2026

The article explains the debate over new U.N. Model article 12AA, which would let countries impose gross withholding tax on cross border services even without a permanent establishment. It cites an ICC commissioned Oxford Economics report warning the rule could reduce services trade and investment and ultimately lower developing country revenues, while supporters say it is a simpler way to expand source country taxing rights in a digital economy. For practitioners, the key issues will be how countries define covered services, set rate caps, coordinate credits, and handle disputes if 12AA is adopted.

ATAF’s analysis of the Inclusive Framework’s “side-by-side” package argues that the revisions still leave African countries vulnerable to losing residence-based taxing rights under pillar 2. It stresses that without QDMTTs and incentive reform, locally earned income can be absorbed by other countries through the IIR/UTPR or through new side-by-side outcomes. ATAF supports monitoring features but warns that broadened safe harbors and favorable treatment for certain incentives could erode domestic revenue and undermine tax sovereignty goals. 

Three large banks, Banco Citibank SA, Itaú Unibanco, and Banco Santander Brasil, reportedly paid about BRL 2.4 billion, around $457 million, to settle Brazilian tax disputes, with average discounts of about 21 percent on interest and penalties. The settlements reportedly covered disputes involving Brazil’s former financial transactions tax for Santander and Citibank, and PIS and COFINS-style social contributions plus income tax and the social contribution on net profit for Itaú. The piece shows how Brazil uses settlement programs to close contentious assessments by discounting add-ons such as interest and penalties, and it underscores the real cash costs and compliance risks multinationals face in Brazil’s financial sector.

Semer argues that the Treasury’s December 15, 2025, final and proposed section 892 regulations would significantly restrict how foreign sovereign investors can invest in the United States while keeping the section 892 exemption. He says the rules could treat routine lending and credit activity, and even standard minority protection governance rights, as disqualifying commercial activity or effective control. The result, he argues, is a policy contradiction where rules meant to police abuse could make sovereign capital harder and more expensive to attract, forcing funds and deal parties to rethink loan terms, veto rights, and compliance planning under section 892.

An EU Commission official says member states are divided on cross-border remote work, and businesses warn that unclear tax rules are changing hiring and investment decisions across the single market. Companies cite permanent establishment and broader corporate tax exposure as the main problem, with some limiting remote work or hiring to avoid creating nexus through employee presence. The piece frames this as a live administration challenge at the intersection of PE standards, corporate residence, and withholding and payroll compliance, with implications for the EU’s simplification and competitiveness agenda. 

Two Dutch tax practitioners say the Netherlands should apply for the OECD Pillar Two side by side safe harbor, arguing its system is already closed because of the 25.8 percent corporate rate, a domestic top up tax, and strong antiavoidance rules. They frame it as a competitiveness and compliance burden move, warning the Netherlands could face maximum hassle and minimum revenue if it implements Pillar Two without safe harbor protection, especially after the Inclusive Framework’s January 5 deal shielding U.S. groups from IIR and UTPR. They also stress timing, noting the OECD will review regimes on request by the end of the first half of 2026, while Dutch politics have not clearly committed to applying despite parliamentary pressure and potential state aid concerns.