Tax Professional usually responds in minutes
Our tax advisers are all verified
Unlimited follow-up questions
Owning a business can be an exciting thing as you intimately know the vision and aspirations you hold for it – you have a clear direction in mind, and you can practically see its growth and success.
And yet, amidst it all, the less exciting tax obligations always stand close by. If you’re self-employed, you are responsible for registering with the relevant authorities and providing various documents for the necessary licences to ensure compliance with employment and tax regulations.
These requirements may initially be daunting – especially if you are a newcomer to the world of business. But fear not – the expert guidance at Tax Natives is here to support you throughout this process, ensuring that you establish yourself as a self-employed professional. With this foundation in mind, you can continue confidently and focus on developing your business.
Tax Natives is an international tax network. Our members include firms that specialise in tax compliance and advisory and provide business owners like you with personalised tax and residency services.
Our members also offer UK tax services to non-UK residents, and they can handle all your self-employment registrations, ensuring peace of mind and avoiding tax-related headaches.
As remote work becomes the new norm in many industries, employers face a maze of tax obligations when their employees operate from Canada.
Whether intentional or a result of Covid-19 travel restrictions, these arrangements can spark a range of tax issues for non-Canadian employers.
In this blog, we shed light on some key considerations and obligations that employers must navigate when their employees work remotely in Canada.
Having an employee in Canada triggers payroll tax obligations for the employer.
These include deductions for income tax, Canada Pension Plan (CPP) contributions, employment insurance (EI) premiums, and any applicable provincial payroll taxes.
While resident and non-resident employers share similar obligations, non-resident employers without a presence in Canada may not be required to withhold CPP contributions.
Similarly, they may not withhold EI premiums if they are payable under the employment insurance laws of the employee’s home country.
However, when CPP contributions and/or EI premiums are due, the employer becomes liable for these on its own account.
Under a non-resident employer certificate regime, certified employers resident in a treaty country may be exempt from deducting and remitting Canadian income tax on remuneration paid to qualified non-resident employees.
To qualify, employees must be residents of a country with which Canada has a tax treaty, and they must be exempt from Canadian income tax on the remuneration due to the treaty.
Additionally, the employees must not be present in Canada for 90 or more days in any 12-month period, or not in Canada for 45 or more days in the calendar year that includes the payment time.
While this certification offers relief, employers should ensure ongoing reporting and compliance to maintain eligibility.
For employers without non-resident certification or non-qualifying employees, a Regulation 102 waiver may be sought if the remuneration is exempt from Canadian income tax due to a tax treaty.
Having an employee in Canada may expose the employer to the risk of being considered to be “carrying on business” in Canada.
A non-resident carrying on business in Canada is generally liable for tax on profits from such activities, subject to any treaty exemptions.
Certain activities of the employee, such as soliciting orders or offering sales in Canada, may cause the employer to be deemed to be carrying on business in the country.
Employers entitled to treaty benefits are exempt from Canadian income tax on business profits if they do not have a permanent establishment (PE) in Canada.
However, certain scenarios, like employees having the authority to conclude contracts, may trigger PE status and tax obligations.
When employees provide services in Canada, the employer’s customer may need to deduct and remit 15% of the payment for those services to the CRA unless a waiver is obtained.
Employers can apply for waivers to reduce or eliminate withholding taxes, depending on treaty provisions and income projections.
Value-added taxes (GST/HST) apply on the supply of goods and services in Canada, requiring non-resident employers to register and comply with the GST/HST regime if they make taxable supplies in the country.
In sum, remote work arrangements in Canada can create complex tax implications for non-Canadian employers.
Understanding and fulfilling these obligations is essential to avoid potential pitfalls and ensure compliance with Canadian tax laws.
Seeking professional advice can illuminate the path forward and help employers navigate the tax terrain with confidence.
If you have any queries about this or other Canadian tax matters then please do not hesitate to get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article.
In this case, the “it” being the tax return… so say the IRS, anyway.
Yes, it has been reported in Law 360 that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has issued a determination against Beyonce asserting that she owes the agency $3m in taxes, interest and penalties.
