expatriate my children as well, to make a clean break and keep them free of US tax reporting obligations as they get older and collect enough assets (RESPs, etc) to require the FinCEN (FBAR) reporting? Both are under 10 at the moment.

What are the pitfalls to be expected when expatriating children?

Sorry for the wordiness. I boldfaced the actual questions above. :-)

Man, this is a difficult decision. Thanks very much for organizing this list – I am learning a lot.


The answer we give–and this question comes up a lot–is to wait until the kids turn age 18. You might be able to have your kids expatriate before that, but you and they will incur a lot of brain damage in dealing with the U.S. government.

State Department: we’ll make it really hard

The State Department has its Foreign Affairs Manual. The relevant portion is 7 FAM Section 1292 (PDF). I will reproduce the full provisions here:

i. Renunciation of U.S. citizenship and minors:

(1) Consult CA/OCS/ACS: Whenever you receive a request to renounce from a minor you immediately must contact CA/OCS/ACS. CA/OCS/ACS will not approve a Certificate of Loss of U.S. Nationality (CLN) for a minor without the concurrence of CA/OCS/L, and appropriate consultation with L/CA;

(2) Voluntariness and intent: Minors who seek to renounce citizenship often do so at the behest of or under pressure from one or more parent. If such pressure is so overwhelming as to negate the free will of the minor, it cannot be said that the statutory act of expatriation was committed voluntarily. The younger the minor is at the time of renunciation, the more influence the parent is assumed to have. Even in the absence of any evidence of parental inducements or pressure, you and CA must make a judgment whether the individual minor manifested the requisite maturity to appreciate the irrevocable nature of expatriation. Absent that maturity, it cannot be said that the individual acted voluntarily. Moreover, it must be determined if the minor lacked intent, because he or she did fully understand what he or she was doing. Children under 16 are presumed not to have the requisite maturity and knowing intent;

(3) Interviewing a minor: When conducting the initial interview with a minor and during the renunciation procedure, you should have at least one other person present. The parents and guardians should not be present. As noted, the interview should take place in the presence of the consular officer and a witness, preferably another consular officer, another Foreign Service officer (nonconsular) or locally employed staff (LE staff). You should also explain that upon reaching the age of 18, the minor has a six- month opportunity to reclaim U.S. nationality. See 7 FAM Exhibit 1292, A Sample Letter to Accompany CLN for Minor Renunciants, which should be provided to minor renunciants together with an approved CLN;

(4) Consular officer’s opinion: You should fully document every interaction with the minor and explain in your consular officer’s opinion the reasons you believe that the minor is, or is not, mature enough and sufficiently knowing to renounce.

State Department: minor’s renunciation isn’t final

There is also an important paragraph–encapsulated in a box to tell you how important it is–right above Section 1292(i). A minor who renounces citizenship can reclaim citizenship after turning age 18.

Renunciation is an expatriating act under INA Section 349(a)(5). The Foreign Affairs Manual says:

NOTE: INA 351(b) (8 U.S.C. 1483) provides that a national who within six months after attaining the age of eighteen years asserts his claim to U.S. nationality, in such manner as the Secretary of State shall by regulation prescribe, shall not be deemed to have lost United States nationality by the commission, prior to his eighteenth birthday, of any of the acts specified in paragraphs (3) and (5) of Section 349(a) of this title.”


A kid younger than age 16 is unlikely in the extreme to get a favorable result. The government presumes that such a person is too young to know the full impact of renouncing U.S. citizenship. I wouldn’t even bother going to the Consulate or Embassy in this situation. The time and brain damage cost to the parents is too high.

For any child who is older than 16, I wouldn’t bother with renouncing U.S. citizenship. My experience is that children have few assets and therefore few tax problems. It is easier to deal with the tax filings for a couple of years–until the child turns 18–than it is to bang heads with the State Department.

There might be situations where there is some pressing tax need to have the child expatriate. This might be where the child has significant net worth via inheritance or being named as a beneficiary of a trust. There are some circumstances where that child’s later renunciation might trigger the exit tax.

Bottom line: unless there is a lot of potential income tax at stake, wait until the child is age 18 and can freely renounce U.S. citizenship using the normal procedures. For situations like reader N’s, where the assets are normal RESPs and the like, I don’t see any real benefit to early renunciation. And in her case, the kids are under age 10 so it’s basically impossible right now, anyways.

Can you have no passport at all?

(This is the weekly Expatriation Only email that went out this morning to the subscribers. Every week I answer a technical question–usually tax–in great depth about expatriation. Subscribe to the list here. Send in your questions here.)

Hi from Phil Hodgen.

You signed up for my "Expatriation Only" email list–every Tuesday you will get an email every week with a real question from a list subscriber and a real answer from me. Maybe there will be other emails, but they will only be from me, and only about expatriation-related topics.

If you want to stop getting these emails, just click on the link at the bottom of the email and you will be instantly unsubscribed.

If you want to ask a question, hit "reply" and send it to me. :-)

This Week's Question

This week's question has to do with a non-tax issue. It comes from reader S.T.:

I have a question of curiosity; if a citizen of a country expatriates without gaining citizenship within another country, where does that put them? I'd assume there are a ton of negative legal ramifications that would go with this but I'm not sure. Also; where could they lawfully reside? International waters only? Antarctica?

Short answer: we have seen this, and you're right–there are a ton of negative legal ramifications.


As I said, we have clients who have done this: renounced U.S. citizenship before acquiring citizenship in another country. I am impressed by the boldness of the people who voluntarily drop the U.S. passport before acquiring a new passport. I would not be so bold.

And the obligatory disclaimer: I know tax stuff, not immigration law, and certainly not the immigration laws of every country in the world.

Treat this as a sharing of meagre information on an unusual topic. Your input is welcome if you know more than me.

State Department: "You're an idiot but we'll let you"

The State Department strongly discourages you from renouncing your U.S. citizenship, especially when you do not have alternate citizenship. It is useful for me to quote the Foreign Affairs Manual. The relevant portion is 7 FAM Section 1215 (PDF), quoted here in full:

a. Persons who renounce their U.S. citizenship or commit any statutory act of expatriation intending thereby to relinquish such citizenship should understand that, unless they already possess a foreign nationality or are assured of acquiring another nationality shortly after completing their renunciation, they will become stateless and severe hardship to them could result. In the absence of a second nationality, those individuals would become stateless. Even if they possess permanent resident status in a foreign country, they could encounter difficulties continuing to reside there without a nationality.

b. The U.S. Government generally cannot accord stateless former U.S. nationals the consular assistance that is provided for U.S. citizens and U.S. noncitizen nationals pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), U.S. statutes and regulations, and customary international law.

c. Stateless former U.S. nationals may also find it difficult or impossible to travel as they may not be issued a U.S. passport, and would probably not be able to obtain a passport or any other travel document from any country. Further, a person who has renounced U.S. citizenship will be required to apply for a visa to travel to the United States, just as other aliens do. If found ineligible for a visa, he or she could be permanently barred from the United States.

d. Expatriation will not necessarily prevent a former citizen's deportation from a foreign country to the United States, nor will it necessarily exempt that person from being prosecuted in the United States for any outstanding criminal charges or held liable for any military obligations or any taxes owed to the United States. The fact that a person has been rendered stateless does not serve to nullify the individual’s expatriation if the renunciation is done voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. nationality.

e. In making all these points clear to potentially stateless renunciants, the Department of State will, nevertheless, afford them their right to expatriate. We will accept and approve renunciations of persons who do not already possess another nationality. It should be noted, however, that if a foreign state deports such individuals, he or she may find themselves deported to the United States, the country of their former nationality.

The key paragraph is Section 1215(e), where the State Department explicitly says that becoming stateless after renunciation of U.S. citizenship is possible. Emphasis is added by me.

What we've seen

In the instances we have seen, the individual has acquired a permanent resident visa in another country. This means he or she has a place to live–legally. Further, the conditions of the permanent resident visa only require that the person wait out the required number of years in order to qualify to become a citizen of that country.

There is also an implicit assumption that the person keeps out of trouble and that the politics of the country remain reasonably stable until citizenship is obtained. These are risks that you may or may not want to assume for yourself. Countries do change their laws from time to time. And what "keep out of trouble" means can vary from place to place.

If you are thinking of declaring yourself stateless, these are risks that you should consider.


The key problem is travel. As near as I can tell, these people are landlocked in the country of permanent residence until they acquire citizenship in that country and therefore have a passport issued to them.

"Travel documents" are in theory possible to get. These are documents (usually they look like passports, but not always) that are issued by a country to a person. They (in theory) permit travel–and re-entry into the country of issuance–but do not assert that the individual is a citizen or national of that country.

The classic document is the one issued to residents of Palestine. Leaving aside the political implications and aspirations embedded in such a document, the Palestinian passport will allow a holder to travel to a number of countries.

I know of at least one instance where a Native American nation–asserting its sovereignty under its century-old treaty with the United States–issued its own passports and a number of its members travelled internationally using those passports. This event will be shrouded in attorney-client confidentiality. Don't ask.

Latvia will issue a stateless person's travel document. Indonesia has a similar system for issuing a travel document to a stateless permanent resident of Indonesia.

The reality is different from theory. Everything I know about travel documents (i.e., something issued by a country allowing you to travel but not confirming your citizenship of that country) is that they are difficult or impossible to obtain, and give you limited mobility if you happen to get one.

If you renounce U.S. citizenship, you are committing yourself to remaining in a single location until you acquire a new citizenship. No travel.

For a horror story, look at this report from where a U.S. resident (citizen of the former USSR) and stateless person was trapped in American Samoa. Ultimately he was allowed to re-enter the United States on a humanitarian parole.

FWIW, you can follow Mikhail Sebastian's Tumblr if you want to keep up with the story–which is still ongoing as of mid-2014.

What's the worst that can happen?

What's the worst that can happen to a stateless person? I see three possibilities:

  • You're stuck in no-man's land. This is the scenario facing the gentleman who went to Pago Pago (and returned to live in limbo in the United States). Or Tom Hanks in The Terminal.
  • You're returned to the United States–the country that granted you permanent resident status decides that you're not worth having, and tosses you out. Where do you go? The default assumption is that you go to your place of last nationality–the USA.
  • Technology advances sufficiently so that you can be evicted from Planet Earth. "Open the pod bay doors, Hal." (YouTube).

No definitive answer

There is, unfortunately, no definitive answer I can give you. We do a lot of U.S. expatriation work–handling the projects as well as giving advice to people who then do the work themselves. As part of that work, we have seen people renounce U.S. citizenship and become stateless.

Me? I wouldn't do it. I would do the footwork to get a second passport, then I would give up the U.S. passport. The travel restrictions are something I might be able to live with (don't leave the country for five years–this can be done). However, the political and life risks of maintaining permanent residence until I qualify for citizenship in the country where I have permanent resident status–that's troublesome. I would consider it in only the most stable of stable democracies. Even then, I would continue to be puckered up with anticipation until I had the new passport in hand.

Not legal advice

Now of course is a prudent moment to remind you that this is not legal advice, and 10 minutes after you read this the IRS will do something to make this completely outmoded. Plus Congress will pull some hair-brained idea out its bureaucratic posterior and change everything about immigration law and enact it before you can wake up for your morning coffee.

Next week

Next Tuesday there will be another expatriation-related question and answer. Send yours in. :-)


UPDATE: I received the following email from reader O.W.:

Hi Phil,

You seem to forget about the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (lots of fun to be found on While the US has not signed such convention, stateless persons should get an immigration status in countries which did.

Further, for renuciants who come back to the US, I believe that there was a US Supreme Court case (Gary Davis vs the US) stating that a former US citizen now stateless cannot be deported (even thought if strictly speaking he doesn’t have an immigration status in the US) and that it formed the basis for not only Gary Davis living in Vermont until his death but also him coming to the US (the guy proudly shows his “World passport” but my understanding is that it is the supreme court decision – and the DHS supervisor’s knowledge of it that lets him in).

My response to O.W. was to thank him for the introduction to — this is a new one for me. Also, the U.N. solution and the World Passport is possible but I imagine that most people don’t want to go through the pain, agony, and uncertainty of those processes. But yes. These possibilities exist. I do not have first-hand knowledge of their use. Thanks, O.W.

International Tax Lunch Session: Anonymous Q&A Lottery!

What: International Tax Lunch Anonymous Q&A Lottery!

When: Friday, July 11, 2014 at Noon (Pacific Time)

Where: HodgenLaw, 80 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 680, Pasadena, CA 91101

Who: The Hodgen Team

This month’s International Tax Lunch will be about any international tax questions you would like answered. We will select 3-4 questions to explore at lunchtime, and anonymously – so ask away!

To register for in-person participation, click here.

*In-person participation is limited to 10 participants.

 To register for conference-call participation, click here

*Call-in participation is listen-in only, but you can email your questions to us here.

The international tax lunch sessions are held every month on the second Friday of the month. Past topics include expatriation, PFICs, and nonresident investment in U.S. real estate.

