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

Given the US/G7 pillar two deal, the OECD is in danger of being replaced by the UN as the leading global tax reform forum
Cinven’s latest investment follows its acquisition of a stake in Grant Thornton UK in December; in other news, a barrister listed by HMRC as a tax avoidance promoter has alleged harassment
CIT base narrowing measures remain more prevalent than increased CIT rates, the report also highlighted
ITR's parent company, LBG, will acquire The Lawyer, a leading news, intelligence and data-driven insight provider for the legal industry, from Centaur Media
KPMG UK’s Graeme Webster and KPMG Meijburg & Co’s Eduard Sporken outline the 20-year evolution of MAPAs, with DEMPE analyses becoming more prevalent and MAPA requirements growing stricter
Rishi Joshi, of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, warns of potential judicial overreach as assets are recharacterised to bypass a legislative exclusion
Only 2% of in-house survey respondents said they were ‘heavy’ users of AI for TP, Aibidia’s report also found
There was a ‘deeply embedded culture within PwC that routinely disregarded formal confidentiality obligations,’ the chairman of Australia’s Tax Practitioners Board said
Jennifer Best was most recently the acting commissioner of the IRS’s large business and international division
Section 899’s exclusion from the One Big Beautiful Bill does not mean it has been nipped in the bud, Aruna Kalyanam also tells ITR
Gift this article