top of page

Tax Optimization vs Payment Reality – Webinar by The Soltesz Institute with Viktoria Soltesz and Cezary Zieniuk


In this webinar hosted by the Soltesz Institute, Viktoria Soltesz and international tax advisor Cezary Zieniuk explored how tax planning often clashes with real-life banking and payment viability, that many international businesses face today.

Tax advisors often focus on how to legally reduce tax obligations and they frequently overlook how these same structures affect payment and banking access.

Moving Tax Residency is Not Just a Formality

Cezary explained that while changing tax residency sounds simple on paper, the practical implementation can be extremely demanding. Most individuals believe that spending a few days in a new country or obtaining a tax certificate is enough to change their tax status, but in reality, tax offices assess many other elements. These include where a person’s family lives, where children attend school, where business decisions are made, and whether there is ongoing involvement in the original country.

Substance must support every element of the move. When tax authorities see evidence that someone continues to manage business operations, hold assets, or even regularly visit their former country, the original tax residency is often upheld. Even when someone technically qualifies for tax residency in a new country, they still must prove that they have genuinely relocated and that their previous ties have been cut to a degree that satisfies local legislation and international agreements.

Banking Risk is Often Stronger Than Legal Risk

While tax advisors might say a structure is acceptable, the reality is that banks and payment providers follow their own internal policies and often apply stricter controls.

Banks and payment providers are built to filter out tax avoidant setups and businesses and they are especially cautious when the company lacks real presence or operational control in the jurisdiction where it is incorporated.

Banking and tax planning must go hand in hand. A setup that looks good on paper but fails in practice due to missing documentation, unclear ownership, or weak local presence will likely result in account closures, frozen funds, or simply not being onboarded at all.

The Hidden Dangers of Nominee Directors

Nominee services are often sold as a convenience, allowing for local compliance without requiring the real directors to relocate. While this is permitted in many jurisdictions, the use of nominees brings significant risks.

Many payment institutions now track how many companies a director is appointed to and automatically flag any structure that appears to use nominees. The use of such services must be handled with extreme care. In addition to reputational risk, the use of nominees can also raise doubts about where management and control is actually exercised, leading to further tax risks and banking problems.

Tax Residency of Companies Depends on Real Control

Setting up a company in a low-tax country may look attractive, but it is essential to understand how tax residency of companies is determined. Many clients assume that the company will be taxed in the place where it is registered. However, tax residency is often defined by where the actual decisions are made. If the company is managed remotely, from a different country, then that other country may claim the right to tax the profits.

If the real decision-maker remains in their home country and directs all business activities from there, the company risks being taxed in that original jurisdiction, regardless of where it is registered.

Banking Requirements Are Moving Faster Than Tax Rules

As governments push for increased transparency, financial institutions have responded by tightening their onboarding and monitoring standards. Banks now request far more than simple identification and corporate documents. They want to see rental agreements, employment contracts, utility bills, and evidence of real local activity.

Today, payment institutions, including EMIs and even crypto service providers, are increasingly aligning their standards with those of traditional banks. While some wallets and EMIs do not yet share information under CRS, this gap is closing. Over time, these providers are expected to join the same reporting frameworks, meaning that assumptions about privacy or lack of oversight are no longer valid.

Technology Will Force Stricter Compliance

As governments invest in AI-driven tools and cross-border data sharing becomes more efficient, it will be increasingly difficult to maintain structures that are not backed by real substance. Regulators will soon be able to identify inconsistencies in real time, comparing declared income, tax filings, and banking data.

Setups without proper planning will quickly fail under scrutiny and businesses must prepare for a future where both tax authorities and financial institutions have access to more data, faster than ever before. The only sustainable solution is to plan correctly from the start, ensuring that tax, payments, and banking are aligned.

The Future

Businesses must approach tax and banking planning with equal attention. Incorporating a company in a low-tax country without planning how to open bank accounts or comply with payment regulations will almost certainly result in operational failure.

What might be legal on paper may not be viable in practice so the only realistic way forward is to build transparent, sustainable setups where business presence, tax obligations, and payment flows are fully aligned.


 
 
bottom of page