Agefi Luxembourg - mars 2026

AGEFI Luxembourg 8 Mars 2026 Banques / Assurances O n 5 January 2026, the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS pu- blished the anticipated “side-by- side package” providing for various measures and allowing the US system to sit alongside the Pillar Two framework. As part of this document, the newly introduced permanent substance-based tax incentive (SBTI) safe harbor may be of particular interest to Luxem- bourg taxpayers since it should allow certain quali- fied tax incentives (QTIs) to be treated as additions to co- vered taxes once the safe har- bor is implemented in the Luxembourg domestic legislation. The anticipated introduction of this new safe harbor into the domestic legislation in the course of 2026 is encouragingaswebelievethatitshouldaligntheup- dated Pillar Two framework with the Luxembourg investment tax credit (ITC), and allow Luxembourg businesses toenjoy thebenefitsof the ITCregime ina Pillar Two context. This article focuses on the current treatment of tax in- centives under the Pillar Two rules, themechanics of thenewSBTIsafeharbor,aswellasitsintendedprac- tical impact froma Luxembourg tax perspective. The treatment of tax credits forGloBE purposes prior to the January guidance Tax credits, offered bymany jurisdictions and aimed at incentivizing targeted sectors and industries, have animportantimpactonthejurisdictionaleffectivetax rate (ETR) calculation.AnETRbelow15%(i.e., mini- mal ETR as per the global anti-base erosion (GloBE) rules) can indeed arise even in high statutory tax ju- risdictions due to the use of such tax credits. Under the Pillar TwoGloBE rules, the treatment of tax credits for purposes of the ETR computation is twofold depending on whether they are refund- able within four years or marketable. The qualify- ing credits are therefore either qualified refundable tax credits (QRTCs) or marketable transferable tax credits (MTTCs). On theonehand, article3.2.4of theGloBErules fore- sees that QRTCs and MTTCs should be treated as additional income (and not as tax reductions) and even added back to the amount of covered taxes if they initially have been accounted for as reductions, resulting in a much smaller impact through an increase of both the numerator and denominator of the juris- dictional ETR calculation. On the other hand, non-QRTCs and non-MTTCs con- tinue to be treated solely as reductions to covered taxes, leading to a reduction of the jurisdictional ETR by a much higher amount as there is no ad- justment for these incentives under the GloBE rules. Currently, the favorable treat- ment of QRTCs and MTTCs is not applicable to the Luxem- bourg ITCas it isnon-refund- able and non-marketable. Companies may benefit from the ITClocally,therebyimpactingtheirjurisdictionalETR. However, should the latter dropbelowthe 15%min- imum rate due to the ITC, the benefit may then be reversed in the form of a “qualified domestic mini- mum top-up tax” (QDMTT). This could have the effect of partially or even fully undermining the pos- itive incentive effect of the ITC. Qualifying tax incentives under the newSBTI safe harbor Subject to domestic implementation, it is expected that, as from1 January 2026, companies in scope of Pillar Two should have the possibility to elect the SBTI safe harbor in order to reduce the potential top-up tax payable in relation to certain substance- based tax incentives (the so-called QTIs). This amount is limited by a substance cap (further de- fined below), calculated by reference to the multi- national enterprise (MNE) group’s payroll or tangible assets in the given jurisdiction. Regarding the scope of the QTIs, the OECD limits the applicability of the newSBTI safe harbor to cer- tain types of QTIs that (i) must be generally avail- able to taxpayers, (ii) cannot be limited to groups in scope of Pillar Two, and (iii) cannot arise fromdis- cretionary arrangements between an MNE group and a government. In addition to this set of general criteria, the OECD explicitly excludes certain types of incentives from the definition of QTIs, i.e., incentives that reduce lia- bilityfornon-coveredtaxes,incentivesapplyingonly to expenditure that produces excluded income for Pillar Two purposes, incentives taking the form of subsidiesorgrants, aswell as incentivesbasedon fu- tureexpenditure/productionor onexpenditure/pro- duction before the incentivewas in effect. Ultimately, the SBTI safe harbor applies to two de- fined types of QTIs. The broader type ofQTIs are expenditure-based tax incentives that are calculated directly by reference to qualifying expenditure incurred, andwhich can take the form of a tax credit, additional deduction, or exemption. Under this category, the January 2026 administrative guidance explicitly excludes pure timing differences (e.g., standard capital al- lowances) from the definition of QTIs. It is also noted that, in the case of super deductions, the ex- cess relief exceeding