Taking your Australian business to the United States is an exciting milestone, but it comes with a steep learning curve—especially regarding human resources and employment law. 

In Australia, businesses rely on a familiar, centralised system governed by the Fair Work Act 2009. However, the US operates under a highly decentralised, federalist system. For Aussie expats and expanding enterprises, this means adapting to overlapping federal, state, and local regulations that can vary wildly depending on your exact location. Here is your essential guide to understanding the US labour landscape.

Navigating A Fragmented Legal Landscape

In the US, federal employment laws establish the baseline protections for workers nationwide. Statutes like the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) set minimum wage and overtime rules, while the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) strictly prohibit workplace discrimination.

However, federal laws are merely the floor. Individual states—and even local cities—can enact significantly stricter protections. For instance, while the federal minimum wage is set at US$7.25 per hour, states like California and New York enforce much higher minimum wages, along with enhanced paid sick leave and wrongful termination protections. Cities like San Francisco and Seattle have even more restrictive local rules. An Australian company operating in both Texas and California will face starkly different compliance landscapes, making a state-by-state HR compliance strategy absolutely essential.

The “At-Will” Culture Shock

One of the biggest paradigm shifts for Australian employers is the US at-will employment doctrine. Unlike Australia, which mandates minimum notice periods and redundancy entitlements, most US jurisdictions allow employers to terminate a worker at any time, for any reason (or no reason at all), provided the reason is not illegal.

While this flexibility allows businesses to scale their workforces rapidly, it is not an absolute rule. Crucial exceptions exist that can easily lead to wrongful termination lawsuits:

• Contractual Protections – Executives or unionised workers often negotiate “just-cause” termination clauses or severance agreements.
• Public Policy – You cannot fire someone for whistleblowing, refusing to commit fraud, or exercising a legal right like filing a workers’ compensation claim.
• Implied Contracts – Promises made in employee handbooks or during interviews can inadvertently create implied contracts, requiring employers to follow progressive disciplinary steps before firing. To protect your business, always include clear at-will disclaimers in offer letters and handbooks, and meticulously document your reasons for any termination.

The Benefits Gap: Healthcare and Retirement

Securing top talent in the US requires understanding that employee expectations differ vastly from those in Australia.

Healthcare Is An Employer Obligation

The US lacks a universal public system like Medicare. Because access to healthcare is heavily tied to employment, offering competitive, employer-sponsored health insurance is a fundamental necessity if you want to attract and retain quality staff.

The 401(k) vs. Superannuation

Instead of compulsory 11% superannuation contributions, the US utilises a voluntary defined-contribution system known as a 401(k). Employees contribute pre-tax income, and while it isn’t legally mandated, competitive employers usually match these contributions by 3% to 6%.

Navigating Payroll Taxes And Contractor Risks

US payroll taxes are a multi-tiered system. Rather than dealing with a single entity like the ATO, employers must withhold and match Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes, which fund Social Security (6.2%) and Medicare (1.45%). Additionally, employers are liable for both federal and state unemployment taxes (FUTA and SUTA), with state rates fluctuating based on your specific industry and history of layoffs.

Finally, if you plan to hire freelancers, tread carefully. The IRS and Department of Labor strictly enforce worker classification laws. Misclassifying an employee as an independent contractor can trigger severe fines, back-pay claims, and lawsuits. Ensure you have well-drafted independent contractor agreements that clearly define the project scope, payment terms, and the worker’s independent status.

Conclusion

Expanding into the American market is not a one-size-fits-all endeavour. By implementing centralised HR compliance systems, understanding local legislative nuances, and consulting with US labour attorneys, Australian businesses can successfully mitigate risks and build a thriving stateside workforce.

CHECKLIST: Australia – US Market Entry Checklist

A Practical Analysis Of Treaty Interpretation And The Quid Pro Quo Test

Spoiler Alert: If you have a boss, get performance reviews, and can be fired for poor work, you probably have a job and not a grant.

The recent Tax Court decision in Baturin v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo. 2026-12) provides valuable guidance on distinguishing between tax-exempt grants and taxable compensation under international tax treaties. After a Fourth Circuit remand, the Tax Court granted summary judgment to the IRS, clarifying when payments to researchers qualify for treaty exemptions.

This case offers important lessons for nonresident researchers working in the United States and the institutions that employ them.

Background And Treaty Provision

Dr. Baturin, a Russian citizen, worked at Jefferson Lab (a Department of Energy facility in Virginia) from 2007 to 2015. During tax years 2010-2011, he received approximately $76,000-$79,000 annually for his work on the 12 GeV Upgrade Project involving particle detector systems.

Article 18 of the U.S.-Russia Tax Treaty provides an exemption from U.S. taxation for individuals “studying or doing research as a recipient of a grant, allowance, or other similar payment from a governmental, religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational organization.”

Dr. Baturin claimed this exemption, arguing that his compensation qualified as a tax-exempt grant. The IRS disagreed, asserting that the payments constituted taxable wages for services rendered.

