Tax Professional usually responds in minutes
Our tax advisers are all verified
Unlimited follow-up questions
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.
Country-by-Country Reporting (CbCR) is a tax transparency measure introduced by the OECD as part of its Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) initiative.
CbCR requires large multinational companies to report detailed information about their operations, profits, and taxes paid in each country where they do business.
This information is then shared with tax authorities to help them detect tax avoidance practices, such as profit shifting to low-tax jurisdictions.
CbCR applies to multinational companies with global revenues of more than €750 million.
These companies must file an annual CbCR report that provides a breakdown of their income, profits, taxes paid, and other economic activities in each country where they operate.
For example, if a company has subsidiaries in 10 different countries, it must provide information on how much revenue each subsidiary earns, how much profit it makes, and how much tax it pays in each country.
This level of detail helps tax authorities identify where a company might be shifting profits to avoid taxes.
as introduced as part of the OECD’s effort to tackle tax avoidance by multinational companies.
Before CbCR, it was difficult for tax authorities to see the full picture of a company’s global operations.
By requiring companies to disclose their activities on a country-by-country basis, CbCR gives tax authorities the information they need to detect tax avoidance schemes.
This reporting helps ensure that multinational companies are paying their fair share of taxes in the countries where they actually do business, rather than shifting profits to tax havens.
Country-by-Country Reporting is a critical tool for improving tax transparency and combating tax avoidance.
By requiring large multinational companies to report detailed information about their global operations,
CbCR helps tax authorities ensure that companies are paying their fair share of taxes and operating in a fair and transparent manner.
If you have any queries about this article – What is country by country reporting? – then please do get in touch.
The OECD has published new technical guidelines to assist countries in implementing the global minimum corporate tax rate of 15%.
This initiative aims to ensure that multinational corporations contribute a fair share of taxes, regardless of where they operate.
The technical guidance addresses several challenges, including calculating effective tax rates, identifying low-tax jurisdictions, and handling cross-border complexities.
It also provides a framework for dispute resolution between nations.
The guidelines will require multinationals to reassess their tax strategies, particularly those involving low-tax jurisdictions.
Compliance costs are expected to rise, but the rules aim to create a more level playing field globally.
Countries with tax-friendly regimes may resist adopting these guidelines, fearing a loss of competitiveness.
Additionally, differing interpretations of the rules could lead to disputes between jurisdictions.
The OECD’s technical guidance is a significant step towards implementing a global minimum tax. While challenges remain, this initiative represents a milestone in international tax cooperation.
If you have any queries about this article on OECD’s global minimum tax guidelines, or tax matters in OECD member states, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in OECD member states and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
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.
The OECD has introduced a new Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF) designed to enhance transparency and combat tax evasion in the cryptocurrency market.
This framework represents a significant step forward in addressing the tax challenges posed by digital assets.
The Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework requires crypto exchanges, wallet providers, and other intermediaries to report transactions and account balances to tax authorities.
This information will then be shared among jurisdictions through the OECD’s Common Reporting Standard.
Crypto users in participating jurisdictions will face increased scrutiny of their transactions.
This may lead to higher compliance costs but is expected to reduce the misuse of cryptocurrencies for tax evasion and other illicit activities.
The CARF aims to standardise the treatment of crypto assets across jurisdictions, making it easier for governments to track and tax digital transactions.
However, countries with lax regulations may still pose challenges to enforcement.
The OECD’s Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework is a game-changer for the regulation of digital assets.
While it may create additional burdens for crypto users and businesses, its long-term benefits for transparency and tax compliance are undeniable.
If you have any queries about this article on OECD’s crypto reporting framework, or tax matters in crypto-friendly jurisdictions, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in crypto-friendly jurisdictions and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
Spain’s lower house has approved a landmark reform requiring companies with revenues over €750 million to pay a minimum tax rate of 15% on their consolidated profits.
This move, part of Spain’s broader fiscal strategy, aligns with OECD recommendations on a global minimum tax.
But what are the implications for businesses and the broader economy?
The new tax ensures that large companies pay at least 15% of their profits in taxes, even if they benefit from deductions and credits under existing tax laws.
It aims to prevent tax avoidance and ensure that profitable businesses contribute fairly to public revenues.
Spain, like many countries, has faced criticism for allowing large multinational corporations to pay minimal taxes while small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) shoulder a disproportionate burden.
This reform seeks to address these inequalities and bolster public funding for essential services.
While smaller businesses are unaffected by the reform, large corporations will see an increase in their tax liabilities.
Critics argue this could discourage investment and hinder economic growth, especially during uncertain economic times.
However, proponents believe that the long-term benefits of a fairer tax system outweigh the potential short-term drawbacks.
Spain’s reform is also a step towards adopting the OECD’s global minimum tax framework.
By aligning its policies with international standards, Spain hopes to position itself as a leader in fair taxation while reducing opportunities for profit shifting.
Spain’s corporate tax reform is a bold step towards creating a fairer and more equitable tax system.
While its impact on investment remains to be seen, the move sets a strong example for other countries grappling with similar challenges.
If you have any queries about this article on Spain’s corporate tax reforms, or tax matters in Spain, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in Spain and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
Italy is revisiting its controversial digital services tax (DST) to address objections raised by the United States.
This move is part of broader international efforts to harmonise tax policies for the digital economy.
Italy’s DST imposes a 3% levy on revenues generated by tech companies from digital services provided within the country.
While it targets major players like Google and Amazon, critics argue it unfairly singles out US companies.
The U.S. views Italy’s DST as discriminatory and has threatened to impose tariffs on Italian goods in retaliation.
This has prompted Italy to explore changes that align more closely with global tax standards, such as the OECD’s proposed framework.
