Tax bill contains 'sledgehammer' for Trump to retaliate against foreign digital taxes
WASHINGTON :U.S. President Donald Trump would have the power to retaliate against countries that impose special digital service taxes on large U.S. technology companies like Amazon and Alphabet, under a provision in the sweeping tax bill that Congress is considering.
"If foreign countries want to come in the United States and tax US businesses, then those foreign-based businesses ought to be taxed as well," said Representative Ron Estes, a Kansas Republican who helped craft the provision.
Some 17 countries in Europe and others around the world impose or have announced such taxes on U.S. tech products like Meta's Instagram. Germany announced on Thursday it was considering a 10 per cent tax on platforms like Google.
The levies have drawn bipartisan ire in Washington. Democrats who oppose much of the tax bill have not spoken out against the retaliatory tax provision, found in Section 899 of the 1,100-page bill.
Trump has been pressing foreign countries to lower barriers to U.S. commerce. Under the bill, Congress would empower his administration to impose tax hikes on foreign residents and companies that do business in the U.S. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to decide on taxes and spending.
The provision could raise $116 billion over the next decade, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. But some experts warned that an unintended consequence of retaliatory taxes could be less foreign investment in the U.S.
"This new Section 899 provision brings a sledgehammer to the idea that the United States will allow itself to be characterized as a tax haven by anyone," said Peter Roskam, former Republican congressman and head of law firm Baker Hostetler's federal policy team.
The House of Representatives narrowly passed the bill on May 22, and it now heads to the Senate. Democrats broadly oppose the Republicans' tax and spending bill, which advances many of Trump's top priorities such as an immigration crackdown, extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts and ending some green energy incentives.
Section 899 would allow the Treasury Department to label the foreign tech taxes "unfair" and place the country in question on a list of "discriminatory foreign countries." Some other foreign taxes also would be subject to scrutiny.
Once on the list, a country's individuals and its companies that operate in the U.S. could face stiffer tax rates that could increase each year, up to 20 per centage points.
Joseph Wang, chief investment officer at Monetary Macro, said Section 899 could help Trump reduce trade imbalances because if foreign investment decreases it could depreciate the U.S. dollar. This in turn could spur exports of U.S. products by making them cheaper overseas.
Portfolio interest would remain exempt from any tax Trump imposes, but some experts cautioned that taxing foreigners could quell foreign investment in the U.S.
"Foreign investors may change their behavior to avoid the taxes in various ways, including potentially by simply investing elsewhere," said Duncan Hardell, an advisor at New York University's Tax Law Center.
PUSH BACK TO GLOBAL MINIMUM TAX
The new approach follows the 15 per cent minimum global corporate tax deal negotiated by the administration of Democratic former President Joe Biden. Republicans, led by Representative Jason Smith of Missouri, chairman of the House tax committee, opposed that approach, arguing it unfairly benefits Chinese companies.
Foreign countries have invoked that global minimum to slap higher taxes on U.S. tech firms, if they concluded that generous U.S. tax credits for research and development pushed their tax burden below that 15 per cent threshold.
Trump in February directed his administration to combat foreign digital taxes, but they were not addressed in the trade deal announced in May between the U.S. and the United Kingdom, which imposes a 2 per cent levy on foreign digital services.
It was unclear if the Treasury Department would actually use the new authority if it becomes law, or if the mere threat of action would convince other countries to change course. The department did not share its intended strategy when asked.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
2 hours ago
- CNA
Merz to meet Trump in US for talks on Ukraine, trade, Middle East
BERLIN: German Chancellor Friedrich Merz will meet with US President Donald Trump on Thursday (Jun 5) for talks at the White House, with the Ukraine and Mideast conflicts on the agenda along with rocky trade relations. The talks will mark Merz's first official visit as chancellor since taking office in early May, and be the first time the two leaders have met. The two leaders will discuss relations between the two countries, German government spokesman Stefan Kornelius said Saturday, as well as "the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, the situation in the Middle East and trade policy". Trump has rattled Europe with shifts in security and trade policy since returning to the White House, including an array of tariffs on European partners. Speaking at the WDR Europaforum conference last Monday, Merz said the European Union could retaliate with measures against US technology companies or other tariffs if the transatlantic trade conflict escalates. "We shouldn't react heedlessly and hectically," Merz said. "But if we can't do anything else, we would need to use this tool." But Merz's government, which last week said it would help Kyiv develop long-range missiles, wants to make sure that Washington will not walk away from Ukraine during its war with Russia. Merz and Trump have already had several telephone conversations, with the two agreeing earlier this month to visit each other, without giving dates. With regards to the conflict in Gaza, Merz has sought to heighten the pressure on Israel over its policies, balancing Berlin's support for the Israeli government with criticism of how it is fighting in the territory. "I no longer understand what the Israeli army is now doing in the Gaza Strip," he told public broadcaster WDR last week, warning the Israeli government to not do that which "friends are no longer willing to accept".
CNA
3 hours ago
- CNA
Google says it will appeal online search antitrust decision
Alphabet's Google on Saturday said it will appeal an antitrust decision under which a federal judge proposed less aggressive ways to restore online search competition than the 10-year regime suggested by antitrust enforcers "We will wait for the Court's opinion. And we still strongly believe the Court's original decision was wrong, and look forward to our eventual appeal," Google said in a post on X. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington heard closing arguments on Friday at a trial on proposals to address Google's illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising. In April, a federal judge said that Google illegally dominated two markets for online advertising technology, with the U.S. Department of Justice saying that Google should sell off at least its Google Ad Manager, which includes the company's publisher ad server and its ad exchange. The DOJ and a coalition of states want Google to share search data and cease multibillion-dollar payments to Apple and other smartphone makers to be the default search engine on new devices. Antitrust enforcers are concerned about how Google's search monopoly gives it an advantage in artificial intelligence products like Gemini and vice versa. John Schmidtlein, an attorney for Google, said at the hearing that while generative AI is influencing how search looks, Google has addressed any concerns about competition in AI by no longer entering exclusive agreements with wireless carriers and smartphone makers including Samsung Electronics, leaving them free to load rival search and AI apps on new devices.
CNA
5 hours ago
- CNA
Somebody that I used to know: On the weird grief of colleague departures
This question has become part of my awkward welcome ritual for new hires: 'So ... are you a coffee person?' Day one usually begins at the cafe downstairs with a quick hello, a commemorative libation (coffee or otherwise), then a climb up the stairs to commence our journey as co-workers. Over the past decade of running my company, I've continued to personally onboard new workers. It's not that I can't trust someone else to do it. I just really enjoy it. I like showing them our 'designated crying area' (our pantry space) and explaining the curious phenomenon of the office bidet geyser. I like going through our culture deck, throwing in a few jokes to break the ice and seeing them decide how heartily they should laugh. It's orientation, yes, but also something more – a quiet hope that if you make them feel welcome and you remember their coffee order, they might stay a little longer. Then they leave. Sometimes after three years, sometimes three months. Sometimes on a good note, sometimes a strained one. And in that abrupt silence that follows, between offboarding checklists and looking at handover documents, I find myself wondering if any of these efforts were worth it. WON'T YOU STAY WITH ME? About a decade ago, the first person that I hired when I started the company decided to make a jump to a much bigger, more prestigious agency. It was a competitor but it paid her better and had a much more conducive structure for her career development. It made sense for her. We parted on good terms, but it was hard to maintain the same friendship once we no longer shared the day-to-day