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

Whether it be due to a fragmented advisory market or a rise in M&A, Italy’s frenetic hiring has not gone unnoticed by ITR’s Talent Tracker
The deal gives Azets 14 new partners and boosts its Swedish revenues to over $100 million; in other news, Svalner Atlas launched in Copenhagen
The tax technology company will be providing a free demonstration of its OTP software and offering best practice advice on whether to ‘buy or build’ on September 8
Johanes Glorinus Saragih of Indonesia’s Directorate General of Taxes outlines the nation’s delicate geopolitical situation, as it sits between a rock and a hard place with the US and pillar two
The law firm’s head of tax, trade and wealth management likens tax legislation to a complex puzzle, recommends a sturdy coffee mug, and explains why acronyms make tax cool
The global tax and accounting firm has appointed two experienced TP advisers from a New Jersey-based boutique
A lack of commitment from major jurisdictions and the associated compliance burden are obstacles facing the OECD initiative
Richard Gregg is no longer fit and proper to be a tax agent, said the TPB; in other news, MHA completed its acquisition of Baker Tilly South-East Europe
Recent Indian case law emphasises the importance of economic substance over mere legal form in evaluating tax implications, say authors from Khaitan & Co
PepsiCo was represented by PwC, while the ATO was advised by MinterEllison, an Australian-headquartered law firm
Gift this article