Am I a US person? The six-case test, and what it changes for your savings in France

Nobody wakes up wondering whether they are American. The question arrives in an envelope. A form from the bank asking you to confirm, in writing, that you are not a US taxpayer — or a savings application declined in two lines, with no reason given. Behind both sits the same question: am I a US person? This page is for people who live in France and pay their income tax here. Six situations can put you within the reach of US tax. They do not carry equal weight, and only one of them is recalculated from one year to the next.

By the end you will not have a verdict, but a shortlist: which of the six doors applies to you, and whether there is anything to settle at all. The numbers that decide it are few. 31 days in the current year and 183 weighted days across three, for the presence test. 10,000 USD, aggregated, for the FBAR. Three ways out of a green card, and no others. Then the question that brought you here: what any of it changes for money you already hold in France. The short answer is that it changes less than you fear on the French side, and more than you expect on the American one.

The one-minute verdict

Three questions will do. Are you a US citizen, by birth on US soil, by descent or by naturalisation? Have you ever held a green card, even one you never handed back? Do you spend a lot of time in the United States, year after year?

One yes is enough to make you, very probably, a US person for tax purposes. No yes at all and you are in principle outside it. What follows is a sorting exercise, not a determination. Its only purpose is to tell you whether your case needs to go in front of a French-US tax attorney or CPA.

What a US person is: two definitions under one name

The tax definition: a citizen or a resident, and nothing else

Section 7701(a)(30) of the Internal Revenue Code defines a United States person as, for an individual, a citizen or a resident of the United States. Domicile does not enter into it, and neither does where you work. The implementing regulation is blunter still: “In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States” (26 CFR 1.1-1(b)). US tax does not follow residence alone; it follows citizenship first.

Many readers hope the tax treaty settles the matter. It does not. The France-United States convention of 31 August 1994, in the version in force after the protocols of 8 December 2004 and 13 January 2009, contains at article 29(2) a saving clause. It lets the United States tax its residents and its citizens as if the convention had not come into effect, subject to the exceptions in paragraph 3, which preserve article 24 on the elimination of double taxation. The convention does its job on double taxation, then; it removes neither the obligation to file nor US taxation itself.

Why your bank, your insurer and your accountant disagree

Because a second definition exists under the same name. US securities regulation (Regulation S, Rule 902(k)(1)(i), 17 CFR 230.902) covers, for an individual, any natural person resident in the United States: the test there is residence, not nationality. A French-American dual national living in Lyon falls in principle outside that definition, while sitting squarely inside the tax one.

None of which means an institution cannot turn you down. Banks and insurers apply internal compliance policies that are frequently broader than these texts — nationality, place of birth, FATCA indicia — and other bodies of US rules have criteria of their own. What the overlap does explain is most of the contradictory answers you have been given. So put the same question to each of them: which text are you relying on? If the answer is section 7701(a)(30), they are talking about tax. If it is Regulation S, they are talking about marketing financial products. Those are not the same consequences, and we take that distinction apart, company by company, in which insurers may consider an application from a US person.

The six-case test: which box do you tick?

Case 1: you are a US citizen, including as a dual national

There is nothing subtle here: citizenship is enough, with no residence condition attached. Dual nationality mitigates nothing, and the objections we hear across the desk — “I have no US passport, I earn nothing over there” — carry no legal weight. The status does not lapse: only a formal renunciation ends it. The document that settles it is a passport, a Consular Report of Birth Abroad or a certificate of nationality.

Citizenship also passes by descent, but subject to conditions that are rarely spelled out. 8 USC 1401, subsections (c) to (g), varies those conditions according to whether both parents are American or only one: subsection (c) sets only a prior residence condition, whereas subsection (g) requires prior physical presence of the citizen parent in the United States. We do not reproduce the arithmetic — it has been amended several times and its application turns on your date of birth — but it would be wrong to say that every child of an American parent is automatically a citizen. Two brothers born five years apart can fall under different rules. That is checked on documents, with the US consulate or a US attorney.

Case 2: you were born in the United States — the “accidental American”

This is the case people talk about most and live with worst: jus soli. 8 USC 1401(a) confers citizenship on anyone born on US soil and subject to its jurisdiction — narrow exceptions exist, notably for the children of foreign diplomats. Leaving at the age of two changes nothing; never having had a US tax number changes nothing. And nothing specific ends it, for a simple reason: in law, case 2 iscase 1 under another name. The phrase “accidental American” describes a lived experience; US law knows only nationality.

How many people are concerned? A written question to the French Senate of October 2024 put the figure at around 40,000 French nationals born in the United States. Treat that as an indication of scale rather than an official statistic: the question does not source the figure. The population actually concerned is wider still, since it also covers dual nationals born in France and green card holders.

