Our valued sponsor

List of Territorial Tax Countries with formal and de-facto treatment of foreign income

why would you need tax treaties if you stay there for 183+ days a year?

We should probably create some sort of FAQ somewhere that explains basic concepts like this...
Some countries consider your tax resident after as little as 30 days in the country, and even more countries consider you tax resident after 90 days per year in the country.
And short absences are typically also counted as spent in the country.
So you just spend a couple weeks in a country, boom, tax resident.
"But I spent 200 days in Panama!"
"Well, who gives a s**t. Our law says 30 days per year and you're tax resident. We don't care about Panama."

So in such a case whether you have no tax residency or you have such a tax residency without a tax treaty is worth just the same.
You have to be careful all the time to never accidentally trigger a tax residency anywhere else. But if you're tax resident in a country with a lot of treaties, you have protection.


are you talking about benefits in terms of reduced withholding tax?

That as well.

This or Panama. Territorial, no CFC laws, foreign-sourced income is exempt. No need to file anything.

Panama is quite bad. It's blacklisted in several jurisdictions, invoices from Panama may not be tax-deductible for your clients. That won't change if you use a transparent entity like a US LLC or UK LLP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sergeylim88 and Don
What do you mean exactly?

If your client is in a country where invoices from Panama are not tax-deductible (because the country is blacklisted), and you bill them from a Panama company, then they cannot claim the payment as a deductible expense.
If you use a transparent entity like a US LLC or UK LLP and you are tax resident in Panama, then the same thing applies - since your company is effectively based in Panama - so they cannot claim deductions for your invoice.
This may go unnoticed since there's a US/UK address on the invoice - but your client may get into a lot of trouble if this is discovered later.
It's just not a good setup.
 
If your client is in a country where invoices from Panama are not tax-deductible (because the country is blacklisted), and you bill them from a Panama company, then they cannot claim the payment as a deductible expense.
If you use a transparent entity like a US LLC or UK LLP and you are tax resident in Panama, then the same thing applies - since your company is effectively based in Panama - so they cannot claim deductions for your invoice.
This may go unnoticed since there's a US/UK address on the invoice - but your client may get into a lot of trouble if this is discovered later.
It's just not a good setup.
Ah got it... well this doesn't apply to DR since it's not blacklisted.
 
If your client is in a country where invoices from Panama are not tax-deductible (because the country is blacklisted), and you bill them from a Panama company, then they cannot claim the payment as a deductible expense.
If you use a transparent entity like a US LLC or UK LLP and you are tax resident in Panama, then the same thing applies - since your company is effectively based in Panama - so they cannot claim deductions for your invoice.

This may go unnoticed since there's a US/UK address on the invoice - but your client may get into a lot of trouble if this is discovered later.
It's just not a good setup.
Any sources to that happening on a bigger scale?
 
DDT makes sense in case 2 countries consider you a tax resident, and then you can see tax treaty to determine where you are tax resident in fact (usually in country where you have permanent home available, or closer ties)
so JustAnotherNomad is right, it can play a significant role
 
What happening on a larger scale? People being causing issues for their clients?
This:

If you use a transparent entity like a US LLC or UK LLP and you are tax resident in Panama, then the same thing applies - since your company is effectively based in Panama - so they cannot claim deductions for your invoice.
This may go unnoticed since there's a US/UK address on the invoice - but your client may get into a lot of trouble if this is discovered later.
It's just not a good setup.
 
Is it possible to:
A. Set up UAE company.
B. Trade Shares/options/Crypto Globally in the UAE company name.
C. Not pay tax in UAE if I don't wish to live there and am not physically there when I trade.
D. Not pay tax in Thailand, if that's where I want to live.
E. Have no obligation to declare incomes/profits of UAE company to any authority globally, assuming I am not a "resident" of any authority globally.

The complication for Thailand is "Remitting" the funds to yourself in Thailand. Even if earned profits outside/offshore from Thailand it may still be taxable within Thailand if you remit the profits/income/salary to yourself within Thailand and are deemed a tax resident with the 183 day rule.

