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.
When most people hear the word “tax”, they think of income tax or VAT.
But there’s a growing type of tax that’s all about saving the planet: environmental taxation.
The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) has recently published a report highlighting just how important environmental taxes are in the fight against climate change.
It’s not just about collecting money – it’s about changing behaviour, reducing pollution, and encouraging greener choices.
Environmental taxes are charges placed on activities that harm the environment.
They’re designed to make polluters pay, encourage people and businesses to use cleaner technologies, and help governments fund green projects.
There are several types:
Carbon taxes: charges on greenhouse gas emissions
Fuel and energy taxes: extra costs for using petrol, diesel, or electricity from non-renewable sources
Waste taxes: charges for landfill use or plastic packaging
Air travel taxes: added costs on plane tickets, especially for short-haul or high-emission flights
The OECD’s latest report says that environmental taxes are still underused – even though they could be a powerful tool.
Across the OECD’s 38 member countries, environmental taxes made up just 5.6% of total tax revenue in 2022.
That’s barely changed in a decade.
The report argues that countries need to go further, faster.
With climate goals becoming more urgent, and the need for green investment growing, environmental taxes could play a much bigger role – if politicians are brave enough to act.
Let’s take carbon taxes as an example.
These work by making it more expensive to emit carbon dioxide (CO₂).
The idea is that if businesses have to pay extra for polluting, they’ll try harder to cut their emissions – for example, by switching to clean energy or improving efficiency.
Some countries already have strong carbon taxes – Sweden is a leader, charging over €100 per tonne of CO₂.
Others are lagging behind, or don’t charge anything at all.
Environmental taxes can be very effective. They encourage greener choices and raise money for eco-projects.
But they can also be politically risky.
People don’t like seeing fuel prices go up, or paying more for flights.
That’s why the OECD recommends using the money raised from green taxes to help people – for example, by cutting income tax or giving rebates to low-income families.
That way, the taxes don’t feel like a punishment, but part of a bigger plan to make society greener and fairer.
Canada has a national carbon tax and returns the money to households as a rebate.
France had to pause a fuel tax after widespread protests (the “Gilets Jaunes”).
Germany recently increased its air travel taxes and uses the money to subsidise rail travel.
These show how different countries are trying to strike the right balance.
Environmental taxes are not just about raising revenue – they’re a tool to reshape economies for a greener future.
The OECD’s message is clear: countries need to get serious about using taxes to fight climate change.
But they also need to do it in a way that’s fair, transparent, and doesn’t leave people behind.
If you have any queries about this article on environmental taxes, or tax matters in International jurisdictions then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in International tax 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 magnet for multinational companies.
With its 12.5% corporate tax rate, English-speaking workforce, and EU membership, it became home to the European headquarters of major tech giants like Apple, Google, and Meta.
But global tax reform – particularly the OECD’s minimum tax initiative – is changing the rules of the game.
What does this mean for Ireland’s economy and its future as a hub for international business?
For over two decades, Ireland’s 12.5% corporation tax rate has been a key pillar of its economic policy.
It attracted foreign direct investment (FDI), created tens of thousands of jobs, and turned Dublin into a global business centre.
But critics argued that it also allowed companies to shift profits into Ireland, reducing their global tax bills and depriving other countries of revenue.
In 2021, over 130 countries – including Ireland – agreed to implement a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% on large multinational companies (those with global revenues over €750 million).
This is known as Pillar Two of the OECD’s global tax agreement.
Ireland initially resisted the change, concerned it would reduce its competitive edge. But after securing a carve-out that allows the rate to remain at 12.5% for smaller companies, Ireland signed up.
From 2024, Ireland will apply the 15% minimum tax to large multinationals operating there.
This means that even if a company benefits from local incentives or deductions that lower its effective tax rate, a “top-up” tax will apply if the global rate falls below 15%.
This change is highly significant for Ireland. While the government expects the country to remain attractive – due to its talent, EU access, and stable legal system – some economists warn that the golden era of FDI-driven growth may cool slightly.
In response, the Irish government is focusing more on long-term, sustainable growth through infrastructure, education, and innovation, rather than relying purely on tax competitiveness.
