" I would rather pay a little more in taxes and take it upon our inability to raise our stature than pay a little less with another stamp on our back that says "you are poor so don't have to pay that much." You are dead wrong and I assume that you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. Where on the earth that you learn that having tax treaty will make you poor, and you've to get the stamp saying poor. My colleague's country's per capita income is tens of times more than us, and much higher standard of living, and quality of life than in our country. They don't need to get any stamp. The accountant knows which countries have got the treaty, and they're automatically exempted from some amount of tax cut. Government is for the sake of people. Regarding Nepal's gains with this treaty, it's their duty to act for the welfare of their citizens no matter whether they get benefit or not. Why did government pay for 12 nepalese killed in Iraq? Why did some nepalese were recenty rescued from ARAB after media highlights? How did government get benefit by these acts? Why did government pay 12 lacs to victims killed in Iraq, and why only 1.5 lacs to those killed in Nagarkot? So my point is that they ought to act though they don't get any benefit. By the way, they'll definitely get benefit from it as #1 source for Nepal is remuneration, and those waived amount's some portion will go back to Nepal too. Similarly, we can always find the points to convince US gov. too though it might be tough.