So perhaps a dimension of the spreadsheet should include "is taxable/non taxable when you remit offshore profits to yourself within country X".

Australian citizen. Not wanting residency within UAE. Visit once or twice a year for a few days for whatever reason is ok. Live in Thailand 4 to 5 months of year. Live globally/transient otherwise.
 
Until last month, yes. Now not anymore as the UAE has introduced a 9% corporate tax.
Well, actually, maybe trading would count as a qualifying activity, then it might still work.
But if you want to live in Thailand, I would go with something like a US LLC. Cheaper and simpler.

You can remit the money to Thailand tax free, but you have to wait for a year after earning it.

If you spend less than 6 months per year in Thailand, you won't be tax resident in Thailand. You'll want to check the Australian rules (or wherever you are living now) to make sure that won't cause a problem there.
Some countries require you to take up tax residency somewhere else, before they "let you go".
 
  • Like
Reactions: JackAlabama
I'm hesitant to jump in, as I'm extremely grateful to @backpacker, who is extremely knowledgeable on the Philippines.
I'm not here to refute any of facts he's stated, but maybe add a different perspective/interpretation that others can consider (or not), re: risk & certain outcomes.
Philippines: You will get into significant trouble not paying your due taxes if you generate anything else than passive foreign sourced income.
From my research (including reading some of @backpacker's past links to legal interpretations), I'd rephrase that:
If you generate active foreign-sourced income, including receiving income from your foreign corp, in the unlikely situation the BIR found out and decided to prosecute, there is some possibility — after a long time coming to trial — that a number of legal dominos could fall not-in-your-favour. But I don't know personally know of any such stories; there certainly isn't an epidemic of them.

More than in the average western country, Philippine law and policy, as well as different government bodies, are often at odds with each other. Ask 10 people with exactly the same jobs in different regional offices what any given law means and you will get at least 5 different answers. With respect to some things @backpacker has written in other posts, there are indeed some interestingly-written sections in the law that could question where business is conducted, and a few tax lawyers have written their opinions on what they could/might mean. On the other hand, I think it's obvious that the government has made some very clear policy choices: in my opinion, the Philippines more-or-less markets itself as a jurisdiction with very little interest in the foreign income of resident/non-resident aliens.

I am not aware of any arm of the BIR that sends agents out to find foreign digital nomads getting paid by european clients for building websites in Filipino coffee shops. I am not aware of any large campaign to crack down on foreigners and their offshore companies managed from a laptop in their Philippine home. Almost all stories I've heard of foreigners getting into trouble have been around Philippines-sourced income, or questionable domestic activities; and they almost always have other mitigating circumstances (already doing other illegal/suspicious activities, or they've seriously pissed off someone powerful). As always, if you and your offshore corp are worth 10s or 100s of millions of US dollars, the risks and optics may be different for you.

Although I haven't tried, I suspect if you were a non-resident alien extending their tourist visa year-after-year, and decided you wanted to voluntarily pay taxes on your active offshore corporation, the BIR would have no idea how to assist you, and you would have a very hard time fulfilling all the requirements to submit a valid tax return.

Culturally, there is little expectation of voluntary tax compliance in the Philippines at the individual level. Even for successful filipinos, their company withholds the tax on their salary; upon sale of real estate, capital gains are paid at time of land transfer; investment capital gains are withheld by the brokerage… very, very few people voluntarily file personal returns or tell the gov't anything about their activities. The BIR's main strategy for tax revenue: only expect to collect tax if you can get someone else (employer/broker/bank/etc.) to be a gatekeeper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cloudbanck
re: risk & certain outcomes.
That's individual risk assessment. If somebody wants to go down that route it's his/her own decision.
I explained official regulation (i.e. law).
I suspect if you were a non-resident alien extending their tourist visa year-after-year, and decided you wanted to voluntarily pay taxes on your active offshore corporation, the BIR would have no idea how to assist you,
I suspect this to be a typo: You probably mean "resident alien".
The other constellation is n/a. Such a person would have to enter/leave the country constantly (and soon run into questions of a completely different nature).
Moreover, renewal of tourist visa is limited. We had that in another thread. Depends largely on your age (and on the mood of the office-in-charge).
Culturally, there is little expectation of voluntary tax compliance in the Philippines at the individual level
True. That's the same in every developing nation.
The problem starts when a foreigner is involved and this foreigner gets into trouble (which happens more often than not, mostly due to the nativity of said foreigner).
------------------------------------------------------
It puzzles me why people want to do certain activities in countries where they -by law- will have to pay taxes when they do not want to pay taxes on that activity.
Every participant of this forum should know that countries with territorial taxation are extremely tricky when it comes to anything other than passive foreign sourced income.
Why not pick a zero-tax country ...
 
