The following case studies are based on actual client work completed with the past three years.
Case Study 1: Strategic U.S. Tax Planning for a Green Card Holder Working in the United States saving U.S. federal and state income tax of US $83,000 over two years
Client Profile
- Status: U.S. lawful permanent resident (green card holder)
- Location: Working and living in the United States
- Income: U.S. employment income with cross‑border considerations
- Tax Complexity: Multi‑jurisdictional issues and multiple permissible filing approaches under U.S. tax law
The client engaged our firm after receiving preliminary advice elsewhere that resulted in a materially higher projected tax liability. They were concerned that their return was being prepared in a “default” manner, without exploring alternative—but fully compliant—tax treatments available to green card holders.
The Challenge
As a green card holder, the client is treated as a U.S. tax resident and subject to U.S. taxation on worldwide income. However, the client’s personal and financial circumstances meant that there was more than one technically correct way to prepare the U.S. federal and state tax return.
Each approach:
- Was permissible under U.S. tax law
- Met IRS compliance requirements
- Relied on different interpretations of elections, classifications, and timing
The challenge was identifying which approach best aligned with the client’s facts and produced the most tax‑efficient result—without increasing audit risk.
Our Analysis
We conducted a detailed review of:
- Immigration and residency status
- Source and character of income
- State tax exposure
- Available elections and reporting positions
- Interaction between federal and state tax rules
From this analysis, we identified two valid tax preparation approaches:
- Approach A: A conservative, commonly used method that many preparers default to for green card holders
- Approach B: A more nuanced approach that required deeper analysis but remained fully compliant with U.S. tax law
Both approaches were documented, reviewed, and stress‑tested for compliance and defensibility.
The Outcome
The difference between the two approaches was substantial.
- Approach A: Higher combined federal and state tax liability
- Approach B: Significantly lower tax liability, with no reduction in compliance or reporting accuracy
Total tax savings from choosing the optimal approach: approximately $40,000 in combined federal and state tax for the year.
We clearly explained both options to the client, including:
- The technical basis for each approach
- The compliance considerations
- The relative risks and documentation requirements
The client elected to proceed with Approach B, confident that the position was well‑supported and appropriate for their circumstances.
Why This Matters
This case highlights an important reality for internationally connected taxpayers:
Tax preparation is not always one‑size‑fits‑all.
Two returns can be technically correct—yet produce dramatically different results.
For green card holders and other globally mobile professionals, thoughtful planning and informed elections can make a six‑figure difference over time.
Key Takeaway
By going beyond surface‑level compliance and carefully analyzing the client’s full tax profile, we were able to:
- Identify multiple compliant filing positions
- Quantify the financial impact of each
- Help the client make an informed, strategic decision
The Outcome:
✅ More than US $40,000 in U.S. federal and state tax saved in one U.S. tax year.
✅ More than US $42,000 in U.S. federal and state tax saved in the following U.S. tax year.
✅ More than US $83,000 in U.S. federal and state tax saved for this client, over two U.S. tax years and in complete compliance with U.S. tax law.
This case study is illustrative. Results vary based on individual facts and circumstances, and tax outcomes cannot be guaranteed.
Ready to Understand Your Options?
If you are a green card holder, U.S. expat, or internationally connected professional, there will always be more than one correct way to prepare your tax return—each method returning often vastly different outcomes.
Book a Cross‑Border Diagnostic to:
• Identify potential filing positions available to you
• Understand your U.S. and non‑U.S. tax exposure
• Quantify the tax impact of different compliant approaches
• Make informed decisions before your return is filed
A short diagnostic can uncover opportunities that generic tax preparation often misses.
Case Study 2: More than $8,000 in U.S. Tax Refunds After Correcting Income Sourcing
Client Profile
• Status: U.S. citizen
• Background: Previously working in the United States
• Change in Circumstances: Relocated permanently to New Zealand with family
• Ongoing Support: Continued using a U.S.‑based CPA after moving overseas
The Situation
After moving to New Zealand, the client remained compliant with her U.S. filing obligations by continuing to have her U.S. federal and state tax returns prepared by a U.S. CPA.
However, those returns:
• Continued to treat her income as U.S.‑sourced, and
• Resulted in ongoing U.S. federal and state tax being paid, despite her living and working in New Zealand.
The client assumed this treatment was correct, as the returns were prepared by a U.S. professional and filed on time.
