The Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week voted 20-1 to send the Chile tax treaty to the Senate floor for potential ratification, while bipartisan interest grows in conferring treaty-like benefits to Taiwan.
The U.S.-Chile treaty was originally signed in 2010 but has languished for years unratified along with tax treaties for Hungary and Poland over objections from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. Momentum has been steadily building to ratify the Chile treaty given its importance as a major producer of lithium and copper — key ingredients in electric vehicle batteries, solar cells and wind turbines. The treaty has broad support among key business lobby groups and leaders of both parties.
Passage by the Foreign Relations Committee marks an important step in the process, as there had been some disagreements surrounding the reservation language. The committee agreed on reservations to address the base erosion and anti-abuse tax, foreign tax credits and the dividends received deduction.
The primary hang-up remains overcoming objections from Paul, who provided the lone vote against the treaty in the committee. Senate leaders likely have support of the two-thirds majority needed to ratify the tax treaties, but Paul can significantly drag out the process with procedural hurdles. Leaders have been reluctant so far to dedicate the necessary floor time to overcome them but appear to be considering a renewed effort this year.
The chairs and ranking members of both the House and Senate tax writing committees also recently released a “four corners” statement expressing interest in pursuing U.S. tax law changes that would confer treaty-like benefits to Taiwan to avoid double taxation. The U.S. cannot enter a formal tax treaty due to Taiwan’s unique status. This effort could be complex, however, and also raises issue over whether the Senate Finance or Senate Foreign Relations Committee should have jurisdiction.
Contact:
Tax professional standards statement
This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.
The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
More tax hot topics
No Results Found. Please search again using different keywords and/or filters.