2026

Lebovitz defends the OECD inclusive framework’s side-by-side pillar 2 package as a pragmatic compromise that accommodates U.S. international tax rules while preserving global minimum tax objectives. He argues that recognition of the U.S. GILTI/NCTI regime and related anti-base-erosion measures reduces conflict and encourages broader adoption of qualified domestic minimum top-up taxes. The piece frames the package as stabilizing the BEPS architecture, addressing developing country concerns, and setting the stage for the 2029 review.

U.S. Treasury officials declared OECD pillar 1 effectively defunct, reopening debate over digital economy taxation and market-based allocation of taxing rights. While pillar 2 continues through the side-by-side agreement, Treasury signaled that amount A lacked domestic political viability and must be reconsidered in its entirety. The announcement marks a major inflection point in global tax reform and injects renewed uncertainty into multilateral negotiations over cross-border profit allocation.

This viewpoint critiques the limited participation of business stakeholders in negotiations over the U.N. Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation and its early protocols. It highlights debates over new nexus standards, gross-basis withholding taxes, significant economic presence concepts, and alternatives to OECD amount B, emphasizing concerns about certainty and administrability. The article raises broader governance questions about transparency, neutrality, and structured engagement in the evolving U.N. tax architecture.

The Indian Supreme Court held that a Mauritius tax residency certificate is necessary but not sufficient for treaty benefits, permitting scrutiny of effective management and substance under GAAR principles. The decision suggests treaty relief may be denied when gains are not taxed in the residence jurisdiction, effectively introducing a subject-to-tax dimension into the India–Mauritius treaty. The ruling signals a more anti-avoidance-driven approach to treaty interpretation that could significantly affect inbound investment structures into India.

Majdowski and Smoleń examine how pillar 2’s GloBE regime links transfer pricing outcomes directly to jurisdictional effective tax rate and top-up tax calculations, heightening the consequences of pricing design. They highlight Article 3.2.3 of the model rules as a symmetry mechanism addressing unilateral adjustments, APAs, and post-filing true-ups, and assess how misstatements may trigger pillar 2 exposure under jurisdictional blending and transitional safe harbors. The authors argue that pillar 2 elevates transfer pricing from a bilateral controversy issue to a core component of the global minimum tax compliance strategy.