2026 International Tax Changes US Businesses shouldn't ignore: From NCTI/GILTI Adjustments to Withholding and BEAT Impacts

The 2026 International Tax Changes US Businesses are Still underestimating

Firstly, let's talk about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) - A US tax law enacted in late 2025 that amended several international tax regimes rather than replacing them entirely. Its impact comes from how it adjusted rates, definitions, and interactions between existing rules, particularly around foreign income inclusion, deductions, credits, and global minimum tax coordination.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act did not introduce a single disruptive rule that forced immediate restructuring, but it did change how several existing regimes interact. Rates moved slightly, definitions shifted, limitations tightened and credits moved just enough to change outcomes without changing headlines.

At Antravia, the key message is.. if you are relying on last year’s international tax model, your numbers may already wrong. Not catastrophically wrong in every case. Wrong in the way that matters. Effective rates drifting upward. Credits not behaving as expected. Withholding becoming permanent instead of temporary. BEAT exposure creeping closer without anyone explicitly touching it.

GILTI did not disappear

Firstly, some terminology:

GILTI (Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income) is the pre-2026 regime that required US shareholders to include certain foreign earnings of CFCs in current US taxable income. Despite the name, it was never limited to intangible income and applied broadly to many operating subsidiaries (Controlled Foreign Corporation (CFC) being a foreign corporation in which US shareholders collectively own more than 50 percent of the vote or value. CFC status matters because certain categories of the company’s income can be taxed currently in the US, even if no dividends are paid)

NCTI Effective Tax Rate is the practical US tax rate applied to NCTI after the participation deduction and available foreign tax credits. For many corporate taxpayers, this is now closer to fourteen percent, assuming credits can be used efficiently.

So.. calling GILTI “NCTI” encourages people to think something fundamental changed.. Conceptually, it did not but practically, it did.

Net CFC Tested Income still does what GILTI did. It pulls foreign earnings into current US taxation. What changed is how easy it is to neutralize the result. The effective tax rate is higher. Not dramatically higher, but enough to matter once you stop rounding. For many corporate taxpayers, the practical outcome is closer to fourteen percent than the numbers they have been carrying forward in their heads.

More importantly, the base is slightly broader. Some of the relief valves that softened NCTI exposure in prior years now work less cleanly. This is particularly noticeable for operating subsidiaries that earn real margins rather than passive income.

Foreign tax credits (a credit that allows US taxpayers to offset US tax with income taxes paid to foreign governments. Credits are subject to complex limitations, including income baskets, sourcing rules, and timing constraints) help, but only if they line up properly. And that alignment is increasingly rare in groups with uneven geographic footprints. The common failure mode here is not misunderstanding the law. It is assuming the old equilibrium still holds. It does not.

FDII’s replacement

FDII (Foreign Derived Intangible Income) is the pre-2026 regime that provided a lower effective US tax rate on certain export related income earned by US corporations, particularly income tied to foreign customers and foreign use. This is now replaced with FDDEI (Foreign Derived Deduction Eligible Income), which retains a preferential deduction for qualifying foreign derived income but at a reduced benefit level and with tighter qualification requirements. The effective tax advantage is narrower than under FDII.

So.. Foreign Derived Deduction Eligible Income sounds like a rebrand but it really isn't.

Yes, the structure remains. Yes, export oriented income still receives preferential treatment. But the benefit is thinner, and the conditions around it are sharper. If you were previously indifferent between claiming FDII or leaving it on the table, that indifference is gone. The benefit is smaller, and the scrutiny is higher.

For companies with centralized IP, shared service centers, or platform models, the economics now hinge on details that were previously tolerable. Revenue sourcing errors. Weak documentation of foreign use. Legal ownership that does not reflect operational reality.

None of these issues are new. What is new is that the margin for error has narrowed enough that they now change cash tax outcomes rather than living in memos.

Foreign tax credits

The reduction in the foreign tax credit haircut looks helpful when you read the statute, but in practice, it helps only companies whose income and tax profiles already align well. Everyone else still struggles with timing mismatches, basket limitations, and currency effects that distort utilization.

What has changed is that approximation no longer works. Spreadsheet level estimates that once got you close now miss by enough to matter.

This is especially true where earnings volatility, FX movement, or restructuring activity is involved. The credit is there, but only if you can prove where income arose, when tax was paid, and how it translates and many companies cannot do that cleanly with their current systems.

The downward attribution fix

Downward Attribution Fix is a legislative correction that limits when ownership can be attributed downward from foreign persons to US persons. This reduced inadvertent CFC classification but did not eliminate the need for careful ownership analysis.

Restoring the downward attribution fix removed a particularly annoying source of compliance noise. It reduced accidental CFC status in structures that were never intended to be controlled in substance, but what it did not do is simplify ownership analysis.

Layered structures, minority investments, joint ventures, and governance rights still matter. Attribution rules are still unforgiving when documentation is sloppy or legal diagrams lag reality.

The risk here is not that companies misunderstand the rule. It is that they assume the fix eliminated the need to revisit ownership analysis at all, but it did not.

Pillar Two

Pillar Two is the global minimum tax framework developed by the OECD that imposes a minimum effective tax rate on large multinational groups. It operates through a series of coordinated domestic rules across participating countries. US parented groups took some comfort from the side by side arrangement that keeps NCTI outside foreign minimum tax regimes, but that comfort is often misplaced.

While the top level exposure may be mitigated, the data burden is not. Local minimum taxes still apply. Jurisdictional blending still creates friction. And inconsistencies between US tax reporting and Pillar Two calculations are already emerging.

Many companies will escape additional cash tax but still face material compliance and reconciliation effort. Pretending Pillar Two does not apply because you are US parented is a mistake.

Withholding tax

As US taxation of foreign income increases, tolerance for leakage decreases. Payments that were once waved through are now questioned. Services, royalties, intercompany charges, financing flows. All of them sit under closer scrutiny, both internally and externally.

Transfer pricing adjustments compound this problem. When income is recharacterized after the fact, withholding exposure often follows.

This is where permanent tax costs emerge. Non creditable withholding. Treaty claims that fail on documentation. Refunds that never materialize. Companies that do not actively manage cross border payment flows are increasingly leaving money on the table without realizing it.

BEAT exposure

Very few companies suddenly fall into BEAT. Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT) is the minimum tax regime that applies to large US corporations making significant deductible payments to foreign related parties. BEAT limits the benefit of those deductions when certain thresholds are met.

What happens instead is more dangerous. The margin erodes. A structure that once sat comfortably below the threshold inches closer year by year. A deduction that once reduced liability no longer does.

Changes to NCTI and FDDEI affect BEAT indirectly, but they are still impacted. Especially where cross border payments are material. The mistake is assuming BEAT only matters once you cross the line. By then, your options are limited.

FX is no longer just an accounting issue

Currency effects now feed directly into taxable outcomes in ways that many tax teams still underestimate. Translation timing affects NCTI. FX movements distort foreign tax credit utilization. Withholding calculations depend on spot rates that rarely match economic reality and as dollar volatility persists, these effects amplify.

This is where tax, accounting, and treasury misalignment becomes expensive. Decisions made for operational simplicity can quietly increase tax exposure.

What sophisticated companies are doing differently

The companies handling this well are not chasing loopholes or redesigning structures wholesale, but they are doing more disciplined work. For example, they are rebuilding models under current law instead of patching old ones. Or, validating ownership and payment flows against actual substance. They are also aligning FX policy with tax outcomes instead of treating it as a reporting afterthought and more importantly, they are documenting decisions contemporaneously, not defensively.

So, in summary, they are not waiting for surprises to force action.

The risk of doing nothing?

The biggest risk in 2026 is not aggressive enforcement or sudden audits, it is the fear of drift. So.. effective tax rates creeping up without explanation. Credits underperforming expectations. Cash taxes rising for reasons no one can clearly articulate, and by the time those questions are asked, flexibility is gone.

International tax has not become more chaotic. It has become less tolerant of approximation.

For US businesses operating globally, that distinction matters.

Disclaimer:
Content published by Antravia is provided for informational purposes only and reflects research, industry analysis, and our professional perspective. It does not constitute legal, tax, or accounting advice. Regulations vary by jurisdiction, and individual circumstances differ. Readers should seek advice from a qualified professional before making decisions that could affect their business.

See also our Disclaimer page