Tax Professional usually responds in minutes
Our tax advisers are all verified
Unlimited follow-up questions
A former advisor to Donald Trump has labelled Ireland a “tax scam,” reigniting debate around Ireland’s corporate tax regime and its attractiveness to multinational corporations.
The comments, while blunt, reflect long-standing international concerns about tax competition and the shifting landscape of global tax rules.
Stephen Moore, a former Trump economic advisor and prominent US economist, made the remarks during a televised discussion about global taxation.
He referred to Ireland as a “tax scam country” for enabling large US multinationals to significantly lower their tax liabilities through aggressive tax planning.
His comment reflects frustrations in some US political and policy circles that companies like Apple and Google can book enormous profits in low-tax jurisdictions while paying little in their home country.
Ireland has long maintained a 12.5% corporate tax rate, one of the lowest in the EU.
Coupled with favourable rulings and intellectual property planning structures, this has made Ireland a prime location for US tech and pharma companies to base their European operations.
Although Ireland has moved to align with OECD tax transparency and anti-avoidance standards, its business model remains a contentious issue—especially for larger countries trying to protect their tax base.
Moore’s comment comes at a time when the OECD’s global tax deal, particularly the global minimum tax under Pillar Two, aims to level the playing field.
Ireland has signed up to the agreement, committing to implement a 15% minimum effective corporate tax rate for large multinationals.
This will, over time, erode some of the incentives that made Ireland such a popular tax jurisdiction. However, critics argue that enforcement will be patchy and that smaller jurisdictions will find new ways to remain competitive.
While the “tax scam” comment is clearly provocative, it highlights real tensions in the international tax system.
Ireland has benefitted enormously from its tax policies, but has also cooperated with global reforms.
The reality is more nuanced than the rhetoric.
Ireland’s role in global tax planning has long attracted scrutiny, and Stephen Moore’s recent remarks have thrown the issue back into the spotlight.
As global reforms take hold, countries like Ireland will need to find new ways to stay competitive while avoiding reputational damage.
If you have any queries about this article on corporate tax regimes, or tax matters in Ireland then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in Ireland and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
Imagine being owed hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars – and not knowing it.
That’s the situation for nearly a million people in the United States, according to a recent warning from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
The IRS says there’s over $1 billion in unclaimed tax refunds from previous years just sitting there, waiting for people to come and get it.
This isn’t a scam. It’s real money. And if people don’t act soon, they might lose it forever.
Each year, millions of Americans are owed refunds after filing their tax returns.
Sometimes, though, people don’t file a return – maybe because they didn’t earn much, didn’t realise they could get money back, or simply forgot.
The IRS gives people three years to claim a refund, but after that, it’s too late.
Right now, the clock is ticking for tax year 2020. That’s the year when the pandemic disrupted work, routines, and finances for so many.
But it also means many people may have missed out on refunds because they didn’t file.
The IRS estimates that nearly 940,000 taxpayers are due a refund, with the median amount around $932.
That means half of the unclaimed refunds are larger than $932, and half are smaller. That’s not small change – especially at a time when people are feeling the pinch of inflation.
Many of the unclaimed refunds are from low-income workers or students who didn’t realise they were eligible.
Some may not have filed because their income was below the threshold where filing is legally required.
But even if you’re not required to file, you can still get a refund if tax was withheld from your pay cheque or you’re entitled to certain credits.
For 2020, this includes the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) – which can be worth over $6,000 depending on your circumstances.
It also includes pandemic-related stimulus payments that some people may not have received.
The IRS has made it clear: if you don’t file your 2020 tax return by 15 May 2024, you’ll lose your right to the refund.
After that date, the money goes into the U.S. Treasury and you can’t claim it anymore.
To help people, the IRS has reopened online tools to request wage and income transcripts, and they’re encouraging those who may have missed out to speak to a tax professional, even if they think they’re not owed anything.
If you didn’t file a tax return for 2020, it’s worth checking whether you should have. Especially if you had a job, even part-time, and had tax taken out.
You can still file a return for free using IRS Free File tools if your income is below a certain level.
You’ll need:
Your 2020 income details (like W-2s or 1099s)
Social Security numbers for yourself and your dependants
Bank account info to receive your refund directly
If you’re missing old paperwork, the IRS can help retrieve your income records. But time is short.
This isn’t about loopholes or fancy tax planning. It’s simply about people being owed money and not claiming it.
If you or someone you know didn’t file a tax return in 2020, now’s the time to act.
After May, the money disappears – and there’s no going back.
If you have any queries about this article on unclaimed tax refunds, or tax matters in the United States then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in the United States and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
In the Netherlands, a bold new tax proposal is turning heads.
The Dutch government has announced plans to introduce a new tax on share buybacks – a move aimed at reining in what it sees as corporate excess and encouraging businesses to reinvest in their people and the economy.
It’s part of a growing global trend where governments are casting a critical eye on large, wealthy companies and asking: are they doing enough for society?
But what exactly is a share buyback?
And why does the Dutch government think it should be taxed?
Let’s say a company has made a tidy profit. Instead of using that money to build a new factory, pay workers more, or lower prices, the company decides to buy its own shares back from the stock market.
This reduces the number of shares in circulation and often pushes the price up – benefiting shareholders (including top executives) who still hold shares.
It’s a bit like a bakery using its extra cash not to hire more bakers or bake more bread, but to buy up bread tokens from the market to make existing tokens more valuable.
Critics say buybacks prioritise short-term profits and shareholders over long-term investment and workers.
Governments – including the United States and now the Netherlands – are starting to push back.
The Dutch plan would introduce a 15% tax on share buybacks, mirroring a similar approach taken by the US under President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which added a 1% tax on corporate buybacks in 2023 (with plans to potentially raise it to 4%).
Dutch Finance Minister Steven van Weyenberg said the aim is to “encourage companies to reinvest profits into innovation, jobs, and sustainable practices” instead of simply enriching shareholders.
The move is also part of a broader effort to tackle inequality and the concentration of wealth.
The buyback tax would apply to large publicly listed companies and is currently expected to be introduced in 2025, subject to parliamentary approval.
Supporters say this is a fair and sensible tax that could bring in much-needed revenue while nudging companies towards more productive investment.
But opponents argue it risks making the Dutch stock market less attractive.
Critics also say companies may simply find other ways to return money to shareholders, such as dividends – which are already taxed, but usually at a lower rate depending on the country.
There’s also concern about double taxation – the company is taxed on its profits, then again when it tries to return value to shareholders.
Yes.
The United States was first out of the gate, and other countries are now watching closely.
France and Spain have floated similar ideas.
The EU has also been discussing how best to tax excess profits and corporate behaviour in a way that’s fair and sustainable.
For years, governments have struggled to tax large multinational companies in a meaningful way.
Buybacks are now in the spotlight as one more pressure point – especially when firms are reporting record profits while public services struggle and inequality grows.
The Dutch buyback tax might seem technical, but it’s part of a wider debate about the role of big business in society.
Should companies be free to do what they want with their profits – or should governments intervene to shape more equitable outcomes?
One thing is clear: the Netherlands is taking a bold step that may well inspire others.
If you have any queries about this article on buyback taxes, or tax matters in the Netherlands then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in the Netherlands and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
The UK is facing renewed calls for a wealth tax as debates over welfare reform intensify within the Labour Party.
With rising costs for social programs and increasing pressure to address economic inequality, some within the party are advocating for a targeted tax on the wealthiest individuals to fund these initiatives.
However, the proposal has sparked internal divisions, as critics warn of potential economic consequences and political fallout.
The UK’s welfare system is under increasing strain, with costs rising due to inflation, an aging population, and economic instability.
The government has struggled to balance fiscal responsibility with ensuring adequate support for vulnerable groups.
The demand for a wealth tax stems from the belief that high-net-worth individuals should contribute more to the welfare system, rather than relying on broad-based tax increases that impact middle and lower-income earners.
Proponents argue that a wealth tax could generate billions in revenue without disproportionately affecting the general public.
By targeting assets rather than income, it would ensure that those with the greatest financial resources contribute more.
Advocates point to countries like France and Spain, which have experimented with wealth taxes to fund social programs. T
hey argue that in the face of growing income disparities, the UK must explore similar policies to promote fairness and social cohesion.
Opponents of a wealth tax caution that such measures could drive wealth and investment out of the UK.
Business leaders warn that imposing additional taxes on assets could discourage entrepreneurship and job creation.
Moreover, they argue that wealth taxes are difficult to enforce, with high administrative costs and the potential for capital flight as high-net-worth individuals move their assets abroad.
Labour’s internal debate on this issue reflects broader tensions between progressive and centrist factions within the party.
While some members push for more radical tax reforms, others fear that proposing a wealth tax could alienate middle-class voters and business leaders, potentially harming Labour’s electoral prospects.
If you have any queries about this article on UK wealth tax policies, or tax matters in the UK, then please get in touch .
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in the UK and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then please get in touch. There is more information on membership here.
Rix Group, a sixth-generation family business based in Hull, is among many UK family enterprises facing potential upheaval due to upcoming changes in inheritance tax laws.
Scheduled for implementation in April 2026, the modifications could significantly impact succession planning, investment strategies, and long-term financial stability for family-run businesses.
Family-owned businesses form a critical part of the UK economy, contributing significantly to employment and regional development.
Companies like Rix Group, which has been operational for over 140 years, provide stability and long-term investment that differ from short-term profit-driven corporate models.
