OECD Inclusive Framework
OECD Pillar One and Pillar Two explained
With its sweeping international tax reforms, the OECD two-pillar solution seeks to address pressing challenges that have developed as a result of digitalization of the global economy. Bloomberg Tax helps you stay ahead of these cross-border tax issues and effectively manage your corporate tax planning strategy with in-depth expert analysis, news, practice tools, and compliance guidance.
Your international tax connection
Take your international tax planning to the next level with expert insights and practitioner perspectives to help you respond appropriately and effectively to global tax developments.
While the digital economy has grown substantially over the last three decades, international tax regulations have struggled to keep pace. This digitalization has changed the landscape for businesses that operate in foreign markets and undermined traditional tax structures. Because e-commerce enables goods and services to be sold around the world, businesses are no longer required to have a permanent establishment, or a physical presence, where they do business. This lack of physical presence means that e-commerce revenue may not enter a jurisdiction’s financial system and makes it harder for those taxing authorities to monitor transactions and enforce tax laws.
As a result, some multinational companies have avoided paying taxes using accounting techniques and international tax planning strategies that exploit differences in tax regulations to manage their tax liability in a manner that works against the tax collecting authorities where they do business.
[Get insights on key issues impacting tax policy under the new administration with our 2025 Tax Outlook.]
What is base erosion and profit shifting?
Base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) is a tax planning strategy implemented by multinational companies that involves exploiting gaps and mismatches in tax rules to avoid paying tax, such as moving profits to low- or no-tax jurisdictions where there is little or no economic activity. BEPS reduces tax bases through deductible payments, such as interest or royalties.
While some of these practices are illegal, most aren’t. But the use of BEPS practices can mean that countries – including developing countries, which rely more heavily on corporate taxes – don’t receive the tax revenue they would have otherwise. In fact, BEPS actions cost countries between $100 billion and $240 billion in tax revenue each year, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Some countries have tried to navigate these digital taxation issues themselves by levying digital services taxes (DSTs) to protect their tax base and tax revenue from certain digital commercial activities that occur within their jurisdiction. However, these DSTs can create the potential for double taxation, and don’t address the underlying issue of tax law and rate differences between jurisdictions.
What is the OECD Inclusive Framework?
The OECD has been working with governments, policymakers, and citizens around the globe to develop its OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS, which aims to standardize international taxation by establishing a “modern international tax framework to ensure profits are taxed where economic activity and value creation occur,” the OECD notes.
The Inclusive Framework “equips governments with the domestic and international instruments needed to tackle tax avoidance” in addition to giving businesses “greater certainty by reducing disputes over the application of international tax rules,” according to the OECD.
Since 2021, more than 140 countries have agreed to the global tax deal to address BEPS practices through a two-pillar proposal, known as Pillar One and Pillar Two:
- Pillar One establishes new nexus and profit allocation rules for large multinational enterprises that meet certain revenue and profitability thresholds.
- Pillar Two establishes mechanisms to ensure large multinationals pay a 15% global minimum tax.
While Pillar One is still being negotiated, more than three dozen countries have agreed to adopt Pillar Two.
U.S. withdrawal from the OECD global tax agreement
In Jan. 2025, President Trump issued a memorandum stating that the OECD’s Inclusive Framework has “no force or effect” in the U.S., effectively pulling the country out of the multilateral agreement.
While the Biden administration supported the global tax agreement, Congress never ratified it into law.
The first Trump administration began work on the OECD international tax deal to try and end digital taxes on large U.S.-based tech companies like Google, Meta, and Amazon. Since then, the agreement has shifted into a set of policies generally disliked by congressional Republicans – in particular, Pillar Two’s undertaxed profits rule that allows countries to charge a top-up tax to corporations that don’t pay the 15% global minimum tax is viewed as “retaliatory” by many GOP officials.
[Get insights on key issues impacting tax policy under the new administration with our 2025 Tax Outlook.]
Along with his order to withdraw from the OECD global tax deal, Trump issued another memorandum invoking Section 891 of the U.S. Code to allow the U.S. to double the tax rate on foreign corporations or individuals whose governments impose “discriminatory or extraterritorial” taxes on American businesses.
In response, House Republicans re-introduced the Defending American Jobs and Investment Act. The bill would raise U.S. income tax rates on investors and corporations in those countries identified as having imposed “discriminatory and extraterritorial” taxes against American businesses. Once enacted, this new income tax rate would increase by five percentage points each year for four years, raising the tax rate by 20 percentage points in total.
Bloomberg Industry Group’s Annie Sheehan dives into Trump’s OECD memorandum effectively pulling the U.S. out of the multilateral agreement to reduce base erosion and profit shifting.
