Digital Services Tax: Trump's Latest Beef With Canada
New Delhi:
US President Donald Trump is once again going after Canada. He has announced through Truth Social that he is "terminating all discussions on trade" with Canada with immediate effect. The reason for his tirade this time is the Digital Services Tax. The Digital Services Tax was enacted last year, but companies are expected to start paying the tax from June 30. And since it will directly impact the big tech companies and large e-commerce platforms headquartered in the US, President Trump is seeing red.
What is the Digital Services Tax
The Digital Services Tax requires foreign and domestic large businesses to pay revenue tax that is earned from engaging with online users in Canada. It applies a three per cent tax on revenue earned from some digital services that rely on engagement, data, and content contributions. So, the taxable revenue could be generated through online marketplace services, online advertising services, social media services, and sales of user data.
The Digital Services Tax will apply to companies or groups with annual global revenues of €750 million or more and Canadian digital services revenue of more than CAD 20 million.
Significantly, the tax is retroactive to January 1, 2022, and companies will start paying the tax on June 30, 2025.
Canada's rationale vs US pushback
The overarching premise of the Digital Services Tax is that if big companies, that are based abroad, are earning significant revenue from Canadian users, then Canada should be able to tax a portion of that income.
The revenue that Canada would make from the Digital Services Tax is expected to be around $875 million per year, said a note from the US Trade Representative last year. Over five years, the Digital Services Tax will increase federal government revenues by CAD 7.2 billion, per the Canadian Parliamentary Budget Office.
The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) in the US claims that companies will end up paying up to $3 billion in taxes to Canada. It is also predicting 3,000 US job losses.
What has been US' response in the past
The US Trade Representative (USTR) had previously investigated Digital Services Tax in other countries and said that it had found them discriminatory toward US companies. The US had announced plans for retaliatory tariffs against the countries with Digital Services Tax and had said it would use the same yardstick for Canada.
In August 2024, USTR Katherine Tai announced that the United States had requested dispute settlement consultations with Canada under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA or CUSMA) regarding Canada's Digital Services Tax. The USTR had alleged that Canada's tax appeared to be inconsistent with its commitments under the Cross-Border Trade in services and investment chapters of the USMCA, not to treat US businesses less favourably than Canadian businesses.
The US said that it had raised the concern with Canada in three official comments about its plan to enact a Digital Services Tax in June 2021, February 2022, and in September 2023.
The US Chambers of Commerce has called the Digital Services Tax "discriminatory" and said that it is in contravention of prevailing international tax principles. It adds that doing so would not only discriminate against US companies but also directly contravene Canada's obligations under both the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and the World Trade Organisation.
Hence, President Trump's reaction to the Digital Services Tax as the date of payment closes in is hardly a surprise.
Why is Canada not flinching yet on Digital Services Tax
Earlier this month, Canadian Finance Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne had said the Digital Services Tax was passed by Parliament, and the government would hence go ahead with the tax. The reason why Canada went ahead and implemented its own Digital Services Tax was that the global effort to establish a broader, multinational digital taxation plan had been woefully delayed.
Some argue that the Digital Services Tax is a unilateral measure that would undermine the stability of the agreed multilateral framework. However, with the Trump administration imposing unilateral tariffs - from aluminum and steel to automobiles and energy, against Canada - this argument is unlikely to move Canada.
