In force since March 30, 2004
US–Japan Tax Treaty
Every rate below carries the article that sets it and the date we read it — because protocols move rates and leave the article numbers alone.
Every rate on this page is cited to the treaty article that authorises it. Treaty texts last read September 9, 2026.
Quick answer
The US–Japan income tax treaty has been in force since March 30, 2004. It reduces US withholding on Japan residents’ US-source income below the 30% statutory rate — portfolio dividends at 10%, interest at 0%. You claim it with Form W-8BEN before you are paid, not on a return afterwards.
Key takeaways
- In force since March 30, 2004, amended by 2 protocols — which is why the article numbers below carry their amendment chain.
- Interest is 0% — taxable only in the residence state. This is worth knowing because summary tables routinely still show a positive rate.
- There is a conditional 0% dividend tier for very large corporate holdings, and it cannot be claimed on ownership alone — see below.
- A totalization agreement is in force, so social security contributions are a separate and solvable problem.
- Claim it on Form W-8BEN before payment. A treaty rate you did not claim is recovered only by filing a US return.
The rates, by article
Each figure below is the ceiling the treaty sets on US withholding, with the article that sets it.
US–Japan withholding ceilings. Statutory rate without a treaty: 30%.
| Income type | Treaty rate | Instead of |
|---|---|---|
| Dividends — portfolio | 10%Article 10(2)(b) | 30% |
| Dividends — direct (corporate holder) | 5%Article 10(2)(a) | 30% |
| Interest | 0%Article 11(1), as replaced by the 2013 protocol, Article IV | 30% |
| Royalties — All royalties — copyright including film and broadcast tapes, patents, trade marks, designs, plans, secret formulae and know-how | 0%Article 12(1) | 30% |
The direct-dividend rate of 5% requires the beneficial owner to be a company holding at least 10% — Per cent of voting stock.. No holding period applies to the 5% tier. The six-month period applies only to the conditional 0% tier.
A rate without its article is not an answer
Protocols replace whole articles and usually keep the article number while changing the rate inside it. That is why every figure above shows its article as amended. Reading the base treaty text alone — which is what the IRS-hosted PDF gives you — produces superseded rates for several treaties in this set.
The conditional 0% tier
It exists, and ownership alone does not get you there. Every condition has to be met independently.
This is the figure most commonly quoted without its conditions. The treaty does provide a 0% rate on dividends for very large corporate holdings — but it is conditioned on more than a percentage, and a claim that meets the ownership test and fails a limitation-on-benefits test is simply wrong.
0%
Article 10(3)(a), as amended by the 2013 protocol, Article III(1)
Every one of these must be true:
- The beneficial owner is a company resident in the other state
- It has owned at least 50% of the voting stock, directly or indirectly through residents of either state
- For a six-month period ending on the date entitlement to the dividends is determined
- AND it satisfies one of the limitation-on-benefits routes in Article 22 — the publicly-traded or ownership/base-erosion tests in Article 22(1)(c) or (f), or a competent-authority determination under Article 22(4)
An alternative route: A pension fund resident in the other state also gets 0%, provided the dividends are not derived from carrying on a business — Article 10(3)(b).
Does not apply to: Neither the 5% tier nor the 0% tier applies to dividends paid by a US Regulated Investment Company or Real Estate Investment Trust; Article 10(4) sets separate rules.
Because the conditions include a limitation-on-benefits test that no lookup can resolve from a country and an income type, our tool states the conditions rather than asserting the rate applies to you. That is a deliberate refusal, not a gap.
Interest — the exceptions
The headline interest rate is not the whole story for this treaty.
Interest here splits by category rather than running at a single rate. Presenting the lowest as “the” treaty rate overstates the benefit, so every class is shown:
Interest rates by class
| Class of interest | Rate |
|---|---|
| General interest | 0%Article 11(1), as replaced by the 2013 protocol, Article IV |
| Contingent interest — determined by reference to receipts, sales, income, profits, cash flow, a change in property value, or a dividend or similar payment by the debtor | 10%Article 11(2)(a), as replaced by the 2013 protocol, Article IV |
| Interest on ownership interests in a securitization entity, to the extent it exceeds the return on comparable debt instruments | Left to domestic law |
Where people get this wrong
Each of these is a claim we found stated incorrectly on other sites, or a condition that is routinely dropped.
The treaty on the IRS website is the wrong one.
irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/japan.pdf is the 1971 convention. The operative treaty is the 2003 convention, amended in 2013. Anyone who reads the file the IRS serves first will get rates that have been out of date for over twenty years.
Interest is 0%, not 10%.
The 2003 convention charged 10% at Article 11(2). The 2013 protocol deleted Article 11 and replaced it with an exclusive residence-state rule.
'At least 50 percent' used to be 'more than 50 percent'.
The 2013 protocol changed two words and one number: the 0% dividend tier now needs at least 50% rather than more than 50%, held for six months rather than twelve. A holding of exactly half now qualifies where it previously did not.