To be notified of upcoming sessions, sign up for the lunch list, click here.

Maximum account value determination for trust beneficiaries for FinCen Form 114

A U.S. beneficiary of a foreign nongrantor trust may be required to report the beneficial interest on the dreaded FBAR form — FinCen Form 114. This blog post is designed to help you figure out the “maximum account value” that you put on Form 114 if you have to file it.

Filing FinCen Form 114

A U.S. person must tell the U.S. government about foreign financial assets on FinCen Form 114. This is the dreaded FBAR and I assume that readers of this blog know about the form. I also assume that readers have an opinion about the form, too. :-)

The legal authority for this is found at 31 U.S.C. Section 5314. The reporting requirement is stated in 31 C.F.R. Section 1010.350(a), which reads (in relevant part) as follows:

Each United States person having a financial interest in, or signature or other authority over, a bank, securities, or other financial account in a foreign country shall report such relationship to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for each year in which such relationship exists and shall provide such information as shall be specified in a reporting form prescribed under 31 U.S.C. 5314 to be filed by such persons. The form prescribed under section 5314 is the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (TD-F 90-22.1), or any successor form.

I will skip over the definition of U.S. person. Let’s assume you have one of these. What is left is a simple if/then statement: “IF you have a financial interest in (a sludgy bureaucratic string of definitions) THEN you have to report whatever the form requires you to report.”

The key understanding here: if you determine that you have a reporting requirement, the question of WHAT you report is entirely up to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Translation: bureaucratic whim.

The form we are talking about, of course, is FinCen Form 114.

Nongrantor Trusts and FinCen Form 114

If you are a beneficiary of a nongrantor trust and that trust has a foreign account of some kind, you may have a “financial interest” in a foreign “financial account.” Since everyone having a “financial interest” in a foreign “financial account” must report this relationship on FinCen Form 114, you are going to be adding yet another item to your annual tax reporting paperwork burden.

The Regulations tell us you have a “financial interest” at 31 C.F.R. Section 1010.350(e)(2)(iv), which says:

A United States person has a financial interest in each bank, securities or other financial account in a foreign country for which the owner of record or holder of legal title is . . . . [a] trust in which the United States person either has a present beneficial interest in more than 50 percent of the assets or from which such person receives more than 50 percent of the current income.

Note what this is saying.

First, look at the name of the entity that owns a bank, securities, or other financial account in a foreign country. It’s a trust.

Then look at what the trust owns. If it owns an account of the type that is normally reported on the FBAR form, you are going to have to do some more figuring out of stuff. If the trust owns something that is not reportable on the FBAR form, you don’t worry any further.

Finally, we look at you, the beneficiary. Is your beneficial interest is big enough, you have to report the “financial interest” on your FBAR. If your beneficial interest in the trust is too small, you do not have to report the “financial interest” on your FBAR.

There are two thresholds. If you pass either, you must file the FBAR and report the “financial interest” that you hold indirectly via the trust. These thresholds are similar to the rules for corporations: if you own too much stock (more than 50%) then you trigger financial reporting for the corporation’s foreign bank accounts. There is nothing terribly sinister here.

Threshold #1

The first threshold is that you, the beneficiary, have a present beneficial interest in more than 50% of the trust assets.

I leave the very interesting follow-up question to you. What if, as with every foreign nongrantor trust I have ever seen, the trustee has absolute discretion in making distributions among a defined class of beneficiaries?

What’s your “present beneficial interest” in the trust? What if you ask the trustee a series of questions so you can honestly answer the question on Form 114? The trustee might tell you to go stick your nose in a dead bear’s bum, citing privacy and confidentiality and all that fun stuff.

Threshold #2

The second threshold is whether you, the beneficiary, receive more than 50% of the current income of the trust.

This, too, gives us a series of brain teasers. Does this mean actual receipt of the current income? Or hard-wired mandatory distribution rules requiring distribution of current income? I assume the Regulations mean both.

If the trust has two beneficiaries with mandatory annual distribution of current income (heh–such a foreign trust is truly the Unicorn of Trusts, found only in examples in the Treasury Regulations), you fail this threshold. You have exactly 50% of the current income.

On the other hand, if you are the only beneficiary of a discretionary trust and you receive occasional distributions from the trustee, probably every year that you receive a distribution you will satisfy this requirement for FBAR purposes. But you don’t know for sure, because you don’t know whether the distribution is current income or not.

