Oh god, what now? What now is Section 899 of the One Big Beautiful Bill – Trump’s monster-truck ‘tax and spend’ act currently bouncing around the halls of Congress.
Section 899 has been dubbed a ‘revenge tax’ because it targets individuals, corporations, and governments of foreign countries who are deemed to be hitting US entities with ‘unfair foreign taxes’.
Foreign countries like China, North Korea, and that island where all the tariff-loving penguins live, right?
Not necessarily. Quite possibly foreign lands like the UK, the EU, Australia and Japan. Plus anyone else who perhaps had Big Tech in mind when they drew up undertaxed profits rules (UTPRs), digital services taxes (DSTs), or diverted profits taxes (DPTs).
How does Section 899 affect ME?
Yes, I hear you.
The most likely impact at the time of writing is that you, an individual resident in a major US trading partner and ally, quietly building up your nest egg chock full of American assets, could be on the hook to pay a higher rate of US withholding tax (WHT).
There could be other spillover effects too but I’m going to concentrate on the most immediate – and talk about how you could mitigate the worst, should it happen.
Currently, withholding tax is due on income paid by US assets to overseas owners.
Many Monevator readers already pay withholding taxes on US equities and bonds1, although that’s not always apparent.
For example, a non-US domiciled fund will pay withholding tax on your US income before distributing the balance as dividends or interest (or reinvesting the cash back into the fund.)
That’s so much background. The nub of the problem is that anyone paying US withholding tax – whether directly or indirectly – could be in the firing line.
WHT? WTF more like
The main rate of US withholding tax is 30%. It’s levied on income, not capital gains.
Right now, you’re typically in for 15% WHT on US securities held via an Irish-domiciled fund or ETF. You get 50%-off the main rate due to a Double Taxation Agreement (DTA) that exists between the United States and Ireland.2
UK domiciled funds also qualify for the 15% withholding tax rate. Mighty Blighty has a deal with Uncle Sam, too.
Fund managers have to actively claim the rebate, which I imagine is much like wangling a gift voucher out of your mobile phone provider: “Only valid when accompanied by an original receipt, recent dental X-ray, and proof of being heir to the throne…”
It’s commonly accepted that Irish ETFs only pay 15% WHT but it may be worth checking the specifics if you invest in another type of fund.3
Got a portfolio of individual US stocks? Then fill in a W-8BEN form to reduce your WHT rate to 15%.
Ideally hold your portfolio of Made In America assets in a pension or SIPP. Choose the right platform and your SIPP scoops a 0% rate – no paperwork required.
What are the withholding tax hikes proposed under Section 899?
Section 899 goes from bad to worse depending on which version of the legislation we’re talking about.
Currently, one version has been passed by the US House of Representatives and another is due to be voted on by the Senate.
It’s worth saying that the entire bill is still subject to amendment as it journeys through Congress. Section 899 is not yet set in stone.
But here’s where we’re at:
Section 899 WHT | House version | Senate version |
WHT rate after phase-in | 50% | 15% to 45% depending on existing treaty rates |
Phased rise | 5% per year | 5% per year |
DTA discount effect | All rates rise 5% per year until the 50% cap is reached. | DTAs cushion the blow e.g. Existing 0% rate rises to max 15%. 30% rate rises to max 45%. |
A quick example may help you better understand these proposals.
Let’s say you (or your fund) currently pays a 15% WHT rate on US dividends. In this case the House plan will demand 50% of your income in year seven after Section 899 is invoked.
That’s the ceiling rate. You’ll pay 50% from there on in (as will everyone else once the 5% per year phased hikes have done their work.)
The Senate version still screws you, but it’s gentler, possibly more classy. The lovely senators jack the rate three times and respect your DTAs.
F’r instance, a 15% payer caps out at 30% after three years.
It’s still less than ideal.
How bad?
You can estimate your loss of return by multiplying your investment’s dividend yield by your WHT percentage.
The S&P 500’s dividend yield is 1.3% according to the current S&P Dow Jones factsheet. So your loss to withholding tax is approximately:
WHT rate | 0% | 15% | 30% | 45% | 50% |
Loss of return | 0% | -0.2% | -0.39% | -0.59 | -0.65% |
Thus if you pay 15% WHT now, your dividend return is reduced from around 1.3% to 1.1%
The House’s 50% revenge rate would cut your dividends in half. You’d be losing 0.65% based on the current yield.
That will add up over time.
Moreover, the S&P 500’s yield is near its historic low. An average yield of 1.5% to 2% is more typical.
The effect is worse still if you’re invested in higher-yielding stocks, such as a US dividend growth strategy.
Run away?
