Building wealth as an American in Europe? Learn how U.S. tax rules, PFICs, IRAs, foreign accounts and local savings structures affect long-term wealth.
This is a div block with a Webflow interaction that will be triggered when the heading is in the view.
Globally mobile professionals collect countries the way other careers collect employers - a posting here, a promotion there, a family decision in between. Each move rewires how two systems tax the same salary, the same pension pot and the same Social Security record, and the rewiring is never the same twice.
This article is aimed at US citizens and green-card holders who have lived or expect to live in two or more of France, Switzerland, Portugal and the Netherlands, and at the professionals who advise them. It sets the four treaties and four totalization agreements side by side - as quoted texts, with their gaps stated - and leaves each country's full mechanics to the country deep-dives.
This article describes how United States federal tax law and the relevant income tax treaties and totalization agreements apply to US persons. It summarises French, Swiss, Portuguese and Dutch rules only as published by each country's tax and social security authorities, for context, and is not French, Swiss, Portuguese or Dutch tax, legal or succession advice - those questions belong with a professional qualified in the relevant country.
The United States has income tax treaties with each of the four countries and social security totalization agreements with thirty countries, the four included. Every one of those instruments is bilateral: it binds the United States and one partner, on its own text. There is no European average, no master treaty, and no rule that what one treaty settles another even mentions.
The bilateral point has a sharp totalization consequence. Each agreement's totalization article counts US periods together with that partner's periods - the French agreement counts French credits, the Swiss agreement Swiss ones, and so on, each requiring at least six US quarters of coverage. Whether periods from two or more partner countries can be combined in a single US computation is a question none of the located Social Security Administration materials answers - the program manual sections and handbook reviewed for this series address only the bilateral case. This article records that absence rather than asserting an answer in either direction: a multi-country contribution record is a question to put to the SSA and your advisers with the actual record in hand.
One reassurance is common to the agreements as the SSA describes them: counting is not transferring. In the pamphlet wording used for several of these agreements, "your credits are not actually transferred from one country to the other. They remain on your record in the country where you earned them" - each country pays its own, sometimes pro-rated, benefit from its own record.
Private-pension allocation is where the four treaties diverge most instructively. France allocates to the source state and protects that allocation from the US saving clause; Switzerland and Portugal allocate to the residence state without protection; the Netherlands allocates to the residence state, adds a source-state right over certain lump sums - and its saving-clause exceptions list could not be retrieved at all. The table quotes each text's operative fragment.
Three disciplines follow from the table - which is a dated reading of the four texts as officially published, verified in August–September 2026, not a standing rating of any treaty. First, never transplant: each treaty is read on its own text, and an analysis correct in Paris can be wrong in Geneva. Second, the gaps are part of the law as located: for the Netherlands, every end-to-end double-tax outcome in this series is presented as the professionals' computation because the relief and saving-clause articles could not be retrieved. Third, social security has its own four-way split - France's treaty rule, Switzerland's 15% source cap, Portugal's non-exclusive "may be taxed", the Netherlands' paying-state-exclusive text - each covered in its country's pieces.
On the contributions side, each posting runs on paper. When an agreement assigns your work to one country's system, the covering country documents it: in the SSA's words, a US Certificate of Coverage" serves as proof that the employee and employer are exempt from the payment of Social Security taxes to the foreign country." All four agreements share the detached-worker pattern for assignments not expected to exceed five years.
US certificates are requested from the Social Security Administration - online through its certificate service or through its Baltimore international office - and each partner country issue sits own: the SSA's pamphlets name form SE-404-1/SE-404-2 for France, CH/USA 10for Switzerland and P/USA 1 for Portugal, with the Dutch process described in the Netherlands pamphlet. A professional who has moved twice should expect to have held more than one certificate, from more than one issuer, over a career.
Self-employment is the trap inside the pattern, because the assignment rule is not uniform. Under the Swiss, Portuguese and Dutch agreements, as the SSA pamphlets state them, a self-employed person is covered where they reside. The French agreement works differently: assignment follows where the work is performed and, for activity in both countries, the principal activity - with a two-year rule for a businessactivity transferred temporarily. A consultant who crosses one of these borders mid-career should not assume the old rule travelled with them.
{{INSET-CTA-1}}
Local savings vehicles are built by local law, and local law decides what happens to them at departure. The four countries answer differently, this series holds verified answers for only some of the cases, and where a rule is not held the honest output is a question for the named professional rather than a borrowed answer.
Two rules are held and worth quoting. Switzerland: on leaving for good, the compulsory part of an occupational-pension termination benefit "cannot be paid out in cash" if you move to an EU or EFTA state - it goes to a vested-benefits account - while a move to the United States sits outside that restriction, so cash payment of the full termination benefit is permissible under the published framework. France: a PEA may generally be kept after leaving France - the plan must be closed only on transfer to a non-cooperative jurisdiction - with the plan's rules continuing to apply. By contrast, what a Portuguese savings product or a Dutch lijfrente does on emigration is not held in this series' fact base: those are questions for a contabilista certificado or a belastingadviseur, asked before the move rather than after. And every vehicle, moved or kept, stays on the US reporting stack throughout.
The four countries do not even agree on what a tax year of arrival looks like. Portugal runs a statutory clock: residence generally begins after more than 183 days, consecutive or not, in any 12-month period beginning or ending in the year - or from a dwelling suggesting habitual residence - and its split-year rule starts residence on the first day of the qualifying stay.
France and Switzerland assess by criteria rather than one count: France by foyer, principal place of stay, professional activity or centre of economic interests; Switzerland by domicile with intent to remain, or a qualified stay with published day thresholds. The Netherlands is the most open-textured of the four — residence is assessed on the facts and circumstances, with no fixed statutory day count located in this series' sources, and the migration year is filed on its own return form. The hub article on moving between the four countries carries the side-by-side table; the point here is only that the clock you leave is never the clock you arrive on.
Overlap years deserve their own respect. A move in May can leave you inside two countries' definitions at once for part of a year, with the treaty tie-breaker as the referee and a migration-year filing on at least one side - Portugal's split-year rule, the Dutch M form, and the French and Swiss arrival practices each handled in the country pieces. The US return, meanwhile, simply continues: a citizen files Form 1040 on worldwide income in a moving year like any other, with the automatic two-month extension available to taxpayers abroad on the regular due date. The one habit that survives every move is filing everywhere you must, on each system's own clock.
Each assignment that invokes an agreement's detached-worker rule needs its documentation. The Social Security Administration issues the US Certificate of Coverage when the agreement assigns your work to the US system - it "serves as proof that the employee and employer are exempt from the payment of Social Security taxes to the foreign country" - and requests go through the SSA's online certificate service or its international operations office. When the foreign system covers you instead, that country issues its own certificate on its own forms. A new country, or a new assignment, means the question is asked again.
Under the published leaflet framework, compulsory occupational benefit contributions "cannot be paid out in cash" when you leave Switzerland for good and become subject to compulsory social insurance in an EU or EFTA state - the mandatory part of the termination benefit must go to a vested-benefits account or policy you choose. Moving to the United States sits outside that restriction, so cash payment of the full termination benefit is permissible under the same framework. The Swiss taxation of any withdrawal, and the US side, are the professionals' territory - see the Pillar 2 article.
It depends on the treaty in force between the United States and the country you are resident in when you take the money - and the four treaties in this series answer differently. France's Article 18(1) allocates to the source state and is protected from the saving clause; the Swiss and Portuguese treaties allocate to the residence state without that protection, so the United States taxes its citizens under the Code regardless; the Dutch treaty's relief and saving-clause articles could not be retrieved, so its end-to-end outcome is the professionals' computation. Each country piece quotes its own text.
The located Social Security Administration materials do not answer that question. Each totalization agreement is bilateral: its totalization article counts US periods together with that one partner's periods, subject to a minimum of six US quarters of coverage, and the program manual sections and handbook reviewed for this series address only the bilateral case. This series therefore records the multi-country question as an absence in the published sources, not as a rule in either direction - take your actual contribution record from each country to the SSA and your advisers when you plan a claim.
Liam Fraboulet is a Private Wealth Adviser specialising in cross-border wealth management for Americans living abroad. He works with U.S. citizens, internationally mobile professionals, and families whose financial lives span more than one country, helping them build, protect, and transfer wealth across borders.
Whether clients are advancing their careers overseas, raising a family abroad, preparing for retirement, or planning for future generations, Liam helps them create joined-up financial strategies that reflect their personal goals and the international lives they have built.
This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute personalized investment, tax, accounting, legal, pension, Social Security or financial planning advice. Treaty provisions, tax laws, Social Security rules, regulations and administrative guidance may change, and their application depends on individual facts and circumstances. The discussion of French, Swiss, Portuguese and Dutch rules is provided for context and should not be treated as advice under the laws of those jurisdictions. Readers should consult appropriately qualified US tax professionals, cross-border financial advisers and local legal or tax advisers before acting on any information in this article. No particular tax outcome, investment result, pension outcome or financial benefit is guaranteed.

Ordered list
Unordered list
Ordered list
Unordered list