Tax liability for stocks vested for a H1B visa holder
You're asking whether the shares you sold while being a US tax resident are taxable in the US. The answer is yes, they are. How you acquired them or what were the circumstances of the sale is irrelevant. When you acquired them is relevant to the determination of the tax treatment - short or long term capital gains. You report this transaction on your Schedule D, follow the instructions. Make sure you can substantiate the cost basis properly based on how much you paid for the shares you sold (the taxable income recognized to you at vest).
The problem is the H1B program is currently being abused to fill entry level positions, which it wasn't designed to do.  Now we have a glut of American entry level tech workers unable to find work because companies use H1B workers to fill entry level spots. Why? Because it's cheaper they can save $10k per year per worker. And here's the real kicker, most of these H1B workers go back to their home country once finished, so the talent and money doesn't stay in the states. And now we have a shortage of senior tech workers because who would have thought that not giving entry level workers here the chance to work, while tossing away the H1B workers every five years, would bite them in the ass?!!! H1B visas are not terrible, and I am not against all H1B visas. However, it is a bald faced lie to suggest the number 1, if not only, reason companies use them is to cut labor costs. These companies are not advertising they could have hired local talent, but chose to provide the job to someone from a poorer region.  I think whatever city everybody in the world wants to work or go to school, like Tokyo or London or Paris or Boston, that is going to have the world's best talent. Also, if those people go back to their homelands, they don't bring with them the ideas from the city they worked or matriculated, but rather the best ideas from all over the world.  That isn't at all what is happening in technology. There are plenty of computer science and electrical engineer majors in the USA out of work, and some making six figures with a BS degree and 3 years experience, but so many are out of work. Many of those jobs were outsourced, but the talent used was so poor, the cost to upkeep or update was so expensive, that many companies brought back the jobs to the USA. Those companies still want to hire the same low cost workers, but want them working in the USA for reasons I will spare, here. The USA talent pool is so full, and jobs so scarce, it drives down wages; not actually, because what really happens in the company is toxic to work for, and demands 16 hour days, 7 days a week, for the same great salary that may have once been 40 hours a week with fun puzzles and entertainment and space and a gym on site, etc.  Stopping H1B visas would force companies to bring back their on site gyms, large break rooms, increase work life balance, etc.  Stopping H1B visas mean a lot of billion dollar tech companies would have to pay their shareholders and executives *less* this year than last year, which is outrageous in the **race to the bottom** LOL!!!! Is Intel (and Disney, etc) planning or already replacing American workers with H1B Visa foreigners? Yes or no?  Is Trump already started and planned to stop the H1B Visa program to Make America Great? Yes or no?  So who's the Nazi and/or/both enemy of the USA? Trump and me, or, Intel and you (defending Intel)? Note:  This is not professional tax advice.  If you think you need professional tax advice, find a licensed professional in your local area. What are the expected earnings/year? US$100? US$1,000?  US$100,000?  I would say if this is for US$1,000 or less that registering an EIN, and consulting a CPA to file a Partnership Tax return is not going to be a profitable exercise.... all the earnings, perhaps more, will go to paying someone to do (or help do) the tax filings. The simplest taxes are for a business that you completely own.  Corporations and Partnerships involve additional forms and get more and more and complex, and even more so when it involves foreign participation.  Partnerships are often not formal partnerships but can be more easily thought of as independent businesses that each participants owns, that are simply doing some business with each other. Schedule C is the IRS form you fill out for any businesses that you own. On schedule C you would list the income from advertising.  Also on schedule C there is a place for all of the business expenses, such as ads that you buy, a server that you rent, supplies, employees, and independent contractors.  Amounts paid to an independent contractor certainly need not be based on hours, but could be a fixed fee, or based on profit earned.   Finally, if you pay anyone in the USA over a certain amount, you have to tell the IRS about that with a Form 1099 at the beginning of the next year, so they can fill out their taxes.  BUT.... according to an article in International Tax Blog you might not have to file Form 1099 with the IRS for foreign contractors if they are not US persons (not a US citizen or a resident visa holder). "Although there are occasional cases where simply moving money between countries results in a tax liability - for example a ""non-domiciled"" UK resident using the ""remittance basis"" - this is not the case in your situation. In general it would be extremely rare for non-residents of a country to be taxed on bringing money into that country, as it would be bad for tourism which most countries want to encourage. The requirement to declare large sums of money on entry is primarily so that the authorities can detect money laundering, rather than tax. Note that you will have to pay US tax on any interest you earn on that US bank account." You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain. Unless you started a bank or other kind of a financial institution (brokerage, merchant processor, etc etc), the page you linked to is irrelevant. That said, there's enough in the US tax code for you to reconsider your decision of not living in the US, or at least of being a shareholder of a foreign company. Your compliance costs are going to go through the roof. If you haven't broken any US tax laws yet (which is very unlikely), you may renounce your citizenship and save yourself a lot of money and trouble. But in the more likely case of you already being a criminal with regards the US tax law, you should probably get a proper tax advice from a US-licensed CPA/EA who's also proficient in the Japanese-American tax treaty and expats' compliance issues resolution. "OK, I found this filing by JCI on the SEC website: U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Distribution to U.S. Holders For U.S. federal income tax purposes, the distribution will not be eligible for treatment as a tax-free distribution by Johnson Controls with respect to its stock. Accordingly, the distribution will be treated as a taxable distribution by Johnson Controls to each Johnson Controls shareholder in an amount equal to the fair market value of the Adient ordinary shares received by such shareholder (including any fractional shares deemed received and any Adient ordinary shares withheld on account of any Irish withholding taxes), determined as of the distribution date (such amount, the ""Distribution Amount""). The Distribution Amount received by a U.S. holder will be treated as a taxable dividend to the extent of such U.S. holder's ratable share of current or accumulated earnings and profits of Johnson Controls for the taxable year of the distribution (as determined under U.S. federal income tax principles). Any portion of the Distribution Amount that is treated as a dividend will not be eligible for the dividends-received deduction allowed to corporations under the Code. My broker's 1099-B form tells me that I received a Qualified Dividend from JCI on 10/31/2016 of $512.44, which would be equivalent to $45.349 valuation of ADNT as of the spinoff date for my 11.3 shares (before the 0.3 shares were sold as cash-in-lieu) ."