US Outbound: BEAT to hit inbound taxpayers hard

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

US Outbound: BEAT to hit inbound taxpayers hard

Sponsored by

fenwick.jpg
BEPS and tax illiteracy

The new US tax law's base erosion and anti-abuse minimum tax (BEAT) will have a substantial impact on inbound taxpayers.

The new US tax law's base erosion and anti-abuse minimum tax (BEAT) will have a substantial impact on inbound taxpayers. The BEAT provisions require an applicable taxpayer to pay a tax equal to the base erosion minimum tax amount for the tax year. The BEAT amount is the excess of 10% (5% for 2018) of the taxpayer's modified taxable income (MTI) for the tax year over an amount equal to its regular tax liability for that year reduced by certain credits. The MTI is the taxpayer's taxable income increased by its base erosion payments (BEPs).

A BEP is any amount accrued or paid by the taxpayer to a foreign person that is a related party of the taxpayer (determined by 25% affiliation) for which a deduction is allowable (with reductions for amounts subject to gross-basis withholding). The BEPs include deductions arising from depreciable or amortisable assets acquired from such a related foreign person. Exceptions apply for service payments charged at cost with no markup.

The BEPs do not include payments that reduce gross receipts (except for certain companies with respect to which section 7874 is implicated). Therefore, characterisation issues – whether a payment reduces gross receipts or is a payment that is 'deductible' from taxable income – will become very important.

Note also that the BEAT rules would seem more likely to apply to thin-margin taxpayers since a taxpayer with BEPs that reduce its taxable income by more than 50% will be affected by the rule.

In addition, the BEAT rule can produce surprises with respect to interest expense. Assume the US taxpayer has $100 of income for Section 163(j) purposes and has $20 of interest expense owed to both an unrelated bank and a foreign related person. The taxpayer's interest expense deduction is limited to $30. For BEAT purposes the disallowed interest expense is taken from the $20 of the third-party (bank) interest expense. This rule leaves the full $20 of related party interest expense subject to the BEAT calculations.

Fuller-James-P-100

Forst-David-100

Jim Fuller

David Forst

Jim Fuller (jpfuller@fenwick.com) and David Forst (dforst@fenwick.com)

Fenwick & West

Website: www.fenwick.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The climbdowns pave the way for a side-by-side deal to be concluded this week, as per the US Treasury secretary’s expectation; in other news, Taft added a 10-partner tax team
A vote to be held in 2026 could create Hogan Lovells Cadwalader, a $3.6bn giant with 3,100 lawyers across the Americas, EMEA and Asia Pacific
Foreign companies operating in Libya face source-based taxation even without a local presence. Multinationals must understand compliance obligations, withholding risks, and treaty relief to avoid costly surprises
Hotel La Tour had argued that VAT should be recoverable as a result of proceeds being used for a taxable business activity
Tax professionals are still going to be needed, but AI will make it easier than starting from zero, EY’s global tax disputes leader Luis Coronado tells ITR
AI and assisting clients with navigating global tax reform contributed to the uptick in turnover, the firm said
In a post on X, Scott Bessent urged dissenting countries to the US/OECD side-by-side arrangement to ‘join the consensus’ to get a deal over the line
A new transatlantic firm under the name of Winston Taylor is expected to go live in May 2026 with more than 1,400 lawyers and 20 offices
As ITR’s exclusive data uncovers in-house dissatisfaction with case management, advisers cite Italy’s arcane tax rules
The new guidance is not meant to reflect a substantial change to UK law, but the requirement that tax advice is ‘likely to be correct’ imposes unrealistic expectations
Gift this article