Procedural History and the Fourth Circuit Remand

The Tax Court initially ruled in Dr. Baturin’s favor in 2019 (Baturin I, 153 T.C. 231), finding that his compensation qualified as a tax-exempt grant under the treaty.

The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded in 2022 (Baturin II, 31 F.4th 170). The appellate court instructed the Tax Court to apply the analytical framework set forth in IRC Section 117 and its implementing regulations, which distinguish between “Disinterested, no-strings educational grants” (tax-exempt) and “Work done as part of a substantial quid pro quo” (taxable compensation). 

The Fourth Circuit provided specific factors for the Tax Court to consider on remand, such as (1) would Jefferson Lab have hired someone else if Dr. Baturin were unavailable? (2) Did the projects pre-date and post-date his tenure? (3) Who retained the intellectual property rights? (4) How much discretion did Dr. Baturin have over his day-to-day work? (5) Was there a substantial quid pro quo?

Summary Judgment Analysis

On remand, the Commissioner moved for summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed facts established Dr. Baturin’s payments were compensation rather than grants. Dr. Baturin, proceeding pro se, raised several procedural arguments but failed to present specific facts creating a genuine dispute of material fact.

The Court analyzed the Fourth Circuit’s factors:

1. Replaceability

Jefferson Lab confirmed through Dr. Burkert’s declaration that the institution would have hired another qualified individual if Dr. Baturin had not been available. This indicated the position was not dependent on Dr. Baturin’s unique contributions but rather required any qualified scientist to perform specified duties.

2. Project Independence

The 12 GeV Upgrade Project commenced before Dr. Baturin’s employment in 2007 and continued after his departure in 2015. As of December 2024, the CTOF detector remains operational. This demonstrated that the research project existed independently of Dr. Baturin’s participation.

3. Intellectual Property Rights 

As a condition of employment, Dr. Baturin signed an agreement assigning all intellectual property rights from his work to Jefferson Lab. This arrangement is characteristic of an employment relationship rather than an independent research grant.

4. Supervision And Performance Review

Dr. Baturin worked under the supervision of Dr. Burkert (his direct supervisor) and Dr. Eloaudrhiri (project manager). His performance was evaluated annually, and his continued employment was contingent upon satisfactory performance reviews. These elements are consistent with an employer-employee relationship.

5. Substantial Quid Pro Quo

Jefferson Lab provided bi-weekly compensation in exchange for Dr. Baturin’s services on assigned projects. The Court found that “Jefferson Lab’s bi-weekly payments to Dr. Baturin were not disinterested, no-strings grants, but rather were a quid pro quo in exchange for his assigned work on the 12 GeV Upgrade Project.”

Legal Framework: Section 117 And Revenue Ruling 80-36

The Fourth Circuit directed the Tax Court to apply principles from IRC Section 117 (qualified scholarships) to interpret the treaty language. Under this framework, courts distinguish between payments that support independent study or research, and compensation for services rendered under supervision that primarily benefit the payor.

The Court also cited Revenue Ruling 80-36 (addressing researchers under the U.S.-Japan Income Tax Convention), which provides that payments are taxable when a researcher is “performing valuable research services under the supervision of the grantor that are primarily for the benefit of the grantor.”

Applying these principles, the Court concluded that Dr. Baturin’s payments constituted taxable compensation rather than tax-exempt grants.

Key Procedural Issues

Dr. Baturin’s pro se representation led to several procedural difficulties:

Confusion Between Withholding and Liability.

Dr. Baturin argued that withholding exemptions under Section 1441 established tax exemption. The Court clarified that withholding requirements imposed on payers are distinct from the taxpayer’s underlying tax liability.

Impermissible New Arguments On Remand

The Court applied the mandate rule, noting that Dr. Baturin raised arguments on remand that were not presented to the Fourth Circuit. Under the law of the case doctrine, remand proceedings are not appropriate for introducing new legal theories.

Failure To Create Genuine Factual Disputes

When opposing summary judgment, Rule 121(d) requires the non-moving party to present specific facts supported by appropriate evidence. Dr. Baturin’s responses were largely speculative (e.g., “this may be a subject to the genuine dispute”) rather than presenting concrete evidence disputing the Commissioner’s factual assertions.

Practical Implications For Research Institutions And Foreign Nationals

This decision provides important guidance for determining when payments to researchers qualify for tax treaty exemptions. The “Baturin factors” establish a framework for analysis. 

Would the institution hire an alternative candidate if the individual were unavailable? Does the research project exist independently of the individual’s participation? Who retains ownership of the intellectual property? Does the individual work under supervision with performance evaluations? Is there a substantial quid pro quo relationship?

When these factors indicate an employment relationship—characterized by assigned work, supervision, performance reviews, and institutional control over work product—payments constitute taxable compensation regardless of the research nature of the work.

The distinction is not based on the importance or value of the research, but rather on the structural relationship between the payor and payee.

Conclusion

The Tax Court granted summary judgment to the Commissioner, finding that Dr. Baturin’s payments from Jefferson Lab constituted taxable compensation rather than tax-exempt grants under Article 18 of the U.S.-Russia Tax Treaty.

