The new corporate taxation rules from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) join earlier reforms that collectively pose economic and fiscal risks to the Luxembourg economy, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Tax experts say it is possible that some non-financial multinationals located here might decide to leave because of the new OECD rules.
These new measures were discussed by a panel at the “new international tax landscape and its impact in Luxembourg” conference organised recently by the Union des Entreprises Luxembourgeoises (Luxembourg Employers Association).
Luxembourg’s fund industry itself is exempt from the effective minimum tax of 15% for large multinational firms (Pillar Two). This means that “not only the investment funds itself, but also the investment structure, the holding companies which are utilised by the investment funds to channel its investments, are exempt”, said Carlo Fassbinder of the Luxembourg finance ministry.
Some non-financial multinationals active in Luxembourg would, however, be affected. Luxembourg’s corporate tax rate is not considered low, but Luxembourg has “attractive international taxation provisions”, that could be captured under the OECD rules, according to the IMF.
The financial regulatory industry is also exempt from being taxed under the provision allowing taxation on national sales. The two exemptions are “key for Luxembourg”, said Fassbinder.
EU’s main priorities
Benjamin Angel of the European Commission presented the OECD rules as the latest effort to introduce a common approach to taxing multinationals.
Another objective is fighting tax evasion and tax fraud. Angel responded to “grumbling about the accumulation of legislation,” in the earlier panel. “I sincerely wish that we would be in a position to say mission accomplished, nothing else needed. Unfortunately, we’re not there yet.”
The 15% effective minimum tax provision is closer to being finalised than the tax revenue on the basis of national sales (Pillar One) one, he said and could be adopted during the French presidency. The latter provision is still under discussion.
He also mentioned the commission’s forthcoming shell company directive, which is a concern for Luxembourg’s fund industry. (See our article.)
Facing tax losses
Emil Stavrev from the IMF (photo above) explained that Luxembourg faces tax losses, due to both the 2017 US corporate income tax reform and the OECD rules. He cited a decline in inbound foreign direct investment (FDI) FDI flows in 2018 due to the US reform.
Luxembourg is not the only country to have “attractive international taxation provisions”, he said. He cited the “participation exemption regime”, as well as relatively low withholding rates.
All Luxembourg corporate income taxes together provided about 8% of GDP in 2019.
Stavrev cited country-by-country data pointing out that the source of foreign profit earned in countries with a tax rate under 10% amounts to 60% of Luxembourg transactions.
He then discussed how this potential drop could be covered, including by increasing environmental taxation, such as fuel taxes. He also pointed to updating the laws under which housing is taxed as well as changing individual personal income tax so that it leads to a rise in female labour force participation.
Predicted revenue windfalls
Many observers have predicted the OECD rules will lead to windfall tax revenue for smaller countries like Luxembourg. Angel of the European Commission expressed doubt: “one has to be extremely cautious with all of the estimates”.
No-one so far had produced “a very granular calculation” demonstrating this for the provisions giving countries tax revenue from local multinational sales, he said. On the 15% minimum effective tax on large multinationals, caution was the watchword, he said, pointing out that tax is “only one element among others”.
Not seen full impact
University of Luxembourg professor Werner Haslehner questioned the utility of the latest OECD reforms in tackling tax avoidance when this was already addressed by the earlier Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) initiative, which “we have not yet seen the full impact of in practice.”
Fassbinder pointed out that the United States still has to sign the agreement allowing countries to tax multinationals for national sales.
One the future of tax competition, Angel of the European Commission characterised the changes as “progressively moving from a jungle to some kind of structured formal garden”, adding that there has been progress in the fight against aggressive tax planning.
Angel denied the Commission is seeking to harmonise everything, saying it is calling for healthy tax competition. “What we don’t want is countries to have some kind of beggar thy neighbour policy,” he said.
Tax incentives
On the subject of targeted tax incentives, Natalia Radichevskaia, who represents Luxembourg at the OECD negotiations, said that for small, open economies like Luxembourg, the 15% minimum tax provision limits their flexibility compared to countries with large internal markets.
Haslehner of the university spoke of how tax incentives can promote reducing carbon usage or in promoting green and digital technology,
Complex implementation
Radichevskaia emphasised that the rules for both Pillars are complex. “We actually will depend on the practical implementation,” she said.
She concluded the global minimum tax provision won’t be triggered often, as “most countries will simply raise the effective tax rate up to 15%”.
Fassbinder of Luxembourg’s finance ministry pleaded for “regular and open dialogue between tax authorities and taxpayer”.