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

ITR understands that UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves will announce a consultation on the proposed financial reward scheme, which had left advisers fretting
The long-running dispute centres on Medtronic’s use of the comparable uncontrolled transaction TP method; in other news, Paul Hastings and FTI Consulting both made double tax hires
The boutique Australian firm’s TP award recognition proves that world-class advisory services aren’t limited to the ‘big four’, the firm’s founder tells ITR
Canadian and Indian dual VAT models have been a source of inspiration for the Brazilian model, but the latter has unique and innovative features, the OECD paper claimed
More sophisticated use of technology, heightened TP scrutiny and stricter filing requirements are making South African Revenue Service audits a formidable challenge
The hire of Doug Wick expands Baker McKenzie’s state and local tax practice and adds to the firm’s growing ex-IRS expertise
One year after Nuwaru joined the WTS network, leaders James Jobson and Matthew Missaghi reflect on the firm’s mission to offer mid-tier pricing but deliver top-tier results
Join ITR's Head of Research, John Harrison, for an overview of key dates, new developments, best practices, and more for next year’s research cycle
The president’s tariff regime has already caused misery for taxpayers. Losing at the Supreme Court would mean it was all for nothing
The US itself was the biggest loser of tax revenue to American multinationals’ profit shifting, the Tax Justice Network reported; in other news, firms made key tax hires
Gift this article