Social Security Tax Agreements: The Cost of Expatriate Workers
Posted January 21, 2010 by Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. · 
Print This Post
Whenever citizens of one country set up operations or perform services in another country, they face the challenge of dual taxation. Dual taxation can be particularly oppressive where two countries tax the same income, or require payments of some form of tax on the same business activities. To avoid such burdens, model income tax treaties and estate tax treaties have evolved under the aegis of the OECD. Other treaties may apply to allow workers from one country to avoid paying social security to the government of another country.
This article addresses the question whether bilateral social security tax agreements have a material impact on mobility of technical service workers moving between a service delivery center (such as India) and a service recipient’s facilities (such as in the United States).
Double tax treaties allocate the rights of the two countries to tax the same income or activities. In the case of income tax treaties, the key determinant is whether the activities form a “permanent establishment” that serves as a sufficient nexus for the host country to tax the income and the activities. In the case of workers visiting on work visas, social security treaties allocate both the social security charges deducted from local wages and the liability of each state for payment of the social benefits (such as medical care and retirement income) from the workers’ activities.
The Times of India reported on January 18, 2010, that India and the United States are negotiating a Bilateral Investment Promotion Agreement and a Social Security Treaty. Http://timesofindia.com/articleshow/5462979.cms. U.S.-visiting personnel of Indian outsourcers (and Indian service captives of U.S. companies) have been paying U.S. Social Security taxes from the first day of their secondment to the U.S. locations. Payments are due from both the employer and the employee at the rate of 7.65% for various combined federal social taxes. Their visas (typically H1-B) may permit work in the U.S. only for 6 years. However, under U.S. Social Security rules (applicable in the absence of a treaty), such personnel are not entitled to receive any U.S. social security benefits unless they remain in the U.S. for at least 10 years (40 quarters).
The U.S. Social Security Administration (“SSA”) has its own explanation of the various social security treaties:
Since the late 1970’s, the United States has established a network of bilateral Social Security agreements that coordinate the U.S. Social Security program with the comparable programs of other countries. This article gives a brief overview of the agreements and should be of particular interest to multinational companies and to people who work abroad during their careers.
International Social Security agreements, often called “Totalization agreements,” have two main purposes. First, they eliminate dual Social Security taxation, the situation that occurs when a worker from one country works in another country and is required to pay Social Security taxes to both countries on the same earnings. Second, the agreements help fill gaps in benefit protection for workers who have divided their careers between the United States and another country.
Agreements to coordinate Social Security protection across national boundaries have been common in Western Europe for decades. Following is a list of the agreements the United States has concluded and the date of the entry into force of each. Some of these agreements were subsequently revised; the date shown is the date the original agreement entered into force.
| Country | Entry into Force |
| Italy | November 1, 1978 |
| Germany | December 1, 1979 |
| Switzerland | November 1, 1980 |
| Belgium | July 1, 1984 |
| Norway | July 1, 1984 |
| Canada | August 1, 1984 |
| United Kingdom | January 1, 1985 |
| Sweden | January 1, 1987 |
| Spain | April 1, 1988 |
| France | July 1, 1988 |
| Portugal | August 1, 1989 |
| Netherlands | November 1, 1990 |
| Austria | November 1, 1991 |
| Finland | November 1, 1992 |
| Ireland | September 1, 1993 |
| Luxembourg | November 1, 1993 |
| Greece | September 1, 1994 |
| South Korea | April 1, 2001 |
| Chile | December 1, 2001 |
| Australia | October 1, 2002 |
| Japan | October 1, 2005 |
| Denmark | October 1, 2008 |
| Czech Republic | January 1, 2009 |
| Poland | March 1, 2009 |
Source: http://www.ssa.gov/international/agreements_overview.html
The list of such countries shows that the U.S. typically has a significant incentive to avoid the imposition of double social security taxes on U.S. citizens and residents who are expatriates abroad than for incoming foreign workers who come to the United States. U.S. expatriates are entitled to U.S. social security coverage, and must contribute, if they work for a foreign subsidiary of the U.S. employer that elects, by agreement with the Internal Revenue Service under section 3121(l) of the Internal Revenue Code, to pay Social Security taxes for U.S. citizens and residents employed by the affiliate.
U.S. Social Security Treaties. Aside from South Korea, Chile, Australia and Japan, virtually all such treaties are with European Union countries. A brief review of the most recent treaties (Czech Republic and Poland) shows that the dual social security taxes are waived based on residency for under 5 years, not the 10 years that applies to individuals from other countries (such as India) without a social security agreement. The requirement of some minimum residency before entitlement to local social security program participation serves public policy by not entitling foreign workers in the U.S., for example, to enjoyment of such programs without making substantial contributions. On the other hand, such minimum residency requirements conflict with the H1-B visa limitation of a six-year maximum stay. As a practical matter, H1-B visitors can convert their visa status to immigrants (after a long wait), so the minimum residency requirement promotes immigration of highly qualified managerial or skilled workers.
Indian Social Security Treaties. According to the Times of India, India has signed social security totalization agreements with Belgium, France and Germany, which are significant markets for Indian-based ITO and BPO service providers. The article did not specify any minimum residency period under such agreements.
Impact on Outsourcing and Foreign Captives. Social security totalization agreements serve to allocate between two national governments two separate cash flows: (i) income (contributions by local employer and the locally present expatriate employee) and (ii) expense (a future stream of social security benefits after satisfaction of the minimum residency requirements). Where the host country such as the U.S. charges social security deductions to the wages of foreign workers (e.g., Indians seconded to a U.S. customer or affiliate), the U.S. reaps a windfall if the minimum residency is never satisfied. The Times of India article claims that this windfall amounts to $1 billion per year. Where the minimum residency is satisfied, there is no windfall, and indeed the host country could suffer a loss if the expatriate acquires residency.
The Times of India article suggests that there is an additional burden on Indian workers who work in the USA under H1-B visas. This is questionable, since American employers (whether as affiliates of Indian captives or as enterprise customers of Indian service providers) will still pay their employer’s share of U.S. social security, regardless of the nationality or tax residency of the worker. The only impact is that the Indian workers do not get a discount, exemption or benefit unless they come to the U.S. for the minimum residency period. In short, it appears that the only party disadvantaged is the Indian Treasury, and the absence of a social security totalization agreement between the U.S. and India does not serve as an impediment for hiring of local workers in the U.S. It does, however, play a role in balance of payments in the long term.
In the scenario at hand, the lack of a social security agreement will also delay liberalization of American investment in India under a separate agreement on protection of investors. Thus, there could be some adverse impact on American companies seeking to invest in India if both agreements are not signed together, or unless one country blinks.
For related topics:
See Employment Law.
wbb