A petition was filed on Monday by the IRS. In it, they argued that Beyonce had failed to report royalty income in 2018.
In addition, it also stated that she had incorrectly claimed deductions for the same and the following year. This included the Qualified Business Deduction and also deductions for legal and professional fees and management fees.
The US tax agency says that she owes back taxes of $805k for the 2018 year and $1.4m for the 2019 year.
In addition, the IRS has imposed penalties of $161k and $288k for each respective year. On top of this, interest is estimated at around $264k.
Enough to make anyone… er… Sasha Fierce.
Musical tax miscreants – IRS hall of fame
It’s no secret that the world of music is filled with glamour, fame, and fortune. But beneath the shimmering surface, some of our most beloved artists have found themselves in the crosshairs of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). When the taxman comes knocking, even the brightest stars can find themselves in a financial bind. Let’s take a look at some other music legends who’ve hit a sour note with the IRS.
We are told that Beyonce rejects these claims and has asked for a trial to help settle the dispute.
The US tax court case is Beyonce Knowles-Carter v Commissioner under docket number 5695-23.
If you have any queries about this article on Beyonce IRS investigation, or US tax matters in general, then please get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article.
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has announced that a new Register of Foreign Ownership of Australian Assets is set to come into effect on 1 July 2023.
This Register will create several new reporting obligations for foreign investors and Australian entities that become “foreign persons”, in relation to certain interests in Australian land, entities and businesses.
Foreign investors will be required to provide notice to the Commissioner of Taxation (the Registrar) of certain events relating to interests in land, entities and businesses in Australia. Such events include acquisitions, disposals, lease arrangements, options to purchase or lease arrangements, as well as the creation or transfer of interests in a trust.
These reporting obligations are in addition to the approval processes and reporting obligations that already apply under Australia’s Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act (FATA).
In anticipation of the Register’s commencement, Treasury has released an exposure draft of amendments to the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Regulation 2015 (Cth) which is open for consultation until 31 March 2023. The ATO, which will administer the Register, has also released draft data standards prescribing how and what information must be reported for inclusion in the Register.
When a “registrable event” occurs, foreign investors must give notice to the Registrar within 30 days of the “registrable event day”. This day varies depending on the type of event but is generally the date on which the notifiable event occurs, or when the person is aware or should have been aware that the relevant event has occurred.
The ATO will be launching a new online platform through which investors will be able to report interests for the new Register. A third party will also be able to be authorised by a foreign investor to give notice on behalf of the foreign investor. Civil penalties will apply for a failure to give notice within the requisite 30-day period.
The Register will not be public. The information on the Register will be subject to similar rules as those that apply to other information relating to foreign investment in Australia under the FATA. That is, the information can be disclosed to other government bodies to enable them to perform their functions or exercise their powers under the FATA.
Information on the Register will also be permitted to be disclosed to a person to whom information on the register relates.
Under the FATA, a person must notify the Treasurer within 30 days of taking certain actions approved under a no objection notification or an exemption certificate, as well as certain notifiable situations after the action has been taken. These situations include when the relevant interest ceases or changes, or the entity or business the interest relates to ceases to exist.
From 1 July 2023, these circumstances will also need to be notified to the Registrar in order to be recorded on the new Register. To reduce duplication, the draft regulations provide that by giving a notice to the Registrar of a registered circumstance, this will also satisfy any other equivalent reporting obligations to the Treasurer under the FATA in relation to the same action.
On commencement of the new Register, the registers maintained by the ATO, including the Register of Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land, the Register of Foreign Ownership of Water Entitlements, and the Register of Residential Land, will be repealed, and all information will be incorporated into the new Register. All circumstances required to be reported in relation to these registers will instead be reported to the Registrar and recorded on the new Register.
The Register of Foreign Owners of Media Assets maintained by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and the Register of Critical Infrastructure Assets administered by the Cyber and Infrastructure Security Centre will continue to operate
These key dates related to the new Register of Foreign Ownership of Australian Assets:
If you have any queries about the New Register of Foreign Ownership , or Australian tax issues or tax matters in general, then please do not hesitate to get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article.