the original costmaybe treated as an expenditure-based QTI amount. The impact of this clarification should be limited in Luxem- bourg since no super deduction is currently avail- able. However, based on the above-mentioned conditions and the broad range of QTIs, the Lux- embourg ITC,whichapplies a global rateup to 18% on qualifying CAPEX and potentiallyOPEX, is ex- pected to fall within this category. ThesecondtypeofQTIsarecertainproduction-based tax incentives, calculated by reference to the volume (andnotthevalue)oftheproductionoftangibleprop- ertyandbasedontheoutputoftheeconomicactivity. Ultimately,thistypeofQTIisstronglyassociatedwith substance in the given jurisdiction and requires that theincentivebebasedontheunitsproducedintheju- risdictionproviding the incentive. The treatment of a tax incentive as aQTI—i.e., the in- clusionof the tax credit as additional covered taxes— could be more beneficial to anMNE group than the treatment foreseen by the 2023 administrative guid- ance for QRTCs andMTTCs (inclusion as GloBE in- come,asdescribedabove).Assuch,anannualelection canbemadetoalignthetreatmentofthesetaxcredits with the treatment of QTIs aswell. Overall, this change should allow companies to in- clude all qualifying tax credits under theQTI rules as additionalcoveredtaxes,suchastoalignthelocaland GloBE treatments, resulting in amore consistent im- pactonthejurisdictionalGloBEETRcomparedtothe local treatment of tax credits. Substance cap Given that the eligibility for tax incentives is usually stronglylinkedtolevelsofcapitaloremployment,the newmechanism limits the amount eligible for relief by a substance cap, determined based on the level of economic substance in the given jurisdiction. The guidanceofferssomeflexibilitytodeterminethesub- stancecapastherearetwomethodstocalculateit,ac- counting for the varying levels of asset and labor across industries and jurisdictions. The first method is based on the greater of 5.5% of eligible payroll costs or the depreciation or deple- tion of eligible tangible assets, which is most suit- able for incentives that are predominantly payroll- or asset-based. It is noted that, under this method, eligible payroll costs (as defined by article 10.1 of the GloBE rules), computed on a jurisdictional basis, should also include payroll costs capitalized and included in the value of eligible tangible assets (i.e., costs typically excluded from the substance- based income exclusion (SBIE) under article 5.3.3.(a) of the GloBE rules). Alternatively, the MNE group can make a five- year jurisdictional election to apply the second method, which is set at 1%of the carrying value of eligible tangible assets (excluding land and other non-depreciable assets). Given that a depreciable asset’s carrying value tends to be higher in the ini- tial years of its useful life, toprevent abuse, a switch between the two methods would require exclud- ing any asset whose carrying valuewas previously taken into account in determining the substance cap based on the calculation of the asset’s depreci- ation or depletion. Practical considerations for Luxembourg taxation Thetimelineforimplementingtheside-by-sidepack- agethroughdomesticlegislationisunclear.However, it is expected to be implemented in Luxembourg in the second half of 2026, with the legislation expected to apply as from1 January 2026. FromaLuxembourgtaxperspective,analignmentof the Pillar Two rules with the ITC has beenmuch an- ticipatedandthisnewruleshouldbewellreceivedby Luxembourg businesses. The expected treatment of the ITC as an “expenditure-based” QTI by applying the January 2026 administrative guidance should in- deed allow Luxembourg companies to access Pillar Two relief and pursue digital and green transforma- tionwith little tonoPillar Two friction. Themost effective strategy for Luxembourg compa- nies going forward is to evaluate the impact of the guidance if they benefit from ITC or other expendi- ture-basedcredits,monitortheimplementationofthe side-by-sidepackageinLuxembourgin2026,andde- termine the most suitable substance cap method for their situation. Nicolas DEVERGNE (portrait), International Tax Partner, Deloitte Luxembourg Dachelina ABDULKADIROVA, Assistant Manager, International Tax, Deloitte Luxembourg The new Pillar Two safe harbor: Aboost for Luxembourg’s investment tax credit? L a finance numérique trans- forme enprofondeur les modèles économiques, les marchés et la régulation. Portée par l’intelligence artificielle, les paie- ments digitaux et leWeb3, elle redéfinit le rôle des acteurs finan- ciers et l’intégrationdes crypto- actifs. Entre innovation technolo- gique et nouveaux cadres régle- mentaires, unnouveau chapitre s’ouvre pour l’écosystème financier enEurope et auLuxembourg. Pour analyser ces évolutions, l’édition 2026 du Digital Finance Forum, organi- sée par Luxembourg for Finance le 4 mars, a réuni plusieurs experts afin d’éclairer les enjeux àvenir. Un sujet cru- cial pour l’avenir des marchés financiers et pour la compétitivité européenne, comme l’a souligné le ministre luxem- bourgeoisdes Finances GillesRoth dans son discours d’ouverture : « La finance n’est pas une fin en soi, c’est un système facilitateur. Elle permet le financement et la croissance. La finance numérique peut renforcer ce système en orientant le capital plus rapidement et plus efficace- ment vers l’économie réelle et en soute- nant la compétitivité de l’Europe. » Aucœurdesdiscussions:lescrypto-actifs et laplace croissantequ’ils occupent dans lesportefeuillesd’investissement.Pourles intervenantsdupanelanimépar Thomas Campione (SeniorManagerchezDeloitte Luxembourg),lacrypton’estplusunactif marginal ou purement spéculatif, mais une classe d’actifs en cours de structura- tion dont le rôle stratégique devrait s’ac- croître. La réglementation européenne, notamment MiCA , contribue à attirer les investisseurs institutionnels. Jerome Dave , President of Bitstamp by Robinhood, a ainsi estimé : « Je ne pense pas que cela rende les choses plus faciles, mais certainement plus sûres. » Les investisseurs traditionnels avancent toutefoisavecprudence. DenzelWalters , HeadofLuxembourgchezB2C2Europe, observe que « les grands investisseurs institutionnels limitent généralement leurs allocations aux 10 ou 20 principaux actifs, en fonction de leur liquidité ». Pour Jean-Baptiste Graftieaux , CEO de Coinbase Europe, « la crypto est aujourd’hui un actifmacro très sérieux ». Il se dit notamment enthousiaste à l’idée de voir émerger « un stablecoin en euro permettant une participation plus large des investisseurs européens ». Lors d’un premier échange consacré à l’évolution du Web3, Raoul Heinen (Investment Funds Partner chez Linkla- ters) et Dan Jones (Partner chez Morri- son Foerster) ont évoqué un « tournant stratégique pour l’écosystème Web3 ». La tokenisation s’accélère : l’Union euro- péenne pose les bases réglementaires, le Royaume-Uni cherche à combler son re- tard et les États-Unis mettent en place, avec le GENIUS Act , un cadre pour les émetteurs de stablecoins de paiement. Un second panel consacré à l’adaptation desmarchésde capitaux auWeb3, animé par Emilie Allaert (Director of Digital AssetsProductschezStandardChartered Luxembourg), a mis en évidence l’émer- gence d’un écosystème hybride mêlant marchés financiers traditionnels et infra- structuresWeb3. Ala Presenti , cofondatrice de la société d’investissement luxembourgeoise Investre et premier agent de contrôle agréé du pays sous la Blockchain IV Law, a souligné que « les actifs tokenisés ne constituent pas une nouvelle classe d’actifs, mais une nouvelle manière d’émettre, de gérer et de distribuer des produits financiers ». Selon elle, leWeb3 fera émerger de nouveaux usages pour les instruments financiers existants. RafalKwasny , ConductingOfficer chez FranklinTempletonLuxembourg—qui a lancé depuis le Luxembourg son pre- mier fonds tokenisé enEurope—estime que ce qui a déjà migré vers la DLT est appelé à perdurer. Il a également salué l’approche du régulateur luxembour- geois : « Nous avons eu une expérience très positive avec le régulateur. Nous avons construit une forme de partena- riat, ce qui est assez unique. » MartinWatkins ,CEOdeMontusDigital, a pour sa part évoqué le rôle potentiel de la Banque centrale européenne : « La future monnaie de banque centrale on- chain sera un tournant décisif. » Autre thème majeur : la transformation du secteur financier sous l’effet de l’intel- ligence artificielle. Jean-Louis Schiltz , Senior Partner chez Schiltz&Schiltz, et DavidShrier , Profes- sor of Practice inAI & Innovation à l’Im- perial Business School de Londres, ont souligné que l’IA n’est plus expérimen- tale : elle est désormais intégrée auxmo- dèles économiques et aux dispositifs de gestion des risques, tout en attirant l’at- tention des régulateurs. PourDavidShrier, l’enjeuest aussi socié- tal : « L’une des questions les plus cri- tiques concerne la transformationdu tra- vail », a-t-il expliqué, estimant que « le simple reskilling ponctuel ne suffira plus » et qu’une capacité d’apprentis- sage continu sera nécessaire. La matinée s’est conclue par un débat de haut niveau sur l’avenir des paiements, réunissant Sean Byrne (CEO de PayPal Europe), Matthew Osborne (Policy Director Europe & UK chez Ripple) et MartinaWeimert (CEOd’EPICompany), animé par Ananda Kautz (membre du comité de directionde l’ABBL). Les échanges ont porté sur les monnaies numériques, l’interopérabilité des sys- tèmesdepaiement,lesportefeuillesnumé- riques et les paiements de compte à compte. Une conclusion s’est dégagée : la prochaine étape décisive dépendra de la capacité des acteurs publics et privés à coordonner leurs efforts pour construire une infrastructure européenne de paie- ment résiliente, compétitive et inclusive. Source : Luxembourg for Finance Digital Finance Forum organisé par Luxembourg for Finance La finance numérique s’impose comme moteur stratégique en Europe