At a time when Canada feels betrayed by its largest trading partner, the United States, and is already reeling under the onslaught of the punishing Trump tariffs, it is beginning to assert its economic leverage. And the Digital Services Tax could perhaps serve as a negotiating tool in the process.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
Qatar issues safety advisory after Iran's missile attack, urges residents to report any suspicious debris
This screen grab from AFPTV footage shows the remnants of an Iranian missile intercepted over Qatar on Monday, targeting the Al Udeid US Air Base. In the aftermath of a now-concluded military confrontation involving Iran, the United States, and Israel, the State of Qatar has issued a public safety alert, urging residents and citizens to report any suspicious debris possibly linked to a recent missile interception. The alert follows Iran's missile launch targeting the Al Udeid US Air Base in Qatar on Monday. In a joint statement, Qatar's Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Interior called on the public to exercise caution if they encounter unusual fragments or objects. The ministries stressed that any such material must not be touched or moved, citing the potential danger of hazardous substances. 'Handling such materials must be done exclusively by the competent authorities, due to the possibility that they may contain hazardous substances that could pose a threat to public safety,' the statement emphasized. The advisory comes in the wake of a missile attack by Iran, launched in retaliation for US strikes on several of Iran's nuclear sites during the recent 12-day conflict involving Israel and Iran. Former US President Donald Trump confirmed that 14 Iranian missiles were fired at the Al Udeid Air Base during the attack. According to Trump, 13 of those missiles were intercepted, and one was intentionally allowed to fall harmlessly to avoid unnecessary escalation. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo 'It was a very weak response,' Trump said, downplaying the impact of Iran's actions. In response to the missile launch, Qatar swiftly summoned the Iranian ambassador to lodge a formal protest. The Qatari government condemned the attack and reiterated its commitment to national sovereignty and the safety of its residents. The joint government statement also instructed the public to immediately report any unusual objects or fragments to authorities 'so that they may be dealt with in accordance with approved procedures.' Qatari authorities clarified that this is strictly a public safety matter and urged citizens not to panic but to remain vigilant. The potential risk stems from missile debris possibly falling in or around civilian areas due to the mid-air interceptions. In a gesture acknowledging the disruption caused by the attack, Qatar also announced the waiver of all traffic violations recorded on the day of the missile strike. This move is intended to alleviate additional stress for motorists affected during the event.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
At least 34 people killed in Israeli strikes in Gaza as ceasefire prospects inch closer
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel At least 34 people were killed across Gaza by Israeli strikes, health staff say, as Palestinians face a growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and ceasefire prospects inch strikes began late Friday and continued into Saturday morning, among others killing 12 people at the Palestine Stadium in Gaza City, which was sheltering displaced people, and eight more living in apartments, according to staff at Shifa hospital where the bodies were brought. Six others were killed in southern Gaza when a strike hit their tent in Muwasi, according to the strikes come as U.S. President Donald Trump says there could be a ceasefire agreement within the next week. Taking questions from reporters in the Oval Office Friday, the president said, "we're working on Gaza and trying to get it taken care of."An official with knowledge of the situation told The Associated Press that Israel's Minister for Strategic Affairs, Ron Dermer, will arrive in Washington next week for talks on Gaza's ceasefire, Iran and other subjects. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the have been on again off again since Israel broke the latest ceasefire in March, continuing its military campaign in Gaza and furthering the Strip's dire humanitarian crisis. Some 50 hostages remain in Gaza, fewer than half of them believed to still be alive. They were part of some 250 hostages taken when Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, sparking the 21-month-long war has killed over 56,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. It says more than half of the dead were women and is hope among hostage families that Trump's involvement in securing the recent ceasefire between Israel and Iran might exert more pressure for a deal in Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is riding a wave of public support for the Iran war and its achievements, and he could feel he has more space to move toward ending the war in Gaza, something his far-right governing partners has repeatedly said it is prepared to free all the hostages in exchange for an end to the war in Gaza. Netanyahu says he will only end the war once Hamas is disarmed and exiled, something the group has hungry Palestinians are enduring a catastrophic situation in Gaza. After blocking all food for 2 1/2 months, Israel has allowed only a trickle of supplies into the territory since by the United Nations to distribute the food have been plagued by armed gangs looting trucks and by crowds of desperate people offloading supplies from have also been shot and wounded while on their way to get food at newly formed aid sites, run by the American and Israeli backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, according to Gaza's health officials and witnesses say Israeli troops have opened fire at crowds on the roads heading toward the sites. Israel's military said it was investigating incidents in which civilians had been harmed while approaching the sites.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