Case 3: your place of birth — what triggers your bank's questions

On the substance this merges into case 1: it is not your place of birth that makes you American, it is the nationality it conferred. Operationally, though, it is the first trigger. Place of birth is among the elements financial institutions are required to examine under FATCA in order to identify customers who may be US taxpayers. A US city on your identity document, and the bank asks for a self-certification, often with a Form W-9 or evidence of loss of nationality attached. FATCA finds you; it did not make you American.Refusing to sign removes neither the status nor the institution's reporting of your account to the tax authorities.

Case 4: you held a green card, even one that expired long ago

The misunderstanding almost always starts in the same place: the date printed on the card. Lawful permanent resident status makes you a US tax resident from the first day of presence in the United States in that capacity, and it does not evaporate on that date. IRS Publication 519 puts it word for word: “Until you have proof your letter was received, you remain a resident alien for tax purposes even if the USCIS would not recognize the validity of your green card because it is more than 10 years old or because you have been absent from the United States for a period of time.”

Three routes end it, and no others. The IRS puts it this way: the status continues “unless: You voluntarily renounce and abandon this status in writing to the USCIS, Your immigrant status is administratively terminated by the USCIS, or Your immigrant status is judicially terminated by a U.S. federal court.” Abandonment is filed in practice on Form I-407, and we stop there: the procedure belongs to a US attorney. Length of holding matters as well: a card held for at least 8 of the last 15 years (long-term resident, IRC 877(e)(2)) can bring the exit within the scope of the US expatriation tax regime.

A fourth, more technical route is often overlooked. A green card holder who has become resident of a country linked to the United States by a tax treaty — France is one — may invoke the treaty residence clause and be treated as a non-resident for the sole purpose of computing US income tax (26 CFR 301.7701(b)-7, Form 8833). The caveats matter more than the route itself: it does not cancel the green card as a matter of immigration law; it does not, of itself, remove filing obligations; and for a long-term resident it may itself trigger the US expatriation tax regime (26 CFR 301.7701(b)-7 read with IRC 7701(b)(6), Form 8854). To be examined with a US adviser.

Case 5: you spend enough time there without ever living there

This fifth case is the only one that is calculated rather than observed, and the only one whose answer can change from one year to the next. The substantial presence test rests on two cumulative conditions: at least 31 days of presence in the current year, and 183 daysonce the last three years are weighted. Everything turns on that weighting, which the shorthand “183 days” makes disappear: all the days of the current year, one third of the previous year's, one sixth of the year before that. A recent stay therefore weighs far more than an old one, and two people with the same total number of days can reach opposite answers.

Two exceptions exist, and they work. Some statuses take days out of the count altogether — the exempt individuals: A and G visas other than A-3 and G-5, teachers and trainees on J or Q, students on F, J, M or Q, filed on Form 8843. Then there is the closer connection exception to a foreign country (Form 8840). It asks for all of the following: presence of under 183 days in the current year, a tax home abroad all year, closer ties with that country, and the filing itself. It is unavailable if a green card application was started during the year. Both exceptions belong to the presence test alone: citizenship and the green card have no equivalent.

Case 6: the long-stay visa, which is never the criterion

There is no rule under which a visa makes you a US person. A visa operates only through one of the two other tests: the green card test (immigrant status) or the substantial presence test. The exact formulation is therefore a long-stay visa that led to US tax residency. The effect runs the other way: some visa statuses remove days from the count instead of adding them. An F-1 student can spend years in the United States without meeting the test — but not indefinitely: the exemption ends beyond five calendar years for a student, and two years out of six for a teacher or trainee (26 CFR 301.7701(b)-3).

What it changes for your savings in France

Ticking a box changes nothing about the French taxation of what you hold. You remain a French tax resident (French General Tax Code, art. 4 B). A green card holder can be a US tax resident at the same time, as a matter of US domestic law; the convention of 31 August 1994 then allocates the two residences, without removing the US taxation its saving clause preserves. As for the wrapper itself, a Luxembourg policy falls under the same tax regime as a French assurance-vie, the French life insurance wrapper, with the same rates and the same allowances, because the insurer is established in the European Union (French General Tax Code, art. 122, 2). Only the mechanics differ: with no French paying agent, nothing is withheld and nothing is pre-filled, so the policyholder files.

On the French side, nothing moves. The usual rules keep applying: gains taxed on withdrawal at 7.5 per cent or 12.8 per cent depending on the age of the policy and the amount of premiums, with an option for the progressive income tax scale (barème progressif); an abattement, an annual tax-free allowance, of 4,600 EUR or 9,200 EUR after eight years; articles 990 I and 757 B of the French General Tax Code on death. And prélèvements sociaux, France's social levies, stay at 17.2 per cent in 2026, the increase in CSG on capital income not reaching life insurance (French Social Security Code, art. L. 136-8, IV).

