Tax Professional usually responds in minutes
Our tax advisers are all verified
Unlimited follow-up questions
Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, or BEPS, refers to tax strategies used by multinational companies to shift their profits from high-tax countries to low-tax or no-tax jurisdictions, where they pay less or no taxes.
This practice results in less tax revenue for governments, making it harder for countries to fund public services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) introduced the BEPS initiative to tackle this issue by creating global tax rules that ensure companies pay their fair share of taxes in the countries where they make their profits.
As the global economy became more interconnected, it became easier for multinational companies to shift profits across borders.
Many companies took advantage of loopholes in international tax laws, reducing their tax bills by moving profits to tax havens. This left many countries with significantly lower tax revenues.
In 2013, the OECD launched the BEPS Action Plan, which consists of 15 actions designed to close these loopholes and ensure that multinational companies pay taxes where their economic activities occur.
The BEPS initiative is an important step towards creating a fairer global tax system.
By closing tax loopholes, BEPS ensures that countries can collect the tax revenues they need to fund essential public services.
For companies, BEPS means that they must be more transparent about their operations and comply with stricter rules on where and how they pay taxes.
If you have any queries about this article or any international tax matters then please get in touch.
Pillar One is part of the OECD’s two-pillar approach to reforming international tax rules.
It addresses the taxation challenges posed by the digital economy, where many companies earn profits in countries without having a physical presence there.
The main goal of Pillar One is to reallocate the taxing rights of large multinational companies so that countries where customers are located can tax a portion of the company’s profits, even if the company doesn’t have a physical presence in that country.
Under current tax rules, a company is usually taxed in the country where it has a physical presence, like an office or factory.
But in today’s digital world, companies can make huge profits from customers in countries where they don’t have any physical presence.
Pillar One aims to change this by allowing countries to tax a portion of the profits based on where the company’s users or customers are located.
This rule mainly applies to large multinational companies with global revenues of more than €20 billion and profitability of over 10%.
A portion of their profits—above a set threshold—will be taxed in countries where they have customers, rather than just where the company is based.
Pillar One will mostly affect the world’s largest multinational companies, especially those in the digital economy like Google, Facebook, and Amazon.
These companies generate significant profits from users around the world but don’t necessarily have offices or factories in every country where their users live.
Pillar One is a big step forward in adapting international tax rules to the realities of the digital economy.
It ensures that companies pay taxes where their customers are, even if they don’t have a physical presence in those countries.
This change is expected to help countries collect more tax revenue and create a fairer tax system for the global economy.
If you have any queries on this article (What is the OECD’s Pillar One?) – or on any international tax issues – then please get in touch.
They must have thick skin, those HMRC people.
I sometimes wonder whether it’s provided when they join or if it accumulates over their time in post.
After all, it takes either fortitude or tone deafness to keep going in the face of seemingly endless criticism.
This year alone, among other things, HMRC has been accused of allowing customer service to plummet to an all-time low and performed a rapid about-face over proposals to hang up its helpline during the summer months.
Yet there are times when persistence appears to pay off.
Take the Diverted Profits Tax (DPT), for instance, which (whisper it!) looks as though it may be changing the kind of corporate shenanigans on the part of big multi-national businesses which in the past has enabled them to minimise the amounts which they make to the Revenue.
The tax came into effect in 2015. Whilst not applying to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), it is a means of countering the exploitation of overseas offices (or ‘permanent establishments’, as they’re otherwise known) to artificially reduce their UK profits and tax liabilities.
For organisations with the kind of turnover and structures which make it possible, such paper shuffling can be incredibly lucrative.
There is a sting in the tail, though.
Get caught and the sanctions – including a six per cent surcharge on top of the normal Corporation Tax rate – can be enormous. An even higher rate of 55 per cent exists in respect of specific profits in the oil industry.
Figures released last month by HMRC show that DPT generated more than £8.5 between its introduction and March last year
The Revenue’s notable scalps include the likes of the drinks giant Diageo which agreed to hand over £190 million in 2018, a settlement which I discussed with The Times at the time .
Realising that it was onto a winner, HMRC subsequently turned those thumbscrews even tighter, launching something called the Profit Diversion Compliance Facility (PDCF) the following year.
