Senate Finance Committee Unveils Major International Tax Overhaul: What Businesses Need to Know 7

The Senate Finance Committee has released its draft bill, proposing significant and largely permanent changes to U.S. international corporate income tax policy. This new package, aimed at addressing expiring provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and other tax code modifications, promises a more stable and “America-First” approach to global taxation for U.S. companies.

Key Shifts in International Tax Rules

The Senate bill introduces several critical adjustments, notably impacting Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI), Foreign-Derived Intangible Income (FDII), and the Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT). It also refines newer taxes proposed in the House bill, such as the Section 899 retaliation regime and the remittances tax.

Permanence: A Cornerstone of the New Policy

A standout feature of the Senate’s proposal is the permanence of its international tax changes, including rates and base adjustments. This stability is a welcome development for businesses, especially those undertaking long-term capital projects that require predictable tax environments. Unlike the TCJA, which left several key provisions like GILTI, FDII, and BEAT subject to future tax hikes, the Senate bill aims to provide lasting clarity.

Aligning with “America-First” Trade Priorities

The bill incorporates a “build in America” focus, aligning with President Trump’s trade vision. A significant change is the repeal of the Qualified Business Asset Investment (QBAI) provision. This eliminates the 10 percent deemed return on tangible assets, effectively renaming GILTI to “net CFC tested income (NCTI)” and the FDII base to “foreign-derived deduction-eligible income (FDDEI).”

In essence, repealing QBAI will likely increase taxes on physical capital deployed abroad by U.S. firms, while lowering taxes on capital in the U.S. used for exports. New sourcing rules for inventory may also improve the ability of exporters to utilize foreign tax credits. This combination of incentives appears designed to enhance the tax treatment for U.S. exporters while increasing the tax burden on profits from physical capital held in other countries.

It’s worth noting that experts suggest these changes may not significantly impact the trade deficit or boost overall growth, as capital deployed abroad often supports U.S. exports rather than replacing domestic work.

Refining New House-Proposed Taxes

The Senate bill softens some of the harsher or more complex new international tax provisions introduced in the House bill, aiming to reduce compliance burdens and potential economic damage.

• Section 899 Retaliation Regime: The House version threatened escalating income taxes and BEAT against foreign nationals from countries with “offending” taxes like Digital Services Taxes (DSTs) or Undertaxed Profits Rules (UTPRs) under Pillar Two. The Senate bill reduces the maximum escalating income tax penalty to 15 percent (from 20 percent) and applies it only to UTPR countries, excluding DSTs and Diverted Profits Taxes (DPTs). It also delays penalties until January 1, 2027, providing more time for negotiations.
• Remittance Excise Tax: While this tax remains in the Senate draft, it includes more categories of money transfers as exempt. This aims to reduce undue compliance burdens, though the tax remains non-neutral and its revenue generation is uncertain.

Towards “Coexistence” with Pillar Two

Despite the retaliatory aspects of Section 899, the Senate bill also takes steps toward coexistence with the broader Pillar Two framework:

• High-Tax Exemption from BEAT: The bill includes a high-tax exemption from BEAT, which could benefit many companies in Pillar Two countries (provided they abandon UTPR). This effectively transforms BEAT into a country-by-country enforcer against low-tax jurisdictions, aligning with Pillar Two goals.
• GILTI Adjustments: The bill moves GILTI closer to international norms by increasing the rate while reducing idiosyncratic U.S. elements like expense allocation and the foreign tax credit “haircut.” This aims to give U.S. companies more statutory rate credibility for the effective rates they already pay, potentially facilitating U.S. arguments for meeting Pillar Two’s minimum tax levels.

Commendable “Bug Fixes” and Simplifications

One of the Senate bill’s strengths lies in its attention to detail, addressing small but impactful “bug fixes” that simplify the tax code, clarify long-standing issues, or remove unintended consequences. Many of these are inspired by the International Competition for American Jobs Act (ICAJA).

• Permanent “Look Through” Rule: The bill makes the “look through” rule for payments between controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) permanent. This prevents arbitrary U.S. tax liability, avoiding complications that could encourage inversions or other unproductive tax planning activities.
• Fixing the “Downward Attribution” Glitch: The Senate draft includes a well-considered solution to an unintended consequence of the TCJA, which erroneously caused small lower-tier U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies to be deemed to have interests in brother/sister entities elsewhere in the corporate structure.
• High-Tax Exemption from BEAT: This provision, also a feature of the ICAJA, represents another valuable cleanup.

The Senate is encouraged to explore further small reforms from the ICAJA, such as those related to Section 956 cleanup or changes to foreign base-company sales and services income, which could simplify tax provisions designed for a pre-GILTI code.

Senate vs. House: A Comparative Overview

Overall, the Senate draft introduces more significant changes to international tax policy than its House counterpart, with these changes generally being seen as positive.

While some downsides exist, such as the loss of GILTI QBAI which may reduce the competitiveness of U.S. companies operating abroad, the bill’s focus on permanence, bug fixes, and increased international credibility for the U.S. tax system are notable improvements. The softening of harsh retaliation and remittance provisions also represents a step forward.

What are your thoughts on how these proposed changes might impact U.S. businesses with international operations?