Tax equalisation: the four misunderstandings we now explain before anyone signs

The settlement delay is the one that causes real hardship. We now cap what we will collect in one go at 10% of monthly net pay and spread the rest over up to 12 months. We also re-estimate hypothetical tax mid-year after any bonus or pay change so the true-up is smaller.

The UAE point deserves a debate of its own. We moved to tax protection for moves into no-tax locations two years ago: the employee keeps the saving if host tax is lower. Assignments to Dubai and Abu Dhabi became much easier to fill, and we cut the foreign service premium for those locations from 10% to nil, so the cost was close to neutral.

Tax protection for some locations and equalisation for others gives you people choosing assignments by tax rate, and resentment from the engineer you sent to Stavanger. We looked at it and stayed with equalisation everywhere for that reason. Consistency is worth something.

Add the partner's income. If a spouse keeps working remotely for a home employer, or starts work in the host country, the household's tax position changes and none of it is covered. We ask about it in the briefing and pay for one hour of advice for the partner.

Equity and partner income are both going into the next version of the briefing, thank you. On protection against equalisation for the Gulf, we had the same argument internally and landed where the last-but-one reply did, though I can see the case for the other side.