The G7 meeting in London resulted in an agreement in principle of the participating countries (France, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Japan, United States, Canada) on the establishment of a global minimum corporation tax in height of 15%, at least.
Almost immediately, Bruno Le Maire, Minister of Finance, indicated that France would try "
to have a more ambitious rate
".
The fact remains that for the agreement to have a truly "global" scope, it will first be necessary to succeed in reaching an agreement on the issue, at the G20 in Venice on July 10, with partners as resistant as China and Russia. , Saudi Arabia or Turkey.
Read also: G7 agreement: is this the end of tax havens?
It will then be necessary to convince all the 139 partner countries of the BEPS initiative (
Fight against the erosion of tax bases
) within the confines of the OECD, including Ireland (marginal effective rate at 8.6%) and Luxembourg (marginal effective rate at 7.7%).
In reality, two very distinct devices are under negotiation:
Pillar n ° 1 which aims at a more "equitable" distribution of profits between "headquarters countries" (where the umbrella structures of multinationals are located) and "market countries" (where the turnover is achieved). business affairs).
This concerns companies with more than 20 billion (dollars) in turnover and with a profit margin of more than 10%.
The project provides for the quota greater than 10% to be taxed up to a limit of 20% for the benefit of the countries where these groups operate.
Pillar n ° 2 which provides for the establishment of a minimum corporate income tax of at least 15%, applied country by country for companies making more than 750 million (euros this time) in figures d 'business.
If the idea is, in part, laudable in the name of tax justice, is it effective in practice?
First of all, we must note that in the current state of the system, France will not necessarily be a winner ... nor its companies. First thing, to date, the impact of the measures has not been assessed for our country. While there were OECD assessments in October 2020, they are not publicly detailed country by country. The European tax observatory has, nevertheless, estimated that pillar 2, for a rate of 15%, would represent a "gain" for France of 4.7 billion euros: an estimate which seems overvalued especially since it does not take into account the impact of pillar n ° 1 on multinationals. The risk that France is taking isis to push for a global tax in order to better tax GAFAM but "at the same time" to serve its own large domestic companies which achieve a significant turnover abroad, mainly the luxury and cosmetics sector. On this point, nothing is yet certain in terms of losses or gains for our public finances.
Read also: Will Amazon partially escape the global corporate tax?
Second, and for the companies themselves, the 15% rate might not be a marginal rate but an effective tax rate and this should lead to an additional administrative burden. Indeed, the concept of effective rate is not fiscal or accounting, but statistical, which means that additional restatements should be made in the consolidation of accounts in order to be able to identify the taxable material. In addition, if it is the effective rate (the least biasing) that is used, it is very likely that many large French companies are already at rates lower than those of 15%, in some countries at least. As a reminder, the average marginal effective rate for France is around 16% according to the OECD. As a result, the latter will see their taxation increase.
If everything is not yet clear, we can nevertheless already say that, for companies, we are heading towards a new gas plant with high compliance costs and strong legal uncertainty. There is a great risk of playing fiscal wizarding apprentices without taking the time to conduct serious impact studies and, for France, to shoot themselves in the foot. It wouldn't be the first time.