E-News from KPMG’s EU Tax Centre

• CJEU referral: CJEU referral concerning the Austrian tax treatment of distributions made by private foundations to foreign beneficiaries
• European Commission: ETACA pilot progresses with updated guidelines and feedback from stakeholders
• European Parliament: ECON Committee adopts position and suggested changes on the BEFIT proposal
• European Parliament: Public hearing on “Tax implications of the Trump II Administration’s policies”
• European Parliament: European Parliament Research Service paper on the implementation of Pillar Two under consideration of the current EU-US relations
• European Parliament: European Parliament adopts resolution on facilitating the financing of investments and reforms to boost European competitiveness and creating a Capital Markets Union
• Belgium: Belgian tax authorities circular on the administrative steps for withholding tax reclaims
• Switzerland: Switzerland Federal Council adopts GloBE reporting regulations
• Belgium (court decision): Belgian Constitutional Court partially invalidates ‘Cayman tax’ reforms
• Sweden (court decision): Court of appeal rules Canadian mutual fund comparable to a Swedish special fund despite precious metal investments

CJEU referral concerning the Austrian tax treatment of distributions made by private foundations to foreign beneficiaries

On July 17, 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court of Austria (the Supreme Court) referred a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The case is focused on whether the Austrian tax regime applicable to distributions made by private foundations to non-resident beneficiaries constitutes an infringement of the free movement of capital.

The plaintiff is an Austrian private foundation whose beneficiaries are tax resident in Switzerland. In 2014, the foundation derived gains from capital assets, which were subsequently distributed to its foreign beneficiaries. Under Austrian tax rules applicable to private foundations, certain income, including gains from capital assets, is subject to corporate income tax in the hands of the foundation. In addition, any transfers made by the foundation to beneficiaries are subject to capital gains tax, which must be withheld by the foundation. This tax is final – beneficiaries receive distributions net of tax, with no further income tax liability in Austria. The capital gains tax is due regardless of whether the beneficiaries are Austrian tax residents or non-residents.

The private foundation is allowed to reduce its taxable base for corporate income tax purposes to the extent that capital gains tax has been withheld on transfers. The reduction of tax does not depend on whether the recipient is resident or non-resident, but rather on whether capital gains tax was levied on the transfer. However, in the case of foreign beneficiaries, the reduction of the taxable base is allowed only to the extent that such beneficiaries are not exempt from Austrian tax under a double tax treaty. Similarly, if transfers are made in a different financial year, a refund of the corporate income tax paid is granted under the same conditions.

In the case at hand, the tax authorities denied the reduction of the taxable base on the grounds that the Swiss beneficiaries were exempt from Austrian tax under the relevant double tax treaty. The plaintiff challenged this approach, arguing that the tax regime applicable to foreign transfers infringes the free movement of capital.

On March 26, 2024, the Federal Finance Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding the Austrian tax regime incompatible with EU law. The Court based its decision on the CJEU’s judgment in case C-589/13. The tax authorities appealed to the Supreme Court, which subsequently referred the matter to the CJEU. In its request for a preliminary ruling, the Supreme Court seeks clarification on whether the free movement of capital precludes a national tax system under which a private foundation may benefit from a corporate income tax reduction or refund only if its beneficiaries are subject to domestic capital gains tax on distributions – meaning that no refund is granted where beneficiaries are exempt under national law or a double tax treaty.

List of signatories of the GIR MCAA updated

On September 19, 2025, the OECD updated the list of jurisdictions that have signed the GloBE Information Return Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement (GIR MCAA) to include Germany, which signed the Agreement on the same day.

The list of 17 signatories now includes Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland and the UK.

For previous coverage on the GIR MCAA list of signatories, please refer to E-News Issue 217. 