In a recent court case, the Court of Justice in the European Union (EU) has ruled that it is legally acceptable for Italy to impose a withholding tax (WHT) and data-gathering obligations on non-resident online platforms that facilitate short-term property rentals like holiday lets.
However, the obligation to appoint an Italian tax representative liable to pay the WHT was prohibited by the EU law fundamental freedom to provide services.
The ruling has implications for other EU member states with similar rental markets, as they might also be tempted to bring in their own WHT regimes that could impact non-resident platforms.
The case began when Italy introduced three obligations on non-resident platforms in the short-term letting sector in 2017:
(1) collecting income-related data on Italian rentals,
(2) withholding tax on rental income, and
(3) appointing a local tax representative with responsibility for withholding the tax.
Airbnb challenged these rules, arguing that they were incompatible with the freedom to provide services.
The ruling is part of the EU’s ongoing attempts to regulate the economic models of online platforms in areas such as tax and data-protection.
The judgment concerns tax and data-collection and sharing obligations imposed on online platforms and the extent to which tax authorities can use platforms as a de facto compliance arm for the ‘gig’ economy.
The court held that the obligations to collect data and withhold tax at source did not constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services. However, the obligation to appoint a tax representative in Italy was deemed a breach of the freedom to provide services.
The ruling confirms that direct taxation is not an EU-competence yet, and in principle, each member state could introduce its own WHT regime applicable to online platforms.
One key part of the case is DAC 7, a council directive that requires most online platforms to conduct due diligence on their service-providing users and report the information to one or more EU tax authorities.
DAC 7 does not require platforms to act as tax collectors; only as information providers.
In the short-term, the case allows Italy to impose WHT obligations on non-resident platforms.
The long-term implication is that other EU member states might be tempted to introduce their WHT regimes, which could impact non-resident platforms in the medium term.
If you have any queries relating to the Airbnb WHT case or Italian tax matters more generally, then please do not hesitate to get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article.
On February 14, 2023, the Council of the European Union made changes to the list of countries that do not cooperate with the EU on tax matters.
This is called the “EU blacklist”.
Four new countries were added to the list:
With these additions, the EU blacklist list now has 16 countries on it. The other countries are as follows:
The Council gave reasons for adding these countries.
For example, the Marshall Islands was added because they have a tax system that encourages businesses to move profits offshore without any real economic activity.
Costa Rica was added because they do not provide enough information about tax matters, and they have tax policies that are considered harmful. Russia was added for the same reason.
The Bahamas was previously removed from the EU blacklist in 2018 but was added back in 2022 and remains on the list.
The new list will be officially published in the Official Journal of the EU, and the next revision will take place in October 2023.
If you have any queries relating to the EU Blacklist or tax matters more generally, then please do not hesitate to get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article.
On 31 January, HMRC changed its guidance on unauthorised unit trusts, including Jersey Property Unit Trusts (JPUTs).
This new guidance has perhaps put a cat among the pigeons.
Previously, HMRC advised that neither authorised nor unauthorised unit trusts needed to be registered on HMRC’s trust register unless the unit trust became liable to certain UK tax liabilities.
However, the guidance for unauthorised unit trusts has now changed, meaning that JPUTs may need to be registered even if they don’t have a liability to UK tax.
JPUTs will need to be registered if they acquire UK land directly or intend to do so since 6 October 2020.
There are only two situations in which a JPUT may need to be registered: when it becomes liable for UK tax or when it acquires UK land after 6 October 2020.
If a JPUT is required to be registered, the relevant information, including contact details for each trustee and unit holder, will need to be compiled and submitted via HMRC’s online system.
The change in HMRC’s guidance means that many more JPUTs will be required to be registered on HMRC’s trust register.
Trustees and advisers should urgently check whether they have any trusts which should now be registered, and ensure they comply with the registration requirements.
Although HMRC is currently adopting a light-touch approach to penalties, trustees and advisers should not rely on this and should ensure they comply with the registration requirements.
If you have any queries relating to JPUT or tax matters more generally, then please do not hesitate to get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article.
