What do you think about using Singapore non resident company also in Georgia? So it becomes Georgia resident.
International Tax Structuring for Hair Salons
- Thread starter alpakiwi
- Start date
- Status
he already said that there will be troubles with USD coming into Georgia and going out to the USA - don't you think it is going to be a problem ?
Toggle signature
If money is your hope for independence you will never have it. The only real security that a man will have in this world is a reserve of knowledge, experience, and ability!
My personal favorite thread posted in the Mentor Group. Group of investment companies to avoid licensing.
Not much besides the image, which could affect banking options. UK company resident in Georgia could also be considered.
First of all, interesting setup.
Second, compare this with NL-Cyprus setup. Specifically the NL IP route might be a lot more interesting due to not going via the UK and NL having an interesting IP regime.
In general; hair salons will trigger EDD. They are considered a ML risk due to the high amount of cash transactions. If that is the case it will affect your entire structure as banks will all trip over that same aspect. Double check this before setting up anything.
Second, compare this with NL-Cyprus setup. Specifically the NL IP route might be a lot more interesting due to not going via the UK and NL having an interesting IP regime.
In general; hair salons will trigger EDD. They are considered a ML risk due to the high amount of cash transactions. If that is the case it will affect your entire structure as banks will all trip over that same aspect. Double check this before setting up anything.
Yet many US corporations still choose the NL route for their IP/licensing. If the turnover/profit is high enough you still can get a favourable ruling in NL.
One thing is IP licensing and another is profit shifting which is what OP wants to do.
Uber in the past used NL for his dutch sandwich setup where they only paid 1% in taxes in NL, the rest was shifted to Bermuda thanks to a IP licensing deal.
So yeah, some US corp used NL for IP licensing but the goal was to avoid paying EU taxes, not to avoid US WHT on royalties.
NL is probably even worse than UK because beside having a LOB clause in the US-NL treaty they even implemented conditional WHT on interest, royalty, and dividend payments to affiliated companies in designated low-tax jurisdictions and in certain (tax abuse) situations.
IP licensing is just a fancy way of profit shifting..
Reason for me to avoid the UK is that when you do want to use Malta its better to use the known and robust legislation of the EU. With the UK it's still a bit "greenflelding" due to the recent departure from the EU.
You are right.
I realize my post didn't convey what i was thinking.
The point i'm trying to make here is that the problem isn't the country receiving the royalties (UK, NL), the problem is the source of the royalties (US) that has limitation on benefits rules to prevent profit shifting.
US drafted their treaties in a way that claiming treaty benefits = paying taxes in the receiving country on at least 51% of the amount received.
The only way is to use a country with 0% WHT on US royalties and no LOB clause (like Georgia) where you can shift profits or a country with 0% WHT on US royalties with LOB clause where you don't shift profits (like Spain) because you can get an advantageous CIT.
Hi everyone,
Thanks for your help. I wanted to share an update.
If anyone else has ideas, it'd be great to hear them. This is an intriguing topic! 🙂
Thanks for your help. I wanted to share an update.
- I spoke with a top international tax lawyer based in the UK. He confirmed that the LOB clause is indeed applicable (props to @Marzio ”“ you know your stuff!), but mentioned that, in practice, he hasn't seen it enforced in his 30 years of experience. He also uncovered something useful: to prevent the Isle of Man from classifying the IP holding company as “high-risk IP,” we'd need to personally own the UK entity, not the IOM entity, so that it doesn't form a "group." This setup should work even if most profits shift to the IOM IP owner. This approach sidesteps the high-risk IP substance requirements, making it easier to meet the standard IP substance criteria.
- I've also been exploring a potential setup in Georgia, including getting local advice (thanks again @Marzio!). They confirmed that it's possible, so I'm diving deeper. I'll share another update after our meeting next week.
If anyone else has ideas, it'd be great to hear them. This is an intriguing topic! 🙂
I don't understand how owning personally the UK entity would actually help with LOB but hey if that was suggested by a top international tax lawyer i'm cool with it.
Even if in theory it's a great idea, you have to keep your eyes and ears open about the political situation which could impact your business.
Agree, don't forget to update us! 🙂
Last edited: Nov 1, 2024
It's not for the LOB; it's to avoid triggering high-risk IP substance requirements in IOM. It has nothing to do with the LOB. The LOB issue is still there.
Right, those are actually two separate issues.
Well at least you got your money's worth out of that consult.
He has been in business for a very long time right? I think I used this firm 8 years ago or so.
- Status