Latest news with #naturalizedcitizens
Forbes
04-08-2025
- Forbes
Tax Fraud And Denaturalization Risks: A Balanced View For Taxpayers
Recent headlines have created alarming concerns among naturalized U.S. citizens. These have suggested that certain tax issues could lead to the loss of U.S. citizenship. This fear is now being amplified on various platforms and stems from a case involving, Vanessa Ben, a Houston woman facing denaturalization over her admission of tax fraud prior to naturalizing. Indeed, the risks of tax fraud and its immigration consequences are very serious. However, taxpayers should be cautious of overly alarmist narratives or unscrupulous tax professionals who may be seeking to profit from the overwhelming sense of panic. False tax returns, for example, may constitute tax fraud if the return was filed with intent to evade taxes. Distinguishing between honest errors and willful misconduct is key. This article provides a factual look at Ms. Ben's denaturalization case. It examines the intersection of tax fraud and naturalization and explores certain unique tax challenges faced by naturalized citizens with prior tax filing concerns. An understanding of the legal landscape and avoiding fear-driven decisions, along with possible steps to address the issues can help guide concerned taxpayers. The Vanessa Ben Denaturalization Case: A Cautionary Tale In July 2025 it was reported in various press articles that Vanessa Ben, a Houston woman was facing denaturalization after pleading guilty in 2019 to filing a false tax return, resulting in a $7,712 refund. Ms. Ben filed her U.S. Individual Income Tax return and signed the form attesting to its validity, but she was aware it contained false information. Ms. Ben was sentenced to 12 months in prison and fined. It has been reported that Ms. Ben now confronts the Department of Justice's attempt to strip her citizenship, alleging she concealed her tax fraud during naturalization. Public details on her case are limited because many denaturalization cases are filed under seal, resulting in the inability to access court filings. Denaturalization has been rare. The DOJ has made denaturalization a priority and Ms. Ben's case seems to reflect the DOJ's recent push to prioritize denaturalization for various causes. These include fraud/intentional misrepresentation during naturalization, as outlined in the DOJ's June 11 memo. For naturalized citizens, tax fraud committed prior to obtaining U.S. citizenship can have severe consequences due to the strict requirements for applicants. The N-400 Application for Naturalization asks, 'Have you EVER committed, agreed to commit, asked someone else to commit, helped commit or tried to commit a crime or offense for which you were NOT arrested?' (Part 9 Question 15a). Applicants are required to disclose all crimes or offenses, including for example, uncharged tax fraud, because this would reflect on 'good moral character' as required under 8 C.F.R. § 316.10. The failure to disclose such offenses can be considered willful misrepresentation and constitute grounds for denaturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1451. Tax Fraud and Denaturalization: The Misrepresentation Trap In Vanessa Ben's case, the DOJ alleges she committed tax fraud before naturalizing and failed to disclose it, thus misrepresenting that she had good moral character. The case highlights a critical lesson for those seeking naturalization. Even uncharged offenses, such as tax fraud or knowing underreporting of income, must be disclosed during naturalization. Misrepresentation doesn't require a conviction; the DOJ need only prove by "clear, unequivocal, and convincing" evidence, that the applicant concealed a material fact or made a misrepresentation that would have disqualified him from citizenship. Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 1988. Taxpayers should be cautious of advisors who sensationalize denaturalization risks to generate fees. However, for those with concerns, it would be proactively wise to engage qualified counsel. Prior tax filings and the Form N-400 could be reviewed to determine whether past tax issues exist, their materiality and potential impact on the naturalization matter. Naturalized citizens who committed tax offenses, such as tax fraud, while green card holders face unique challenges. These include an unlimited statute of limitations for civil tax fraud, the limitations of amending tax returns in the hope of 'curing' the original fraud, and risks associated with the IRS' Voluntary Disclosure Program. All of these issues intersect with immigration consequences and create a complex legal landscape. If a taxpayer files a fraudulent tax return, the IRS can assess taxes