US birthright citizenship: Supreme Court decision limits nationwide injunctions on Trump's birthright citizenship order
In a 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court (SC) made a partial ruling on President Trump's executive order (EO) regarding birthright citizenship. Deciding on the procedural issue, the SC held that judges of federal district courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions to block a government policy (The birthright citizenship-EO, in this case). Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It is important to note that the SC did not decide whether the EO itself is constitutional or not – this issue is still being examined by the federal district courts. WIDE RAMIFICATIONS BEYOND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: The order, which has upended decades of precedent and curtailed federal courts' power to issue injunctions, is seen as having wide-reaching, onerous ramifications, which would not be restricted to just the issue of birthright-citizenship. Jath Shao, immigration attorney, explained, 'This would potentially mean that every affected party would have to file a lawsuit on their own, and not benefit from being similarly situated. This may also mean that activists have to fight in multiple jurisdictions, and can't just win nationwide relief in one federal courtroom anymore.' Todd Schulte, President at said, 'Moreover, we are deeply concerned this will create new incentives for an administration to press ahead on unlawful, harmful actions by placing a new, substantial burden on any harmed individuals, for whom seeking relief and justice will now be more challenging.' Abhinav Tripathi, immigration attorney and founder of Protego Law Group, said, 'This decision to limit nationwide injunctions is a major shift in how unlawful federal policies can be challenged. While class actions remain available, they are no substitute, especially in urgent immigration matters where delay can mean detention, deportation, or family separation. Class certification takes time, often excludes many affected, and lacks the immediacy that nationwide injunctions once provided. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now This ruling in short, fragments relief, weakens judicial oversight, and concentrates power in the executive, undermining due process and equal protection at a structural level.' Greg Siskind, co-founder of Siskind Susser, an immigration law firm, viewed that federal courts could be brought to a screeching halt as thousands of separate lawsuits are filed. And now ordinary people will need to file suits to protect their constitutional rights, no matter how many courts say a policy is unconstitutional. Jeff Joseph, President, American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), said, 'In a 6-3 decision, the SC has limited the ability for district judges to grant universal relief in cases where the government is facially violating the Constitution in ways that have implications for the entire country. Now, plaintiffs will have to go through the burdensome process of establishing a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals and then seek a nationwide injunction. Or cases will have to be filed on an individual and piecemeal basis, resulting in chaos in the courts. By requiring piecemeal suits and protection in this manner, the Court is setting American families up for failure. For example, if a young scientist, here on an H-1B visa, who is working and contributing to our economy, gives birth, she would need to join a class action suit or sue individually to try to fight for her child's constitutionally guaranteed right. This is impractical and will result in clogging up the courts on an issue that facially violates the Constitution and should not even be under question. The Constitution is clear—birthright citizenship is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Once again, the rule of law is the loser today with this decision.' THE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EO: According to the EO, US citizenship is denied to children born in the United States if they are not born to at least one biological parent who is a US citizen or green card holder. Thus, if the mother is in the US lawfully but temporarily (eg: as a visitor or on a non-immigrant visa – be it a dependent visa like H-4 or even a work visa) and the father is not a green card holder or US citizen, the child even if born in the US will not get automatic American citizenship. TOI had analysed the EO. Read also: Previously, three different lower courts (federal district courts) had issued orders that stopped this EO from being put into effect across the entire country. These were the district courts of Maryland, the Western District of Washington and Massachusetts. The Supreme Court's new ruling means these original court orders will now only protect the specific individuals, organisations, and states that filed the lawsuits against the executive order. The 22 