However, inheritance tax reforms could pose substantial financial burdens on these businesses, threatening their sustainability.
The proposed changes aim to alter how business assets are assessed for inheritance tax purposes. Currently, business property relief (BPR) allows family businesses to be passed down with the benefit of significant tax relief.
However, the new regulations may tighten eligibility criteria, leading to higher tax liabilities for family-run enterprises.
Critics argue that these changes could force businesses to sell off assets or take on excessive debt to cover tax bills.
For a company like Rix Group, increased inheritance tax burdens could mean diverting funds away from growth initiatives and innovation to meet tax obligations.
This shift may slow down expansion efforts and limit the company’s ability to compete with larger, publicly traded corporations that do not face the same succession-related financial constraints.
Beyond individual businesses, critics warn that these tax changes could have ripple effects across the UK economy.
By discouraging long-term investment and continuity in family-run enterprises, the policy risks reducing economic stability in sectors that rely on generational expertise and strategic reinvestment.
If you have any queries about this article on UK inheritance tax reforms, or tax matters in the UK, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in the UK and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then please get in touch. There is more information on membership here.
Bali introduced a $15 tourist levy in February 2024, aimed at funding environmental conservation and cultural preservation efforts.
However, recent reports indicate that compliance rates are lower than expected, with only 35% of international visitors paying the fee.
The shortfall in revenue has raised concerns about the effectiveness and enforcement of the policy.
The levy was designed to help Bali manage the impact of mass tourism by funding sustainability projects, preserving local heritage, and maintaining public infrastructure.
The government hoped that by implementing a relatively small tax, they could generate significant revenue without discouraging visitors.
Despite the good intentions behind the tax, enforcement has proven challenging.
Many tourists remain unaware of the fee, and there is limited enforcement at ports of entry.
Travel industry experts argue that a lack of clear payment mechanisms has contributed to the low compliance rate, as some visitors only discover the tax upon departure.
Other destinations, such as Venice and Thailand, have implemented similar levies with varying degrees of success.
In some cases, stringent collection methods, such as automatic charges on flights and accommodation bookings, have improved compliance rates.
Bali’s model, however, relies on voluntary payments, which has led to the current shortfall.
To increase compliance, the Balinese government is considering measures such as integrating the tax into airline ticket purchases or making it mandatory at hotel check-ins.
Additionally, a more robust awareness campaign could help educate tourists on why the fee is necessary and how it benefits the local community.
If you have any queries about this article on Bali’s tourist tax, or tax matters in Indonesia, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in Indonesia and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then please get in touch. There is more information on membership here.
On March 11, 2025, the Israeli Tax Authority (ITA) released Position Paper 1/25 (the “Paper”), introducing a new interpretation of how double trigger acceleration provisions affect the tax treatment of equity awards under Section 102 of the Israeli Income Tax Ordinance (1961).
This update marks a significant shift from the ITA’s previous stance and provides greater certainty for companies and employees benefiting from equity-based compensation.
Double trigger acceleration occurs when unvested equity awards (such as stock options or RSUs) become vested due to two specific conditions being met:
Previously, the ITA’s position was that double trigger acceleration disqualified awards from the preferential tax treatment under Section 102, effectively reclassifying the income as ordinary taxable income rather than capital gains.
The new Paper reverses this position, confirming that double trigger acceleration, when pre-defined at the time of grant, does not automatically violate Section 102’s tax benefits.
A. Unvested Awards Exchanged for Future Cash Compensation
If unvested awards are converted into future cash payments upon an exit event:
If the purchaser’s share price at payment is equal to or higher than the price at transaction closing:
If the purchaser’s share price at payment is lower than at transaction closing:
If you have any queries about this article on Israeli tax treatment of double trigger acceleration, or tax matters in Israel, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in Israel and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then please get in touch. There is more information on membership here..
Scotland’s ability to manage its own finances has come under scrutiny following an OECD recommendation that Scottish politicians receive formal financial training.
The international body argues that members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) lack the economic and tax expertise needed to make informed policy decisions, leading to concerns about the effectiveness of budget oversight and the potential for financial mismanagement.
The proposal comes at a time when Scotland is grappling with increasing fiscal autonomy, particularly after the 2016 Scotland Act, which granted Holyrood significant control over income tax, welfare spending, and other financial matters.
However, critics argue that some MSPs have struggled to grasp the complexities of tax legislation, borrowing powers, and the long-term economic impact of policies.
The OECD’s recommendation is based on a wider review of how well governments understand and manage public finances.
Scotland, despite its devolved powers, has no formal training requirements for MSPs on tax or economic policy. This has led to instances where:
A recent review of Scotland’s budget process also raised concerns about transparency, with some MSPs reportedly uncertain about the long-term impact of tax decisions.
The OECD argues that a basic level of financial literacy should be a prerequisite for holding office, especially given that Scotland now raises a significant proportion of its own revenue rather than relying solely on Westminster allocations.
The Scottish government has acknowledged the OECD’s concerns but argues that many MSPs already undergo financial briefings. However, opposition parties and some economists have welcomed the recommendation, with calls for mandatory financial training upon election.
A key question is how such training would be implemented. Some proposals include:
There is also the issue of political willingness. While many acknowledge the value of financial literacy, others argue that training should not be compulsory, as MSPs already have access to expert advice from civil servants and economic advisors.
Scotland’s evolving tax and financial system requires well-informed decision-makers, and the OECD’s recommendation highlights a genuine gap in expertise among politicians.
While some MSPs may resist the idea of mandatory financial training, there is a strong argument that better economic literacy could improve the quality of policymaking and budget scrutiny.
If Scotland is to make the most of its devolved powers, ensuring that MSPs fully understand the tax and spending decisions they are making is essential.
If you have any queries about this article on OECD financial training recommendations, or tax matters in Scotland or UK more generally, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in Scotland and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then please get in touch. There is more information on membership here.
A growing movement in several US states is calling for the abolition of property taxes, arguing that homeowners should not have to “pay rent” to the government just to live in their own homes.
The proposal has gained traction among conservatives and libertarians who argue that property taxes unfairly penalize ownership, particularly for retirees and low-income individuals.
The push for reform is most visible in Pennsylvania, Texas, and New Hampshire, where lawmakers are considering alternatives, including higher sales taxes or new revenue sources to offset the loss of property tax income.
However, opponents argue that eliminating property taxes would cripple local governments, which rely heavily on this revenue to fund schools, emergency services, and infrastructure.
Proponents of abolishing property taxes argue that:
Some legislators, such as Pennsylvania Representative Frank Ryan, have suggested replacing property tax revenue with higher sales taxes or a state-wide income tax surcharge.
This shift, they argue, would be fairer and more predictable than property taxes, which fluctuate based on real estate assessments and market conditions.
In Texas, a state with no income tax, property taxes are the primary source of local government funding.
Conservative lawmakers have pushed for a gradual phase-out of property taxes, replacing them with consumption-based taxes.
Opponents of the proposal argue that eliminating property taxes would lead to:
In Pennsylvania, for example, nearly 50% of school district funding comes from property taxes. Replacing this revenue would require a massive increase in other forms of taxation.
The state’s HB 900 proposal includes a broad sales tax increase, but this has faced opposition from businesses and low-income advocates.
Similarly, in New Hampshire, which has no state income tax, property taxes are the primary revenue source. Any repeal would necessitate a fundamental restructuring of how local services are funded.
Some states, like Florida and Tennessee, have instead opted for property tax caps, limiting how much taxes can rise annually rather than eliminating them altogether.
The debate over property taxes in the US is deeply ideological, pitting homeownership rights against the need to fund essential public services.
While the idea of eliminating property taxes is politically appealing, the reality of replacing this revenue is complex and contentious.
Some states may experiment with gradual reductions or alternative funding mechanisms, but a complete abolition remains an uphill battle due to the heavy reliance of local governments on this tax stream.
If you have any queries about this article on property tax reform in the US, or tax matters in any US state, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in the US and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then please get in touch. There is more information on membership here.
Ireland has long been a corporate tax haven for multinational companies, particularly in the pharmaceutical and tech industries.
With its low 12.5% corporate tax rate and business-friendly policies, the country has attracted some of the world’s largest firms, generating billions in tax revenue.
However, recent political rhetoric from former US President Donald Trump and other US lawmakers suggests that Ireland’s days as a low-tax hub for US multinationals may be numbered.
With the US reconsidering its corporate tax policies and a global push for a minimum tax rate, experts warn that many US-based pharmaceutical companies could relocate profits back to the US.
This would have serious implications for Ireland’s economy, given that US multinationals account for over 75% of its corporate tax receipts.
Ireland’s tax advantages have made it a prime location for US pharmaceutical giants such as Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and AbbVie. The benefits include:
However, Trump and other US politicians have criticized these tax advantages, calling for policies that would repatriate corporate profits and force US firms to pay more tax at home.
If US companies begin repatriating profits or restructuring to reduce their presence in Ireland, the Irish economy could take a major hit. The risks include:
The OECD’s global minimum tax agreement, which Ireland has signed, is also expected to increase corporate tax rates to at least 15%, reducing Ireland’s ability to offer ultra-low tax incentives.
Ireland’s corporate tax model has been a major success story, but global tax reforms and shifting US policies may force a rethink.
While Ireland remains an attractive business location, it may need to diversify its economic strategy to reduce reliance on US multinationals.
If you have any queries about this article on Ireland’s pharmaceutical tax advantages, or tax matters in Ireland, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in Ireland and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then please get in touch. There is more information on membership here.