Get a global view of your tax liability and how key federal and international tax rules impact your bottom line
Tax laws and regulations around the world are constantly evolving. Understanding and managing tax risk within a rapidly changing global tax landscape has become increasingly important to multinational businesses for planning effective tax strategies, maintaining compliance, and ultimately reducing risk. Bloomberg Tax’s international tax planning solutions can help you navigate tax laws and understand your tax position wherever you do business.
Better understand your global tax position
Bloomberg Tax has practice tools and expert guidance to help corporate tax professionals assess the impact of global tax law changes and react quickly when changes occur. Browse our free resources below to understand the latest international tax developments and what you need to know to stay ahead.
An important part of any corporate tax planning strategy is staying ahead of new and changing tax laws around the world and understanding how these laws interact, so you can successfully navigate compliance challenges and manage a business entity’s tax burden. This international tax planning guide highlights opportunities for U.S.-based multinational corporations, as well as potential pitfalls and compliance risks to be aware of.
U.S. withdrawal from the OECD global tax agreement
President Trump issued a memorandum stating that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’s Inclusive Framework has “no force or effect” in the U.S., effectively pulling the country out of the multilateral agreement.
More than 140 countries have agreed to adopt the 15% global minimum tax to help reduce base erosion and profit-shifting practices. While the Biden administration supported the global tax agreement, Congress never ratified it into law.
As part of the undertaxed profits rule, OECD Inclusive Framework member countries can charge a top-up tax to corporations that don’t pay a 15% minimum tax, which is viewed as “retaliatory” by many GOP officials.
Tax implications for global businesses
Trump’s memorandum instructs the Treasury Secretary to develop “protective measures or other actions” against countries that impose “discriminatory or extraterritorial” taxes that target U.S. companies.
Concurrently 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 to Trump’s executive action to withdraw from the OECD global tax deal, 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.
[To understand all the tax changes and implications for international tax from the OBBBA, download International Tax Changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.]
Tax strategies for international corporations
For decades, the U.S. operated under a worldwide tax system, taxing foreign income either earned directly by, or returned as dividends, to domestic corporations at a 35% corporate rate – the third-highest among OECD member countries.
Due to the high tax rate relative to other countries, U.S.-based companies with foreign corporate subsidiaries often deferred paying these taxes, retaining profits earned in other countries, rather than issuing dividends.
To address these issues, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) made extensive changes to how foreign-sourced corporate income is taxed, by moving to more of a territorial-based system. Many companies have transitioned income tax planning for multinational corporations to include, defensively, a focus on preserving the full benefit of mechanisms that reduce double taxation, such as the foreign tax credit, and, offensively, working with the new rules to manage the impact of new tax structures introduced by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), including the net controlled foreign corporation (CFC) tested income (NCTI), which replaces the GILTI regime beginning in 2026.
When a U.S. person or corporation engages in foreign business operations or direct foreign investments, either directly or through U.S.-chartered corporate entities, they may also attract direct foreign income taxes. Any tax imposed abroad therefore threatens to be a second layer of taxation.
The main accommodation of the U.S. tax system to the possibility of income taxation imposed by other countries is the foreign tax credit (FTC). The credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction of U.S. taxes for income taxes paid to foreign countries, up to the level of U.S. taxation.
The TCJA made significant changes to the calculation of foreign tax credits, including:
- Repealing the fair market value method of asset valuation for purposes of allocating and apportioning interest expense under §864(e)(2)
- Adding §904(b)(4), which provides rules for the treatment of §245A dividends
- Adding two new foreign tax credit limitation categories to §904(d)(1)
- Substantially amending the deemed-pair FTC under §960
- Repealing the indirect FTC under §902, which previously allowed an indirect FTC to domestic corporations that owned 10% or more of the voting stock in certain foreign corporations
The Treasury and IRS have released several sets of FTC regulations that address the changes made by the TCJA to the FTC regime. Most significantly, the 2020 proposed FTC regulations amend the definition of a creditable foreign income tax and amended certain sourcing and allocation and apportionment rules.
Base erosion and anti-abuse tax compliance strategies
The base erosion and anti-abuse tax (BEAT) is effectively a minimum tax rate of that applies to certain multinational corporate taxpayers that make significant deductible payments to foreign related parties. Sometimes referred to as a new alternative minimum tax, when it applies, BEAT increases tax liability for U.S. corporations and U.S. branches of non-U.S. corporations.
