The agreement changes the way a company revenue is recognized and allocated between jurisdictions. I suspect it may require to change the tax treaties between those countries. It's not just changing the corporate tax rate.
So again, it would just increase revenue for the US, and I see no reason they wouldn't agree to it.
At the end of the day, I don't think the US had to compromise here. I think it's universally better for the US government, just not US based companies, but it gives the GOP enough air cover to agree to it anyway.
It mostly benefits the European countries that are missing their tax revenue.
Imagine running a small business and somebody from Algeria wishes to purchase your software. Is the $5 you make worth having to file Algerian taxes?
I mention this, because this is something that happened with YouTube this month. Content creators have to give their tax info to YouTube because the US is now charging taxes from creators outside the US on money they made on US customers.
Edit: as was pointed out - there's a minimum $10 million threshold. That makes it far more reasonable.
So that would never happen. You’d have to make a ton of money there before you have to file taxes. And it’ll be worth it by then.
It's my mistake!
Sorry, I missed where this was mentioned in the article. Can you supply a link to the reference if it is not in the article?
I did see the following quote:
> The rules on making multinationals pay taxes where they operate - known as "pillar one" of the agreement - would apply to global companies with at least a 10% profit margin.
which is not equivalent to your comment.