Tax Professional usually responds in minutes
Our tax advisers are all verified
Unlimited follow-up questions
The global minimum tax is one of the most significant international tax reforms in decades.
Spearheaded by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the idea is to ensure that large multinational companies pay a minimum level of tax no matter where they are based.
This avoids a race to the bottom, where countries compete to offer the lowest corporate tax rates.
In recent days, momentum has been building as several countries progress towards implementing this tax reform.
The global minimum tax sets a floor of 15% for corporate taxation.
It targets companies with annual revenues above €750 million and seeks to prevent profit-shifting to low-tax jurisdictions.
Under this framework, if a company pays less than 15% tax in one country, other countries can top up the tax to ensure the minimum rate is met.
In the last 24 hours, finance ministries across Europe, Asia, and North America have released updates on their plans to adopt the minimum tax by the 2025 deadline.
Germany and Japan have already passed legislation. Canada, the UK, and Australia have published consultation papers or draft legislation.
The European Union previously agreed a directive for member states to adopt the rules.
There are still some hurdles. For instance, implementation in the United States has been politically contentious.
However, many countries are pushing forward regardless, recognising the global shift towards fairness and transparency in taxation.
The reform is designed to create a level playing field.
For years, tech giants and global brands have paid minimal taxes in the countries where they operate, using complex structures and tax havens.
The global minimum tax could yield billions in additional tax revenue for governments worldwide.
It also discourages the creation of artificial business structures solely for tax reasons.
Some critics argue that 15% is still too low and may legitimise tax avoidance rather than stop it.
Others worry about the compliance burden, especially for companies operating in multiple jurisdictions.
There are also concerns from smaller, low-tax countries that rely on competitive tax rates to attract investment.
The global minimum tax marks a shift in how we think about corporate taxation.
It’s no longer just a national issue but a global one.
While challenges remain, the recent wave of implementation activity shows that change is truly underway.
If you have any queries about this article on global minimum tax, or tax matters in International then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in International and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
The UK’s Digital Services Tax (DST) has found itself back in the spotlight – not because of domestic criticism, but due to international trade tensions, particularly with the United States.
As part of ongoing trade negotiations, the UK is reportedly considering watering down or scrapping the DST altogether.
But why was the DST introduced in the first place, and what’s at stake if it’s removed?
The DST was introduced in April 2020 as a targeted 2% tax on the revenues of large digital businesses that make money from UK users.
This includes tech giants that operate search engines, social media platforms, or online marketplaces – companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon.
Rather than taxing profits (which can be easily shifted to low-tax countries), the DST taxes turnover linked to UK users, making it harder to avoid.
However, it only applies to companies with global revenues over £500 million and at least £25 million from UK digital activity.
This means it’s carefully aimed at the biggest players in the market.
While the DST has raised hundreds of millions in tax revenue, it hasn’t been without controversy.
The US government has accused the UK – and other countries with similar taxes – of unfairly targeting American tech companies, arguing that it violates trade agreements and discriminates against US businesses.
In response, the US has previously threatened retaliatory tariffs. Although these haven’t materialised, they remain a real possibility.
As trade talks resume between the UK and US, the UK’s DST has become a bargaining chip.
There are reports that the UK is considering scrapping or softening the DST in exchange for smoother trade relations and a broader deal.
The future of the DST may depend on progress with the OECD’s global tax agreement – particularly Pillar One, which aims to reallocate taxing rights so that countries can tax companies where they have customers, not just where they book profits.
If that framework is implemented, many countries (including the UK) have agreed to withdraw their unilateral DSTs.
But progress at the OECD has been slow, and with elections on the horizon in several key countries, further delays are likely.
Until then, the UK government must weigh up domestic tax fairness against international diplomacy.
The UK’s Digital Services Tax was designed to ensure that tech giants pay their fair share where they operate.
But under pressure from international allies – and particularly from the US – the UK may soon reconsider its approach.