And yes, the trustee might tell you enough for you to figure this out. Or the trustee might not, inviting you instead to insert your olfactory apparatus into the aforementioned deceased ursine’s digestive system exhaust portal. It happens.

You pass the threshold

Let’s say that you figure out some way that you pass the thresholds, so you have a “financial interest” in the “financial accounts” owned by the trust.

Or let’s say (as often happens) that you do a quick cost/benefit analysis and assume that the risks favor oversharing of information with the IRS. Better to tell them too much than too little, because the penalties for under-sharing are approximately the same as financial amputation and there are no penalties for over-sharing.

(Did George Washington and Thomas Jefferson anticipate the government we have today, and its imperiously-imposed penalties? But I digress.)

What is reported?

What you are reporting on the Form 114 is not your beneficial interest in the trust. You are reporting the fact that you have a financial interest in a financial account that is owned by the trust.

Going back to 31 C.F.R. Section 101.350(e)(2):

A United States person has a financial interest in each bank, securities or other financial account in a foreign country for which the owner of record or holder of legal title is [a trust in which the person is a beneficiary].

And we know that the general rule is that the thing to be reported is the “financial interest” in the foreign financial account. 31 C.F.R. Section 1010.350(a) says:

Each United States person having a financial interest in, or signature or other authority over, a bank, securities, or other financial account in a foreign country shall report such relationship to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. . . .

The phrase “such relationship” refers back to having a financial interest in the account.

This means that the only thing the beneficiary reports on Form 114 is the trust-owned financial account.

As an example, let’s say the trust has two assets: an apartment building and a bank account to collect the rent and pay the expenses. The U.S. beneficiary will report a financial interest in the bank account only. The apartment building is not a “financial account” so does not go on FinCen Form 114.

At what value?

Finally (!) we come to the whole point of this blog post. (Inspired by a question from Marina H., by the way.)

The U.S. person is a beneficiary of a trust, and has a large enough beneficial interest to trigger the reporting requirement on FinCen Form 114. The trust has a financial account.

What is the maximum account value that the person lists on FinCen Form 114?

The Regulations do not discuss the question of value. The valuation reporting requirement is one of those things that 31 C.F.R. Section 1010.350(a) left to the tender loving mercies of the Commissioner to determine and specify on the form.

The Instructions for FinCen Form 114 (warning: PDF) are spectacularly unhelpful (see Page 10 of the Instructions):

Step 1. Determine the maximum value of each account (in the currency of that account) during the calendar year being reported. The maximum value of an account is a reasonable approximation of the greatest value of currency or nonmonetary assets in the account during the calendar year. Periodic account statements may be relied on to determine the maximum value of the account, provided that the statements fairly reflect the maximum account value during the calendar year. For Item 15, if the filer had a financial interest in more than one account, each account must be valued separately. For an account denominated in U.S. Dollars, the maximum value of the account is the largest U.S. Dollar value of the account during the report year.

My opinion is that the government is asking about your relationship with an account. They are not asking about how much that account means to your personal wealth. Therefore you must report the maximum value of the account, not the maximum value of your financial interest in the account.

This is just like the reporting requirement where you have signature authority (but not financial interest) in an account. You report the value of the account.

The real problem that humans (taxpayers and those of us–like Marina H.–who try to shield them from GovBot-inflicted damage) face is getting data.

We are back to the trustee cooperation problem. Will the trustee happily reveal the maximum account balance for the year? Or is this a “It doesn’t smell exactly like a rose to me; are you sure, Dear Trustee, that I should be sticking my nose here?” situation again?

If you cannot get any information from the trustee, what are you going to do? I think the only thing you can do is operate from the best information you have available. You may have incomplete information about the trust’s bank account: you received a wire transfer but beyond the information revealed by that transaction you know nothing. You may be completely unaware of any other accounts the trust owns. You received a wire transfer from a bank account but have no idea that the trust has two other accounts.

I sympathize. This is the world I live in every day.

Bonus brain damage

I leave you a little puzzle for self-inflicted tax-law related brain damage in case you like that kind of thing.

Your client is the sole beneficiary of a foreign nongrantor trust. Its sole asset is a BVI corporation. The BVI corporation has a bank account in a foreign country.

Analyze the reporting and income pass-through requirements for FinCen Form 114, Form 8938, Form 3520, (possibly Form 3520-A), and Form 5471. I will give you a head start: Form 8621 does not apply. You get extra credit if you explain why.