It aimed to “encourage” companies identified by some of the near 400 Revenue staff working on international tax issues as having operations which might trigger a DPT liability to “review both the design and implementation” of their policies and pay any tax due.
In short, it offers a chance to ‘fess up to any mischief and avoid being hauled over the coals and, given that it’s eked more than £732 million extra income for the Revenue, could be said to have demonstrated its worth.
Cynics might suggest that the DPT performance record, in particular, indicates that its novelty is wearing off.
The £108 million recovered in the last financial year was less than half the sum reclaimed only 12 months before.
However, I take the opposite view.
I think it is evidence that instead of using offices in far-flung corners of the globe to manipulate their balance sheets and mitigate their UK tax bills, multi-nationals accept that they now have nowhere to hide.
Of course, that is not solely down to HMRC’s efforts.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has, since DPT was introduced, also unveiled the Global Minimum Tax (GMT) as part of its campaign to eradicate the use of profit shifting which led to the Diverted Profits Tax.
This new measure means that multi-nationals turning over more than €750 million (£633.38 million) will be subject to a minimum 15 per cent tax rate wherever they operate in the world.
It amounts to a combination, one-two punch for the UK tax authorities, in particular. The DPT can still address individual methods not covered by the GMT’s more broad brush approach.
However, the extent to which the UK will retain DPT is perhaps up for debate as well.
To all that, we can add the Revenue’s intention, announced in January, to actually reform DPT, making it part of the wider Corporation Tax for the sake of simplicity – something which in itself is a novel and noble development in UK tax procedures.
There are, I should point out, still some companies which appear reluctant to accept that the diverted profits game is up.
The latest detailed HMRC missive describes how it “is currently carrying out about 90 reviews into multinationals with arrangements to divert profits”, inquiries which involve some £2.6 billion in potentially unpaid tax.
Furthermore, the Revenue is involved in “various international tax risk disputes where the business was not prepared to change their arrangements”. Embroiled in those proceedings led by HMRC’s Fraud Investigation Service “are a number of large businesses” who face possible civil or criminal investigation.
It may well be that corporate titans once inclined to accounting mischief have just been worn down by the Revenue’s dogged investigators.
A change in personnel on the boards of these companies coupled with the prospect of a process lasting five years and a large penalty can also persuade even the hardiest souls to call a halt to such behaviour.
Even those who remain resistant to the newly knighted Jim Harra and his colleagues can’t escape the potential reputational damage arising from the leak of sensitive documentation as has happened successively with the Pandora, Paradise and Panama Papers.
Now that HMRC is finally and effectively calling the tune, there is – with no little apologies to Axl Rose and his bandmates – less of an appetite for diversion.
That is a situation for which and for once the Revenue deserves credit.
Thanks for your patience.
If you have any queries about this article on the UK’s diverted profit tax, or other UK tax matters, then please get in touch.
Look what you’ve reduced me to….
Thailand has recently taken a significant stride in international tax reform by joining the International Cooperation Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, a collective of over 140 economic zones initiated by the OECD/G20.
This participation aligns Thailand with a global movement aimed at addressing tax challenges presented by the digital economy through a comprehensive two-pillar solution.
The Thai Revenue Department has disclosed the guiding principles derived from this global framework, signaling a proactive approach to integrating these international tax standards.
As these proposals are in the draft stage, stakeholders have been invited to contribute their insights and feedback to refine the approach.
The Ministry of Finance is spearheading the implementation process, which involves critical actions such as:
Adhering to Pillar 2’s principles, Thailand aims to adjust its tax collection strategies to ensure fairness and efficiency in the digital age.
Funds raised from the new tax measures will be allocated to a special fund dedicated to enhancing the competitiveness of key sectors within Thailand’s economy.
Information on taxpayers benefiting from these changes will be systematically reported to the Office of the Board of Investment, ensuring oversight and alignment with investment strategies.
A key aspect of Thailand’s approach is the active solicitation of feedback from the business community, tax professionals, and other interested parties.
This open call for comments, facilitated through the Revenue Department’s and the central legal system’s websites, underscores the government’s commitment to transparency and inclusiveness in shaping its tax policy.
Thailand’s commitment to adopting the OECD/G20’s two-pillar solution is a testament to its dedication to international tax cooperation and its role in fostering a fair, sustainable global tax landscape.
