Finance and economics mentoring
New Horizons Paraguay
Ticker tape by TradingView

Low tax burden life plan suggestion for freelancer

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see no way such a UK/Estonia setup would work without substance in the country‌ the company is registered in. Of course it may work in practice because nobody takes‍ a closer look, but that doesn’t mean it’s legal.
Common sense should also tell you⁠ that if it was so easy to drastically reduce your Polish tax burden, everyone would⁤ do it that way.
 
It works because UK LTD‍ is treaty non resident, there are no UK customers, he will be UK LTD⁠ not resident director managing the Polish branch and all the income will be taxed in⁤ Poland at the branch level at 9%.

You need substance in the country the company⁣ is registered in if you want to escape the tax burden in the country you⁢ are resident but in this case is exactly the opposite, you want to pay taxes︀ in the country you are resident.

Poland is happy because you are paying taxes there,︁ UK has nothing to pretend because the LTD is treaty non resident.

Where is the︂ illegal part?

And for the record, we are not reducing Polish tax burden because he︃ will pay exactly what he would be paying with a Polish LLC.

We are doing︄ this setup only to avoid the exit tax and accumulate tax free profits.
 
Correct me if I’m wrong, but “treaty non resident” means that the company is not‌ resident in the UK because it is resident in another country, as defined by the‍ DTA.
So from a tax perspective it would be a Polish company. How would a⁠ Polish company have a branch in Poland? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to⁤ me.
So in order to be able to have a branch in Poland, you would⁣ need to make sure the company is actually tax resident somewhere else. With Estonia, the⁢ company would usually be tax resident in Estonia. But if Poland charges a lower corporate︀ tax rate for branches, then you can bet they’d want to see substance in Estonia.︁ Otherwise they’d simply move the corporate tax residency to Poland.

Edit:
Ok, if you don’t︂ want to save corporate income taxes, then it could work. But there’s also most likely︃ no benefit regarding exit tax. Because also foreign companies are usually covered by exit tax.︄ I don’t know about Poland, but with other EU countries that is definitely the case.︅
 
Exactly, you need to register the UK LTD with Polish‍ tax authorities and guess what they will tell you? That a company to be tax⁠ resident there must establish a PE which is the branch.

It's exactly the same concept⁤ we are talking here.
 
Except it’s highly unlikely you can avoid exit tax that way. So I see no‌ benefit.

And I think you’re confusing to concepts:
As far as I know, a branch‍ is when there is a PE of a foreign company. The corporate tax residency is⁠ not challenged, the branch country’s tax office agrees that the company is resident where it⁤ is registered.
But a company’s tax residency can also be moved completely per a DTA.⁣ Then there is no branch.
 
“Makes sense” was in regards to the technicalities. And basically using the UK Ltd. for‌ reputation purposes only.
Anyway I don’t see how this would help in this case. The‍ exit tax would apply to any assets being moved from the scope of Polish taxation,⁠ which would probably apply to this case as well.
 
It will help because if you start a Polish‍ LLC but you don't take out all the dividends, if you move you'll be taxed⁠ on all the unrealized dividends.

Using the branch you'll be taxed on all the income⁤ BUT you can pay a minimal salary as a branch director that's taxed at 17%⁣ till 19K.

All the excess profits can be moved tax free to the UK LTD⁢ head without any withholding taxes and accumulate there only to be paid as dividends later︀ when you'll move your tax residency in a territorial country.

In this way you are︁ avoiding to pay unnecessary taxes on personal income.

This is an "exit tax" for me.︂
 
I don’t see that working at all.
Both because a UK company that is tax‌ resident in Poland would be treated as if it was incorporated in Poland. So there‍ is no UK head office to move profits to.
But also because a UK company⁠ controlled by a Polish tax resident would trigger exit tax when you move out of⁤ Poland, if not earlier.
And exit tax is not only about profits, but about the⁣ value of the company itself, taking into account expected future earnings.

I’d be willing to⁢ take a bet that it wouldn’t help the OP’s case at all. Couple beers? ;-)︀
 
Blockchain4ever said that‌ he is using this exact strategy for more than 10 years.

I will shoot him‍ a PM asking him to comment if this strategy could work or not.

Prepare the⁠ money for the beer you'll pay me 🙂
 
Just to be sure we’re betting on the same thing: I’m saying you can neither‌ save Polish corporate tax nor avoid Polish exit tax without substance in the UK if‍ you run the company from Poland.
 
I already said that he will not save any taxes in Poland so we⁠ both agree on that part but hey i will take 9% taxes any day.

We don't agree on the exit tax without substance in UK if he runs the company⁤ from the branch.
 
We are obviously in an unexplored territory so i could only speculate on‌ the term "assets".

Later the article says

Money are one⁤ kind of asset but i really don't think the exit tax will prevent moving money⁣ from the branch to the head office.

Why would they do that?
 
Without exit tax, somebody can build a successful business in France for example. Then they‌ move to Dubai for a year and sell their company for a few million. As‍ they are no longer tax resident in France, the French government cannot tax the income⁠ from the sale of the company. A year later, they move back to France, with⁤ a bigger bank account.
To avoid that, exit tax is introduced. Exit tax means that⁣ the moment someone moves out of France, a fictitious sale of the company is assumed,⁢ even if the company is never sold. The owner has to pay that tax when︀ they move out because the French government knows they won’t be able to get the︁ tax later.

The same logic applies to any other transfer:
If you could just move︂ the money to the head office and then move away without paying exit tax, it︃ would render the exit tax law useless. So usually all such transfers are also covered︄ by exit tax.
 
I don't know if you noticed but the big guys like⁠ Google, Uber, Facebook are doing just that. They are funneling profits using EU parent -⁤ subsidiary directive to subtract millions from tax administrations of the world. France will tax all⁣ the income they can made by your subsidiary but after that you can transfer all⁢ the profits to a Cyprus holding tax free and NOBODY will have anything to say︀ about that.

Exit tax can't interfere with EU parent - subsidiary directive or branch-head transfers.︁

This is exactly the reason why you continue to be a German tax resident for︂ 5 years after tax residency change, they are not willing to let you go with︃ the money.

We are just having different prospectives on the matter.
 
I haven't studied transfers from a branch to the head office wrt exit tax as⁤ it has never applied. I think this thread is about freelancer income, not unrealized capital⁣ gains. The exit tax would be on asset movements that include some sort of unrealized⁢ capital gains typically.

Moving your taxed corporate profits to the head office should only involve︀ withholding tax (WHT), if any. The parent/subsidiary directive, the dta, and local tax laws regulate︁ this.

If your branch office country does not levy a WHT for transfers to the︂ UK, I don't see why you can't just transfer funds there.

The same logic doesn't apply because transfers of funds from a subsidiary to︆ a parent company is the foundation of international trade and international companies in general. The︇ exit tax is more narrowly trying to target persons that move, similar to targeting re-domiciled︈ companies and similar "fringe" behavior in the corporate world.

For the transfer of profits, there︉ is already WHT for this case and it's regulated in all DTAs that countries negotiate.︊
 
Thanks for stepping in.

While you are here i'll ask you straight if the strategy‍ outlined could work in this case: UK LTD + Polish Branch.

UK LTD where the⁠ OP is the non-resident director managing the Polish branch.

The UK LTD is treaty non⁤ resident with no UK customers and the Polish branch will pay all the taxes in⁣ Poland at 9% (reduced rate for small taxpayers)

Is that right?
 
A side note, I think you are wrong that a UK Ltd needs to‍ not have uk customers to be treaty non resident. It's similar to that a polish⁠ company won't be tax resident in the UK just by having UK customers.

You might⁤ be thinking of a llp that is taxable on uk source income (which also doesn't⁣ necessarily mean uk customers).

If a UK
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

JohnnyDoe.is is an uncensored discussion forum
focused on free speech,
independent thinking, and controversial ideas.
Everyone is responsible for their own words.

Quick Navigation

Forums

User Menu

Login
Community platform by JohnnyDoe © 2025 JohnnyDoe
Top Bottom