US pillar two stance: tax competitiveness challenges for Portugal and the EU

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

US pillar two stance: tax competitiveness challenges for Portugal and the EU

Sponsored by

sponsored-firms-vieira.png
15%

Pillar two will fail to achieve its aims without the participation of major economies, say João Velez de Lima, Teresa Teixeira Mota, and Francisca de Landerset of VdA

The OECD’s pillar two initiative represents a landmark effort to establish a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15%. This framework aims to curb BEPS by multinational enterprises (MNEs).

However, an executive order issued by US President Donald Trump on January 20 2025, stating that the US will not implement pillar two rules, has raised significant concerns about the initiative’s global effectiveness and its implications for countries such as Portugal, which are committed to applying these rules.

How will this impact the Portugal–US tax dynamics?

As an EU member state, Portugal is bound to implement the pillar two rules from January 1 2024. However, the absence of US participation creates a fragmented global tax landscape, undermining the uniformity that pillar two seeks to achieve.

For Portugal, this divergence could lead to challenges in enforcing the rules effectively, particularly in cases involving US-headquartered MNEs.

The primary concern lies in the potential for tax mismatches:

  • On the one hand, US-headquartered MNEs with subsidiaries in Portugal will face a dual tax environment. While the US may not impose a global minimum tax, Portugal will apply the pillar two rules to ensure that the effective tax rate on profits generated within its jurisdiction meets the 15% threshold. If a US parent company does not face a top-up tax in its home jurisdiction, Portugal may need to apply the income inclusion rule (IIR) or the undertaxed profits rule (UTPR) to ensure the minimum tax is collected. In this case, the US parent company might not receive a credit for taxes paid under Portugal’s pillar two regime, resulting in double taxation risks.

  • On the other hand, Portuguese-headquartered MNEs with operations in the US will also face some relevant challenges. Under the pillar two framework, Portugal may need to apply the IIR to ensure that profits earned by US subsidiaries are taxed at the minimum rate. However, the absence of US participation complicates this process, as Portugal would need to rely on its domestic implementation of the rules to address any tax shortfalls. This could place Portuguese companies at a competitive disadvantage, with higher compliance costs and potential disputes with US tax authorities, which may resist the extraterritorial application of pillar two rules. Moreover, the lack of a level playing field may incentivise Portuguese companies to restructure their operations to mitigate tax exposure, potentially undermining Portugal’s tax base.

How will this impact the competitive balance between EU and US companies?

The US decision not to implement pillar two rules creates a significant competitive imbalance for European companies. While EU-based MNEs will be subject to the global minimum tax, their US counterparts may continue to benefit from lower effective tax rates in jurisdictions that do not adopt the rules.

For example, a US tech giant operating in Europe may face lower overall tax liabilities compared with an EU-based competitor, even if both generate similar revenues in the same markets. This could erode the competitiveness of European companies, undermining the EU’s broader objectives of fostering fair competition and preventing BEPS.

Is pillar two effectiveness doomed?

The success of the pillar two framework hinges on widespread adoption. The US, as the world’s largest economy and home to many of the biggest MNEs, plays a decisive role in determining the initiative’s global impact. Without US participation, the effectiveness of pillar two is significantly diminished, creating opportunities for tax discretion and undermining the principle of a level playing field.

The ambition of the pillar two project is too high for the OECD to abandon it. As a result, there is hope that the EU and the OECD can employ diplomatic strategies and engage in negotiations with the US president, potentially addressing concerns through measures such as increasing UTPR safe harbours.

A critical moment: final thoughts on the future of pillar two

For European companies, the lack of US participation exacerbates competitive disadvantages, potentially deterring investment and innovation. Meanwhile, for countries such as Portugal, the administrative burden of enforcing pillar two rules in a fragmented landscape could outweigh the benefits of increased tax revenues.

Ultimately, the success of pillar two depends on its universal adoption. Without the participation of major economies such as the US, the framework’s objectives are at risk, leaving the global tax system vulnerable to continued BEPS practices. Renewed diplomatic efforts are essential to bring reluctant jurisdictions on board and ensure the long-term viability of this landmark initiative.

We live in a time of critical need for global cooperation in addressing BEPS and fostering a fairer international tax system. For businesses and policymakers alike, the stakes could not be higher.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

E-invoicing is currently characterised by dynamism, with fragmentation acting as a key catalyst for increasing interoperability, says Aida Cavalera of the International Observatory on eInvoicing
Pillar two and the US tax system ‘could work in harmony’, Scott Levine tells ITR in an exclusive interview to mark his arrival at Baker McKenzie
Peter White, who has a tax debt of A$2 million, has been banned for five years from seeking registration with Australia’s Tax Practitioners Board (TPB)
Wopke Hoekstra’s comments followed US measures aimed against ‘unfair foreign taxes’; in other news, Grant Thornton and Holland & Knight made key tax partner hires
An Administrative Review Tribunal ruling last month in Australia v Alcoa represents a 'concerning trend' for the tax authority, one expert tells ITR
A recent decision underlines that Indian courts are more willing to look beyond just legal compliance and examine whether foreign investment structures have real business substance
Following his Liberal Party’s election victory, one source expects Mark Carney to follow the international consensus on pillar two, as experts assess the new administration
A German economics professor was reportedly ‘irritated’ by how the Finnish ministry of finance used his data
Countries that care about the fair taxation of tech multinationals and equitable global distribution of wealth should back the UN’s tax framework, writes economist Abdelmalek Riad
The cuts disproportionately affected staff in certain positions, the report also found; in other news, MHA announced the €24m acquisition of Baker Tilly South East Europe
Gift this article