Our Review
We conducted a cross‑border diagnostic focusing on:
• The client’s change in tax residency and work location
• The sourcing of employment income after relocation
• The interaction between U.S. and New Zealand tax rules
• Whether the income had been reported in the correct jurisdiction
Our analysis identified that the income sourcing on the original returns was incorrect given the client’s facts after moving to New Zealand.
As a result, the client had overpaid U.S. federal and state tax.
The Solution
We prepared amended U.S. federal and state tax returns, correcting the sourcing of income to reflect where the services were actually performed.
The amended returns:
• Remained fully compliant with U.S. tax law
• Properly reflected the client’s post‑move circumstances
• Eliminated U.S. tax that should not have been assessed
The Outcome
✅ Total refunds obtained: US $8,505 in:
• Federal tax refunds and
• State tax refunds
The client recovered taxes that had been unnecessarily paid simply because her change in circumstances had not been fully analyzed from a cross‑border perspective.
This case study is illustrative. Results vary based on individual facts and circumstances, and tax outcomes cannot be guaranteed.
Why This Matters
This case demonstrates a common issue for internationally mobile taxpayers:
Using a domestic tax preparer after an international move can result in technically filed—but economically incorrect—returns.
Even when returns are prepared by competent professionals, cross‑border income sourcing is frequently overlooked, leading to overpayment.
If you’ve moved countries, work remotely, or have international income, it’s critical to confirm that your income is being sourced and taxed in the correct jurisdiction.
Book a Cross‑Border Diagnostic to:
• Review how your income is being classified and sourced
• Identify potential overpayments or refund opportunities
• Ensure your U.S. and non‑U.S. filings align with your actual facts
A short review can uncover mistakes that cost thousands in unnecessary tax.
Case Study 3: More than US $7,000 U.S. Federal Refunds Obtained for Client After Correcting Self‑Prepared Returns
Client Profile
- Status: U.S. citizen
- Location: Living and working in New Zealand
- Filing History: Self‑prepared U.S. federal tax returns
- Tax Profile: Foreign income, foreign taxes paid, and international reporting obligations
The Situation
The client had been living in New Zealand and continued to meet U.S. filing requirements by preparing and filing his own U.S. tax returns.
While well‑intentioned, the returns:
- Were prepared using the method the client believed was most advantageous
- Excluded certain income items
- Did not fully account for international information reporting requirements
- Applied foreign tax credits incorrectly
Although the returns were filed on time, the overall approach resulted in overpaid U.S. tax and incomplete reporting.
Our Review
We performed a detailed cross‑border review focusing on:
- The completeness and classification of worldwide income
- The interaction between New Zealand tax paid and U.S. foreign tax credits
- Whether income was being taxed in the correct jurisdiction
- Missing international information returns and disclosures
Our analysis identified that an alternative, fully compliant preparation method—combined with corrected reporting—would produce a better result.
The Solution
We prepared amended U.S. federal tax returns using a different approach that:
- Included all previously omitted income
- Brought all required international information returns into compliance
- Corrected the calculation and application of foreign tax credits
- Accurately reflected the client’s New Zealand tax position
Importantly, the amended returns improved the outcome while increasing compliance, not reducing it.
The Outcome
✅ U.S. federal tax refunds obtained: US$7,359
The client recovered taxes that had been overpaid due to:
- Suboptimal treatment of foreign income
- Incorrect foreign tax credit calculations
- Incomplete international reporting
At the same time, the client’s U.S. filings were brought fully up to date and aligned with cross‑border requirements.
This case study is illustrative. Results vary based on individual facts and circumstances, and tax outcomes cannot be guaranteed.
Why This Matters
This case highlights a common risk for U.S. citizens abroad:
Filing your own return—or relying on tax software—can result in returns that are technically filed, but not optimally or fully compliant.
Including all income does not automatically mean paying more tax. When income is reported correctly and credits are applied properly, amended returns can produce refunds while strengthening compliance.
If you are a U.S. citizen living overseas and preparing your own returns—or unsure whether your foreign income and credits are being handled correctly—a short review can make a meaningful difference.
Book a Cross‑Border Diagnostic to:
- Review prior‑year filings for missed opportunities or errors
- Ensure all income and international reporting is complete
- Confirm foreign tax credits are being applied correctly
- Identify refund opportunities through amended returns
A diagnostic often uncovers issues that aren’t obvious until returns are reviewed through a cross‑border lens.