ETACA pilot progresses with updated guidelines and feedback from stakeholders

On September 25, 2025, the European Commission (the Commission or the EC) held a conference on the European Trust and Cooperation Approach (ETACA) to present conclusions from the first pilot and plans for the second phase. ETACA is the EU’s flagship cooperative compliance initiative for multinational enterprises (MNEs). It focuses exclusively on transfer pricing risks and is designed to provide practical (rather than legal) certainty through multilateral risk assessment and dialogue between tax administrations. ETACA is not a mechanism for coordinating or replacing audits, nor does it deliver binding outcomes like Advance Pricing Agreements. Instead, it offers advance preventative certainty: when transactions are classified as low risk through the process, participating tax administrations are in principle expected not to re-audit those transactions, provided the underlying facts remain unchanged.

The first pilot was launched in 2021 and included 14 Member States and volunteer MNEs. In the Commission’s view, the pilot demonstrated that ETACA can enhance transparency, reduce disputes and improve consistency across jurisdictions. During the event, businesses and tax administrations highlighted the programme’s benefits – including trust building and alignment of approaches. Areas where further refinement is needed were also identified, such as clearer processes and governance. Business associations stressed the importance of reciprocity, technological upgrades, and extending participation to smaller companies.

To address these points, the European Commission revised the ETACA guidelines (the Guidelines) in May 2025, with the updated version formally published on July 1, 2025. The revised Guidelines clarify the framework for ‘low risk’ versus ‘non-low risk’ classifications, introduce an optional issue resolution phase for unresolved cases, and confirm that advisers may support companies provided that taxpayer personnel also attend meetings. The second pilot will test these refinements and broaden participation, with the long-term aim of making ETACA a permanent EU instrument. personnel also attend meetings. The second pilot will test these refinements and broaden participation, with the long-term aim of making ETACA a permanent EU instrument.

The second pilot will be launched from January 2026, with 18 Member States participating. The second pilot will be open to all multinational enterprise (MNE) groups with a tax footprint in the EU. Admission is normally limited to groups with global consolidated revenues above EUR 750 million, though smaller groups may also be accepted if they can provide equivalent Country-by-Country reporting information. Eligible MNEs must demonstrate a strong record of tax compliance (with no serious penalties for fraud, willful default or gross negligence), a clear commitment to transparency and cooperation with participating tax administrations, and an effective internal tax control framework to identify and manage risks. Participation is voluntary for both taxpayers and Member States, and entry is decided on a case-by-case basis by the Coordinating Member State in consultation with other participating authorities. Interested MNEs are encouraged to consult the Guidelines and contact the tax administration of their residence for details on how to apply. For further details, please refer to the European Commission’s ETACA webpage. 

ECON Committee adopts position and suggested changes on the BEFIT proposal

On September 24, 2025, the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) of the European Parliament adopted its position on the Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation (BEFIT) proposal¹.

The document adopted by ECON broadly supports the main elements of the Commission’s proposal, whilst also introducing several significant amendments, including:

• Deemed permanent establishment for companies with a significant economic presence: Introduction of a 'significant economic presence clause', under which companies generating more than EUR 1 million in revenues in a Member State would be deemed to have a permanent establishment there. The clause would help determine which Member State should be considered for the apportionment of tax that MNEs are required to pay in the EU. According to the press release from the European Parliament, the measure is particularly aimed at ensuring that digital companies pay taxes in the jurisdictions where they generate profits.
• Royalties limitation rule: Introduction of a rule to restrict the deduction of royalties or license fees in a BEFIT group in order to prevent profit shifting to low-tax jurisdictions. According to the proposal, . if a company in this group pays royalties or license fees to another group company that is taxed at less than nine percent, the paying company must include those payments in its own taxable income.
• Anti-profit shifting rule: Introduction of a rule to prevent profit shifting to foreign subsidiaries in low-tax jurisdictions that lack real economic activity, requiring that such passive income be added back to the parent company’s taxable income.
• Accelerated tax write-offs: Provision for faster tax write-offs for assets that support EU climate, social, digital, or defense goals, to encourage investment and support the EU's strategic objectives.
• Loss utilization limitation: Restricts the use of subsidiary losses to offset the parent company’s taxable income to a maximum period of five years, whilst ensuring that such deductions cannot reduce taxable income below zero.

The ECON’s amendments will be subject to a plenary vote in November, and, if adopted, will be shared with the Member States in the Council. The legal basis for the BEFIT proposal is Article 115 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), under which the European Parliament has only a consultative role. Therefore, the proposed changes are non-binding on the Council and may not be taken into account.

Despite progress on the proposal in the European Parliament, the future of BEFIT remains uncertain. In his response to the European Parliament's written questionnaire, the new Commissioner for Climate, Net-Zero and Clean Growth, Wopke Hoekstra, described BEFIT as a long-term project which has to be developed by taking into consideration the experiences with Pillar Two. For more information, please refer to E-News Issue 202. Moreover, in February 2024, several EU Member States submitted reasoned opinions to the EC or adopted statements raising concerns with respect to the BEFIT proposal – see E-news Issue 191. The Netherlands and Finland have previously raised similar concerns. 

Public hearing on “Tax implications of the Trump II Administration’s policies”

On September 23, 2025, the European Parliament’s Sub-Committee on Tax Matters (FISC) held a public hearing on the tax implications of the Trump II Administration’s policies. The discussions were focused on recent changes in US tax policy and their potential impact on both the OECD’s Pillar Two framework and the application of digital services taxes (DSTs) in the EU. Key takeaways from the panelists include:

• Benjamin Angel, Director of 'Direct taxation, tax coordination, economic analysis and evaluation' of the European Commission acknowledged the concerns of the business community and tax authorities on the complexity of Pillar Two, and noted that the introduction of a permanent simplified safe harbor remains a priority for the EU. As regards the so-called side-by-side system, under which US-parented groups would be exempt from the Income Inclusion Rule (IIR) and Undertaxed Profits Rule (UTPR) under BEPS Pillar Two in recognition of the existing US minimum tax rules to which they are subject, Mr. Angel noted that other jurisdictions have asked for the group to consider a broader application of the equivalence criteria on which the arrangement will be based. According to Mr. Angel, the outcome of the discussions is uncertain, but any agreement would require clear safeguards. From a practical perspective, the EC’s preference would be for the side-by-side system to be introduced in the form of a safe-harbour agreed upon at OECD Inclusive Framework level. Under this scenario, the Minimum Tax Directive would not need to be reopened. Mr. Angel did note, however, that that an agreement at international level must nevertheless be reached quickly to allow EU countries to legislate for the changes.
• Dr. Kimberly Clausing, Chair in Tax Law and Policy, UCLA School of Law: emphasized the importance of Pillar Two – now implemented in more than 40 jurisdictions, in protecting the ability of countries to collect their own tax revenues. Dr. Clausing also quoted a study based on which Pillar Two could reduce the extent of profit-shifting by approximately 50 percent. The Undertaxed Profits Rule (UTPR) mechanism was mentioned as being particularly helpful, as it brings all countries to the same playing field and helps them regain tax sovereignty. Dr. Clausing concluded by emphasizing that the global agreement should be maintained, simplified and strengthened.
• Dr. Lucio Vinhas de Souza, Chief Economist and Director of the Economics Department, BusinessEurope noted that the uneven implementation of Pillar Two has become a risk factor for Europe. Dr. Vinhas de Souza also noted that the “side-by-side” approach would relieve US companies of many of the burdens experienced by their EU counterparts. Finally, he observed that the current tax system in the EU is too complex, welcomed the EU’s efforts with respect to cutting reporting by 25 percent, but argued that real simplification must go beyond cosmetic changes. In his view, a dedicated task force should drive genuine reform by engaging stakeholders early. 
• Quentin Parrinello, Policy Director, European Union Tax Observatory: Mr. Parrinello asked that alignment with the US model be avoided, as it results solely from pressure by the Trump II Administration. Mr. Parrinello argued that there is still a rationale for a minimum tax rate as prescribed by Pillar Two, as well as for the interlocking principle it contains.

The Q&A session further explored the themes above, with participants raising concerns about the implications of US tariffs, challenges in international and tax negotiations, and their effects on the EU tax system.

European Parliament Research Service paper on the implementation of Pillar Two under consideration of the current EU-US relations

On September 15, 2025, Mr. Pieter Baert, Policy Analyst at the European Parliamentary Research Service, issued at a glance opinion on the implementation of the Pillar Two framework, particularly in light of the foreseen EU-US “side-by-side” approach.

Key takeaways from the paper include:

• Mr. Baert remarks that the G7 indicated support for a ‘side-by-side’ approach, allowing the US GILTI regime – now net CFC-tested income (NCTI) under the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), to co-exist with the OECD’s Pillar Two framework, and signaled the withdrawal of proposed US retaliatory tax measures.
• Mr. Baert emphasizes that the G7 statement is broad and lacks detail, leaving uncertainty about how exemptions would work. For instance, it remains unclear whether non-US jurisdictions would refrain from applying the UTPR to local entities of US-parented groups in respect of low-taxed profits arising in the US or in other jurisdictions that do not implement the QDMTT or the IIR. Additionally, questions persist about the treatment of US intermediaries within non-US groups.
• As Pillar Two and the US NCTI operate differently, namely Pillar Two uses jurisdictional blending (minimum tax in each country), while NCTI uses global blending (taxes and income blended across all countries), Mr. Baert believes that this could create competitive and administrative disparities. In Mr. Baert view, this conclusion remains valid despite the fact that the OBBB increased the NCTI tax rate to 14 percent (from 13.125 percent) and broadened its tax base, by removing the carve-out for the Qualified Business Asset Investment, to align more closely with Pillar Two.

For further background on the panel hearing held by the European Parliament on the topic, please refer to E-News Issue 213.

European Parliament adopts resolution on facilitating the financing of investments and reforms to boost European competitiveness and creating a Capital Markets Union

On September 10, 2025, the European Parliament adopted a resolution based on Mario Draghi's report on Europe's future competitiveness (the Draghi Report). The resolution addresses several key issues, including the need for better tax coordination across EU Member States to support economic growth and private investment.

Key takeaways include:

• Unaligned tax and insolvency regimes: The resolution identifies that tax and insolvency regimes across EU Member States are substantially unaligned, posing challenges for businesses, especially SMEs.
• Need for coordinated tax framework: The Parliament emphasizes the need for a more coordinated EU tax framework to reduce compliance costs, administrative burdens, and to create a level playing field for businesses operating across the internal market.
• Support for EU-wide corporate tax rules: The resolution supports the idea of a single set of EU-wide rules for corporate taxation where relevant, referencing the BEFIT proposal.
• Exploration of European 28th Regime: The Parliament calls for the European Commission to explore the potential benefits and drawbacks of a European 28th regime. For further information on the 28th legal Regime, please refer to E-News Issue 213.
• Encouragement of investor participation: The resolution urges the implementation of measures to encourage investor participation in European capital markets and to support Member States in introducing pro-investment tax policies.
• Priority for European investments: Tax incentives for investment products are recommended to prioritize investments made in Europe to increase European competitiveness.

Resolutions adopted by the European Parliament are not binding on the Council and European Commission, but must be considered by the Commission and Member States when proposing or agreeing on new rules. 

Belgian tax authorities circular on the administrative steps for withholding tax reclaims

On September 10, 2025, the Belgian tax authorities issued a circular (available in Dutch / French) reaffirming their position on the process for reclaiming withholding taxes (circular 2025/C/56). The circular was issued in response to a series of court decisions challenging the approach of tax authorities in practice.

The Belgian tax code generally provides for a period of five years within which withholding tax on dividends, interest, or royalties can be reclaimed, starting from January 1 of the year in which these taxes were paid. The tax authorities’ approach was that an administrative tax reclaim (i.e., request for refund) must first be lodged before a claim can be brought before a court. Additionally, the tax authorities took the view that it is still possible to initiate legal proceedings to challenge a decision on the administrative tax reclaim (request for refund), even after the expiry of the relevant time limit. This process deals with cases where a reclaim is filed with the tax authorities but is rejected, necessitating the taxpayer to take the matter to court.

However, recent case law has created legal uncertainty. In a decision of the Belgian Constitutional Court on March 13, 2025 (judgment no. 43/2025), the Court ruled that the taxpayer must initiate legal action within the reclaim period mentioned above. The period therefore serves as a prescription period, after which the right to a refund expires. The Constitutional Court also held that the taxpayer can directly initiate legal action before the competent court without first having to submit an administrative tax reclaim (request for refund) to the tax authorities.

The September 2025 circular clarifies that the administrative tax reclaim (request for refund) remains a mandatory (exhaustive) administrative appeal and that it is sufficient to submit such a request within the reclaim time limit. According to the administration, legal action can still be taken after this period, as long as the administrative tax reclaim (request for refund) was submitted on time.

For more information, please refer to a report prepared by KPMG in Belgium.

New law expanding R&D tax allowances passed by the Czech parliament

On September 10, 2025, the lower house of the Czech Parliament passed legislation that brings substantial changes to the research and development (R&D) allowance framework.

Key takeaways include:

• The legislation introduces a 150 percent R&D allowance for companies, with a cap of CZK 50 million (approx. EUR 2 million) per group.
• A 100 percent allowance will apply for R&D expenses exceeding the CZK 50 million cap.
• Businesses will be allowed to carry forward unused R&D allowances for up to five years.

The bill is currently awaiting the President’s signature. Once signed, the new rules will take effect from January 1, 2026.

Consolidated text of the Danish Minimum Taxation Act published in the Official Gazette

On September 10, 2025, the Danish Government published the consolidated text of the Minimum Taxation Act (available in Danish only), thereby including the amendments enacted on June 3, 2025.

The consolidated text now incorporates amendments primarily related to the June 2024 and January 2025 OECD Administrative Guidance and clarification to the Pillar Two rules. For previous coverage, please refer to E-News Issue 213.

The amendments included in the consolidated text entered into force on July 1, 2025, and apply retroactively to fiscal years starting on or after December 31, 2023.

France issues reminder on Pillar Two reporting requirements

On September 12, 2025, the French tax authorities released a reminder notice on the filing and notification obligations for Pillar Two purposes.

More specifically, French entities in scope of Pillar Two are required to complete Section II of the form published on January 24, 2025.

Key takeaways include:

• Entities in scope must file Section II form alongside their corporate income tax (CIT) return within three months after the end of the fiscal year. For entities with a fiscal year ending in December 2024, the filing deadline is May 19, 2025, provided that the CIT return is filed electronically.
• Failure to file the form electronically may result in a fine of up to EUR 50,000.
• If the form has been filed incorrectly, entities in scope must review the accuracy of the information submitted online and, if necessary, submit a corrected version as soon as possible, and not later than September 30, 2025.

For previous coverage of the Pillar Two reporting requirements in France, refer to E-News Issue 206.

List of jurisdictions with preferential tax regimes jurisdictions relevant for 2023

On September 9, 2025, the Greek Public Revenue Authority issued a Circular, outlining the jurisdictions identified as having preferential tax regime status for the 2023 tax year.

The list is relevant in light of the defensive measures adopted by Greece against jurisdictions included on it, such as limitations on the deductibility of expenses incurred in relation to residents of those jurisdictions.

For the fiscal year 2023, the list remains unchanged as compared to the fiscal year 2022 and includes the following 42 jurisdictions:

• Albania, Andorra, Anguilla, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Bonaire, Bosnia and Herzegovina, British Virgin Islands, Bulgaria, Cayman Islands, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Hungary, Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Liechtenstein, Macau, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Paraguay, Qatar, Saba, Saudi Arabia, St. Eustatius, Timor-Leste, Tokelau, Turkmenistan, Turks and Caicos Islands, United Arab Emirates, and Vanuatu.

For previous coverage, please refer to E-News Issue 189. For more information on defensive measures, please refer to KPMG’s EU Tax Centre dedicated webpage. 

Implementation rules for the CIT reduction for companies investing in digital innovation and energy transition

On August 8, 2025, an Italian Ministerial Decree was published, setting out the implementing provisions for the four-percentage points reduction in the corporate income tax (IRES) rate introduced by the 2025 Budget Law. The measure, known as the ‘IRES Premiale’, applies only to the 2025 tax year and prescribes a reduced IRES rate for profits reinvested in eligible projects, including those focused on digital innovation, production process automation, and the energy transition.

The implementation guidelines clarify how the reduction will apply with respect to tax groups, transparent entities, and in the context of corporate reorganizations.

Please refer to a report prepared by the KPMG member firm in Italy.

Portugal removes Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, and Uruguay from list of jurisdictions with favorable tax regimes

On September 5, 2025, Portugal published an ordinance updating the list of countries, territories, or regions considered to have more favorable tax regimes.

Following formal requests and positive opinions from the Portuguese tax authorities, Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, and Uruguay were removed from this list. These jurisdictions are currently not included in the EU’s list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions – please see details in our E-News Issue 207.

Portugal applies defensive tax measures against jurisdictions on its domestic list, including: disallowance of the deductibility of expenses related to entities in listed jurisdictions; automatic classification of entities in listed jurisdictions as controlled foreign companies; imposing an increased WHT rate for dividends, interest, royalties (35 percent compared to the standard WHT rate of 25 percent); and denying the participation exemption for dividends and capital gains received from entities in listed jurisdictions.

The removal of a jurisdiction from Portugal’s list means that these defensive tax measures will no longer apply to it.

The ordinance enters into force the day after publication and is effective from January 1, 2026.

For more details on defensive measures adopted by EU Member States against non-cooperative jurisdictions, please refer to KPMG’s summary of proposed or enacted measures.

Switzerland Federal Council adopts GloBE reporting regulations

On September 12, 2025, the Swiss Federal Council announced the adoption of amendments to the Minimum Taxation Ordinance, following a public consultation that closed on August 20, 2025. For earlier coverage, please refer to E-News Issue 212.

The changes introduce the GloBE Information Return (GIR) into Swiss law, setting out how it must be submitted to the Federal Tax Administration and used by the cantons. These amendments aim to facilitate the automatic exchange of GIRs between the Swiss Federal Tax Administration and foreign tax authorities and explain how the cantons can use the information in practice.

The amendments are scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026. However, due to the Swiss legislative process, Parliamentary debate on the amendments cannot begin until the 2025 winter session or the 2026 spring session. In addition, a referendum is required, with the related period concluding no earlier than autumn 2026. Further clarity on the timeline is expected by the end of 2025. The implementation of these amendments does not affect potential future developments regarding minimum taxation.

It should be noted that Switzerland enacted a temporary ordinance for a Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax (QDMTT), effective January 1, 2024. This ordinance was amended in November 2024 to introduce an Income Inclusion Rule (IIR), which entered into force on January 1, 2025.

Belgian Constitutional Court partially invalidates ‘Cayman tax’ reforms

On September 18, 2025, the Belgian Constitutional Court (Court) issued a decision partially invalidating recent amendments to Belgium’s ‘Cayman tax’ regime. The so-called ‘Cayman Tax’ is a look-through tax designed to tax income obtained through a legal structure by founders or beneficiaries, as if they had directly received that income. For more details on the ‘Cayman tax’ regime, please refer to our previous coverage of E-News Issue 188.

The Court held that the definition of ‘substantial economic activity’ required for an exemption from the Cayman tax was too narrow and restrictive, as it limited the exemption to foreign structures providing goods or services to a specific market. The Court found this approach incompatible with EU rules on the free movement of capital. Nonetheless, it affirmed that structures used solely for managing a founder’s private wealth should not benefit from the exemption.

With respect to the Cayman tax regime’s exit tax – imposed when a founder relocates their tax residence abroad, the Court upheld most provisions, recognizing its role in preventing tax evasion and preserving fiscal balance. However, the Court annulled the rule permitting Belgium to tax profits accrued during periods when the founder was not a Belgian resident, ruling that this exceeded Belgium’s tax jurisdiction.

The Court also confirmed that the Cayman tax may apply to legal structures held indirectly through other companies, even if those companies are themselves subject to regular taxation, but where founders could claim an exemption if they have already been taxed on the relevant income.

Furthermore, the Court annulled the rule limiting exemption from the Cayman tax to Belgian companies subject to controlled foreign corporation (CFC) rules. It also struck down the provision applying the Cayman tax to collective investment vehicles with over 50 percent ownership by a single person or related persons, finding this threshold excessively strict and allowing taxpayers to demonstrate that such ownership is not primarily for tax purposes.

Other challenges were dismissed, including those contesting the presumption that the individual listed in the ultimate beneficial owners’ register is the founder and the denial of capital gains exemptions for founders.

Court of appeal rules Canadian mutual fund comparable to a Swedish special fund despite precious metal investments

In June 2025, the Administrative Court of Appeal of Sundsvall in Sweden issued a judgement concerning the comparability of a Canadian mutual fund with a Swedish special fund for withholding tax exemption purposes.

The case involved a Canadian fund corporation that received Swedish dividends subject to WHT. Under Swedish law, foreign funds may be exempt from WHT if they are deemed comparable to Swedish funds. The Swedish Tax Agency denied the exemption, arguing that the fund’s ability to invest in precious metals disqualified it from being comparable.

The Court of Appeal rejected this view, holding that comparability does not require identical features and that the fund’s limited ability to invest in precious metals did not undermine its overall comparability with a Swedish special fund. The court therefore granted the refund.

Although not binding precedent from the Supreme Administrative Court, the ruling clarifies that investment differences should not automatically exclude foreign funds from exemption.

For more information, please refer to a report published by KPMG Sweden. 

AI revolution in transfer pricing – September 25, 2025

On September 25, 2025, a panel of KPMG professionals explored how AI is helping to reshape transfer pricing, demonstrate practical applications of AI-driven tools, and provide actionable guidance on leveraging automation and advanced analytics to enhance your transfer pricing processes.

Calling all transfer pricing enthusiasts - learn how you can unlock the untapped potential of AI in transfer pricing. Watch a session that delves into the future of transfer pricing with AI embedded into the transfer pricing lifecycle. KPMG professionals discussed the burgeoning role and transformative impact of AI in the tax profession including the opportunities and challenges of relying on AI-generated results. KPMG specialists shared insights into pragmatic approaches for using and embedding AI into transfer pricing process and the interaction with existing automation solutions.

The replay of the webcast is available on the event page.

Implications of the G7 statement for Pillar Two compliance – October 1, 2025 (two sessions)

On October 1, 2025, a panel of KPMG professionals will delve into and discuss the implications of the G7 statement from a 2024/2025 Pillar Two compliance perspective.

On June 28, 2025, the G7, comprising of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States, released a statement which outlines a shared understanding of a “side-by-side” solution to US concerns regarding Pillar Two.

The G7 statement leaves a lot of unanswered questions and provides no certainty on when the changes it proposes to the application of Pillar Two to US-parented groups will be enacted in countries’ national laws, creating uncertainty for businesses about how they should be approaching Pillar Two from a compliance perspective.

Please access the event page to register.

European financial services tax perspectives – October 22, 2025

On October 22, 2025, a panel of KPMG professionals will share their insights on some of the latest EU proposals that are likely to affect (A) asset managers, banks and insurers.

The European tax landscape is shifting fast and financial services institutions are feeling the impact. With BEP Pillar 2 implementation underway, firms are facing new challenges around global minimum taxation, substance requirements, and much more. At the same time, EU directives are reshaping compliance expectations, while local tax authorities ramp up enforcement. Add to that the growing focus transformation and digitalization it’s clear that tax leaders should be seeking to stay agile.

KPMG tax specialists will take a closer look at:

• Regional landscape – with several governments across the region looking to set out their fiscal plans for the year ahead, what is the potential impact on future tax policy across financial services
• EU Savings and Investment Union (SIU): the impact of the SIU and its strategies to boost retail investor participation across the EU. Key insights from Luxembourg, Ireland and the UK.
• Beneficial ownership and substance: key insights from a recent KPMG survey on trends across the EU and the practice of local tax authorities. Spotlight on France, Ireland and Germany.

Please access the event page to register.

Key links

• Visit our website for earlier editions.