Tax Professional usually responds in minutes
Our tax advisers are all verified
Unlimited follow-up questions
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Despite calls from the US and other countries for the tax to be withdrawn, Italy has doubled down on its commitment to the levy.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.
Transfer pricing has always been a complex area for multinational companies, as it involves setting the prices for transactions between related entities in different countries.
The UK tax authority, HMRC, has recently issued new guidelines on transfer pricing risks, which have been hailed as a “game changer” by tax experts.
These guidelines aim to provide clearer guidance to businesses, helping them manage the risks associated with transfer pricing and avoid costly disputes.
Transfer pricing refers to the pricing of goods, services, and intellectual property that are traded between companies under common ownership.
For example, a UK-based subsidiary of a multinational company might buy raw materials from a related company in another country.
The price at which these goods are traded—known as the transfer price—needs to be set at an “arm’s length” rate, meaning it should be the same as if the transaction were between unrelated parties.
In practice, transfer pricing has been a contentious issue for tax authorities, as companies can manipulate these prices to shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions, thereby reducing their overall tax liability.
HMRC’s latest guidelines focus on identifying and addressing key transfer pricing risks.
These include areas such as the valuation of intangibles (e.g., patents and trademarks), the provision of management services, and the pricing of goods and services traded between related entities.
One of the main changes in these guidelines is HMRC’s focus on risk-based assessments.
This means that HMRC will be targeting businesses that they perceive to be high-risk, particularly those with complex supply chains or significant intangible assets.
By providing clearer guidance on what constitutes high-risk behaviour, HMRC hopes to encourage businesses to take a more proactive approach to transfer pricing compliance.
For multinational companies operating in the UK, these new guidelines represent both a challenge and an opportunity.
On the one hand, the guidelines place a greater burden on companies to ensure that their transfer pricing arrangements are compliant with UK tax law.
On the other hand, by providing clearer guidance, HMRC is helping companies to better understand the risks and avoid costly disputes.
For companies that have traditionally relied on aggressive transfer pricing strategies to minimise their tax bills, these guidelines could force a rethink.
HMRC’s emphasis on transparency and risk-based assessments means that companies will need to ensure that their transfer pricing policies are well-documented and justifiable.
HMRC’s new guidelines on transfer pricing risks are a significant development for multinational companies operating in the UK.
By providing clearer guidance on high-risk areas, HMRC is helping businesses to manage their transfer pricing risks and avoid disputes.
At the same time, these guidelines are likely to result in greater scrutiny of companies’ transfer pricing arrangements, particularly those with complex supply chains and intangible assets.
If you have any queries about this article on HMRC’s transfer pricing guidelines, or tax matters in the UK in general, 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.
Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) rules are an important part of international taxation.
These rules are designed to prevent companies from using foreign subsidiaries in low-tax jurisdictions to avoid paying taxes in their home country.
The aim is to ensure that profits earned by these subsidiaries are taxed fairly, even if they are not immediately brought back to the parent company.
This guide will explain what CFC rules are, how they work, and why they matter in the context of international business.
CFC rules are regulations that prevent companies from using controlled foreign companies—subsidiaries located in countries with lower tax rates—to shift profits away from the higher-tax country where the parent company is based.
These rules ensure that even if profits are kept offshore, they are still taxed in the parent company’s home country.
A Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) is generally defined as a foreign corporation where more than 50% of its shares or voting rights are controlled by a resident or residents of the home country.
The main goal of CFC rules is to stop multinational companies from using tax havens or low-tax jurisdictions to reduce their tax burden.
Without these rules, companies could shift profits to subsidiaries in countries with little or no tax and avoid paying taxes in the countries where their real economic activities take place.
For example, without CFC rules, a company based in the UK could open a subsidiary in a low-tax country like Bermuda.
If the company shifted profits to that subsidiary, it would avoid paying UK taxes on those profits, even though the economic activity happened in the UK.
When CFC rules are in place, the home country’s tax authorities have the power to tax the profits of the foreign subsidiary even if the money is not brought back to the parent company.
These rules generally apply when the foreign subsidiary is located in a country with a lower tax rate than the home country.
Key factors that trigger the rules include:
1. Ownership: The parent company or its shareholders must control the foreign subsidiary (usually defined as owning more than 50% of the company).
2. Low-Tax Jurisdiction: the rules typically apply when the foreign subsidiary is located in a country with significantly lower tax rates than the parent company’s home country.
3. Passive Income: the rules often target subsidiaries that earn mainly passive income, such as interest, dividends, or royalties. Passive income is easier to shift between jurisdictions and is often the focus of tax avoidance strategies.
Let’s say a company called “GlobalTech Ltd.” is based in the UK but has a subsidiary in a low-tax country like the Cayman Islands.
The subsidiary is not engaged in much real business activity but generates significant passive income from investments.
Without CFC rules, GlobalTech could leave those profits in the Cayman Islands, paying very little or no tax.
However, under the UK’s CFC rules, the UK tax authorities would require GlobalTech to pay UK tax on those profits, as if they had been earned in the UK, preventing GlobalTech from benefiting from the lower tax rate in the Cayman Islands.
Not all foreign subsidiaries are subject to CFC rules. Many countries provide exemptions, especially if the foreign subsidiary is engaged in genuine business activities. Some common exemptions include:
These rules have become more important as international efforts to prevent tax avoidance have grown.
The OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project has encouraged countries around the world to strengthen their CFC rules as part of a broader effort to tackle tax avoidance.
As a result, more countries are introducing or tightening CFC rules, making it harder for multinational companies to shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions.
The rules are a crucial part of the international tax system, preventing companies from shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions.
They ensure that profits earned by foreign subsidiaries are fairly taxed in the parent company’s home country, even if those profits are not immediately repatriated.
If you have any queries about this article, or tax matters in your jurisdiction, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in your jurisdiction and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.