Students, teachers and pensions
These articles decide more real cases than the withholding rates do — and they are the ones the savings clause fights over.
Students and trainees
Not yet verified. We have not read the students and trainees article directly against the treaty text, so this page does not state it. Rather than summarise it from a secondary source, we leave it out — every other figure here carries the article it came from, and this one would not. Read the treaty text linked in Sources below, or ask a preparer who handles cross-border returns.
Teachers and researchers
Not yet verified. We have not read the teachers and researchers article directly against the treaty text, so this page does not state it. Rather than summarise it from a secondary source, we leave it out — every other figure here carries the article it came from, and this one would not. Read the treaty text linked in Sources below, or ask a preparer who handles cross-border returns.
Pensions
Not yet verified. We have not read the pensions articles directly against the treaty text, so this page does not state it. Rather than summarise it from a secondary source, we leave it out — every other figure here carries the article it came from, and this one would not. Read the treaty text linked in Sources below, or ask a preparer who handles cross-border returns.
How to claim it
Before you are paid, on a W-8BEN given to the payer. Not on a return afterwards.
- Give the payer a Form W-8BEN. Name Japan on line 9. For ordinary dividend and interest claims that is all Part II needs — leave line 10 blank.
- For royalties, scholarships or a conditioned claim, line 10 needs the article and rate. How to find your article number walks through it, and the articles for this treaty are in the table above.
- Check whether a disclosure is owed. Most individual FDAP claims are waived from Form 8833, but a position that overrides the Code may not be.
- If tax was already withheld at 30%, the routes are a refund claim on a US nonresident return, or the foreign tax credit in your own country.
Get the form in before the payment, not after
A treaty rate is applied by the payer at the moment they pay you. Submit the W-8BEN afterwards and the 30% has already gone — recovering it means filing a US return and waiting the better part of a year.
How this treaty compares
The same four rates for every country in this set, so you can see where Japan actually sits.
| Country | Dividends | Dividends (large stake) | Interest | Royalties (lowest) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brazil | No treaty30% statutory | No treaty30% statutory | No treaty30% statutory | No treaty30% statutory |
| Canada | 15%Article X(2)(b) | 5%Article X(2)(a), as amended by the 1995 protocol, Article 5(1) | 0%Article XI(1), as replaced by the 2007 protocol, Article 6split by category | 0%Article XII(3)split by class |
| China | 10%Article 9(2) | 10%Article 9(2) | 10%Article 10(2)split by category | 7%Article 11(2), read with the protocol, paragraph 6split by class |
| France | 15%Article 10(2)(b), as replaced by the 2009 protocol | 5%Article 10(2)(a), as replaced by the 2009 protocol+0% tier, conditional | 0%Article 11(1)split by category | 0%Article 12(1), as replaced by the 2009 protocol |
| Germany | 15%Article 10(2)(b), as substituted by the 2006 protocol | 5%Article 10(2)(a), as substituted by the 2006 protocol+0% tier, conditional | 0%Article 11(1) | 0%Article 12(1) |
| Italy | 15%Article 10(2)(b) | 5%Article 10(2)(a) | 10%Article 11(2)split by category | 0%Article 12(3)split by class |
| Korea | 15%Article 12(2)(a) | 10%Article 12(2)(b) | 12%Article 13(2)split by category | 10%Article 14(2)split by class |
| Mexico | 10%Article 10(2)(b), as substituted by the 2003 protocol, Article II(a) | 5%Article 10(2)(a), as substituted by the 2003 protocol, Article II(a)+0% tier, conditional | 15%Article 11(2)(c)split by category | 10%Article 12(2) |
| Philippines | 25%Article 11(2)(a) | 20%Article 11(2)(b) | 15%Article 12(2)split by category | 15%Article 13(2)(a) |
| Spain | 15%Article 10(2)(b), as replaced by the 2013 protocol, Article IV | 5%Article 10(2)(a), as replaced by the 2013 protocol, Article IV+0% tier, conditional | 0%Article 11(1), as replaced by the 2013 protocol, Article Vsplit by category | 0%Article 12(1), as replaced by the 2013 protocol, Article VI |
| United Kingdom | 15%Article 10(2)(b) | 5%Article 10(2)(a)+0% tier, conditional | 0%Article 11(1) | 0%Article 12(1) |
Every figure is read from the treaty text or a protocol, with the authorising article shown beneath it. Two flags matter as much as the numbers: split means the treaty charges different rates for different categories of payment, so the figure shown is the lowest and may not be yours; +0% tier means a conditional zero rate exists for large corporate holdings, which depends on ownership, a holding period and a limitation-on-benefits test that a table cannot resolve. Use the lookup for either.
Frequently asked questions
What is the US–Japan tax treaty withholding rate on dividends?
10% on portfolio dividends under Article 10(2)(b), against a statutory rate of 30% without a treaty. A corporate holder owning at least 10% qualifies for 5% instead. You claim it by giving the payer a Form W-8BEN naming Japan as your country of residence for treaty purposes — before the payment is made, not afterwards.