The base erosion percentage is generally calculated by dividing the aggregate amount of the taxpayer’s base erosion tax benefits – or deductions attributable to base erosion payments – by the total amount of the taxpayer’s deductions for the year.
The regulations implementing BEAT are designed to prevent its avoidance, so use caution when planning around your BEAT liability. Taxpayers should review their structure to determine whether they’re subject to BEAT and the reporting obligations that apply. Penalties starting at $25,000 may apply for not complying with reporting requirements.
Enacted in 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act made 10.5% the new permanent BEAT core rate beginning in 2026.
Tax planning implications of the NCTI (formerly GILTI) regime
The net CFC tested income (NCTI) regime, introduced by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) in 2025, replaced the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) regime established under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), effective in 2026.
This revised law effectively streamlines this additional tax on the foreign earnings of U.S. shareholders of certain Controlled Foreign Corporations (CFCs), including changes that result in a U.S. effective tax rate (ETR) on CFC net income of 12.6%.
Additionally, there is a 10% reduction to NCTI-related foreign income taxes eligible for credit in the U.S.
[For concise summaries of tax law changes and comparisons with the law prior to enactment, download International Tax Changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.]
Foreign-derived intangible income (FDII) deductions
Applicable to pre-2026 tax years, the foreign-derived intangible income (FDII) was designed to reduce the effective U.S. tax rate on certain types of foreign-source income. Beginning in 2026, FDII will become known as foreign-derived deduction-eligible income (FDDEI).
Foreign-derived intangible income (FDII) is a U.S. corporation’s intangible income, determined on a formulaic basis, when earned from serving foreign markets. U.S. corporations are entitled to a reduced tax rate through a deduction against FDII.
The TCJA created an effective FDII tax rate of 13.125% and the effective rate had been scheduled to increase. However, the OBBBA permanently reset the effective FDII rate at 14% beginning in 2026.
To benefit from this deduction, a taxpayer must establish that income is derived in connection with the sale of property for foreign use, or from the provision of services to a person located outside the U.S. Taxpayers should gather and retain documentation that shows the portion of their income that qualifies as FDII.
Generally, a U.S. person engaged in an outbound transfer of property to a foreign corporation recognizes gain even though such a transfer, in a purely domestic setting, may enjoy nonrecognition treatment. Therefore, the taxpayer should review its business structure to determine whether making such outbound transfers is economically viable, especially considering the potential impact of new U.S. tax regimes such as NCTI and FDDEI.
The TCJA made changes to the rules governing the outbound transfer of property used in a trade or business. Prior to the TCJA, there was an active trade or business exception under Section 367(a)(3) that allowed U.S. taxpayers to transfer property used in an active trade or business outside the U.S. without recognizing gain. However, the TCJA repealed this exception for transfers occurring after December 31, 2017.
Additionally, the TCJA expanded the definition of intangible property to include items such as goodwill, going concern value, and workforce in place, which were not previously included. This change means that transfers of such intangibles are now subject to taxation under the revised rules.
These changes make it more challenging for U.S. businesses to organize and operate in foreign jurisdictions by removing the ATB exception and expanding the scope of taxable intangibles, thereby increasing the tax implications of outbound transfers of property used in a trade of business.
Taxing earnings of foreign corporations
The U.S. tax system generally recognizes the separate identity of corporations, even when they’re owned and controlled by a single person or a controlled group. The earnings of domestic corporations are taxed twice: one tax is imposed on the income of an entity, and another is imposed on dividend distributions to shareholders.
In international transactions, however, the separate identity of corporations may prevent the U.S. from taxing the earnings of foreign corporations owned by U.S. persons. Because a foreign corporation is a separate foreign person – and hence a separate foreign taxpayer – it’s not immediately subject to U.S. taxation on its income derived outside the U.S.
Dividend received deductions (DRD) from foreign corporations
A U.S. corporation that receives a dividend from a specified 10%-owned foreign corporation with respect to which the domestic corporation is a U.S. shareholder may be entitled to a dividends received deduction (DRD) under §245A.
A specified 10%-owned foreign corporation is a foreign corporation that has any domestic corporation as a U.S. shareholder. And a U.S. shareholder is any U.S. person who owns 10% or more (by vote or value) of stock in the foreign corporation.
The §245A DRD amount is equal to 100% of the “foreign-source portion” of the dividend, but certain holding period requirements apply. Any taxpayer who receives a §245A DRD may not claim a foreign tax credit or take a deduction for any taxes paid or accrued with respect to the dividend for which the §245A DRD is allowed. If you haven’t already, consider reviewing your business structure to determine if your company can benefit from this deduction.
Controlled foreign corporations and subpart F income
U.S. shareholders are generally required to include in income their pro rata share of subpart F income, including the amount of subpart F income of a CFC whose stock they owned on the last day in that year.
However, the final §956 regulations issued in 2019 allow certain corporate U.S. shareholders of CFCs to reduce the amount of income inclusion determined under §956 to the extent the shareholders are eligible for the §245A DRD. It’s important to review the taxpayer’s ownership structure to determine whether these changes apply to them.
Sale of interest in partnerships engaged in U.S. trade or business
A nonresident alien individual or foreign corporation that owns, directly or indirectly, an interest in a partnership that’s engaged in a U.S. trade or business may be treated as deriving gain or loss that’s effectively connected with such trade or business upon the sale or exchange of all or a portion of the partnership interest. A nonresident alien individual or foreign corporation that’s treated as deriving effectively connected gain or loss may be subject to a U.S. withholding tax.
Generally, if withholding is required, the transferee purchasing the partnership interest must withhold 10% of the amount realized on the sale or exchange. Thus, a taxpayer purchasing any such interest from a foreign person may be required to withhold 10% of the amount realized. If the taxpayer fails to withhold the correct amount, the partnership in which the taxpayer owns an interest is obligated to deduct and withhold from distributions to the taxpayer in the amount equal to 10% of the gain realized by the transferor plus interest, if any. However, there is no liability for failure to withhold, or any interest, penalties, or additions to tax, if the person required to withhold establishes that no gain on the transfer is treated as effectively connected with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business.
Transfer pricing, income shifting, and tax havens
The U.S. system of taxing foreign income may seem straightforward at first glance but can become overwhelmingly complex upon closer examination. This complexity is the product of an effort to formalize distinctions in U.S. tax law between legitimate business operations outside the U.S. and maneuvers considered to be tax haven operations.
A tax haven isn’t always immediately obvious. What makes a particular environment a tax haven isn’t invariably a low tax rate, but relations with other tax regimes that permit the ultimate deflection of income to a low-tax environment with which the income may have little economic connection. The U.S. tax system tends to consider international tax shelters to be transactional arrangements structured so that the underlying business activity and taxation occur in different places.
It should be noted that a low-taxed foreign business undertaking is not in itself a tax haven. For example, a resort hotel and casino owned and operated by a Cayman Islands subsidiary of a U.S. corporation wouldn’t be considered a tax shelter from the perspective of the U.S. tax system, even though taxation in the Caymans is beneficial in some cases.
If, however, ownership of a Miami hotel were structured so that its income was taxed in the Cayman Islands rather than the U.S., that can be considered to be a tax haven operation. International tax shelters have been severely constrained by statutes and treaties in recent decades, including the rules under Subpart F, as well as the GILTI regime.
An essential pattern in many international tax-sheltering operations is “income shifting,” which consists of arranging for income to be taxed in a country other than the one where it arose as an economic matter. The latter is typically a high-tax environment, while the former is not. A recurring ingredient in income shifting is artificial pricing in transactions between related persons, a problem known generally as “transfer pricing.” There is a battery of provisions in the U.S. tax system aimed at artificial transfer pricing in international transactions.
The mechanics of the transfer pricing rules continue to apply as in prior years. However, the IRS’s authority to require the valuation of transfers of intangibles on an aggregate basis or based on the realistic alternatives to such transfers has been confirmed by statute.
In addition, the definition of “intangible property” has been expanded to include goodwill, going concern value, and workforce in place. Therefore, if a taxpayer engaged in transactions that involved the transfer of intangibles during the year, the taxpayer must keep in mind that the IRS may arrive at a different value.
Bloomberg Tax helps you comply with confidence
Tax laws and compliance requirements across the world are constantly changing, creating uncertainty and adding more complexity to an already complicated field. Take charge of your corporate tax planning with expert analysis and guidance, timesaving practice tools, primary source documents, and more. Learn how Fortune 500 company Avnet uses Bloomberg Tax to save time on international tax research spanning 140 countries.
Bloomberg Tax is your single source for comprehensive international tax news and research. Request a demo to see how Bloomberg Tax can help you better understand your international tax position and develop sound strategies with in-depth research and analysis of how important changes to global tax rules affect the tax liability of multinational corporations.