The American side comes down to two thresholds. The FBAR (FinCEN Form 114) is due once the aggregate value of your foreign financial accounts has exceeded 10,000 USD at any point in the calendar year — not on 31 December, and whether or not the accounts produced taxable income. Form 8938 starts only at 200,000 USD on the last day of the year or 300,000 USD at any point for a single filer (400,000 or 600,000 USD for married taxpayers filing jointly), against 50,000 and 75,000 USD for a single filer resident in the United States. One condition on those raised thresholds is easy to miss: they are reserved to a taxpayer who meets the US definition of a taxpayer living abroad — a tax home abroad, and either bona fide residence for a full tax year or 330 full days outside the United States in twelve consecutive months (art. 911(d)(1)). Failing that, the low thresholds apply. Your French residence raises the thresholds; it does not remove the obligation. Many readers will be outside 8938 but inside FBAR.

Then there are the refusals. A great many institutions decline such applications in practice, with no statute requiring it. An insurer is under no obligation to accept a proposal, subject only to non-discrimination law, and there is no life insurance equivalent of the droit au compte, the statutory right to a basic bank account. One correction: the 30 per cent FATCA withholding targets first and foremost US-source payments made to the institutions that do not comply - it is not a tax on you. US law does further provide, at IRC 1471(b)(1)(D), for withholding on payments made to so-called recalcitrant account holders, but the mechanism adopted in France rests on reporting to the tax authorities.

Why life insurance is the awkward case

A Luxembourg policy appears in both filings above, and it raises problems an ordinary securities account does not. The first lies in the underlying funds: European, they generally fall within the PFIC regime, which, on the analysis usually retained, calls for one form per fund — the mechanism is set out in is a Luxembourg life insurance policy a PFIC?. The second is the characterisation of the policy under section 7702, which decides whether the inside build-up is deferred on the US side: it can be asserted only subject to written confirmation from the insurer. The third is a 1 per cent excise tax that in principle applies to premiums paid to a foreign insurer (IRC 4371); a treaty exemption is possible but never automatic.

A fourth problem goes to the wrapper itself. US law applies an investor control doctrine, under which the assets inside a policy can be treated as held directly by the souscripteur, the policyholder, where that holder's control over them is considered excessive — and the wrapper then stops doing its work on the US side. It is a technical subject, and one for a US adviser; it is taken up in is a Luxembourg life insurance policy a PFIC?.

The PFIC question and the investor control doctrine belong with a US adviser; the section 7702 characterisation belongs with the company. And US compliance costs money every year, with the bill following the number of underlying fund positions rather than the amount invested. We price it line by line in what PFIC reporting and Form 8621 cost, and the whole subject, from feasibility to annual budget, is gathered in our full guide for US persons living in France.

Helen: the green card everyone thought had lapsed

An illustration prepared on 28 July 2026 from the rules published by the IRS at that date. A fictitious situation. No figure here is advice, a quotation or a promise.

Helen, 58, is a French tax resident in Rennes, single, filing individually on the US side. Green card obtained in 2007 on a work transfer, permanent return to France in 2016, card expired in 2017, and no abandonment step ever taken. Days of presence: 90 in 2026, 60 in 2025, 60 in 2024. She holds a Luxembourg policy worth 310,000 EUR at 31 December, converted at an assumed rate of 1.08 USD to 1 EUR — a calculation assumption: conversion is in reality made at the official year-end rate published by the US Treasury, which we replace here with an assumption.

Her first instinct. She runs the presence test: 90 days (all of 2026) plus 20 (one third of 60 in 2025) plus 10 (one sixth of 60 in 2024) gives 120 weighted days, well under 183. The test is therefore not met. And it changes nothing: the calculation is beside the point, because her permanent resident status never ended. None of the recognised routes out occurred, she never invoked the treaty residence clause, and physical expiry of the card extinguishes nothing. Helen spent ten minutes on the wrong test: days of presence only start to matter once there is neither US citizenship nor a green card to reckon with.

