Offshore Tax with HTJ.tax

Understanding who counts as an equity interest holder is central to how the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) operates for trusts that qualify as Reporting Financial Institutions (FIs). In this episode, we break down the legal definitions, explain why this classification matters, and clarify a common area of confusion around look-through rules.🔎 The CRS Framework: Why Equity Interest Holders MatterAt the heart of the CRS is the obligation imposed on Reporting Financial Institutions—including certain trusts—to identify their financial accounts and determine whether those accounts are reportable accounts.This identification process determines who gets reported, to which tax authority, and why.🧾 What Counts as a “Financial Account”?Under Section VIII.C.1 of the CRS, a Financial Account includes, in the case of an Investment Entity, any equity or debt interest in the FI.➡️ For a trust that qualifies as an FI, this means the focus shifts to who holds an equity interest in the trust.👥 Who Is an Equity Interest Holder in a Trust?The CRS provides a specific definition:An Equity Interest in a trust is considered to be held by: • Any person treated as a settlor • Any person treated as a beneficiary (of all or part of the trust) • Any other natural person exercising ultimate effective control over the trustThese persons are treated as account holders for CRS purposes.🧠 Why This Identification Is CriticalCorrectly identifying equity interest holders determines: • Whether an account is reportable • Which persons must be assessed as reportable persons • The scope of the trust’s CRS reporting obligationsErrors at this stage can lead to over-reporting, under-reporting, or misclassification.🇨🇭 Swiss CRS Guidance as an ExampleEarly CRS guidance issued by the Swiss Federal Tax Administration closely tracked the CRS itself. It confirmed that, for a trust qualifying as an FI, equity interest holders are limited to: • The settlor • The beneficiary • Any other natural person exercising ultimate effective controlNo additional categories were introduced.🚫 No Look-Through for Reporting FIsA key clarification often missed in practice:• Equity interest account holders are not subject to a look-through approach where the account holder is a Reporting FI • The only exception is where the entity is a non-participating investment entity, which is treated as a Passive NFEOutside that narrow exception, reporting stops at the FI level.🎯 Key TakeawayFor trusts that qualify as Reporting Financial Institutions:• Equity interest holders are settlor(s), beneficiary(ies), and natural persons with ultimate effective control • These persons are treated as account holders • No look-through applies when the account holder itself is a Reporting FI • Proper classification is essential to getting CRS reporting rightUnderstanding this distinction is critical to avoiding incorrect look-through assumptions and ensuring accurate, defensible CRS compliance.

Leaving a country does not automatically mean you stop being a tax resident. In this episode, we explain why tax residency is a legal status, not a travel diary—and why long periods of absence can still leave you fully taxable on your worldwide income.🔎 The Core PrincipleTax residency is determined by legal tests, not by where you happen to be on any given day. While physical presence matters, it is rarely decisive on its own.Many individuals assume that time spent abroad equals non-residency. Tax authorities often disagree.🔍 Why Absence Is Often Not EnoughEven during extended absences, you may remain tax resident if you retain “significant and enduring ties” to a jurisdiction. Authorities assess the totality of your circumstances, commonly referred to as:• The ties test • Vital interests analysis • Centre of life assessment🧩 The Key Factors Authorities ExamineTax authorities typically look at a combination of the following:1️⃣ Permanent HomeDo you maintain a dwelling—owned or leased—that remains available for your use?2️⃣ Family and Social TiesDoes your spouse, partner, or dependent children continue to live in the country?3️⃣ Economic TiesDo you retain: • Bank accounts or credit cards • Investments or pensions • Business interests or directorships4️⃣ Administrative TiesAre you still connected through: • A driver’s licence • Voter registration • Professional or regulatory memberships5️⃣ Intent and Pattern of LifeDo your belongings, health insurance, lifestyle choices, and behaviour suggest a temporary absence or an intention to return?⚠️ Temporary Absence vs Genuine DepartureWhere these ties remain strong, tax authorities often treat absence as: • Temporary work placement • Travel or education • Short-term mobility—not as a genuine severing of tax residency.This can result in continued liability for worldwide income, even while physically abroad.🎯 Key TakeawayYou don’t cease to be tax resident just because you leave. Residency ends only when your centre of life actually moves—in substance, not just on paper.For internationally mobile individuals, digital nomads, and executives, understanding this distinction is critical to avoiding unexpected tax exposure.

As global tax enforcement intensifies and private wealth comes under greater scrutiny, the role of the tax advisor is evolving fast. In this episode, we outline the three-pillar framework that Fernando Del Canto consistently uses when advising clients in an increasingly complex international tax environment.This approach is not about chasing loopholes—it’s about building durable, defensible outcomes.🔎 The Three Pillars of Modern Tax Advice1️⃣ Tax ResidenceTax residence remains the single most powerful connecting factor in personal taxation.Key considerations include: • Selecting (or relinquishing) residence deliberately, not accidentally • Understanding center-of-life, substance, and tie-breaker rules • Accepting that mobility without substance is increasingly ineffectiveFor many clients, the most important tax decision is not what structure to use, but where to be resident—and why.2️⃣ Asset Holding StructuresHow assets are held is now as important as where the individual lives.Del Canto emphasizes: • Trusts, foundations, and corporate vehicles • Use of well-regulated, reputable jurisdictions • A move away from aggressive “tax haven” narratives toward legal certainty and substanceThe objective is risk management, not opacity—structures must withstand regulatory, judicial, and reputational scrutiny.3️⃣ Source and Type of IncomeNot all income is taxed equally—and classification matters more than ever.Effective planning focuses on: • Structuring income streams to be inherently tax-efficient • Distinguishing between salary, dividends, capital gains, and retained earnings • Aligning income type with the tax profile of the individual’s residenceFor example, in some jurisdictions capital gains may be exempt or lightly taxed, while employment income is fully exposed—making income characterisation a critical planning lever.🎯 Key TakeawayThe future of tax advice is foundational, not tactical.Successful advisors will: • Anchor planning in residence first • Build structures for substance and longevity • Align income type with jurisdictional realityIn a world of transparency and coordination, simple but well-aligned planning now outperforms complex but fragile strategies.

As global tax policy shifts toward greater scrutiny of private wealth, advising high-net-worth individuals with international assets requires a fundamentally different approach. In this episode, we outline the three core pillars that Fernando Del Canto consistently emphasizes when preparing clients for this new environment.These principles are increasingly relevant across Spain, the UK, and the wider European Union.🔎 The Three Priority Areas for HNWIs1️⃣ Economic SubstanceStructures must reflect genuine economic reality, not artificial arrangements designed solely for tax outcomes.Recent rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have reinforced a clear message: • Form without substance is vulnerable • Control, decision-making, and activity matter • Paper residency and nominal structures are increasingly challengedFor internationally mobile families, substance now underpins the durability of any planning.2️⃣ Proactive ComplianceWaiting for enforcement is no longer a viable strategy.Del Canto stresses the importance of: • Anticipating legislative and regulatory change • Reviewing structures before they are challenged • Aligning planning with the direction of travel, not just current lawIn an environment of expanding audits and cross-border cooperation, early compliance reduces both financial and reputational risk.3️⃣ TransparencyTransparency is no longer optional—it is structural.High-net-worth individuals must adapt to: • Expanded reporting obligations • Automatic exchange of financial and asset information • Increased coordination between tax authoritiesThe focus has shifted from whether information is disclosed to how it is explained and supported.🌍 Where These Themes Are Playing OutDel Canto frequently applies this framework when analysing: • Spanish tax reforms, particularly around wealth and succession • UK tax enforcement, including residence and domicile scrutiny • The broader EU tax landscape, shaped by CJEU jurisprudence and coordinated policy initiativesAcross all three, the same message emerges: substance, compliance, and transparency now determine outcomes.🎯 Key TakeawayFor high-net-worth individuals with international exposure, the next phase of tax planning is not about secrecy or complexity—it is about resilience.• Substance must match structure • Compliance must be proactive, not reactive • Transparency must be managed, not fearedAdvisors who integrate these three pillars are best positioned to help clients navigate the new era of private wealth taxation.

Beyond Pillar One and Pillar Two, a new concept is beginning to surface in global tax policy discussions: an informal “Pillar Three”—focused not on multinational corporations, but on private wealth and mobile individuals.In this episode, we explore how this emerging framework is being articulated, drawing on insights highlighted by Fernando Del Canto, and why it may represent the next frontier in international taxation.🔎 What a “Pillar Three” Could Look Like1️⃣ Minimum Global Wealth TaxesA central feature of this emerging pillar would be a coordinated approach to taxing accumulated wealth, rather than focusing exclusively on annual income.Key implications include: • Net wealth as a standalone tax base • Reduced reliance on realization events • Greater scrutiny of asset holdings across bordersThis would mirror the logic of Pillar Two—but applied to individuals instead of corporations.2️⃣ Harmonised Inheritance and Succession RulesAnother likely component is greater alignment of inheritance and gift tax frameworks across jurisdictions.The objective would be to: • Reduce arbitrage between national systems • Limit avoidance through migration shortly before death • Improve transparency around cross-border estatesThis would not require identical tax rates—but rather converging rules on scope, reporting, and connecting factors.3️⃣ Anti–“Tax Nomad” MeasuresA Pillar Three framework would almost certainly include stronger measures targeting highly mobile individuals whose primary motivation for relocation is tax avoidance.Expected features include: • Enhanced center-of-life and economic substance tests • Coordinated exit taxes and trailing tax liabilities • Reduced effectiveness of short-term or purely formal relocationsThe emphasis shifts from where someone claims to live to where their life and wealth are actually anchored.🎯 Why This MattersPillar Three would represent a philosophical shift in global taxation:• From income → to wealth • From corporations → to individuals • From formal residence → to economic realityWhile still conceptual, the direction of travel is clear: private wealth and mobility are becoming systemic policy targets, not edge cases.🎧 Key TakeawayPillar Three is not yet law—but it reflects a growing consensus that global tax coordination cannot stop at corporations.For HNWIs, families, and advisors, this signals: • Increased long-term scrutiny of wealth structures • Fewer safe havens based on mobility alone • The need for planning grounded in substance, transparency, and durabilityThe era of global tax reform may be entering its third phase.

Digital nomads once thrived in the gaps between tax systems. Built around physical presence and permanent residence, traditional tax rules struggled to keep up with a workforce that could earn globally while living temporarily almost anywhere. That era is ending.In this episode, we explore why governments are now actively targeting digital nomads—and how the regulatory “gray zone” is being closed.🔎 Why Digital Nomads Disrupted the System1️⃣ No Fixed WorkplaceTraditional tax systems assume work is performed in a specific country. Digital nomads often work entirely online, with no physical office and no clear “place of work.”2️⃣ Economic Ties Spread Across BordersNomads may: • Earn income from clients in one country • Hold bank accounts in another • Live temporarily in a thirdThis fragmentation made it difficult for any single jurisdiction to assert taxing rights.3️⃣ Long Stays Without Tax ResidencyThrough tourist visas or newer digital nomad visas (DNVs), individuals could remain in a country for extended periods while technically avoiding tax residence—sometimes for years.The result was a regulatory blind spot where income often went untaxed.🔄 What’s Changing NowGovernments are no longer tolerating this ambiguity. Instead, they are:• Tightening tax residency rules and “center-of-life” tests • Linking visa regimes more closely to tax compliance • Expanding definitions of source and personal income • Increasing information sharing between tax authorities • Scrutinising lifestyle, presence, and economic substance—not just formal statusWhat was once informality is now being reframed as non-compliance.🎯 Key TakeawayThe digital nomad “gray zone” is closing fast.For individuals: • Low-tax outcomes based on mobility alone are becoming harder to sustain • Tax exposure increasingly follows presence, benefit, and economic realityFor governments: • Mobile workers represent a reclaimable tax base • Digital nomad regimes are shifting from attraction tools to compliance gatewaysDigital mobility is no longer invisible—and tax planning based on ambiguity is rapidly becoming obsolete.

Tax authorities around the world are quietly—but decisively—redefining what counts as private income. In this episode, we explore how governments are moving beyond traditional notions of salary and wages toward broader “economic substance” frameworks designed to capture income generated through modern wealth structures.This evolution reflects deep structural changes in how wealth is created, held, and monetised in a globalised and digital economy.🔎 What’s Driving the Expansion?1️⃣ From Salary to Economic SubstanceHistorically, private income was closely associated with employment income. That model is increasingly outdated.Tax authorities are now focusing on economic reality, not labels—asking where value is created, who controls it, and who ultimately benefits.2️⃣ New Categories of Income Under ScrutinyExpanded definitions of private income increasingly encompass:• Digital assets (including crypto-related income and digital platforms) • Rental and property income, including short-term and cross-border arrangements • Private investment vehicles, family holding companies, and SPVs • Distributed or retained income within closely held structuresIncome that once sat outside clear tax categories is now being systematically brought into scope.3️⃣ Complex Family and Holding StructuresFamily offices, trusts, foundations, and layered corporate structures are receiving greater attention—particularly where income is: • Accumulated rather than distributed • Recharacterised as capital rather than income • Allocated across jurisdictionsThe focus has shifted from formal ownership to control, benefit, and access.4️⃣ Why This MattersThis expanded approach has significant implications:• Individuals may be taxed on income they did not previously regard as “personal” • Passive or deferred income may no longer escape current taxation • Substance, transparency, and documentation are becoming critical • Long-standing planning assumptions are being reassessed by authorities🎯 Key TakeawayThe definition of private income is no longer static. As tax systems adapt to modern wealth, income is being redefined to follow economic substance, not form.For high-net-worth individuals, families, and advisors, this means: • Broader tax exposure • Increased reporting obligations • The need for proactive, integrated planningWhat once sat in grey areas is now moving firmly into the tax base.

Real estate is increasingly at the center of wealth and gift taxation debates—and the implications reach far beyond tax rates alone. In this episode, we explore how real estate–linked wealth and gift taxes are reshaping succession planning, professional advisory work, and global competition between jurisdictions.🔎 What This Shift Means in Practice1️⃣ For HNWIs & FamiliesThe era of effortless dynastic wealth transfer is over.Succession planning involving real estate is now: • More complex — crossing tax, civil law, and regulatory systems • More expensive — valuation, compliance, and liquidity planning are unavoidable • More long-term — planning horizons are measured in decades, not yearsFamilies must increasingly confront difficult questions around: • Control and governance • Liquidity to fund future tax liabilities • Timing of transfers • Inter-generational alignmentReal estate, once seen as a “safe” asset to pass down, now demands active, ongoing planning.2️⃣ For Advisors (Lawyers, Wealth Managers, Fiduciaries)Demand for sophisticated cross-border estate planning is accelerating rapidly.The advisor’s role has evolved from: ➡️ Pure tax minimisation to ➡️ Holistic risk managementThis includes: • Navigating expanding reporting and transparency regimes • Ensuring liquidity for wealth, inheritance, or gift taxes • Coordinating tax law with succession, governance, and family dynamics • Structuring assets to withstand legal, regulatory, and family challengesAdvisors are now expected to act as strategic architects, not just technical specialists.3️⃣ For Jurisdictions: A New Competitive LandscapeA new form of competition is emerging between countries.While some jurisdictions debate or introduce higher wealth-related taxes—such as proposals in the United States or discussions in the United Kingdom—others are actively positioning themselves as “Wealth Preservation Hubs.”Examples include: • Singapore and Switzerland, which do not levy inheritance tax on certain foreign assets or non-resident families • Italy, with its flat-tax regime for new residents • The United States, which—despite a high federal estate tax—remains attractive due to strong legal certainty and dynasty trust regimes in states such as South Dakota and NevadaCapital is increasingly mobile, and jurisdictions are competing not just on tax rates, but on legal stability, planning flexibility, and long-term certainty.🎯 Key TakeawayWealth and gift taxes on real estate are no longer niche concerns—they are structural features of modern fiscal policy.• Families must plan earlier, deeper, and more collaboratively • Advisors must integrate tax, law, liquidity, and governance • Jurisdictions are competing for mobile wealth through legal design, not secrecyThe common thread: real estate wealth now requires strategy, not assumption.

After decades of retreat, wealth taxes are making a comeback. Once common across advanced economies, net wealth taxes nearly disappeared by 2020—surviving in only a handful of countries. Today, however, shifting political priorities, fiscal pressure, and rising inequality are driving a renewed global debate.This episode explores why wealth taxes are returning, how they are being redesigned, and what the evidence says about their impact.🔎 The Big PictureWealth taxes—direct levies on an individual’s net assets—peaked in the 1990s, when 12 OECD countries applied them. By 2020, only Norway, Spain, and Switzerland retained a net wealth tax.That period of decline is now ending. Policymakers are again viewing wealth taxation as a viable—and politically salient—tool.📊 Key Findings & Debates1️⃣ Revenue PotentialEconomic modelling suggests that a 4% “Wealth Proceeds Tax” could raise more than USD 45 billion annually for U.S. state governments—highlighting why the concept has regained traction.2️⃣ Focus on Unrealised GainsRecent U.S. federal proposals include: • A 25% minimum tax on unrealised gains • Targeted at individuals with net wealth above USD 100 millionThis represents a significant conceptual shift away from realisation-based taxation.3️⃣ State-Level AdoptionAt the sub-national level, several U.S. states are considering “millionaire taxes”, typically structured as: • Income surtaxes • Applied to earnings above high-income thresholdsWhile not classic wealth taxes, they reflect the same policy objective: greater taxation of top wealth holders.4️⃣ Economic CriticismCritics argue that wealth taxes: • May discourage investment and entrepreneurship • Are costly and complex to administer • Often raise less revenue than projected once avoidance, valuation issues, and behavioral responses are factored inThese concerns contributed to their earlier repeal in many countries.5️⃣ Democratic RationaleSupporters counter that wealth taxation is necessary to: • Sustain public finances • Reduce reliance on labor and consumption taxes • Address the political and economic power associated with extreme wealth concentrationFrom this perspective, wealth taxes are framed as tools of democratic balance, not just revenue collection.🎯 Key TakeawayThe return of wealth taxes signals one of the most consequential shifts in modern fiscal policy. Whether through net wealth taxes, unrealised gains, or high-income surtaxes, governments are clearly moving toward greater scrutiny of accumulated wealth.For high-net-worth individuals and advisors, the direction of travel is unmistakable: wealth—not just income—is back on the tax agenda.

A profound shift is underway in global fiscal policy. After decades of declining emphasis on wealth taxes, governments are renewing and intensifying their focus on taxing private wealth. This change reflects mounting inequality, post-pandemic fiscal strain, and unprecedented levels of international tax coordination.In this episode, we unpack why wealth is moving to the center of the tax debate—and why this shift looks structural rather than temporary.🔎 Key Drivers Behind the Shift1️⃣ Rising Inequality and Political PressureIn the post-pandemic period, wealth concentration has accelerated, with the top 1% capturing a disproportionate share of new wealth. This has fueled public and political pressure for redistribution, reflected in movements such as “tax the rich” and in proposals advanced by figures like Elizabeth Warren in the United States and Thomas Piketty in Europe.The political narrative increasingly frames wealth taxation as a question of fairness and legitimacy, not just revenue.2️⃣ Post-Pandemic Fiscal NeedsGovernments are now managing: • Historically high public debt from COVID-19 stimulus • Major new spending demands linked to the climate transition, defense, and aging populationsAgainst this backdrop, wealth taxes are seen as a way to raise revenue without significantly increasing taxes on labor or consumption, which are often politically sensitive.3️⃣ Erosion of Traditional Tax BasesGlobalization and digitalization have weakened the effectiveness of corporate income taxation, as profits can be shifted across borders with relative ease.By contrast, private wealth—particularly real estate, financial assets, and ownership interests—is often: • Less mobile • More visible • Easier to connect to individualsThis makes wealth a more attractive and stable tax base for governments.4️⃣ International Coordination Is Reducing EvasionRecent international initiatives have significantly changed the enforcement landscape, including: • The OECD’s Pillar Two global minimum tax • The Common Reporting Standard (CRS) for automatic exchange of financial informationLed by bodies such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, these frameworks have reduced opportunities for concealment and increased transparency—making broader wealth taxation administratively and politically more feasible.🎯 Key TakeawayThe renewed focus on private wealth taxation is not a short-term political experiment. It reflects: • Structural fiscal pressures • Strong public demand • Improved enforcement tools • Greater international coordinationFor high-net-worth individuals and advisors, this signals a future where wealth—not just income—will be under sustained scrutiny.

The OECD’s Pillar One and Pillar Two reforms represent the most significant overhaul of international corporate taxation in decades. In this episode, we explain what each pillar does, who it affects, and why it matters, particularly in a world shaped by digital business models and globalised markets.Developed under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the two pillars aim to modernise how multinational enterprises (MNEs) are taxed and to reduce harmful tax competition between jurisdictions.🔎 What You’ll Learn in This Episode1️⃣ Pillar One: Reallocating Taxing RightsPillar One addresses the challenge of taxing highly digitalised and consumer-facing MNEs that can generate significant profits in a country without a physical presence.• Amount A This reallocates a portion of residual profits of the largest and most profitable MNEs to market jurisdictions—where customers or users are located—even if the company has no permanent establishment there.• Amount B Amount B introduces a simplified and standardised return for baseline marketing and distribution activities. Its purpose is to reduce transfer-pricing disputes and ease compliance, particularly for jurisdictions with limited administrative capacity.2️⃣ Pillar Two: The Global Minimum TaxPillar Two establishes a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% for MNEs with annual consolidated revenue of at least EUR 750 million.Where profits in a jurisdiction are taxed below the minimum rate, a top-up tax applies to bridge the gap.Key mechanisms include:• Income Inclusion Rule (IIR) – top-up tax at the parent entity level • Undertaxed Profits Rule (UTPR) – backstop rule allocating tax where income is undertaxed • Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax (QDMTT) – allows countries to collect the top-up tax domesticallyThe objective is to curb profit shifting and base erosion, ensuring that large MNEs pay a minimum level of tax regardless of where they operate.3️⃣ How the Two Pillars Work TogetherWhile often discussed together, the pillars address different problems:• Pillar One reallocates taxing rights • Pillar Two sets a minimum tax floorTogether, they seek to rebalance the international tax system between residence jurisdictions, market jurisdictions, and low-tax jurisdictions.4️⃣ Implementation StatusBoth pillars are being rolled out through a mix of: • Multilateral conventions • Domestic legislation • EU directives (in the case of Pillar Two)At the same time, technical details continue to evolve, and implementation timelines and political support vary across jurisdictions.🎯 Key TakeawayPillar One and Pillar Two are reshaping international corporate taxation by: • Expanding taxing rights beyond physical presence • Establishing a global minimum effective tax rate • Reducing opportunities for aggressive tax planningFor MNEs, advisors, and policymakers, understanding both the mechanics and the policy intent is now essential.

In cross-border gift planning, the biggest mistakes rarely come from complex law—they come from misalignment. In this episode, we explain why the most significant risk is failing to connect the civil-law act of making the gift with its tax consequences for the recipient.🔎 What You’ll Learn in This Episode:1️⃣ The Core Risk: Legal vs Tax DisconnectProblems often arise when parties focus on executing the gift legally—signing documents, transferring funds, or handing over assets—without fully analysing how the gift will be taxed in the recipient’s jurisdiction.A gift can be perfectly valid in civil law and still produce unexpected tax exposure.2️⃣ The Factors Most Commonly OverlookedCross-border issues typically stem from ignoring one or more of the following: • Tax residence of the recipient (and sometimes the donor) • Location (situs) of the asset • Valuation rules applied at the time of taxation • Disclosure and reporting obligations, even where no tax is dueEach of these can independently trigger tax—or penalties—if not addressed upfront.3️⃣ Why the Recipient Is Often the One at RiskIn many jurisdictions, gift tax is imposed on the recipient, not the donor. As a result, errors made during planning or documentation frequently materialise later as assessments, penalties, or denied reliefs for the donee.4️⃣ Why This Happens So OftenCross-border gifts sit at the intersection of: • Civil law • Tax law • Conflict-of-law rulesWhen these are analysed in isolation instead of together, outcomes can diverge sharply from expectations.5️⃣ Practical TakeawayThe main risk in international gift planning is not complexity—it’s incomplete analysis. Effective planning requires aligning: • The legal mechanics of the gift • The tax rules of each relevant jurisdiction • The reporting and valuation frameworkFailing to do so is one of the most common causes of surprise tax bills in cross-border family transfers.This episode highlights why successful cross-border gift planning is less about clever structuring—and more about holistic coordination between law, tax, and facts.

Yes—and this is one of the most common (and misunderstood) risks in cross-border gifting. In this episode, we explain how and why double taxation can arise on a single gift, and why managing that risk is often more complex than for income or capital gains.🔎 What You’ll Learn in This Episode:1️⃣ Why Double Taxation Happens With GiftsDifferent countries may assert taxing rights over the same gift based on different connecting factors, including: • Residence of the donor • Residence of the recipient • Location (situs) of the gifted assetWhen these criteria overlap across jurisdictions, multiple tax claims can arise simultaneously.2️⃣ Why Gift Tax Is Different From Income TaxUnlike income tax, treaty protection for inter vivos gifts is very limited. Most double tax treaties: • Do not cover gifts at all, or • Address only inheritances (and even then, incompletely)As a result, there is often no treaty-based relief mechanism to eliminate double taxation.3️⃣ The Role of Domestic LawBecause treaty relief is usually unavailable, advisers must rely primarily on: • Domestic tax law exemptions and credits • Territorial vs worldwide taxation rules • Timing, classification, and documentation of the giftOutcomes can differ significantly depending on how each jurisdiction’s internal rules interact.4️⃣ European Union ConsiderationsIn some cases, EU law principles—particularly the free movement of capital—may limit discriminatory treatment or allow access to reliefs that would otherwise be denied. However, EU law does not eliminate double taxation by default and applies only in specific circumstances.5️⃣ Practical TakeawayIn cross-border gifting: • Yes, the same gift can be taxed more than once • Treaty protection is usually not available • Prevention depends on careful planning under domestic law, not automatic relief • Early analysis of donor residence, donee residence, and asset location is essentialThis episode explains why gift taxation requires jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction analysis—and why assuming “there must be a treaty” is one of the most dangerous mistakes in international estate planning.

Not all gifts are created equal under French law. In this episode, we explain how informal or manual gifts—called donations manuelles—are treated for French gift tax purposes and why disclosure matters.🔎 What You’ll Learn in This Episode:1️⃣ What Are Donations Manuelles?Donations manuelles are informal gifts made without a notarial deed, such as: • Cash gifts handed directly to a beneficiary • Personal property transferred without formal documentation2️⃣ When Are They Taxable?Unlike notarised gifts, these manual gifts become taxable only when they are disclosed to the French tax authorities. Disclosure can occur via: • Declaration in a registered document • Formal recognition by a court3️⃣ How Is Tax Calculated?The gift tax is generally based on the market value of the asset at the time of disclosure, not at the time of transfer.This ensures fair taxation while allowing some flexibility for informal gifting—though delays in declaration can carry risks.4️⃣ Legal BasisRules are set under Article 757 of the Code général des impôts and reinforced through administrative guidance.5️⃣ Practical TakeawayEven informal gifts must be properly disclosed to avoid penalties. Planning ahead and understanding disclosure requirements is key for anyone giving or receiving manual gifts in France.This episode helps listeners navigate one of France’s more nuanced gift-tax rules, balancing flexibility with compliance.

When neither the donor nor the recipient is fiscally domiciled in France, French gift tax applies on a strictly territorial basis. In this episode, we break down exactly when France can still tax the gift—and when it cannot.🔎 What You’ll Learn in This Episode:1️⃣ The Starting Point: No French ResidenceWhere both parties are non-residents, France does not apply worldwide gift taxation.➡️ The analysis turns entirely on where the asset is located.2️⃣ Assets That Can Still Be TaxedFrench gift tax applies only to assets with a French situs, typically including: • French real estate • Certain movable assets located in FranceIn these cases, the gift may still fall within the French tax net, even though both parties live abroad.3️⃣ Assets That Are Fully Outside French TaxIf the gifted asset is located outside France: • The gift falls entirely outside the French gift tax system • No French gift tax appliesResidence alone is not enough—territorial connection is required.4️⃣ Legal BasisThis territorial limitation is expressly set out in Articles 750 ter and 757 of the Code général des impôts.5️⃣ Practical TakeawayWhen both donor and donee are non-residents: • French-situs asset → French gift tax may apply • Foreign-situs asset → No French gift taxCorrectly identifying the location of the asset is therefore the decisive step.This episode highlights a rare area of certainty in French gift taxation—showing how territorial limits apply cleanly when France has no personal tax connection to either party.

French gift tax rules change depending on who is resident and where the asset is located. In this episode, we explain when France taxes gifts made by French residents to non-resident recipients—and why documentation still matters even when the tax scope is limited.🔎 What You’ll Learn in This Episode:1️⃣ The Key Rule: Asset LocationWhen a French-resident donor makes a gift to a non-resident recipient, French gift tax applies only if the gifted asset is located in France.➡️ France follows a territorial approach in this specific scenario.2️⃣ Who Pays the TaxWhere French gift tax applies because the asset is located in France: • The recipient (donee) is the taxable person • The donor is not assessed for gift taxThis allocation reflects the structure of Articles 757 and 777 of the Code général des impôts.3️⃣ Why Documentation Still MattersEven though the donor is not taxed, they should ensure the gift is: • Properly documented • Formally executed (where required) • Supported by clear valuation evidenceThis is particularly important for high-value assets, where disputes may arise over the nature of the transfer or the value declared.4️⃣ Practical TakeawayFor gifts from French residents to non-residents: • French-situs asset → French gift tax may apply (recipient pays) • Foreign-situs asset → No French gift tax • Strong documentation reduces risk, even when tax exposure is limitedThis episode clarifies a commonly misunderstood corner of French gift taxation—helping families and advisors apply the rules accurately and avoid preventable disputes.

Yes—and this often catches families by surprise. In this episode, we explain why France can tax a gift on a worldwide basis even when the donor lives abroad, and why the recipient’s residence is decisive.🔎 What You’ll Learn in This Episode:1️⃣ The Trigger: Recipient’s Fiscal DomicileUnder Article 750 ter of the Code général des impôts, France taxes gifts on a worldwide basis when the recipient is fiscally domiciled in France.➡️ Even if the donor is non-resident, the gift falls within the French tax net once the donee is resident in France.2️⃣ Asset Location Is IrrelevantIn this scenario, where the asset is located does not matter. French or foreign assets, cash or non-cash—all can be taxable when received by a French-resident donee.3️⃣ Why This Rule Is So BroadFrance prioritizes personal connections (fiscal domicile of donor or recipient) over territoriality. This makes the system expansive and places significant weight on residence planning.4️⃣ Practical TakeawayFor cross-border gifts involving France: • French-resident recipient → worldwide taxation risk • Donor residence and asset location do not prevent taxationConfirming the recipient’s fiscal domicile is therefore the first step in any French gift-tax analysis.This episode clarifies why France’s gift-tax reach is among the broadest in Europe—and why international families must factor recipient residence into every gifting decision.

France takes a markedly different approach to gift taxation compared with many other countries. In this episode, we explain when France taxes gifts on a worldwide basis, what triggers that exposure, and why donor residence is the key factor.🔎 What You’ll Learn in This Episode:1️⃣ The Core Rule: Donor’s Tax ResidenceFrance applies worldwide gift taxation when the donor is fiscally domiciled in France.Under Article 750 ter of the Code général des impôts, once a person is considered a French tax resident, all gifts they make may fall within the French gift tax net.➡️ This applies regardless of: • Where the gifted assets are located • Where the recipient lives2️⃣ What “Worldwide” Means in PracticeIf the donor is resident in France: • Gifts of French assets → taxable • Gifts of foreign assets → potentially taxable • Gifts to French or non-French recipients → potentially taxableThis makes France one of the more expansive systems in terms of gift tax scope.3️⃣ Why This Is a Key Feature of the French SystemUnlike territorial systems that focus on asset location or recipient residence, France places primary weight on the donor’s fiscal domicile. As a result, donor residence planning is often decisive in cross-border family wealth transfers.4️⃣ Practical TakeawayFor gifts connected to France: • French-resident donor → worldwide taxation risk • Non-resident donor → different (and more limited) rules applyCorrectly determining the donor’s tax residence is therefore the first and most critical step in analysing French gift tax exposure.This episode highlights why France stands apart in gift taxation—and why international families must treat donor residence as a central planning variable.

A common misconception is that Portugal only taxes gifts when one of the parties lives there. In this episode, we explain what actually matters when both the donor and the recipient are non-residents—and why asset location remains decisive.🔎 What You’ll Learn in This Episode:1️⃣ Residence Is Not the Deciding FactorEven where neither the donor nor the donee is resident in Portugal, Portuguese Stamp Duty may still apply.➡️ The key question is where the gifted asset is located.2️⃣ When Stamp Duty Can Still ApplyIf the gifted asset is located in Portuguese territory: • The gift may fall within the Portuguese Stamp Duty system • Family exemptions may still apply under Article 6(e) of the Código do Imposto do SeloThis means that qualifying transfers between close family members can remain tax-exempt, even in fully non-resident scenarios.3️⃣ When No Stamp Duty Applies at AllWhere the gifted asset is located outside Portugal: • The gift falls entirely outside the Portuguese Stamp Duty regime • No Stamp Duty applies, regardless of the residence of the donor or recipientThis territorial limitation is expressly confirmed by Article 4(3) of the Código do Imposto do Selo.4️⃣ Practical TakeawayFor gifts involving two non-residents: • Asset in Portugal → Stamp Duty rules apply (with possible family exemptions) • Asset outside Portugal → No Portuguese Stamp Duty, full stopUnderstanding this distinction helps avoid unnecessary filings and ensures correct application of exemptions.This episode reinforces a central theme of Portuguese gift taxation: asset location matters more than tax residence, even when both parties live abroad.

When a Portuguese resident makes a gift to someone living abroad, a common question arises: does Portugal charge Stamp Duty because the donor is resident? In this episode, we clarify when Stamp Duty applies—and who is liable under Portuguese law.🔎 What You’ll Learn in This Episode:1️⃣ The Key Rule: Asset Location Comes FirstUnder Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Código do Imposto do Selo, Stamp Duty is due only if the gifted asset is located in Portugal.➡️ Portugal’s system focuses on where the asset is, not on where the donor or recipient lives.2️⃣ Who Pays the Stamp DutyWhere Stamp Duty applies because the asset is located in Portugal: • The recipient (donee) is the person liable for the tax • The Portuguese-resident donor is not taxedThis allocation of liability is consistent across gratuitous transfers.3️⃣ Gifts of Assets Located Outside PortugalIf the gifted asset is located outside Portugal: • The gift falls outside the Portuguese Stamp Duty system • No Stamp Duty is due, even though the donor is Portuguese resident4️⃣ Practical TakeawayFor gifts from Portuguese residents to non-residents: • Portuguese-situs asset → Stamp Duty may apply (recipient pays) • Foreign-situs asset → No Portuguese Stamp DutyCorrectly identifying the location of the asset is therefore essential.This episode explains why asset location—not tax residence—drives Stamp Duty on gifts in Portugal, helping donors and recipients avoid incorrect assumptions and filings.