Whether the DST survives may ultimately depend on the success of broader global tax reforms.
If you have any queries about this article on Digital Services Tax, or tax matters in the United Kingdom then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in the United Kingdom and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then 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.
In a dramatic escalation of global economic tensions, President Donald Trump has taken steps that many experts believe could steer the world towards a global tax war.
Following his decision to withdraw the United States from the OECD-led global minimum tax agreement, Trump’s new administration hinted at imposing retaliatory tax measures against countries that have introduced taxes targeting American multinational corporations, especially big tech firms like Apple, Google, and Amazon.
The fallout from this decision could reshape the global tax landscape, strain diplomatic relations, and trigger economic consequences far beyond corporate boardrooms.
But what exactly is happening, and what might the future hold as tensions rise?
A good question!
A tax war occurs when countries engage in aggressive tax policies that harm each other’s economic interests. This can take the form of:
While tax competition has been around for decades, the current situation is unique because it involves major economic powers clashing over how to tax multinational corporations in the digital economy.
The seeds of this conflict were sown during global efforts to reform international tax rules.
The OECD’s global minimum tax agreement was designed to prevent multinational corporations from shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions—a practice known as base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS).
The agreement had two key pillars:
While over 140 countries supported the framework, Trump’s administration saw it as an attack on U.S. sovereignty and an unfair targeting of American companies.
His withdrawal from the agreement set the stage for unilateral actions by both the U.S. and its trading partners.
Following the withdrawal, Trump’s administration announced plans to:
These aggressive moves risk igniting a full-scale tax war, with countries retaliating against U.S. measures, leading to higher costs for businesses and economic uncertainty worldwide.
Trump’s actions have triggered a range of reactions from the international community:
For multinational corporations, the prospect of a tax war creates serious challenges:
While a tax war alone may not trigger a global recession, it could amplify existing economic risks, especially if combined with:
A prolonged tax war could erode business confidence, stifle economic growth, and reduce government revenues at a time when many countries are still recovering from the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
While the situation looks tense, there are potential pathways to de-escalation:
Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the global minimum tax agreement and his threats of retaliatory measures have pushed the world to the brink of a tax war.
The stakes are high—not just for multinational corporations, but for the global economy as a whole.
If you have any queries about this article on the global tax war, or tax matters in international jurisdictions, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser specialising in international tax policy and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
The global tax landscape was thrown into turmoil recently when former US President Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the OECD-led global minimum tax agreement.
This ambitious framework, aimed at imposing a 15% minimum tax rate on large multinational corporations, was designed to curb tax avoidance and level the playing field for global businesses.
Trump’s decision raises concerns about the potential for a new tax war and poses questions about the future of international tax cooperation.
The global minimum tax agreement, championed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), is an initiative to prevent multinational corporations from exploiting low-tax jurisdictions.
By imposing a baseline tax rate of 15% worldwide, the deal sought to ensure that all companies pay a fair share of taxes, regardless of where they operate.
Over 140 countries initially supported this agreement, signaling a major step toward global tax fairness.
President Trump cited concerns about the agreement’s impact on American businesses, particularly tech giants like Google and Apple, which generate substantial revenue globally.
Trump argued that the deal unfairly targeted US firms while benefiting foreign competitors.
Additionally, he expressed opposition to the agreement’s provision that would allow other nations to tax profits earned within their borders.
This decision has left allies like the EU, Japan, and Canada frustrated, as they had anticipated US leadership in implementing the deal.
Without the participation of the world’s largest economy, the agreement’s effectiveness is now under scrutiny.
The withdrawal raises the risk of retaliatory tax measures between countries.
For example, the EU and the UK have already implemented or proposed digital services taxes that disproportionately affect US-based companies.
In response, Trump hinted at doubling taxes on foreign nationals and companies operating in the United States. Such moves could escalate into a full-blown tax war, disrupting global trade and economic stability.
On the other hand, countries like Ireland and Switzerland, known for their low corporate tax rates, may continue to attract multinational corporations looking to minimise their tax burdens.
This could further fragment the global tax landscape and create competition among jurisdictions.
The US withdrawal from the global minimum tax deal marks a significant setback for international tax reform.
Without US participation, the agreement’s implementation faces serious hurdles, and the likelihood of unilateral tax measures increases.
While some countries are committed to moving forward, the absence of a global consensus could lead to fragmented policies and heightened tensions.
If you have any queries about this article on the global minimum tax, 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.
Australia has implemented one of the world’s most stringent tax disclosure laws, seemingly raising the bar for corporate transparency.
From January 2025, multinational corporations (MNCs) operating in Australia are required to disclose detailed financial information, including revenues, profits, and taxes paid across 41 jurisdictions, many of which are recognized as low-tax or tax-advantageous regions.
This bold move is part of Australia’s broader effort to tackle tax avoidance and ensure corporations contribute their fair share.
Under the updated laws, MNCs must provide granular details of their global operations, including:
The reforms align with global initiatives such as the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) framework but go further by requiring enhanced reporting in jurisdictions flagged as high risk.
The reforms are expected to enhance public trust in the tax system and demonstrate Australia’s leadership in promoting global tax transparency.
However, critics argue that the new requirements may deter investment, particularly from MNCs concerned about the administrative burden and public exposure of their financial data.
Australia’s tax disclosure reforms represent a significant step forward in the global fight against tax avoidance.
By requiring detailed reporting from MNCs, the country is setting a new standard for corporate transparency.
However, businesses operating in Australia must prepare for increased compliance demands and potential reputational risks.
For companies operating in or expanding into Australia, understanding and adapting to these new requirements is critical to maintaining compliance and minimizing risks.
If you have questions about Australia’s tax disclosure laws or need assistance with compliance strategies, get in touch.
Alternatively, tax professionals who want to find out more about joining our network can find out more here.
The OECD has unveiled a new tool to simplify transfer pricing calculations under the “Amount B” framework.
This development aims to reduce administrative burdens and improve compliance for businesses engaged in cross-border transactions.
The Amount B framework, part of the OECD’s broader initiatives on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), standardises the remuneration for baseline marketing and distribution activities.
The newly released tool automates the calculation of these returns, requiring minimal data inputs from businesses.
For multinational corporations, the tool offers significant advantages. It reduces the time and resources needed for compliance, ensures consistent application of transfer pricing rules, and minimizes the risk of disputes with tax authorities.
Tax professionals have welcomed the tool as a step toward greater simplicity and transparency in transfer pricing.
However, they caution that the tool’s effectiveness depends on its adoption by tax authorities worldwide.
Consistent application across jurisdictions will be essential to avoid double taxation and unnecessary compliance burdens.
This tool is particularly relevant for companies with extensive global operations, as it addresses common pain points in transfer pricing compliance.
It reflects the OECD’s commitment to creating practical solutions that align with international tax standards.
The OECD’s pricing automation tool for Amount B represents a significant advancement in simplifying transfer pricing compliance.
By reducing complexity and enhancing transparency, it should foster greater trust between businesses and tax authorities.
If you need guidance on this article on the OECD Automation Tool Amount B, implementing the Amount B framework or using the OECD’s pricing tool, please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you’re a tax adviser with expertise in transfer pricing, explore our membership opportunities.
Western businesses operating in Russia are facing renewed scrutiny as global efforts to isolate the country economically intensify.
Sir Richard Branson has added his voice to the debate, urging companies to reconsider their presence in Russia.
At the heart of the issue lies the $21.6 billion in taxes these firms reportedly paid to the Russian government in 2023, indirectly supporting its military operations.
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has prompted widespread sanctions and restrictions on Russia, aiming to curb its financial and military capacity.
However, many Western firms have chosen to maintain operations in the country, citing legal obligations and concerns about abandoning market share to competitors.
Sir Richard Branson has criticised this stance, arguing that the taxes paid by these businesses directly contribute to Russia’s military capabilities.
Branson’s remarks add to the ethical quandary for multinational corporations: Should they prioritise profits, or align their operations with the global outcry against the war?
Many companies face challenges beyond ethics.
Withdrawing from Russia often involves financial losses, complex contractual obligations, and navigating legal frameworks that may not favour foreign entities exiting the market.
Some firms argue that staying ensures continued compliance with Russian law and provides a platform for eventual re-engagement when geopolitical tensions subside.
Nevertheless, the reputational risks are significant.
Public sentiment in Western countries leans heavily towards disengagement from Russia, and consumer boycotts of companies perceived as complicit in the conflict are a growing concern.
Western firms in Russia face a stark dilemma: the financial implications of exiting versus the ethical consequences of staying.
As geopolitical tensions persist, these decisions will continue to draw public scrutiny.
If you’re navigating the complexities of tax obligations in politically sensitive regions or require strategic advice, please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you’re a tax adviser interested in discussing international tax challenges, join our network.
With Donald Trump eyeing another term as U.S. president, the international tax landscape could face significant turbulence.
Trump’s administration has hinted at targeting countries that impose additional taxes on U.S. multinationals.
This raises concerns about retaliatory tariffs and potential conflicts over the OECD’s global minimum tax pact, which aims to ensure large companies pay at least 15% tax wherever they operate.
The OECD’s two-pillar tax reform seeks to address long-standing challenges in taxing multinational corporations.
While many countries, especially in the EU, are implementing these reforms, U.S. Republicans claim the measures unfairly target American companies.
Trump’s administration could respond with punitive tariffs, potentially triggering global economic disputes.
The US plays a crucial role in global economic stability.
A confrontational approach to international tax rules could fragment global cooperation and undermine the OECD’s efforts to harmonize tax systems.
Businesses caught in the crossfire will need robust strategies to navigate these uncertainties.
Trump’s potential return to power adds a layer of unpredictability to the already complex global tax landscape.
As the world adjusts to new tax norms, balancing domestic interests with international commitments will be key to maintaining stability.
If you have any queries about this article on Trump’s global tax war, or tax matters in the US, 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 there is more information on membership here.
Tullow Oil, a key player in Ghana’s energy sector, has received a significant legal victory from the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).
The ruling exempts the company from paying a $320 million Branch Profit Remittance Tax related to its operations in the Deepwater Tano and West Cape Three Points oil fields.
This decision has implications not only for Tullow Oil but also for Ghana’s approach to taxing multinational corporations.
The case revolved around the Ghanaian government’s attempt to levy the Branch Profit Remittance Tax on Tullow Oil under the terms of its production-sharing contract.
Tullow argued that the tax was not applicable, citing specific clauses in its agreement with the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation.
After lengthy deliberations, the ICC ruled in Tullow’s favour, reaffirming the sanctity of contractual agreements in international business.
The decision is likely to ripple across Ghana’s oil and gas industry.
While it reaffirms the importance of respecting contractual terms, it also raises questions about the predictability of Ghana’s tax regime.
For international investors, the ruling underscores the need for robust legal frameworks to mitigate risks.
For Ghana, this may necessitate a review of its production-sharing contracts to strike a balance between attracting investment and securing fair tax revenues.
The ICC’s ruling highlights the complexities of international tax disputes in resource-rich countries like Ghana.
For multinational companies, it serves as a reminder of the importance of clear contractual terms and the role of arbitration in resolving disputes.
For Ghana, the decision may lead to policy adjustments to prevent similar disputes in the future.
If you have questions about tax agreements or arbitration in Ghana, please get in touch..
Alternatively, if you are a tax professional with expertise in the energy sector, join our network to share your insights here.