For large companies already in Ireland, the tax bill is likely to rise slightly, especially if they were benefiting from preferential structures.
But for small and medium-sized businesses — including many Irish companies — the 12.5% rate continues to apply.
That means Ireland still offers one of the most attractive environments for smaller international businesses looking for an EU base.
Ireland’s place in the global tax landscape is evolving. It remains a strong destination for business, but the days of ultra-low tax planning through Ireland are being replaced by a more level playing field. As the OECD’s global tax framework beds in, Ireland’s future success will depend on more than just its tax rate — and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
If you have any queries about this article on corporate tax reform, 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.
Just when the world thought it was on the cusp of a global tax breakthrough, cracks are beginning to show.
The landmark OECD agreement aimed at overhauling how multinational companies are taxed is facing renewed opposition – and much of the resistance is coming from the United States.
This could have major implications for how, when, and even if the deal is implemented.
The OECD’s two-pillar framework was designed to tackle tax avoidance and ensure large multinationals pay a fairer share of tax, wherever they operate.
Pillar One reallocates taxing rights so market countries can tax a portion of profits.
Pillar Two introduces a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% for companies with annual revenues above €750 million.
Over 135 countries, including the US, have committed in principle. But turning that agreement into domestic law is proving to be the real challenge.
Although the Biden administration supported the OECD framework, political realities have changed.
With a divided Congress and strong Republican opposition, passing necessary legislation has become difficult.
Critics in the US argue that the global minimum tax could hurt American competitiveness by effectively outsourcing tax sovereignty.
There’s also concern that other countries are implementing Pillar Two but dragging their feet on Pillar One – potentially putting US firms at a disadvantage.
US hesitancy could derail the entire project.
Other countries, particularly in the EU and Asia, are moving forward with minimum tax rules.
If the US doesn’t follow suit, it undermines the whole concept of a level playing field.
There’s also a risk that disputes over digital taxes, which Pillar One was supposed to resolve, could flare up again if countries lose patience with the OECD timetable.
All eyes are now on the US Congress and upcoming elections.
Without US implementation, the deal lacks weight — and countries may return to unilateral measures like digital services taxes.
This would be a setback for international cooperation and tax certainty.
The global tax deal was a diplomatic achievement, but its future is far from guaranteed.
If the US backs away or delays indefinitely, other countries may rethink their own commitments — and the dream of a fairer global tax system could stall once more.
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.
The UK government is exploring ways to reduce the burden of its digital services tax (DST) on American tech giants as part of broader trade discussions with the United States.
The move comes amid rising international pressure and a growing consensus that digital taxation should be handled multilaterally through the OECD framework.
The UK’s DST, introduced in 2020, imposes a 2% levy on the revenues of large digital businesses that earn money from UK users.
This includes revenues from search engines, social media platforms, and online marketplaces.
The tax applies to companies with global revenues over £500 million and at least £25 million of UK-derived revenue.
Recent reports suggest the UK is considering adjustments or possible early withdrawal of the DST to avoid escalating tensions with the US, which has long criticised the tax as unfairly targeting American firms.
The US has threatened retaliatory tariffs against UK exports if the DST remains in place beyond the implementation of the OECD’s global tax framework.
As trade talks progress, the UK may offer concessions to secure a broader deal.
Under the OECD’s two-pillar agreement, countries that have introduced unilateral digital taxes are expected to remove them once Pillar One (which reallocates taxing rights over digital profits) is implemented.
The UK has committed to this, but with the global deal’s timeline uncertain, there’s growing pressure to act sooner.
Domestically, opinions are split.
Some MPs and economists argue that the DST is necessary to ensure tech giants pay their ‘fair share’, especially during times of economic strain.
Others argue that it’s a temporary fix and should be removed in favour of multilateral rules that apply consistently across jurisdictions.
Any softening of the DST is likely to be politically controversial.
However, it may help the UK achieve its long-term goal of securing a comprehensive trade agreement with the US – and could also pre-empt future disputes if Pillar One implementation drags.
The UK’s digital services tax has always been a stopgap measure.
With global reforms on the horizon and trade talks with the US intensifying, its days may be numbered – either replaced by multilateral rules or scrapped to preserve trade harmony.
If you have any queries about this article on digital 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.
Scotland’s ability to manage its own finances has come under scrutiny following an OECD recommendation that Scottish politicians receive formal financial training.
The international body argues that members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) lack the economic and tax expertise needed to make informed policy decisions, leading to concerns about the effectiveness of budget oversight and the potential for financial mismanagement.
The proposal comes at a time when Scotland is grappling with increasing fiscal autonomy, particularly after the 2016 Scotland Act, which granted Holyrood significant control over income tax, welfare spending, and other financial matters.
However, critics argue that some MSPs have struggled to grasp the complexities of tax legislation, borrowing powers, and the long-term economic impact of policies.
The OECD’s recommendation is based on a wider review of how well governments understand and manage public finances.
Scotland, despite its devolved powers, has no formal training requirements for MSPs on tax or economic policy. This has led to instances where:
A recent review of Scotland’s budget process also raised concerns about transparency, with some MSPs reportedly uncertain about the long-term impact of tax decisions.
The OECD argues that a basic level of financial literacy should be a prerequisite for holding office, especially given that Scotland now raises a significant proportion of its own revenue rather than relying solely on Westminster allocations.
The Scottish government has acknowledged the OECD’s concerns but argues that many MSPs already undergo financial briefings. However, opposition parties and some economists have welcomed the recommendation, with calls for mandatory financial training upon election.
A key question is how such training would be implemented. Some proposals include:
There is also the issue of political willingness. While many acknowledge the value of financial literacy, others argue that training should not be compulsory, as MSPs already have access to expert advice from civil servants and economic advisors.
Scotland’s evolving tax and financial system requires well-informed decision-makers, and the OECD’s recommendation highlights a genuine gap in expertise among politicians.
While some MSPs may resist the idea of mandatory financial training, there is a strong argument that better economic literacy could improve the quality of policymaking and budget scrutiny.
If Scotland is to make the most of its devolved powers, ensuring that MSPs fully understand the tax and spending decisions they are making is essential.
If you have any queries about this article on OECD financial training recommendations, or tax matters in Scotland or UK more generally, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in Scotland and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then please get in touch. There is more information on membership here.
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.
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.
The way multinational corporations (MNCs) are taxed has long been a topic of debate.
With the rise of the digital economy, traditional tax rules have struggled to keep pace, allowing some companies to minimize their tax liabilities by operating in low-tax jurisdictions while earning substantial revenues elsewhere.
Enter the OECD’s Pillar One, a groundbreaking effort to ensure fairer taxation of MNCs by reallocating taxing rights to market jurisdictions.
This article explains what Pillar One is, how it works, and what it means for businesses and governments worldwide.
Traditionally, corporate taxes are paid where a company has a physical presence, such as an office or factory.
However, in the digital era, companies can generate significant profits in countries without having a physical footprint, leaving those countries with little or no tax revenue.
This issue is particularly evident with tech giants that provide digital services globally but pay minimal taxes in the markets they serve.
The lack of a global framework to address this has led to unilateral measures like digital services taxes (DSTs), which complicate international trade and risk double taxation.
Pillar One seeks to address these issues by establishing a standardized global approach.
Pillar One is part of the OECD’s Two-Pillar Solution to address the tax challenges of the digital economy.
It focuses on reallocating taxing rights so that countries where consumers or users are based can claim a share of the tax revenue from the profits generated there.
Despite its ambition, Pillar One faces several hurdles:
Pillar One represents a seismic shift in global taxation.
For governments, it promises fairer tax revenues from MNCs operating in their markets.
For businesses, it provides a unified framework that reduces the risks of fragmented and overlapping tax regimes.
While it may require significant adaptation, Pillar One seeks to create a more equitable and predictable global tax system.
Pillar One is a bold and necessary step toward addressing the challenges of taxing the digital economy.
By reallocating taxing rights to market jurisdictions, it aims to ensure that profits are taxed where value is created.
However, successful implementation will require unprecedented global cooperation and careful management of potential pitfalls.
If you have any queries about this article on Pillar One, or tax matters in international business, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in international business and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.