It provides a measure of relief from the Pillar Two top-up tax for an MNEs payroll and tangible fixed asset costs in a jurisdiction. The idea behind this is that the Pillar Two rules are aimed in part at combatting base erosion risks. Tangible assets and payroll are indicators of actual physical presence in a jurisdiction.
The substance-based income is based on 5% (excluding any transitional rules) of the value of qualifying payroll and tangible assets. This is then deducted when determining ‘excess profits’ which is what the top-up tax percentage is applied to. It therefore directly reduces the profits that are subject to top-up tax.
However, for most MNE groups, the benefit of the substance-based income exclusion may be more apparent than real.
There are a number of reasons for this.
The Amounts at Stake
In many cases in order to achieve really noticeable reductions in the top-up tax liability, the payroll and tangible asset costs in comparison to the GloBE income would need to be substantial.
You can see the impact of the substance-based income exclusion in this simple interactive tool:
Lee is a qualified Chartered Accountant and Chartered Tax Adviser.
A former Senior Tax Analyst at Bloomberg Tax, Lee began his career in
Ernst & Young's Entrepreneurial Services department and has 20 years of international tax planning experience.
Lee's books have been recommended by The Times, The Guardian and The Telegraph.
This website is not affiliated with, endorsed by or related to the OECD. We provide independent insights and analysis on the OECD Two-Pillar Solution