U.S. Lawmakers Ponder A Remittance Tax

Forbes

6 hours ago

Nestled in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) winding its way through the U.S. Congress is a tax provision that could have ripple effects around the world: an excise tax on international remittances sent by individuals who live in the United States but are not U.S. citizens or nationals.
The United States is by far the largest source of international remittances to lower-income countries. In 2022 U.S. remittances exceeded $79 billion. Compare that with the second largest remitter — Saudi Arabia — which sent a much smaller $39.3 billion. Rounding out the top four countries are Switzerland and Germany, which respectively sent roughly $32 billion and $25.6 billion that year, according to figures from the International Organization for Migration (International Organization for Migration, 'Migration and Migrants: A Global Overview,' 2 (2024)).
It's not surprising that the United States is the top remitter given that it has the largest immigrant population in the world. But which countries largely benefit from these cash outflows?
It turns out that India receives the lion's share of international remittances. In 2022 it received over $111 billion. Mexico is in second place with over $61 billion in remittances. Rounding out the top five countries were China, the Philippines, and France, which received $51 billion, $38 billion, and $31 billion, respectively.
Not only is India the top recipient, but it receives a sizable portion of its total remittances from the United States — nearly 28 percent, according to the Financial Times.
Having passed the House, the OBBBA has been taken up by the Senate. If the Senate keeps the remittance measure, it will mark the first time that the federal government has implemented a remittance tax on international transfers sent by individuals. While the remittance tax is attracting a lot of scrutiny, this is not the first time that congressional lawmakers have considered implementing one. Over the past decade, several bills have been introduced to tax international remittances, but the current measure has advanced the furthest.
The United States is also not alone in considering — or implementing — a remittance tax. This kind of measure has been considered in Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain (see Dilip Ratha, Supriyo De, and Kirsten Scheuttler, 'Why Taxing Remittances Is a Bad Idea,' World Bank People Move blog, Mar. 24, 2017). But remittance taxes historically have had little lasting power, raising questions about their short- and long-term feasibility.
However, the sheer size of global remittances, coupled with the fact that legislators do occasionally consider taxing them, indicates there's a need for more research on remittance inflows and outflows and the benefits and drawbacks of these taxes.
The budget bill seeks to implement a 3.5 percent excise tax on personal remittance transfers sent by non-U.S. individuals. The sender — not the recipient — would bear the tax. However, the responsibility for collecting the tax would fall on remittance transfer providers, which would be responsible for paying the tax quarterly to the government. The excise tax would not apply to any individual who is a U.S. citizen or U.S. national and sends remittances through so-called qualified remittance transfer providers. If those individuals, for whatever reason, do wind up paying some excise tax, they would receive a refundable tax credit. However, to receive a credit, the individual must provide a U.S. Social Security number.
Lawmakers want remittance transfer providers to have skin in the game as well. Under the bill, a qualified provider must agree in writing to verify whether customers are U.S. citizens or nationals. This is important for remittance transfer providers because they have secondary liability for any unpaid or uncollected tax under the bill. If implemented, the measure would apply to remittances made on January 1, 2026, and onward.
The remittance proposal is not the first one that federal lawmakers have considered. In 2022 a proposed bill (H.R. 8566) sought to apply a 5 percent remittance fee on all money transfers sent out of the United States. However, U.S. citizens could claim a refundable tax credit. A year later, the measure was reintroduced, but the fee doubled to 10 percent (see Rep. Kevin Hern, R-Okla., release, 'Hern, Vance Introduce Bill to Tax Cartel's International Money Transfers,' Dec. 14, 2023).
In 2017 a proposed bill (H.R. 1813) sought to apply a 2 percent remittance fee on money transfers sent to individuals in 42 Latin American and Caribbean countries, including Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Bahamas, Jamaica, El Salvador, Honduras, Peru, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Argentina. That proposal applied to all remittances, regardless of the sender's U.S. citizenship or national status.
In 2015 a proposed bill (S. 79) sought to apply a 7 percent fine on international remittance transfers sent by individuals who could not confirm their legal status within the United States. That measure also required remittance transfer providers to verify the sender's status, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would be responsible for enforcing the measure. The bill generated some questions about how much revenue the federal government might raise.
The bill's sponsor, then-Sen. David Vitter, asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate how the bill might affect both remitters and remittance transfer providers and forecast any potential revenue.
In a 2016 report, the GAO conducted a scenario analysis and found that net revenue from a remittance fine could vary significantly, ranging from $10 million to $1.29 billion (see GAO, 'International Remittances Actions Needed to Address Unreliable Official U.S. Estimate,' Feb. 2016). The agency said the yield would rely on factors like 'the dollar amount of remittances sent by those without legal immigration status, changes in remitter behavior because of the fine, including a potential reduction in remittances through regulated providers, and the cost of enforcement.' Chiefly, the fine could drive senders from regulated markets to black markets or induce them to rely on relatives and friends who have legal status to send money on their behalf.
As for enforcement costs, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau flagged that costs would include things like developing rules, examining providers, and coordinating enforcement actions with other federal agencies. Remittance transfer providers also told the GAO they were concerned about negative impacts on their businesses and negative impacts to smaller providers. Some of that concern was based on outcomes from Oklahoma's remittance tax.
In 2009 Oklahoma became the first U.S. state to enact a fee on remittance transfers out of the state. Under Oklahoma's law, a $5 fee applies to the first $500, and any subsequent amount is taxed at a 1 percent fee (63 Okla. Stat. section 2-503.1j). The law applies to every transaction that meets the monetary threshold. However, individuals who have a valid SSN or taxpayer identification number are allowed to claim an income tax credit that equals the amount of the remittance fee paid. For its 2016 report, the GAO interviewed some remittance transfer providers who did business in Oklahoma. Those providers generally said that transaction activity and revenues had dropped in the wake of the law. One provider told the GAO that business had shifted to out-of-state transfer providers and informal channels. However, a state audit official told the GAO that the state's revenues from the fee had increased.
Oklahoma's annual revenue and apportionment reports contain data about the transmitter fee, and it is true that the fee's revenues have significantly increased over time. According to the 2010 report, the fee generated about $5.7 million in revenue that year. By 2018 that number jumped to nearly $13.2 million and has hovered around that level over the past few years, with some declines during the COVID-19 pandemic (see 'Oklahoma Tax Commission Annual Report,' June 30, 2018).
As for the federal proposal before the Senate, the remittance industry is unenthusiastic, and several trade associations have issued letters and statements asking lawmakers to remove it. The American Fintech Council, a trade association of fintech companies and innovative banks, is one of them.
CEO Phil Goldfeder said in a May 27 release:
'This tax would put pressure on grocers, pharmacies, and other small businesses that provide remittance services, threatening to raise costs for consumers well beyond those who send money abroad. Rather than imposing new burdens, Congress should work with responsible financial innovators, regulators, and consumer advocates to modernize payment systems in ways that are fair, efficient, and inclusive.'
The American Fintech Council is concerned that the remittance tax could drive consumers into black markets, citing as examples the 2016 GAO report and Oklahoma's experience.
The statement doesn't mention digital currency, but it's not a stretch to imagine that the remittance proposal could push remitters to use virtual assets as a workaround. That could create unwanted ripple effects for governments trying to discourage the use of money transfer back channels.
The organization is also worried about regulatory overload, particularly because states across the country are standardizing their remittance regulations. In 2021 the Conference of State Bank Supervisors — a national association of state banking regulators — published the Money Transmission Modernization Act, which offers a streamlined set of standards. According to the association, 30 states have adopted the law either in whole or in part.
The American Fintech Council, which supports the model law, thinks the federal government should let state-level regulators handle this domain. 'Layering federal taxes on top of state regulations would raise compliance costs for remittance providers, leading to higher fees for consumers or fewer options in the market,' the release added.
The organization also signed onto a joint letter sent by seven trade associations to Senate Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, and ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore. In that letter, the group highlighted several concerns about the proposal, including concerns about privacy and operational complexity.
The organizations worry that the remittance tax will require providers to collect significant amounts of personal data on a large volume of transactions. Although the legislation does not describe how providers should verify a sender's U.S. status, the organizations say in the letter that 'it appears inevitable that it would require the collection and verification of sensitive personal information such as Passport or social security number — which presents a very serious privacy concern.'
On the operational side, the organizations are concerned that the volume of information to be collected will overwhelm remittance providers. The measure does not mention anything about a minimum value threshold for remittance amounts, which means transfer providers would have to keep track of everything.
In 2017 a strongly worded World Bank blog post offered nine reasons why governments should avoid taxing remittances. At the time of publication, a small handful of governments, including Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia, were considering these measures. The post, 'Why Taxing Remittances Is a Bad Idea,' said the effort may not be worth the cost. Citing the 2016 GAO report along with IMF estimates, the blog post said the resulting revenue would likely account for a meager portion of GDP. For example, the IMF estimated that a 5 percent remittance tax in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE would have raised about $4 billion among the six countries in 2015 (see 'Diversifying Government Revenue in the GCC: Next Steps,' IMF (Oct. 26, 2016)). In the United States, a 7 percent remittance tax would likely raise less than $1 billion (as noted above).
The blog post pointed out that some countries that implemented remittance taxes — whether on outward or inward remittance flows — later removed them. They included Vietnam, Tajikistan, Gabon, and Palau. But a few countries have found ways to maintain some level of taxation. The Philippines applies a document stamp tax on remittances but exempts remittances made by Filipino individuals residing overseas, provided they can show proper documentation of their Philippine status.
While the blog post discouraged remittance taxes, it called for a systematic study on the feasibility of these taxes and their implications, given that literature at the time did not seriously discuss them.
Several years later, there is still a lack of literature on the taxation of remittances, and it appears it's time for more research. Given that the U.S. GAO report is nearly a decade old, and given that remittance tax proposals continue to appear, new U.S. research into this topic may be warranted.
That research could be bolstered by examples from other countries. Ecuador notably implements a tax on international remittances. (Prior analysis: Tax Notes Int'l, May 18, 2020, p. 803.) Money sent outside the country is subject to a 5 percent fee, and banks are required to withhold the fee. However, taxpayers are allowed to deduct the fee from their local income taxes.
India applies a withholding tax to some overseas remittances. Under the country's Liberalized Remittance Scheme, individuals can send up to $250,000 abroad annually. The withholding tax, whose rate varies from 0.5 to 20 percent based on the kind of remittance, generally kicks in after remittances exceed INR 10 lakh (about $11,600), and individuals can claim the withheld tax as a refund.
Bahrain does not have a remittance transfer tax, but it has seriously considered one. In January 2024 the lower house of Bahrain's National Assembly approved a 2 percent tax on remittances sent overseas, but it failed in the upper house.
But the measure reappeared this year. In January Bahrain's lower house again approved a 2 percent tax on remittances sent overseas, and again the upper house rejected it, according to local reports. Some lawmakers reportedly were concerned that the fee could lead to an increase in money laundering, an issue that has yet to be explored in the United States (see 'Bahrain: 2% Tax on Remittances Is Rejected,' Gulf Daily News (Mar. 4, 2025)).