OECD and TCJA implications for global businesses
The U.S. withdrawal from the OECD agreement may trigger a renegotiation of the Pillar Two global minimum tax’s treatment of the U.S. research and development (R&D) tax credit.
The global minimum tax rules treat the R&D credit unfavorably because it’s a reduction in tax expense rather than a refundable credit. As a result, companies that take advantage of the credit will be subject to more top-up tax under the Pillar Two rules. Practitioners often point to two options to be compliant:
- Passing a domestic 15% minimum rate that aligns with Pillar Two rules
- Tweaking the U.S.’s own global minimum tax regime, known as GILTI
Under the current Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) tax law, GILTI, or the global intangible low-taxed income regime, imposes an average minimum tax rate between 10.5% and 13.1% on U.S. companies’ foreign income. However, unless Congress acts to extend it, the GILTI tax rate is set to increase to around 16% once the TCJA expires at the end of 2025.
While it’s unlikely that the Republican-controlled Congress would change the tax code to align more with Pillar Two, the Trump administration may try to negotiate something separately with the OECD that wouldn’t affect the GILTI regime. But it’s uncertain whether other countries involved in the OECD discussions would agree to that.
Tax Analyst Alexis Sharp breaks down key product features of our subscriber-only OECD Watch Page to help you stay informed of key OECD developments.
OECD Pillar One summary
Pillar One of the OECD Inclusive Framework establishes new nexus and profit allocation rules and will require changes to both domestic tax law and double tax treaties. It uses revenue sourcing rules to determine whether revenue derives from a market jurisdiction, and profit allocation rules to allocate profits to those market jurisdictions. Pillar One eliminates double taxation and clarifies filing and payment requirements.
Multilateral instrument to prevent BEPS
As part of Pillar One, the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent BEPS – also known as the Multilateral Instrument or the MLI – supplements and modifies existing income tax treaties to eliminate double taxation and remove the need for governments to bilaterally negotiate international tax treaties. The MLI entered into force on July 1, 2018.
The MLI includes minimum standards, which are provisions that must be adopted by every signatory to the MLI, as well as optional provisions. These mandatory minimum standards seek to “tackle issues in cases where no action by some countries would have created negative spillovers (including adverse impacts on competitiveness) on other countries,” such as with the issues of dispute resolution and combating harmful tax practices, according to the OECD.
Specifically, these minimum standards relate to:
- Preferential tax regimes (Action 5)
- The exchange of information on tax rulings (Action 5)
- The prevention of treaty abuse (Action 6)
- Reexamination of transfer pricing documentation (Action 13)
- Dispute resolution (Action 14)
According to the OECD, more than 140 countries and jurisdictions are working to implement the BEPS package’s 15 Actions to tackle tax avoidance, improve the coherence of international tax rules, and ensure a more transparent tax environment. As of Jan. 17, 2024, there are 102 signatories and parties to the MLI.
What’s the economic impact of Pillar One?
Pillar One’s new nexus and profit allocation rules expand the taxing rights of market jurisdictions regardless of physical presence. For instance, under the draft nexus and sourcing rules for the OECD Pillar One Amount A, nexus is triggered when, over a 12-month period, an in-scope multinational enterprise derives at least €1 million in revenue from a market jurisdiction. For smaller jurisdictions with a GDP of less than €40 billion, the nexus is €250,000.
Pillar One also establishes a fixed return for baseline marketing and distribution activities and improves tax certainty through effective dispute prevention and resolution mechanisms.
Pillar One reallocates the profits of approximately 100 of the world’s largest and most profitable multinational enterprises to market jurisdictions: those with global turnover of more than €20 billion and a profitability margin of more than 10%, calculated using an averaging mechanism. The turnover threshold can be reduced to €10 billion upon the successful implementation of the Pillar One proposals, including the tax certainty aspects.
Pillar One Amount A
Under the draft nexus and sourcing rules for the OECD Pillar One Amount A, nexus is triggered when, over a 12-month period, an in-scope multinational enterprise derives at least €1 million in revenue from a market jurisdiction. For smaller jurisdictions with a GDP of less than €40 billion, the nexus is €250,000.
Pillar One Amount B
Pillar One Amount B, known as the “Simplified and Streamlined Approach,” establishes a fixed return for baseline marketing and distribution activities. This simplified approach aims to reduce transfer pricing disputes and compliance costs while providing increased tax certainty for administrations and taxpayers. However, the optional implementation and limited scope are complicating its application.
[Download our OnPoint for analysis of the OECD’s report on Pillar One – Amount B, plus key takeaways for multinationals.]
OECD Pillar Two summary
Pillar Two ensures multinational enterprises (MNEs) pay a global minimum tax of 15%, regardless of where the headquarters are located or the jurisdictions in which the company operates. Pillar Two establishes this minimum effective tax rate (ETR) for large MNEs through its Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) rules – two interlocking domestic rules known as the Income Inclusion Rule and the Undertaxed Payments Rule – which calculate and impose additional top-up taxes if the ETR falls below the 15% minimum.
Pillar Two is expected to bring in about $150 billion in additional global tax revenues annually, along with the stabilization of the international tax system and increased tax certainty for taxpayers and administrations.
Who does Pillar Two apply to?
The GloBE rules apply to multinational enterprises and their subsidiaries that have annual gross revenues of €750 million in the consolidated financial statements of the Ultimate Parent Entity (UPE) in at least two of the four fiscal years immediately preceding the relevant fiscal year. Pillar Two applies to large MNEs that meet the requisite revenue threshold – targeting approximately 2,000 corporations – and seeks to ensure that these MNEs pay a minimum level of tax by applying the GloBE rules and Subject to Tax Rule.
Subject to Tax Rule
The Subject to Tax Rule is a treaty-based rule that allows source jurisdictions to impose limited source taxation on certain base-eroding payments between related parties subject to tax below 9%. For example, if a jurisdiction applies a 5% tax rate for royalty receipts, a 4% top-up tax could be collected by the payer’s jurisdiction.
[Download our OnPoint to discover what you need to know about the OECD’s Subject-to-Tax Rule, including when it applies, how to calculate, administration, and more.]
Pillar Two exemptions
Various types of entities are exempt from these rules, including government entities, international organizations, nonprofit organizations, pension funds, investment funds, and real estate investment funds when they are the UPE.
“No force or effect” in U.S.
Given the U.S.’s withdrawal from the OECD global initiative and President Trump’s declaration that the initiative has “no force or effect” in the U.S., American-based MNEs that otherwise would meet the revenue threshold may not be subject to these rules.
Those countries that do impose tax rules found by the Treasury Department to disproportionately affect American companies could be subjected to “protective measures” by the U.S., including higher tax rates.
When will the Pillar Two rules go into effect?
Model rules to implement the global minimum tax were issued on Dec. 20, 2021. In December 2022, the European Commission finalized a directive on Pillar Two implementation with unanimous agreement from EU member states, requiring each to transpose key aspects into domestic law by Dec. 31, 2023. The OECD secretary-general previously acknowledged in May 2022 that practical implementation was more likely from 2024 onward.
Country-by-country implementation of the Pillar Two rules vary widely, as the GloBE rules need to be enacted and implemented through domestic legislation by member countries. Implementation of the Subject to Tax Rule requires the development of a model treaty provision and subsequent multilateral instrument. The OECD published a progress report in July 2023 that included guidance on model treaty language to enact the Subject to Tax Rule.
Notably, members of the Inclusive Framework aren’t required to adopt GloBE rules. But if they do, they must implement and administer the rules consistently with the outcomes provided for under Pillar Two. For instance, jurisdictions that adopt GloBE rules will apply an effective tax rate test using a common tax base and common definition of covered taxes to determine whether an entity is subject to an ETR below the agreed 15% minimum tax rate in any jurisdiction where it operates.
Nearly one-third of the more than 140 Inclusive Framework member jurisdictions have either committed to implementing, taken steps toward implementation, or enacted legislation to implement the framework.
How to prepare for Pillar Two deadlines
With so many jurisdictions at various stages of implementing the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS two-pillar solution, tax professionals should start their international tax planning now so they are equipped with the tools for compliance as this massive framework goes into effect.
First, companies should confirm which countries are relevant to their operations. Then, answer the following questions to track their progress toward Pillar Two adoption and implementation:
- Have those relevant countries already adopted the framework?
- If a relevant country hasn’t adopted the framework, how might this affect the business’s operations and taxation?
Tax professionals may also want to consider undertaking high-level calculations to determine the additional taxes that may be due upon the framework’s implementation.
Second, multinational companies can consider their internal plans for gathering information on taxation and related requirements. This may require establishing a multifunctional team that goes beyond the tax department and includes representatives from both the financial accounting and information technology departments.
Navigate digital services tax changes with confidence
As the OECD Inclusive Framework goes into effect around the world, Bloomberg Tax Research can help you stay ahead of any potential tax changes in the digital economy. Download our 2025 Tax Policy Outlook to help you navigate global issues that will affect tax policy in the coming year, including how the U.S. withdrawal from the OECD global tax agreement might affect U.S.-based corporations.
With global tax law and regulation changes always on the horizon, tax professionals need the right corporate tax planning strategies to stay ahead of cross-border developments and avoid unintended international tax consequences. Request a demo to see how Bloomberg Tax Research can keep you ahead of the shifting international tax landscape.