Tax Professional usually responds in minutes
Our tax advisers are all verified
Unlimited follow-up questions
Cross-border investments within the EU are about to become simpler and more efficient.
The Council of the European Union has recently adopted the FASTER directive, aimed at streamlining withholding tax procedures.
This measure seeks to benefit both investors and national tax authorities, reducing administrative burdens and combating fraud.
FASTER (Facilitating and Aligning Simplified Tax Relief) is a policy initiative designed to harmonize and simplify the refund process for withholding taxes on cross-border investments.
It provides a framework for tax authorities and financial intermediaries to share information securely, ensuring quicker and more accurate tax relief.
The existing system for withholding tax refunds in the EU has long been criticized for its complexity.
Investors face delays and excessive paperwork, while tax authorities struggle with detecting and preventing fraud.
The inefficiency of these procedures has often discouraged cross-border investments within the EU.
The FASTER directive introduces a standardized digital process for withholding tax refunds, leveraging modern technology to reduce bureaucracy.
By improving information exchange between member states, it also enhances fraud detection, ensuring that legitimate investors benefit while tax cheats are held accountable.
For investors, the FASTER directive means quicker access to their rightful tax refunds and reduced administrative headaches.
For governments, it represents a more robust mechanism to safeguard tax revenues while promoting investment across borders.
The streamlined process could ultimately bolster economic growth within the EU.
The adoption of the FASTER directive marks a significant leap forward for tax harmonization within the EU.
By addressing long-standing inefficiencies in withholding tax procedures, it creates a more transparent and investor-friendly tax environment.
If you have any queries about this article on FASTER, or tax matters in the EU, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in the EU and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
Italy is once again in the spotlight for its digital services tax, commonly known as the “web tax,” which targets major tech companies.
Despite pressure from the United States to abolish the tax, Italy plans to retain it while focusing its impact on large corporations.
The levy applies to digital giants generating at least €750 million in global revenue, with at least €5.5 million arising from Italy.
The Italian web tax, introduced in 2020, imposes a 3% levy on revenues derived from certain digital activities.
These include online advertising, intermediary services, and data transmission conducted by large tech companies.
The goal is to ensure that digital firms pay a fair share of tax in countries where they generate significant revenue, addressing the long-standing issue of profit-shifting to low-tax jurisdictions.
Despite calls from the US and other countries for the tax to be withdrawn, Italy has doubled down on its commitment to the levy.
However, the government has made assurances that small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and domestic publishing groups will be shielded from its impact. By doing so, Italy aims to:
While the web tax has been praised for its intent, it has also faced criticism. Key challenges include:
Italy’s web tax is part of a broader global movement to tax the digital economy.
Countries like France, the UK, and India have implemented similar measures, highlighting the urgency for a unified international framework.
The OECD’s two-pillar solution, which includes a reallocation of taxing rights and a global minimum tax, aims to address these challenges comprehensively.
Italy’s decision to maintain its web tax underscores the growing pressure on digital firms to contribute their fair share. However, balancing national interests with international diplomacy will be critical to the tax’s long-term success.
If you have any queries about this article on Italy’s web tax, or tax matters in Italy, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in Italy and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
Thailand has taken steps to align itself with global tax standards by approving a draft law to implement a 15% global minimum corporate tax.
This measure targets multinational corporations with annual global revenues exceeding €750 million, aiming to ensure fairer taxation and reduce profit-shifting to low-tax jurisdictions.
The global minimum tax is part of a broader effort spearheaded by the OECD to address base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS).
The aim is to ensure that large multinational enterprises (MNEs) pay a minimum level of tax regardless of where they operate. By implementing this measure, Thailand seeks to:
Thailand’s adoption of the 15% minimum tax reflects its commitment to global economic cooperation.
The reform aligns the country with over 140 jurisdictions that have pledged to implement the OECD’s tax framework.
While the reform is seen as a progressive step, it raises questions about its impact on Thailand’s investment attractiveness. Key considerations include:
Thailand’s approval of the global minimum corporate tax signals its dedication to modernizing its tax system and fostering international cooperation.
However, the measure’s success will depend on effective implementation and balancing revenue generation with maintaining investment appeal.
If you have any queries about this article on the global minimum tax, or tax matters in Thailand, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in Thailand and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
Australia has taken a bold step in addressing tax avoidance by implementing one of the strictest disclosure requirements for multinational companies.
The new legislation mandates detailed reporting of revenues, profits, and taxes paid in 41 jurisdictions that are often considered tax havens.
This move is part of a global push for greater transparency and fairness in the corporate tax landscape.
Effective immediately, multinational corporations with annual revenues exceeding AUD 1 billion are required to disclose their financial data across specific jurisdictions.
This includes countries like Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and other locations often associated with low or no corporate taxes.
The disclosures aim to provide a clearer picture of how these companies structure their finances and whether they are contributing their fair share to public revenue.
Australia’s move aligns with international initiatives, such as the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, which seeks to curb tax avoidance strategies that exploit gaps and mismatches in tax rules.
This legislation also comes in response to public criticism of corporations perceived to be shifting profits offshore while benefiting from Australian markets and infrastructure.
For corporations, compliance with these new rules presents significant challenges.
They must ensure that their reporting is accurate, comprehensive, and in line with the new standards.
Additionally, companies may face reputational risks if their disclosures reveal aggressive tax minimisation strategies.
Multinationals operating in multiple jurisdictions will need to navigate the complexities of varying tax systems while ensuring compliance with Australia’s stringent requirements.
Australia’s decision sets a precedent that other countries may follow.
It signals a shift towards stricter oversight and reduced tolerance for opaque tax practices.
This could potentially lead to a more level playing field for businesses, ensuring that domestic companies are not at a disadvantage compared to multinational giants.
Australia’s new tax disclosure laws are a significant step toward greater transparency in the global tax system.
While they impose new challenges for businesses, they also represent a win for fairness and accountability in taxation.
If you have any queries about this article on Australia’s tax disclosure laws, or tax matters in Australia, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in Australia and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
A Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is a tax relief mechanism that allows individuals or businesses to reduce their tax liability in their home country by the amount of tax they’ve already paid to a foreign country.
This is an important tool in international taxation because it prevents double taxation — being taxed on the same income in two different countries.
Let’s say you’re a company based in the UK, but you also earn profits in Germany.
Germany will tax you on the income you make in their country, but the UK also expects you to pay tax on your global income.
Without the Foreign Tax Credit, you would be paying tax on the same income twice—once in Germany and once in the UK.
The FTC works by allowing you to reduce your UK tax bill by the amount of tax you already paid in Germany.
So, if Germany taxed you £10,000 on your foreign income, you could subtract that £10,000 from your UK tax liability.
There are some limitations to how much tax you can credit. For example:
Foreign Tax Credits are crucial for businesses and individuals who earn income abroad.
Without this credit, companies and people working internationally would face double taxation, making cross-border business much more expensive and complicated.
The FTC encourages international trade and investment by reducing the tax burden on cross-border income.
Foreign Tax Credits are an essential feature of international tax systems, ensuring that individuals and businesses aren’t taxed twice on the same income.
By allowing taxpayers to reduce their home country’s tax liability by the amount of tax they’ve already paid abroad, the FTC promotes fair taxation and encourages international trade.
If you have any queries on this article – what are foreign tax credits – or any other tax matters, then please get in touch.
President-elect Donald Trump has announced plans to impose significant tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China.
Citing concerns over illegal immigration and drug trafficking, particularly fentanyl, these measures aim to address national security issues.
However, they also raise questions about potential economic repercussions and international relations.
The proposed tariffs include a 25% tax on all products imported from Canada and Mexico, and an additional 10% tariff on Chinese goods.
These measures are intended to pressure these countries into taking more stringent actions against illegal activities affecting the US.
The tariffs are set to be implemented through executive orders upon Trump’s inauguration.
Mexico and Canada have expressed concerns over the proposed tariffs.
Mexican President Sheinbaum warned of possible retaliation and emphasized the need for negotiations to avoid a trade war.
Canadian officials highlighted their ongoing efforts against drug trafficking and expressed a desire to maintain strong trade relations.
China, on the other hand, suggested the mutual benefits of trade cooperation and denounced the threat of a trade war.
Economists warn that such tariffs could disrupt existing trade agreements, lead to higher consumer prices, and negatively impact industries reliant on cross-border supply chains.
The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) could be particularly affected, potentially leading to inflation and economic instability.
The proposed tariffs represent a strategic move to address national security concerns but carry significant economic risks.
Balancing these factors will be crucial in determining the overall impact of these measures on the U.S. economy and its international relationships.
If you have any queries about this article on US tariff threats, 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, there is more information on membership here.
On 3 October 2024, the Irish High Court issued an important judgment concerning the tax residency of a Delaware LLC under the US/Ireland Double Tax Treaty (DTA).
This case involved the ability of three Irish subsidiaries of a Delaware LLC to claim group loss relief under Section 411 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997.
The key question was whether the Delaware LLC was considered “liable to tax” and thus “resident” under Article 4 of the US/Ireland DTA, which would enable the subsidiaries to claim group relief.
The High Court’s decision ultimately denied this relief.
The appeal was brought by Susquehanna International Group Ltd and two other companies, which sought to claim group relief by arguing that their parent, a Delaware LLC, was tax resident in the US.
The Irish Revenue disagreed, asserting that the LLC was not a company for group relief purposes and was not tax resident in the US under the DTA.
The crux of the issue was that the LLC was a disregarded entity for US tax purposes, meaning it was not subject to tax at the entity level.
Instead, its members, including several S Corporations and individuals, were taxed on their share of the LLC’s income.
