Connect with us

World

Can new EU corporate tax rules make big business pay its fair share?

Published

on

Can new EU corporate tax rules make big business pay its fair share?

A landmark global deal setting a minimum corporate tax rate of 15% on multinational companies came into force in the European Union on 1 January.

ADVERTISEMENT

The EU has for years tried to flex its muscles on corporate tax evasion by introducing a raft of new laws and lodging high-profile court cases against multinationals.

But some of its own member states – such as Ireland, Luxembourg and Cyprus – have continued to allow high-profit companies to dodge both taxes and scrutiny. Profit shifting worldwide has also remained high, causing losses worth billions of euros for the continent while economic inequality deepens.

Now, companies with revenues of at least €750 million active in any of the 27 EU states will face a minimum corporate tax rate of 15%. The bloc’s economy commissioner Paolo Gentiloni described the new year rules as “a new dawn for the taxation of large multinationals”.

The move is part of a sweeping overhaul of the global tax system agreed by some 140 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries in 2021 after a decade of negotiations, and aims to crack down on governments that slash their corporate tax bills to attract investment.

Other countries such as the UK, Norway, Australia, Japan and Canada are also implementing the measures.

Advertisement

While the new interlocking rules have been hailed as groundbreaking, experts told Euronews there is a need to close crucial loopholes to ensure big business is held accountable.

A ‘revolution’ in tax justice

The OECD deal consists of two pillars, the first of which aims to ensure companies pay tax where they do business. The second pillar sets the global minimum tax rate of 15%. 

In an interlocking system hailed revolutionary, if one country fails to tax a multinational at this rate, other countries can charge a so-called “top-up tax”.

This does not mean EU countries will necessarily adjust their corporate tax rate to the 15% baseline, since other countries will be able to step in to collect the taxes due from multinationals that pay their levies in low-tax jurisdictions.

This means that in a hypothetical scenario, a French multinational operating in Senegal and shifting its profits to Ireland could see either France or even Senegal charge a top-up tax if it doesn’t pay the minimum rate of 15% in Ireland.

Advertisement

“The concept is revolutionary,” according to Quentin Parrinello, a senior policy adviser at the EU Tax Observatory.

“It’s the first time we have more than 140 countries, including all major economic actors, agree that multinational companies should pay a minimum amount of tax on the profits it reports.”

“There is, in theory, no incentive for a country not to apply the minimum tax because if they don’t, another country will get the tax revenues,” Parrinello added.

Most EU countries have already transposed the EU Directive – that makes the new rules a reality – into law. Five countries – Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Slovakia – have informed the European Commission that they will delay implementation as they have fewer than twelve affected multinationals operating within their borders.

Too many loopholes

But despite its promise, experts fear the reform alone cannot stamp out tax havens or prevent a so-called ‘race to the bottom’ of harmful tax competition between governments.

Advertisement

States can still abide by the new minimum rate whilst offering generous tax credits and other deductions that effectively reduce the tax rate below 15%. Many states are already introducing attractive transferable credits, grants and subsidies to compete for investment.

“We already see this, for example with the IRA (Inflation Reduction Act) in the US. We also have countries such as Ireland, Switzerland, and the Caymans already thinking of their own systems,” Parrinello explained.

Another loophole in the deal allows firms to exclude certain amounts of profits – equal to 8% of the value of tangible assets and 10% of payroll in the first year – from the tax base. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The EU Tax Observatory estimates that this loophole could cost the EU some €26 billion in its first year of implementation. A loophole-free 15% minimum tax could have raised around $95 billion (€87 billion) in the bloc in 2023, the watchdog says, dropping to just $67 billion (€61 billion) with the current design. 

“There will not be an end to harmful tax competition and the race to the bottom on taxation,” Chiara Putaturo, Inequality and Tax Policy Advisor at Oxfam’s EU office, said.

“We are seeing a lot of countries like Ireland, Switzerland and also Bermuda changing some of the tax systems they had before to introduce generous refundable tax credit so that they will still be able to have a lower and lower tax rate,” she added.

