Writing in this month’s roundtable on the future of BEPS in light of US opposition Forvis Mazars’ Claire Healy writes, ‘One of the key aspects of the Global Tax Deal is its extraterritorial nature. This means that the rules can apply to multinational corporations regardless of where they are headquartered. Advocates for global tax reform argue that the success of the project does not hinge on US participation. The EU and other adopting jurisdictions can implement the rules and enforce them on companies operating within their borders, ensuring that these corporations pay their fair share of taxes.’ She adds that if the US remains outside the Global Tax Deal, ‘it could miss out on valuable tax revenue that would instead flow to the EU and other jurisdictions’ and suggests that the US already has a ready-made solution to align with ‘Global Tax Deal’ with signing up fully. ‘One possible approach could be expanding its current minimum tax regime, known as the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) tax, to cover additional sources of income. By doing so, the US could effectively align with the principles of the Global Tax Deal without formally rejoining it.’

On a similar point PwC’s Peter Reilly describes the US’ GILTI tax as a precursor to Pillar Two IIR. He writes that arguably the US was never fully in the ‘Global Tax Deal’ and its refusal to sign up ‘does not stop other countries from going ahead with its implementation, bearing in mind that over 50 countries globally have already embedded some form of Pillar Two legislation in their domestic laws, with dozens more in progress. Whilst the Pillar Two train has already left the station (leaving Pillar One’s Amount A behind, which has been stalled for years now), the new US Administration’s publicly expressed intentions through its Executive Orders will inevitably impact, and potentially modify, the direction of travel this train takes.’

Forvis Mazars’ Joe Walsh writes on the US/Ireland Double Taxation Treaty (DTA) and how elements of Pillar Two, notably the UTPR, are applicable to certain companies (MNEs) and not other (Irish) companies and while this is only a case of ensuring a level playing field, ‘the mechanism for collecting the top-up taxes differs depending on the ownership of the MNE Group. This could be seen as conflicting with the Non-Discrimination Article [of the US/Ireland DTA].

Also on the topic of DTAs BDO’s Michelle Adams looks at the ‘Susquehanna’ case in the High Court, which, she writes will assist with future interpretations of the tax treaties when considering the tax position of LLCs.’

In considering the implications for Ireland if the US Administration reduces its CT rate to 15%, PwC’s Reilly writes, ‘the ability of the new US administration to enact a cut in the federal corporation tax rate from 21% to 15% is laden with difficulties’ and the US fiscal outlook is much different compared to President Trump’s first term with a significantly higher debt to GDP ratio and larger annual deficit. He sees the threat of tariffs as a greater concern for Ireland.

Corporation Tax, Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax were the subjects of some of the most interesting recent determinations from the Tax Appeal Commission with Forvis Mazars’ Aisling Curran and PwC’s Peter Reilly offering their insights on these.

Transfer pricing and the Revenue Commissioners’ increased focus on policies in the area is covered by BDO’s Katie Auld in her feature article in which she also outlines the increasing importance of transfer pricing adjustments in light of tariffs being introduced by the United States.

This article appeared in the March 2025 edition of the Irish Tax Monitor.