This complex ownership structure raised questions about whether the LLC could be considered a separate taxable entity eligible for group relief.
Initially, the Tax Appeals Commission ruled in favour of the taxpayer, finding that the LLC was a company for the purposes of group relief and that it was resident in the US under the DTA.
The Commissioner took a purposive interpretation of the DTA, arguing that even though the LLC was fiscally transparent, it could still be considered tax resident under Article 4.
This was based on the LLC’s perpetual succession under Delaware law, which made it a body corporate.
The Irish High Court, however, overturned the Tax Appeals Commission’s decision. The Court focused on two key issues:
This ruling underscores the importance of understanding the complexities of entity classification in international tax law.
The Court’s decision hinged on the fiscally transparent nature of the Delaware LLC, which ultimately deprived it of treaty benefits and group relief eligibility.
While the LLC was structured under US law as a disregarded entity, this classification proved crucial in the Irish Revenue’s denial of relief.
For businesses with similar structures, this judgment highlights the need to carefully examine ownership arrangements and the potential tax implications.
Companies with complex cross-border structures should ensure that their parent entities meet the residency requirements under relevant tax treaties to benefit from relief provisions like group loss relief.
The Irish High Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the challenges posed by hybrid entities in international tax law.
While the Tax Appeals Commission initially supported the taxpayer’s position, the High Court’s strict interpretation of the US/Ireland DTA ultimately led to the denial of group relief.
Businesses should take note of this ruling and review their structures to ensure compliance with tax residency rules.
If you have any queries about this article on Group Loss Relief and Delaware LLCs 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.
In a recent case, Denmark issued a ruling on the concept of Permanent Establishment (PE), which has important implications for businesses that operate across borders.
This ruling followed a case involving a Swedish company’s CEO working part-time in Denmark, raising questions about when a business is deemed to have a PE in a foreign country.
The ruling highlights the importance of understanding the concept of PE, as it can determine whether a company is liable to pay tax in a particular country.
Permanent Establishment refers to the situation where a business has a sufficient physical presence in a foreign country, making it liable to pay tax on its profits in that country.
PE can take many forms, such as having an office, factory, or even just a representative working in a foreign country.
The exact definition of PE can vary from one country to another, but the principle is the same: if a business is operating in a country for a certain period of time, it may be required to pay taxes there.
In this particular case, the CEO of a Swedish company was working part-time in Denmark, raising questions about whether the company had established a PE in Denmark.
The Danish tax authorities argued that the company had a PE in Denmark because the CEO was regularly conducting business activities in the country.
The company, however, claimed that the CEO’s presence in Denmark was not enough to constitute a PE.
The Danish court ultimately ruled that the company did have a PE in Denmark, as the CEO’s work in the country went beyond a mere temporary presence.
This ruling has important implications for businesses with employees who work remotely or travel frequently between countries.
The Danish ruling on Permanent Establishment serves as an important reminder for businesses operating internationally.
Companies need to carefully assess their operations in foreign countries to determine whether they have a PE and may be required to pay tax there.
The rise of remote work and cross-border business activities has made this issue more relevant than ever.
If you have any queries about this article on Denmark Permanent Establishment Rules, or tax matters in Denmark, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in Denmark and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
Amazon’s tax practices in the UK have been under the spotlight for many years, with criticism frequently aimed at the tech giant for its minimal corporation tax payments.
In recent years, Amazon paid very little in taxes due to the utilisation of a government tax break, which has now expired.
This development has led to Amazon paying corporation tax for the first time since 2020, marking a significant shift in both the company’s approach to tax and the broader UK tax policy landscape.
Amazon operates globally, with the UK being one of its key markets.
Historically, like many multinational companies, Amazon has faced criticism for taking advantage of legal tax avoidance strategies.
These strategies often involved reporting profits in low-tax jurisdictions such as Luxembourg, while paying relatively little tax in high-tax markets like the UK.
It is claimed that one of the main tools Amazon and other companies had been using in recent years to reduce their UK tax burden had been Rishi Sunak’s much vaunted “Super Deduction”.
The relief allowed for 130% corporation deduction for qualifying expenditure on qualifying plant and machinery in a two year period beginning in April 2021.
This change in Amazon’s tax payments also aligns with a global push for fairer taxation of multinational companies.
The OECD’s Pillar Two reforms, which aim to introduce a global minimum tax rate of 15%, have garnered widespread support.
These reforms are designed to stop companies from shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions, ensuring that all multinationals, including tech giants like Amazon, contribute a fair share to the countries in which they generate significant revenue.
Amazon’s recent corporation tax payment in the UK is a reflection of both changes in UK tax policy and global efforts to reform corporate taxation.
With governments across the world, including the UK, pushing for greater tax transparency and compliance from large multinationals, we may see further shifts in how companies like Amazon structure their global tax strategies.
If you have any queries about this article on Amazon UK’s corporation tax, 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, there is more information on membership here.