Case Study 4: More than US $14,000 in U.S. Tax Credits Claimed After Catching Up on Unfiled Returns
Client Profile
- Status: U.S. citizen
- Location: Living in New Zealand
- Filing History: Had not filed U.S. tax returns for several years
- Tax Profile: Foreign income and New Zealand taxes paid
The Situation
The client had been living in New Zealand and had fallen behind on her U.S. tax filing obligations. Like many U.S. citizens abroad, she was uncertain:
- Whether she still needed to file
- How foreign income should be reported
- Whether filing late would automatically result in U.S. tax owed
Concerned about past non‑filing and potential exposure, she engaged us to help her get back into compliance.
Our Review
We began with a cross‑border diagnostic to assess:
- The years requiring U.S. filings
- The nature and sourcing of her New Zealand income
- Foreign taxes paid and available credits
- The most appropriate and compliant filing approach based on her full facts
Our analysis showed that, although returns had not been filed, the client had significant foreign tax credits available that had never been claimed.
The Solution
We prepared and filed the required U.S. federal tax returns using the most advantageous compliant method identified for her circumstances.
The filings:
- Correctly reported worldwide income
- Properly applied foreign tax credits
- Reflected the client’s New Zealand tax position
- Brought the client back into U.S. tax compliance
Rather than resulting in unexpected tax due, the correct approach significantly improved the outcome.
The Outcome
✅ Total U.S. tax refunds: US $14,472
By filing correctly and applying available credits, the client:
- Reduced U.S. tax exposure
- Avoided unnecessary overpayment
- Gained clarity and peace of mind around her U.S. obligations
Most importantly, she moved from uncertainty to full compliance with a clear path forward.
This case study is illustrative. Results vary based on individual facts and circumstances, and tax outcomes cannot be guaranteed.
Why This Matters
This case highlights a critical point for U.S. citizens living overseas:
Not filing does not always mean you owe tax—but not filing means you may be missing valuable credits.
Many U.S. citizens abroad delay filing due to fear of tax bills, when in reality, proper cross‑border preparation can produce neutral or even favorable outcomes.
If you are a U.S. citizen living overseas and haven’t filed U.S. tax returns—or are unsure how to catch up—the right approach can make a significant difference.
Book a Cross‑Border Diagnostic to:
- Assess your U.S. filing obligations
- Identify unclaimed foreign tax credits
- Determine the best path to compliance
- Understand your position before returns are filed
A structured review can replace years of uncertainty with clarity and control.
Case Study 5: IRS Failure‑to‑File Penalties Removed for Late Filed Forms 3520 and 3520‑A
Client Profile
- Status: U.S. citizen
- Location: Living in New Zealand
- Issue: Late filing of U.S. trust information returns
- IRS Action: Failure‑to‑file penalties assessed
The Situation
The client, a U.S. citizen living in New Zealand, had U.S. reporting obligations in relation to a trust but was unaware of the requirement to file Forms 3520 and 3520‑A.
As a result:
- The required forms were not filed on time
- The IRS assessed failure‑to‑file penalties
- The penalties were significant and unexpected
The client engaged us after receiving IRS notices and was concerned about both the financial impact and the broader compliance implications.
Our Review
We conducted a detailed review to:
- Understand the nature of the trust and the client’s reporting obligations
- Confirm which forms were required and for which years
- Assess whether the penalties were appropriately applied
- Determine whether the client qualified for penalty relief
Our analysis showed that while the forms were filed late, the failure was due to lack of awareness rather than willful non‑compliance, and the circumstances supported a strong case for penalty abatement.
The Solution
We:
- Prepared and/or corrected the required Forms 3520 and 3520‑A
- Submitted a formal request for penalty abatement, supported by a clear explanation of facts and reasonable cause
- Corresponded with the IRS on the client’s behalf
The submission focused on demonstrating good‑faith compliance and the client’s prompt corrective action once the issue was identified.
The Outcome
✅ IRS failure‑to‑file penalties abated
The client avoided paying penalties that had been assessed solely due to late international information reporting and was brought back into compliance with U.S. trust reporting obligations.
This case study is illustrative. Results vary based on individual facts and circumstances, and tax outcomes cannot be guaranteed.
Why This Matters
This case highlights a critical issue for U.S. citizens living overseas:
International information returns carry some of the highest penalties in the U.S. tax system—even when no tax is owed.
Forms like 3520 and 3520‑A are frequently missed, particularly where foreign trusts are involved, and penalties are often issued automatically.
The good news: penalties are not always final, especially where reasonable cause exists and the issue is addressed correctly.
