Tax Professional usually responds in minutes
Our tax advisers are all verified
Unlimited follow-up questions
In a landmark decision, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that Apple must pay €13 billion in back taxes to Ireland.
This verdict concludes a prolonged legal battle concerning tax arrangements between Apple and the Irish government, which the European Commission deemed as unlawful state aid.
The dispute dates back to 2016 when the European Commission concluded that Ireland had granted Apple undue tax benefits, allowing the tech giant to pay substantially less tax than other businesses.
Specifically, Apple was accused of funnelling profits through Irish subsidiaries to reduce its effective tax rate to as low as 0.005% in certain years .
Both Apple and the Irish government contested the Commission’s decision, arguing that the tax arrangements were in line with Irish and international tax laws.
However, the ECJ’s recent ruling upholds the Commission’s stance, asserting that the tax benefits conferred upon Apple constituted illegal state aid.
The ruling places Ireland in a complex position.
While the country stands to receive a significant financial windfall, equivalent to approximately 14% of its annual public spending, it also faces scrutiny over its tax practices .
Ireland has long attracted multinational corporations with its favourable tax regime, and this decision may prompt a reevaluation of such policies.
The Irish government has expressed concern that enforcing the back tax payment could impact its reputation as a stable and predictable environment for business investment.
Nonetheless, the ECJ’s decision is final, and Ireland is now obligated to recover the unpaid taxes from Apple.
Apple has consistently denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that it has complied with all applicable tax laws.
Following the ECJ’s ruling, the company expressed disappointment but indicated its intention to adhere to the decision.
Apple emphasized its significant contributions to the Irish economy, including job creation and investment.
This case underscores the European Union’s commitment to ensuring fair taxation and preventing preferential treatment of multinational corporations.
It also highlights the challenges nations face in balancing competitive tax policies with obligations to uphold equitable tax practices.
The decision may influence other countries to scrutinize their tax arrangements with large corporations more closely.
It also aligns with global efforts, such as the OECD’s initiatives, to combat base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) and promote transparency in international taxation.
The ECJ’s ruling marks a significant moment in the ongoing discourse on corporate taxation and state aid within the European Union.
As Ireland moves to recover the €13 billion from Apple, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of transparent and fair tax practices in the global economy.
If you have any queries about this article on Apple’s tax case, 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.
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.
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) has disclosed additional raids linked to its investigation into PwC’s tax scandal.
The scandal, which involves former PwC partners allegedly sharing confidential government tax briefings to benefit clients, has shaken Australia’s professional services sector and prompted significant regulatory scrutiny.
The controversy began when it was revealed that certain PwC executives had obtained privileged information from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) about impending tax policy changes and shared it with corporate clients to help them gain a competitive advantage.
This breach of confidentiality has raised serious concerns about the role of major accounting firms in tax planning and compliance.
AFP officials confirmed that additional search warrants were executed at multiple locations associated with the case.
The raids aim to uncover further evidence regarding the extent of PwC’s involvement and whether other firms or individuals played a role in leveraging government insights for private gain.
This case has prompted a reassessment of regulatory oversight on consultancy firms, particularly those advising on tax matters.
Some lawmakers have called for stricter penalties and increased transparency requirements for firms that handle sensitive government information.
The ongoing PwC scandal underscores the risks associated with regulatory breaches in professional services.
Authorities are expected to take a tougher stance on firms that misuse confidential government information for corporate advantage.
If you have any queries about this article on the PwC tax probe 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 please get in touch. There is more information on membership here.
The IRS has issued a reminder to US taxpayers living and working abroad that their 2024 tax return deadline is approaching.
While most US taxpayers must file by April 15, expatriates have an automatic extension until June 15.
This reminder highlights important compliance issues for Americans earning income overseas.
US tax law requires citizens and permanent residents to report worldwide income, regardless of where they live.
Expatriates must also comply with additional reporting obligations, including the Foreign Bank Account Report (FBAR) for overseas financial accounts exceeding $10,000.
Expats may qualify for tax benefits such as the FEIE, which allows eligible individuals to exclude up to a certain amount of foreign-earned income from U.S. taxation.
The Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) also helps mitigate double taxation by granting credits for foreign taxes paid.
Taxpayers abroad should be aware of their obligations and ensure timely filing to avoid penalties.
The IRS encourages expats to use online tools or consult tax professionals for assistance.
If you have any queries about this article on U.S. expat tax obligations or tax matters in the U.S., then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in the U.S. 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 recent national insurance hike introduced in the UK has been met with criticism, particularly from business leaders who see it as an indirect tax on skills and workforce development.
Halfords CEO Graham Stapleton is among the most vocal critics, arguing that the increase will lead to job cuts and reduced investment in employee training programs.
National insurance contributions are a significant cost for employers, particularly those in sectors that rely on skilled labour.
The latest hike adds further financial pressure on businesses already grappling with inflation and economic uncertainty.
Many fear that these changes will discourage companies from hiring or investing in upskilling employees, ultimately affecting economic growth.
Stapleton and other business leaders have urged the government to reconsider the hike or introduce exemptions for companies that invest in workforce training.
They argue that failing to do so could undermine the UK’s competitiveness and deter innovation-driven industries from expanding.
The debate over the national insurance hike highlights the delicate balance between generating government revenue and supporting business growth.
While the policy aims to fund public services, its unintended consequences could hinder long-term economic resilience.
If you have any queries about this article on the UK’s national insurance hike 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, then please get in touch. There is more information on membership here.
A surprising new tax debate has emerged in the US regarding the proposed issuance of $5,000 stimulus cheques in the form of Dogecoin (DOGE).
Dubbed the “DOGE dividend,” this initiative has sparked both excitement and skepticism.
Tax experts are now weighing in on the feasibility and tax implications of such a program.
The idea of providing stimulus payments in cryptocurrency was floated by members of the Trump administration as a way to stimulate economic activity and increase digital asset adoption.
However, the logistics of implementing such a plan remain highly uncertain.
Experts warn that distributing government payments in cryptocurrency raises complex tax issues.
The IRS currently treats cryptocurrencies as property, meaning recipients of DOGE stimulus payments would need to calculate gains or losses each time they spend their tokens.
This could lead to an administrative nightmare for taxpayers and increase compliance burdens.
While the proposal has gained traction among crypto enthusiasts, many financial analysts believe it is unlikely to materialize.
Nonetheless, the discussion has contributed to increased volatility in the price of DOGE and other digital assets.
The concept of a DOGE stimulus check is an intriguing example of how cryptocurrency is increasingly intersecting with public policy.
However, the tax and logistical challenges involved make it an unlikely reality in the near future.
If you have any queries about this article on DOGE dividend stimulus cheques 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 please get in touch. There is more information on membership here.
Tax authorities in Italy have accused Amazon of evading €1.2 billion in Value Added Tax (VAT) on sales from China and other non-EU countries between 2019 and 2021.
The claim suggests that goods sold via Amazon’s platform avoided proper VAT reporting, allowing sellers to underpay tax or avoid it entirely.
This case is part of a larger crackdown on digital platforms suspected of facilitating tax avoidance through complex supply chains and offshore structures.
This isn’t the first time tech giants have clashed with European tax authorities.
The EU has been tightening VAT compliance rules in response to concerns that e-commerce giants give an unfair advantage to overseas sellers by allowing them to avoid local tax obligations.
If Amazon is found guilty, the case could have major implications for online marketplaces operating in the region.
The Italian Guardia di Finanza (tax police) and the Agenzia delle Entrate (Revenue Agency) claim that between 2019 and 2021, Amazon acted as an intermediary for thousands of non-EU sellers, predominantly from China, who were not properly registered for VAT in Italy.
This allegedly allowed sellers to undercut local competitors, as they were selling goods at VAT-free prices.
Amazon has denied wrongdoing, stating that it complies with all applicable laws and has invested in systems to identify and block non-compliant sellers.
However, tax authorities argue that the company should have done more to ensure sellers were VAT-registered before listing their products.
Italy has previously targeted other e-commerce giants, including Alibaba and eBay, for similar VAT issues.
In 2019, it was estimated that VAT fraud in the e-commerce sector cost EU governments over €5 billion annually.
VAT fraud in e-commerce is a significant issue across Europe, as platforms like Amazon have allowed non-EU sellers to access the market without the same tax burdens as domestic businesses.
The EU has introduced new VAT rules, including the One Stop Shop (OSS) system and Marketplaces as Deemed Suppliers regulations, to prevent platforms from facilitating VAT avoidance.
If Italy succeeds in its case, Amazon could be held liable for the unpaid VAT, which might force other countries to take similar legal action.
The case also highlights broader tax policy challenges in the digital economy, particularly who should be responsible for ensuring VAT compliance—the seller or the platform.
If Amazon is found guilty of VAT evasion in Italy, the consequences could be significant for the entire e-commerce industry.
More platforms may face pressure to enforce stricter tax compliance rules, and non-compliant sellers could be blocked from EU markets altogether.
For businesses and consumers, this case serves as a reminder that tax compliance in the digital economy is becoming more scrutinised.
If you have any queries about this article on Amazon VAT Evasion Allegations in Italy, or tax matters in Italy more generally, 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 please get in touch. There is more information on membership here.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has revealed that the implementation of the global minimum tax could actually lead to a significant increase in tax revenues for low-tax financial jurisdictions such as Ireland, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.
While the global minimum tax was originally designed to curb tax avoidance and reduce the appeal of low-tax jurisdictions, the OECD’s latest report suggests that these very jurisdictions could become unexpected winners.
This revelation raises intriguing questions: How can tax havens benefit from a policy meant to reduce their attractiveness?
What does this mean for the future of global tax competition?
The global minimum tax, part of the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0 initiative, establishes a minimum corporate tax rate of 15% for large multinational companies with annual revenues exceeding €750 million. The goal is to:
Under the new rules, if a multinational pays less than 15% tax in a particular jurisdiction, its home country can apply a “top-up tax” to make up the difference. This mechanism was expected to reduce the incentive for companies to funnel profits through tax havens.
According to the OECD’s latest analysis, several factors explain why tax havens might actually gain from the global minimum tax:
Rather than shifting profits to jurisdictions where the parent company will impose a top-up tax, many multinationals may choose to keep profits in traditional tax havens like Ireland and Luxembourg.
Since these countries will now apply the 15% minimum tax themselves, companies can avoid additional taxes imposed by other countries.
The new rules discourage the use of “paper” companies with no real economic activity.
To comply, multinationals are likely to establish more substantial operations in tax-friendly jurisdictions—creating jobs, infrastructure, and, crucially, taxable profits.
While jurisdictions with 0% tax rates (like Bermuda or the Cayman Islands) will lose their appeal, countries offering moderate tax rates (like Ireland’s 12.5%) can simply adjust to the 15% minimum without losing their competitive edge.
This shift may lead companies to relocate from zero-tax jurisdictions to low-but-compliant tax havens.
For multinational corporations, dealing with complex top-up tax rules across multiple jurisdictions can be a compliance nightmare.
Many may prefer to consolidate operations in jurisdictions that have already implemented the global minimum tax, simplifying tax reporting and reducing legal risks.
Despite agreeing to raise its corporate tax rate from 12.5% to 15% for large companies, Ireland is expected to see an increase in tax revenues.
Many U.S. tech giants, such as Apple, Google, and Facebook, have significant operations in Ireland.
Instead of relocating, these companies are likely to maintain their Irish presence, now generating higher taxable income for the Irish government.
Known for its role in complex financial structures, Luxembourg has been quick to adapt to the new rules.
By offering tax certainty within the global minimum framework, it remains an attractive hub for multinational corporations, particularly in finance and real estate.
Long used as a conduit for shifting profits through the so-called “Dutch Sandwich” structure, the Netherlands is repositioning itself as a compliant yet attractive jurisdiction, thanks to its strong legal system, infrastructure, and now, globally accepted tax rates.
While the global minimum tax was designed to reduce harmful tax competition, it may inadvertently trigger a new form of competition:
Instead of competing solely on tax rates, countries will now compete on the efficiency and simplicity of their tax systems. Jurisdictions offering clear rules, minimal red tape, and robust legal protections will have the edge.
With tax rates more standardised, countries will shift focus to non-tax incentives—such as grants, research subsidies, and infrastructure investments—to attract businesses.
Countries like Ireland, Luxembourg, and Singapore could become “compliance-friendly” hubs, offering not the lowest taxes, but the most business-friendly environment within the new global tax framework.
While the OECD’s findings are economically sound, the situation raises several concerns:
The OECD’s global minimum tax was intended to curb tax avoidance and reduce the appeal of tax havens. However, in an unexpected twist, it may actually benefit traditional low-tax jurisdictions, especially those that adapt quickly and offer strong legal and business infrastructures.
While this outcome might seem counterintuitive, it reflects the complex reality of global tax dynamics. The global minimum tax is not the end of tax competition—it’s simply the beginning of a new chapter where compliance, transparency, and strategic adaptation are the new battlegrounds.
If you have any queries about this article on the global minimum tax’s impact on tax havens, or tax matters in Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, or other jurisdictions, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser specialising in international tax planning and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then 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.
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.
Notifications