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 2026

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 High Court’s dismissal of barrister Setu Kamal’s legal challenge represents the first successful strike-out under a new law on SLAPPs
IP lawyers, who say they are encouraging clients to build up ‘tariff resilience’, should treat the risks posed by recent orders as a core consideration in cross-border licensing
As Coca-Cola awaits a crucial 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision this year, its multibillion-dollar tax dispute could have profound implications for investors, cash flow, and corporate transparency
However, women in tax face greater career obstacles than their male counterparts, an exclusive ITR survey of more than 100 women tax leaders revealed
Under Jeff Soar’s leadership, WTS UK aims to scale to 100 partners within five years and challenge the big four
As the firm embarks on a major shakeup of its EMEA partnerships, some staff will be watching nervously
The buyout of Hucke and Associates continues Ryan’s streak of firm acquisitions; in other news, a UK appeal against VAT on private school fees was dismissed
Tax teams are responding to usual client demand in the region, albeit with increased working from home flexibility, local sources indicate
A 120-plus-day delay to refunds would cost taxpayers almost $3bn in additional interest, the Cato Institute warned; plus indirect tax updates from February
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s pessimistic pillar two forecast accompanied the UK chancellor’s muted Spring Statement, dubbed ‘as dull as possible’ by one adviser
Gift this article