The reason a custodian does not automatically freeze an account below $60,000—even if an investor might hold US-situs assets elsewhere—comes down to how legal liability is scoped under US tax law. A financial institution's liability for a non-resident's unpaid estate taxes is restricted strictly to the value of the property in its own possession. The legal test a custodian must satisfy is not whether your aggregate global estate exceeds the $60,000 threshold, but whether the assets held at their specific institution trigger an IRS filing requirement. Because a custodian is not legally obligated to investigate your broader worldwide balance sheet, they evaluate risk in a silo. If the balance they hold is under $60,000, they can reasonably rely on standard executor documentation to release funds rather than demanding an IRS Transfer Certificate.

At IME Capital, we highlight to investors that this creates a structural gap between institutional freeze triggers and actual legal liability. By law, the $60,000 U.S. estate tax threshold applies to the aggregate fair market value of all US-situs assets held across every institution. If an investor holds $40,000 at one brokerage and $40,000 at another, the total $80,000 clearly breaches the threshold, meaning a US estate tax return is legally required. Yet, because neither custodian individually sees a balance over $60,000, neither is prompted to freeze the account or discover the other relationship.

Ultimately, the legal burden for bridging this gap falls entirely on the executor of the estate, not the custodians. The statutory duty to aggregate all US-situs assets, test the true total against the $60,000 mark, and file the appropriate tax returns sits squarely with the executor. If an executor fails to account for the aggregated assets, the individual custodians remain legally protected because they acted reasonably based on what was in their custody, leaving the liability for unpaid taxes and potential liens attached directly to the executor and the estate.