Advertisement

“The minimum tax is a floor,” Parinello said. “It’s much better to have a floor than nothing. But if you drill holes in the floor, you weaken the overall structure.”

World should move in lockstep

The OECD-designed system is unique in the way it incentivises all world nations to move in lockstep. Countries infamous for attracting giant companies with attractive tax incentives – such as Barbados and Panama – are also signatories.

ADVERTISEMENT

An overwhelming majority of Swiss voters (78.5%) also backed the new rules in a consultation last June, putting pressure on their government to swiftly adopt the rules. 

The US and China have not yet passed the necessary legislation but are likely to be incentivised to do so to ensure other countries do not top up their own tax collections at their expense. 

But Putaturo warned that the 15% rate, which is lower than the global average, lacks ambition.

“The majority of countries, globally, have an effective tax rate which is higher than 15%. So this could even bring some countries to lower their tax rate, in a race to the minimum rather than a race to the bottom,” Putaturo explained.

Advertisement

“The minimum tax also does almost anything in terms of the redistribution of tax revenues. The so-called resident countries, where multinationals are headquartered, will have the right to top up the tax to 15% if the tax haven does not collect the tax due. This is a problem for poorer countries because the resident countries are mainly rich countries,” she added.

ADVERTISEMENT

World

Pope Leo says remarks about world being ‘ravaged by a ​handful of tyrants’ were not aimed at Trump: report

Published

on

Pope Leo says remarks about world being ‘ravaged by a ​handful of tyrants’ were not aimed at Trump: report

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Pope Leo XIV said Saturday that remarks he made this week in which he said the “world is being ravaged by a handful of tyrants” were not directed at President Donald Trump, a report said. 

The pope, speaking onboard a flight to Angola during his 10-day tour of Africa, said reporting about his comments “has not been ‌accurate in all its aspects” and his speech “was ⁠prepared two weeks ago, well before the president ever commented on myself and on the message of peace that I am promoting,” according to Reuters.

The news outlet cited the pope as saying his comments were not aimed at Trump.

“As it happens, it was looked at as if I was trying to debate the president, which is not in ​my interest at all,” the pope reportedly said.

Advertisement

’60 MINUTES’ ACCUSED OF USING LEFT-LEANING CARDINALS TO BAIT TRUMP INTO FEUD WITH VATICAN

Pope Leo XIV answers journalists’ questions during his flight from Yaoundé, Cameroon, to Luanda, Angola, Saturday, April 18, 2026. (Luca Zennaro/Pool Photo via AP)

Vice President JD Vance later took to X to thank the pope for clearing the record.

“While the media narrative constantly gins up conflict — and yes, real disagreements have happened and will happen — the reality is often much more complicated,” Vance wrote. “Pope Leo preaches the gospel, as he should, and that will inevitably mean he offers his opinions on the moral issues of the day.

“The President — and the entire administration — work to apply those moral principles in a messy world,” he continued. “He will be in our prayers, and I hope that we’ll be in his.”

Advertisement

The vice president’s comments came days after he told Fox News’ Bret Baier on “Special Report” that it would be best for the Vatican to “stick to matters of morality.”

“Let the President of the United States stick to dictating American public policy,” Vance said Tuesday.

Trump last Sunday accused Pope Leo XIV of being “terrible” on foreign policy after the pontiff criticized the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.

“He talks about ‘fear’ of the Trump Administration, but doesn’t mention the FEAR that the Catholic Church, and all other Christian Organizations, had during COVID when they were arresting priests, ministers, and everybody else, for holding Church Services, even when going outside, and being ten and even twenty feet apart,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. 

“I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon.”

Advertisement

POPE LEO SLAMS THOSE WHO ‘MANIPULATE RELIGION’ FOR MILITARY OR POLITICAL GAIN, TRUMP RESPONDS

Pope Leo XIV and President Donald Trump (Simone Risoluti/Vatican Media via Vatican Pool/Getty Images; Salwan Georges/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

During a speech in Cameroon on Thursday, the pope said, “We must make a decisive change of course — a true conversion — that will lead us in the opposite direction, onto a sustainable path rich in human fraternity.

