{"id":10124,"date":"2023-06-20T08:40:00","date_gmt":"2023-06-20T07:40:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.taxpolicy.org.uk\/?p=10124"},"modified":"2023-06-21T13:34:35","modified_gmt":"2023-06-21T12:34:35","slug":"pillartwo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/heacham.neidles.com\/2023\/06\/20\/pillartwo\/","title":{"rendered":"So you dislike the OECD global minimum corporate tax? Tough. The UK now has to implement it, or we’ll lose out."},"content":{"rendered":"\n
The reason for this is simple:<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are 137 countries coloured on that map. Each has signed up to the OECD global minimum tax (sometimes referred to as GLoBE or “Pillar Two”). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Some are already implementing – including such free market stalwarts as Singapore<\/a>. Others are discussing implementation details. And many others have signed but are yet to kick off implementation – international tax measures are always slow, and there have been<\/a> distractions<\/a>. There is an interactive version of our OECD globe here<\/a>.1<\/a><\/sup>And the code is on our GitHub here<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n This means GLoBE is likely to have a critical mass of implementing countries. Its design renders that very important.<\/p>\n\n\n There have been many other international tax proposals over the years to end, or at least reduce, “tax competition”2<\/a><\/sup>Views differ on what precisely “tax competition” is, whether there has been a “race to the bottom”<\/a>, and whether it is a good thing, bad thing or both. This post isn’t about that – it’s about the narrow question of how Pillar Two works, and the incentives it creates<\/span>. They’ve almost3<\/a><\/sup>The big exception is the Destination-Based Cash Flow Tax<\/a>, which I will write more about in the future<\/span> suffered from a fatal flaw – they reward countries that don’t follow the crowd. It’s a particular problem with the various unitary tax proposals where every country taxes companies on the basis of the same formula (which typically takes into account the location of sales, employees and assets). That creates a massive incentive on countries to apply a slightly different formula – tada, tax competition is back! And an obvious incentives for other countries to simply not sign up at all. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The OECD global minimum tax is much smarter than that. It has three main components:<\/p>\n\n\n\n So here’s what happens if the UK doesn’t implement the global minimum tax:<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is no upside here. Failing to implement is worse for both HMG and UK plc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And this is why even countries that you might expect to duck GLoBE are in fact adopting it. Singapore and Switzerland, for example – with the Swiss even voting for it in a public referendum<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n Priti Patel says that GLoBE is “permanent worldwide socialism”, and says in her Telegraph piece<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are several responses to this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first is that, no matter how bad she thinks GLoBE is, I’m afraid she’s just too late. This is an argument Patel could have made in 2021, when the UK could probably have derailed the whole process on its own. But GLoBE has reached critical mass and the only rational course of action is to join the party. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The second is to wonder why, if GLoBE is “permanent worldwide socialism”, Patel’s own government, when she was Home Secretary, was instrumental in creating it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The third (and least important) response is that this isn’t a very good argument. It’s true that the new OECD rules mean that the UK and other countries have a minimum 15% corporate tax rate. It’s also true that some forms of subsidies are permitted under the OECD tax rules6<\/a><\/sup>“Qualified Refundable Tax Credits” – and, again, this gets very complicated very quickly<\/span>. But the UK is in exactly the same position here as everyone else. A pound spent on tax cuts is the same as a pound spent on subsidies. If we could afford to dish out \u00a3 in tax cuts and special tax reliefs, we could equally afford to pay out the same amount in GLoBE-compliant subsidies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In any event, the idea that the UK would ever have had a corporation tax rate below than 15% is fanciful – no mainstream politician has ever argued for reducing it below 17%. There’s plenty of scope for tax competition or (if you prefer to put it differently) changing aspects of the UK tax system which plausibly hold back growth. Here are some ideas:<\/p>\n\n\n\n When I was in practice, I often advised multinationals looking for a headquarters location, and undecided between half a dozen different countries. They weighed every factor you can think of: transport links, trade agreements, telecommunications, education system, cost of living, culture, personal tax and corporate tax. Of these, corporate tax wasn’t near the top of the list, and when it was considered, certainty (or lack of) was perceived as a much more important factor than the rate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By contrast, corporate tax is an absolutely key element in attracting profit-shifting special purpose vehicles, with the rate being less important than the base (i.e. if you can offset almost all your profits with magic payments to Bermuda then the rate of tax on the remaining profit becomes of academic interest). GLoBE definitely stops that, at least for MNEs, but it’s not a game the UK has much need to play.<\/p>\n\n\n Here are two much better arguments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Everything above assumes that other countries are going to implement? What if they don’t?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A fair point. The UK implemented<\/a> the last set of OECD tax proposals<\/a> years before the EU<\/a> and most other countries. I don’t think it’s wise to repeat that, and HM Treasury should make regulations that allow it to defer implementation until a critical mass of countries are themselves about to implement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hang on, the US hasn’t implemented this. There is no critical mass!<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n It’s certainly true that the US is the obvious blank space on the rotating globe above. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Trump Administration in many ways inspired and enabled <\/a>the global minimum tax with its GILTI rules<\/a>, which are similar but more limited to the OECD minimum tax. The Biden Administration now probably wishes it could sign up to the OECD rules – but passing tax legislation through Congress is always challenging, and in recent times close to impossible. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So that means US-headquartered multinationals will be subject to the UTPR, which is highly unpopular<\/a> with some Republican congresspeople. Whether they can do anything about it is another question. If 2024 sees a Republican President elected then things could become very complicated, with a tax\/trade war not out of the question. But absent that, the US’s non-participation is unlikely to have any implications for the rest of us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n GILTI and other features of the US tax system make it an unattractive headquarters destination, and UTPR will be a problem for its multinationals for some time to come. The US’s absence won’t stop GLoBE from achieving critical mass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
GLoBE’s design brilliance<\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\n
The arguments against implementing GLoBE<\/h2>\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n
Good arguments against implementing GLoBE<\/h2>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n