It’s important we don’t lose our heads.
Nobody wants to lose halve their dividend return, but here’s what it would have looked like (red line) compared to the returns you actually made investing in the S&P 500 this past decade while paying 15% WHT (blue line).

Nominal USD annual total return data from Aswath Damodaran. Fund costs not included. June 2025.
In the worst-case 50% WHT scenario you’d have booked a 12.1% annualised return instead of a 12.7% annualised return over ten years.4
As I say: not great. It does hurt!
But you would still have been better off investing in US equities versus the World ex-US over this period, even if ultimately exposed to the hardcore version of Section 899.
Tax tail meet investment dog
Of course we can argue that the S&P 500 would have been less attractive to global investors, or that US holdings will henceforth come with greater political risk attached…
I’d sign up to all of that.
But pre-emptively moving now to down-weight the US in our portfolios solely on the basis of Section 899 looks premature to me.
For a start the US is likely to remain one of the most dynamic markets in the world and trying to guess what will happen next is a fools’ errand. Perhaps now more than ever.
Secondly, there’s a great way to get around Section 899 – SHOULD IT HAPPEN. (Sorry about the all-caps, just channelling my inner Trump there.)
The work around
There are #reasons to think you won’t have to face the revenge tax even if the bill passes.
Synthetic ETFs don’t have to pay US WHT. They duck the tax by using a financial derivative to pay the index return – as opposed to the normie approach of actually holding the shares that comprise the index.
This isn’t regarded as a tax dodge.
Synthetic S&P 500 ETFs have been operating since 2010. They’ve accumulated billions in assets under management. They’re not in the cross-hairs of the IRS.
iShares, Xtrackers, and Amundi have all launched new synthetic S&P 500 ETFs in the last few years as word spread that their withholding tax advantage gave them the edge over physical ETFs.
World and global synthetic ETFs are available, too.
Sure, the US government could level the playing field later.
But for now this is an obvious get-out.
Are US Treasuries affected?
In a word, “No.” In three words, “No, for now.”
The Senate bill clarified that even the House formulation doesn’t intend to go after foreigners who are helping to fund the US deficit by owning US fixed income.
So we can rest easy on that.
Even if some maniac flips out and changes their mind then the obvious remedy would be to forget Treasuries and hold gilts instead.
Negotiation tool
(Ooh, I’m pleased with that one. Just when I thought I was all out of nicknames for Trump!)
Section 899 is intended as a tool for negotiation. It would cease to apply in the tax year after a country drops whatever tax displeases the US Treasury Secretary.
From that perspective, the phased 5% hikes are a useful way of turning the tax thumb screws: “Don’t make me do this.”
Of course, the UK or the EU may not cave. (Well, we probably will. But they may not.)
I’d need to consult a tax lawyer to understand what would happen if the UK quietly mothballed the offending taxes while Ireland didn’t.
Irish-domiciled ETFs are typically structured as Irish corporations and pay withholding tax at the fund level, so UK domiciled funds could gain a competitive advantage in that scenario.
There’s also a Section 899 exemption for ‘United States-owned’ foreign corporations. This applies if more than 50% of the entity’s vote or value is held by US persons.
Could that mean we’d be protected from Section 899 by funds from US firms like iShares, Vanguard, or State Street? Again, I’m not an international tax lawyer on a MAGA retainer. (Though I wish I was paid like one).
What’s more, a cavalcade of financial industry special interests and lobbyists is apparently working to water down the provisions as they stand.5
Finally, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act could fail to pass into law. That does happen in Congress. So this is far from a done deal.
Finally, finally, we could club together and send Trump a new Statue of Liberty. But with his face. Made out of gold. He’d like that.
Take it steady,
The Accumulator
P.S. ‘Section 891’ already exists in US law to punish foreigners adjudged to impose unfair taxes on US citizens and interests. It’s never been invoked. Apparently Section 899 is thought more likely to be implemented (if it becomes law) because it’s not as harsh.
P.P.S. Other Section 899 provisions could adversely impact the profits of non-US companies. But that doesn’t seem worth getting into yet given all the uncertainties. Also, the damage estimates seem small, and companies could legally shape-shift their ownership structure to avoid the incoming.
- Lots of other countries levy similar withholding taxes but we’re not concerned with that here. [↩]
- Remember it’s the fund that pays. While you don’t incur withholding tax on dividends paid directly to you by Irish-based funds and ETFs, that’s because they’ve already settled accounts with Uncle Sam before you get a sniff. [↩]
- Contact the fund manager or look in the annual report. Find the section that details the amount of overseas dividends received and tax paid. Divide the tax paid by the dividend amount. Multiply by 100 to discover the effective withholding tax rate. Note, this will only give you the effective US withholding tax rate if the fund invests 100% in US assets. [↩]
- Nominal USD returns. [↩]
- Hard to believe I’m cheering on this crew. [↩]
A big chunk of my retirement income is due to come from my US dividend growth SIPP portfolio. I don’t pay any withholding tax at the moment by filling in a W8-BEN form. This seems complicated but any idea whether that situation will remain the same. I guess the answer is we will have to wait and see…
As it stands, if the House version prevailed then you’d pay 50% WHT after a decade of 5% rises – assuming no negotiation from affected countries.
If the Senate version won out then you’d be in for 15% once the ratchet effect was complete.
Again, that assumes no amends to the current position, no negotiation, or climbdown, or launch of swap-based dividend growth ETFs.
There’s a long way to go.
Note that if you’re a U.S. citizen resident in the UK and hold individual U.S. company shares, then it’s a W-9 form that you send to your platform. Also, if you file a US return (as you typically will be required to) then depending on your personal tax situation you might be able to get any US withholding tax refunded. Unfortunately I don’t think this would work with funds, as the fund pays the WHT, not you. Just be warned that dividends (and capital gains or losses) on US shares are potentially treated differently than “foreign” shares, and can complicate any foreign tax credit claim calculations.
Bearing in mind that much of the chaos that has engulfed stock and bond markets in the not too distant past has been caused by the various permutations of derivatives…, that is precisely why, in my fund choices, I try to avoid anything other than ‘physical’.
The Blue and Red line ($3.31 end value & 12.7% CAGR v $3.13 & 12.1%): all to the good and yes *generally* speaking US firms go for buybacks over dividends or for growthy stuff eschew dividends entirely (I see the very first reader comment on Monevator ever was about this latter point). That all serves to greatly mitigate this section 899 madness – if it comes to pass (many things are too stupid to be credible but nothing is too cretinous to actually happen).
But there’s a cloud to that silver lining.
Many very tastily valued (some might venture undervalued) international stocks (ex US Developed Market and Emerging Market / Frontier Markey) are only really accessible in the UK via the NYSE.
These include some perhaps interesting dividend payers (or at least interesting to me – YMMV).
Going Deep Value here, in the much loathed and shunned EM / FM oil sector and in the equally hated cyclical tanker sector you’ve got Columbia’s EcoPetrol (EP) with a 18% dividend yield, Brazilian Petrobas (PBR) on 14%, and then Nordic American Tankers and International Seaways, each on 10% yields.
If Uncle Sam is going to end up withhold multiples of the 15% allowed under DTAs for WHT then that will surely make a big difference to those stocks, even though (in the case of the first two examples) neither Columbia or Brazil get any say in it, nor any benefit from it (notwithstanding that each State effectively backstops EP and PBR respectively).
A dumb question, just to be certain: will I notice the impact of this tax as a hidden drag on returns, or is the cost borne by the fund manager and passed on as higher fees?
@talexe – it’s a drag on returns.
This is a direct assault by the US on the US/UK tax treaty. That is, the treaty – which the US signed on to – specifically limits the US to 15% in tax on dividends. This law simply and intentionally overrides (reneges on) that, in contravention of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Additionally, look at the “remittance tax” in the same bill. It’s drafted to apply a 3.5% (currently) tax on all money sent out of the US by non-US citizens. It is unclear if it affects non-US residents holding US accounts, but either way, that’s a second tax treaty override there, then. It is also the start of US capital controls.
Now, the modest returns drag from 5% here or there on dividends might not make you reconsider investing in US stocks. However, it is the evident contempt the US has for tax treaties, and the offhand and cavalier way in which the US is prepared to simply ignore them, that is the real cause for concern. This would be the reason to reconsider.
Even if this nonsense doesn’t pass now, it will crop up later. By merely proposing it, the US has signalled strongly that it can no longer be considered a safe or reliable place in which to invest.
Section 899 is already causing large sovereign funds to avoid making new investment into the US, and to halt the progress of any ongoing ones. Maybe TACO, but if not, the end point of this could be ugly for all sides.
I think it might be worse: If the DTA is not updated promptly, could it mean that, when paying taxes on US investments held directly (as I am sure quite a few of us UK-based non-US international people do), we would only get the current UK 15% rebate as per DTA on the WHT at 50%? That would mean an additional rate UK tax payer normally paying 39.35% tax on dividends (to the US and US in aggregate as per UK tax) would end up be paying not “just” 50% (to the IRS via WHT), but would also still be paying (39.35%-15%) to HMRC, for an insane total of 74.65%. Please tell me I am wrong…