The decision emphasizes that treaty interpretation requires careful analysis of the actual relationship between parties rather than reliance on labels. Employment relationships characterized by supervision, performance reviews, assigned duties, and institutional ownership of work product result in taxable compensation, regardless of whether the work involves research or advances scientific knowledge.

Key Takeaways

Treaty language must be interpreted in context: The terms “grant, allowance, or other similar payment” require analysis of the underlying relationship, not merely the characterization of payments.

The Quid Pro Quo Test Is Determinative –  When payments represent compensation for services that primarily benefit the payor, they constitute wages rather than grants.

Proper Legal Representation Matters – Complex tax treaty issues benefit from professional guidance, particularly when procedural requirements demand specific evidence and timely presentation of arguments.

Note On Treaty Status -The U.S.-Russia Tax Treaty was suspended effective August 16, 2024. However, the analytical framework established in Baturin—particularly the quid pro quo test and the application of Section 117 principles to treaty interpretation—remains applicable to similar provisions in other U.S. tax treaties.

Final thought: The Tax Court has now definitively confirmed that calling your paycheck a “grant” doesn’t make it one. No matter how impressive the research. 

If you live internationally, run an online business, invest across borders, or use platforms like Wise to manage multiple currencies, you may be wondering:

Do I need to report my Wise account to the IRS?

The answer depends on one key factor:
Where the account is legally held, and not the currency and not the routing number.

Let’s break this down clearly.

The Two Reporting Regimes: FBAR And FATCA

U.S. taxpayers may need to report foreign accounts under:

1. FBAR (FinCEN Form 114)

You must file an FBAR if:

• You are a U.S. person (citizen, green card holder, or U.S. tax resident), and
  
• The total value of all your foreign financial accounts exceeds $10,000 at any time during the year.

2. FATCA (Form 8938)

This form is filed with your tax return and applies if your foreign financial assets exceed higher thresholds (which vary based on where you live and your filing status).

Both rules focus on whether an account is foreign.

What Actually Makes An Account “Foreign”?

This is where confusion happens.

An account is considered foreign if it is maintained by a financial institution located outside the United States.

That’s it.

Not:

• The currency
• The interface language
• The debit card logo
• The routing number format

What matters is which legal entity holds your account and where that entity is regulated.

Common Misconceptions About Wise Accounts

Wise operates through multiple regulated entities around the world, including in the U.S., UK, Belgium, and elsewhere.

Depending on your residency and how you opened the account, your Wise account may be held by:

• A U.S. entity (domestic), or
• A non-U.S. entity (foreign)

Important Clarifications

• Just because your Wise account holds USD does NOT mean it is domestic.
• Just because your account holds EUR does NOT mean it is foreign.
• Just because your account uses U.S. payment rails (like an ABA routing number) does NOT mean it is domestic.

Payment rails are not the legal location of the financial institution.

An account can:

• Hold U.S. dollars,
• Have an ABA routing number,
• Send ACH payments,

and still be legally maintained by a foreign financial institution.

Simple Examples

Example 1: USD Account That Is Foreign

You live abroad and open a Wise account. It holds only U.S. dollars. It has an ABA routing number.

However, your account is maintained by Wise’s UK or EU entity.

That account is considered foreign for FBAR and FATCA purposes.

If your total foreign accounts exceed $10,000 at any point during the year, it must be reported.

Example 2: EUR Account That Is Not Foreign

You live in the United States and open a Wise account issued by Wise’s U.S. entity. You hold euros in it.

Even though the balance is in EUR, the account is maintained in the United States.

That account is generally not foreign for FBAR purposes.

Currency does not determine reporting — location does.

Why This Matters

Many internationally mobile professionals and online entrepreneurs:

• Hold multiple currency balances
• Move funds across borders frequently
• Use fintech platforms instead of traditional banks
• Assume “digital” means “not foreign”

That assumption can create compliance risk.

FBAR penalties can be severe — even for non-willful violations.

How to Determine If Your Wise Account Is Foreign

Here’s what you should check:

1. Review your account terms and conditions.
   
2. Look at your statements — they usually identify the regulated entity.
   
3. Confirm which Wise legal entity services your account.
   
4. Identify where that entity is regulated.

If the account is maintained by a non-U.S. entity, it is generally considered a foreign financial account.

Aggregation Rule (Often Overlooked)

For FBAR purposes:

You must combine the maximum balances of all your foreign accounts.

If the total exceeds $10,000 at any point during the year, you must report all of them — even if each individual account is small.

Wise accounts count toward that total if they are foreign.

Bottom Line

When it comes to FBAR and FATCA:

• USD does not mean domestic.
  
• EUR does not mean foreign.
  
• An ABA routing number does not make an account U.S.-based.
  
• Digital platforms are not automatically exempt.
  
• The legal location of the institution controls.
  

If you operate internationally and use modern fintech tools, it’s critical to analyze your accounts properly rather than relying on assumptions based on currency or payment systems.

When in doubt, verify the entity and not the interface.