This article explores the impacts of the global minimum tax on multinational enterprises in Ukraine, indicating its potential to enhance tax competition amid international guidelines.
In response to the intensification of international tax competition and the shifting of profits by multinational enterprise groups to low-tax jurisdictions, the countries participating in the OECD Inclusive Framework have developed a two-pillar solution. The second component (Pillar 2) envisions the introduction of a global minimum tax. The main goal of this tax is to establish a minimum level of taxation for large multinational groups at 15%, regardless of the jurisdiction in which they operate. This article presents one of the first comprehensive studies of Pillar 2 in Ukraine. It identifies that the mechanism of the global minimum tax has an asymmetric impact: it creates advantages for developed countries, where the headquarters of multinational groups are typically located, while simultaneously limiting the ability of developing countries to use tax incentives as a tool for tax competition. The article explores mechanisms designed to mitigate this effect, including the Subject to Tax Rule (STTR) and Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax (QDMTT). It is established that, due to the substance-based income exclusion, Pillar 2 favors businesses that rely heavily on the use of tangible assets and human resources. The Ukrainian context is analyzed in detail: it is determined that the implementation of the global minimum tax is an important step toward Ukraine’s EU membership, where such a tax is already in force. The paper stresses the urgent need to introduce QDMTT in Ukraine, which would allow the country to be the first to collect top-up tax from companies operating in Ukraine with an effective tax rate below 15%. Otherwise, Ukraine risks losing additional revenues that could be collected by other countries under Pillar 2. A further priority is the review of the current system of tax incentives, many of which become ineffective under the new rules (e.g., rate-reducing ot tax exemption benefits), and the transition to incentives that defer taxation (such as accelerated depreciation) or encourage investment in fixed assets and job creation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
K. V. Bocharov (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: