An Overview of the Closer Connection Test and Treaty Tie-Breaker Provisions Available to Avoid U.S. Taxation on Foreign Source Income

Of the world’s tax systems, most countries’ bases for taxation are residency and source of income. As a result, most global taxing jurisdictions tax residents only on income received from domestic sources. Income received from foreign sources is frequently exempted from local income tax. The United States, on the other hand, is fairly unique from a tax standpoint. This is because unlike most of the world, the U.S. taxes citizens and residents on worldwide income. Many foreign investors or foreigners working in the United States are surprised to learn how easy it is for them to become U.S. residents for tax purposes and be subject to U.S. income tax on worldwide income. This article discusses how a foreign individual can become subject to U.S. taxation on his or her worldwide income and the methods available to foreign individuals to avoid potentially U.S. taxation on worldwide income.

How An Alien Can Be Classified as a U.S. Tax Resident Under Either the “Green Card” or “Substantial Presence” Tests

Under Internal Revenue Code Section 7701(b), an alien may become a U.S. resident for U.S. federal income tax purposes under either the “green card” or “substantial presence” tests. Under the green card test, an alien is a resident alien with respect to a calendar year if the individual is a lawful permanent resident at any time during the calendar year. A lawful permanent resident is an individual who has been lawfully granted the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws. Resident status is deemed to continue unless it is rescinded or administratively or judicially determined to have been abandoned.

Under the substantial presence test of Internal Revenue Code 7701(b)(3), an alien is a tax resident if: 1) such individual was present in the U.S. on at least thirty-one days during the calendar year, and 2) the sum of the number of days on which such individual was present in the U.S. during the current year and the two preceding calendar years (when multiplied by the applicable multiplier: current year – 1, first preceding year – ⅓, second preceding year – ⅙) equals or exceeds 183 days.

Now since it has been determined how an alien can become a U.S. tax resident, we will discuss
The most common exception to the substantial presence test. An alien can avoid being taxed as a U.S. resident under the “closer connection test.”

The Closer Connection Test an Exception to the Substantial Presence Test

An exception applies to U.S. residency applies if an alien is not present in the United States for 183 days or more in a testing year and can prove that he or she has a “tax home” in a foreign country and that he or she has a “closer connection” to a foreign country than to the United States. A tax home is defined as an individual’s regular or principal place of business, or if none, then the “regular place of abode in a real and substantial sense.” See IRC Section 162(a)(2). A “closer connection” is established by “more significant contacts.” Whether or not an alien has “more significant contacts” to a foreign country is determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. Treasury Regulation Section 301.7701(b)-2(d) discusses the facts and circumstances utilized to determine if an alien has “more significant contacts” to a foreign country than the United States. Factors that are considered is the location of the alien’s permanent home (immaterial whether a house, apartment or furnished room, or whether owned or rented, provided it is available to the alien at all times, continuously, and not solely for stays of short duration), family and personal belongings (such as automobiles, furniture, clothing, and jewelry owned by the alien and family); the location of social, political, cultural or religious organizations in which the alien is currently involved; the location where the alien conducts routine banking activities; the type of driver’s license held; the country of residence designated by the alien on various forms and documents. After taking into consideration the above factors, if an alien has a closer connection to a country other than the United States, the alien will not be classified as a U.S. tax resident for that particular year. This is the case even if the alien satisfied the above discussed substantial presence test.

The closer connection exception however is not available to an alien who has taken affirmative steps to change immigration status to that of a permanent resident during the year, or who has an application pending for adjustment of status. Such affirmative steps include, among other things, filing USCIS Form I-508 (Waiver of Immunities), Form I-485 (Application for Status as Permanent Resident) or Dept. of State Form OF-230 (Application for Immigration Visa and Alien Registration). See Treas. Reg. Section 301-7701(b)-2(e).

Form 8840

Anyone claiming a closer connection to a foreign country to avoid U.S. tax residency classification under the substantial presence test position must file a Form 1040-NR with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for the year the position is claimed. The individual claiming a closer connection to a foreign country under the substantial presence test must also attach a Form 8840 to his or her Form 1040-NR. If the filer is not eligible for a Social Security Number, the alien filing the Form 1040NR and Form 8840 with the IRS will need to obtain a U.S. taxpayer identification number (TIN”).

Completing Form 8840, Part I

1. Asks the individual to list the U.S. visa type used to enter the United States. If the individual had no visa, the immigration status on the last day of the tax year, and date of U.S. entry should be entered.
2. Asks the individual to state the country or countries he or she is a citizen during the year.
3. Asks the individual to state the country or countries that issued that individual a passport during the year.
4. Asks the individual to state the foreign passport number.
5. Asks the individual to list the number of days present in the United States during the present year and the two previous years. If an individual was not present in the United States, the filer should not include those days.
6. Asks the individual to state affirmative steps taken to become a lawful permanent alien. If the individual completing the Form 8840 has taken steps to become a lawful permanent alien, there is no need to continue with the preparation of the Form 8840.

Completing Form 8840, Part II

Part II is only completed by an individual claiming a closer connection to one foreign country.

7. Asks the individual to state his or her tax home during the tax year.
8. Asks the individual to state the foreign country to which he or she had a closer connection than to the United States during the tax year.

Completing Form 8840, Part III

Part III is only completed by an individual claiming a closer connection to two foreign countries.

9. Asks the individual his or her tax home during the tax year during the current year.
10. Asks the individual to state a change in his or her tax home during the year at issue.
11. Asks the individual if he or she had a closer connection to each foreign country listed in lines 9 and 10. If the individual completing the Form 8840 checks “No,” an explanation to the Form 8840 must be attached to the form.
12. Asks the individual if he or she was subject to the internal laws of the countries listed on Lines 9 and 10.
13. Asks the individual if he or she filed tax returns in the countries listed as having a tax home on lines 9 and 10.

Completing Form 8840, Part IV.

14. Asks the individual what his or her regular or principal permanent home was located in the tax year.
15. Asks the individual to list all homes available during the tax year at issue.
16. Asks the individual to state where his or her family was located.
17. Asks the individual where his or her automobiles were located.
18. Asks the individual where his or her automobiles were registered.
19. Asks the individual where his or her personal belongings were located.
20. Asks the individual to state where he or she conducted routine personal banking activities.
21. Asks the individual where he or she conducted business activities other than his or her tax home.
22. Asks the individual where his or her driver’s license was issued.
23. Asks the individual where his or her second driver’s license was issued.
24. Asks the individual where he or she is registered to vote.
25. Asks the individual if he or she completed official documents, forms, etc establishing residency.
26. Asks the individual if he or she has completed W-8BEN, Forms, W-9, or other U.S. official forms.
27. Asks the individual what country or countries he or she keeps personal, financial, and legal documents.
28. Asks the individual what country or countries does he or she derive the majority of income during the year at issue. Line 27 is relevant to closer connection analysis.
29. Asks the individual if he or she has any income from U.S. sources. Income reported on the Form 1040NR should match the return.
30. Asks the individual what country or countries are his or her investments located.
31. Asks the individual if he or she qualifies for any type of a national health plan sponsored by a foreign country.

Finally, an alien completing a Form 8840 may attach a statement to the Form 8840 or any other information that would assist the IRS in determining the closer connection claim.

Result of Satisfying Closer Connection Test with a Foreign Country

If an individual satisfies the “closer connection test,” he or she will be taxed as a non-resident for U.S. tax purposes. This means that the individual claiming such a position will only be taxed on U.S. source income. The individual claiming such a position will also likely not need to file informational returns with the IRS such as IRS Form 5471, Form 3520, and Form 8938.

Treaty Tie Breaker Provision an Exception

Another way an individual can break U.S. residency for income tax purposes is by utilizing a treaty tie breaker provision in an income tax treaty. U.S. federal income tax treaties that provide tie-breaker definitions for dual residents may result in an alien not being taxed as a U.S. resident. If an alien is a resident of a foreign country under a U.S. income tax treaty and claims a treaty benefit as a nonresident to reduce U.S. federal income tax liability, that alien will be treated as a nonresident alien for purposes of computing the entire U.S. federal income tax liability with respect to that year. In order to claim a treaty position, an individual is a resident under the treaty country’s domestic law. An individual is generally considered a U.S. resident under U.S. domestic law and for treaty purposes if he or she is a U.S. citizen or a U.S. resident under 7701(b). Under Section 7701(b), a resident alien is a U.S. resident if 1) a green card holder; 2) meets the substantial presence test; or 3) makes a first-year election to be treated as a U.S. resident alien. Some treaties impose additional requirements on U.S. citizens and green card holders in order to qualify as a U.S. resident for treaty purposes. For example, most U.S. tax treaties contain a savings clause which often means that U.S. citizens and residents cannot use tax treaties to avoid or reduce their U.S. tax liability. Savings clauses often prevent U.S. citizens from utilizing a tax treaty to claim a treaty tie-breaker position for U.S. income tax purposes. Thus, a treaty tie-breaker is only available to U.S. green card holders, aliens that satisfy the substantial presence test, or aliens that elected to be treated as U.S. residents for U.S. tax purposes.

To utilize a tie-breaker provision of an income tax treaty, an individual must reach dual residency status. This means that he or she must be a resident of both the United States and a foreign country. If an individual is a resident under the domestic law of both countries (“dual resident”) he or she must determine a single country of residence if he or she wants to claim any treaty benefits.

In order to understand how a treaty tie breaker provision operates, we will examine Article 4(3) of the 2016 U.S. Model Income Tax Convention.

Article 4(3) of the 2016 U.S. Model Income Tax Convention deals with tie-breaker rules who are considered residents of both Contracting States (countries that are parties to the treaty) under their domestic laws.

Where an individual is a resident of both Contracting States, then his or her status shall be determined as follows:

1. Permanent home;
2. Center of vital interests;
3. Habitual abode;
4. Citizenship;
5. Mutual agreement by competent authorities.

If an alien individual under the Internal Revenue Code, but is treated as a resident of a treaty country under the tie-breaker provision of an income tax treaty, the foreign individual may elect to invoke a treaty to be treated as a nonresident of the U.S. with respect to the portion of the year he was considered a dual resident taxpayer.

In order to claim a treaty position under a tax treaty and be taxed as a nonresident, the alien must have a permanent home in a foreign country.

A permanent home is retained for permanent and continuous use and is not a place retained for a short duration. An individual has a permanent home if he or she:

1. purchased a home;
2. intended to reside in that home for an indefinite time; and
3. actually did reside in that home.

An alien may also have a permanent home in a foreign country if he or she:

1. had a room or apartment continuously available;
2. had personal property (e.g., automobiles, personal belongings) is stored at a dwelling; and
3. conducted business (e.g., maintained an office), including such addresses for insurance and a driver’s license.

In certain treaties, an individual’s family life may be evidence of a permanent home. In these cases, 1) where the individual’s family members reside; and 2) where the individual’s children are enrolled in school is considered.

Although the 2016 model treaty provides a detailed discussion as to how a permanent home is determined, some tax treaties define permanent home in relation to where an individual dwells with his or her family.

If an individual has a permanent home in the United States and another country, the center of vital interest test is employed. Under this test, residence is determined by where the individual’s personal and economic relations are closer. The center of vital interests tests where an individual’s personal and economic relations are closer:

1. Personal relations such as where family is located including parents and siblings. Where an individual spent his or her childhood is considered;
2. Location of an individual’s medical, dental professionals, and health insurance is considered;
3. Location of an individual’s driver’s license and vehicle registration is considered;
4. Health club memberships are considered;
5. Political and cultural activities is considered;
6. Ownership of an individual’s bank accounts are considered;
7. Where an individual keeps his investments and conducts business are considered;
8. Where an individual incorporated his or her business is considered;
9. Where an individual retains professional advisers such as attorneys, agents, and accountants.

The factors listed above are a non-exclusive list of factors considered in determining the center of vital interests. In addition to the above factors, an individual’s personal, community, and economic relations are all relevant in determining his or her center of vital interests.

The center of vital interests can shift if:

1. An individual can retain ties in one country but establishes ties in another country;
2. Executing contracts relating to business in the second country indicates a shift of vital interests to another country;
3. Personal factors such as moving to another country as a result of marriage can establish evidence of a shift of center of vital interests.

If the center of vital interests is unclear or there is no permanent home in either country, the individual is a resident of the country where they have a habitual abode. Habitual abode is located in the country in which the individual has a greater presence during the year. Habitual adobe is not purely determined by day-counting. Instead, the Organization for Economic Development (“OECD”) recommends looking at “frequency, duration and regularity” of individual’s stays in each country.

If the individual is a resident of both states and a determination of residence cannot be made, the competent authorities of both countries will determine residency.

Sample of Tax Treaties and Residence Provisions

Now since we discussed the residency provision in detail in the U.S. Model Treaty, we will apply these concepts to actual income tax treaties.

Treaty Tie-Breaker: U.S.-Korea

Like the 2016 Model Income Tax Treaty, the U.S.-Korea income tax treaty applies factors such a:

1. Permanent home;
2. Center of vital interests;
3. Habitual abode;
4. Citizenship;
5. Mutual agreement by competent authorities.

Article 3 of the U.S.-Korea income tax treaty applies similar tests to determine residency. For example, Article 3(2) of the treaty residency provides that residency is determined by:

(a) He shall be deemed to be a resident of that Contracting State in which he maintains his permanent home;

(b) If he has a permanent home in both Contracting States or in neither of the Contracting States, he shall be deemed to be a resident of that Contracting State with which his personal and economic relations are closest (center of vital interests);

(c) If his center of vital interests is in neither of the Contracting States or cannot be determined, he shall be deemed to be a resident of that Contracting State in which he has a habitual abode;

(d) If he has a habitual abode in both Contracting States or in neither of the Contracting States, he shall be deemed to be a resident of the Contracting State of which he is a citizen; and

(e) If he is a citizen of both Contracting States or of neither Contracting State the competent authorities of the Contracting States shall settle the question by mutual agreement.

It should be noted that the definition of residency is different under Korean law than U.S. law.

The Korean definition of a resident is found in Paragraph 1, Article 1 of the Korean Income Tax Law. This provision provides that a resident is:

“[a] person who holds his domicile in Korea or has held his temporary domicile in Korea for one year or more.” In Article 2 of the Korean Income Tax Law a “domicile shall be determined based on the objective facts such as a family living together and a property situated in Korea, and the abode shall be the place where an individual stays for a substantial period but does not lead a normal life unlike a domicile.” The Presidential Degree also provides that “where an individual who resides in Korea has i) an occupation which requires more than one year of continuous stay in Korea or ii) has a family living together and is judged to reside for more than one year in light of his occupation and property, he shall be treated as having a domicile in Korea.” See Income Tax Act, art. 1,
Para. 1 (Act No. 9672/2009) (Kor.).

Anyone considering claiming Korean residency under the U.S.- Korean income tax treaty should take the differences in domestic law into consideration.

Treaty Tie-Breaker: U.S.-U.K.

The U.S.-U.K. tax treaty includes tie-breaker rules to determine an individual’s tax residency for treaty purposes when they would otherwise be considered a resident of both countries under their respective domestic laws. Persons are residents in the United Kingdom for a particular year if they are present for more than 183 days in that year or have made regular and extended visits over a period of years.

The U.S.-U.K. treaty contains language strikingly similar to the U.S. Model Treaty in determining residency for purposes of applying the treaty tie-breaker. The U.S.-U.K. treaty determines residency under a tie-breaker as follows:

1. He shall be deemed a resident only of the State in which he has a permanent home available to him; if he has a permanent home available to him in both States, he shall be deemed to be a resident only of the State with which his personal and economic relations are closer (centre of vital interests);
2. If the State in which he has his centre of vital interests cannot be determined, or if he does not have a permanent home available to him in either State, he shall be deemed to be a resident only of the State in which he has habitual adobe.
3. If he has a habitual abode in both States or in neither of them, he shall be determined to be a resident only of the State of which he is a national;
4. If he is a national of both States or of neither of them, the competent authorities of the Contracting States shall endeavour to settle the question by mutual agreement.

Treaty Tie-Breaker: U.S.-Australia

The U.S.-Australia income tax treaty contains a treaty tie-breaker provision in Article 4 of the treaty to resolve situations where an individual might be considered a resident of both countries. An individual is a resident of Australia if they reside in Australia, and this includes an individual whose domicile and permanent place of abode is in Australia.

The treaty tie-breaker provisions are contained in Article 4(2) of the U.S.-Australia income tax treaty and they are similar to the U.S. Model Treaty provisions governing residency. Article 4(2) treaty tie-breaker rules provides as follows:

1. In which he maintains his permanent home;
2. If the provisions of sub-paragraph (a) do not apply, in which he has habitual abode if he has his permanent home in both Contracting States or in neither of the Contracting States; or
3. If the provisions of subparagraphs (a) and (b) do not apply, with which his personal and economic relations are closer if he has an habitual abode in both Contracting States or in neither of the Contracting States.

For purposes of this paragraph, in determining an individual’s permanent home, regard shall be given to the place where the individual dwells with his family, and in determining the Contracting States with which an individual’s personal and economic relations are closer, regard shall be given to his citizenship (if he is a citizen of one of the Contracting States).

Article 4(2) of the U.S.-Australian income tax treaty makes it clear that in some cases family relations should also be considered in determining residency.

Treaty Tie-Breaker: U.S.-China

Not all income tax treaties contain a traditional treaty tie-breaker provision. The U.S.-China income tax treaty does not contain a typical hierarchical treaty tie-breaker provision. Instead, the treaty provisions as follows:

Where by reason of the provisions of paragraph 1 an individual is a resident of both Contracting States, then the competent authorities of the Contracting States shall determine through consultations the Contracting State of which that individual shall be deemed to be a resident for the purposes of this Agreement.

Form 8833

An individual claiming a treaty tie-breaker provision must file a Form 1040NR and attach a Form 8833 to the tax return. The Form 8833 requires the individual to list the specific income for which an exception is claimed under a treaty and the article of the tax treaty claimed to avoid U.S. taxation.

Claiming residency under a treaty is a double-edged sword

Any resident claiming a treaty position must understand that taking such a position can trigger an expatriation for U.S. tax purposes. Any U.S. resident considering claiming a residency position must understand that claiming a residency tax treaty position can trigger an expatriation for U.S. tax purposes and a corresponding exit tax. Claiming a treaty tie-breaker position for a long-term green card holder will trigger an expatriation. A long-term resident is classified as a green card holder who has resided in the United States more than 8 years.

If a green card holder claims a treaty tie-breaker position and has resided in the United States for less than 8 years, the treaty position stops the running of the year count. See IRC Section 877(e)(2): “An individual shall not be treated as a lawful permanent resident for any taxable year if such individual is treated as a resident of a foreign country for the taxable year under the provisions of a tax treaty between the United States and a foreign country and does not waive the benefits of such treaty applicable to residents of the foreign country.” A green card not residing in the United States for 8 years can even amend previously filed returns to claim a residency treaty position.

However, if a treaty tie-breaker is claimed after a green card holder has resided in the United States for more than eight years, Section 7706(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code provides as follows: “An individual shall cease to be treated as a lawful permanent resident of the United States if such individual commences to be treated as a resident of a foreign country under the provisions of a tax treaty between the United States and the foreign country, does not waive the benefits of such treaty applicable to residents of the foreign country, and notifies the Secretary of the commencement of such treat.”

For the 2025 tax year, the exit tax could be assessed on any expatriating individual with a net worth of at least $2 million on the expatriation date. See IRC Section 877(a)(2)(B).

Result of Treaty Tie-Breaker Provision

Individuals that are able to break their U.S. tax residence as a result of treaty tie-breaker will be taxed as a nonresident. Meaning that the individual will not be taxed on his or her foreign source income. However, claiming residency under a tax treaty will not relieve the individual of the obligation to file certain information returns such as gift tax returns and Form 5471s informational returns for foreign corporations.

The Tax Court Weighs in Regarding the “Closer Connection” Test and “Tie-Breaker” Provision of a Tax Treaty

There is very little judicial guidance on the “closer connection” test or a treaty-tie breaker provision. However, there is one notable case that discusses utilizing a “closer connection” or “treaty tie-breaker” provision. In 2014, the United States Tax Court briefly touched upon these concepts in Gerd Topsnik v. Commissioner, 143 T.C. No. 12 (2014). This case provided extremely valuable information in the area residency tax controversy. The facts in Topsnik stated as follows: the petitioner in this case was a German national who applied for and obtained his green card in 1977. The German national presented himself to U.S. immigration authorities as a returning lawful permanent resident. In 2003, the German national renewed his green card status by filing a Form I-90 (“Application to Replace [Expiring] Permanent Residence Card”). The issue in this case was whether the German national was subject to U.S. taxation as a resident alien during the years at issue. The German national argued that he was a German resident during the years at issue and thus was exempt from U.S. taxation under Article 4 and 13 of the U.S.-German income tax treaties.

The green card background of this case was complex. The German national initially petitioned for a green card in January 1977, when he moved from Calgary, Canada to Honolulu, Hawaii. Less than a month after applying for his green card, in February 1977, the German national was issued a Form I-551 “Resident Alien” card, in February 1977, the taxpayer was issued a Form I-551 “Resident Alien” card, also known as a green card, and thereby became a lawful permanent resident of the U.S.

When the German national flew from Germany to the United States in 2002, he presented himself as a lawful permanent resident and submitted an affidavit stating that his purpose to the U.S. was to return to his home in Hawaii, where he was a partner of a business, and he traveled every six weeks on business.

The Tax Court reviewed the German national’s ties to Germany, and noted that the German national was born in Germany and had a German driver’s license and passport. In 2004, the foreign national had access to a room in his brother’s house in Freiburg, Germany, where he apparently stayed on frequent occasions; and in 2002, he purchased a small inn located in Oerlenbach, Germany, and one of the rooms at the inn was always available to him, where he would stay on a regular basis. The German national also owned an old farmhouse on a farm, and some other properties in Germany. For the years at issue, the German national was physically present in Germany, based on his own travel logs, for a total of 98 days in 2005, 92 days in 2006, 44 days in 2007, 40 days in 2008, and 14 days in 2009.

After reviewing whether the German national had “substantial physical presence” in the Philippines, Thailand, the U.S., Canada, Germany, and a number of other countries in Asia and Africa, the court rendered its decision by providing an opinion of U.S. nationality of foreign persons versus U.S. persons. The Tax Court determined that the foreign national was a U.S. and not a German resident during the years at issue.

The Tax Court stated that green card status for federal income tax purposes is a function of federal income tax law and is only indirectly determined by immigration law. As a result, because the applicable law, both in the statute and regulations, specifically describe revocation or administratively or judicially determined to have been “abandoned,” the income tax regulations clearly state a resident status is deemed to continue unless a green card is rescinded or administratively or judicially determined to have been abandoned. As the income tax regulations promulgated for Internal Revenue Code Section 7701 state, if the German national initiates this determination, the filing of the Form I-407 is the moment at which the alien is considered to have abandoned green card status. The Tax Court also heavily relied on the evidence from the competent authority process.

The Tax Court addressed the German national’s U.S. contacts, as well as his non-U.S. contacts, in connection with weighing all factors on whether or not this German national was a U.S. income tax resident. Even though the German national did not abandon his green card, the petitioner could have made an appropriate argument under the U.S.-German income tax treaty that he was a “dual status” taxpayer and the tie-breaker provision of the treaty demonstrated that he had a closer connection to Germany than the United States. However, based on the Tax Court’s opinion, the foreign national never reached “dual status” simply because he failed to demonstrate residency in Germany.

The Tax Court did not address the “closer connection test” and the “treaty tie-breaker” position contained in the U.S.-German income tax treaty. That is because this case lacked the appropriate facts to put into play a serious close call under either of the aforementioned tests. Topsnik is instructive to anyone considering utilizing the “closer connection test” or “treaty tie-breaker” position. Any considering utilizing these positions must understand that the IRS will likely utilize the competent authority process to gather information. The information gathered through the competent authority process will be used to determine if an alien can legitimately claim the “closer connect test” or a “treaty tie-breaker” provision. The world is becoming a much smaller place and more foreigners are coming to the U.S. to conduct business. There is no doubt that aliens attempting to utilize the closure connection test and treaty tie-breaker provisions will face greater scrutiny. In these cases, failing to proactively plan can be disastrous.

Conclusion

This article is intended to provide a basic understanding of the principal planning alternatives to avoid taxation of worldwide income for individuals that satisfy the substantial presence test and are green card holders. It should be evident from this article that this is a relatively complex subject, especially with the recent political climate change in the federal government. As a result, it is crucial that anyone considering utilizing a “closer connection” test or “treaty tie-breaker” provision consult with a competent international tax attorney.

Anthony Diosdi is one of several tax attorneys and international tax attorneys at Diosdi & Liu, LLP. Anthony focuses his practice on domestic and international tax planning for multinational companies, closely held businesses, and individuals. Anthony has written numerous articles on international tax planning and frequently provides continuing educational programs to other tax professionals.

He has assisted companies with a number of international tax issues, including Subpart F, GILTI, and FDII planning, foreign tax credit planning, and tax-efficient cash repatriation strategies. Anthony also regularly advises foreign individuals on tax efficient mechanisms for doing business in the United States, investing in U.S. real estate, and pre-immigration planning. Anthony is a member of the California and Florida bars. He can be reached at 415-318-3990 or adiosdi@sftaxcounsel.com.

This article is not legal or tax advice. If you are in need of legal or tax advice, you should immediately consult a licensed attorney.