International Mobility of Individuals: The Growing Limits of Treaty Rules in Light of Recent OECD Work
Introduction – International mobility at the heart of the OECD’s current reflections
Over recent years, the OECD has devoted increasing attention to the tax implications of international mobility of individuals. Initially addressed primarily through the lens of corporate taxation and value creation (BEPS), this reflection has progressively extended to individuals, driven by the rise of remote work, the digitalisation of economic activity and profound changes in lifestyles.
Current treaty rules, in particular those governing tax residence and the resolution of dual residence situations, are largely based on concepts developed at a time when international mobility was less frequent, more stable and more linear. Contemporary mobility patterns, by contrast, are often discontinuous, multi-jurisdictional and, in some cases, deliberately de-territorialised.
The public consultation launched by the OECD on the global mobility of individuals forms part of this broader context. It highlights a number of structural tensions between the existing treaty framework and the realities encountered in practice. The analysis below offers a synthesis of the key issues brought to light by this consultation, informed by a practitioner’s perspective.
I. The erosion of treaty residence criteria for individuals
The observations developed in this section are drawn from recurring issues encountered in my practice as an international tax adviser and were shared with the OECD as part of the public consultation on global mobility.
Treaty rules for determining tax residence traditionally rely on a well-established hierarchy of criteria: permanent home, centre of vital interests, habitual abode and nationality. These criteria are largely qualitative and presuppose the existence of a dominant geographical anchor.
That assumption is becoming increasingly fragile.
In situations that are now common, such as long-term international assignments, a taxpayer may have a dwelling available both in the State of origin and in the host State, rendering the permanent home criterion ineffective. The centre of vital interests test, intended to identify the State with the strongest personal and economic ties, becomes equally difficult to apply where professional activity, income sources, asset management and personal life are spread across several jurisdictions.
The OECD Model Commentaries advocate a holistic assessment based on a non-exhaustive set of factors. In practice, however, this approach increases legal uncertainty and leaves significant room for divergent interpretations between tax authorities and courts.
These difficulties are even more pronounced for more contemporary profiles, such as digital entrepreneurs or “digital nomads”, whose activities are carried out online, without a stable place of work, and whose physical presence is fragmented across multiple States during the same year. In such cases, treaty criteria appear to presuppose a degree of territorial stability that no longer reflects observed realities.
These issues will be further discussed at the OECD public consultation conference to be held on 20 January at the OECD Conference Centre in Paris, where I will also have the opportunity to hear the experiences and perspectives of other experts and practitioners facing similar challenges.
The OECD Extends Automatic Exchange of Information to Real Estate: Understanding the New International Tax Transparency Framework
I. Real estate: the last blind spot of international tax transparency
Over the past fifteen years, international tax transparency has undergone a profound transformation. The end of banking secrecy, the generalisation of exchange of information on request, and above all the implementation of the OECD Common Reporting Standard (CRS), have given tax authorities unprecedented visibility over financial assets held abroad by their residents.
More recently, this movement has been extended to crypto-assets and digital platforms. By contrast, a major component of the wealth of internationally mobile individuals and families has long remained outside this transparency dynamic: real estate.
The OECD notes that cross-border ownership of real estate has increased significantly in recent years, while still being imperfectly captured by the tax authorities of taxpayers’ States of residence. This relative opacity makes it more difficult to verify rental income, capital gains, and, upstream, the origin of the funds used to acquire real estate assets.
It is against this background that the OECD published, in October 2025, its report to G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors.
Criminal seizure in a tax fraud case involving a trust and a life insurance policy: distinction between beneficial owner and free disposal of assets
An investigation into tax fraud has brought to light an international asset-holding structure at the heart of the judges’ reasoning.
The French Court of Cassation recently ruled on the seizure of €94,460,440, representing the proceeds from the sale of a real estate complex valued at €1,032,000,000 (24 September 2025, appeal no. 25-80.120).
Branch, Subsidiary or Liaison Office in France: Which Structure to Choose for Establishing a Foreign Company?
When a foreign company plans to establish a presence in France, several legal structures are available. The choice between a branch, a subsidiary or a liaison office depends on the nature of the planned activity, the degree of autonomy desired for the French entity, and the tax, social and legal implications associated with each option.
This article provides an overview to guide readers in their initial reflections.
Successions through Trusts in France
Cross-border estates involving trusts raise complex issues under French inheritance law. While foreign trusts may structure succession with flexibility, their effectiveness in France is limited by the forced heirship regime protecting children and spouses. EU Regulation 650/2012 further requires that successions be governed by a single law, usually that of the deceased’s habitual residence. This article explores how French courts assess foreign trusts, when forced heirs can challenge trust provisions, and what estate planners must anticipate when combining trusts with French succession law.
Management fees and indirect remuneration of managers: Marseille Administrative Court of Appeal strengthens evidentiary requirements
The Administrative Court of Appeal of Marseille refines the conditions under which a company may validly remunerate its manager indirectly through a service agreement. In a judgment of April 3, 2025 (No. 23MA02484), delivered on referral following the “Sté Collectivision” decision of the French Conseil d’État, the 3rd Chamber of the Administrative Court of Appeal […]
