One Big Beautiful Bill 5% tax on remittances

Status
Not open for further replies.

seeker

New Member
Jan 18, 2018
7
0
161
Does anyone know the details about the 5% tax on the outgoing remittances for foreigners? I can imagine that lots of non-US citizens will wire the money out of US before this kicks in. It's not only Indians who will be impacted; it is every non-US citizen. Is there any way to get around this? Can we use Wise to convert to another currency before wiring the fund, would that be considered an outgoing remittance from US?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/trump-s-remittance-tax-plan-may-impact-indians/ar-AA1FefS4
 
This seems quite risky to me. Does not appear to have differentiation e.g. for non-resident‌ aliens who are simply banking in the US with no other relevant ties (which is‍ actually quite a lot of people). Interested to see what others have to say on⁠ this topic.

Including the direct excerpt from the bill below for clarity as well:
 
Do you think they will ever implement this?

On one side, it will prevent a‌ lot of money from being sent to the US by private individuals for personal investment,‍ savings, etc. On the other side, the execution will be very difficult as you can⁠ literally just use debit cards for withdrawal abroad, set up a company as @aniglo22 suggests, and then what about all those HSBC Global View, Citi Global etc. where you can⁤ move money easily. They would then have to remove the US from those programs, putting⁣ them on a line with India, China and other currency controlled places.

In any case,⁢ I think it entails serious harm while avoidance is easily.
 
I guess it should be interpreted as "physically in US at⁣ the moment of transfer". Not exactly clear though. Definition:
(2) the term "remittance transfer"-⁢
(A) means the electronic (as defined in section 106(2) of the Electronic Signatures in Global︀ and National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C. 7006(2))) transfer of funds requested by a sender located︁ in any State to a designated recipient that is initiated by a remittance transfer provider,︂ whether or not the sender holds an account with the remittance transfer provider or whether︃ or not the remittance transfer is also an electronic fund transfer, as defined in section︄ 1693a of this title
 
They know. This isn’t targeted at people like you or even middle class Indians or‌ Chinese. This is targeted at poor Mexicans and Guatemalans who are definitely not going to‍ be able to set up a LLC or use crypto. Those types will have to⁠ smuggle cash back with cousin Jose with all the associated cost and risk. They don’t⁤ even think this tax will raise money and that’s not the point. The point is⁣ to harass those types of people and cause more of them to go home.
 
Yes but figure has changed to 3.5%.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text

-----

--------
Interesting article on it.

The Remittances Tax:︀ High Paperwork, Low Payoff​


https://taxfoundation.org/blog/us-remittances-tax-big-beautiful-bill/

----

One example would be an international investor who maintains︁ an account within the United States for the purpose of business. If this investor wishes︂ to transfer funds to another account outside the country, it may bear the appearance of︃ a remittance. But it is not one: the investor is withdrawing his or her own︄ money, not transferring funds to others. An RTP may have difficulty verifying this, wrongfully charging︅ someone withdrawing investment returns. In this case, the tax may function even as a de︆ facto capital control, bearing the appearance of a capital outflow tax. This could disincentivize further︇ and future foreign investment in the United States.


-----

Yikes...😕
 
So, just for my understanding: if i as a non-us citizen , residing outside of‌ the US, have a personal ibkr account in the US and want to wire money‍ to my personal account in the EU or Switzerland for example, will this be taxed??⁠
 
No. Your withdrawal doesn't count as "remittance transfer" according to the definitions in the⁤ law. In addition, you also might not even be a "sender" according to the definitions⁣ in the law.

The article Martin quoted says it might be difficult for service providers⁢ to verify where a wire is really going and so they may wrongfully charge you.︀ Seems a bit farfetched to me, but okay.
 
Ok thanks. In case of ibkr you are not allowed to transfer to 3rd parties‌ anyway as part of ibkrs own rules. As mentioned before in this thread it may‍ be more an integral part of the US anti-migration laws this bill.
 
They actually do allow exceptions when you request‍ them specifically from support, if you have a good reason. I have a 3rd party⁠ in my IBKR recipients list.
 
Can you point out where in the law⁠ it says that a foreign investor can transfer money without tax? The articles mention that⁤ but I couldn't see it in the law text. It does say it doesn't apply⁣ to business accounts, but a ibkr investment account is not a business account is it?⁢
 
Bad news...see what EY says below. Best to ask⁤ IBKR on their approach so everything is clear.

-------

Remittance transfer
"Remittance transfer" is defined⁣ by cross-reference to the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), which applies to banks, money transmitters⁢ and others in the business of making electronic funds transfers. The purpose of the remittance︀ transfer provisions in EFTA is to require the RTP to disclose the fees, exchange rate,︁ net amount to be received by the recipient and certain other information.
A remittance transfer occurs when an RTP transfers︃ funds from a "consumer" (defined under the EFTA as a "natural person") to a "designated︄ recipient," whether or not the consumer holds an account with the RTP. A typical use︅ case is individuals from a foreign country who send money to their home country through︆ a money transmitter, although EFTA applies much more broadly, for example, when a US parent︇ sends money to child studying abroad. A remittance transfer does not include a transfer of︈ $15 or less.
A "designated recipient" is any person located in a foreign country and︉ identified by the sender as the authorized recipient of a remittance transfer to be made︊ by an RTP, and may be an entity as well as an individual. The foreign︋ location of the recipient is a requirement, so US-to-US transfers would not result in tax.︌
According to a 2019 FDIC publication that explains EFTA, remittance transfers include:
  1. "Transfers in︍ cash or by another method conducted through a money transmitter or a financial institution.
  2. Consumer wire transfers conducted by a financial institution upon a sender's request to wire money from︎ the sender's account to a designated recipient.
  3. An addition of funds to a prepaid card️ by a participant in a prepaid card program, such as a prepaid card issuer or‌ its agent, that is directly engaged with the sender to add these funds, where the‍ prepaid card is sent or was previously sent by a participant in the prepaid card⁠ program to a person in a foreign country, even if a sender retains the ability⁤ to withdraw such funds.
  4. International ACH transactions sent by the sender's financial institution at the⁣ sender's request.
  5. Online bill payments and other electronic transfers that a sender schedules in advance,⁢ including preauthorized remittance transfers, made by the sender's financial institution at the sender's request to︀ a designated recipient."

Exceptions
No tax would apply at source︇ if the following to conditions were met:
  • The RTP is a "qualified" RTP that has︈ entered into a written agreement with Treasury to verify the status of senders as US︉ citizens or "nationals"
  • The sender is a "verified United States sender," which is defined as︊ a US citizen or "national," as verified by the qualified RTP (A "national" owes allegiance︋ to the US but is not a citizen; the category consists almost exclusively of persons︌ born in American Samoa or on Swains Island.)

-------
 
As the bill is about to pass the Senate, it has been reduced to 1%.‌

Quote from politico.com
 
This likely has to go through conference‍ committee and revote. I doubt the House will approve it as-is. We’ll see what shakes⁠ out of that process.
 
So its watered down even further. Bravo to Western Union etc for their lobbying I‌ guess. Isn't that how it works in America
😉
 
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

User Menu