Why not pick a zero-tax country ...

Because the list is shrinking:
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Bahrain
Brunei
Cayman Islands
Kuwait
Monaco
North Korea
Oman
Pitcairn Islands
Qatar
Saint Barthélemy
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Turks and Caicos Islands
United Arab Emirates
Vanuatu
Vatican City
Wallis and Futuna
Western Sahara

You are forced to live either in a desert or on a island or to shell out 1M beforehand or to become Pope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alonzo
I copy / pasted the list from Wikipedia so maybe there's some other country missing too.

Updated list:
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Bahrain
Brunei
Cayman Islands
Kuwait
Monaco
North Korea
Oman
Pitcairn Islands
Qatar
Saint Barthélemy
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Sark
Turks and Caicos Islands
United Arab Emirates
Vanuatu
Vatican City
Wallis and Futuna
Western Sahara
We all got it that UAE is now the bad guy on this forum but it's just wrong that UAE is crossed out here.

UAE is in the same way zero-tax country like Moncaco, Kuwait, Qatar and Antigua.

All of them have a Corporate Tax while they have no Personal Income Tax.

Maybe you are confusing the list with the context of countries who don't impose any of the classic taxes at all like the Cayman Islands and Vanuatu?
 
We all got it that UAE is now the bad guy on this forum but it's just wrong that UAE is crossed out here.

You're right UAE should be considerd a tax free jursidiction in this specific list because there's no PIT.

Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Bahrain
Brunei
Cayman Islands
Kuwait
Monaco
North Korea
Oman
Pitcairn Islands
Qatar
Saint Barthélemy
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Sark
Turks and Caicos Islands
UAE
Vanuatu
Vatican City
Wallis and Futuna
Western Sahara
 
Until last month, yes. Now not anymore as the UAE has introduced a 9% corporate tax.
Well, actually, maybe trading would count as a qualifying activity, then it might still work.
But if you want to live in Thailand, I would go with something like a US LLC. Cheaper and simpler.

You can remit the money to Thailand tax free, but you have to wait for a year after earning it.

If you spend less than 6 months per year in Thailand, you won't be tax resident in Thailand. You'll want to check the Australian rules (or wherever you are living now) to make sure that won't cause a problem there.
Some countries require you to take up tax residency somewhere else, before they "let you go".

I was under the impression the UAE 9% corporate tax was on any profits made within the UAE itself, or if you are performing the work within UAE territory, or for a UAE "onshore" company?

Would a RAK Offshore company achieve this ?

I'm not interested in UAE residency or owning property there.

I am hesitant to do a US LLC simply for the fact that the instruments traded are all US based. Also I like to spend time in the US every now and then. I don't want to get into any hot water for spending too much time in US and have them lay claim to paying tax there.

I don't think Australia has a problem with letting go. They do however have a two dimension test for residency: The good old 183 day rule plus also the very ambiguous "Prove to us you are REALLY resident somewhere else, and clearly not Australia, even it is that you have spent less than 183 days a year here". So there is no hard and fast rule for what constitutes this proof, but if you still have a house in Aus, bank accounts, a car, kids at school etc then can you really claim to have disconnected from Australia? The more you can do to provide you have departed good and proper, the better.

So I think I'll be fine with the "getting the hell out of Australia" part.

It is the living in Thailand for 4 or 5 months a year and then having a company somewhere else globally (and not Australia or Thailand) such that I can then trade globally and not pay tax anywhere, that I need to work out.