and penalties at any future time. The statute of limitations simply does not start to run. This means tax fraud committed as a green card holder can resurface in the future, many years after naturalization. For example, if a taxpayer fraudulently underreported income a decade ago, the IRS can impose back taxes, interest and a 75% fraud penalty. Taxpayers filing an amended tax return to correct a fraudulent filing are often surprised to learn that this does not negate the original fraud or reinstate the three-year statute of limitations. The original fraudulent intent is what triggers the unlimited statute of limitations. A later correction will not simply erase it. This leaves taxpayers vulnerable to IRS assessments indefinitely, even after attempting to correct the fraudulent filing. In fact, filing amended returns could be a trigger and invite such scrutiny. The IRS VDP is now quite strict. It permits taxpayers to disclose willful tax evasion, pay back taxes and penalties, and possibly avoid criminal prosecution. However, participation in the VDP requires a detailed narrative about the tax noncompliance. The details provided in the taxpayer's narrative could provide the DOJ with evidence for denaturalization if the fraud or tax evasion occurred prior to naturalization. For instance, if a green card holder intentionally underreported income and later naturalized without disclosing it, a VDP submission could be used to argue misrepresentation took place on the on the Form N-400. The VDP may protect against criminal tax charges, but it certainly is no shield against civil penalties or immigration consequences. Notably, in June 2025, the IRS agreed to remove a controversial 'willfulness checkbox' from the form required to enter VDP, Form 14457, following advocacy from the National Taxpayer Advocate. The NTA argued that this checkbox, completed under penalty of perjury, deterred taxpayer participation because it caused them to risk self-incrimination. This change has not yet been implemented and is expected in the Form 14457's next revision. While this contemplated change reduces the explicit admission of willfulness, a narrative is still required. It must be very carefully prepared since the narrative could implicate taxpayers in denaturalization cases. Taxpayers should consult with tax and immigration attorneys to weigh VDP risks carefully, choosing advisors who will not exploit taxpayer fears and inflate the threats unnecessarily. Involuntary Denaturalization And The Exit Tax For naturalized citizens with significant assets or income or tax noncompliance, denaturalization carries an additional risk. These individuals can be treated as 'covered expatriates' upon denaturalization. As discussed in my previous Forbes article, covered expatriates involuntarily stripped of citizenship face a mark-to-market tax on unrealized gains and U.S. recipients of gifts or inheritances from them at any future date face significant transfer taxes. Tax fraud often involves unreported income, suggesting significant assets, which could trigger harsh taxes upon denaturalization. Taxpayers should bear in mind that denaturalization is a lengthy process. It does not happen suddenly. The proceedings can take months or years since they involve civil or criminal court proceedings and often include appeals. This extended timeline provides taxpayers time to obtain tax planning and implement it. For example, depending on the facts, taxpayers can look at restructuring assets to eliminate or minimize exit tax liability if denaturalization looms. Conclusion Denaturalization and tax fraud or evasion are linked and clearly carry serious legal consequences. Those with concerns can take proactive steps to ascertain and mitigate their risks. Steps include consulting experienced tax and immigration attorneys who are reputable. They can help taxpayers carefully review tax filings and immigration records, and based on the findings, strategize and address errors. Advisors who exploit fears with exaggerated claims must be carefully avoided. Taxpayers should always remember that they can use the extended timeline of denaturalization proceedings to plan strategically. Stay on top of tax matters around the globe. Reach me at vljeker@ Visit my US tax blog
Bloomberg
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Threats to Denaturalize Political Opponents Are a Red Line
Save What could tech titan Elon Musk, New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani and Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar have in common? All three are naturalized citizens who find themselves in the crosshairs of a Republican Party that is testing the limits of the once-obscure process of denaturalization.
Yahoo
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Justice Department, driven by Trump policy, plans to go after naturalized U.S. citizens
In his all-out war on illegal immigration, President Donald Trump has branded immigrants as 'criminals,' 'invaders' and 'predators,' as his administration targets millions of Haitians, Latin Americans, gang members and foreign college students for deportation. Now, the president has directed the Justice Department to bolster its resources in a major crackdown on naturalized citizens suspected of unlawfully obtaining their U.S. citizenship. According to a recent memo, the department plans to focus not only on individuals who may have lied about a crime or having done something illegal during the naturalization process. But authorities also plan to focus on others who may have committed a crime after becoming citizens — a generally untested legal frontier. Citing Trump's policy objectives in the June 11 memo, the head of DOJ's Civil Division instructed government lawyers to go after naturalized citizens who pose a potential danger to national security, such as acts of terrorism or espionage, violated human rights, engaged in international drug trafficking or committed felonies that were not disclosed during the naturalization application. The DOJ list of priority targets, backed by Attorney General Pam Bondi, even includes naturalized citizens who have been convicted of defrauding the U.S. government, such as Medicare, Medicaid and COVID-19 loan programs. 'These categories are intended to guide the Civil Division in prioritizing which cases to pursue; however, these categories do not limit the Civil Division from pursuing any particular case,' Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate wrote in the memo, pointing to an expansive interpretation of laws on the revocation of naturalization. A range of critics, including immigration and defense attorneys, say the Justice Department's new 'priorities for denaturalization cases' are extremely broad and vague — allowing the Trump administration to target any number of naturalized citizens for various offenses that may fall outside the scope of the law, before trying to deport them to their native country. Ultimately, a federal judge must decide on any government bid to revoke the status of a naturalized citizen, a long process involving likely appeals. 'Traditionally, the law was intended to apply to individuals who committed an unlawful act before becoming naturalized citizens—particularly if that act was not disclosed during the naturalization process or if there was a material misrepresentation on the application,' Miami immigration attorney Steven Goldstein told the Miami Herald. 'What appears to be happening now is an effort to broaden the law's scope, targeting conduct that occurs at any point after naturalization, based on interpretations laid out in the memo,' said Goldstein, a former federal prosecutor with the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service. 'This administration has aggressively expanded the reach of immigration enforcement — and they've shown they're unafraid to defend these expansions in court.' The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers condemned the Justice Department's new directive. 'The Trump Administration's push to revoke citizenship is alarming, and raises serious Fourteenth Amendment concerns,' group president Christopher Wellborn said in a statement. 'Although the memo purports to target concealment of earlier offenses, the language suggests that any offense, at any time, may be used to justify denaturalization,' he said. 'This is particularly concerning given the administration's reliance on vague claims of gang affiliation in deportations.' The impact of the new DOJ policy aimed at U.S. citizens who were born in a foreign country is unclear. According to the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank, the United States has about 24.5 million naturalized citizens, a little more than half of the country's immigrant population. Historically, the Justice Department has zeroed in on Nazi collaborators, Communist party members and spies for denaturalization if they 'illegally procured' their U.S. citizenship, including 'by concealment of a material act or by willful misrepresentation,' according to federal law. Denaturalization was commonly used during the McCarthy era of the late 1940s and early 1950s, and expanded during the Obama administration and Trump's first term in office. The country's latest denaturalization case occurred in mid-June when a federal judge revoked the citizenship of Elliott Duke, an American military veteran from the U.K. who was convicted a decade ago of receiving and possessing child-porn images while stationed in Germany — a crime he did not disclose on his naturalization application before becoming a U.S. citizen in 2013. The issue became even more heated after the Trump administration raised the possibility of stripping Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic mayoral candidate for New York City, of his U.S. citizenship as part of the crackdown against foreign-born citizens convicted of certain offenses. The spurious allegation, known to be false, is that Mamdani may have concealed his support for 'terrorism' during the naturalization process. Mamdani, 33, who calls himself a Democratic socialist, was born in Uganda to ethnic Indian parents, became a U.S. citizen in 2018 and has attracted widespread media attention over his vocal support for Palestinian rights. Trump, during a visit last week to the new Everglades detention facility called Alligator Alcatraz, was asked about Mamdani's pledge to 'stop masked' Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents 'from deporting our neighbors.' Trump responded: 'Well, then, we'll have to arrest him.' Mamdani posted a statement on X: 'The President of the United States just threatened to have me arrested, stripped of my citizenship, put in a detention camp and deported. Not because I have broken any law but because I will refuse to let ICE terrorize our city.' Longtime North Miami immigration attorney Andre Pierre, who toiled for years on a landmark denaturalization case, said he has seen both Democratic and Republican administrations pursue aggressive immigration policies — but no president has made the issue as controversial and visible as Trump. Pierre said Trump ran for re-election on the campaign promise of ridding the country of illegal immigrants who have been convicted of committing crimes, along with gang members from El Salvador and Venezuela. But as soon as he was sworn in as president for a second term, he said, Trump started going after everyday, working-class Venezuelans, Haitians, Cubans and other immigrants with temporary protected status or humanitarian parole. 'A lot of people in these communities voted for for him and didn't think he was going to go that far,' Pierre told the Herald. Pierre said it was only a matter of time before the Trump administration would zero in on naturalized foreign-born citizens in the United States. But after reviewing the Justice Department's list of priorities for denaturalization cases, he came away dismayed. 'This memo is shocking,' Pierre said. 'But I don't see a lot of evidence supporting the kind of cases they want to go after.' Decades ago, Pierre represented a Haitian restaurant owner in Miami who applied for naturalization in November 1994, was approved in February 1996 and took the oath of allegiance and became a naturalized citizen in April 1996. But that fall, Lionel Jean-Baptiste was arrested on cocaine distribution charges, convicted at trial and sentenced to eight years in prison. Evidence showed that Jean-Baptiste committed the crime in March 1995 while his application for naturalization was still awaiting approval by the U.S. government — a fact that would ultimately undo his citizenship. After his conviction, government lawyers moved to revoke his naturalization status in what was considered to be a 'test' case, claiming he illegally procured his citizenship because he failed to show 'good moral character' during the application process. A federal trial judge agreed — a decision affirmed in 2005 by a federal appeals court in Atlanta. The key issue was whether the mere allegation of criminal activity against the Haitian immigrant demonstrated a lack of good moral character, a requirement for naturalization. 'The case dragged on for years,' Pierre said. 'It went all the way up to the Supreme Court.' After Jean-Baptiste, 77, lost his naturalization status, Immigration and Customs Enforcement was then able to take the next step of deporting him to Haiti. The Justice Department's new memo on denaturalization policies suggests that government lawyers might be able to pick ripe cases and expedite naturalized citizens as part of the Trump administration's aggressive goal of deporting millions of illegal immigrants. But a historic South Florida case that lasted for years suggests otherwise, because of the extraordinary due process afforded the defendant: Feodor Fedorenko, a former guard at the infamous Treblinka death camp in Poland, where the Nazis killed about 900,000 Jews during the Holocaust. When the Ukrainian-born Fedorenko applied for a visa to enter the United States in 1949, he lied about his activities during the war. He was granted a visa and lived in the U.S. under the radar for about 20 years. He then applied for U.S. citizenship and once again lied about his activities during the war and failed to disclose his collaboration with the Nazis in carrying out war crimes. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen and continued with his life working at a factory in Connecticut — until his retirement in Miami Beach. Authorities caught up with him. In 1978, federal prosecutors moved to strip Fedorenko of citizenship at trial before U.S. District Judge Norman Roettger in Fort Lauderdale. Fedorenko's case, which was cited several times in the Jean-Baptiste ruling by the appeals court, featured dramatic testimony by a half-dozen Jewish survivors of Treblinka who were living in Israel, by Fedorenko himself and by character witnesses. When asked about the gas chambers at the camp, Fedorenko testified that he never went near them, though he could see them from the guard tower where he was stationed occasionally, according to 2014 book, 'Forgotten Trials of the Holocaust.' Fedorenko, who considered himself a 'prisoner of war' even though he worked as a private in the German army, acknowledged that the Germans gave him a gun. But he denied that he ever whipped or shot an inmate. The lead Justice Department lawyer, Jon Sale, who had been an assistant special Watergate prosecutor, was tasked with proving by 'clear and convincing' evidence that Fedorenko illegally procured his citizenship by hiding his past as a Nazi guard from U.S. immigration authorities. But in the end, Roettger rejected the testimony of the Treblinka survivors and spared Fedorenko from being denaturalized. Although Roettger was not entirely convinced of Fedorenko's 'do no evil' depiction of himself as a Treblinka guard, the judge never took the next step of finding that his denial of what witnesses said about him was also untrue. Sale's team appealed, and the judge's ruling was overturned in 1979. Two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that ruling, leading to the former Nazi guard's denaturalization. 'Even then, his due process rights continued to be honored when the Immigration and Naturalization Service afforded him administrative hearings and appeals,' Sale, a prominent defense lawyer in Miami, told the Herald. 'After all this due process, he was finally deported to the Soviet Union.' There, because of his commission of war crimes in Crimea, Fedorenko, 79, was tried, found guilty and executed in 1987, a year after his deportation.
