adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Economy

What now for the G7 tax deal on multinationals?

Published

 on

The G7’s weekend agreement on a global minimum corporate tax rate and arrangements for taxing multinationals paves the way for a broader deal in the coming weeks that could reshape cross-border taxation for years to come.

Hailed as historic by its backers, the deal nonetheless contains much detail that still needs to be hammered out in time for countries of the wider G20 grouping to give it their support at a meeting scheduled for next month.

Here is what we know so far and what remains unclear:

WILL THE G7 DEAL APPLY WORLDWIDE?

300x250x1

The G7 deal for a global minimum corporate tax of at least 15% sets the stage for the next step, which is a June 30-July 1 online meeting of the 139 countries negotiating future rules for cross-border taxation at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris.

The countries aim to reach a consensus at the meeting on the details, as much technical work has already been done. Any accord from that meeting will then go before G20 finance ministers for endorsement when they meet in Venice on July 9-10.

The OECD and the United States have said a final sign-off might not be possible until a subsequent G20 meeting in October, because the U.S. position may not be firm by July as a domestic tax package will be going through Congress.

A G20 sign-off would mean the world’s largest economies will implement it, so its reach would effectively be worldwide.

IS THIS THE END OF TAX HAVENS?

If the deal does not kill off tax havens entirely, it will make them far less attractive for many firms looking to cut their tax bill but also burnish their credentials with investors focusing on environmental, social and corporate governance.

The whole idea of the global minimum tax is that it gives countries the right to add a top-up tax on company profits in countries with tax rates lower than the global minimum.

Moreover, the G7 wants the minimum rate to be applied on a country-by-country basis rather than an average across the countries a company operates in – an approach considered far tougher on tax havens.

So if a U.S. company books profit in the British Virgin Islands, where there is no corporate tax, U.S. tax authorities could apply a 15% tax on those profits – if that’s the global minimum figure finally agreed on.

HOW WILL THIS APPLY TO MULTINATIONALS?

A separate part of the international tax talks deals with how to divvy up governments’ rights to tax excess, or non-routine, profit of the biggest multinationals, among them major digital companies such as Apple and Google.

The G7 agreed that governments should get the right to tax at least 20% of the profit earned in their country by a multinational over a 10% margin. All indications are that the excess profit would also be subject to the global minimum.

That said, a lot of the metrics still need to be worked out and there is still scope for such companies to make their point of view heard within the debate.

WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE LOOPHOLES?

Countries negotiating the global tax are likely to exempt some sectors. For example, extractive industries are likely to be carved out as companies usually pay royalties upfront to the government where the mines or oilfields are located. There has also been talk of carve-outs for certain financial services.

Officials say some nations want wiggle room on tax breaks for research and development. Others, such as China, want to protect low-tax economic zones they use to attract investment.

WILL THIS MEAN BIG GOVERNMENT WINDFALLS?

The OECD calculated in October that a global minimum tax could yield $100 billion a year, or 4% of global corporate income tax. That’s probably on the low side as it was based on a 12.5% rate, which was the focus of talks at the time.

As big as the headline figure sounds, however, it’s a drop in the ocean compared with the trillions of dollars that governments around the world have spent to keep their economies afloat during the COVID-19 pandemic.

WHAT ABOUT THE NETHERLANDS, LUXEMBOURG AND SWITZERLAND?

Such countries with tax advantages have seen the writing on the wall in recent years and have been closing tax loopholes, while trying to compete for foreign capital on terms other than just low taxes.

Ireland, where many U.S. tech companies have big operations, has said it will keep its 12.5% corporate tax rate regardless of what gets decided internationally.

Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe estimates that Ireland’s annual corporate tax take will be about 20% or 2 billion euros lower than it otherwise would have been by 2025 due to the anticipated changes but does not expect a massive outflow of companies from its shores.

Switzerland, which is under pressure from abroad, has promised to eliminate special low tax rates that benefited about 24,000 foreign companies based there.

“Switzerland will take the necessary measures to continue to be a highly attractive business location,” the finance ministry said in a statement.

Thanks to its intricate net of tax treaties with other countries, the Netherlands can expect to remain a conduit for multinationals to pass profits from one subsidiary to another at favourable rates.

While the corporate tax rate in the Netherlands is 25%, the Dutch began this year taxing outbound royalty and interest payments to places where the corporate tax rate is below 9%, and plans to do the same for outgoing dividends from 2024.

However, it is not clear when the G7 agreement will go into effect and the Dutch rules could still change before 2024.

 

(Additional reporting by Toby Sterling in Amsterdam, Padraic Halpin in Dublin and Silke Koltrowitz in Zurich; Editing by Mark John and David Clarke)

Continue Reading

Economy

Yellen Sounds Alarm on China ‘Global Domination’ Industrial Push – Bloomberg

Published

 on


US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen slammed China’s use of subsidies to give its manufacturers in key new industries a competitive advantage, at the cost of distorting the global economy, and said she plans to press China on the issue in an upcoming visit.

“There is no country in the world that subsidizes its preferred, or priority, industries as heavily as China does,” Yellen said in an interview with MSNBC Wednesday — highlighting “massive” aid to electric-car, battery and solar producers. “China’s desire is to really have global domination of these industries.”

Adblock test (Why?)

300x250x1

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Opinion: The future economy will suffer if Canada axes the carbon tax – The Globe and Mail

Published

 on


Open this photo in gallery:

Poilievre holds a press conference regarding his “Axe the Tax” message from the roof a parking garage in St. John’s on Oct.27, 2023.Paul Daly/The Canadian Press

Kevin Yin is a contributing columnist for The Globe and Mail and an economics doctoral student at the University of California, Berkeley.

The carbon tax is the single most effective climate policy that Canada has. But the tax is also an important industrial strategy, one that bets correctly on the growing need for greener energy globally and the fact that upstart Canadian companies must rise to meet these needs.

That is why it is such a shame our leaders are sacrificing it for political gains.

300x250x1

The fact that carbon taxes address a key market failure in the energy industry – polluters are not incentivized to consider the broader societal costs of their pollution – is so well understood by economists that an undergraduate could explain its merits. Experts agree on the effectiveness of the policy for reducing emissions almost as much as they agree on climate change itself.

It is not just that pollution is bad for us. That a patchwork of policies supporting clean industries is proliferating across the United States, China and the European Union means that Canada needs its own hospitable ecosystem for clean-energy companies to set up shop and eventually compete abroad. The earlier we nurture such industries, the more benefits our energy and adjacent sectors can reap down the line.

But with high fixed costs of entry and non-negligible technological hurdles, domestic clean energy is still at a significant disadvantage relative to fossil fuels.

A nuclear energy company considering a reactor project in Canada, for example, must contend with the fact that the upfront investments are enormous, and they may not pay off for years, while incumbent oil and gas firms benefit from low fixed costs, faster economies of scale and established technology.

The carbon tax cannot address these problems on its own, but it does help level the playing field by encouraging demand and capital to flow toward where we need it most. Comparable policies like green subsidies are also useful, but second-best; they weaken the government’s balance sheet and in certain cases can even make emissions worse.

Unfortunately, these arguments hold little sway for Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives, who called for a vote of no-confidence on the dubious basis that the carbon tax is driving the cost-of-living crisis. Nor is it of much consequence to provincial leaders, who have fought the federal government hard on implementing the tax.

Not only is this attack a misleading characterization of the tax’s impact, it is also a deeply political gambit. Most expected the vote to fail. Yet by centering the next election on the carbon tax debate, Mr. Poilievre is hedging against the possibility of a new Liberal candidate, one who lacks the Trudeau baggage but still holds the line on the tax.

With the reality of inflation, a housing crisis and a general atmosphere of Trudeau-exhaustion, Mr. Poilievre has plenty of ammunition for an election campaign that does not leave our climate and our clean industries at risk. The temptation to do what is popular is ever-present in politics. Leadership is knowing when not to.

Nor are the Liberals innocent on this front. The Trudeau government deserves credit for pushing the tax through in the first place, and for structuring it as revenue-neutral. But the government’s attempt to woo Atlantic voters with the heating oil exemption has eroded its credibility and opened a vulnerable flank for Conservative attacks.

Thus, Canadian businesses are faced with the possibility of a Conservative government which has promised to eliminate the tax altogether. This kind of uncertainty is a treacherous environment for nascent companies and existing companies on the precipice of investing billions of dollars in clean tech and processes, under the expectation that demand for their fossil fuel counterparts are being kept at bay.

The tax alone is not enough; the government and opposition need to show the private sector that it can be consistent about this new policy regime long enough for these green investments to pay off. Otherwise, innovation in these much-needed technologies will remain stagnant in Canada, and markets for clean energy will be dominated by our more forward-thinking competitors.

A carbon tax is not a panacea for our climate woes, but it is central to any attempt to protect a rapidly warming planet and to develop the right businesses for that future. We can only hope that the next generation of Canadian leaders will have a little more vision.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Economy

Business leaders say housing biggest risk to economy: KPMG survey – BNN Bloomberg

Published

 on


Business leaders see the housing crisis as the biggest risk to the economy, a new survey from KPMG Canada shows.

It found 94 per cent of respondents agreed that high housing costs and a lack of supply are the top risk, and that housing should be a main focus in the upcoming federal budget. The survey questioned 534 businesses.

Housing issues are forcing businesses to boost pay to better attract talent and budget for higher labour costs, agreed 87 per cent of respondents. 

300x250x1

“What we’re seeing in the survey is that the businesses are needing to pay more to enable their workers to absorb these higher costs of living,” said Caroline Charest, an economist and Montreal-based partner at KPMG.

The need to pay more not only directly affects business finances, but is also making it harder to tamp down the inflation that is keeping interest rates high, said Charest.

High housing costs and interest rates are straining households that are already struggling under high debt, she said.

“It leaves household balance sheets more vulnerable, in particular, in a period of economic slowdown. So it creates areas of vulnerability in the economy.”

Higher housing costs are themselves a big contributor to inflation, also making it harder to get the measure down to allow for lower rates ahead, she said. 

Businesses have been raising the alarm for some time. 

A report out last year from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce also emphasized how much the housing crisis is affecting how well businesses can attract talent. 

Almost 90 per cent of businesses want to see more public-private collaboration to help solve the crisis, the KPMG survey found.

“How can we work bringing all stakeholders, that being governments, not-for-profit organizations and the community and the private sector together, to find solutions to develop new models to deliver housing,” said Charest.

“That came out pretty strong from our survey of businesses.”

The federal government has been working to roll out more funding supports for other levels of government, and introduced measures like a GST rebate for rental housing construction, but it only has limited direct control on the file. 

Part of the federal funding has been to link funding to measures provinces and municipalities adopt that could help boost supply. 

The vast majority of respondents to the KPMG survey supported tax measures to make housing payments more affordable, such as making mortgage interest tax deductible, but also want to maintain the capital gains tax exemption for a primary residence.

The survey of companies was conducted in February using Sago’s Methodify online research platform. Respondents were business owners or executive-level decision makers.

About a third of the leaders are at companies with revenue over $500 million, about half have revenue between $100 million and $500 million, with the rest below. 

This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 27, 2024.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending