pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: IRS Withholding Taxes for non U.S. Submitters  (Read 116571 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #275 on: May 31, 2009, 18:23 »
0
Could it be that most critics of the US withholding tax have never before declared their income to their local fiscal authorities and for the first time realize that microstock is a business and that tax fraud is a crime?

Withholding taxes do exist in a lot of countries and you get back overpaid amounts when filling out your yearly tax declaration.  Why should a honest taxpayer have a problem with that?

I can only speak for myself here, but I had a major problem with it and withdrew my gallery, and my account from SS. I am an honest Irish taxpayer, I have a company here which involves twice monthly VAT statements to revenue (+ cheque), and an annual tax return.. for me to register for tax in a foreign country on money I already pay tax on in Ireland, is ridiculous to me, the fact that I would have to give a notarised copy of my passport to that foreign country, and they would be furnished by SS with my financial info too to get OUT of paying tax twice, was too much for me. I already gave SS a copy of my passport when I joined, and that's all anyone gets out of me.

For all anyone knows, you will have to now do a second annual tax return for the US if you have a registered tax number, or what happens if you stop making money, do you have to prove to them you're not undertaking activities in their country? This will come back to bite everyone in the bum believe me, SS is not worth it to bring yourself to the attention of US revenue.. so I just had to say that because you're wrong in your assumption. In many cases it is the people who are already paying tax in their income in their own country that are most pissed off..


« Reply #276 on: May 31, 2009, 20:29 »
0
Add to that people such as myself who would be paying tax on gross income with no way to claim expenses given the current level of business I'm doing. I'm currently running at a loss while I invest in growing my portfolio (not on SS, thankfull). Why should I pay tax on gross when I'm running at a loss?

« Reply #277 on: May 31, 2009, 22:49 »
0
I'm actually surprised more people weren't banned.  The level of outrage over something SS has no control over, plus the ensuing misinformation that was being spread, was pretty ridiculous and very unprofessional on the part of some of the contributors.  Thank goodness calmer heads prevailed over here at Microstockgroup where accurate information can be shared. 


SS do have control over it, Jon could move the company offshore like all his competition, then the problem would go away. This issus is probably the reason why the majority of MS agencies aren't located in the US. You have to feel for those who live in non treaty countries, loosing 30% of bugger all really would make one question the worth of joing SS.


From what i gather, and to the best of my knowledge of the information available, and conceding that i may be incorrect.... SS have confirmed in their forum that they are not considering the option of opening an offshore office. However, please check SS official policy with regard to this - I cannot make claims about the factual accuracy of this information.

Hi Lucy, sorry to see you were silenced at SS Is that permanent?

Yes, I read somewhere that SS won't be setting up off-shore offices. The problem is, if the IRS perceives that a new office was set up to avoid taxation, they will charge SS with tax evasion. Which would probably put SS out of business. If SS had opened an office somewhere else BEFORE all this mess, then it would not have the "appearance" of evading taxes. But it's too late now.


The days of using tax havens is becoming riskier.  Most countries have anti treaty shopping rules written into their tax treaties so they can prosecute and fine companies which try to set up shop in another country to avoid having their payees pay taxes on royalty income. The US in particular is taking strong actions to clamp down on countries which serve as tax havens. 

http://www.law.com/jsp/law/international/LawArticleIntl.jsp?id=1202430980122

Maybe Jon would prefer to stay out of jail, so that we can all continue to make the money we have enjoyed by working with a US company over the years.

I am surprised that most people do not grasp the concept that most industrialized countries have tax treaties and each of those countries has the right to exercise their rights under those treaties to charge tax's on the royalty payments which arise in their country. 

It looks like the time has come for microstock to pay the tax piper.

« Last Edit: May 31, 2009, 23:05 by gbalex »

« Reply #278 on: June 01, 2009, 00:15 »
0
Could it be that most critics of the US withholding tax have never before declared their income to their local fiscal authorities and for the first time realize that microstock is a business and that tax fraud is a crime?

Withholding taxes do exist in a lot of countries and you get back overpaid amounts when filling out your yearly tax declaration.  Why should a honest taxpayer have a problem with that?

I have a problem with paying tax in a country where I don't live. The country that should receive my tax money is the one where I use the hospitals, the roads and other public services.

« Reply #279 on: June 01, 2009, 02:12 »
0

« Reply #280 on: June 01, 2009, 02:17 »
0

It looks like the time has come for microstock to pay the tax piper.

The submitters are being asked to dance in this particular waltz.  

We will have to be paying the piper, which is a bit annoying because i definitely prefer much more contemporary music - although i must say that moroccan flamenco really has some lovely pipes.

Does anyone know the ratio of small submitters in microstock at the moment?  This will primarily affect them.  Ethical reasons aside, the practical costs involved (including the length of time) will deter many from submitting to the US sites.

Will the other US sites follow suit?  Is this just SS - or is the IRS sharpening up its tax clawback claws in general?  Won't ultimately this affect the US stock industry detrimentally?

Will non-US suppliers consider US-based stock sites to be at a competitive disadvantage due to the time-consuming and expensive paperwork involved?  Could this lead to vast drop in US-based sites stock portfolios? - as this the opportunity for non-US sites need to enter the market aggressively?

Could ultimately this IRS measure harm US industry itself? I really don't know - but they're very intriguing questions....

I bet the non-US sites are gonna be making all the hay they can while this particular sun in shining.

I personally, as a supplier, would like to work in partnership with the US sites in order to find solutions that will benefit all.

x




« Reply #281 on: June 01, 2009, 02:42 »
0
I'm actually surprised more people weren't banned.  The level of outrage over something SS has no control over, plus the ensuing misinformation that was being spread, was pretty ridiculous and very unprofessional on the part of some of the contributors.  Thank goodness calmer heads prevailed over here at Microstockgroup where accurate information can be shared. 

SS do have control over it, Jon could move the company offshore like all his competition, then the problem would go away. This issus is probably the reason why the majority of MS agencies aren't located in the US. You have to feel for those who live in non treaty countries, loosing 30% of bugger all really would make one question the worth of joing SS.

From what i gather, and to the best of my knowledge of the information available, and conceding that i may be incorrect.... SS have confirmed in their forum that they are not considering the option of opening an offshore office. However, please check SS official policy with regard to this - I cannot make claims about the factual accuracy of this information.
Hi Lucy, sorry to see you were silenced at SS Is that permanent?

Yes, I read somewhere that SS won't be setting up off-shore offices. The problem is, if the IRS perceives that a new office was set up to avoid taxation, they will charge SS with tax evasion. Which would probably put SS out of business. If SS had opened an office somewhere else BEFORE all this mess, then it would not have the "appearance" of evading taxes. But it's too late now.

That's not smart business, they will probably loose all their non tax treaty submitters, who want's to work for maybe 12-15 cents an image, it wouldn't be tax evasion it would be moving the business offshore like a number of other internet companies have done in recent years for this very reason, he could even shift to Canada and have parties with the boys and girls at IS. SS should have been made aware of this issue when they started up, it's just incompetance on the behalf of their tax advisers that this was missed.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2009, 02:47 by KiwiRob »

« Reply #282 on: June 01, 2009, 02:45 »
0
The CEO rant post has been removed.
Thats hilarious :)

Perhaps he was banned  ;D

lol

I reckon it was like a movie.  (i hope i don't get in trouble with the irs for this : )

The staff of shutterstock - eyes dim with exhaustion, now almost too passive to care - confined in a tiny room by the IRS.  There are no windows - and all the staff can see is their tired and broken reflections in the two-way mirror. After 6 weeks, all they want to do is sleep.

Papers are thrown in their faces - questions are shouted - threats are made - the IRS is the LAW; the IRS has the BEST lawyers, the BEST advice, and the POWER to close anyone down and cripple them financially for the rest of their lives.

Maybe they struggled, maybe they did their best... we don't know because they didnt tell us. We don't know what happened before the announcement...

In the beginning i was disappointed with their reaction - but, if the movies are anything to go by,  its understandable if they freaked out by being poked by the big finger of the IRS.  Maybe SS didnt have time to formulate a better policy because the IRS didn't give them time....

There was so much goodwill towards SS before this.  Maybe if we understood more the problems that they have faced, and can convince them we want to work with them and not against them, we can all work it out together.

(this is half naive speculation - maybe the IRS are supersweet so Im sorry if i've been slanderin' the taxman)


alias

« Reply #283 on: June 01, 2009, 04:45 »
0
Some misinformation and received opinion about, so called, Tax Havens is being subtly propagated on this thread by various posters. In some cases this seems almost like a sort of imperialism. In so much as it propagates the notion that countries with different tax regimes are somehow dodgy or shady.

Let's be absolutely clear about the facts. Switzerland is not tax haven. The UK is not a tax haven. The Netherlands is not a tax haven. Luxembourg is not a tax haven. Belgium is not a tax haven. Ireland is not a tax haven. I could go on. All of these countries and many others have variously been accused of being tax havens at different times.

The G20 countries have adopted the OECD standard. The OECD publishes lists of nations which do / do not meet international standards of transparency (and exchange of information). The OECD White List details countries which are not tax havens.

All of the nations on that list have been assessed against equivalent standards.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2009, 04:52 by alias »

« Reply #284 on: June 01, 2009, 05:12 »
0
well said alias

« Reply #285 on: June 01, 2009, 05:41 »
0

Let's be absolutely clear about the facts. Switzerland is not a tax haven.

That is debatable. But you should be aware that in Switzerland you have to pay withholding taxes just like in the US. Every foreigner owning some swiss stocks knows this. And compared to the US it is much more difficult and bureaucratic to get this money back.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #286 on: June 01, 2009, 07:08 »
0
Guys you can argue about countries trade laws day and night, fact is, go onto the istock website, read some of their help pages, find the one about tax, or witholding tax, and guess what it says. It says it's up to you to pay income tax to the country you reside in, and outside of that your income is not taxed by their country.

If they can do it, SS can do it. Full stop.

« Reply #287 on: June 01, 2009, 07:45 »
0
Guys you can argue about countries trade laws day and night, fact is, go onto the istock website, read some of their help pages, find the one about tax, or witholding tax, and guess what it says. It says it's up to you to pay income tax to the country you reside in, and outside of that your income is not taxed by their country.

If they can do it, SS can do it. Full stop.
I'm sure there are differences between the requirements of Revenue Canada and the IRS, but I'm not an expert.

And regarding tax havens, when people say "off-shore", I had a feeling they were talking about small Caribbean islands, not Switzerland or Ireland. But maybe I'm wrong about that.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2009, 07:48 by evan_ers »

alias

« Reply #288 on: June 01, 2009, 07:59 »
0
And regarding tax havens, when people say "off-shore", I had a feeling they were talking about small Caribbean islands, not Switzerland or Ireland. But maybe I'm wrong about that.

But there you are in danger effectively calling the Caribbean states, as a whole, tax havens. As if that was to almost imply a sort of shady criminality. Where as what you could do is follow the link to the OECD information which I posted above and actually get some solid information. The fact is that there are now very few nations which the OECD and the G20 (including Australia, the EU countries and the USA) actually considers to be tax havens. The term is almost redundant.

This term is actually normally used by one nation to make glib innuendo about another nation - normally for political reasons. So, for example, for a while various of the EU countries used to called London and Ireland tax havens. Now the Netherlands is often criticized. Often it is just about countries having more effective systems of generating income - or putting the emphasis on creating tax environments which promote business and therefore jobs.

It is a relative term. The US, for example, has a federal system. Should a company which moves to a lower tax state within the US be accused of tax evasion? Or an EU company which moves from France to the Netherlands?
« Last Edit: June 01, 2009, 08:06 by alias »

bittersweet

« Reply #289 on: June 01, 2009, 08:34 »
0
I have a problem with paying tax in a country where I don't live. The country that should receive my tax money is the one where I use the hospitals, the roads and other public services.

It could be argued that the income is generated from a US company utilizing US resources. Also, it seems laws like this are designed to give the impression that the US gov't is doing something to slow the tide of "US jobs going to foreigners" and check off their "promise kept" box, while in reality 'microstock photographer' isn't going to be one of the US jobs that would be supporting a middle-American family so it does more harm than good.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #290 on: June 01, 2009, 09:03 »
0
I have a problem with paying tax in a country where I don't live. The country that should receive my tax money is the one where I use the hospitals, the roads and other public services.

It could be argued that the income is generated from a US company utilizing US resources. Also, it seems laws like this are designed to give the impression that the US gov't is doing something to slow the tide of "US jobs going to foreigners" and check off their "promise kept" box, while in reality 'microstock photographer' isn't going to be one of the US jobs that would be supporting a middle-American family so it does more harm than good.

The income is generated by a company utilizing US resources that ALREADY pays tax on it's profits.. let's not forget that, SS still have to pay US revenue their own income tax!

« Reply #291 on: June 01, 2009, 09:12 »
0
Please forgive me if this has been covered but I read the first 6 or so pages and then skipped to the end.

1.  Why is SS doing this but other US based agencies aren't?  If you're going to collect money are you going to start with the account that owes you a million or the one that owes you 10,000?  Tax agencies aways go after the biggest fish first.

2.  I've seen mention of a phone number for the IRS but no mention of their website.  http://www.irs.gov  http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc857.html  Noticed that there was a new publication on this subject dated 5/17/2009.  Timing might have something to do with this.

3.  You might want to read the guidelines yourself or contact one of the IRS international offices.  http://www.irs.gov/localcontacts/article/0,,id=101292,00.html

I'm not a big Obama supporter and I thought it rather silly that he was appointing an Internet Czar but it they address issues like this then it might be a good thing.


« Reply #292 on: June 01, 2009, 12:52 »
0
Some misinformation and received opinion about, so called, Tax Havens is being subtly propagated on this thread by various posters. In some cases this seems almost like a sort of imperialism. In so much as it propagates the notion that countries with different tax regimes are somehow dodgy or shady.

Let's be absolutely clear about the facts. Switzerland is not tax haven. The UK is not a tax haven. The Netherlands is not a tax haven. Luxembourg is not a tax haven. Belgium is not a tax haven. Ireland is not a tax haven. I could go on. All of these countries and many others have variously been accused of being tax havens at different times.

The G20 countries have adopted the OECD standard. The OECD publishes lists of nations which do / do not meet international standards of transparency (and exchange of information). The OECD White List details countries which are not tax havens.

All of the nations on that list have been assessed against equivalent standards.


Recent developments at the G20

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/5090593/G20-summit-Sun-setting-on-tax-havens.html

"More progress has been achieved in the fight against tax havens in the last few weeks than over the past decade, OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurra said this week, adding that the economy should take the credit. At a time when governments need every tax dollar legally due to combat the world recession, such practices can no longer be tolerated.

Under mounting pressure, offending countries are finally being pulled into line. Six months ago, according to the OECD, 46 countries had no bilateral tax information exchange agreements in other words complete banking secrecy. Now, there are only about 15. This blacklist has been given to the G20, which may name and shame the offenders on Thursday.

Switzerland may be on the list but, in a historic move last month, it promised to co-operate with countries investigating tax evasion. Banking secrecy does not protect any form of tax offence, the Swiss government said in an attempt to marry its historic banking principles with the climbdown.

Switzerland, Monaco, Jersey, Guernsey, the British Virgin Isles, the Cayman Islands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Singapore, and all the many offshore centres that have recently signed bilateral agreements are not doing so out of a sense of public spirit. Victim countries are fighting back.

According to Jeffrey Owens, director of the OECDs centre for tax policy, countries are taking defensive measures to protect their tax base, which include the threat of rescinding existing treaties and denying the deductability of interest payments to non-co-operative jurisdictions. For countries like Singapore, which has 50 tax treaties with OECD countries, banking secrecy would be very expensive.

Stefan Jaecklin, a partner at Oliver Wyman, says: There is a realisation that retaliation can go beyond the financial sector. As countries are more globalised now, there are areas where their economies are open to retaliation.

Enforcement will be key. Seven years ago, 35 countries including Switzerland made a commitment to implement the OECDs standards of transparency and exchange of information. A lot of them did not act on their words, a spokesman said. G20 countries are now saying, 'Enough is enough you made the commitment and now you have to live up to it. "
« Last Edit: June 01, 2009, 13:05 by gbalex »

alias

« Reply #293 on: June 01, 2009, 13:52 »
0
Nice post. It is definitely all very positive and the whole issue is finally being put to rest. It's tremendously positive for emerging countries especially, I suspect, on the African continent.

The net effect of the standardization of economic accountability, may very well be that it encourages completely open tax competitiveness between nations. The OECD and the G20 have put in place a regime under which countries can openly compete to provide business friendly tax low tax environments without now being accused of being somehow shady.

The OECD white list and G20 recognition of the OECD standards have made the competitive tax jurisdictions respectable. On one hand it means and end to the old fashioned so called tax havens. On the other it means that they are now legit.

The OECD and the G20 (including the US) have recognized, finally, that there is actually nothing inherently wrong with tax competition. In the internet age that makes a lot of sense and is hugely positive for world economic growth.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2009, 13:54 by alias »

« Reply #294 on: June 01, 2009, 14:04 »
0
After all I feel my head will explode...

Let say stupid pharse "world is changing etc..." similar things but as I see in bad way...
Treaty or not treaty contributors are in the same trouble with costly SINECURE paperwork provided by IRS and that is the MAYOR problem.

Like seen in NationalGeogrphy documetary about sharks, Photographer and videographer are dropped down from the ship in cage and feed sharks "with they own smell or some bloody part of other annimals" to present easy bait for sharks.
For me next scene. Stupid sharks are try to chew CAGE because of smell and dont realize in their heads "How is something smelling so good and its not edible??? But as I seen from thousands of post that all of the crew in the cage is in danger because too many bars of cage is missing an shark will get from someone finger, and from someone hand anyway.
As I try to realize IRS has not intention or any efforts to make things simple.
Ccccc only 4 offices for all Europe for certifying documents + long and priggish reviewing process (like some micros).
They just want money anyhow.

My suggestion to IRS
Close all offices around the globe and open only one of the north or south pole and you will spare more money form tax payers for renting offices.
And make new rule that every tax payer must come to you new office on the knees and moan and beg you.
Also make rule that tax payers must ask for that every month,
and normally why to be so modest, rise prices and taxes even more than 2x...  >:(

« Reply #295 on: June 01, 2009, 14:10 »
0
Nice post. It is definitely all very positive and the whole issue is finally being put to rest. It's tremendously positive for emerging countries especially, I suspect, on the African continent.

The net effect of the standardization of economic accountability, may very well be that it encourages completely open tax competitiveness between nations. The OECD and the G20 have put in place a regime under which countries can openly compete to provide business friendly tax low tax environments without now being accused of being somehow shady.

The OECD white list and G20 recognition of the OECD standards have made the competitive tax jurisdictions respectable. On one hand it means and end to the old fashioned so called tax havens. On the other it means that they are now legit.

The OECD and the G20 (including the US) have recognized, finally, that there is actually nothing inherently wrong with tax competition. In the internet age that makes a lot of sense and is hugely positive for world economic growth.


Re: On the other it means that they are now legit.

I would use the word "accountable" rather than "legit".  The recent moves makes it much harder for companies who set up shell companies in various countries around the world to evade tax obligations.

alias

« Reply #296 on: June 01, 2009, 14:20 »
0
The recent moves makes it much harder for companies who set up shell companies in various countries around the world to evade tax obligations.

For sure. But the main issue is that a company can now set up in any country which is on the OECD white list without some vested interest trying to insinuate that the country involved is somehow dodgy. Because all of the countries on the OECD white list have equal status. So countries can now much more fairly compete to provide good business environments. Which is a very positive result.

Seriously - who wouldn't move the business somewhere less bureaucratic ?

« Reply #297 on: June 01, 2009, 15:35 »
0

I'm sure there are differences between the requirements of Revenue Canada and the IRS, but I'm not an expert.

And regarding tax havens, when people say "off-shore", I had a feeling they were talking about small Caribbean islands, not Switzerland or Ireland. But maybe I'm wrong about that.
[/quote]

I was thinking anywhere other than in the US, Canada is probably a good choice, as people have said IS doesn't have this problem, they are in Canada, Canada is probably a nicer place to live than the US, Jon might be happier there and less prone to emotional outbursts. ;D

« Reply #298 on: June 01, 2009, 15:40 »
0
Perhaps you guys can write to IRS or a US accountant to ask if foreigner freelance photographers should be subject to the US withholding tax. If the answer is no, then send it to SS.

« Reply #299 on: June 01, 2009, 15:44 »
0
I'm sure there are differences between the requirements of Revenue Canada and the IRS, but I'm not an expert.

And regarding tax havens, when people say "off-shore", I had a feeling they were talking about small Caribbean islands, not Switzerland or Ireland. But maybe I'm wrong about that.

I was thinking anywhere other than in the US, Canada is probably a good choice, as people have said IS doesn't have this problem, they are in Canada, Canada is probably a nicer place to live than the US, Jon might be happier there and less prone to emotional outbursts. ;D

Hah! You're probably right that the laid-back Canadian West could help prevent emotional outbursts! (IS is out west somewhere, am I right?) Certainly would be healthier than NYC!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3727 Views
Last post February 27, 2013, 16:46
by icefront
6 Replies
6442 Views
Last post November 20, 2013, 18:45
by MatHayward
3 Replies
2457 Views
Last post March 26, 2014, 14:27
by Pilens
8 Replies
6263 Views
Last post December 03, 2014, 03:59
by EfrenBatt
40 Replies
17464 Views
Last post June 13, 2015, 16:35
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors