Why are TCEHY (Tencent Holdings ADR) dividends classified as non-qualified dividends?
I've been holding TCEHY stock (Tencent Holdings ADR) in my portfolio for a while now. For those who aren't familiar, it's a Chinese tech giant that trades on the OTC markets rather than major exchanges like NYSE or NASDAQ. I was reviewing my tax documents for the upcoming filing and noticed something frustrating - all the dividends I received from TCEHY throughout the year were categorized as non-qualified dividends. This means they're taxed at my regular income rate rather than the lower qualified dividend rate. When I called my broker (Schwab), they just said they use some third-party service that provides them with a list of qualified foreign corporations, and apparently Tencent isn't on it. What's confusing me is that China does have an income tax treaty with the US, which I thought was one of the main requirements for qualified dividend treatment. And Tencent is definitely a legitimate, established corporation - it's one of the largest companies in China! I get that TCEHY trades OTC rather than on a major US exchange, but I thought foreign companies could still produce qualified dividends if they meet certain requirements. Has anyone else dealt with this situation? Am I missing something about why these dividends are being classified as non-qualified?
23 comments


Chloe Harris
The reason your TCEHY dividends are non-qualified comes down to a specific requirement in the tax code. For a foreign corporation's dividends to be considered "qualified" (eligible for the lower tax rate), the stock must either: 1) Be traded on an established US securities market (major exchanges like NYSE, NASDAQ, etc.), OR 2) Be eligible for benefits under a US income tax treaty with a foreign country THAT INCLUDES AN EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION PROGRAM While China does have a tax treaty with the US, it doesn't include the comprehensive information exchange program required by the IRS for qualified dividend treatment. OTC stocks from countries with full tax treaties that include information exchange (like many European countries) can produce qualified dividends, but Chinese companies generally don't meet this second requirement. So even though Tencent is a legitimate company and China has some tax agreements with the US, the specific type of tax treaty doesn't satisfy the qualified dividend requirements for OTC stocks.
0 coins
Diego Mendoza
•Wait, so does this mean ALL Chinese stocks, even the ones traded on major US exchanges like Alibaba (BABA) or NIO that are listed on NYSE, would have non-qualified dividends too? Or is it just because TCEHY is traded OTC?
0 coins
Chloe Harris
•Great question! Chinese stocks that are directly listed on major US exchanges like NYSE or NASDAQ (such as BABA or NIO) can produce qualified dividends because they satisfy the first requirement - being traded on an established US securities market. They don't need to rely on the tax treaty provision. It's specifically because TCEHY is traded OTC rather than on a major exchange that it needs to meet the tax treaty requirement, which it doesn't. So this issue mainly affects Chinese companies that are only available as OTC ADRs rather than those with proper US exchange listings.
0 coins
Anastasia Popova
After dealing with a similar issue with some Asian ADRs in my portfolio, I found this exact situation super frustrating. I spent hours researching tax documents trying to figure out why my dividends were being classified as non-qualified. That's when I discovered taxr.ai (https://taxr.ai) which actually helped clear things up for me. Their system analyzed my dividend statements and foreign corporation holdings and explained exactly why certain dividends didn't qualify for the preferred tax treatment. It saved me from having to decode all the IRS publications myself. What was really helpful was that it showed me which of my other foreign stocks would have the same issue and which ones wouldn't - apparently it varies even between different OTC securities depending on their country of origin. I had some Hong Kong stocks that were getting different treatment than my Chinese ones, which made no sense to me until the system explained the specific tax treaty differences.
0 coins
Sean Flanagan
•Does the site actually tell you which specific stocks qualify for the lower dividend tax rate? Like could I check if my ADRs will have qualified or non-qualified dividends before I get surprised at tax time?
0 coins
Zara Shah
•I'm skeptical about tax tools that aren't directly from established companies like TurboTax or H&R Block. How does it actually work with determining qualified vs non-qualified status? Does it just have a database of foreign corporations or does it actually analyze the tax treaties?
0 coins
Anastasia Popova
•The site does let you check specific stocks before tax time. You can upload your portfolio or just enter ticker symbols, and it will analyze which ones are likely to produce qualified vs. non-qualified dividends based on the current IRS rules and tax treaties. Really helped me with tax planning because I could see the tax impact before making certain investments. For your question about how it works - it's not just a static database. The system actually analyzes the specific requirements in the tax code against each security. It looks at where the company is incorporated, where the stock trades, the type of tax treaty in place, and whether the specific treaty includes the exchange of information program required by the IRS. It's pretty comprehensive compared to the general advice you'd get from tax prep software.
0 coins
Zara Shah
I was skeptical about using taxr.ai at first, but after struggling with foreign dividend classifications in my portfolio (particularly some Singapore and Japanese ADRs), I decided to give it a try. The results were surprisingly helpful - it correctly identified which of my holdings would produce qualified dividends and which wouldn't, with explanations for each. What impressed me was the detailed breakdown of the tax treaty requirements for each country. For my Chinese stocks like TCEHY, it confirmed they don't qualify because China's tax treaty lacks the information exchange provisions, while my European ADRs did qualify despite also trading OTC. The system also flagged a Hong Kong stock I owned that I had incorrectly assumed would be treated the same as mainland Chinese stocks. I ended up reorganizing some of my foreign dividend holdings based on the analysis, which should save me a decent amount on taxes next year. Definitely more helpful than the vague responses I was getting from my broker.
0 coins
NebulaNomad
I had the EXACT same issue with TCEHY and some other foreign stocks through my broker. After spending hours on hold with their tax department and getting nowhere, I tried using Claimyr (https://claimyr.com) to actually get someone from the IRS on the phone to give me a definitive answer. They have this demo video showing how it works: https://youtu.be/_kiP6q8DX5c The service got me connected to an IRS agent in about 20 minutes when I had been trying for literally days on my own. The agent confirmed what others have said here about the tax treaty requirements not being met for Chinese OTC stocks. They also explained exactly which publication covers this (Publication 550) and directed me to the specific section that addresses qualified foreign corporations. Having an actual IRS confirmation gave me peace of mind that I was filing correctly, instead of just relying on my broker's third-party information.
0 coins
Luca Ferrari
•How exactly does this work? Does Claimyr just wait on hold with the IRS for you? Why would I pay for something I could do myself?
0 coins
Nia Wilson
•Yeah right, nobody gets through to the IRS these days. I tried calling about my foreign tax credit questions last month and couldn't get a human after 2+ hours on hold multiple days. If this service actually works I'd be shocked.
0 coins
NebulaNomad
•It's not just waiting on hold - they use a system that navigates the IRS phone tree and secures your place in line without you having to stay on the phone. When an IRS agent is about to pick up, you get a call connecting you directly. Basically you go about your day instead of listening to hold music for hours. You absolutely could do this yourself if you have hours to spare waiting on hold. For me, the time savings was worth it since I was getting nowhere with multiple attempts calling on my own. With the IRS still dealing with massive backlogs, getting through on your own can be nearly impossible for some departments.
0 coins
Nia Wilson
I genuinely can't believe it, but after reading about Claimyr here, I gave it a shot with extreme skepticism. I had several questions about foreign tax treatment that my accountant couldn't answer definitively, including this exact issue with Chinese ADRs like TCEHY. The service got me connected to an IRS tax law specialist in about 35 minutes. The agent confirmed exactly what the other commenters mentioned about why Chinese OTC stocks produce non-qualified dividends - the US-China tax treaty doesn't have the required information exchange provisions that would make these dividends qualified when trading on OTC markets. She also pointed me to the specific IRS documentation (Publication 550) and even emailed me some resources about foreign dividend classification. This was after I had spent WEEKS trying to get through on my own with no success. I'm still shocked it actually worked - totally worth it for getting a definitive answer straight from the IRS.
0 coins
Mateo Martinez
For what it's worth, I went through this exact issue with my accountant last tax season. He explained that the classification as non-qualified dividends for TCEHY comes down to the specific wording in IRC section 1(h)(11)(C), which defines qualified foreign corporations. Since TCEHY trades as an ADR on the OTC market and not directly on a major exchange, it needs to meet the treaty requirements, which Chinese companies generally don't. Here's the annoying part - if Tencent was directly listed on NYSE instead of as an OTC ADR, the dividends would likely be qualified! This is why some investors prefer foreign companies that have direct listings on major US exchanges rather than only being available through OTC ADRs. The tax treatment can be significantly different even for companies from the exact same country.
0 coins
Aisha Hussain
•Would it make sense to sell TCEHY and buy something similar that DOES qualify for better dividend treatment? The tax difference between qualified (20% max) and non-qualified (could be 37%+) seems huge for long-term dividend investors.
0 coins
Mateo Martinez
•It really depends on your overall investment strategy and tax situation. If you're primarily investing for dividend income in a taxable account, then yes, the difference between qualified (taxed at 0%, 15%, or 20% depending on your tax bracket) and non-qualified (taxed as ordinary income up to 37%) can be substantial over time. However, there are other factors to consider beyond just the dividend tax treatment. TCEHY represents exposure to a specific company (Tencent) that might be strategic for your portfolio regardless of its dividend classification. There's also the question of transaction costs, potential capital gains from selling, and whether there's truly a comparable alternative with better tax treatment.
0 coins
Ethan Clark
Just a quick data point - I own TCEHY and several other Chinese ADRs through Interactive Brokers, and they ALL show up as non-qualified dividends on my 1099. Same with my Japanese OTC stocks. But my Canadian OTC stocks somehow DO qualify for the lower rate. The broker explained that Canada's tax treaty with the US includes the required "exchange of information program" mentioned above, while China and Japan's treaties don't include this specific provision. It's super confusing because it's not about whether there IS a tax treaty, but what SPECIFIC TYPE of tax treaty exists! Really wish brokers would make this clearer when we buy these stocks instead of us finding out at tax time. Feels like this should be disclosed somewhere when purchasing foreign stocks.
0 coins
StarStrider
•This makes so much sense now! I was confused why my Canadian OTCs were qualified but Chinese weren't. Learn something new every tax season lol
0 coins
Paolo Bianchi
This is exactly the kind of confusing tax situation that catches so many investors off guard! I've been dealing with similar issues with my foreign holdings, and what really helped me understand the nuances was actually mapping out which countries have the "comprehensive" tax treaties versus the basic ones. For anyone else running into this, it's worth noting that the IRS publishes a list of countries with qualifying tax treaties, but it's buried in their technical documentation. The key thing to look for is whether the treaty includes "Article 26" or similar language about exchange of information - that's usually the telltale sign. I ended up creating a simple spreadsheet tracking my foreign holdings and their likely dividend treatment before making future purchases. It's saved me from some unpleasant tax surprises. The difference between 15% qualified dividend rate and my 32% ordinary income rate really adds up over time, especially for dividend-focused investing strategies. Has anyone found a good resource that clearly lists which countries have the "qualifying" treaties versus just basic tax agreements? Would save a lot of research time for those of us with international portfolios.
0 coins
Geoff Richards
I actually maintain a spreadsheet for exactly this purpose! After getting burned by surprise non-qualified dividends a few years back, I started tracking the treaty status for different countries. The IRS doesn't make it easy, but here are some key resources I've found helpful: 1) Publication 515 (Withholding of Tax on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Entities) has the most comprehensive treaty information 2) The IRS website has a "United States Income Tax Treaties - A to Z" page that lists all treaties, but you have to dig into each one to see if it includes the information exchange provisions 3) Most importantly, look for treaties that reference "Article 26" or similar language about "Exchange of Information" - that's usually the qualifying provision From my research, countries like Canada, UK, Germany, Netherlands, and most EU countries have the comprehensive treaties that allow OTC stocks to produce qualified dividends. Meanwhile, China, Japan (surprisingly!), and several other Asian countries have basic treaties that don't include the required exchange provisions. One thing that really surprised me was that some countries you'd expect to have comprehensive treaties (like Japan) actually don't for this specific purpose. It's not necessarily correlated with how developed or trustworthy the country is from a trade perspective. Happy to share my spreadsheet template if anyone's interested - just took me forever to compile all this info and would hate for others to have to start from scratch!
0 coins
Isabella Santos
•This is incredibly helpful information! I had no idea about the Article 26 provision being the key differentiator. I've been investing in foreign stocks for years without really understanding why some dividends were qualified and others weren't - just took whatever my broker told me at face value. Would you mind sharing that spreadsheet template? I'm building up my international holdings and this would save me tons of research time. It's frustrating that this information isn't more readily available or clearly disclosed by brokers when you're making investment decisions. Also, you mentioned Japan surprisingly doesn't have the comprehensive treaty - that's shocking given how developed their financial markets are! Makes me wonder what other "obvious" countries might be missing this provision.
0 coins
James Johnson
This thread has been incredibly enlightening! I've been holding TCEHY for about two years now and just accepted that the dividends were non-qualified without really understanding why. The explanation about China's tax treaty lacking the specific "exchange of information program" provision finally makes it clear. What's particularly frustrating is that this seems like something that should be much more transparent upfront. When you're researching foreign stocks on broker platforms, they'll show you all sorts of data about the company, but nowhere does it clearly indicate "hey, by the way, dividends from this stock will be taxed at your ordinary income rate instead of the preferential rate." For those of us building long-term dividend portfolios, this can significantly impact the after-tax returns. I'm now wondering if I should reconsider some of my Chinese ADR positions and maybe look at alternatives that trade directly on major US exchanges instead of OTC. @Geoff Richards - I'd also love to get a copy of that spreadsheet template if you're willing to share it! Having a clear reference for which countries have qualifying treaties would be invaluable for future investment decisions. It's amazing how much research we have to do ourselves on tax implications that really should be more readily available.
0 coins
Giovanni Martello
•You've hit on something that really bothers me about how foreign stock investing is presented to retail investors. The tax implications can be so significant, yet they're treated like fine print that you only discover after the fact. I've been thinking about this issue since reading through all these responses, and it seems like there's a real information gap in the market. Most investing platforms will show you expense ratios down to basis points for ETFs, but won't clearly flag that your foreign dividend stocks might get hit with much higher tax rates. @James Johnson @Isabella Santos - The lack of transparency really does force us to become tax researchers on top of being investors. I wonder if this is part of why some people stick to domestic dividend stocks even when foreign opportunities might be compelling from a business perspective. The tax complexity just adds another layer of decision-making that many investors probably don t want'to deal with. It makes me curious whether there are any advocacy efforts to push brokers toward better disclosure of these tax implications at the point of purchase, similar to how they re required'to provide risk disclosures for options trading.
0 coins