Tag: residency

#IndiaU.S.TaxTreaty Ep. 2: Article 4 – Residence

Posted on by Peter Harper


We have heard “a dollar saved is a dollar earned,” and given the current economic environment, my readers have a few common questions like “what is the cost to save that dollar?” or “what is the tax impact if I move to the U.S. or out of the U.S.?” 

In the language of tax, the answer is your tax cost depends on the country of your “residence.” The determination is primarily in how the domestic tax legislation defines “residence.” Still, where you are a resident of two or more countries, tie-breaker rules under the tax treaty apply to determine your country of residence. The relevance is that the country of your residence generally has the right to tax you on your worldwide income; therefore, you should consult an advisor.  

If domestic tax legislation defines “residence,” what is the relevance of tax treaties?

Before dwelling directly on the India-U.S. DTA, let’s read the definition of “residence” under the Indian and U.S. federal tax legislation.

Definition: Indian Tax Legislation

Section 6 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, states about residence in India. An individual is an Indian resident if the below conditions are satisfied during the financial year (i.e., from 1st April to 31st March of the following year):

  1. stays for 182 days or more in India; or
  2. stays for 365 days or more in four years preceding the financial year.

The above clause (b) substitutes “365 days or more” to “60 days or more” where:

  • an Indian citizen leaves India for employment purposes outside India or as a member of the crew of an Indian ship (as defined in clause (18) of section 3 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958). 
  • an Indian citizen or someone of Indian origin (POI) visits India.

Please note that beginning 1st April 2021, an Indian citizen (who is not liable to tax in any other country because of their domicile or residence or other criteria of a similar nature) and earns Indian sourced income exceeding INR 1.5 million (~USD 18,000) is considered to be an Indian resident. 

An individual is ‘not ordinarily resident’ of India in a financial year where they have been:

  • a non-resident in India for either 9 out of 10 previous financial years preceding the financial year under consideration.
  • stayed for 729 days or less during the 7 financial years preceding the financial year under consideration.
  • an Indian citizen or POI who stays in India for 120 days or more but less than 182 days and earns an Indian-sourced income exceeding INR 1.5 million (~USD 18,000).

Asena advisors. We protect Wealth.
Contact

 

Definition: U.S. Federal Tax Legislation

Section 7701(a)(30) of the Internal Revenue Code considers an individual to be a ‘U.S. Person’ where such an individual is either a U.S. citizen or a U.S. resident. An individual born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction is a U.S. citizen. Any individual who isn’t a U.S. citizen is a resident if they:

  • passes the substantial presence test; or
  • holds a U.S. green card; 
  • elects to be taxed as a resident 

An individual automatically becomes a U.S. resident upon becoming a U.S. green card holder. There are peculiarities concerning the ‘start date’ of individuals moving to the U.S. to become green card holders; discussing this with your advisor is essential.

An individual will be regarded as a resident alien in terms of the substantial presence test (SPT) if they meet the following requirements:

  • such an individual was present in the U.S. on at least 31 days during the calendar year; and
  • the sum of the number of days on which such an individual was present in the U.S. during the present year and the 2 preceding calendar years (the year before the current year x 1/3 + 2 years before the current year x 1/6) equals or exceeds 183 days.

The regulations further clarify certain peculiar aspects to determine an individual’s residency. Further, where an individual resides in the U.S., residency should also be determined under the applicable State tax legislation.  

Definition: India-U.S. DTA

A tax treaty, in general, intends to benefit the taxpayers of the countries entering into such a convention or agreement. The manner to avail of the benefit is often stated under the domestic tax legislation of a country and might be self-executive or need additional action for its application. The objective of the tax treaties is the elimination of double taxation. Article 1 of the India-U.S. DTA identifies citizens or permanent residents of India or the U.S. whose obligations are affected by the tax treaty application.

Article 4 of the India-U.S. DTA defines an individual as a ‘resident’ of a country under domicile, citizenship, residence, place of management, place of incorporation, or any other criterion of a similar nature and limits its application concerning income sourcing rules in a country. It further contains tie-breaker regulations to be applied where an individual is a resident of both the U.S. and India. The tie-breaker test is used as under:

  • an individual who is deemed as a resident of the country in which they have a permanent home available to them; 
  • if there is a permanent home is available in both States, then they shall be deemed as a resident of the country with which their personal and economic relations are closer (center of vital interests);
  • if the country in which they have a center of vital interests cannot be determined, or if they do not have a permanent home available in either country, then they shall be recognized as a resident of the country in which they have a habitual abode;
  • if they have a habitual abode in both countries or neither of them, they shall be recoginzed as a resident of the country of which they are a national;
  • if they are a national of both countries or neither, the Contracting States’ competent authorities will settle the question by mutual agreement.

It further limits or restricts the source country to tax certain income and requires an individual’s country of residence to provide tax relief either by way of a foreign tax credit or an exemption for the foreign-source income.

In understanding the terms “permanent home,” “habitual abode,” and “personal or economic relations” to establish a closer connection, reference is drawn from the OECD Model Tax Convention and UN Double Tax Model Convention.  

Albeit the above residency rules under the India-U.S. DTA, the ‘saving clause’ under Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the India-U.S. DTA preserves India and the U.S. with a right to tax its citizens and permanent residents as if there is no tax treaty benefit. Therefore, once an individual becomes a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, the tax treaty benefit is unavailable.  

The interpretation of the “residency” rules under the India-U.S. DTA requires deep analysis, and a cross-border tax advisor should be consulted with applying the tax treaty to the facts and circumstances of your situation.

Asena Advisors focuses on strategic advice that sets us apart from most wealth management businesses. We protect wealth.
Contact

 

What to ask and provide your advisor in determining your residence?

#

Questions

Basic information to be shared with your advisor
1. Whether domestic tax legislation determines residency based on a number of days, citizenship, holding a green card, domicile, or any other manner?  Provide your advisor with the following:

  • country(ies) of your citizenship;
  • countries where you have traveled or stayed during a tax year;
  • your visa status, if not a citizen of a country where you are employed or doing business;
  • your latest I-94 arrival/departure record (if in the U.S.); 
  • your passport with immigration stamps to support the entry and exit. 
2. What is the residency’ start date’ if I obtained U.S. green card during the year?  Provide your advisor with the following:

  • the issue date of your green card;
  • the date you first entered the U.S. to become a green card holder;
  • the number of days in which you were present in current and prior tax years before the issue of your green card.
3. Does the “saving clause” under the DTA cover me? Inform your advisor if you are a citizen or a U.S. green card holder.
4. What is the manner of determining residency if you are a resident of more than one country? Provide your advisor with the below details to apply tie-breaker rules under the tax treaty:

  • the details of where you own a permanent home or leased premises;
  • the country where your family stays;
  • the country where you earn your income.
5. What compliance do you need to do if you are a resident of more than one country? Provide your advisor with the following:

  • details of the income earned;
  • details of any taxes paid or withheld in earning the income;
  • details concerning your business interest.
  • requirement to report any additional information like international bank accounts.
6. Whether you can file a treaty-based return? Provide your advisor with the details mentioned in (3) above and ask how it impacts your residency.

Note: See our blog on U.S. Expatriation Tax for more details.
7. What is my residence status if I travel on a student, trainee, teacher, or similar visa status to the U.S.?  Inform your advisor about your visa status because there are preferential rules to determine your residence in the U.S. for specific visa categories.

 

Our team of international tax specialists at Asena Advisor has in-depth knowledge of interpreting international tax treaties and ascertaining their applicability to your specific circumstances. Please contact Janpriya Rooprai, Head of the US-India Tax Desk, for more information.

Janpriya Roopari

Peter Harper

US-AU DTA: Article 13 – Alienation of Property

Posted on by Peter Harper

INTRODUCTION

When it comes to the alienation of property, it is usually standard practice to give the taxing rights to the state which, under the DTA, is entitled to tax both the property and income derived from it. 

Article 13 provides rules for the taxation of certain gains derived by a resident of a Contracting State. In general, the Article makes provision for the following: 

  1. gains from the alienation of real property may be taxed where the real property is located;
  2. gains derived from the alienation of ships or aircraft or related property may be taxed only by the State of which the enterprise is a resident, except to the extent that the enterprise has been allowed depreciation of the property in computing taxable income in the other State; and
  3. gains from the alienation of property referred to in paragraph 4 (c) of Article 12 (Royalties) are taxable under Article 12. 

Gains with respect to any other property are covered by Article 21 (Income Not Expressly Mentioned), which provides that gains effectively connected with a permanent establishment are taxable where the permanent establishment is located, in accordance with Article 7 (Business Profits), and that other gains may be taxed by both the State of source of the gain and the State of residence of the owner. Double taxation is avoided under the provisions of Article 22 (Relief from Double Taxation).

INTERPRETING ARTICLE 13 OF THE DTA – ALIENATION OF PROPERTY 

Article 13(1) states that income or gains derived by a resident of one country from the alienation of real property in the other country may be taxed in that other country.

For example, if a US resident derived income or gains from the disposal of real property located in Australia, that income or gain may be taxed in Australia.

The meaning of the phrase ‘income or gains’ was clarified by the Protocol. Article 2(1)(b) (Taxes Covered) was amended to include a specific reference to Australian capital gains tax to ensure that capital gains are within the scope of the DTA. 

Article 13(2) defines the term ‘real property’.

For purposes of the US, Article 13(2)(a) provides that the term ‘real property situated in the other Contracting State’ includes a ‘United States real property interest and real property referred to in Article 6 which is situated in the United States’. 

Accordingly, the US retains its full taxing rights under its domestic law.

For purposes of Australia Art 13(2)(b) provides that real property includes the following:

  1. real property referred to in Article 6;
  2. shares or comparable interests in a company, the assets of which consist of wholly or principally of real property situated in Australia, and
  3. an interest in a partnership, trust or estate of a deceased individual, the assets of which consist wholly or principally of real property situated in Australia.

Article 6 includes within the definition of real property a leasehold interest in land and rights to exploit or to explore for natural resources.

Shares or comparable interests in a company, the assets of which consist wholly or principally of real property, and an interest in a partnership, trust or deceased estate are also deemed to be real property in terms of Article 13(2)(b)(ii) and 13(2)(b)(iii).

Article 13(3) states that income or gains arising from the alienation of property (other than real property covered by Article 13(1)) forming part of the business assets of a permanent establishment of an enterprise or pertaining to a fixed base used for performing independent personal services may be taxed in that other state. 

This article also applies where the permanent establishment itself (alone or with the whole enterprise) or the fixed base is alienated and corresponds to the rules for the taxation of business profits and income from independent services in Article 7 and Article 14 respectively. 

Asena Advisors is the only multi-disciplinary (Accounting and Legal) international CPA firm in the United States that specializes in U.S. -Australia taxation.
Contact

Article 13(4) makes provision for exclusive taxing rights of income and capital gains by the residence country from the alienation of ships, aircraft or containers operated or used in international traffic. It is also important to note, that this applies even if the income is attributable to a permanent establishment maintained by the enterprise in the other Contracting State.

Article 13(5) applies to the taxation of deemed disposals when ceasing your tax residency in a contracting state. This is also referred to as an exit tax. This article states that where an individual, has a deemed disposal event in their residence state due to ceasing residency, they can elect to be treated for the purposes of the taxation laws of the other state as having alienated and re -acquired the property for an amount equal to its fair market value at that time.

This rule has two significant consequences –

  • Firstly, if the individual is subject to tax in the other Contracting State on the gain from the deemed sale of the asset a foreign tax credit for tax on the deemed sale will be available pursuant to Article 22.
  • Secondly, the deemed sale and repurchase will result in the individual resident in the other Contracting State having a “stepped up” cost base equal to the fair market value of the property.

Article 13(6) states that where a resident of one state elects to defer taxation on income or gains relating to property that would otherwise be taxed in that state (upon ceasing to be a resident) only the state where they subsequently become a resident can tax the deferred gain. 

Article 13(7) makes provision for any other capital gains not covered by Article 13. These capital gains are to be taxed in accordance with the domestic laws of each country.

Article 13(8) lastly clarifies the taxation of real property which consists of shares in a company or interests in a partnership, estate or trust as referred to in Article 13(2)(b) is deemed to be situated in Australia.

CONCLUSION 

There have been numerous disputes regarding the application of this Article and reference to case law is extremely important. Especially in relation to limited partnerships and or indirect ownership through a chain of companies of Australian real property.

Make sure you understand how Article 13 can impact your potential liquidity event when planning to dispose of your business.  

We strongly recommend seeking professional advice when it comes to this Article and our team of International Tax specialists at Asena Advisors, will guide you on how to approach and interpret Article 13. 

We strongly recommend seeking professional advice when it comes to Article 12. As always, our team of International Tax specialists at Asena Advisors will guide you on how to approach and interpret Article 12. 

Shaun Eastman

Peter Harper

US-AU DTA: Article 12 – Royalties

Posted on by Peter Harper

INTRODUCTION

This week we will be taking a closer look at how royalties are dealt with in terms of the US/AUS DTA.  

Royalties earned outside of your resident state are generally taxed by the source state on a withholding basis. Under domestic law, a state can require a person to withhold tax on making a payment to another person. 

Royalties that are effectively connected with a permanent establishment are taxed either in terms of Article 7 which deals with business profits or Article 14 which deals with Independent Personal Services. 

The US/AUS DTA Protocol amended the treatment of royalties to:

  1. reduce the general rate of source country tax on royalties from 10% to 5%;
  2. exclude from the scope of Article12(4) payments for the use of industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment, and
  3. extend the royalties definition to cover additional types of broadcasting media (Article 12(4)(a)(iii)).

INTERPRETING ARTICLE 12 OF THE DTA – ROYALTIES

The purpose of Article 12 is to limit the tax that the source country may impose on royalty payments to beneficial owners in the other country to 5%, however, this limit only applies if the payments are at arm’s length. 

Article 12(1) states that royalties may be taxed in the country of residence of the beneficial owner even though derived from sources in the other Contracting State. This confirms Article 1(3) of the DTA that preserves the right of each country to tax its residents.

Article 12(2) stipulates those royalties may also be taxed by the source country but limits the tax to 5% of the gross amount of the royalties. 

Article 12, however, does not apply to natural resource royalties, which are taxable in the country of source in terms of  Article 6 of the DTA.

Article 12(3) sets out the exclusions and that the reduced withholding tax rate does not apply in the following cases:

    1. the beneficial owner has a permanent establishment in the source country;
    2. or performs personal services in an independent capacity through a fixed base in the source country, and the property giving rise to the royalties is effectively connected with the permanent establishment or fixed base. 

In that event, the royalties will either be taxed as business profits (Article 7) or income from the performance of independent personal services (Article 14).

Article 12(4) is important as it defines the word royalties for purposes of the treaty. The definition of royalty in Art 12(4) comprises of the following three components:

Component 1 – Intellectual property 

Article 12(4)(a) includes payments or credits of any kind to the extent that they are considered for the use or right to use any:

  (i) copyright, patent, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, trademark or other like property or right

  (ii) motion picture films, or

  (iii) films or audio or videotapes or disks, or any other means of image or sound reproduction or transmission for use in connection with television, radio, or other broadcasting.

Due to the technological advances made since the DTA was signed, the protocol was amended to reflect these advances more accurately. 

For example, due to the Protocol, Article 12(4)(a)(iii) will apply to a payment made by an Australian broadcaster to a US company for the right to transmit a live feed of an entertainment program through satellite or the Internet. 

However, on the other hand, Article 12(4)(a)(iii) will not apply to payments made by a retail customer who has subscribed to a satellite television service provided by a US company.

Asena Advisors is the only multi-disciplinary (Accounting and Legal) international CPA firm in the United States that specializes in U.S. -Australia taxation.
Contact

Component 2 – Scientific, technical, industrial, or commercial knowledge or information

Article 12(4)(b)(i) states that royalties include payments or credits for scientific, technical, industrial, or commercial knowledge or information (“know-how”) owned by any person. 

The specific reference to knowledge or information owned is meant to indicate that the term royalties imply a property right as distinguished from personal services.

This is a very important distinction to understand, so let’s use an example – 

An IT specialist who prepares or designs a website for a customer will be considered to perform personal services and the remuneration received will be taxable in terms of either Article 14 (Independent personal services) or Article 15 (Dependent personal services). 

However, should the IT specialist supply a pre-existing design to a customer, this will be considered the furnishing of knowledge (know-how) or information and taxed in terms of Article 12? 

Article 12(4)(b)(ii) provides that consideration for any assistance of an ancillary and subsidiary nature that enables the application or enjoyment of know-how is also a royalty payment. However, if the service is supplied in connection with the sale of property, Article 12 will not apply. 

Article 12(4)(b)(iii) contains a special rule to deal with the situation of a disguised lease of a property right of the type covered Article 12(4)(b). 

Component 3 – Disposition of property that is contingent

Article 12(4)(c) provides that, to the extent that income from the disposition of any property or right described in this paragraph is contingent on the productivity or use or further disposition of such property or right, it is a royalty.

Article 12(5) applies where there is a special relationship between the payer of the royalties and the person beneficially entitled to the royalties or between both of them and some other person. 

Where this requirement is satisfied, the 5% limitation will only apply to the extent that the royalties do not exceed the amount that might be expected to be agreed upon by independent persons acting at arm’s length. The excess amount will therefore be taxable according to the law of each contracting state but subject to any other provisions of the DTA. 

The term special relationship is significantly wider than the term associated enterprise contained in Article 9 and should be read in conjunction with Article 12(5). 

Article 12(6) lastly provides special source rules for royalties. In general, a royalty is considered to have its source in a country if paid by the Government, or a resident of that country, or by a company that under domestic law is a resident of that country. 

The US Treasury Department explained that a royalty paid by a dual resident company may be eligible for the reduced rate provided in Article 12(2), although a royalty beneficially owned by such a company is not.

CONCLUSION 

It is important to take note that a mere accounting entry may be sufficient to attract royalty withholding tax as the definition refers to payments or credits.

To determine whether a payment is a royalty subject to Article 12 or a payment for services within the scope of Article 7, will depend on the purpose of the payment and circumstances of the arrangement been the parties. 

The interpretation of Article 12 is going to take center stage in the near future. Due to the pandemic, numerous people across the world started new business ventures based on models that enable them to generate global income while rendering services remotely. The DTA and Protocol were drafted long before anyone knew the pandemic so neither the US nor Australia took this into consideration when the DTA bilateral instrument was agreed upon. 

Make sure you understand how Article 12 can impact your new start-up, as you do not want to have non-compliance issues, penalties, or additional tax just due to not understanding Article 12. 

We strongly recommend seeking professional advice when it comes to Article 12. As always, our team of International Tax specialists at Asena Advisors will guide you on how to approach and interpret Article 12. 

Shaun Eastman

Peter Harper

US-AU DTA: Article 11 – Interest

Posted on by Peter Harper

INTRODUCTION

This week we will be taking a closer look at how interest is dealt with in terms of the US/AUS DTA.

Interest earned outside of your resident state is generally taxed by the source state on a withholding basis. Under domestic law a state can require a person to withhold tax on making a payment to another person.

An overly simplified example of how Article 11 (Interest) applies in practice is if a US tax resident earns interest income from Australia. The US has the right to tax the interest earned from sources in Australia. This right is however not exclusive. If Australia also wants to also tax the interest income, it is limited to the amount of tax it can levy in terms of Article 11.

Article 11 of the DTA (Interest) has a dual purpose:

– Firstly, to limit the tax imposed by the source state where the interest arises; and

– Secondly prevents the treaty benefits available where there is an excessive payment of interest arising from a “special relationship”.

INTERPRETING ARTICLE 11 OF THE DTA – INTEREST

Article 11 generally limits the withholding tax that the source country may impose on interest payments to beneficial owners in the other country to 10%.

Article 11(1) states that interest from sources in one of the contracting states to which a resident of the other is beneficially entitled may be taxed in that other country. Hence there is no exclusive right.

A person will be beneficially entitled to interest for purposes of Article 11 if they are the beneficial owner of the interest.

Article 11(2) provides that the source state (country where the interest arises) may also tax the interest that the resident of the other state is beneficially entitled subject to a maximum rate of 10%.

Currently the US has a non-treaty interest withholding tax rate of 30% and Australia has a general interest withholding tax rate of 10%.

Article 11(3) however provides an exemption for interest paid to government bodies and financial institutions subject to the restrictions in Article 11(4).

Article 11(3)(a) states that interest derived by a Contracting State or a political or administrative subdivision or a local authority of the Contracting State is only subject to tax in the State of residence. This exemption extends to interest received by any other body exercising governmental functions.

Article 11(3)(b) states further that interest derived by financial institutions that are unrelated to and dealing wholly independently of the payer are only taxed in the State of residence.

An example of the type of financial institutions that will qualify for the exemption in Art 11(3)(b) are investment banks, brokers, and commercial finance companies

A financial institution will be “unrelated and dealing wholly independently” of the payer of the interest if the financial institution and payer are not treated as Associated Enterprises as stipulated in Article 9.

Article 11(4) operates as a restrictive provision on the exemption provided in Article 11(3).

Article 11(4)(a) stipulates that the exemption in Article 11(3)(b) will not apply, and the interest derived will be taxed at 10% of the gross amount if it arises from back-to-back loans or an arrangement that is economically equivalent.

Article 11(4)(b) preserves the application of the domestic tax law of each State regarding anti-avoidance provisions. Nothing in Article 11 limits the ability of the US to enforce existing anti-avoidance provisions.

Similarly, Australia reserves the right to apply its general anti-avoidance rules where there is a conflict with the provisions of a tax treaty and Article 11(4)(b) extends this power to any anti-avoidance rule.

Article 11(4)(b) further does not limit the ability of Australia or the US to adopt new anti-avoidance provisions.

Article 11(5) defines “interest” to mean interest from:

(a) government securities, bonds, debentures, and any form of indebtedness, and

(b) income subject to the same taxation treatment as income from money lent according to the law of the Contracting State in which the income arises.

However, income dealt with in Article 10 (Dividends) and penalty charges for late payment are not treated as interest.

The exclusion of income dealt with by the Dividends Article, clarifies that Article 10 takes precedence over Article 11 in cases where both Articles can apply.

We are the only multi-disciplinary international CPA firm in the United States that specializes in U.S.– Australia taxation.
Contact

Article 11(6) simply states that tax is not payable under Article 11 where the interest income of the person beneficially entitled to it is subject to tax under Article 7 (Business Profits) or Article 14 (Independent Personal Services).

Article 11(7) defines the source of interest, which is a necessary pre-requisite for the Contracting State withholding tax under Article 11(2).

Generally, interest is deemed to arise and hence has its source in the Contracting State where the payer is a resident.

Unfortunately, it is not always that simple or straightforward. For example, if a person paying the interest has a permanent establishment in connection with which the interest is attributable, the interest is deemed to arise in that Contracting State if borne by that permanent establishment. This is irrespective of the fact whether or not the payer of the interest is a resident of one of the contracting states.

Article 11(8) states that, in cases involving special relationships between persons, Article 11 applies only to that portion of the total interest payments between those persons that would have been made absent such special relationships. Any excess amount of interest paid remains taxable according to the laws of the US and Australia, respectively, with due regard to the other provisions of the Convention.

Article 11(9) contains two anti-abuse exceptions to the treatment of interest in paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4)

Article 11(9)(a) states that interest paid by a resident of one of the Contracting States to a resident of the other Contracting State that is determined by reference to the profits of the issuer, or an associated enterprise may be taxed at a rate not exceeding 15%.

Article 11(9)(b) states that interest paid on ownership interests in securitization entities may be taxed in accordance with the domestic law, but only to the extent that the interest paid exceeds the normal rate of return on publicly traded debt instruments with a similar risk profile.

This article is specifically included to preserve the US taxation of real estate mortgage investment conduits (REMICs). A REMIC is a US entity that holds a fixed pool of real estate loans and issues debt securities with serial maturities and differing rates of return backed by those loans.

The purpose of Article 11(9)(b) is to permit the US to charge purchasers of REIMIC investments the domestic US tax on residual interests in REMICs.

Article 11(10) is only regarded to be relevant to US withholding tax. It states that where interest incurred by a company resident in one of the Contracting States is deductible in connection with a permanent establishment (Article 5), due to Article 6 (Real property) or Article 13 (Alienation of property) in the other Contracting State and that interest exceeds the interest actually paid, the amount of the excess interest deducted will be deemed to be interest arising in that other Contracting State to which a resident of the first-mentioned Contracting State is beneficially entitled.

Example:

An Australian company carries on business in the US via a permanent establishment (Branch). For US purposes this relates to branch profit tax. The branch incurs interest that is deductible in determining its US profits. However, the interest incurred by the branch is more than the amount of interest actually paid by the branch. Article 11(10) gives the US the right to tax the amount of interest not paid.

CONCLUSION

We would recommend seeking professional advice when it comes to Article 11. As always, our team of International Tax specialists at Asena Advisors, will guide you on how to approach and interpret Article 11.

Our team of International Tax specialists at Asena Advisors, advise numerous clients and corporations on their international structuring and how to make sure it is done in the most tax effective way. 

Shaun Eastman

Peter Harper

US-AU DTA: Article 8 – Shipping and Air Transport

Posted on by Peter Harper

INTRODUCTION

This week, we will be discussing an Article in the US/AUS DTA which is generally not as relevant to individuals as other Articles in the DTA, but still important to understand. Especially regarding the interrelationship with other Articles in the DTA and how one article can override another in the DTA. 

Article 8 of the DTA governs the taxation of profits of an enterprise of a contracting state from the operation of ships or aircraft in ‘international traffic’, meaning any transport by a ship or aircraft, except when such transport is solely between places in a contracting state. In simple terms, this article does not apply to an enterprise who solely renders services within the US or Australia and provides primary taxing rights to the Country of Residence. 

In this week’s blog we will therefore have a look at Article 8 of the US/AUS DTA and how it interplays with Article 7 of the DTA. 

INTERPRETING ARTICLE 8 OF THE DTA – SHIPPING AND AIR TRANSPORT 

In our previous blog – Article 7- Business Profits , we explained that where profits include items of income dealt with separately in other articles of the DTA, then the provisions of those Articles shall not be affected by the provisions of Article 7. 

Article 8 is such an article, as it deals with profits of an enterprise from the operation of ships or aircraft in international traffic. If Article 8 applies to the profits of an enterprise, it will therefore override the provisions of Article 7.

Article 8(1) stipulates that the profits derived by a resident of one of the Contracting States from the operation in international traffic of ships or aircraft are taxable only in that Contracting State. In addition, this treatment extends to certain items of rental income that are closely related to the operation of ships and aircraft in international traffic.

Article 1(3)(d) of the DTA defines international traffic as any transport by a ship or aircraft, except where such transport is solely between places within a Contacting State.  

In particular, the following is subject to the above treatment:

– Profits from the rental of ships or aircraft on a full time basis (for example with crewmembers) operated in international traffic if the resident either operates ships or aircraft in international traffic or regularly leases ships or aircraft on a full basis. Such income is exempt from tax in the other Contracting State.

– Profits from the lease of ships or aircraft on a bare boat basis (meaning without crewmembers) when the income is ‘merely incidental’ to the operation of ships or aircraft in international traffic by the lessor.

Whether profits from the lease of ships or aircraft on a bare boat basis are merely incidental to operation in international traffic, the operative effect of this phrase is to restrict the application of Article 8 to those bareboat leases where:

– The primary activity of the lessor is the operation of ships or aircraft in international traffic, and

– The lessor’s bareboat leasing activity only makes a minor contribution to, and is so closely related to, this primary activity that it does not amount to a separate business or source of income for the lessor.

We are the only multi-disciplinary international CPA firm in the United States that specializes in U.S.– Australia taxation.
Contact

Article 8(2) stipulates that profits of an enterprise of a Contracting State from the use, maintenance or rental of containers (including equipment for their transport) that are used for the transport of goods in international traffic are exempt from tax in the other Contracting State. This applies regardless of whether the recipient of the income is engaged in the operation of ships or aircraft in international traffic. 

Article 8(3) stipulates that Article 8(1) and 8(2) apply to profits derived though participation in a pool service or other profit sharing arrangement entered into by carriers in shipping and air transport in the interest of international cooperation. As an example, airlines from the US and Australia may agree to share profits relating to the transport of passengers between the two countries. They each will fly the same number of flights per week and share the revenues from that route equally, regardless of the number of passengers that each airline transports. Article 8(3) further makes it clear that all of the income arising from the pool service or other profit sharing arrangement and not just the income derived directly by that carrier is taxable in the Contracting State of residence.

Article 8(4) states that the carriage of passengers, livestock, mail, merchandise or goods taken on board in a Contracting State for discharge in that State is not from an operation in international traffic of ships or aircraft and may therefore be taxed in that State (source state). This relates to profits from the transport of goods or passengers picked up and discharged within the same Contracting State and therefore does not fall within the definition of international traffic and may be taxed by that State at source. However, for the Contracting State to impose such tax at source it is considered that the requirements of Article 7 would need to be satisfied.

This can be simplified with the following two examples:

Example 1 – Company A, a US shipping company contracts to carry goods from Australia to a city in the US. Part of the contract includes the transport of the goods by road from its point of origin in Australia to another point in Australia.  The income earned by the US shipping company from the overland leg of the journey would still be taxable only in the US. 

Example 2 – Company B is a US airline company which carries passengers from New York to Hobart, with an intervening stop in Perth. The Perth to Hobart leg of the trip would be treated as international transport of passengers with respect to those passengers and would still only be taxable in the US.

INTERRELATIONSHIP WITH ARTICLE 7 (BUSINESS PROFITS)

Profits from the lease of ships or aircraft that are not covered by the Shipping and Air Transport Article will fall within the scope of Article 7. 

Examples of profits that would fall within Article 7 include the following:

– Full basis leases of ships or aircraft that are not operated in international traffic by the lessee or where the lessor only operates ships or aircraft between places in the source country and does not regularly lease ships or aircraft on a full-time basis; and 

– Bare boat leases not incidental to the lessor’s international transport operations.

More importantly the source country’s taxation is only permitted under the Business Profits Article to the extent the profits are effectively connected with a permanent establishment in that country.

CONCLUSION 

This is a great example of how a specific article in the DTA can override the provisions of Article 7.

At Asena Advisors, our team of International Tax specialists, are able to assist you with applying this article correctly and establishing whether the profits are taxable in terms of Article 7 or Article 8 of the DTA. 

Shaun Eastman

Peter Harper

US-AU DTA: Article 6 – Income from Real Property

Posted on by Peter Harper

INTRODUCTION

Almost everyone dreams of one day owning their own holiday home, which they can use switch off and relax. For those dreamers with aspirations, it usually materializes through hard work and dedication. 

In practice, we often have client who are US residents with real properties situated in Australia or Australian residents with real properties situated in the US. The purpose of investing in foreign real property will not always be the same. 

However, in terms of Article 6 of the US/Australia DTA (Income from Real Property) the tax treatment will be the same. Article 6 is in reality a sourcing provision, which means that the country where the real property is situated, will have the primary taxing rights. This aligns with both Australia and US domestic law, where income from real property is treated as being sourced where the real property is located. 

In this week’s blog we will be looking at the tax implications in the context of Article 6 of the US/Australia DTA when earning income from real property situated in the other jurisdiction. 

INTERPRETING ARTICLE 6 OF THE DTA – INCOME FROM REAL PROPERTY

Article 6 of the DTA states the following: 

Income from Real Property 

(1) Income from real property may be taxed by the Contracting State in which such real property is situated.

(2) For the purposes of this Convention:

 (i) a leasehold interest in land, whether or not improved, shall be regarded as real property situated where the land to which the interest relates is situated; and 

(ii) rights to exploit or to explore for natural resources shall be regarded as real property situated where the natural resources are situated or sought.

The US and Australia taxes their residents on a worldwide basis and hence the reason why Article 6 is heavily relied upon by US and Australian residents with foreign rental properties. 

In the context of Article 6, it is important to understand what constitutes real property, also referred to as immovable property, in other treaties. 

The definition of real property is determined under the law of the country in which the property in question is located. Regardless of source country law, however, the concept of real property includes the following elements:  

  1. Property accessory to real property (immovable property);
  2. Livestock and equipment used in agriculture and forestry;
  3. Rights to which the provisions of general law respecting landed property apply;
  4. Usufruct of real property (immovable property); and
  5. Rights to variable or fixed payments as consideration for the working of, or the right to work, mineral deposits, sources, and other natural resources.

Ships and aircraft, however, are not regarded as real property (immovable property). 

When relying on a specific provision in a DTA to determine the allocation of the taxing rights between the two countries, one of the most important distinctions to understand is the following – 

  1. ‘income that may be taxed by a contracting state’ and;
  2. ‘income shall only be taxable by a contracting state’.

We are the only multi-disciplinary international CPA firm in the United States that specializes in U.S.– Australia taxation.
Contact

Article 6(1) uses the wording may be taxed and therefore does not confer an exclusive right of taxation on the State where the property is located. It simply provides that the situs State (the country where the property is situated) has the primary right to tax such income, regardless of whether the income is derived through a permanent establishment in that State or not. The country where the income producing real property is situated, is obliged to allow a resident of the other country to elect to compute that income on a net basis as if the income were business profits attributable to a permanent establishment in the source country. This is permitted in terms of IRC §871(d) and §882(d) as well in the absence of any treaty provision. 

Article 6(2) incorporates the rule that a leasehold interest in land and rights to exploit or explore for natural resources constitute real property situated where the land or resources, respectively, are situated. Except for those cases, the definition of real property is governed by the internal law of the country where the property is situated.

CONCLUSION 

Even though Article 6 is quite straight forward, there are various other domestic nuances to take into account when calculating your foreign rental income for either US or Australian tax purposes.  

Our team of International Tax specialists at Asena Advisors, will be able to assist you with applying Article 6 correctly and how to implement same in your US or Australian tax returns.