“The world is being ravaged by a handful of tyrants, yet it is held together by a multitude of supportive brothers and sisters.

Pope Leo XIV speaks as he meets with the community of Bamenda at Saint Joseph’s Cathedral in Bamenda on the fourth day of an 11-day apostolic journey to Africa April 16, 2026. (Alberto Pizzoli/AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic or political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth.”

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment. 

Fox News Digital’s Landon Mion contributed to this report. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Bulgaria votes in eighth election in five years

Published

on

Bulgaria votes in eighth election in five years

Bulgarians headed to the polls Sunday for the eighth time in five years, with anti-corruption candidate and former president Rumen Radev’s bloc tipped to win.

ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT

The European Union’s poorest member has been through a spate of governments since 2021, when large anti-graft rallies brought an end to the conservative government of long-time leader Boyko Borissov.

Eurostat data shows Bulgaria consistently ranks last in the EU by GDP per capita. In 2025, Bulgaria (along with Greece) was at 68% of the EU average.

Radev, who has advocated for renewing ties with Russia and opposes military aid to Ukraine, was president for nine years in the Balkan nation of 6.5 million people.

Advertisement

He stepped down in January to lead newly formed centre-left grouping Progressive Bulgaria, with opinion polls before Sunday’s vote suggesting the bloc could gain 35% of the vote.

The former air force general has said he wants to rid the country of its “oligarchic governance model”, and backed anti-corruption protests in late 2025 that brought down the latest conservative-backed government.

“I’m voting for change,” Decho Kostadinov, 57, told reporters after casting his ballot at a polling station in the capital, Sofia, adding corrupt politicians “should leave — they should take whatever they’ve stolen and get out of Bulgaria”.

Polls are forecasting a surge in voter participation, with more than 3.3 million Bulgarians expected to cast ballots according to the Bulgarian News Agency.

Voting will close at 1700 GMT, with exit polls expected immediately afterwards. Preliminary results are expected on Monday.

Advertisement

‘Preserve what we have’

Borissov’s pro-European GERB party is likely to come second, according to opinion polls, with around 20%, ahead of the liberal PP-DB.

“I’m voting to preserve what we have. We are a democratic country, we live well,” said Elena, an accountant of about 60, who did not give her full name, after casting her vote in Sofia.

Front-runner Radev has slammed the EU’s green energy policy, which he considers naive “in a world without rules”.

He also opposes any Bulgarian efforts to send arms to help Ukraine fight back Russia’s 2022 invasion, though he has said he would not use his country’s veto to block Brussels’ decisions.

Pushing for renewed ties with Russia, Radev denounced a 10-year defence agreement between Bulgaria and Ukraine signed last month – drawing fresh accusations from opponents of being too soft on Moscow.

Advertisement

The ex-president also stoked outrage online for screening images at his final campaign rally of his meetings with world leaders including Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

“We need to close ranks,” he told around 10,000 cheering supporters at the rally, presenting his party as a non-corrupt “alternative to the perverse cartel of old-style parties”.

Borissov, who headed the country virtually uninterrupted for close to a decade, has dismissed suggestions that Radev brings something “new”.

At a rally of his party earlier this week, he insisted GERB had “fulfilled the dreams of the 1990s” with such achievements as the country joining the eurozone this year.

‘No one to vote for’

Radev is aiming for an absolute majority in the 240-seat parliament.

Advertisement

A lack of trust in politics has affected voter turnout, which slumped to 39% in the last election in 2024.

But with Radev rallying voters, high turnout is expected this time, according to analyst Boryana Dimitrova from the Alpha Research polling institute.

Miglena Boyadjieva, a taxi driver of about 55, said she always votes, but the “problem is that there is no one to vote for”.

“You vote for one person and get others. The system has to change,” she told reporters.

Political parties have called on Bulgarians to show up for the polls, also to curb the impact of vote buying.

Advertisement

In recent weeks, police have seized more than one million euros in raids against vote buying in stepped-up operations.

They have also detained hundreds of people, including local councillors and mayors.

Continue Reading

World

How Cheap Drones Are Changing Wars Like the Ones in Ukraine and Iran

Published

on

How Cheap Drones Are Changing Wars Like the Ones in Ukraine and Iran

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of an Iranian Shahed-136 drone, a device with two triangle-shaped wings attached to a central fuselage. It has an engine the size of a small motorcycle’s and carries 110 pounds of explosives.

Engine the size of a small motorcycle’s

Advertisement

Carries 110 pounds of explosives

One of the biggest takeaways of the war with Iran is that it has proven itself to be a surprisingly capable adversary against the United States. In addition to its willingness to go on the offensive, Iran has forced the U.S. and its regional allies to confront the rise of cheap drones on the battlefield.

Advertisement

Iranian drones, made with commercial-grade technology, cost roughly $35,000 to produce. That is a fraction of the cost of the high-tech military interceptors sometimes used to shoot them down.

Note: Estimated price of munitions per unit. In practice, multiple interceptors are fired when targeting a drone. For instance, with the $80 bullet fired by the Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar (C-RAM), 75 rounds are fired in a second. Sources: Department of Defense, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Open Source Munitions Portal, SRC Inc, U.S. Army and U.S. Navy.

Advertisement

Cheap drones changed the war in Ukraine, and they have enabled Iranians to exploit a gap in American defense investments, which have historically prioritized accurate but expensive solutions.

Countering drones has been a major priority for the Pentagon for years, according to Michael C. Horowitz, who was a Pentagon official in the Biden administration. “But there has not been the impetus to scale a solution,” he said.

Advertisement

In just the first six days, the U.S. spent $11.3 billion on the war with Iran. The White House and Pentagon have not provided updated estimates, but the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, estimated in early April that the U.S. had spent approximately between $25 and $35 billion on the war, with interceptors driving much of the cost. Many missile defense experts also fear interceptor stockpiles are now running dangerously low.

Here is a breakdown of some of the ways the U.S. and its allies have countered Iran’s drones, and why it can be so costly.

Air-based strikes

Advertisement

In an ideal scenario, an early warning aircraft spots a drone when it is still several hundred miles out from a target, and a fighter jet, like an F-16, is dispatched from a military base. The F-16 can then use Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) II rockets to shoot a drone from about six miles away.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of an F-16 fighter jet firing an APKWS II rocket from under one wing. Two to three rockets are fired per drone, as per air defense protocol. Two APKWS II rockets and an hour of F-16 flight cost approximately $65,000, a little less than twice that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Two to three interceptors fired per drone

Advertisement

Source: U.S. Navy, Department of Defense

Advertisement

These types of defensive air patrols are cost-efficient, but haven’t always been available because of the vast scope of the conflict. Iran has also targeted early warning aircraft that the U.S. needs to detect a drone from that distance, according to NBC News.

The other option for detecting and shooting down drones is a variety of different ground-based detection systems, but these systems are all at a disadvantage, as their ability to spot low-flying drones is limited by the curvature of the earth.

Advertisement

Anti-drone defense systems

One ground-based defense system the U.S. and its allies have built specifically to counter drones at a shorter range is the Coyote. It can intercept drones up to around nine miles away.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Coyote Block 2 interceptor, which looks like a three-foot tube with small rockets at one end. Two Coyotes cost approximately $253,000 or about seven times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The Coyote is significantly cheaper than many of the other ground-based defense systems available to the U.S. and its allies and historically effective at defending important assets. But despite being both effective and cost-efficient, relatively few Coyotes have been procured by the U.S. military in recent years.

When Iran-backed militias launched attacks on U.S. ground troops in the region in 2023 and 2024, there were so few Coyotes available that troops had to shuffle the systems between eight different bases in the region almost daily, according to a report from the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank.

