The Tax Times: “America First" Wins Again: How U.S. Multinationals Escaped the OECD’s 15% Global Minimum Tax

Nearly 150 countries have just signed off on a global tax deal that, in practice, gives U.S.-headquartered multinationals a significant carve‑out from the OECD’s 15% Pillar Two global minimum tax. For U.S. groups, this “side‑by‑side” safe harbor could mean less foreign top‑up tax exposure and more leverage to keep planning within the U.S. system instead of around it.

The new side‑by‑side deal

The Inclusive Framework has agreed to a “side‑by‑side package” that adds new safe harbors on top of the existing Pillar Two rules. At the center is a Side‑by‑Side (SbS) safe harbor and a UPE (ultimate parent entity) safe harbor that, together, can reduce or eliminate top‑up tax in many jurisdictions for qualifying groups.

Under the SbS model, if a multinational’s ultimate parent is in a jurisdiction that runs its own robust minimum tax system, the group can avoid—or dramatically limit—Pillar Two top‑up tax in other countries. Instead of layering the OECD’s 15% minimum on top of the home country’s rules, the package lets those two systems operate side‑by‑side, with Pillar Two stepping back where the home regime is deemed sufficient.

How U.S. companies won a carve‑out

In this first iteration, the United States is effectively the sole “eligible jurisdiction” for the SbS safe harbor. The justification is that the U.S. already has a combination of a relatively high statutory corporate rate plus minimum‑tax‑type rules (including its own alternative minimum mechanisms and interaction with foreign tax credits) that the deal treats as broadly equivalent protection against base erosion.

Democratic lawmakers passed legislation in 2022 without adjusting an existing levy on offshore income, the provision for global intangible low-taxed income, to operate as a Pillar Two top-up tax. Trump then effectively withdrew from the Pillar Two tax agreement in an executive order at the start of his second term in January 2025.

The GOP's budget bill modified GILTI to get closer to Pillar Two, including by increasing its rate from 10.5% to 14%. The G7 cited these changes in its announcement that U.S. multinationals won't face Pillar Two taxes.

The practical result is that U.S.-headquartered multinationals that meet the technical conditions and elect the safe harbor will generally not face Pillar Two top‑up tax under the income inclusion rule (IIR) or the undertaxed profits rule (UTPR) in other countries. Their global effective tax outcomes are left primarily to U.S. law, rather than being recalculated under the OECD’s 15% framework in every jurisdiction where they operate.

The geopolitical backdrop: tax brinkmanship

This outcome did not happen in a vacuum. After the U.S. withdrew support for the original Pillar Two implementation and signaled that it would not enact conforming legislation, trading partners began moving ahead with their own global minimum tax rules, raising the specter of higher foreign tax burdens for U.S. groups. Washington responded with threats of retaliatory “revenge taxes” and other trade/tax counter‑measures if U.S. multinationals were targeted by overseas top‑up taxes.

The side‑by‑side compromise is, in large part, a political off‑ramp from that stand‑off. It allows other countries to save face by keeping Pillar Two architecture intact on paper, while carving out U.S.‑headquartered groups through safe harbors rather than explicit exemptions written into the model rules.

What this means for U.S. multinationals

For U.S.-based groups, the immediate attraction is clear:

· Reduced exposure to foreign top‑up tax under Pillar Two, especially the UTPR “backstop” that worried many U.S. boards.

· Less compliance duplication from having to compute income and effective tax rates under both U.S. rules and a full Pillar Two overlay in every jurisdiction.

At the same time, the safe harbor does not mean a free pass from minimum taxation. Instead, it anchors U.S. multinationals more firmly in the U.S. tax net: groups are effectively told, “If your parent is in the United States, your minimum‑tax destiny will be decided here, not in dozens of foreign revenue authorities.”

For tax departments and advisors, the planning focus shifts from modeling Pillar Two top‑ups country by country to:

· Confirming eligibility for the U.S. safe harbor and monitoring any conditions or metrics that could cause a group to fall out of it.

· Re‑evaluating structures that were built around a world with both GILTI‑style rules and a parallel Pillar Two top‑up layer that now may never fully materialize for U.S. parents.

Criticism and what to watch next

Unsurprisingly, the agreement has drawn fire from tax‑justice groups, which argue that the safe harbor undermines the original promise of a truly global minimum tax. They warn that giving the U.S. a unique carve‑out leaves room for profit shifting to continue through low‑tax arrangements that sit comfortably within U.S. rules but outside the reach of Pillar Two.

Business groups, by contrast, have largely welcomed the deal as a pragmatic way to avoid double taxation and prevent a patchwork of punitive “revenge” measures against U.S. companies. They view the side‑by‑side package as a crucial stabilization of the international tax framework at a moment when geopolitical tensions and unilateral digital taxes could easily have pushed things in the opposite direction.

Looking ahead, the key questions for practitioners and multinationals will be:

· How long the U.S. retains its status as the primary—or only—eligible jurisdiction under the SbS safe harbor.

· Whether future U.S. legislative changes to minimum tax rules, or shifts in foreign political attitudes, lead to a tightening or unwinding of the carve‑out.

For now, the message to U.S.-headquartered groups is simple: the global minimum tax is arriving, but it will be doing so on terms that leave the U.S. firmly in the driver’s seat.

Have an IRS Tax Problem?