As the country moves forward with these reforms, the engagement and input of stakeholders will be invaluable in ensuring that Thailand’s tax system remains competitive, equitable, and aligned with global standards.
If you have any queries about this article on Thailand Global Tax Reform, or Thai tax matters in general, then please get in touch.
On 21 March 2024, the Bahamas Financial Services Board (BFSB) and the Association of International Banks and Trust Companies (AIBT) have come forward with a significant plea to the government.
In a joint statement, these key industry stakeholders have voiced their concern over the proposed enactment of a minimum 15% global corporate tax, a move aligned with the OECD‘s Pillar Two framework aimed at modernizing international business taxation rules.
The Bahamas’ decision to introduce this tax comes as a strategy to adhere to the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) initiative, targeting multinational enterprises (MNEs) with a group turnover exceeding EUR750 million annually.
The government’s plan includes unveiling draft legislation by the end of May 2024, with a legislative Bill anticipated to follow after further consultations.
However, the BFSB and AIBT have raised alarms over the proposed tax, arguing that it challenges the sovereignty of nations to manage their tax systems independently.
Their contention is that international tax regulations should pivot towards reinforcing economic substance rules and harmonizing transfer pricing standards to curb tax evasion and profit shifting.
An open letter has been dispatched to a UN committee currently penning a new international tax cooperation convention. This emerging UN convention garners support mainly from smaller jurisdictions and developing countries, advocating for more equitable tax cooperation frameworks.
The joint letter criticizes the OECD’s approach of instituting a uniform tax rate as a means to tackle avoidance and evasion by large MNEs, suggesting it would unfairly eliminate tax competition among nations.
The BFSB and AIBT propose a model where tax rules of a jurisdiction are applied based on the economic substance present, whether the tax rate is 0% or 15%.
Furthermore, the BFSB and AIBT recommend the introduction of a ‘holding’ period for countries willing to engage in the UN tax convention.
This grace period aims to streamline the adoption of new international tax standards and prevent the overlapping of efforts resulting from competing tax rules set by different international bodies.
As the Bahamas prepares to navigate through these proposed tax changes, the financial sector’s plea highlights a critical conversation about sovereignty, economic competitiveness, and fairness in the global tax landscape.
The coming months will be pivotal as the government contemplates these feedbacks and moves towards legislating this global tax initiative.
If you have any queries about this article, the Bahamas Financial Sector Appeals for Reevaluation of 15% Global Corporate Tax, or tax matters in the Bahamas more generally, then please get in touch
The Finance Bill for 2023, published on 19 October, brings forth significant changes and updates in the Irish financial landscape.
This bill primarily focuses on implementing the Pillar 2 regime, setting a minimum effective tax rate of 15% into Irish law, among other noteworthy provisions.
Here’s a summary of some of the key changes and their implications.
As expected, the Finance Bill transposes the EU Directive on ensuring a global minimum level of taxation, often referred to as the “Pillar 2 Directive.”
This directive sets a minimum effective tax rate of 15% into Irish law.
This change will have a significant impact on large multinationals with a global turnover exceeding €750 million and wholly domestic groups within the EU.
It involves the introduction of “GloBE” rules, consisting of an income inclusion rule (IIR) and an Under Taxed Payment Rule (UTPR).
The IIR takes effect for fiscal years starting after 31 December 2023, and the UTPR will broadly apply for fiscal years starting after 31 December 2024.
The Finance Bill introduces transitional and indefinite safe harbors to alleviate the compliance burden.
The qualified domestic minimum top-up tax (QDMTT) is one such provision, which aims to allow Ireland to apply a domestic top-up tax for Irish constituent entities.
This will potentially reduce the tax calculation and payment obligations for in-scope groups.
Ireland has also adopted other safe harbors following the OECD’s guidance.
To prevent double non-taxation of income, the bill introduces measures denying withholding tax exemptions in certain situations.
These measures primarily apply to payments of interest, royalties, and distributions to associated entities in jurisdictions that are not EU Member States and appear on the EU list of non-cooperative or zero-tax jurisdictions.
New rules are introduced for interest deductibility for “qualifying financing companies” with specific criteria.
These rules generally apply when such companies own 75% or more of the ordinary share capital of a “qualifying subsidiary” and borrow money to on-lend to the subsidiary.
The R&D tax credit is enhanced by increasing the rate from 25% to 30% of qualifying expenditure for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2024.
This change aims to maintain the credit’s net value for companies under the new Pillar 2 regime while providing a real increase in the credit for SMEs.
A pre-notification requirement and other information requirements for R&D claims are introduced as well.
Adjustments are made to the operation of the digital gaming credit to align with the new Pillar 2 definition of a non-refundable tax credit.
These changes affect the manner and timeline for credit payments.
From 1 January 2024, the mechanism for taxing gains from share options shifts from self-assessment by employees to being the responsibility of employers through the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) system.
The bill introduces capital gains tax relief for angel investors in innovative SME start-ups.
Detailed wording for this relief is expected to be included later.
The EIIS is amended to standardize the minimum holding period for relief at four years.
The limit on the amount that an investor can claim for such investments is increased from €250,000 to €500,000 per year of assessment within four years.
An exemption from Irish Stamp Duty for American depository receipts (ADRs) is extended to include transactions in DTC of US-listed shares.
This exemption streamlines the process and eliminates the need for Revenue clearance, making it more efficient.
The Finance Bill transposes EU Directive DAC 7, allowing for cross-border audits with other EU Member States.
It also clarifies Revenue’s authority to make inquiries under the Mandatory Disclosure Regime.
The Finance Bill 2023 introduces numerous significant changes in Irish tax and financial regulations.
Businesses should carefully assess and adapt to these changes to ensure compliance and minimize tax implications effectively.
As always, consulting with financial experts is crucial to navigating these complex tax reforms.
If you have any queries about Ireland Finance Bill 2023, or Irish tax matters in general, then please do get in touch.
The wheels of international tax reform continue to turn as Canada takes significant strides to implement the OECD’s Pillar Two global minimum tax (GMT) recommendations.
On August 4, 2023, the Department of Finance unveiled draft legislation outlining the implementation of two pivotal elements of Pillar Two: the income inclusion rule (IIR) and a qualified domestic minimum top-up tax (QDMTT).
The aim is to align Canada’s tax landscape with the evolving international consensus on curbing tax base erosion and profit shifting.
Let’s have a look at the key aspects of this draft legislation, along with insights into the broader implications it holds.
The draft legislation holds particular importance for multinational enterprises (MNEs) as it focuses on two crucial aspects of the GMT framework:
These provisions are designed to ensure that MNEs pay a minimum level of tax on their global income, irrespective of their jurisdiction of operation
The IIR, closely aligned with the OECD’s model rules and the accompanying commentary, obliges a qualifying MNE group to include a top-up amount in its income.
This amount is determined by evaluating the group’s effective tax rate against the stipulated minimum rate of 15%.
Notably, the draft legislation incorporates mechanisms for calculating this top-up amount, encompassing factors such as excess profits, substance-based income exclusions, and adjusted covered taxes.
The goal is to prevent instances where MNEs might be subject to lower tax rates in certain jurisdictions.
The QDMTT, on the other hand, allows jurisdictions to implement a domestic top-up tax to align with the principles of Pillar Two.
This is aimed at domestic entities within the scope of Pillar Two, counterbalancing the global minimum tax liability.
The intricacies of the QDMTT provision, including computations and adjustments, are outlined in the draft legislation to ensure an encompassing and fair application.
To effectively implement the Global Minimum Tax Act (GMTA), the draft legislation covers a spectrum of administrative facets.
These include provisions for assessments, appeals, enforcement, audit, collection, penalties, and other vital components to ensure the smooth functioning of the new tax regime.
As part of compliance measures, the legislation introduces the requirement of filing a GloBE information return (GIR) within 15 months of the fiscal year’s end, with potential penalties for non-compliance.
It’s important to note that the legislation doesn’t shy away from significant penalties for non-compliance.
Failure to file the required GIR within the stipulated timeframe could result in penalties of up to $1 million. Moreover, penalties may also be imposed as a percentage of taxes owed under the GMTA for not filing Part II or Part IV returns, adding a layer of urgency to adhere to these provisions.
One of the central themes that emerge from the draft legislation is the intricate interplay between the GMTA and Canada’s existing tax framework.
While the legislation attempts to bridge these two domains, certain aspects remain to be ironed out.
Notably, the interaction between the GMTA and provisions within the Income Tax Act (ITA) raises questions about the allocation of losses or tax attributions under the ITA to offset taxes owing under the GMTA.
Additionally, the draft legislation is deliberately silent on the specifics of this interaction, particularly concerning issues like Canadian foreign affiliate and foreign accrual property regimes.
As businesses and professionals delve into the consultation process, these areas of ambiguity are likely to be focal points of discussion, aiming to ensure a harmonious alignment between the new regime and the existing tax landscape.
The consultation process for the draft legislation is underway, with the Department of Finance welcoming feedback until September 29, 2023.
During this period, stakeholders, including businesses, tax professionals, and policymakers, have the opportunity to contribute insights and perspectives to shape the final legislation.
The complex and evolving nature of international taxation underscores the importance of robust consultation, as the new rules have far-reaching implications for cross-border businesses.
Canada’s proactive approach to aligning its tax laws with the global consensus on minimum taxation is a significant stride.
As the draft legislation undergoes scrutiny and refinement, it’s essential to recognize its implications not only for multinational enterprises but also for the broader tax landscape.
The interplay between the GMTA and the existing tax regime will be closely watched, highlighting the intricate path of international tax reform and the commitment of nations to creating a fair and balanced tax environment.
If you have any queries about this article on Canada and Global Minimum Tax, or Canadian tax matters in general, then please get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article..
In a significant move, the Swiss electorate and cantons have voted in favor of implementing the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) global minimum tax of 15% for large multinational enterprises operating in Switzerland.
This constitutional amendment was supported by an overwhelming majority, with 78.45% of voters and all cantons endorsing the proposal.
The implementation of the OECD minimum tax aims to safeguard Switzerland’s tax receipts and maintain its position as a stable business location.
The global minimum tax initiative has been developed by the OECD and the Group of 20 countries to establish a uniform minimum tax rate worldwide.
Under this framework, multinational companies with a global annual turnover exceeding €750 million will be subject to a minimum tax rate of 15% in each country they operate in.
Numerous countries, particularly in the European Union, plan to introduce the OECD minimum tax on 1 January 2024.
In Switzerland, 21 out of the 26 cantons currently have tax rates below the required 15%. Failure to meet the minimum tax rate would result in the imposition of a supplementary tax to make up the shortfall.
By implementing the minimum tax, Switzerland ensures that its tax receipts remain within the country rather than being shifted to other jurisdictions.
It’s important to note that the OECD minimum tax will only affect large multinational groups with an annual turnover of at least €750 million.
Small and medium-sized enterprises will not be affected by this amendment.
In Switzerland, approximately 200 internationally active groups headquartered in the country and 2,000 Swiss subsidiaries of foreign groups will be subject to the minimum tax.
As a result, around 99% of companies in Switzerland will continue to be taxed under the existing regulations.
The constitutional amendment to introduce the OECD minimum tax is in Switzerland’s best interest.
Without such a provision, jurisdictions in which Swiss multinational groups operate would be entitled to impose a subsequent tax to compensate for the difference in tax burdens, thereby impacting Switzerland’s tax revenues. Implementing the minimum tax rate ensures tax stability for Switzerland and provides legal certainty for companies affected by the new international tax rules.
However, it is worth considering the potential impact on tax competition within Switzerland.
High-tax cantons may become more attractive compared to those with lower taxes, as the introduction of the minimum tax limits the extent to which lower tax rates can be used to offset geographical disadvantages.
Switzerland’s embrace of the OECD global minimum tax represents a proactive step to secure tax revenues and maintain its status as an internationally stable business location.
By implementing the minimum tax, Switzerland ensures that tax receipts remain within the country and avoids the risk of revenue shifting to other jurisdictions.
While this decision may have implications for tax competition within Switzerland, the overall objective is to create a robust and equitable international tax framework.
The introduction of the OECD minimum tax paves the way for a more uniform global tax system, providing a level playing field for multinational enterprises across different countries.
If you have any queries about this article, or Swiss tax matters in general, then please get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article.
Yesterday, Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man announced their intention to implement the OECD’s Pillar Two global minimum tax initiative.
The three Crown Dependencies have said that they will implement an “income inclusion rule” and a domestic minimum tax to ensure that large multinational enterprises (MNEs) pay a minimum effective tax rate of 15% from 2025.
Pillar Two is a new set of international tax rules that seek to address the problem of base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS).
BEPS is a practice by which MNEs use complex structures to shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions, thereby avoiding paying taxes in high-tax jurisdictions where the profits are generated.
The income inclusion rule is one of the two main components of Pillar Two. The income inclusion rule requires MNEs to pay a top-up tax in high-tax jurisdictions where their effective tax rate is below the 15% minimum.
The domestic minimum tax is the other main component of Pillar Two. The domestic minimum tax requires MNEs to pay a minimum tax in each jurisdiction where they operate, regardless of their effective tax rate.
The implementation of Pillar Two is a significant development in the global fight against BEPS. The rules are expected to raise billions of dollars in additional tax revenue for governments around the world. The rules are also expected to make it more difficult for MNEs to avoid paying taxes.
The announcement by Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man to implement Pillar Two is a positive development.
The three Crown Dependencies have a reputation for being tax-efficient jurisdictions. However, they have also been criticized for being used as tax havens by MNEs.
The implementation of Pillar Two will help to ensure that MNEs pay their fair share of taxes in the jurisdictions where they operate.
The implementation of Pillar Two will have a number of implications for MNEs. MNEs will need to review their global tax structures to ensure that they are compliant with the new rules.
MNEs may also need to increase their tax payments in high-tax jurisdictions.
The implementation of Pillar Two is a significant development for the global tax landscape. It will be interesting to see how MNEs respond to the new rules.
The rules will help to ensure that MNEs pay their fair share of taxes in the jurisdictions where they operate.
However, it is important to note that the rules are complex and will require careful implementation.
If you have any queries relating to the three Crown Dependencies’ implementation of Pillar Two, then please do not hesitate to get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article.
The global wave of the two-pillar solution to address base erosion and profit shifting (which all the cool kids are calling BEPS 2.0) has reached Singapore.
Singapore will implement Pillar 2 of BEPS 2.0 in 2025, which will require multinational enterprises (MNEs) with local operations to top up their effective tax rate (ETR) in Singapore to 15%.
Many MNEs with Singapore operations currently benefit from tax incentives and enjoy an ETR lower than the upcoming 15%.
It is unclear whether existing incentives and exemptions will continue to apply, and whether Singapore’s territorial basis of taxation will change.
As the full effects of BEPS 2.0 are expected to be felt in 2025 or later, Singapore has chosen a cautious approach to delay implementation until then, giving itself time and a chance to learn from the experiences of other countries before determining the best way forward.
The implementation of Pillar 2 is crucial for Singapore, as it is an opportunity to increase revenue and fortify its fiscal position.
Under Pillar 1, Singapore is expected to lose revenue when profits are reallocated to the countries where markets are located. With a small domestic market, Singapore has to give up taxing rights to bigger markets and receives very little in return.
However, Pillar 2 presents a chance for Singapore to generate more corporate tax revenue, assuming that existing economic activities are retained.
The key to Singapore’s continued success is staying competitive in attracting and retaining investments.
The use of tax incentives may become obsolete or significantly compromised once the effects of BEPS 2.0 are felt.
Singapore has signaled that it will seek to reinvest and strengthen non-tax factors to remain competitive.
Whatever additional corporate tax revenue can be generated from BEPS 2.0 will be reinvested to maintain and enhance its competitiveness. Together with the intended implementation of Pillar 2, Singapore will also review and update its broader suite of industry development schemes.
The lack of details and the delayed implementation of Pillar 2 suggest that policymakers are looking for more information to guide their decisions. If there are additional delays internationally, it is likely that Singapore will adjust its implementation timeline.
Singapore has assured companies that it will continue to engage them and give them sufficient notice ahead of any changes to its tax rules or schemes.
MNEs that may be affected should actively participate in public consultation exercises before the implementation of Pillar 2 in 2025.
Those who currently benefit from an existing tax incentive should consider reaching out early to the relevant authorities if they are concerned about the implications of the new rules.
If you have any queries relating to the Singapore two pillar solution, or Singaporean tax matters more generally, then please do not hesitate to get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article.