What is the interest withholding rate under the US–Japan treaty?
It depends on the kind of interest, which makes this treaty unusual — 0% on general interest, 10% on contingent interest — determined by reference to receipts, sales, income, profits, cash flow, a change in property value, or a dividend or similar payment by the debtor. Quoting the lowest of those as "the" treaty rate overstates the benefit, so you have to identify which class your interest falls into before claiming a rate. Our lookup shows every class rather than picking one.
Are royalties really 0% under the US–Japan treaty?
Yes, under Article 12(1) — taxable only in the residence state. Royalties are taxable only in the residence state. Unusually broad: the Article 12(2) definition expressly includes cinematograph films and films or tapes for radio or television broadcasting, which several other treaties carve out for a higher rate. The 2013 protocol did not amend this article. Subject to the usual conditions — beneficial ownership, no attribution to a US permanent establishment under Article 12(3), and the limitation-on-benefits article. A royalty claim is one of the cases that does need line 10 of Form W-8BEN completed with the article and rate, unlike an ordinary dividend claim.
Can I get 0% on dividends under the US–Japan treaty?
Only if every condition is met, and ownership alone is not enough. The tier under Article 10(3)(a), as amended by the 2013 protocol, Article III(1) requires ownership of at least 50%, held for 6 months, and satisfaction of a limitation-on-benefits test that no tool can resolve from your country and income type alone. Neither the 5% tier nor the 0% tier applies to dividends paid by a US Regulated Investment Company or Real Estate Investment Trust; Article 10(4) sets separate rules. We state the conditions rather than assert the rate applies to you.
How do I claim US–Japan treaty benefits?
Give the payer a Form W-8BEN before you are paid, naming Japan on line 9 as your country of residence for treaty purposes. For ordinary dividend and interest claims that is all of Part II you need — leave line 10 blank. Royalties, scholarships and conditioned claims do need line 10, with the treaty article and rate. The form goes to the payer, never to the IRS.
Has the US–Japan treaty been amended?
Yes — by 2 protocols. Protocol signed with the convention. Article 11 (Interest) deleted and replaced — source-state withholding on interest eliminated. Article 10(3)(a) amended: the 0% dividend threshold changed from 'more than 50 percent' to 'at least 50 percent', and the holding period from twelve months to six months. This matters more than it sounds: a protocol usually replaces a whole article while keeping its number, so the article you cite stays the same and the rate inside it changes. Reading the base treaty text alone produces superseded rates.
Does the US–Japan treaty cover social security?
No — but a separate agreement does. The income tax treaty does not touch social security contributions; a totalization agreement handles those, and one with Japan is in force. A totalization agreement with Japan has been in force since 2005-10-01. It covers social security contributions and pension credits only — it does not touch income tax. You claim it with a certificate of coverage given to your employer, not with any tax form.
Can a US citizen use the US–Japan treaty?
Rarely. Nearly every US treaty contains a savings clause reserving the right for the United States to tax its own citizens and residents as though the treaty did not exist, with a short list of preserved articles. We have not read this treaty's savings clause directly, so we do not state its article here — but the practical answer for a US citizen is usually the foreign tax credit rather than the treaty.
Sources
Every figure on this page was read from a primary source on the date shown beside it. This country’s file was last read in full on September 9, 2026.
- US–Japan Income Tax Convention, signed 6 November 2003 — Operative Japan articles. NOTE: irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/japan.pdf is the superseded 1971 convention.
- US–Japan protocol signed 24 January 2013 — Article 11 replacement (interest to 0%) and Article 10(3) amendment
- SSA POMS GN 01701.005 — International Social Security (Totalization) Agreements — Which countries have a totalization agreement in force, and each agreement's effective date
Treaty rates are ceilings on withholding, not a computation of your liability, and conditions inside an article can change the answer for you specifically. This page is educational and is not advice on your position.
Related
Tax Treaty Benefits & Country Lookup
Free tool: is there a treaty with your country, what rate, and which form claims it
Form W-8BEN
The form your broker or payer asks for, and what it actually does
Foreign Tax Credit
The relief that works when no treaty does — credit against deduction
Form 8833
When you must disclose a treaty position, and what to write on each line
Totalization Agreements
Social security, the second treaty network, and why it covers different countries
Educational information, not tax advice
Every rate and article on this page is cited to the treaty text it comes from, so you or your accountant can check it. Treaty provisions turn on facts we do not know about you — residency, beneficial ownership, limitation-on-benefits conditions and the savings clause can all change the answer. Read the article before you rely on the number, and take advice on anything material.
Social security
A separate agreement decides this, not the tax treaty — and it covers a different list of countries.
A totalization agreement with Japan has been in force since 2005-10-01. It covers social security contributions and pension credits only — it does not touch income tax.
That means someone working across the two countries pays social security contributions into one system rather than both, on a certificate of coverage given to their employer. It does not reduce income tax, and the income tax treaty does not reduce social security. How totalization agreements work.