What it triggers. The FBAR threshold of 10,000 USD is comfortably exceeded. At 310,000 EUR, roughly 334,800 USD at the assumed rate (310,000 x 1.08), she also crosses the 200,000 USD threshold on the last day of the year. That is a raised threshold, which assumes she meets the US condition of residence abroad — and that assumption has to be checked. With 90 days spent in the United States in 2026, the 330-day route is closed to her, so only the bona fide residence route could apply; and for a green card holder that route is itself open only through the non-discrimination clause of the convention, a point to be settled with a US adviser. Either way, Form 8938 would be due, since the thresholds applicable to a US resident (50,000 / 75,000 USD) would a fortiori be crossed. The same policy is reported in France on the 3916 / 3916-bis. As for the exit: having held the card well beyond 8 of the last 15 years, Helen cannot end it the way one cancels a magazine subscription. She would need to file a Form I-407, keep the acknowledgement of receipt, and have a US attorney examine whether the expatriation tax regime is in scope.

These amounts are calculation assumptions as at 28 July 2026, meant to illustrate a mechanism. US thresholds are revalued and conversion rules change; the annual compliance cost is not priced here — it depends chiefly on the number of fund lines, and we set it out in what US compliance costs, form by form. Only a French-US adviser can determine your situation.

You ticked a box: in what order to act

First, have it confirmed. Your status must be determined on documents by a French-US tax attorney or CPA: we do not do it ourselves. Which is why nothing should be signed, surrendered or taken out before that first point is settled. A policy signed in March, a status confirmed in June and a corrective withdrawal in September cost more than three months of waiting.

Then, and only then, the investment. One practical point to end on: in a couple, the diagnosis is done twice. The status is assessed person by person, not household by household. If Helen is caught and her husband is not, the American obligations are hers, and they do not spread automatically to what he holds. Certain US filing elections, joint filing in particular, could bring his own income and his own accounts within the scope of US reporting — a technical decision, taken with a French-US adviser and after costing, not a default choice.

How Hagnéré Patrimoine can help — and where our role stops

Start with what we do not do — and, before that, for whom. The firm acts for clients who are tax resident in France. We do not determine your status, and we do not fill in your American forms. I am Quentin Hagnéré, wealth management adviser(financial investment adviser, member of CNCEF Patrimoine; insurance broker; banking and payment services broker — ORIAS 23002291), and the firm, based in Chambéry, regularly sees dual nationals and “accidental Americans” whose bank has just asked the question. When someone sits down and says “I think I may be American”, the first meeting is not there to sell anything: it is there to build the list of five documents above and to refer you to a French-US tax attorney or CPA, who will determine the status. Our role starts after that, and it comes down to three things.

Access to insurers. We can review whether a Luxembourg life insurance policy could be arranged for a US person who is a French tax resident, through our partner insurers, including Vitis Life (Monceau Assurances group), which may consider an application of this kind, case by case and subject to acceptance, after a full review. No acceptance can be given in advance. These are practices observed as of July 2026, and acceptance policies change without notice, so they must be reconfirmed before any step is taken. This is not a list and is in no way exhaustive: other companies may be in a position to review an application with this profile, and we treat the question separately in which insurers may consider an application from a US person.

Structuring an allocation that limits the number of PFICs. The annual US compliance cost is counted in forms, and the number of forms follows the number of fund lines the policy holds. The allocation is therefore the only lever there is. The trade-off is real — going from fifteen lines to four means an allocation more exposed to a single sector or region — and that choice is made with you and written down. The PFIC treatment of an insurance policy, one PFIC at policy level or a fund-by-fund analysis, remains in any event a contested technical position: it depends on the structure of the policy and on your US adviser's analysis, and it is neither a certainty nor a selling point.

Introductions. We refer clients to partner French-US tax attorneys and CPAs. Hagnéré Patrimoine does not prepare US tax returns: that cost is not included in our fees and is borne entirely by you. Everything above is subject to the insurer's acceptance and subject to review by a French-US tax attorney or CPA. We never guarantee the US tax compliance of any policy and assert no characterisation under section 7702, which requires written confirmation from the insurer. And several situations make any such plan premature: an unregularised US position, a short-term liquidity need, a policy value too small against the annual compliance cost, or a refusal by the insurer. It happens that the conclusion of a first conversation is that nothing should be set up at all. Unit-linked funds carry a risk of capital loss; no return is guaranteed and past performance is not a guide to future performance.

The five companion guides

This page answers a question of status: am I concerned, yes or no. The five guides below take it from there.

• Whether a Luxembourg policy is even conceivable for this profile: Luxembourg life insurance for US persons living in France.
• Which companies may look at an application, on what documents and on what terms: which insurers may consider an application from a US person.
• What US compliance will cost each year, form by form: what PFIC reporting and Form 8621 cost, line by line.
• Why a European fund triggers an American form when a US fund does not: is a Luxembourg life insurance policy a PFIC?
• What the Luxembourg framework itself protects, and what it does not: the Triangle of Security and the super privilege.

Read this guide in French: comment savoir si je suis une US person.