I'm considering using an Estonian OÜ for a SaaS business and would love to hear from people who have actually gone through the process.
What surprised you after becoming an e-resident and establishing your company? Were there recurring costs, compliance requirements, banking/payment issues, tax complications, or other operational challenges you didn't anticipate?
How easy has it been to run the company remotely? Have you ever needed to travel to Estonia to resolve an issue?
Looking back, would you do it again? What do you wish you had known before getting started?
I'd appreciate any lessons learned, gotchas, or advice from current or former e-residents.
Company will end up as tax resident from the country where it is managed & controlled .
If there is an DTA the tie breaker rule applies and the country from where it is managed & controlled gets the right to tax .
Also you get to enjoy bureaucracy+ dual accounting in both countries .
If there is no DTA it can lead to double taxation .
And if you don't have a fixed place of management/business+ tax residency (basically nomading) a US LLC disregarded for tax purposes is a much better fit .
What do you wish you had known before getting started?
How easy has it been to run the company remotely?
Have you ever needed to travel to Estonia to resolve an issue?
Looking back, would you do it again?
I never needed to visit since I could use Wise for banking.
The only thing is that surprised me was the tax rate, when I created my Company the advertised rate was 20/80 but in reality it was ~25/75 and it increased since.
Also, shameless plug for people broadly interested in the country of Estonia and how it became a leader in e-gov/tech only a generation after independence from the Soviet Union, I wrote a book about it after being curious myself! https://www.rebootinganation.com/
From: https://learn.e-resident.gov.ee/hc/en-gb/articles/3600007215...
> Corporate tax residency
> However, some countries have different rules for deciding if a company is tax resident. It is common that, in addition to the place of incorporation, the place of effective management can trigger tax residence. If you run your company from a country with regulations like this, then the company may end up having dual tax residence. This happens when two states believe that the company is tax resident in their jurisdiction and will want to tax the company’s profits.
This 'It is common that [...] the place of effective management can trigger tax residence' is indeed common.
Company stays "in" Jersey, none of the humans need to live there?
So if 50% or more of your directors spend 183 days per year in the UK then your Estonian based business becomes UK tax resident in the eyes of the UK.
Do not underestimate the complexity of these rules.
I’m using UK myself. It takes a few forms and half a day to get a working Wise/Stripe account.
See https://www.e-resident.gov.ee/understanding-cross-border-tax..., look for “Permanent Establishment”
But you have to investigate how the Dutch will treat it .
You could apply for a advance tax ruling with the Dutch tax authorities before doing anything
Later on when you scale, you can convert the LLP into an LTD.
Also you might avoid exit taxes as it is an partnership , if you move between countries.
Also there is basically no information in the post besides 2 founders in different countries.
Honestly, I’d avoid the EU in general. There are only about four or five good places to set up a company and stay connected to the financial system: the US, especially Wyoming or Delaware, Dubai, Singapore, and Hong Kong.
(you'd probably be downvoted anyway because of the insubstantial anecdote)
It’s your choice to decide to keep your Russian citizenship. Then you have to pay the price of being a Russian citizen.
I understand how comments like yours and other sibling comments will generate feelings of being treated unfairly: We do not choose our birth country. We do not know the individual's actions, we do not know their political stance, and it is not racist but still discriminatory to use their nationality against them. They're already punished enough by being associated with their government. That's at least how I see it.
Then again, it is probably due to EU wide legislation, so not something Estonia can do much about even if they wanted to. I hope they find emotional support to detach their individuality from how Russians (and Ukrainians!) are treated in general in the current dynamics. It's not their fault as individual, and I'm sorry that they became victims.
At the consulate, I emphasized that I was opening a company in Estonia to support the economy and country, especially because of the threat they're facing off against. Demonstrating one's deep knowledge of the situation, and fully backing Estonia in spite of the magnitude of the threat, is the way to win friends.
Stanley: That's not what a hate crime is.
Michael Scott: Well, I hated it, a lot, okay.