It is too much trouble to renounce your US citizenship to gain a little tax advantage. I think the US is advantageous to high net worth individuals. Warren Buffet showed his income tax return to extreme liberal media for one year and he paid just 15%. Most of us, who are US citizens probably, pay more than that. I am not really surprised as billionaires in the US have numerous tax loopholes. Now, even if you are just a millionaire or earn say $300,000 per annum, a good tax accountant is probably, worth its weigh in gold. Take note too that the US has the most number of billionaires in the entire planet by a very wide margin. If the US was taxing the high net worth, filthy rich billionaires, they would stay out of the US not, flock to the US.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Best Country for Trading (Tax efficiency)
- Thread starter ET873
- Start date
What's ugly in Madrid? please tell me, otherwise I also planned to move to SpainHNR(?) regime never included tax breaks on trading profits afaik, which is alluded in the link above, indicating recent changes.
Did the law firm mention dividends and interest income, as I understood one could avoid withholding tax from Portugal on those.
Fwiw I moved to Spain willing to pay Spanish tax on dividends and interests, as I'd wanted to live in Madrid for a long time, but things got quite ugly here.
What's ugly in Madrid? please tell me, otherwise I also planned to move to Spain
I've explained this in my last 3 posts, it won´t affect everyone though.
If you are looking for tax efficiency (or tax deferral) then consider a "New Zealand Foreign Trust" - that is a New Zealand trust with a non-NZ resident settlor. The trust will only pay NZ tax on income earned in NZ, so if all income is earned in other countries (e.g. trading US stocks, etc) then there is no tax payable in NZ.
A lawyer can set up the trust for a few thousand dollars, there is a NZ$270 fee to the tax department to register the NZFT and there are annual disclosure requirements to be filed (i.e. any money paid in or taken out). You will need a NZ resident trustee (at worst a lawyer will to this for about NZ$5000 per year, or make a NZ friend and pay nothing or a lot less).
If you distribute money from the trust to yourself, that will be taxed in your country of tax residency - but you can accumulate and re-invest income/capital gains in the trust and defer tax forever (or a long time). Or live in a country with a territorial tax system who will not tax you on foreign earned income.
Also get local tax advice as your country of tax residency may seek to tax you locally on the trust's income as the settlor. Different countries have different rules over who they tax on trust income.
The advantage of the NZFT is that it is from an OECD, high tax country (although the trust will pay no tax), which is subject to less scrutiny and compliance than a "tax haven" corporate entity!
I never understood this concept. It is just deferring taxes (which is good) but in the end I must pay taxes when receiving money out of the fund (at least in the jurisdictions I know at sometimes even moren then If u held the shares yourself right away). What am I missing.
PS: "Or live in a country with a territorial tax system who will not tax you on foreign earned income." Why would I open a fund if I already live in a territorial tax system with no taxes on trading income?
Dutch taxsystem on hold. The cheap CGT will be cancelled and real returns will be taxed probably.
The tax authorities have decided not to impose tax assessments and decisions "until further notice".of assets and savings in box 3 of the income tax.
The reason is the judgment of the Supreme Court of last month, which stated that the box 3 system in force since 2017 is in conflict with theEuropean Convention on Human Rights.Citizens objected en masse to this scheme because the Tax and Customs Administration used fictitious returns in the calculations.As a result, people could end up paying way too much tax.The Supreme Court believes that victims should receive legal reparation.The judgment has “major implementation-technical and budgetary consequences,” writes the State SecretaryMarnix van Rij of Finance in a letter to the House of Representatives.There are two exceptions to the decision not to impose any more assessments and orders for the time being: if there is a chance that the assessment will become time-barred and if a citizen has an interest in the process continuing.According to Van Rij, the latter applies to provisional assessments, loss settlement and averaging requests.According to the minister, not all consequences of the Supreme Court's judgment are "clear".Van Rij does not yet know how many citizens are eligible for legal redress and what the financial consequences are.The cabinet hopes to be able to report more about the recovery method next month.
The government wants to tax savings and investments according to actual returns in box 3The tax authorities are now working with a so-called notional return on savings and investments, but this has meant that savers in particular have had to deal with a tax on their capital in recent years, while interest rates on savings have fallen further and are now around 0% onfreely withdrawable accounts.
The Rutte IV cabinet has previously indicated that it wishes to switch to a system in which the returns actually achieved are taxed in box 3.
The tax authorities have decided not to impose tax assessments and decisions "until further notice".of assets and savings in box 3 of the income tax.
The reason is the judgment of the Supreme Court of last month, which stated that the box 3 system in force since 2017 is in conflict with theEuropean Convention on Human Rights.Citizens objected en masse to this scheme because the Tax and Customs Administration used fictitious returns in the calculations.As a result, people could end up paying way too much tax.The Supreme Court believes that victims should receive legal reparation.The judgment has “major implementation-technical and budgetary consequences,” writes the State SecretaryMarnix van Rij of Finance in a letter to the House of Representatives.There are two exceptions to the decision not to impose any more assessments and orders for the time being: if there is a chance that the assessment will become time-barred and if a citizen has an interest in the process continuing.According to Van Rij, the latter applies to provisional assessments, loss settlement and averaging requests.According to the minister, not all consequences of the Supreme Court's judgment are "clear".Van Rij does not yet know how many citizens are eligible for legal redress and what the financial consequences are.The cabinet hopes to be able to report more about the recovery method next month.
The government wants to tax savings and investments according to actual returns in box 3The tax authorities are now working with a so-called notional return on savings and investments, but this has meant that savers in particular have had to deal with a tax on their capital in recent years, while interest rates on savings have fallen further and are now around 0% onfreely withdrawable accounts.
The Rutte IV cabinet has previously indicated that it wishes to switch to a system in which the returns actually achieved are taxed in box 3.
I don't think this will happen "next month". The coalition government fell about two weeks ago and new elections will be held in a couple of months, on November 22nd. Then it will take time to form a new coalition government. Only after that has been done can they start to think about what new system they would like to propose.The cabinet hopes to be able to report more about the recovery method next month.
According to the latest situation, the best countries/regions are Singapore 0%, Andorra 10%, Bulgaria 10%, Hong Kong 15%, Hungary 15%, Japan 20.315%, Liechtenstein 22%, some of which may put short-term trading It is treated as personal income, so to be on the safe side, the highest marginal tax rate is applied.
NL is basically 3.4% on wealth. But what has that to do with age?Well, I might be wrong, but my thoughts: AD, SG, HK, JP, and FL high costs of living and admittance/immigration restrictions; BG and HU higher tax rates; BG criminality. But you missed a lot of countries, last but not least Cyprus. And if you are as old as me : NL, til 2027
Nothing, but if you are young, your only income is from trading, lots of daily trades ... I wonder if that would fit with Box 3.NL is basically 3.4% on wealth. But what has that to do with age?