All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 ITR is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

Survey: Taxing the digital economy

The OECD's two-pillar digital tax solution's next phase due in October

Take our short anonymous survey to share your views on the impact of the OECD's two-pillar solution and wider digital tax agenda.

Take ITR’s survey here on how the OECD’s two-pillar tax solution is changing the digital economy, and what could happen next. Your answers will be kept strictly anonymous.

Image

Taxation of the digital economy is evolving fast – 133 countries agreed to a detailed statement of understanding from the OECD’s Inclusive Framework (IF) on BEPS regarding key details on pillar one and two, and a final implementation plan is expected in October. This suggests the OECD’s solution is highly likely to find a consensus by the deadline, and it means that countries will need to adopt legislative changes by 2023.

The OECD solution revolves around two significant changes to international tax policy: the reallocation of taxing rights to market jurisdictions under pillar one, and a global minimum corporate tax under pillar two. G20 leaders have said that delaying, or even discontinuing, this work will lead to a global trade war, because the alternative option is a patchwork of unilateral digital services taxes (DSTs) across IF countries.

The US Biden administration has been particularly influential in advancing the digital tax negotiations at the IF in recent months, including on the proposal for a 15% tax rate floor on pillar two. Some in-house tax directors are already thinking about the practical implications of a global minimum corporate tax, such as the impact on investment inflows and outflows.

However, several technical details remain unclear, such as the scope of the proposals or the challenges of using financial accounts to determine country-by-country effective tax rates. Additionally, political challenges such as push-back from some countries and conditional expectations from others could limit the effectiveness of the OECD’s two-pillar solution.

In this fast-moving and politically contentious area of tax, there are many questions. Will the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to prompt governments to move faster on digital tax reform, including removing DSTs? Which sectors will bear the brunt of reform? What changes can in-house tax directors expect in the coming years?

With your help, we hope to answer some of these questions. Please complete our anonymous survey here to share your predictions – and look out for the results in ITR’s autumn edition.

For further details, or to share your opinions with the editorial team, email mailto:danish.mehboob@euromoneyplc.com

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The Italian government published plans to levy capital gains tax on cryptocurrency transactions, while Brazil and the UK signed a new tax treaty.
Multinational companies fear the scrutiny of aggressive tax audits may be overstepping the mark on transfer pricing methodology.
Standardisation and outsourcing are two possible solutions amid increasing regulations and scrutiny on transfer pricing, say sources.
Inaugural awards announces winners
The UN’s decision to seek a leadership role in global tax policy could be a crucial turning point but won’t be the end of the OECD, say tax experts.
The UN may be set to assume a global role in tax policy that would rival the OECD, while automakers lobby the US to change its tax rules on Chinese materials.
Companies including Valentino and EveryMatrix say the early adoption of EU public CbCR rules could boost transparency of local and foreign MNEs, despite the short notice.
ITR invites tax firms, in-house teams, and tax professionals to make submissions for the 2023 ITR Tax Awards in Asia-Pacific, Europe Middle East & Africa, and the Americas.
Tax authorities and customs are failing multinationals by creating uncertainty with contradictory assessment and guidance, say in-house tax directors.
The CJEU said the General Court erred in law when it ruled that both companies benefitted from Italian state aid.