routines. Even seeing her career milestones pop up on social media triggered a small wave of disappointment – not at her, but at myself. It was insecurity and a bit of resentment all wrapped up in a forced double-tap of the 'like' button. We didn't speak for a long time. Only after a good five years had passed could we both approach the situation with some perspective and humour. Thankfully, we're now friendly again. This isn't a story about attrition rates or talent migration. It's about the emotional tax of investing in people who eventually walk away. No one tells you, when you first become a manager, that the job requires a strange kind of short-term memory. You pour time into someone, build a rhythm, start speaking in shared references and inside jokes – and then, poof, they're gone. Off to bigger things and better pay. The relationship seems to end abruptly there, apart from the occasional LinkedIn sightings. I know that's just the way the cookie crumbles. The workplace today is a revolving door of industry pivots, mental health breaks and career realignments. Everyone's chasing something – balance, purpose, remuneration, title and so on – and it's unlikely that staying in one place can offer everything. Still, why do I feel a small sting every time someone leaves? SOMEBODY THAT I USED TO KNOW I'll be honest. I still find it difficult not to take departures from the company personally. Not in a dramatic, weeping-in-the-toilet way, but in those smaller moments. When a photo of a past team outing pops up on social media, in a photo album or the memories in your head. Or when you retrieve an old presentation deck and you see the names tagged in the slides. Certainly not because they're wrong to go but maybe it's because, for a brief window of time, I had imagined a future where we'd keep building something together. This emotional dilemma isn't exclusive to managers and supervisors. The departure I've taken the hardest happened when I was still a junior executive, in the infancy of my career. At the time, I was part of a desk cluster with a senior who wasn't my direct boss, but who had become a de facto mentor. Christopher was soft-spoken, serious and a little stoic, but he always humoured my terrible puns. We'd often sneak off for 'planning sessions' at the canteen that had very little to do with planning. We talked about movies, music, family – the kind of conversations that anchor you during chaotic work days. One afternoon, Christopher told me that the following week would be his last with the company. He'd found a better opportunity elsewhere. In the 2002 Hong Kong movie Infernal Affairs, there's a pivotal scene where Tony Leung, playing an undercover police officer, watches the only person who knows his true identity get killed. The camera lingers on his expression of shock and horror and this remains one of the strongest gut punches in cinematic history. On that day when Christopher told me the news, my expression would've made Tony's look mild at best. 'Oh. Congrats, Chris!' I managed to say. 'Happy for you.' Two weeks later at his cleaned-out desk, I shook his hand and said all the right things: 'Let's keep in touch. Don't be a stranger.' What I couldn't shake was the strange sense of grief and futility. What would be the point of keeping in touch if we no longer worked together? FRIENDS ARE FRIENDS … FOREVER? What is 'workplace culture'? We like to talk about it in terms of values and vision statements, but most of it comes down to the people. It is who you sit next to, the person who replies with a meme instead of a boring thumbs-up, the one who makes the 5pm slump bearable. So when they leave, it isn't just another email from the human resource department. It's a permanent glitch in your work day. Conventional business wisdom dictates that investing in people is never a waste, even when they might come and go – because people are the most valuable assets of any company. I've echoed those things. I even genuinely believe them. But there's another truth, too: that what isn't a waste can still sometimes feel like one regardless. It's only human of us to feel something, especially after we've poured hours into someone – coaching, giving feedback, having conversations over coffee and bubble tea – only to have them resign right when they finally started getting it. Maybe it is not quite bitterness but certainly, there is a sense of jadedness. The kind that makes you want to pull back with the next person, just a little. Don't get too attached. Don't ask about their weekend or their interests. Don't joke too much. Here's the catch: If you stop investing in your people earnestly and genuinely, you will slowly become the kind of manager you swore you'd never be. Transactional. Coldly efficient. Checked out. And ironically, that's exactly the kind of environment people want to leave. So I will keep trying, even when the farewell Slack message reads like a LinkedIn boilerplate. I will keep hoping that somewhere along the way, the time we spent together meant something. That, in between rushed deadlines and Monday check-ins, we managed to become more than just colleagues ticking boxes on a task list. Maybe that's the point – to make the workplace not just somewhere people pass through, but somewhere they felt seen, where they felt real connection, even if briefly. I love how Andy Bernard movingly puts it in the series finale of American sitcom The Office: "I wish there was a way to know you're in the good old days before you've actually left them." The real treasure, as they say, might just be the friends we made along the way.
