The question of how different countries will interpret and implement the recently agreed-upon Pillar Two global minimum tax framework has been one the largest uncertainties. This 15% minimum tax on multinational corporations necessitates that each country, with its distinct tax rules and regulatory frameworks, fall in line.
The United States, in particular, must make critical decisions about its domestic minimum tax, the Global Intangible Low Taxed Income regime (GILTI). This needs to be achieved before the transition period to the 15% global minimum tax concludes in 2026. Originally, it was assumed GILTI would essentially be grandfathered into the new system, given its similarities with the global minimum tax. However, as talks have progressed, the focus has shifted to some key differences in calculation methods.
For instance, GILTI functions on an aggregate or worldwide basis, while Pillar Two calculations are done on a country-by-country basis. Changing GILTI to adhere to this country-by-country basis could have harsh repercussions. Other differences between the two approaches may produce more adverse outcomes for taxpayers under the new 15% tax.
The existing GILTI regime includes a 20% reduction on foreign tax credits, effectively allowing some level of double taxation. It also requires U.S companies to allocate and apportion expenses to ascertain their tax liability. These specifications among others can significantly increase the effective tax rate on GILTI, even above the statutory rate. Pillar Two, conversely, specifies no foreign tax credit reduction and does not require parent expense allocation or apportionment. This can prevent the effective tax rate from exceeding 15%.
Similar disparities arise when looking at the treatment of tangible assets under the two systems. Though both exclude a certain amount of routine profit based on substance, the specifications differ. Whereas the GILTI calculation excludes a deemed return of 10% on qualified business assets, Pillar Two utilizes the substance-based income exclusion. This includes two components: the carrying value of tangible assets and employee payroll costs in the jurisdiction. But again, the rules are more generous under Pillar Two.
Given these and other significant differences, it’s crucial that Congress and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) come to an understanding on how GILTI and the OECD model should coexist. Balancing the two would ensure U.S compliance with the global system without disadvantaging U.S multinationals or the country’s economic vitality.
Please visit Bloomberg Industry Group for more information on this topic.