What is the difference between earnings stripping and thin capitalisation?
They restrict the same deduction by different measures. A thin capitalisation rule looks at the company's capital structure, comparing related-party debt with equity, so the outcome moves when the balance sheet moves. An earnings-based rule looks at the company's income, allowing interest up to a proportion of a defined earnings measure, so the outcome moves when trading moves. A group can pass one and fail the other on identical facts. Many systems now operate an earnings-based limit alongside or in place of the structural test, so the first question about any interest deduction is which measure governs it, and whether both do.
Does an earnings based interest limit apply to bank debt too?
Typically yes, and that is the main practical difference from a structural test. A rule aimed at capital structure usually concerns itself with related-party debt, whereas a rule that caps interest by reference to earnings commonly applies to the company's whole interest expense, including ordinary third-party borrowing. A company with no group debt at all can therefore lose part of its deduction. Check the governing text on this point specifically, because the scope is where these rules differ most between countries, and an assumption carried over from another jurisdiction's version is a frequent source of error.
Why did my interest deduction shrink when my borrowing did not change?
Because an earnings-based cap moves with the earnings measure, not with the debt. In a year when trading falls, the capacity falls with it, and the same loan at the same rate produces interest that no longer fits. Depreciation-heavy businesses and companies in a start-up phase feel this most, since the measure is often computed before certain deductions and can be small or negative even when the business is sound. The consequence is that this limit needs forecasting rather than a single check at funding, and the forecast has to be built on the tax measure rather than on the accounting result.
Can interest denied by an earnings based limit be carried forward?
Often, and that is one of the features that distinguishes these rules from a structural disallowance, but it is decided by the governing text and not by the general shape of the rule. Some systems carry forward the denied interest, some carry forward unused capacity, some do both and some do neither. Where a carryforward exists it has to be tracked as a balance, year by year, with the workings kept, because it will be asked about when it is eventually used. Establish which of those applies before assuming that a denied amount is merely deferred.
What counts as earnings for the interest limitation calculation?
A defined tax measure, not the profit in the accounts. These rules normally start from taxable income and add back the interest itself along with depreciation and amortisation, then adjust for specified items, so the figure is built from the tax computation rather than lifted from the financial statements. Taking it from the accounts is a common error, and it usually produces a figure that is too high, which makes the deduction look safe. Build the measure inside the tax computation, keep the working, and label which adjustments the statute requires.
Do both countries apply an earnings limit to the same loan?
They can, and where they do the interest can be restricted at both ends of the same arrangement. Each country computes its own earnings measure on its own tax base, so the two limits will not coincide even on identical commercial facts. The sequence also matters, because a disallowance in one country can change the income figure the other country's measure starts from. Compute both on the same facts, in the order the rules require, before deciding the funding mix. Treating each country's computation in isolation is what leaves a slice of interest relieved nowhere.
How does the treaty tie-breaker work when both countries say I am resident?
As a sequence, stopping at the first test that gives an answer: where you have a permanent home available; if in both or neither, where your centre of vital interests is; then habitual abode; then nationality; and if all of those tie, the two tax authorities decide by agreement. It is evidential rather than elective — you do not choose your treaty residence, you demonstrate it, which makes the record of homes, family and time the substance of the claim. See tie-breaking dual residency.
I work remotely from another country for a company back home — who taxes me?
Usually the country you are physically in, because employment income is generally sourced where the work is done, with your residence country taxing it as well if you are resident there and giving credit. Three things follow: your employer may acquire withholding and social security obligations where you sit, a treaty tie-breaker may be needed if both countries call you resident, and a short trip that becomes a long stay can cross a residence threshold nobody was watching. See remote workers and digital nomads.
