Can someone review a tax return that is already filed?
Yes, and a filed return is easier to review than a draft, because the filed version shows what was actually claimed rather than what was intended. A review of this kind reads the return against the underlying facts and against the other country's return for the same year, which is where the recurring findings sit: a foreign tax credit that was available and not claimed, an information return nobody was made responsible for, and a treaty position applied in the arithmetic but never disclosed on the return. What happens next depends on which of the three it is.
What does a second opinion on a cross-border return usually find?
Three things recur. A credit for foreign tax that was paid and never claimed, usually because the two returns were prepared by people who never saw each other's work. An information return that nobody was responsible for, which is the expensive one, since it reports rather than pays and so leaves no trace in the numbers. And a treaty position applied to the calculation without being disclosed, which is a different defect from a wrong figure: the tax may be right and the return still incomplete.
Is a review worth paying for if my return looks fine?
A return that looks fine is the normal starting point, because the recurring findings are invisible on the face of it. An unclaimed credit does not make a return wrong; it makes it expensive. An unfiled information return is absent by definition, so there is nothing on the return to look at. An undisclosed treaty position often produces exactly the right tax. Whether a review is worth it turns on how much foreign tax you paid, whether you hold interests abroad, and whether anything on the return depended on a treaty. The fee is agreed in writing before work starts.
Will a review make the tax authority look at my file?
A review by itself changes nothing; what it may lead to is a correction, and the order in which corrections are made is the part that matters. Relief on a late information return or an unreported foreign asset is usually conditional on how the correction is made rather than on how quickly, and filing the obvious amendment first can close the route that would have carried relief. So a review should end with a sequence rather than a list of errors: what is filed, in what order, and what is disclosed alongside it.
How many years back should a second opinion look?
As far back as the open years and the source of the problem, not merely the last return. Where the defect recurs — an interest abroad never reported, a credit missed the same way each year — the earliest year usually dictates the correction route for all of them, and reviewing only the most recent return produces an amendment that sits oddly against the years beneath it. A review that stops at one year also cannot tell you whether a pattern exists, and the existence of a pattern is the fact that decides the disclosure question.
Do I have to tell my accountant I want a review?
Not in order to have one done, and there is a practical reason to gather the papers first. A review needs the returns as filed in both countries, the working papers if you can get them, and the source documents; asking for your own file is ordinary and commits you to nothing. Where a review does find something, the finding is often about scope rather than competence — each preparer did the return in front of them and neither saw the other's. That is worth knowing before any conversation about it.
What is a totalization agreement and how do I use one?
A social security agreement that stops you contributing to two systems for the same work, and lets periods in both count towards benefit eligibility in either. Which system you stay in depends on the agreement's rules for your situation — a seconded employee usually remains in the home system for a set period, a locally hired one usually joins the host system. You evidence it with a certificate of coverage obtained before or shortly after the assignment starts. See certificates of coverage.
Branch or subsidiary — which should we use to expand?
A branch keeps one taxpayer: results consolidate at home, losses are usable sooner, and the exposure is that the branch is a permanent establishment whose profit the host country taxes, sometimes with a branch tax on repatriation. A subsidiary is a separate taxpayer with limited liability and local rates, at the cost of withholding on dividends home and transfer pricing on everything between them. The deciding facts are usually expected losses, liability and exit plans. See branch against subsidiary.
