[buran77]

Many countries have laws so that if you are a resident there you also pay taxes there. They may also have agreements with other countries in order to avoid double taxation. But I'm fairly certain that barring any weird legal setup living in a country for a year means you pay the income taxes (at least) in that particular country.

[nogabebop23]

I don't think you would pay tax in this scenario, as essentially this is just a longer-term tourist visa. You won't be allowed to get a job locally and are expected to work remote. There's no way they could track (and tax) this; it's really no different than doing some work on your 2-week Mexico vacation. Also Americans pay tax based on citizenship too.

[szatkus]

I don't know about tax laws on Barbados, but usually you need to pay income tax in a country where you spend more than half of a year. Just the fact that you rent a flat for a year is enough for an revenue authority to start an investigation.

[dominotw]

> it's really no different than doing some work on your 2-week Mexico vacation.

Does 1 yr make a difference? Or would it still be considered "vacation".

[dzhiurgis]

Maybe no tax, buy visa costs 10k a year which you write off as business expense in your work country.

[buran77]

> essentially this is just a longer-term tourist visa

As always the devil's in the details. A 2 week vacation will incur far fewer expenses on the host state and its citizens than a 1 year stay, while probably bringing in more money. A tourist stays at hotels, rents cars, dishes out for all the tourist attractions and baubles, eats out every meal, etc. Very little competition with locals for the same resources. A quasi-local is a different story, competing from a privileged position with locals on everything but jobs. So while both visas are time limited there's no real comparison between them. The profiles of the two types of stay are very different.

The fiscal residence usually revolves around the centre of vital interests or the habitual abode. Both would be the place you live in rather than the place your employer lives.

I don't know what the details of the implementation are but I'm guessing that if this type of setup catches up it's unlikely it will always be treated as tourist-like without making life worse for the less well off residents.