Int'l Tax News

In the days since the US Supreme Court declared most of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs illegal, more than 100 companies filed new lawsuits, underscoring widespread concerns that the administration won’t readily refund the billions of dollars it’s already collected.

The article explores the potential awkward legal outcomes of adopting the UTPR as an income tax, which could allow countries to tax activities they do not control or have authorized. The article considers alternative approaches to implementing the UTPR, such as civil penalty regimes or taxing deductible payments, to avoid these inconsistencies. It also examines the practical application of UTPR under the OECD's GLOBE rules and discusses its implications for multinational enterprises, particularly in cases like India, Australia, and Kenya.

To read more, click here.

President Donald Trump effectively upended a global minimum tax deal signed by nearly 140 countries on his first day back in office, declaring other countries shouldn’t decide how US multinationals will be taxed.

This article examines widespread corporate litigation seeking refunds of tariffs imposed under executive authority later curtailed by the Supreme Court. The piece highlights the fiscal exposure facing the federal government and explores how invalidated cross-border levies functioned as de facto revenue measures with significant implications for international trade taxation.

To read the full article, click here (subscription required).

The U.S. is prioritizing guidance related to the OECD's Pillar 2 side-by-side package to ensure efficient global implementation of the GLOBE rules. Treasury official Isaac Wood highlighted the need for clarity in resolving technical gaps, such as those concerning intragroup financing and the side-by-side safe harbor. The U.S. remains heavily engaged in the technical aspects of Pillar 2 to address issues impacting U.S.-headquartered multinational enterprises and ensure alignment with domestic tax laws.

To read more, click here. 

Top negotiators at the United Nations in coming weeks will begin threading the needle between countries’ competing views of a new global tax treaty’s scale of ambition as deadlines for the deal’s first drafts draw near.

The European Commission’s upcoming tax simplification package won’t reopen the bloc’s global minimum tax directive, according to a senior EU official.

Both the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, through the Inclusive Framework, and the United Nations, through negotiations for the Framework Convention on Tax Cooperation, are doing serious work in developing the most significant reforms to international taxation in a century.

Companies are clamoring to bring their valuable intellectual property back to the US, as expanded tax benefits and the new side-by-side global tax system make repatriating suddenly more attractive, tax professionals said. But there’s a problem.

In early February 2026, the OECD released an updated edition of its Manual on Effective Mutual Agreement Procedures, consolidating and refining prior guidance on the MAP process through the entire lifecycle of a proceeding under bilateral income tax treaties. This article examines seven key takeaways from the updated Manual, highlighting its implications for tax departments in the current controversy environment. The Manual aims to improve the effectiveness and timeliness of MAP proceedings, potentially allowing competent authorities to focus on more complex disputes.

A US exemption from parts of the revised OECD global minimum tax agreement creates fresh uncertainty for multinationals preparing to file 2026 earnings reports.

October 8, 2021, marked the beginning of the Pillar Two era, when 137 countries (known as the Inclusive Framework and led by the OECD) signed a political agreement to domestically legislate a 15% minimum tax on all profits of multinationals that annually have at least €750 million of gross revenue. On January 5, 2026, the IF (now up to around 150 countries) signed another political agreement (the side-by-side (Sbs) agreement) that should serve to dissolve US objections that had been holding up full international adoption of Pillar Two. This article focuses on how the Sbs agreement affects US multinationals with Canadian subsidiaries.

The Trump administration’s newly floated 0.125% “land port maintenance tax,” pitched as a fix to align shippers using land ports with those subject to the Harbor Maintenance Fee, looks less like infrastructure policy and more like contingency planning now that the US Supreme Court has struck down the administration’s tariff program under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

This article examines the I.R.S.’s use of real-world profit data to challenge how Meta values offshore intellectual property for tax purposes. The piece highlights a significant shift in transfer pricing enforcement, with implications for cross-border income allocation, valuation of intangibles, and the taxation of multinational enterprises’ foreign earnings.

To read the full article, click here (subscription required).

Business representatives questioned whether the EU’s tax blacklist and the defensive measures it triggers undermine the bloc’s competitiveness, particularly following Vietnam’s addition to the list. The article examines how denial of deductions, withholding consequences, and treaty interactions create uneven compliance burdens across member states. It also explores the interaction between the blacklist regime and OECD Pillar 2, with companies increasingly using the global minimum tax framework to define low-tax jurisdictions.

To read more, click here.

This article analyzes the administration’s response to the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down core elements of its tariff program. Despite the legal setback, the president signals an intent to maintain aggressive trade measures through alternative mechanisms. The piece evaluates the economic rationale behind the administration’s trade strategy, the legal constraints imposed by the Court’s decision, and the potential consequences for global supply chains and U.S. trading partners.

To read the full article, click here (subscription required).

The Supreme Court’s nixing of US President Donald Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs is throwing fresh confusion over the raft of trade deals negotiated by global partners as the inescapable reality of ongoing levies remains a threat.

The European Union is poised to freeze the ratification process of its trade deal with the US and is seeking more details from President Donald Trump’s administration on its new tariff program.

This article reviews the legal and structural fallout following the Supreme Court’s invalidation of key Trump tariffs. It discusses the administration’s attempt to rely on alternative statutory authority and considers the broader institutional consequences for U.S. trade powers, global supply chains, and the stability of cross-border fiscal measures affecting international commerce.

To read the full article, click here (subscription required).

This article analyzes the Supreme Court’s decision limiting President Trump’s use of emergency tariff authority and examines the structural implications for executive power over cross-border fiscal measures. The ruling reshapes the allocation of economic authority between Congress and the president, with consequences for the future design of tariff-based revenue tools affecting international commerce.

To read the full article, click here (subscription required).

Eight years after enactment of the TCJA, U.S. multinationals are completing final installment payments on the section 965 transition tax imposed on previously untaxed offshore earnings. Approximately 1,750 companies elected the eight-year installment plan, deferring over $126 billion in liabilities, with some firms still making multibillion-dollar payments in 2026. The wind-down of section 965 payments marks the closing chapter of a central TCJA international reform, even as related Tax Court disputes continue to shape liability calculations.

To read more, click here.

This article focuses on the European response to the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating portions of the U.S. tariff regime. European officials had anticipated stabilization in transatlantic trade relations, but the ruling introduces new uncertainty regarding future U.S. trade policy. The piece examines the broader implications for EU–U.S. economic coordination, trade negotiations, and geopolitical dynamics amid ongoing tensions with China and other major economies.

To read the full article, click here (subscription required).

This article analyzes the global impact of President Trump’s newly announced flat-rate tariff following the Supreme Court ruling on earlier levies. It examines how major trading partners—including China, Brazil, the EU and Japan—may be differentially affected, highlighting cross-border trade flows, retaliatory risks, and the broader implications for international economic alignment and global supply chains.

To read the full article, click here (subscription required).

Senior US officials said President Donald Trump’s tariff defeat at the Supreme Court won’t unravel deals negotiated with US partners as they sought to defend the administration’s assertive trade policies.

In a swift reversal of fortunes, countries that had been hardest hit by US President Donald Trump’s tariffs have emerged as the biggest winners from the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down his emergency levies.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent dodged questions about refunds after the Supreme Court struck the vast majority of President Trump’s tariffs down.

This article examines the international fallout from the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating key components of President Trump’s tariff program. The ruling raises significant uncertainty for bilateral and regional trade agreements negotiated under tariff pressure, including arrangements with major U.S. trading partners. The piece analyzes how governments and firms may reassess commitments made in response to threatened or imposed tariffs, and considers the broader implications for trade diplomacy and cross-border economic stability.

To read the full article, click here (subscription required).

Following the Supreme Court’s rejection of the administration’s use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs, this article explores the alternative statutory authorities available to the executive branch. It outlines the legal frameworks under U.S. trade law—including national security and unfair trade practice provisions—that may serve as the basis for continued tariff actions. The piece situates the ruling within the broader separation-of-powers debate and highlights the ongoing legal and economic uncertainty facing international trade partners.

To read the full article, click here (subscription required).

The Supreme Court’s ruling that struck down the sweeping global tariffs at the heart of President Trump’s economic policies has produced enormous cracks in the GOP’s outward show of party unity.

Millionaire investor Kevin O’Leary warned of a “major compliance cost” for business owners in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling that blocks President Trump from using emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision striking down President Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose global tariffs, companies are scrambling to determine whether they can recover billions in paid duties and how to respond to the administration’s newly announced 10% global tariff under a different legal authority. The article examines the legal uncertainty surrounding tariff authority and the practical consequences for multinational businesses and trade flows.

To read the full article, click here (subscription required).

The Supreme Court’s decision to nullify a large swath of the Trump administration’s tariffs cleared the way for companies to seek refunds of tariffs already paid, which could come with a slew of transfer pricing issues for them to navigate.

President Donald Trump can lean on alternative legislation to try to rebuild his tariff wall, after the US Supreme Court ruled that he can’t use a 1977 emergency law to impose import taxes.

President Donald Trump imposed a 10% global tariff on foreign goods, moving quickly to preserve his trade agenda after the US Supreme Court struck down many of the levies he imposed last year.

Lebovitz defends the OECD inclusive framework’s side-by-side pillar 2 package as a pragmatic compromise that accommodates U.S. international tax rules while preserving global minimum tax objectives. He argues that recognition of the U.S. GILTI/NCTI regime and related anti-base-erosion measures reduces conflict and encourages broader adoption of qualified domestic minimum top-up taxes. The piece frames the package as stabilizing the BEPS architecture, addressing developing country concerns, and setting the stage for the 2029 review.

To read more, click here.

U.S. Treasury officials declared OECD pillar 1 effectively defunct, reopening debate over digital economy taxation and market-based allocation of taxing rights. While pillar 2 continues through the side-by-side agreement, Treasury signaled that amount A lacked domestic political viability and must be reconsidered in its entirety. The announcement marks a major inflection point in global tax reform and injects renewed uncertainty into multilateral negotiations over cross-border profit allocation.

To read more, click here.

This viewpoint critiques the limited participation of business stakeholders in negotiations over the U.N. Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation and its early protocols. It highlights debates over new nexus standards, gross-basis withholding taxes, significant economic presence concepts, and alternatives to OECD amount B, emphasizing concerns about certainty and administrability. The article raises broader governance questions about transparency, neutrality, and structured engagement in the evolving U.N. tax architecture.

To read more, click here.

The Indian Supreme Court held that a Mauritius tax residency certificate is necessary but not sufficient for treaty benefits, permitting scrutiny of effective management and substance under GAAR principles. The decision suggests treaty relief may be denied when gains are not taxed in the residence jurisdiction, effectively introducing a subject-to-tax dimension into the India–Mauritius treaty. The ruling signals a more anti-avoidance-driven approach to treaty interpretation that could significantly affect inbound investment structures into India.

To read more, click here.

The OECD launched new tools and frequently asked questions for the simplified transfer pricing method known as Amount B, as countries around the world ponder whether the new method is a good fit for them.

Majdowski and Smoleń examine how pillar 2’s GloBE regime links transfer pricing outcomes directly to jurisdictional effective tax rate and top-up tax calculations, heightening the consequences of pricing design. They highlight Article 3.2.3 of the model rules as a symmetry mechanism addressing unilateral adjustments, APAs, and post-filing true-ups, and assess how misstatements may trigger pillar 2 exposure under jurisdictional blending and transitional safe harbors. The authors argue that pillar 2 elevates transfer pricing from a bilateral controversy issue to a core component of the global minimum tax compliance strategy.

To read more, click here. 

Wolski and Yen assess potential legislative refinements following enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, focusing on structural tensions in the NCTI regime and the base erosion and anti-abuse tax. They propose changes to foreign tax credit basket design, haircut limitations, carryforwards, and branch-CFC alignment to mitigate double taxation and improve administrability. The article frames international tax reform as ongoing, with competitiveness and systemic coherence likely to shape the next phase of congressional action.

To read more, click here.

Commenters cautioned that proposed section 892 regulations expanding the definition of “effective control” could disrupt established sovereign investment structures. They argue that broadening control to include certain managerial and veto rights may narrow the exemption for qualified U.S. investments and create uncertainty for minority sovereign investors. The debate highlights the tension between anti-avoidance safeguards and maintaining the United States’ attractiveness to inbound sovereign capital.

To read more, click here.

Ireland’s Department of Finance released a “compass” report evaluating the structure and future direction of its R&D tax credit regime. The review identifies potential reforms to enhance competitiveness, refine qualifying expenditure rules, and reconsider capital treatment while streamlining administration. The initiative reflects broader policy recalibration as Ireland balances fiscal cost, EU considerations, and multinational investment incentives.

To read more, click here

Italian practitioners expect pillar 2 to generate limited new revenue in higher-tax jurisdictions like Italy, viewing it primarily as a structural backstop against low-tax outcomes rather than a revenue raiser. Commentary highlights compliance burdens, including duplication between GloBE reporting and domestic filings, complex jurisdiction-level ETR calculations, and M&A complications. The OECD’s side-by-side safe harbor is not expected to materially reduce obligations for Italian subsidiaries of U.S.-parented groups because domestic top-up and reporting requirements remain.

To read more, click here.

Singapore projects increased corporate tax revenue from the fiscal year 2027 as it implements the OECD pillar 2 regime through an MNE top-up tax and a domestic top-up tax. Officials emphasized that while the 15% minimum rate will boost collections, Singapore must expand targeted incentives to remain competitive in a reshoring environment. The 2026 budget pairs minimum-tax compliance with measures such as a 40% corporate income tax rebate and enhanced internationalization and innovation incentives.

To read more, click here.

Poland is consulting on a proposed 3% digital services tax targeting large multinationals with significant global and Polish revenue thresholds. Stakeholders raised concerns about competitiveness, administrative complexity, enforceability, and possible U.S. retaliation, while the finance ministry reportedly remains cautious about alignment with international tax commitments. Inclusion in the government’s legislative agenda will determine whether the DST advances toward parliamentary debate in 2026.

To read more, click here.

A United Nations committee will form a task force to look at why developing nations can’t access transfer pricing databases, after hearing support for the move from a large group of countries as part of negotiations for a new UN tax treaty.

The New Zealand Superannuation Fund contends that proposed section 892 regulations depart from longstanding interpretations by reversing the presumption that debt investments are non-commercial and expanding the effective control standard. The submission argues that routine creditor protections and minority governance rights could inadvertently trigger commercial activity or tainting under the revised framework. It urges the Treasury to restore the non-commercial presumption, clarify safe harbors, and provide grandfathering relief for existing sovereign investments.

To read more, click here.

The authors argue the U.S. refusal to restore a functioning WTO appellate system amid DST disputes is a rational response to asymmetric litigation risk, not hypocrisy. They contend that any U.S. challenge to foreign DSTs could invite counterclaims targeting U.S. tax provisions such as FDII and IC-DISC as prohibited export subsidies, which are easier to attack under WTO doctrine than DSTs. The piece frames DST conflict as a structural tax-trade mismatch, in which U.S. corporate tax incentives may be more legally vulnerable than the DSTs the United States opposes.

To read more, click here.

The OECD’s Forum on Harmful Tax Practices released updated peer review findings under BEPS Action 5, assessing preferential regimes and substantial activity requirements. Ireland and Peru were found not to have harmful regimes, while Fiji abolished two incentive regimes, and Anguilla and the Turks and Caicos Islands were flagged for follow-up. The report reflects ongoing multilateral monitoring and pressure to align domestic regimes with substance and transparency standards.

To read more, click here.