‘Big, scary moment'? What's up with Section 899 and its ‘retaliatory' taxes?
With the market taking a closer look at the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' after it was narrowly passed by the US House of Representatives on May 22, a clause called Section 899 has caught the attention of investors worldwide by including a new set of 'retaliatory' taxes on inbound foreign investment.
As
the bill now awaits Senate consideration, there are growing concerns that some of the most sweeping changes to the tax treatment of foreign capital in the US in decades could lead to a sharp reduction in foreign investment in American assets.
In this explainer, the Post breaks down some key points in Section 899, including which countries are targeted, and its potential impact on US assets.
What is Section 899?
Titled 'Enforcement of remedies against unfair foreign taxes', Section 899 is a new provision that targets investments by countries that have 'discriminatory and extraterritorial taxes' on US businesses. Taxes that have been named include the digital-services taxes, diverted-profits tax, and undertaxed-profits rules.
Governments, corporations, private foundations or individuals from these countries will be charged an additional 5 percentage points of withholding tax rate each year on their US income, potentially taking the rate up to 20 per cent, until the 'unfair tax' is removed.
Echoing the spirit of the
'Mar-a-Lago Accord' , Section 899 reflects Washington's increasing readiness to leverage US dominance in the global capital market to confront what it views as the unfair treatment of American businesses abroad.
03:01
US appeals court allows Donald Trump's tariffs to stay in effect
US appeals court allows Donald Trump's tariffs to stay in effect
Which countries will be targeted?
Measures in Section 899 could take effect as soon as January 1 if the bill is enacted by October 3, according to an analysis of its key tax proposals by multinational law firm Skadden.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
an hour ago
- South China Morning Post
Senate pushes ahead on Trump tax cuts as non-partisan analysis raises price tag
Senate Republicans pushed forward US President Donald Trump's sweeping tax cut and spending bill on Sunday in a marathon weekend session even as a non-partisan forecaster said it would add an estimated US$3.3 trillion to the nation's debt over a decade. The estimate by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) of the bill's hit to the US$36.2 trillion federal debt is about US$800 billion more than the version passed last month in the House of Representatives. Republicans, who have long voiced concern about growing US deficits and debt, have rejected the CBO's long-standing methodology to calculate the cost of legislation. Democrats, meanwhile, hope the latest, eye-widening figure could stoke enough anxiety among fiscally minded conservatives to get them to buck their party, which controls both chambers of Congress. 'Republicans are doing something the senate has never, never done before, deploying fake math and accounting gimmicks to hide the true cost of the bill,' Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said as debate opened on Sunday. 'Republicans are about to pass the single most expensive bill in US history, to give tax breaks to billionaires while taking away Medicaid, SNAP benefits and good paying jobs for millions of people.'
South China Morning Post
2 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Trump says ‘getting along well' with China, downplays ‘aggressive' acts linked to Beijing
US President Donald Trump on Sunday dismissed the importance of aggressive actions linked to Beijing including recent arrests of two Chinese nationals accused of smuggling a dangerous pathogen into the United States, saying 'that's the way the world works'. Trump told Fox News that Washington behaves in a similar way. 'You don't think we do that to them? We do, we do a lot of things,' he said on the Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo show. 'That's the way the world works. It's a nasty world.' Trump was responding to a question about how he viewed Chinese intellectual property theft, hacking of the US telecoms system and controversy around the Covid-19 pandemic. He likewise dismissed concerns over a case in which two Chinese nationals were accused last month of smuggling in a toxic fungus. Yunqing Jian, 33, and Zunyong Liu, 34, are charged with conspiracy, smuggling, false statements and visa fraud.
AllAfrica
2 hours ago
- AllAfrica
US loath to drop 'economic bunker buster' on China, India, Russia
US Senator Lindsey Graham recently said that his bill to impose 500% tariffs on every country that imports Russian resources is 'an economic bunker buster against China, India, and Russia' – yet, for all his tough talk, the US is still reluctant to drop it. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump Administration is 'quietly pressuring' the Senate to water down the legislation by turning 'the word 'shall' into 'may' wherever it appears in the bill's text, removing the mandatory nature of the prescribed reprimands.' The Journal's report was lent credence when Graham himself proposed an exemption for countries that aid Ukraine, thus averting an unprecedented US-EU trade war in the event that his bill passes into law. Trump's remark to Politico in mid-June about how 'sanctions cost us a lot of money' suggest that he's not interested in going this route, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio later adding that sanctions could derail the Ukrainian peace process, although he also didn't rule them out in the future. These are sensible explanations for the United States' reluctance to drop its 'economic bunker buster' on Russia but they don't account for its reluctance to drop it on China and India, which have served as invaluable valves for Russia from the West's sanctions pressure due to their large-scale import of its oil. Graham expects that they'll cut off their purchases if the US threatens them with 500% tariffs but they're unlikely to comply since they know that the US would also harm its own economy through such means. Not only that, but the trade deal that US and China recently agreed to would be jeopardized, as would the ongoing talks with India over a similar such agreement. Trump is pleased with both and doesn't want to rock the boat right now. While he might revert back to his previous tariff pressure if things don't go his way, he could just unilaterally impose more tariffs against either in that scenario, and they probably wouldn't be anywhere near the counterproductive level that Graham's legislation demands. Seeing as how the US is once again trying to 'subordinate India,' which is part of his administration's efforts to reshape South Asian geopolitics, he's more prone to imposing higher tariffs against it instead of China but it's premature to predict that he ultimately will. In any case, the pretext probably wouldn't be energy-related given that he has surprisingly posted that 'China can continue to purchase Oil from Iran' in spite of early February's Executive Order that explicitly aims to 'drive Iran's export of oil to zero.' It would therefore be utterly bizarre for Trump to impose tariffs of any level on India or whoever else for purchasing Russian resources when he now no longer cares about the United States' systemic rival China purchasing oil from none other than Iran, which he just bombed, in defiance of his own decree. The aforementioned calculations make it very unlikely that Trump will drop Graham's 'bunker buster' on either of those two. If his bill should become law, it's likely that a loophole would be found to avoid complying with it. This prediction brings the analysis back around to the future of Graham's 'economic bunker buster.' Quite clearly, the Trump Administration doesn't want him to move it through Congress. He may respect the administration's wishes, thus leading to his bill becoming nothing but bluster. This is especially likely if his team signals that it's already found a loophole to get around it unless he changes the language as reportedly requested. China, India, and Russia, therefore, almost certainly have nothing to worry about.
