- 68 jurisdictions listed
- 3 flagged partially suspended
- 1 flagged terminated
Source: Internal Revenue Service — IRS — United States income tax treaties A to Z (page last reviewed or updated 03-Jan-2026). Retrieved 19 August 2026.
The IRS page carries 69 entries. One of them, "United States Model", is the US model treaty text rather than a treaty partner, so the table below lists the remaining 68. The IRS's own CAUTION labels are reproduced: Hungary as Treaty Terminated, Belarus and Russia as Treaty Partially Suspended, and the entry for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as Treaty Partially Suspended for Belarus — that last one is a surviving Soviet-era treaty that still governs some successor states. The IRS states: "The United States has tax treaties with a number of foreign countries. Under these treaties, residents (not necessarily citizens) of foreign countries are taxed at a reduced rate, or are exempt from U.S. taxes on certain items of income they receive from sources within the United States." There is no entry for the United Arab Emirates.
How United States’s treaties work in practice
01
Introduction to the US treaty network
The United States network is smaller than Canada's and it behaves differently, because US taxation starts from citizenship rather than residence. A US citizen or green-card holder is taxed on worldwide income wherever they live, and a treaty does not undo that. Almost every US treaty contains a saving clause that preserves the right to tax its own residents and citizens as though the treaty did not exist, subject to named exceptions.
So the first question on a US file is never "is there a treaty" but "which side of the saving clause is my client on". For a non-resident receiving US-source income, the treaty is doing real allocating work. For a US person abroad, the treaty mostly matters at the margins, and the heavy lifting is done by credits and exclusions under domestic law instead.
The list itself needs reading rather than scanning. The IRS flags one treaty as terminated and three entries as partially suspended, and it keeps a Soviet-era treaty on the list because it still governs some successor states. An entry's presence is not proof that a treaty currently operates between the two countries.
One absence is worth stating plainly, because it drives a lot of planning: there is no entry for the United Arab Emirates. A UAE resident receiving US-source income has no US income tax treaty to fall back on.
For the corridors this practice runs, see the Canada–US treaty and the US–India treaty.
02
How residence is decided
US domestic law makes you a resident by green card, by a substantial-presence day count, or by election, and it taxes citizens regardless of where they live. Two of those routes can catch someone who has never thought of themselves as American for tax purposes, which is why a US file starts with status rather than with income.
Where the other country also treats the person as resident, the treaty tie-breaker applies in the usual order — permanent home, centre of vital interests, habitual abode, nationality, then agreement between the authorities. A treaty tie-break away from the United States can change how a non-citizen is taxed, and it usually comes with a disclosure requirement attached: the position has to be claimed and reported, not merely held.
The saving clause is what stops the tie-breaker from helping a citizen. A US citizen who is treaty-resident elsewhere is still a US taxpayer on worldwide income; what the treaty and the credits do is decide who taxes first and who gives relief.
Companies face entity-level questions that have no equivalent in most other networks, because an entity treated as a partnership in one country and a corporation in the other can put treaty benefits out of reach for its owners. See the tie-breaker and dual residency.
03
What each income type is taxed on
Business profits. A treaty generally limits US taxation of a foreign enterprise's business profits to those attributable to a US permanent establishment. Without a treaty, the domestic test is broader, which is one of the clearest practical benefits of having one. See business profits and PE.
Dividends, interest and royalties. The US applies a statutory withholding rate to US-source payments to non-residents, and a treaty reduces it. The reduction commonly steps with the size of the holding for dividends, and some treaties exempt particular interest or royalty categories. The reduced rate is available only where the payee has certified its entitlement to the withholding agent before payment. See the dividends, interest and royalties articles and US withholding and treaty claims.
Employment and personal services. Short-stay relief follows the familiar conditions, and separate articles cover directors, entertainers, sportspeople, students and trainees — each with its own test. See employment income and students and trainees.
Pensions and retirement accounts. This is where US treaties earn their keep for individuals, because a treaty can decide whether growth inside a foreign plan is taxable before it is paid out. The answer is treaty-specific and it is not the same for every kind of account. See pensions and annuities. Social security coordination sits in separate totalization agreements — see totalization.
Real property. Gains on US real property have their own regime with its own withholding, and treaties generally leave the source country's taxing right intact rather than removing it.
04
Claiming relief — the documents required
US treaty relief runs on certification. A withholding agent applies the statutory rate unless the payee has given it a valid W-8 series certificate claiming treaty benefits — W-8BEN for an individual, W-8BEN-E for an entity — identifying the treaty article relied on and, where required, the limitation-on-benefits test the claimant satisfies.
Certificates go stale. They have a validity period, they are invalidated by a change of circumstances, and a taxpayer identification number is frequently a precondition for the claim rather than an optional extra. A payment made against an expired certificate is a payment made at the statutory rate.
Where a treaty position is taken on a US return rather than at source, it generally has to be disclosed on the return, and the disclosure is what makes the position visible and defensible. Taking a treaty-based position quietly is how a small saving becomes a penalty exposure.
In the other direction, a US resident claiming relief abroad is typically asked for IRS certification of US residency, applied for in advance and issued for a particular year. See certificates of residency and the withholding claim mechanics.
05
The MLI and anti-abuse rules
The United States has not signed the multilateral instrument, which makes it the exception in this guide. US treaties are updated the old way, one protocol at a time, so the currency of a US treaty depends entirely on when its own text was last amended and brought into force.
Instead of a multilateral purpose test, US treaties carry a detailed limitation-on-benefits article. It is a set of objective tests — publicly traded, ownership and base erosion, active trade or business, derivative benefits, and a discretionary route where none of them fits. A claimant has to identify which test it meets, and the W-8 series asks for exactly that. See limitation on benefits.
Beneficial ownership and conduit concerns are handled through those tests and through domestic anti-conduit rules rather than through a general purpose test. The practical effect is the same: an entity interposed to reach a treaty rate, with no substance behind it, does not get the rate. See treaty shopping and beneficial ownership.
Where two authorities disagree, the competent authority procedure applies, and several US treaties add arbitration for cases the authorities cannot resolve. See the competent authority route.
06
Where treaties are most often got wrong
Expecting a treaty to help a US citizen. The saving clause is in almost every US treaty, and it preserves US taxation of citizens and residents. Relief for a US person abroad usually comes from credits and exclusions, not from the treaty's allocating articles.
Reading a listed treaty as an operating treaty. The IRS list itself flags one treaty as terminated and three entries as partially suspended. Presence on the list is a starting point, not a status.
Assuming a treaty exists. There is no US income tax treaty with the United Arab Emirates, and the list is the fastest way to check any assumption of that kind before it is built into a structure.
Claiming a rate without naming the article and the test. A W-8 that does not identify the treaty article, or the limitation-on-benefits test relied on, is not a claim the withholding agent can act on.
Confusing income tax treaties with totalization agreements. They are separate networks with separate partner lists. A social security agreement does not reduce income tax withholding, and an income tax treaty does not settle which country's social charges apply.
The US desk's treaty work is set out here, with a fixed fee agreed before the work begins.
United States’s treaty partners and their published status
68 rows, transcribed from the source named above on 19 August 2026. Nothing has been renamed, merged or tidied — a table that no longer matches the page it cites cannot be checked against it.
Showing all 68 rows.
- In force — listed by the IRS with no caution label attached.
- Partly suspended — the IRS marks this entry "CAUTION Treaty Partially Suspended".
- Terminated — the IRS marks this entry "CAUTION Treaty Terminated".
| Jurisdiction as printed | Status as published |
|---|---|
| Armenia | In force |
| Australia | In force |
| Austria | In force |
| Azerbaijan | In force |
| Bangladesh | In force |
| Barbados | In force |
| Belarus | Partly suspended |
| Belgium | In force |
| Bulgaria | In force |
| Canada | In force |
| Chile | In force |
| China | In force |
| Cyprus | In force |
| Czech Republic | In force |
| Denmark | In force |
| Egypt | In force |
| Estonia | In force |
| Finland | In force |
| France | In force |
| Georgia | In force |
| Germany | In force |
| Greece | In force |
| Hungary | Terminated |
| Iceland | In force |
| India | In force |
| Indonesia | In force |
| Ireland | In force |
| Israel | In force |
| Italy | In force |
| Jamaica | In force |
| Japan | In force |
| Kazakhstan | In force |
| Korea | In force |
| Kyrgyzstan | In force |
| Latvia | In force |
| Lithuania | In force |
| Luxembourg | In force |
| Malta | In force |
| Mexico | In force |
| Moldova | In force |
| Morocco | In force |
| Netherlands | In force |
| New Zealand | In force |
| Norway | In force |
| Pakistan | In force |
| Philippines | In force |
| Poland | In force |
| Portugal | In force |
| Romania | In force |
| Russia | Partly suspended |
| Slovak Republic | In force |
| Slovenia | In force |
| South Africa | In force |
| Spain | In force |
| Sri Lanka | In force |
| Sweden | In force |
| Switzerland | In force |
| Tajikistan | In force |
| Thailand | In force |
| Trinidad | In force |
| Tunisia | In force |
| Turkey | In force |
| Turkmenistan | In force |
| Ukraine | In force |
| Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) | Partly suspended |
| United Kingdom | In force |
| Uzbekistan | In force |
| Venezuela | In force |
Every country in the table links to the IRS's own page for that treaty, taken from the IRS A-to-Z list on 8 September 2026.
The other three desks
Each desk carries its own partner list and its own source line, because each authority publishes something different.
- Global tax treaties: Canada — 99 rows from Department of Finance Canada.
- Global tax treaties: India — 96 rows from Income Tax Department, India.
- Global tax treaties: UAE — 142 rows from Ministry of Finance, United Arab Emirates.
- Back to the global tax treaty guide — all four desks and the sourcing method.
What these engagements turn on
Saving clause explained to a dual citizen claiming treaty relief
A client living outside the United States held citizenship in both countries and had stopped filing, on the view that a treaty covered the position. It did not: the saving clause preserves the US right to tax its own citizens. We set out what the treaty does and does not displace, identified the relief mechanisms actually available, and scoped the filings needed to bring the position current. The engagement produced a written analysis of the clause as it applies to this taxpayer and a completed set of back years filed on a consistent basis.
Withholding repriced after a partner entry was flagged terminated
A US payer had been applying a reduced rate under an agreement the IRS list now flags as terminated. We confirmed the label on the IRS entry itself rather than from secondary commentary, established which categories of tax the termination reached and from when, and worked out the correct treatment for payments either side of that point. The work produced a revised withholding procedure, a note of the exposure on payments already made, and a source record showing the date the published page was read.
Payments to a partially suspended jurisdiction reviewed article by article
A group made recurring payments to a jurisdiction the IRS flags as partially suspended. The question was not whether the agreement existed but which of its articles still operated. We read the caution text on the entry, separated the payment types, and took each one to the article it depended on. The engagement produced an article-by-article schedule showing which payments could still be treated under the agreement and which had to move to domestic rates, with a review point tied to any change in the published entry.
Structure repriced after no treaty was found for the jurisdiction
A client had planned US-source payments to an entity in a jurisdiction it assumed was a treaty partner, on the strength of the trading relationship between the two countries. The IRS list carries no entry for it. We confirmed the absence directly from the published list, restated the withholding on domestic rules, and set out the difference against the plan before any payment was made. The engagement produced a corrected cash-flow assumption and a standing instruction to check the published list before a structure is priced on relief.
Successor state position traced to a surviving historical entry
A payment to a successor state appeared to fall outside any agreement, because a search for the modern country name found nothing on the published list. The relevant entry was the historical one, carried under the name of the state that signed it and flagged with its own caution. We identified the entry, read the caution against it, and set out what remained available and what did not. The work produced a sourced memorandum and a correction to the client's internal country list, which had been built from modern names only.
Treaty benefit tested against the anti-abuse rules before filing
An entity claimed a reduced US rate on income reaching it through a chain of related companies. The article's wording was met. We examined what the entity did, who decided things and where, and how the arrangement would read to an examiner applying the anti-abuse provisions that bear on the agreement. The engagement produced a written conclusion that the claim would not hold on the facts presented, together with what would have to be true for it to, and the client restructured the flow rather than file the claim.
Withholding Reduced by the Right Article
Dividends, interest and royalties each have their own article and their own rate, and the payer applies whichever it is satisfied of. Establishing entitlement before payment is what secures the lower rate at source.
Read how this one runsThree Countries in One File and Two Treaties That Disagree
Income sourced in one country, paid to a resident of a second, held through an entity in a third: three bilateral treaties, no three-way rule. The analysis works out which pair governs each flow, and whether the middle entity is entitled to anything at all.
Read how this one runsAll case studies — every published engagement in one place.
Core International & Cross-Border Tax Services
Strategy and compliance for income, assets and families spread across borders.
Industries & Client Types We Serve Worldwide
- Foreign VAT / GST / sales tax registrations
- Marketplace withholding reviews
- Inventory nexus & PE analysis
- Multi-currency books reconciled
- Cross-border revenue sourcing & withholding
- IP structuring with real substance
- Equity for cross-border teams
- U.S. expansion: entity & PE setup
- Reg 105 / 102 waivers
- Permanent establishment risk
- Partner mobility planning
- Cross-border withholding recovery
- Section 216 rental returns
- FIRPTA withholding recovery
- Section 116 clearance
- Treaty credit optimization
Related-party purchasing, customs value versus transfer price, and foreign-affiliate structures put trading businesses inside the s.247 documentation rules.
Goods crossing a border move the tax question from income to indirect: registration thresholds, place of supply, the customs value and the transfer price between related entities all have to agree with each other. When they do not, the adjustment arrives from two authorities at once and each one uses the other's number.
- Transfer pricing documentation (s.247)
- Customs value vs transfer price
- Foreign affiliate reporting (T1134)
- Country-by-country reporting
- Reg 105 & U.S. CWA agreements
- Multi-state & country calendars
- Touring income allocation
- Royalty & image-rights withholding
- Residency analysis before moving
- Employer payroll exposure
- Totalization & social security
- Foreign tax credits
- Treaty access & PPT reviews
- FAPI & surplus computations
- Withholding-efficient routing
- Governance & substance



