Global Tax & Emerging Regulations

We support jurisdiction-level data collection and calculations under the relevant framework and assess available safe-harbour conditions. The analysis documents assumptions and gaps; simplified measures must not be used without establishing that the applicable conditions are met.

We organise the jurisdiction-level data collection, run the effective-rate and top-up calculations under the framework, and test each jurisdiction against the safe-harbour conditions on evidence rather than optimism. Every assumption and data gap is logged, so the model's reliability is visible and improvable rather than assumed.

You receive: Jurisdictional calculations, a safe-harbour eligibility assessment and a documented assumptions register.

We help identify registration and reporting responsibilities, data owners and review controls. Support can include preparing filing information and coordinating with group tax teams or appointed advisers, subject to the specific obligations and authorised filing arrangements.

We turn the obligation into an operating process: who registers where, which entity files what and when, who owns each data feed, and where review checkpoints sit before submission. Dry runs on prior-period data expose the practical problems while they are still cheap to fix.

You receive: A reporting responsibility matrix, filing calendar and tested preparation process.

We assess relevant reporting and notification responsibilities and help reconcile entity and jurisdiction data. The work focuses on consistent classification and a clear audit trail. CbCR is distinct from the Master File and Local File, even where information overlaps.

We confirm which entity carries the reporting obligation and which entities owe notifications, then build the report from reconciled source data with consistent entity classification across periods. Because authorities read CbCR alongside your other filings, we sanity-check the picture it paints against the Master File and Local Files before anything is submitted.

You receive: A reconciled CbC report and notification schedule with a documented audit trail.

We assess applicable scope, invoice data, business processes and system dependencies. We help prepare a gap assessment, implementation priorities and testing requirements with the client's technology providers.

We establish which of your transactions and documents the mandate covers, compare required data fields against what your systems hold today, and map the process changes - issuance, validation, corrections, archiving. The result is a sequenced implementation plan with test scenarios your technology providers can build and verify against.

You receive: A scope and gap assessment with a sequenced implementation and testing plan.

We review how tax data moves from transactions and ledgers into calculations and returns. Recommendations can cover reconciliations, access, version control and exception reviews.

We trace the data journey behind each filing - source entries, transformations, spreadsheets, manual touches - and identify where errors can enter unnoticed. The recommendations are practical controls: standing reconciliations, locked calculation versions, access rules and exception reports that surface anomalies before they reach a return.

You receive: A data-flow map with a prioritised control-improvement plan.

We identify developments relevant to the client's business and assess their implications for processes and transactions. Updates distinguish enacted rules, administrative guidance and proposals, with implementation actions and ownership agreed where change is required.

We filter the regulatory stream down to what touches your business, and for each relevant development we state its status honestly - enacted, guidance or proposal - what it changes for you, what to do about it, who owns the action and by when. Monitoring that does not end in an owned action list is just reading.

You receive: Periodic change assessments with an owned, dated action register.

We assess tax questions arising from digital services, platforms and other emerging business models. Reviews begin with the actual revenue arrangements and jurisdictions involved; the service does not imply that every new technology creates a separate tax regime.

We start from how the model actually earns - who pays whom, for what, where the users and infrastructure sit - and then apply the existing direct and indirect rules to those flows, identifying where treatment is settled, where it is genuinely uncertain and what position and documentation the business should adopt meanwhile.

You receive: A revenue-flow tax analysis with recommended positions and the documentation to support them.

We help organise obligations, information requests and review milestones across the countries relevant to an assignment. Coordination with locally appointed advisers can support consistency while recognising that jurisdiction-specific filings and legal advice require appropriate local capability.

We act as the single point that keeps a multi-country programme coherent: one obligations calendar, one information-request pipeline to the group, consistency review of local deliverables against the group position, and escalation when a local issue affects everyone else. Local filings stay with locally qualified advisers; coherence stays with us.

You receive: A coordinated compliance calendar, managed information flow and consistency-reviewed deliverables.