What are the digital services taxes drawing Trump's ire?
WASHINGTON – Digital services taxes targeting the revenue of big technology companies have returned as a flash point in President Donald Trump's efforts to rewrite the rules of global trade.
Mr Trump has long argued that these levies are discriminatory against US tech giants like Amazon, Google owner Alphabet and Facebook owner Meta. During his first term as president, Mr Trump threatened to use tariffs to punish countries imposing digital taxes.
Now that he is back in office, tensions have flared again over who gets to tax the world's largest firms, and how. Canada was the first to back down in the face of Mr Trump's ire. It decided to scrap its digital levy in late June – hours before it was due to go into effect – after Mr Trump suspended trade talks with the country over what he called an 'egregious' tax. The two countries have resumed talks.
What are digital services taxes?
Broadly speaking, digital services taxes are levies on the revenue that tech companies generate from users in a particular country, from activities such as targeted online advertising, streaming and the sale of data.
These taxes come in a variety of forms, with different thresholds and parameters. France was among the first nations to implement a digital services tax. In 2019, it introduced a 3 per cent charge on revenue from targeted advertising and other digital services of companies with an annual revenue of at least €750 million (S$1.13 billion) globally and €25 million in France.
Other European countries followed, including Italy, Austria, Spain and the United Kingdom.
Canada was behind the curve. Its tax was passed into law in 2024 when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was in office. From June 30, 2025, firms were meant to be on the hook for 3 per cent of the digital services revenue generated from Canadian users above C$20 million (S$18.7 million) in a calendar year.
Why have countries introduced digital services taxes?
The global economy is becoming more and more digitalised, running on flows of data. But the companies providing services often don't have brick-and-mortar operations in every country they operate in.
Taxing companies based on their physical presence has thus become an increasingly ineffective method for governments to ensure the tax bills of tech companies match the value they derive from local customers.
Pressure to address perceived injustice in tax systems grew in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis, when public outcry over bank bailouts spurred a push to tackle tax evasion.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) – a club of 38 mostly rich countries – has been working for years on a solution to rewrite the rules of how taxing rights are shared among jurisdictions. It has been hosting negotiations with more than 140 countries to adapt the international tax system.
Progress has been slow and regularly set back by the reigniting of trade tensions. Frustrated by the lack of momentum, European countries began to introduce digital services taxes as a stopgap measure – even as they recognised the controversial nature of levies based on revenue rather than profit.
How has the US responded to the digital services taxes?
The US asserts that digital services taxes are less about fairness and more about hobbling American tech firms.
In 2020, the first Trump administration announced plans to impose tariffs of 25 per cent on goods imported from France, including makeup, soap and handbags.
These duties were suspended pending negotiations and the US ultimately reached a standstill agreement with multiple European governments, including that of France. Under this truce, the US shelved its punitive tariffs and these countries effectively agreed to refund any taxes in excess of what corporations will pay once the OECD's global tax regime is in place.
Shortly after Mr Trump was sworn into office this year, he ordered a reopening of the so-called Section 301 investigations launched during his first term into countries with digital services taxes, and to probe nations that have since developed such levies. These investigations lay the groundwork for the US to retaliate against trade practices it deems unfair to American interests, for example with tariffs.
Mr Trump also instructed the US Treasury to notify the OECD that any commitments the US previously made to its tax negotiations have no force.
How have countries with digital services taxes reacted to Mr Trump's attacks?
While Canada yielded to Mr Trump, the UK and countries in the European Union have thus far held firm.
When the US struck a trade agreement with the UK in May, it said in a statement that it was 'disappointed' that the British government was unwilling to withdraw its digital services tax.
US Treasury Scott Bessent previously said that these taxes were a sticking point in trade discussions with the EU. The EU's ability to make concessions on this front is complicated by the fact that taxation is a national prerogative for the bloc's member states, while trade is managed by the European Commission in Brussels.
In February, the French government ruled out undoing its digital services tax to appease Mr Trump. The levy is a growing source of revenue at a time when France's finance ministry is struggling to rein in the country's budget deficit. The government expects the tax to bring in almost €775 million this year.
How could the dispute over digital services taxes be de-escalated?
The renewed tensions around digital services taxes will refocus attention on the OECD's efforts. Many countries have pledged to abolish their digital taxes if there is an international agreement on how to allocate the profits of multinationals for the purposes of taxation.
The hurdles to reaching a deal are high. Numerous treaties would have to be rewritten, and the US would likely lose some taxation rights to countries where its big digital firms operate.
Still, global tech companies have previously expressed support for the OECD's initiative as a way of avoiding a mushrooming of different tax regimes around the world.
Moreover, as part of work toward a separate agreement on a global minimum corporate tax, the US signed off on a Group of Seven statement in June that spoke in favour of 'constructive dialogue on the taxation of the digital economy.' BLOOMBERG
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
9 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Brazil government challenges Congress' reversal of tax hike, escalating tensions
Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva walks on stage after giving a speech during the Blue Economy and Finance Forum (BEFF) at the Grimaldi Forum in Monaco, June 8, 2025. REUTERS/Manon Cruz/Pool/ File Photo BRASILIA - Brazil's government filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court on Tuesday challenging Congress' decision to overturn a tax hike on financial transactions, heating up tensions between the branches of power as the administration seeks ways to meet fiscal goals. The government believes that lawmakers overstepped their constitutional powers and created legal uncertainty by reversing President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's decree raising the so-called IOF tax, Solicitor General Jorge Messias told reporters. Lula hiked the tax levied on certain credit, foreign-exchange and private pension plan operations in May as a way to boost revenue and limit spending freezes needed to comply with the government's fiscal framework. The move, however, sparked immediate backlash from lawmakers, who said they would not approve the tax hikes and last week dealt the government a major blow by ultimately nixing the decree. "If we hadn't made this move, we would be allowing interference from one branch of government into another," Messias said about the lawsuit. "Our approach is strictly legal, not political." The government had estimated that the IOF hike, already scaled back from an initial proposal for even higher rates, would generate an additional 12 billion reais ($2.20 billion) in revenue this year. Deputy Finance Minister Dario Durigan said earlier on Tuesday that the measure, along with some other fiscal proposals put forward by the government, would ensure compliance with the fiscal target this year and next. Latin America's largest economy aims to eliminate its primary deficit in 2025 and deliver a primary surplus of 0.25% of gross domestic product in 2026, though economists have voiced skepticism about its ability to reach those targets. "The reversal of the decree ends up affecting the economic and tax policy under responsibility of the head of the executive branch, and leads to a violation of the principle of separation of powers," Messias said. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
28 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Buoyed by the Supreme Court, Trump to press forward on firings and social agenda
FILE PHOTO: A general view of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, U.S., June 1, 2024. REUTERS/Will Dunham/File Photo FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media in the Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington D.C., June 27, 2025. REUTERS/Ken Cedeno/File Photo Buoyed by the Supreme Court, Trump to press forward on firings and social agenda WASHINGTON - U.S. President Donald Trump's team is moving quickly to challenge injunctions that thwarted implementation of his policies on social issues and firing federal workers after the Supreme Court limited lower courts' powers to block them. Friday's ruling was widely viewed as a victory for the president because it shifted power from the judicial to the executive branch. But Trump opponents said they still have legal options to impede his agenda. One White House official told Reuters the administration was moving immediately to go back to the lower level courts to seek changes, citing layoffs at federal agencies driven by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) as one example of a top priority that an injunction had blocked. DOGE and government efficiency were "extremely important" to the president, the official added. Since coming into office in January, Republican Trump has sought to remake American society by enacting reductions in the federal workforce, harsher immigration rules and funding cuts to programs he does not like in both the public and private sectors. Lower courts have stymied those efforts in a number of areas by issuing nationwide injunctions to block them. The Supreme Court's ruling will largely put a stop to that practice, pleasing Trump. During a press conference at the White House on Friday, the president listed overhauling birthright citizenship, ending funding for sanctuary cities, suspending resettlement of refugees and stopping taxpayer-funded surgeries related to gender transitions as his top goals after the Supreme Court's move. "Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis," he said. Strategists said they expected Trump to press forward with a right-leaning social agenda, including eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs and curbing care for transgender youth. "I expect the White House to take advantage of this by being even more aggressive on the culture issues where they believe the public is strongly behind them: immigration, gender identity and DEI," said Carlos Curbelo, a Republican former U.S. congressman from Florida. OPTIONS STILL ON THE TABLE The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Trump administration's request to narrow the scope of three so-called "universal" injunctions issued by federal judges. But Democratic state attorneys general and groups challenging Trump's efforts to slash spending, ramp up deportations and restrict treatment for transgender youth said that while the decision was a disappointment, it did not bar them from obtaining any nationwide ruling. The ruling still allowed for nationwide injunctions in certain situations, including some class action cases brought on behalf of a group of people. It also allowed lower courts to strike down actions nationwide when they violate administrative law, which governs work by federal agencies. Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown predicted the decision would have minimal impact on the various rulings Democratic-led states have already won in cases challenging Trump's agenda, saying "it's only been a small handful where we've asked and received nationwide injunctions." Just hours after the Supreme Court ruled, lawyers in two different lawsuits challenging Trump's birthright citizenship order seized on that opening by seeking to have their cases treated as class actions covering children who would be denied citizenship if Trump's order took effect. Initial reactions to the Supreme Court decision reflected a widespread misunderstanding of its scope, said Norman Eisen, a lawyer involved in challenges to several Trump policies, including the elimination of birthright citizenship. "The court leaves a place for nationwide orders using other vehicles," Eisen said. Others said the decision will deter "forum shopping," in which plaintiffs file lawsuits in courts where they believe a quick win is more likely, and allow more policies to be implemented even as they are challenged in court. "Usually in these highly politicized lawsuits, someone wants relief instantly. That's no longer available," said Judd Stone, who as the solicitor general of Texas from 2021 to 2023 represented the Republican-led state in challenges to Biden administration policies. "It's a major, major paring back of universal relief." REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
34 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Spain proposes bans on concert ticket scalping, fuel advertising
Spanish Minister for Social Rights, Consumer Affairs and 2030 Agenda Pablo Bustinduy addresses a press conference after the weekly Cabinet meeting held at Moncloa Presidential Palace in Madrid, Spain, July 1, 2025. PHOTO: EPA MADRID - Spain's government on July 1 unveiled a draft bill aimed at promoting sustainable consumption and reducing prices, which would ban practices such as reselling concert tickets for profit and advertising fossil fuels, or cars powered by them. 'This government's objective is to encourage industry's transition towards more accessible and sustainable models, thereby lowering prices for consumers and also making decisive progress in environmental protection,' Consumer Rights Minister Pablo Bustinduy told reporters. The bill would also ban 'advertising based on fear' of crime or natural disasters, and would stop companies from making false or misleading claims about their environmental credentials, a practice known as greenwashing. Ads for most domestic flights will also be prohibited as the government pushes for travellers to use electric-powered trains. The bill will need approval from parliament, where the government of socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez is in a minority since winning another term in a vote in late 2023. The government has struggled to get enough parliamentary support in the lower house to pass a series of bills and has not yet presented a budget for this year and next. Bustinduy, who belongs to the far-left junior coalition partner Sumar, has launched campaigns against businesses such as budget airlines and tourism summer rentals, with mixed results. A court last week suspended fines of 179 million euros (S$268.7 million) imposed by his ministry on low-cost carriers for charging for cabin baggage. Some of the rental listings his ministry had ordered to be withdrawn from platforms such as Airbnb in May are still being advertised. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