protected states are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, plus Washington D.C. and San Francisco. For everyone else not involved in those lawsuits, the government will be allowed to start implementing the executive order in 30 days. According to Cyrus D. Mehta, founder of a NY-based immigration law firm, 'The order means that the practice of extending citizenship to the US-born children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary residents and visitors would end in the 28 states that have not challenged the measure. The only way out is to file a class action. Or each person would have to make an individual constitutional challenge.' Rajiv Khanna, managing attorney at said, 'The injunctions blocking the policy remain in effect for 30 days, giving time for new legal strategies. The reality check: This creates a complex patchwork. The policy remains blocked in the 22 states that sued, but could theoretically be implemented elsewhere, though the practical challenges of selective enforcement are enormous.' Charles Kuck, an immigration attorney, was aghast. He posted on a social media platform, 'Anyone who wants to challenge Trump's illegal executive order on birthright citizenship (it's illegal because there is a federal law on this), has to sue INDIVIDUALLY to secure their child's citizenship. A truly moronic decision. (The court did NOT rule on the legality of Trump's order, just the process to challenge it).' "Nearly 3,50,000 lawsuits a year to verify citizenship, that is what the Supreme Court ordered. Nice work for lawyers. Terrible for America!", he quipped. THE SPECIFIC FALL OUT: David Leopold, an Ohio based immigration attorney, on a social media platform, pointed out the dissenting voice of Justice Sotomayor, who said, 'Newborns subject to the Citizenship order will face the gravest harms imaginable. If the order does in fact go into effect without further intervention by the district courts, children will lose, at least for the time being, 'a most precious right,' and 'cherished status' that 'carries with it the privilege of full participation in the affairs of our society. The order will cause chaos for families of all affected children, too, as expecting parents scramble to understand whether the order will apply to them and what ramifications that will have.' Indeed, the ramifications could be gut-wrenching as newborns could face deportation even as their parents remain lawfully in the country (eg: those on temporary work visas). Bhumireddy Sai Srinivas Reddy, a high court advocate in India and an Indiana based legal consultant raised some important issues. 'While the SC has allowed the executive order to take effect after 30 days, it hasn't provided a clear framework for how it should be enforced or challenged. This opens the door to a troubling scenario — what happens if different federal courts issue conflicting rulings? For instance, if the Southern District of Indiana blocks the order but the Northern District allows it, does that mean a child born in one district qualifies as a US citizen, while another child, born just a few miles away, does not?' 'This could lead to a situation where families might be forced to seek jurisdictions with favorable court rulings to secure citizenship for their children. It also raises the question of whether citizenship will now depend on the location of the hospital where the child is born or the legal residence of the parents,' he added. SUMMING UP: 'The SC's ruling today undermines equal justice under the law. The Court's decision means that constitutional protections now depend on which state you live in or whether you can afford to file a lawsuit,' was a statement given by Senator Alex Padilla, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee. 'Today's decision emboldens President Trump's unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship, designed to stoke fear and persecute immigrant communities. It also fails every American who looks to the court to serve as a check to ensure that the executive branch follows the law. The SC is supposed to serve as a safeguard against presidential overreach, not incentivize it. We must heed Justice Jackson's warning that today's decision will permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued,' added the statement. Ben , AILA's executive Director, summed up: 'Rather than try to defend an obviously unconstitutional executive order directly, the Trump administration manipulated the legal process to avoid swift judicial review, delaying justice for those affected and setting the stage for confusion and chaos. And today, the SC played along.' ' Instead of stepping in to declare this EO unconstitutional, the SC has greenlit a prolonged and punishing legal battle across the country. We are now facing the prospect of hundreds of individual lawsuits and likely multiple class actions to protect a right that is plainly guaranteed by the Constitution. It's a shameful dereliction of duty. By refusing to allow federal judges to block an executive action that clearly violates the Constitution, the SC is forcing millions of individuals affected by this Executive Order to bear the full burden of seeking justice on their own. This not only imposes an enormous cost—financially and emotionally—on those families, but it also squanders government resources litigating the same issue over and over again. Birthright citizenship is not ambiguous, nor is it a vague legal question; it is a cornerstone of American democracy enshrined in the Constitution. This decision fails us all, fails the courts, and fails our Constitution,' said Johnson.