If you are a U.S. citizen living overseas and have:
- A foreign trust
- Unfiled or late international information returns
- IRS penalty notices you don’t fully understand
Book a Cross‑Border Diagnostic to:
- Review your international reporting obligations
- Identify exposure before penalties escalate
- Assess whether penalty relief may be available
- Develop a clear plan to restore compliance
A proactive review can prevent penalties—or help remove them once assessed.
Case Study 6: U.S. Self‑Employment Tax Exposure Elimination Through Proper Cross‑Border Structuring
Client Profile
• Status: U.S. citizen
• Location: Living and operating a business in New Zealand
• Work Status: Self‑employed
• Tax Issue: Exposure to U.S. self‑employment tax
The Situation
The client was a U.S. citizen living in New Zealand and operating as self‑employed. Their income was being reported in a straightforward manner, without any strategic consideration of how the business should be structured from a U.S. cross‑border tax perspective.
As a result:
• The client was exposed to U.S. self‑employment tax on business income
• The structure did not reflect how the business operated in New Zealand
• There had been no analysis of alternative, compliant structures
The client engaged us after realizing that U.S. self‑employment tax was becoming one of their largest tax costs.
Our Review
We conducted a cross‑border diagnostic to assess:
• The nature of the client’s self‑employment activities
• How the business was structured under New Zealand law
• The interaction between U.S. tax rules and New Zealand business structures
• Whether the current approach unnecessarily triggered U.S. self‑employment tax
Our review showed that while the client was compliant, the existing setup was not tax‑efficient and resulted in significantly higher U.S. tax than necessary.
The Solution
We worked with the client to restructure their business in the most tax‑efficient compliant manner, considering:
• U.S. self‑employment tax rules
• The client’s New Zealand tax position
• Proper classification and reporting of income
• Ongoing compliance and sustainability of the structure
The revised approach aligned the business structure with how the client actually operated, while significantly reducing exposure to U.S. self‑employment tax.
The Outcome
✅ No U.S. self‑employment tax payable
By restructuring correctly:
• U.S. self‑employment tax was substantially reduced
• The client retained more of their business income
• The structure supported long‑term compliance in both jurisdictions
The savings were ongoing, not one‑off—improving the client’s tax position year after year.
This case study is illustrative. Results vary based on individual facts and circumstances, and tax outcomes cannot be guaranteed.
Why This Matters
This case highlights a critical issue for U.S. citizens living overseas:
Self‑employment structures that work locally can create unnecessary U.S. tax exposure if not reviewed cross‑border.
Many self‑employed U.S. citizens abroad overpay U.S. self‑employment tax simply because their business structure has never been reviewed through a U.S. international lens.
If you are self‑employed and living outside the United States, your business structure may be costing you far more in U.S. tax than necessary.
Book a Cross‑Border Diagnostic to:
• Review your current business and income structure
• Identify exposure to U.S. self‑employment tax
• Explore compliant, tax‑efficient alternatives
• Build a structure that supports long‑term cross‑border compliance
A single structural review can result in ongoing savings.
Case Study 7: Avoiding Penalties and Interest Through Proactive New Zealand Tax Planning on U.S. Investments
Client Profile
Status: U.S. citizen
Location: Living in New Zealand
Assets: Significant U.S.‑based investment portfolio
Tax Exposure: New Zealand tax on foreign investment income
The Situation
The client was a U.S. citizen living in New Zealand with a substantial U.S. investment portfolio. While historically manageable, changes in market conditions and currency movements materially altered their New Zealand tax position.
In particular:
• The devaluation of the New Zealand dollar significantly increased the NZD value of foreign investment income
• This resulted in a much higher New Zealand income tax liability than the client expected
• Without timely action, the client faced exposure to IRD use‑of‑money interest and potential penalties
Although the return filing due date (31 March the following year) was many months later we identified this exposure early and prompted the client for records to prepare the return by the third provisional tax instalment due date, which was only 37 days after the New Zealand income year end (31 March). It became clear that year‑end tax planning and timing would be critical.
Our Review
We conducted a focused cross‑border review to:
• Quantify the New Zealand tax impact of the client’s U.S. investment income
• Assess the effect of currency movements on taxable income
• Confirm New Zealand provisional and terminal tax obligations
• Identify the most effective way to manage timing and payment
Our analysis showed that early completion and payment of the New Zealand income tax liability was essential to avoid unnecessary interest costs.
The Solution
We expedited the preparation and completion of the client’s New Zealand tax return, ensuring that:
• The full tax liability was calculated accurately
• The return was finalized well ahead of the deadline
• The client was able to pay their year‑end New Zealand income tax by 7 May of the year following the New Zealand year end.
This proactive approach allowed the client to meet IRD requirements without delay, despite the unexpectedly high tax outcome.
The Outcome
✅ No IRD penalties
✅ No use‑of‑money interest charged
By acting early and decisively, the client avoided substantial interest costs that would have accrued simply due to timing—preserving cash and certainty in a year of elevated tax exposure.
By filing even, a month after the third provisional tax instalment due date, the client would have incurred more than NZ $2,700 in use-of-money interest.
This case study is illustrative. Results vary based on individual facts and circumstances, and tax outcomes cannot be guaranteed.
Why This Matters
This case highlights an often‑overlooked risk for internationally invested taxpayers in New Zealand:
Foreign investment income and currency movements can materially increase NZ tax—even when investment activity hasn’t changed.
Without proactive planning, delays in filing or payment can result in avoidable interest and penalties, particularly in years of currency volatility.
If you are living in New Zealand with overseas investments, a timely review can help you anticipate tax outcomes and manage cash flow before costs escalate.
Book a Cross‑Border Diagnostic to:
• Assess NZ tax exposure on foreign investments
• Understand the impact of currency movements
• Identify timing strategies to avoid penalties and interest
• Ensure U.S. and NZ filings are coordinated effectively
Proactive planning can be just as valuable as recovering overpaid tax.
Case Study 8: More than US$350,000 U.S. Tax Refund Through Strategic Carryback After Expatriation
Client Profile
• Status: Former U.S. citizen (expatriated)
• Location: Living in New Zealand
• Key Event: U.S. citizenship expatriation
• Income Event: IRA distribution in the year of expatriation
• Tax Complexity: U.S. and New Zealand tax timing mismatch
The Situation
The client expatriated from the United States and, in the year of expatriation, received a distribution from a U.S. IRA. As expected, the distribution was subject to U.S. federal tax and was reported on the final U.S. tax return covering the expatriation year.
However:
• New Zealand tax on the same income arose in the following year, not the year of expatriation
• As a result, the client initially paid U.S. tax without any corresponding foreign tax credit available in that year
• The mismatch in tax timing between the U.S. and New Zealand systems created a substantial cash‑flow and tax cost
Without further planning, the client would have permanently borne this excess U.S. tax.
Our Review
We conducted a cross‑border review focusing on:
• The timing of U.S. taxation on the IRA distribution
• When New Zealand tax was legally imposed on the same income
• Whether foreign tax credits could be claimed and in which year
• The availability of carryback relief under U.S. tax rules
Our analysis confirmed that, although the New Zealand tax was paid after expatriation, it could be used to generate a foreign tax credit carryback to the year of expatriation.
The Solution
We implemented a two‑step strategy:
1. Prepared the post‑expatriation U.S. federal tax return, correctly claiming foreign tax credits related to the New Zealand tax paid on the IRA distribution
2. Filed an amended U.S. tax return for the year of expatriation, carrying back those foreign tax credits to offset the U.S. tax originally paid
This approach:
• Fully complied with U.S. tax rules
• Properly aligned tax credits with the income taxed
• Corrected the timing mismatch between jurisdictions
The Outcome
✅ U.S. federal tax refund obtained: US$355,000
Through the successful carryback of foreign tax credits, the client recovered a substantial amount of U.S. tax that would otherwise have remained unrecovered due solely to timing differences.
This case study is illustrative. Results vary based on individual facts and circumstances, and tax outcomes cannot be guaranteed.
Why This Matters
This case highlights a critical issue for individuals expatriating from the United States:
Expatriation does not eliminate the need for careful cross‑border planning—especially where income and taxes fall in different years.
Large transactions such as retirement account distributions can produce dramatically different outcomes depending on how timing, credits, and amendments are handled.
Without specialist review, significant refunds can be missed entirely.
If you are considering expatriation—or have already expatriated—and have significant income events spanning multiple tax years, the stakes can be extremely high.
Book a Cross‑Border Diagnostic to:
• Review expatriation‑year filings
• Identify foreign tax credit timing opportunities
• Assess whether amended returns may produce refunds
• Ensure U.S. and New Zealand tax outcomes are fully aligned
Advanced cross‑border planning can recover amounts that generic compliance misses.