• Sectors we work in banner(2)

    Quick Reads

The Two Most Feared Foreign Tax Provisions in the One Big, Beautiful Bill: Now Eliminated or Defanged

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act or the OBBBA is a major piece of US tax reform legislation. The OBBBA aimed to overhaul several aspects of the Internal Revenue Code, with a focus on extending the expiring tax provisions enacted by Trump under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017. 

The OBBBA originated in the House of Representatives with two proposed provisions nicknamed the “Revenge Tax” under Proposed Section 899 and the “Remittance Transfer Excise Tax” under Proposed Section 4475.  

The Revenge Tax introduced a new US surtax aimed at companies and investors from countries that impose taxes deemed unfair to American businesses. From the time this bill was proposed until the G7 meeting, it was the most-discussed topic in the tax community. We've never witnessed such a surge of LinkedIn posts focused on this particular section. 

The Remittance Transfer Excise Tax created a transaction-based excise tax imposed on outbound money transfers from the US. Anyone who transfers money from the US to another country must pay the excise tax, initially set at 5%, regardless of their legal status in the US. This applies to foreign workers on an H-1B visa, tourists making international transfers, and green card holders. 

On June 16, 2025, the Senate Finance Committee unveiled draft text containing tax provisions that amend the House's version of the OBBBA.  

Subsequently, on July 1, 2025, the Senate introduced further amendments to the OBBBA, creating the version that will be presented to Trump for his signature on July 4 (Independence Day). We are betting that Trump will opt for a dramatic backdrop, complete with fireworks, when he signs the OBBBA. 

Under the soon-to-be-signed version of the OBBBA, the Revenge Tax has been completely eliminated, and the Remittance Transfer Excise Tax has been defanged. The excise tax rate has been lowered to 1% (from the initial 5%) and now only applies to remittance transfers where the sender uses cash, a money order, a cashier's check, or any other similar physical instrument to make the transfer. 

Based on this progress and understanding, I have asked the Senate and House to remove the Section 899 protective measure from consideration in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill. This understanding with our G7 partners provides greater certainty and stability for the global economy and will enhance growth and investment in the United States and beyond. I thank Senator Crapo and Chairman Smith for their leadership that made this day possible.

Our thinking

  • Family Investment Companies: Rising Popularity Amid Business Property Relief Changes

    Mary Perham

    Insights

  • Maddie Dunn writes for Farmers Guardian on last month’s Spending Review and the Government’s attitude to farming

    Maddie Dunn

    In the Press

  • Thomas Moran and Ruth Morris write for Prime Resi on the Prime London market and the wider impact of rental reform

    Thomas Moran

    In the Press

  • UK tax considerations for US persons relocating to the UK

    Matthew Radcliffe

    Insights

  • Offshore trusts: Have reports of their demise been greatly exaggerated?

    Dominic Lawrance

    Insights

  • Keeping compliant: Navigating SFO regulations globally

    Christopher Gothard

    Insights

  • Valuable assets protection from death, disputes, and divorce

    Sarah Jane Boon

    Insights

  • Q&As: The Evolution of Family Offices

    Amira Shaker-Bortman

    Insights

  • Next Gen: Upholding family values

    Elinor Boote

    Insights

  • Relocation: Important factors to consider before moving

    Graeme Kleiner

    Insights

  • To share or not to share, that is the question. The Supreme Court hands down judgment in ‘big money’ divorce case Standish v Standish and clarifies the position regarding matrimonialisation and the sharing principle

    Miranda Fisher

    Insights

  • The decision in Standish Stands Up for Prenups – Huge boost for prenups as Supreme Court decision underscores asset protection

    Miranda Fisher

    Quick Reads

  • CDR Magazine quotes Simon Le Wita on the Keystone XL pipeline ICSID arbitration

    Simon Le Wita

    In the Press

  • Upcoming Licensing Regimes for Virtual Asset Services in Hong Kong

    Gaven Cheong

    Quick Reads

  • Courts are not couples’ therapists - and that’s a good thing

    Neeva Desai

    Quick Reads

  • City AM quotes Dominic Lawrance on the suitability of a non-dom tiered tax regime (TTR)

    Dominic Lawrance

    In the Press

  • Bill Gates' Philanthropic Urgency: a catalyst for ESG

    Tabitha Collett

    Quick Reads

  • The Law Society Gazette quotes Miranda Fisher on the upcoming Supreme Court Standish v Standish judgment

    Miranda Fisher

    In the Press

  • Liz Gifford, Janine Regan and Courtney Benard write for New Law Journal on an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill which will allow UK charities to send direct marketing emails to supporters without prior opt-in consent

    Liz Gifford

    In the Press

Back to top