Advertisement

Ship-based anti-missile defenses

Many of the longer-range ground-based defense systems the U.S. and its allies can use to combat drones are more expensive, as they are designed to shoot down aircraft and ballistic missiles, not drones. A Navy destroyer’s built-in radar system, for instance, can detect drones from 30 miles away and shoot it down with Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) interceptors. As in the air-based strikes, military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of the deck of a Navy destroyer firing an SM-2 missile from a built-in launcher, which looks like a 15-foot missile launching from a grid of openings on the ship’s surface. Two SM-2 missiles cost approximately $4.2 million, about 120 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Advertisement

This misalignment between America’s defense systems and current warfighting tactics started after the Cold War, when the anticipated threats were fewer, faster, higher-end projectiles, not mass drone raids.

Iran often launches multiple Shahed-136 drones at a time, given their low price tag. The drones are also programmed with a destination before launch and can travel roughly 1,500 miles, putting targets all across the Middle East within reach.

Advertisement

“This category of lower-cost precision strike just didn’t exist at the time that most American air defenses were developed,” said Mr. Horowitz.

Ground-based anti-missile defenses

The Army’s standard air-defense system is the Patriot. Typically stationed at a military base, it can shoot down a drone from up to around 27 miles away with PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement interceptors. Military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.

Advertisement

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Patriot launcher loaded with 17-foot PAC-3 MSE missiles, which looks like a tilted shipping container with scaffolding. Two PAC-3 MSE missiles cost approximately $8 million, about 220 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Patriot missile defense system

Advertisement

Advertisement

Air defense training teaches service members to prioritize using longer-range defense systems first to “get as many bites at the apple as you can,” but those are the most expensive, said Stacie Pettyjohn, a senior fellow and director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security.

But a costly defense can still make economic sense to protect a valuable target, especially those that are difficult to repair or replace, such as the nearly $1.1 billion radar at a military base in Qatar and the $500 million air defense sensor at a base in Jordan that were damaged early in the conflict.

Advertisement

Ground-based guns

Finally, there is what one might call a last resort: a ground-based gun. When a drone is about a mile away or less than a minute from hitting its target, something like the Centurion C-RAM can begin rapidly firing to take down the drone.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Centurion C-RAM, which looks like a gun mounted to a rotating, cylindrical stand. The gun fires 75 rounds of ammunition per second. Five seconds of firing the gun costs $30,000, slightly less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery and Mortar

Fires 375 rounds of ammunition in 5 seconds

Advertisement

Advertisement

Even though it is fairly cost-effective, the Centurion C-RAM is not the best option because it has such a short range.

Interceptor drones

Advertisement

There’s also what one might call the future of fighting drones: A.I.-powered interceptor drones. Interceptor drones like the Merops Surveyor can theoretically hunt and take down enemy projectiles from a short range.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Surveyor drone, which looks like a three-foot tube with wings and a tail. The Merops drone costs approximately $30,000, a little less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Merops system: Surveyor drone

Advertisement

Eric Schmidt, the former Google chief executive, founded a company to develop the Merops counter-drone system in conjunction with Ukrainian fighters, who have already been combatting Iranian drones in the war with Russia for years.

The U.S. sent thousands of Merops units to the Middle East after the conflict began, but it is unclear whether they have been deployed. The military set up training on the system in the middle of the war, as reported by Business Insider.

Advertisement

Other attempts to lower the cost-per-shot ratio of taking out a drone have failed.

The Pentagon invested over a billion dollars in fiscal year 2024 researching directed energy weapons, or lasers, that would cost only $3 per shot and have a range of 12 miles. Those systems have yet to be used in the field.

Advertisement

Despite the cost imbalance, the real fear for many in the defense community is the depleted stockpile of munitions.

“What scares me is that we will run out of these things,” said Tom Karako, the director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Not that we can’t afford them, but that we’ll run out before we can replace them.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending