Category Archives: Global Mobility Services

Reverse Culture Shock (or Why Do I Hate Being Back Home?)

maryd-pic5Author:
Mary Dougherty – Shepell-fgi

When employees begin an international assignment, they often experience “culture shock” in the host location.  Many companies provide support services to ease the transition for these families, ensuring a quick adjustment and a productive and satisfying international assignment experience.  But what happens when the assignment is over, and the family heads home?

  • 25% of expatriates leave the company within 2 years of repatriation (National Foreign Trade Council survey)
  • 69% experience significant “reverse culture shock” (Bureau of National Affairs, Washington)

Coming Home is Not So Easy
Repatriation is not as simple as it sounds.  “Reverse Culture Shock” is often experienced by those returning from an international assignment, and this can have tremendous impact on professional and personal adjustment.  The challenges inherent to living in a different cultural context for a significant period of time do not end with adapting to the host culture; they continue through the process of returning home and re-adjusting to what was left behind.  In fact, it is often those who have adjusted most successfully abroad who have the most difficulty returning home.

It can take up to 18 months to adjust and reintegrate after an international assignment; adjustment issues effect employees and their families both personally and professionally.  Understanding the problems that they may encounter upon reintegration is the key to a successful repatriation.

What to Watch For
Here are some common symptoms or situations that repatriating families encounter:

  • irritability/ resentment
  • sense of difference and disconnect
  • disappointment
  • inability to concentrate
  • low morale
  • change in values/attitudes
  • marital conflict
  • fatigue
  • parent/child conflict
  • educational/adjustment problems for children
  • depression
  • feeling unappreciated personally/professionally
  • decreased productivity
  • loneliness

What Can Employers Do?
One way to lessen the negative impact of repatriation is to provide support to the employee and their family in the form of a “Repatriation Debriefing.” Skilled repatriation counselors can help these individuals recognize the symptoms of reverse culture shock, and provide techniques to manage through it effectively.  To support family members, providing an opportunity for the employee and family to candidly and confidentially discuss repatriation challenges with regard to both work-related and family experiences is key. This process provides an opportunity to examine and explore the potential difficulties of returning home, as well as assisting in problem solving and goal setting.

Employers should also carefully manage repatriation assignments to ensure that expatriates are retained in their organizations, and that the new skills acquired during the international assignment are recognized and leveraged.

Finally, don’t minimize the importance of taking care of the family.  When an employee relocates, so does their family, and the impact on a spouse and children can be profound.

These steps will help minimize turnover amongst repatriates, preserving your international assignment investment, and also ensure that your repatriating employees are quickly and effectively reintegrated into their home country.

More About Mary:

Avoiding Tax Traps with Short-Term Assignments

Claudia HoweAuthor:
Claudia Howe – Global Mobility Tax, LLP

Has anybody heard about the magic 183 days?  So, if you stay in the host country for less than 183 days, you don’t have to pay tax in that country, right?  … right?  Well, actually the answer is:  sometimes.

Many folks will remember the 183-day rule, but often they do not quite know why or how.  But it sure lulls many international short-term business assignees (and their managers) into a false sense of security that as long as they are in the other country for less than that magic number of days, thinking they will be exempt from that country’s tax.  Let’s step back.

Tax Treaties Help Prevent Double Taxation

Tax treaties come into play when two countries want to tax the same income leading to the dreaded “double taxation.”  As the world has become smaller and more and more people are conducting business in countries other than their home, these folks find themselves in a position where they may be required to pay tax in both countries under the domestic law of each country.  For example, a UK employee goes to the US for a four-month project.  The UK will tax her on her world-wide income by virtue of being a tax resident in the UK.  The US federal government will want to tax her US source income because she has “effectively connected income.”

How Tax Treaties Work

Tax treaties provide that if certain conditions exist, the person is not taxable in the foreign jurisdiction, in this case the US.  Beware, each treaty is worded differently, but in general, the three main treaty conditions for an individual employed in the home country, and claiming exemption from tax in the host country under Article 15, the Dependent Services article, are:

  1. The employee does not exceed 183 days in the host country.
  2. The remuneration is paid by the home country entity (home payroll).
  3. The remuneration is not charged back to an entity in the host country.

As mentioned above, be careful to read the exact wording in each treaty to evaluate exactly what it says – there are variations on the theme.  For example, the 183 days could be in a calendar year, fiscal year, or in a rolling 12 months. The US has concluded numerous treaties and neatly lists them on the IRS website.   The UK also has a list.

The Fourth Requirement (in some countries)

Over the past few years, another hurdle to using the treaty has crystalized itself, also know as the “economic employer” approach.   The term “employed” or “employment” as stated in Article 15 had not previously been defined, until the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) stated that substance trumped form.  This means that even if the person is legally employed by the home country, the entity that is receiving the benefit of the services, namely the host country entity, could be construed to be the real employer and therefore the Article would not be useable to exempt the income from tax in the host country.  The US has not adopted this approach as of yet, but many of the European countries that follow the OECD model treaty have.

Our friend from the UK on the 4 month assignment remains on UK payroll, spends less than 183 days in the US during any 12 month period (even vacation days not related to the assignment count), and her company does not cross-charge her compensation cost to any US entity.  So, is she off the hook?

State Tax Implications

Not completely.  The treaty in this case will enable our UK friend to be exempt from US federal taxes, but since she is working in the beautiful (and broke) state of California, which does not accept any treaties concluded by the US federal government, she will still be subject to California tax, regardless.

Social Tax Implications

Our friend also has to make sure that her employer has applied for a certificate of coverage under the US/UK totalization agreement to exempt her from US social taxes (more on that another time).

Foreign Tax Credits

Even if the conditions for an exemption from the host country tax are not met, the treaty can still be helpful in avoiding double taxation:  the income may now be taxable in the host country, but under the Relief of Double Taxation article (contained in most treaties), the home country must grant a credit for taxes paid in the host country, up to the amount of tax that would have been paid in the home country on that same income.   This might also apply in cases where no treaties exist.  Keep in mind, though, that in some countries, the practical requirements for claim a foreign tax credit are so complex that for small amounts, it may not even be worth the bother.

Summary

So, what should you, an HR professional, faced with the news of a short-term assignment and, the manager’s famous last words are: “we will make sure it’s less than 183 days,” do?

  1. Check the host country’s domestic law for when a person will become taxable.
  2. If taxable, check if the home and host country have a treaty and then find the latest version of the treaty (not the one you printed 5 years ago and … “it’s gotta be somewhere in this drawer”).
  3. Request a detailed travel schedule for 12 months prior to the assignment from the employee to understand how much time he or she has already spend in the host country for any reason (vacation, holiday, trade shows, business trips, etc.).
  4. Read all the provisions of the treaty carefully.
  5. Find out from the manager and your finance team if the compensation will indeed remain in the home country and will not be charged to the host entity or a client in the host country.
  6. Find out if the host country has adopted the “economic employer” approach.
  7. Are there any other taxing jurisdictions that you need to consider (state/province/social tax, etc.)?
  8. Whew – I am getting tired just writing all these things. . . . .

Unless you have checked all this out, you cannot rely on the famous 183 days.  And don’t forget the reporting and filing requirements for each jurisdiction!  You may want to call your favorite global mobility tax professional to assist with all of the above and to co-develop the options for the assignment step by step so you can articulate the risks and options to that manager and to your management.

More information on Claudia:

How Big Must Your Relocation Provider Really Be?

edit-Alan Biz Mug Shot 1The Forum recently received a great question via our “Ask the Expert” feature:

“We are a “young” international and domestic relocation management company but our staff has many collective years of experience in the industry. We are having a hard time breaking into the corporate market.  It seems that HR Departments do not want to give us the opportunity to present our services.  How can a small company like ours work itself into the international employee relocation market within a corporation?”

We can truly empathize with this situation, which is one we’ve often seen.  This is especially true in today’s economic environment of slashed budgets and significantly reduced transfer and assignment volume.  Overworked and highly stressed company staff are unlikely to spend precious time, now, to hear about services they’re not currently using.

The reader suggested that the “big” global relocation service firms receive a better reception from prospective clients than do the smaller and newly established firms.  In our experience, this is basically true.  The reader also stated that many of the smaller firms have a stronger service orientation and can be much more responsive and flexible than the big well-established providers.  Indeed, we have seen cases of this too.  It’s possible to demonstrate that smaller firms made up of seasoned experts, but with lower operating overhead and more flexible processes, can be quite cost competitive while providing high quality services as well.

So why are the small firms having difficulty “breaking in”?  What is it that the big firms offer as “competitive advantage”, often successfully, that the small firms do not?

Big firms have a large footprint.

They can point to wholly owned offices and affiliate relationships in a wide array of countries.  This can be a huge issue for corporations that want to have local touch points for their employees and direct knowledge of local environments readily available.  The small firms often don’t have such a geographic footprint and might not be sure how to establish one.

Big firms have globally experienced staff.

Frequently, their staff come from a variety of countries, have lived and worked in multiple countries and speak a number of languages.  They also frequently have individuals with prior international assignment policy development and program management experience on their teams.  This engenders great credibility in the eyes of the corporate buyer.

Big firms leverage their extensive experience.

 They have managed programs covering multitudes of assignees across a variety of countries and industries.  The corporate buyer is far more impressed with stories about “been there, done that” than with honest admissions of “haven’t been there, haven’t done that — yet”.  Corporations tend to be risk adverse and shy away from “being the guinea pig on whose dime the new service provider learns the business”.

Big firms have technology.

They offer sophisticated state-of-the-art, web-enabled capabilities for projecting total assignment costs, managing reimbursements, communicating with clients and their transferees, interacting online with data providers, providing country-specific information, and tracking and reporting expenses.  Many smaller firms do not have such (expensive) technology and, occasionally, cannot demonstrate expertise in managing the complex requirements of expense management and tracking across multiple countries and pay-points.

Big firms have strong relationships with key service providers.

They know and work with a variety of firms providing assignment cost of living and housing data, international tax experts, destination country employment counsel, cultural and language training firms, etc.  These pre-existing working relationships mean single point of contact and seamless service provision that is extremely attractive to corporate clients.

Big firms invest in polished marketing campaigns.

They advertise, host and sponsor conferences, deliver keynote presentations, conduct webinars, host booths at SHRM and ERC conferences, develop highly polished web sites, publish surveys and articles, etc.  This does not, of course, make the big firms better at providing services but, at the end of the day, polished marketing does impress prospective clients and creates name recognition.

Big firms have the advantage of name recognition.

 Finally, there is the cliché that no procurement professional was ever fired for hiring a well-known “big name” even if there was a service breakdown later. Let’s face it, in many corporations there is a built in bias toward hiring only name firms and avoiding the perceived risk (accurate or not) of hiring unknowns.

So what can a small/new firm do?

Emphasize responsiveness, service orientation and flexibility.

Probably the two most critical attributes in which to excel and compete are outstanding service and price.  Responsiveness, flexibility and competence are critical in what, I think we would all agree, is a service industry, after all.

Build internal international expertise.

This should be done via hiring highly experienced, preferably well-known, and globally networked staff and through education such as the SHRM GPHR and ERC GMS programs.  Travel and learn from first-hand experience about assignee destinations around the world.  External consultants also can be quite helpful in this area.

Invest in technology.

The ability to project and track costs, communicate with management, transferees and other services providers, e.g. the client’s international tax firm, and manage data is critically necessary.

Develop and nurture relationships with complimentary service providers.

This must include in-country providers and data, immigration, tax, language training and cultural training firms, among others.

Create name recognition through a well-focused and professional marketing campaign.

Demonstrate how the firm should be perceived as a trusted advisor and capable service provider. Create a public presence in the industry.

Delight your current clients and enlist them as your champions

When courting new business, make use of recommendations and testimonials from satisfied clients.  Ask your clients for leads and to make “warm” introductions.  Word-of-mouth recommendations are priceless.

Direct business development efforts towards smaller firms.

They tend not to have the budget for, and less of a bias toward, the big firms. It’s also relatively well known that the big firms don’t give their best attention to small accounts. Go where there IS business AND less competition.

Implement a “Blue Ocean” strategy.

There are many capable providers of  global mobility services, large and small.  The market, especially in the current economic scene, may actually be over-supplied with providers.  Competition is fierce.  We would suggest that small firms specifically target prospects whose mobility needs – geographically and transfer types – best match the firm’s geographic footprint and operational strengths.  Approach those firms that are not being approached by the multitudes of providers.

Seek out the advice and counsel of those with depth of experience and expertise.

We believe that seeking guidance and mentoring from experts can be quite worthwhile.  Professionals with prior “in-house” corporate experience, as buyers of external global mobility services, across a variety of industries are especially valuable.

We again thank the reader who submitted the question.  Now we invite our readers to share their views.  Please let use know your thoughts via comments on this post.

More about Alan:

On LinkedIn

Contact Alan

LOF Solutions