Shaun Eastman

Peter Harper

US-AU DTA: Article 5 – Permanent Establishment

Posted on by Peter Harper

GENERAL BACKGROUND

In the unprecedented COVID-19 environment the temporary displacement of employees has given rise to many concerns from employers that it may unintentionally be creating ‘permanent establishment’ issues for them in foreign jurisdictions. This is especially relevant where employees are working through the pandemic in a different country to where they ordinarily work.

Due to COVID-19, it is common for employees of US employers to be temporarily working in Australia when they would ordinarily work in the US and vice versa. 

Tax authorities around the world are also targeting in particular ‘artificial PE avoidance’ by multinationals on foreign-sourced income.

This blog will highlight some of the key permanent establishment issues facing US and Australian taxpayers with an emphasis on Article 5 of the US/Australia DTA. 

INTRODUCTION

The fundamental rationale behind the PE concept is to allow, within certain limits, the taxation of non-resident enterprises in respect of their activities in the source jurisdiction.

Understanding the rules relating to permanent establishments (PEs) has two steps to it. 

  1. The first step is to understand when a PE exists, and 
  2. The second step is to look at how profits are attributed to that PE.

Broadly speaking, an overseas resident has a substantive presence in a state if he meets the

threshold of having a PE. At the same time, if that person is carrying on business through the PE then tax may be due in the state in which the PE is established as well as in the state of residence.

Therefore, on its own, without a business activity through it, a PE may not of itself

give rise to a tax liability.

In its simplest form a PE exists where a company is resident in one country (referred to as the head office) but also has a business conducted from a fixed base in another country (the branch). The income attributable to the other fixed base usually attracts a tax liability in the second country. 

In its more complex form of deemed PE, it is a tax “fiction” enabling tax authorities to impose corporate taxes on the deemed branch. A third type of PE is again a tax “fiction” where there is a deemed branch providing services.

INTERPRETING ARTICLE 5 OF THE DTA – PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT

Under the US/Australia PE provision, the business profits of a resident of one treaty country are exempt from taxation by the other treaty country unless those profits are attributable to a permanent establishment located within the host country.

Article 7 of the US/Aus DTA (which will be discussed in detail in the following weeks) states that profits are taxable only in the Contracting State where the enterprise is situated “unless the enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein,” in which case the other Contracting State may tax the business profits “but only so much of them as [are] attributable to the permanent establishment.” 

TYPES OF PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENTS

There are a few common types of permanent establishment to be aware of based on traditional approaches, although these are being modified as more business is conducted virtually over digital mediums.

Fixed Place of Business Permanent Establishment

The historical and easiest test of ‘permanent establishment’ is having a fixed place of business and can include:

    • A branch
    • An office
    • A factory
    • A workshop
    • A mine, or gas/oil well
Sales Agents

Employees that work as sales agents and have the authority to conclude contracts in the name of an enterprise may also be sufficient to create PE.  The determining requirement is that the authority must be exercised habitually, rather than once or twice.  Also, the majority of the negotiation, drafting and signing of contracts must have occurred in the host country.

Service Permanent Establishment

The areas of service PE are expanding in scope and can include situations such as providing technical or managerial services in the country.  

PRACTICAL EXAMPLES OF PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT

Building and Construction Projects

Since building and construction projects are not “permanent” for the company, the test for PE becomes more time-based.  The time period applicable to the US/Aus DTA is a site which exists for at least 9 months may trigger PE.

Services and Consulting Projects

The analysis for services PE will revolve around the non-physical elements of permanent establishment, since there may be no office or branch in the country.

TYPES OF AGENCY PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT

If a company uses sales agents inside a country, this type of activity may trigger permanent establishment if the agents are concluding contracts on behalf of the company.  This qualifies for the ‘revenue creation’ element of PE, and those contracts would be subject to corporate tax if the activity is habitual and ongoing.

Digital Sales and e-Commerce

An emerging area of PE is that of revenue created through the digital economy. This is extremely prevalent, especially with online platforms being used to sell goods or services worldwide. 

WHAT IS THE TAX RISK RELATED TO CREATING A PE?

When embarking on global expansion, one of the core considerations is corporate taxation on foreign sourced revenue.  While a company will typically be taxed on profits in its home country, there may be additional taxes owed in other countries of business activity.  This could affect the net profitability of entering a new country and should be part of an overall planning analysis.

Asena Advisors is the only multi-disciplinary (Accounting and Legal) international CPA firm in the United States that specializes in U.S. -Australia taxation.
Contact

HOW WILL A PE BE TAXED?

If sufficient presence is created in a foreign country, but a multinational, this could make it liable for local corporate taxes or value-added tax (VAT).  This law basically reflects the rights of countries to tax businesses that are generating revenue through local operations, even if they maintain their principal headquarters in the home country.

The reason this becomes important for planning purposes is that a company could be subject to ‘double taxation’ on profits, since the home country could tax those amounts as well.  

The IRS will impose corporate tax on foreign companies that meet the PE criteria.  To avoid any penalties or back payments, a company should file IRS Form 8833 as a proactive claim on any treaty benefits with the US.

CONCLUSION 

To assist in managing PE issues from a US and Australian income tax perspective, taxpayers should ensure they action the following:

  • Carefully monitor and keep track of the geographical working location of employees during the COVID-19 pandemic;
  • Understand what constitutes a PE and a deemed PE;
  • Seek tax advice if due to COVID-19 you have employees temporarily exercising their employment in another country;
  • Seek tax advice if your business tax model has changed due to COVID-19 and could potentially place you at risk of creating a PE; and
  • monitor and carefully consider official guidance in respect of “permanent establishment” issues (ie. from the ATO, IRS, OECD and other relevant foreign authorities);

The global pandemic has changed the way businesses conduct business. It has also created opportunities for new businesses to conduct business exclusively on online platforms, without physically being present in the country the services are provided or goods are sold. 

Our team of International Tax specialists at Asena Advisor, have an in-depth knowledge of how to interpret international tax treaties and how to ensure you mitigate any potential PE risks associated with your business. 

Shaun Eastman

Peter Harper

US-AU DTA: Article 4 – Residence

Posted on by Peter Harper

GENERAL BACKGROUND

In this week’s blog, we will be discussing Article 4 of the DTA (Residence), with a specific focus on its applicability to individuals.

A person’s residence for treaty purposes is a key consideration when applying the DTA. Not only because this allows a person to claim certain treaty benefits, but also because the treaty will allocate taxing rights to the state of residence or the state of source. It is therefore vital to know where a person is resident for such purposes. 

INTRODUCTION

Article 4 contains ‘residency tie-breakers’ to determine residence for both individuals and companies.

When the domestic law of the US and Australia result in claimed residency by both countries, the taxpayer must apply the treaty’s residency tie-breaker provisions. The reason it is important is because residency determines the taxation of many important types of income, such as dividends, interest, royalties, capital gain, pension distributions, retirement pay, annuities, and alimony.

It should be noted that these tiebreakers, for companies and individuals, apply for the purposes of the treaty and so determine a sole state as the place of residence for treaty purposes only. A person does not cease to be resident of either state for domestic law purposes unless the domestic law specifically states this. 

For instance, in South Africa, the definition of ‘resident’ in Article 1 of the Income Tax Act No. 58 of 1962 includes a provision whereby the definition of ‘residence’ contained in any DTA between South Africa and another country overrides the domestic definition of a resident. So, this is an example whereby a person will cease its residency should they be regarded as an exclusive resident of another contracting states. Herewith an extract of the provision – 

‘But does not include any person who is deemed to be exclusively a resident of another country for purposes of the application of any agreement entered into between the governments of the Republic and that other country for the avoidance of double taxation.’

This however does not apply to Article 4 of the DTA between the US and Australia. One should therefore be careful when applying Article 4 and what limitations apply to the specific DTA’s definition of residence. 

INTERPRETING ARTICLE 4 OF THE DTA – RESIDENCE

The country of residence generally gets the most exclusive taxing rights. When an individual is determined to be a tax resident under the domestic law of two countries that have an income tax treaty with one another, there are a set of factors that ‘break the tie’. When interpreting the specific terms as set out below, one should look at the domestic interpretation of the US/Australia respectively and at the OECD commentary on Article 4 of the Model Tax Convention.

The country of residency for purposes of the DTA is determined by applying the following tie-breaker clauses in the US-Australia DTA.

Tie-breaker 1: 

Permanent home – first, the country in which the individual maintains a permanent home. If the individual has a permanent home in only one of the Contracting States, the individual will be treated as a resident of that State for treaty purposes.

The IRS states that a permanent home is one that is retained for permanent and continuous use and is not a place retained for a short duration. An individual has a permanent home in the US if he or she purchased a home in the United States, intended to reside in that home for an indefinite time, and did reside in that home. Individuals may also have a permanent home where:

    1. a room/apartment is continuously available to them, 
    2. their personal property (e.g., automobiles, personal belongings) is stored at a dwelling, and 
    3. they conduct business (e.g., maintaining an office, registering a telephone), including using such addresses for insurance and a driver’s license.

The OECD describes a permanent home to be a home that the:

‘Individual has arranged to have the dwelling available to him at all times continuously and not occasionally’. 

We are the only multi-disciplinary international CPA firm in the United States that specializes in U.S.– Australia taxation.
Contact

Tie-breaker 2: 

Habitual abode – second, if the individual’s permanent home cannot be determined, then the state in which he has a habitual abode. 

The IRS states the following in this regard:

“An individual’s habitual abode is located in the Contracting State in which the individual has a greater presence during a calendar year. Although the length of time is not specified, the comparison must cover sufficient length of time and take into account the intervals at which the stays take place for it to be possible to determine where residence is habitual. For example, an individual who is present in the United States more frequently and at longer intervals than in the other Contracting State during a calendar year likely has a habitual abode in the United States. Determine whether the individual has a habitual abode in the United States by calculating how much time the individual spent in in the United States in a tax year…” 

The OECD explains that a habitual abode refers to the frequency, duration and regularity of stays that are part of the settled routine of an individual’s life and is therefore more than transient. 

There is no specific commentary on the Australian interpretation of the words habitual abode in the context of the Treaty, only the words habitual place of abode in the context of the statutory definition of resident in section 6 ITAA 1936. However, the Courts consider the Commentary on the OECD Model Tax Convention as authoritative guidance on the interpretation of Tax Treaties.  

Tie-breaker 3: 

Closer connections – third, if the individual has a habitual abode in both countries or in neither, then the country in which the individual has closer economic or personal relations, with regard being given to the country of citizenship. 

The IRS considers the following factors in this regard:

Personal relations:

    1. Family location – Includes parents and siblings, and where the individual spent his or her childhood. 
    2. Recent relocation – Whether the family moved from their permanent home to join the individual, or the individual relocated to a second state (for example, as a result of marriage). 

Community relations: 

Determine where the individual has his or her:

    1. health insurance, 
    2. medical and dental professionals, 
    3. driver’s license/motor vehicle registration, 
    4. health club membership, 
    5. political and cultural activities, and 
    6. ownership of bank accounts. 

Economic relations: 

Determine where the individual:

    1. keeps his or her investments or conducts business, 
    2. incorporated his or her business, and retains professional advisors (e.g., attorneys, agents, and The center of vital interests can shift, when an individual retains ties in one State but establishes ties in a second State, and all surrounding facts and circumstances must be considered in determining the individual’s center of vital interests. For example, the IRS states that evidence that an individual has executed contracts relating to his or her business in the second State may indicate that the center of vital interests is in the second State. 

CONCLUSION

It is of utmost importance to ensure that you understand how to apply the tie-breaker provisions set out in Article 4(2) of the US/Australia DTA. Secondly, it is important to note that by being regarded as a resident in terms of the DTA, does not automatically cease your tax residency. Especially if you are a US citizen living in Australia. It should only be applied for purposes of the treaty and allocating the taxing rights accordingly. 

Our team of International Tax specialists at Asena Advisor, have an in-depth knowledge of how to interpret international tax treaties and how to correctly apply the tie-breaker provisions.

Shaun Eastman

Peter Harper

US-AU DTA: Article 1 – Personal Scope

Posted on by Peter Harper

GENERAL BACKGROUND

In this series, we will be discussing the Convention Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Australia for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and Fiscal Evasion concerning Taxes on Income 1982 and the 2001 protocol (DTA). 

These series aim to make sure the reader has a comprehensive understanding of the DTA and how to interpret and apply it correctly. 

The only way to get a comprehensive understanding of the DTA is to make sure you understand every article on its own. 

If the reader is anything like my wife, you will probably question the above statement and see it as a way of me dragging it out. Especially considering that the DTA only consists of 29 Articles in a 27-page document. How complicated can it be?

Well just to give you some perspective, the US bases all its DTAs on the US Model Tax Treaty. This model is used as a foundation and guideline on how to draft specific DTAs with various countries. The US Model Tax Treaty also has a Technical Explanation to understand how to interpret and apply a DTA. The technical explanation is 92 pages long. 

Most countries in the world (excluding the US) follow the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Model Tax Convention which consists of 32 Articles. The commentary on the OECD’s Model Tax Convention is 658 pages. 

I would therefore recommend not taking international tax advice from my wife or any advisor who summarizes the DTA in one or two pages. It’s not that simple. 

In this week’s blog, we will discuss Article 1 of the DTA – Personal Scope

INTRODUCTION

The main reason why countries across the world implement DTAs is to avoid the imposition of comparable taxes in two or more countries on the same taxpayer in respect of the same subject matter and for identical periods. The harmful effects of double taxation on the exchange of goods and services and movements of capital, technology, and persons are so well known that it is scarcely necessary to stress the importance of removing the obstacles that double taxation presents to the development of economic relations between countries.