The EU introduced trust sanctions in respect of Russia last year. However, the effect of these sanctions has had international impact.
Despite announcing its intention to introduce trust sanctions some time ago, the UK trust sanctions, provided for in Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 17) Regulations 2022 (“The Regulations”), only came into force last month.
However, there are some important differences between the regimes.
The UK sanctions include a prohibition on providing trust services to or for the benefit of a person connected with Russia or to a ‘designated person’ (unless the services were provided immediately prior to the regulations coming into force).
The Regulations came into force on 16 December 2022. They amend the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (SI 2019/855).
The amendments define “trust services” as follows:
A person is broadly considered “connected with Russia”:
The EU’s sanctions focus on the nationality or residence of a trust’s settlor or beneficiary. As such, there are some notable differences.
Firstly, under the UK’s rules, a private individual who is a Russian national but is resident elsewhere will not automatically be considered connected with Russia for these purposes.
The UK rules also provide helpful guidance about when trust services are “for the benefit” of a person. This includes circumstances where services are provided to a person:
The new rules are ‘forward-facing’. As such, these sanctions won’t apply to trust services that are already being provided under an existing relationship at 16 December 2022. A key question is whether additional or different work can be provided under this existing relationship or whether a ‘new instruction’ is a new relationship?
Additionally, The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (“OFSI”) has confirmed that it will consider granting licences for trust work if that work falls within certain exceptions. This might include charitable pursuits.
Of course, UK trust provides, and those providing services in Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories, will need to be mindful of these sanctions. In terms of how they might apply to new relationships and the extent to which new instructions by existing clients within the scope of these rules might constitute a new relationship.
If you have any queries on UK expands Russian sanctions to trust services or UK tax matters more generally, then please do not hesitate to get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article
On October 26, 2022, President Zelensky signed a law creating an electronic system through which foreign entrepreneurs can apply for residency permits.
Foreigners will be able to obtain an electronic residence (an E-Residence / E-Resident) in Ukraine without having to become Ukrainian tax residents.
It is scheduled to come into effect on April 1, 2023. Under it, foreigners will be able register themselves as private entrepreneurs and pay taxes in Ukraine.
The E-Residency program provides its participants access to a range of services, including the registration and termination of business activities in Ukraine.
The E-Residency status will not grant the right to live or visit Ukraine.
The E-Residency program is open to people who meet all of the following requirements:
To become an E-Resident, applicants must go through the “E-Resident” information system, obtain qualified digital signatures, and pass identification procedures.
Ukraine E-Residence may withdraw from the program at any time by applying for termination.
Ukrainian authorities have the power to revoke an individual’s E-Residency if they decide that this person no longer qualifies for the status.
To become an E-Resident, in addition to the above conditions, you must:
E-Residents will pay a flat tax of 5% on their business income. They are not allowed to deduct any expenses from this amount.
The nature of the business activities of the E-Resident is not restricted.
E-Residents must transfer their business income to the Ukrainian bank account they opened as part of the process.
The bank will also operate as the E-Resident’s tax agent and deduct the relevant tax and deal with all other reporting.
E-Residents are not subject to the social security charges in Ukraine.
E-Residents should consider whether the Ukrainian taxes deducted in respect of their business income can be credited against taxes they are liable in their country of tax residency.
If you have any queries about Ukraine E-Residence then please do not hesitate to get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article
Last month, the Swiss Federal Council took the decision to suspend co-operation under the Automatic Exchange of Information (AEoI) between itself and Russia.
Obligations under AEoI stem from the Common Reporting Standard (CRS). However, similar data sharing obligations arise under other tax-related information exchange including:
These are also suspended.
In respect of the CRS based obligations, this means that where a Swiss Reporting Financial Institution (FI) has submitted information for 2021 to the Swiss Federal Tax Administration (FTA) on its Russian resident clients then the FTA will not provide the Russian authorities with the data.
It is worth pointing out that all obligations of a Swiss Reporting FI remain in place following the move. It is simply that the FTA will not pass this information over the Swiss authorities as would normally be the case.
If you have any queries about this article, or Swiss tax matters in general, then please do get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article