Proposed amendments include narrowing the scope of the DST and aligning it with the global minimum tax rate.
These changes aim to reduce tensions with the US while ensuring Italy continues to benefit from taxing the digital economy.
Italy’s efforts to reform its web tax reflect the growing need for international cooperation in taxing the digital economy.
Striking a balance between national interests and global standards will be key.
If you have any queries about this article on Italy’s digital services tax reforms, 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.
Coca-Cola, one of the world’s largest beverage companies, has been ordered to pay $6 billion in back taxes and interest to the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
This decision follows a lengthy legal battle over the company’s transfer pricing practices, a method used by multinationals to allocate profits between different countries.
In this article, we’ll explore what led to this ruling and its broader implications.
Transfer pricing is a system used by companies that operate in multiple countries to determine how much profit each subsidiary earns.
For tax purposes, it’s crucial that these profits are allocated fairly based on market prices, ensuring each country gets its rightful share of tax revenue.
In Coca-Cola’s case, the IRS argued that the company’s transfer pricing practices did not reflect economic reality.
Specifically, Coca-Cola allocated a disproportionate share of its profits to overseas entities in low-tax jurisdictions, rather than to its US headquarters where much of the business value was created.
The dispute dates back to a 2015 audit when the IRS claimed Coca-Cola underpaid its taxes by $3.3 billion from 2007 to 2009.
After years of legal wrangling, the US Tax Court ruled in favour of the IRS. Coca-Cola’s appeal was denied, leaving the company with a massive $6 billion tax bill, including penalties and interest.
The court decision hinged on the IRS’s argument that Coca-Cola had failed to comply with arm’s-length principles.
These principles require that transactions between related entities within a company should be priced as if they were conducted between independent parties.
This case sends a strong signal to other multinational corporations about the importance of adhering to transfer pricing rules.
Governments around the world are increasingly scrutinising profit-shifting arrangements that allow companies to minimise their tax liabilities.
For companies, this ruling highlights the need for robust documentation and compliance strategies to defend their transfer pricing practices. Failure to do so can lead to significant financial and reputational costs.
For Coca-Cola, the financial hit is substantial, but the reputational damage may be even more significant.
As governments and consumers alike demand greater corporate accountability, cases like this reinforce the need for transparency in tax practices.
The Coca-Cola case underscores the growing importance of international tax compliance in a world where public and regulatory scrutiny is on the rise.
It also serves as a reminder that aggressive tax strategies can backfire, leading to costly legal disputes and financial penalties.
If you have any queries about this article on Coca-Cola’s tax case, 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.
Ireland’s economy has received a significant boost thanks to a back-tax payment of €14 billion from technology giant Apple.
This payment follows a long legal battle initiated by the European Commission, which accused Apple of receiving illegal state aid through favourable tax arrangements in Ireland.
Let’s break down what this means and why it’s important for Ireland and the wider global tax community.
The European Commission began investigating Apple’s tax arrangements in Ireland in 2014.
They concluded in 2016 that Ireland had allowed Apple to pay far less tax than it should have, violating EU state aid rules.
Specifically, the investigation revealed that Apple had paid an effective tax rate of just 0.005% on its European profits in 2014.
The Commission ordered Ireland to recover €13 billion in unpaid taxes plus interest, which brought the total to around €14 billion.
Despite both Ireland and Apple appealing the decision, the money was placed into an escrow account pending legal proceedings.
S&P Global Ratings recently upgraded Ireland’s fiscal outlook to “positive,” citing the recovery of the Apple back-tax payment as a key factor.
This inflow of cash has strengthened Ireland’s public finances, providing more resources to address economic challenges.
However, the Irish government has been hesitant to celebrate too openly. Ireland insists it did not grant Apple special treatment and only recovered the money due to EU pressure.
This cautious stance is linked to Ireland’s desire to maintain its status as a hub for multinational corporations.
This case is a landmark in the global fight against tax avoidance. It highlights how large companies sometimes use complex structures to shift profits and pay less tax.
It has also encouraged more countries to consider stricter regulations, such as the OECD’s global minimum tax, to ensure corporations pay their fair share.
For Ireland, the case underscores the importance of balancing its appeal as a business-friendly nation with its obligations to enforce fair taxation.
The Apple tax case has been a wake-up call for countries and corporations alike.
It demonstrates the power of coordinated international action to challenge unfair tax practices.
While Ireland has benefitted financially, the case also raises important questions about how to attract investment without compromising on tax fairness.
If you have any queries about this article on Ireland’s fiscal outlook 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.
A recent report highlights that the United Kingdom’s growth in Research and Development (R&D) tax incentives is falling behind other OECD countries.
This trend raises concerns about the UK’s ability to remain competitive in attracting innovation-driven businesses.
Let’s explore the details of this issue and its potential implications for the UK’s economy.
R&D tax incentives are government initiatives designed to encourage businesses to invest in research and development activities.
These incentives often take the form of tax credits, deductions, or grants, reducing the financial burden of innovation.
The UK has long been recognised for its generous R&D tax schemes, but recent findings suggest that its growth in funding these incentives has stagnated compared to other OECD nations.
Several factors contribute to this trend:
For UK businesses, the stagnation in R&D tax growth poses challenges:
Innovation is a key driver of economic growth, and R&D incentives play a crucial role in fostering it.
If the UK fails to keep pace with other countries, it risks losing its competitive edge in sectors like technology, pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing.
The UK’s declining R&D tax budget growth is a wake-up call for policymakers.
To remain an innovation leader, the country must prioritise consistent, generous incentives that encourage businesses to invest in R&D.
If you have any queries about this article on incentives, or tax matters in the United Kingdom 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, then there is more information on membership here.