The recent decision by the U.S. Congress to drop Section 899 from the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” marks a critical turning point in the evolving landscape of international taxation. This move, stemming from a G7 understanding on the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD’s) Pillar Two, signals a deliberate shift away from unilateral “revenge tax” mechanisms towards a more collaborative and stable global tax environment.

At its core, Section 899 was a retaliatory measure. Designed to counter what the U.S. perceived as “unfair foreign taxes”—specifically targeting Pillar Two’s undertaxed profits rules (UTPRs), digital services taxes (DSTs), and diverted profits taxes (DPTs)—it threatened to significantly increase U.S. withholding taxes on income flowing to investors and companies from nations imposing such levies.

Had it been enacted, the ramifications would have been far-reaching. As Amit Maheshwari, Tax Partner at AKM Global, correctly points out, countries like India, which have embraced or are in the process of adopting Pillar Two or digital taxes, stood to face substantial financial burdens. Indian businesses, family offices, and funds with investments in U.S. equities, debt instruments, and real estate would have seen their costs surge, potentially eroding investor confidence and disrupting established bilateral treaty benefits. The prospect of U.S. tax rates overriding existing tax treaties was a particularly contentious point, raising concerns about legal certainty and potential diplomatic fallout.

The G7 Understanding: A Strategic Retreat or a Path Forward?

The pivot to drop Section 899 is a direct consequence of a crucial G7 understanding: foreign jurisdictions will agree not to levy the 15 percent global minimum tax on U.S.-headquartered groups under OECD Pillar Two. This represents a significant concession from the international community, seemingly in exchange for the U.S. abandoning its punitive approach.

From the U.S. perspective, this agreement ensures that its domestic tax regime, which some argue already achieves a similar effective tax rate for many U.S. multinationals, is not subjected to a “top-up” tax by other nations. It safeguards the competitive position of U.S. companies operating globally and avoids the complexities of navigating potentially conflicting tax liabilities. Treasury Secretary Bessent’s swift action in requesting the provision’s withdrawal underscores the U.S. administration’s commitment to this negotiated outcome.

India’s Gains and the Future of Pillar Two:

For India, the repeal of Section 899 is a clear win. Maheshwari emphasizes that it safeguards the existing India-U.S. treaty benefits, crucial for maintaining cross-border investment flows. Moreover, it clears the path for India to proceed with the implementation of its own Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax (DMTT) under OECD Pillar Two. This is significant, as it allows India to capture any “top-up” tax revenue generated from low-taxed profits within its borders, rather than having it flow to other jurisdictions under the UTPR mechanism. While India’s corporate tax rates are generally above 15 percent, the ability to implement a DMTT provides a safeguard and aligns with global efforts to prevent base erosion and profit shifting.

The withdrawal also offers Indian multinational groups operating in the U.S. much-needed certainty regarding their tax costs, fostering a more predictable and stable international tax landscape for them.

Broader Implications for Global Tax Governance:

The Section 899 saga highlights the delicate balance between national tax sovereignty and the need for international tax coordination in an increasingly globalized economy. The initial proposal reflected a unilateralist impulse, a “America First” approach to tax policy that risked igniting a global tax war. Its ultimate repeal, however, demonstrates the power of multilateral engagement and negotiation.

This development reinforces the importance of the OECD’s Inclusive Framework on BEPS, particularly Pillar Two, as the prevailing architecture for global corporate taxation. While challenges remain in its consistent implementation across all jurisdictions, the U.S. opting out of a direct retaliatory measure suggests a greater willingness to work within this framework.

Going forward, the focus will shift to how countries, including the U.S., manage the intricacies of Pillar Two implementation. The U.S. will likely continue to monitor foreign tax developments to ensure its domestic companies are not unfairly burdened. Meanwhile, other nations will proceed with their own Pillar Two rules, potentially developing DMTTs that interact with the newly affirmed understanding. The diplomatic resolution of Section 899 sets a precedent for addressing future international tax disputes through dialogue and consensus, rather than through escalating tax-based trade wars.

Related posts:

Weaponizing Remittances: How the US is Threatening South Asia’s Stability No Tax in India on Offshore Training: Tribunal Backs Ethiopian Airlines in $204,000 FTS Dispute India May “Retaliate” as US Doubles Metal Tariffs Under National Security Clause Bangladesh’s $67 B Budget Focuses on Inflation Control and Renewable Energy, Faces IMF and Transparency Hurdles