Hong Kong SAR: A look at the US executive order on shipping tax

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Hong Kong SAR: A look at the US executive order on shipping tax

Sponsored by

sponsored-firms-kpmg.png
The court had to decide on two separate questions

Lewis Lu and John Timpany of KPMG China analyse the impact of the US executive order on shipping taxes for Hong Kong SAR.

The US government notified Hong Kong SAR of its decision to suspend or terminate the agreement for double taxation relief in respect of income from the international operation of ships. The agreement had been in effect since 1989.



It is not immediately clear from the statement issued whether the agreement has been terminated or suspended, however, the terms of the agreement only provide for termination. No notice period is set out in the terms of the agreement, which may mean that it ceases to have effect immediately.



As a result of this, the US and Hong Kong SAR ship operators no longer enjoy an exemption from the taxes of the other jurisdiction when sailing into or out of the relevant territory. In the case of the Hong Kong SAR ship operators visiting the US, this may mean that they become subject to a 4% tax on their US gross transportation income (USGTI). In many cases, USGTI is 50% of the non-US corporation’s shipping income pertaining to its voyages to, or from, the US.



Interestingly, this puts Hong Kong SAR ship operators in a comparatively worse position than ship operators from mainland China, which has a double taxation agreement with the US. This would seem to be inconsistent with the broader policy intent expressed by the US administration to treat Hong Kong SAR as a part of the mainland for a range of purposes. Furthermore, the scope of the mainland treaty does not extend to Hong Kong SAR.



Exemptions under US domestic law may continue to apply to exempt certain ship operators, depending on where they are organised and who their owners are. One of the conditions for the US exemption is whether the ‘country’ where the operator is organised grants an equivalent exemption from tax to US companies. The US has historically treated Hong Kong SAR as a separate country for the purposes of the US Internal Revenue Code (see Notice 97-40).



It may therefore be possible if the Hong Kong SAR government were to grant a unilateral exemption to US shipping that the termination or suspension of the shipping agreement would have little practical effect on Hong Kong SAR ship operators coming into or out of the US, although US policy in respect of Hong Kong SAR remains in a state of flux and it is possible that there may be further changes.



Affected operators should consult tax experts to determine whether they are eligible.





Lewis Lu

T: +86 10 8508 5002

E: lewis.lu@kpmg.com



John Timpany

T: +852 2143 8790

E: john.timpany@kpmg.com


more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

In looking at the impact of taxation, money won't always be all there is to it
Australia’s Tax Practitioners Board is set to kick off 2026 with a new secretary to head the administrative side of its regulatory activities.
Ireland’s Department of Finance reported increased income tax, VAT and corporation tax receipts from 2024; in other news, it’s understood that HSBC has agreed to pay the French treasury to settle a tax investigation
The Australian Taxation Office believes the Swedish furniture company has used TP to evade paying tax it owes
Supermarket chain Morrisons is facing a £17 million ($23 million) tax bill; in other news, Donald Trump has cut proposed tariffs
The controversial deal will allow US-parented groups to be carved out from key aspects of pillar two
Awards
ITR invites tax firms, in-house teams, and tax professionals to make submissions for the 2027 World Tax rankings and the 2026 ITR Tax Awards globally
Pillar two was ‘weakened’ when it altered from a multinational convention agreement to simply national domestic law, Federico Bertocchi also argued
Imposing the tax on virtual assets is a measure that appears to have no legal, economic or statistical basis, one expert told ITR
The EU has seemingly capitulated to the US’s ‘side-by-side’ demands. This may be a win for the US, but the uncertainty has only just begun for pillar two
Gift this article