What makes agriculture & agri-tech different from an ordinary filing?
Agricultural land ownership is restricted for non-residents in several countries, so the structure that holds the land is often decided by foreign-investment rules before tax is considered. An ordinary preparer applies the general rule and stops there, which is how the relief in the specific provision goes unclaimed.
Can you work with my existing accountant?
That is how most of these engagements run. They keep the domestic file, we take the cross-border piece, and the boundary is agreed in writing so nothing is done twice or missed.
Can our company buy farmland in another country?
Sometimes, and the answer is usually decided by that country's foreign-investment rules rather than its tax rules. Several countries restrict agricultural land ownership by non-residents, whether through an outright prohibition, a size limit, a consent requirement, or a rule that the owner be locally resident or locally controlled. Those rules determine which structures are available to you at all. Only once that is known can the tax treatment of the available structures be compared. Buying first and asking afterwards tends to be expensive, because the remedies — a forced disposal, a consent applied for late, a holding entity unwound — all cost more than the question would have.
Do our seasonal workers abroad create a tax obligation there?
They can, and the obligation usually lands on the employer rather than the worker. Where people are physically present and working in another country, that country generally has a claim over the employment income arising there, and there is often a withholding or reporting duty attached to it that the employer has to operate. Whether a treaty relieves the worker does not by itself remove the employer's administrative obligation. Seasonal patterns make this easy to miss, because the same crew crosses, works and leaves again before anything has been filed. The review is worth doing before a season rather than after it.
Are our exports taxed in the buyer's country?
Direct tax and indirect tax answer that differently and need to be looked at separately. On the indirect side, the treatment of a cross-border sale of goods turns on where the goods are when they are supplied, who acts as importer, and what registration and documentation the destination country requires of a non-resident seller; duty sits alongside that as its own question. On the direct side, the question is whether your business has a presence in that country at all. Many exporters have no direct-tax exposure abroad and a real indirect-tax obligation, which is why one clean answer rarely exists.
Should we lease farmland abroad instead of buying it?
It is often the route left open when ownership is restricted, and it changes the tax analysis rather than removing it. A lease raises different questions: how the rent is treated in each country, whether payments abroad attract withholding, how improvements to land you do not own are relieved, and what happens to the arrangement at the end of the term. None of that makes leasing worse. It makes it different. The order we work in is to establish which forms of holding are permitted, then compare the permitted ones on tax, rather than choosing a structure and hoping it is allowed.
Does using a local subsidiary get around ownership restrictions?
Not automatically. Restrictions on agricultural land are often written to reach through a company to the people who control it, by testing the residence of shareholders or directors, or by asking who ultimately benefits. A locally incorporated company with non-resident owners may be caught by the same rule as the non-resident individual. Where a local entity is permitted, it brings consequences of its own: how profits are repatriated, whether payments out attract withholding, and how the structure is treated on a later sale. The entity choice is worth settling against the investment rules and the tax treatment at the same time.
Where is the profit taxed on crops grown abroad?
The country the land sits in almost always has the first claim on income from that land, because immovable property is the clearest connection a tax system recognises. What varies is what your home country then does — whether it taxes the same profit again and gives credit for the foreign tax, whether it exempts it, and what it requires you to report either way. So the usual outcome is two filings and a relief mechanism between them, not a choice between one country and the other. The practical work is making the two computations agree on what was earned and what was paid.
Can I avoid capital gains tax on a foreign property?
Not by virtue of it being foreign — there is no exemption for that, and the "keep it offshore" advice you may have read is how people acquire penalties rather than savings. What genuinely reduces the gain is ordinary and legitimate: principal residence relief where the property qualifies and the designation is made correctly, a properly built cost base including acquisition costs and capital improvements, the timing of the disposition, the treaty rules for real property, and credit for the foreign tax paid. See principal residence and foreign property.
What is a double tax treaty and what does it actually do?
It is an agreement between two countries that divides up the right to tax. Article by article it decides which country taxes employment income, dividends, interest, royalties, pensions, property and business profits — and where both may tax, it caps what the source country can withhold and tells the other to give credit. It also breaks residence ties and opens a government-to-government channel for disputes. What it never does is apply itself: a treaty position is claimed. See our treaty work.
