Our valued sponsor

W9/W8 for an offshore (disregarded) LLC

Do you really think his case is different than this one?


Ok we are talking about Italy and not US but the article 4 between UK and IT is exactly the same.

d1nBUa.jpg


Here's what i'm talking about

vN4pyt.jpg
Hmmm.. The case you are quoting is indeed rather parallel to the case at hand and it is good that you bring this into light.
Having said that, I am still not sure I agree with the court's decision as to the fact that because the foreing sourced income only becomes taxable upon remittance that such person may not be deemed a tax resident of UK for the purposes of the treaty. The treaty applies to tax residents of a particular country ; the fact that the type of tax residency provides some special conditions does not make the person a non tax resident. It would have been an acceptablr argument if no taxation wqs applied at all to the non dom but since taxability was effective when income was remmitted then I do not see how the person may not be regarded as tax resident. The remmittance basis of taxation is based on the premise that one becomes resident in the country and by virtue of such residency he is able to claim the particular benefits of non dom. I believe that the Italian court was affected by the particular circumstances of the individual and how his position was interpeted under Italian domestic law and this may have prompted it to reach a slightly outstretched conclusion with respect to Treaty interpetation. I may be wrong. Also particular circumstances are of vital importance it appears. Irrespective of my counter argument, this case is very important and instrumental as to the potential treatment for such cases by domestic courts. Thank you for sharing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marzio
As of today the majority of double tax treaties include this line "This term does not include any person who is liable to tax in that contracting state only if he derives income from sources therein"

If you think about it one second and ask "why would they include that line?"

The only answer that comes to mind is that they want to prevent to be considered resident for double tax treaty purpose any person that is taxed only on local source income.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CyprusLawyer101
Do you really think his case is different than this one?


Ok we are talking about Italy and not US but the article 4 between UK and IT is exactly the same.

d1nBUa.jpg


Here's what i'm talking about

vN4pyt.jpg
Ok, the bigger screenshot finally makes sense of what you are saying.
I see what you mean but I believe it can all go down the drain because you can wilfully elect to bring in all of your outside-of-UK income to the UK and pay tax for it?
I am based in the UK. My app business will be run from the UK. I would actually be in a difficult position to treat it as foreign sourced income. The fact that I claim that my app income won't be ECI for the US means it must be connected to somewhere else, and that somewhere else would be the UK?

As of today the majority of double tax treaties include this line "This term does not include any person who is liable to tax in that contracting state only if he derives income from sources therein"

If you think about it one second and ask "why would they include that line?"

The only answer that comes to mind is that they want to prevent to be considered resident for double tax treaty purpose any person that is taxed only on local source income.
Makes sense, but they'd have to prove that I haven't remitted that income to the UK (and paid tax on it) before making me pay tax in the US, don't you think?
 
Last edited:
I see what you mean but I believe it can all go down the drain because you can wilfully elect to bring in all of your outside-of-UK income to the UK and pay tax for it?
I am based in the UK. My app business will be run from the UK. I would actually be in a difficult position to treat it as foreign sourced income. The fact that I claim that my app income won't be ECI for the US means it must be connected to somewhere else, and that somewhere else would be the UK?

Correct but you will lose all the non-dom benefits by doing so and by managing the US LLC from UK you are making it tax resident in UK liable to UK CIT at 19% (soon to be 25%) so this defies entirely the benefit of using a US LLC.

Makes sense, but they'd have to prove that I haven't remitted that income to the UK (and paid tax on it) before making me pay tax in the US, don't you think?

From what i know all the countries that have a double tax treaty with US and have a limitation on benefits article verify proactively that what you claimed is true and report back to US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Asterion
If the monetization strategy of your app will be only in-app purchases you still need to complete the payments info because they have bundled together all the possible ways you could earn money from the platform.

They ask all the infos beforehand so that if in the future you decide to add AdSense income to your app they already know the withholding tax reate to apply in your case.
 
I have LLC in Wyoming and my income is not from US for now

Is filling W-9 form will cause any issue to me?

Im not US and i live in Bahrain
W-9 is only for individuals that reside in the US. Who is asking you to fill this in? Filling this in might cause you to be treated as residing in the US. The form that is relevant in your case is W-8BEN. I'm also a non-US citizen and non-US rssident, and once had a client that sent me a W-9, and I explained that was the wrong form, and they agreed and sent me a W-8BEN.
 
  • Like
Reactions: saintjohnny
W-9 is only for individuals that reside in the US. Who is asking you to fill this in? Filling this in might cause you to be treated as residing in the US. The form that is relevant in your case is W-8BEN. I'm also a non-US citizen and non-US rssident, and once had a client that sent me a W-9, and I explained that was the wrong form, and they agreed and sent me a W-8BEN.
Mercury will ask me to fill it and its asking a lot of people to fill it even if they are non US and not resident in US
 
Mercury will ask me to fill it and its asking a lot of people to fill it even if they are non US and not resident in US
It seems they are preparing for reciprocal FATCA reporting.
It means that the US financial institution will start reporting your account data to the IRS which will share the info with the tax authority of your tax residency country.
 
It seems they are preparing for reciprocal FATCA reporting.
It means that the US financial institution will start reporting your account data to the IRS which will share the info with the tax authority of your tax residency country.
Well as i dont know the impact of that it seems scary

And this is not a good thing for US specially as some make 7 to 8 figures that get in to US these people will get away
 
makes 0 sense to do that for them. Also irs already has that info for years from the other forms.
Interesting. I am just assuming and would love to know the actual reason.
Well as i dont know the impact of that it seems scary

And this is not a good thing for US specially as some make 7 to 8 figures that get in to US these people will get away
It's a huge change indeed. After all, the US (e.g., Delaware) is the world's biggest offshore jurisdiction.
The US is obviously not interested in changing something that benefits it, but other countries are putting some pressure.
 
What is the legal solution then as W-9 is a problem
You should inform the form requester of the correct status and provide the suitable form instead (W8-BEN).

If you fail to fix this, it's obviously a big issue because payments to you might then become subject to withholding taxes.
 

Latest Threads