DTAs, therefore, help to clarify, standardize, and confirm the fiscal situation of taxpayers who are engaged in commercial, industrial, financial, or any other activities in other countries through the application by all countries of common solutions to identical cases of double taxation. 

The US and Australia tax their residents on a worldwide basis and non-residents on a source basis. So, these tax systems will seek to levy taxation where there is a source of income in a state/country (state is the term used for the country, either the US or Australia) and/or a person who is a resident in a country. Both source and residence are referred to as ‘connecting factors’ in the world of public international tax. This is where the DTA comes into play, to ascertain whether the US or Australia has taxing rights on a specific type of income.

INTERPRETING ARTICLE 1 OF THE DTA – PERSONAL SCOPE

Article 1 of the DTA states the following – 

Except as otherwise provided in this Convention, this Convention shall apply to persons who are residents of one or both of the Contracting States.

This Convention shall not restrict in any manner any exclusion, exemption, deduction, rebate, credit, or other allowance accorded from time to time: 

by the laws of either Contracting State; or 

by any other agreement between the Contracting States.

Notwithstanding any provision of this Convention, except paragraph (4) of this Article, a Contracting State may tax its residents (as determined under Article 4 (Residence)) and individuals electing under its domestic law to be taxed as residents of that state, and because of citizenship may tax its citizens, as if this Convention had not entered into force. For this purpose, the term “citizen” shall, for United States source income according to United States law relating to United States tax, include a former citizen or long-term resident whose loss of such status had as one of its principal purposes the avoidance of tax, but only for a period of 10 years following such loss.

The provisions of paragraph (3) shall not affect: 

the benefits conferred by a Contracting State under paragraph (2) of Article 9 (Associated Enterprises), paragraph (2) or (6) of Article 18 (Pensions, Annuities, Alimony and Child Support), Article 22 (Relief from Double Taxation), 23 (Non-Discrimination), 24 (Mutual Agreement Procedure) or paragraph (1) of Article 27 (Miscellaneous); or 

the benefits conferred by a Contracting State under Article 19 (Governmental Remuneration), 20 (Students) or 26 (Diplomatic and Consular Privileges) upon individuals who are neither citizens of, nor have immigrant status in, that State (in the case of benefits conferred by the United States), or who are not ordinarily resident in that State (in the case of benefits conferred by Australia).

Paragraph 1

This paragraph sets out the scope of DTA’s application. It applies to residents of the US and/or Australia. However, the scope is extended in certain articles of the DTA and can also apply to residents of third countries, for example, Article 10 (Dividends), Article 11 (Interest), and Article 25 (Exchange of Information). A resident is defined in Article 4 of the DTA. 

Paragraph 2

This paragraph goes on further to state that the DTA may not increase tax above the liability that would result under either the US or Australian domestic legislation or any other agreement between the US and Australia. It also provides taxpayers with the option to rather apply domestic law instead of the DTA, if the domestic law provides the more favorable treatment. A taxpayer, however, may not make inconsistent choices between the rules of the Internal Revenue Code and the DTA rules.

Asena Advisors is the only multi-disciplinary (Accounting and Legal) international CPA firm in the United States that specializes in U.S. -Australia taxation.
Contact

Paragraph 3

This paragraph is probably one of the most important provisions of the DTA as it lays the foundation of taxing rights for the rest of the DTA. It provides the US with broader powers than what is usually provided to other countries in DTAs. This is due to the US being one of the only countries in the world (the other country is Eritrea) to continue to tax individuals who are US citizens on a worldwide basis irrespective of where they live in the world. 

It contains a ‘saving clause’ which stipulates that the US and Australia reserve the right to tax its residents as if the DTA had not come into effect.  The US and Australia also reserve the right to tax their citizens, individuals electing under their respective domestic laws to be taxed as residents, and in the case of the US, former citizens whose loss of citizenship had as one of its main purposes the avoidance of tax. This reservation was extended in the 2001 protocol to include not only former citizens but also former long-term residents of the US. This was to ensure that the DTA is consistent with US law, more specifically Section 877 of the Internal Revenue Code. 

Section 877(c) provides certain exceptions to these presumptions of tax avoidance. The US defines ‘long-term resident’ as an individual (other than a US citizen) who is a lawful permanent resident of the United States in at least 8 of the prior 15 taxable years. An individual is not treated as a lawful permanent resident for any taxable year if such individual is treated as a resident of a foreign country under the provisions of a tax treaty between the United States and the foreign country and the individual does not waive the benefits of such treaty applicable to residents of the foreign country.

The major thing to note here is that even though the right to tax its citizens is reserved for Australia as well, Australia does not tax individuals based on citizenship. Whereas in the case of the US, individuals are taxed based on citizenship. 

Paragraph 4

This paragraph sets out the limitations of the saving clause and where other provisions of the DTA will override the savings clause. The saving clause does not override the benefits provided under paragraph 2 of Article 9 (Associated Enterprises), relating to correlative adjustments of tax liability, or the benefits of paragraphs 2 or 6 of Article 18 (Pensions, Annuities, Alimony and Child Support), relating to social security payments, alimony and child support. 

Social security payments and similar public pensions paid by Australia and alimony, child support, and similar maintenance payments arising in Australia are taxable only by Australia even though the recipient may be a resident of the US. Similarly, social security payments by Australia to a citizen of the US, wherever resident, are taxable only in Australia. 

The benefits provided in Articles 22 (Relief from Double Taxation), 23 (non-Discrimination), and 24 (Mutual Agreement Procedure), and the source rules of paragraph 1 of Article 27 (Miscellaneous) are also available to residents and citizens of the Contracting States, notwithstanding the saving clause.

THE IMPORTANCE OF READING COMPREHENSION 

Although most people can read, the act of reading and the act of comprehending what you read are two very different things.

Reading comprehension is the ability to process text, understand its meaning, and integrate with what the reader already knows. 

Lawyers generally know the importance of reading comprehension. At law school, students are taught how to interpret legislation. So, this is not a gift or talent, lawyers are born with, but rather a skill set you can develop that will be extremely beneficial when looking at the DTA. 

The reason why it is extremely important to understand the DTA and more specifically Article 1 of the DTA, is so that you understand if the DTA even applies to you. We’ve assisted numerous clients who either misinterpreted the application of the DTA or whose advisor misinterpreted the application. 

The key questions you should consider to ensure the correct application of the DTA is – 

  1. What is the scope of the DTA and do I fall within that scope to use the DTA?
  2. Am I a resident of Australia or the US for purposes of the DTA?
  3. What are the benefits available to me in the DTA?
  4. What is the limitation of benefits in the DTA?
  5. What is the interplay between US/Australia domestic legislation and the DTA?
Our team of International Tax specialists at Asena Advisor has an in-depth knowledge of how to interpret international tax treaties and how to ascertain their applicability to your specific circumstances. 

Shaun Eastman

Peter Harper