2026 Global Tax Policy Survey

The 2026 Global Tax Policy Survey confirms that tax transparency and reporting is the single most impactful tax-related driver of business activity globally (65%), with complexity and compliance burden the dominant concern. This aligns closely with the Australian environment, where tax transparency has evolved into a multi layered regulatory and governance framework spanning mandatory disclosure, voluntary reporting and regulator-led assurance. Australia is not merely responding to global developments – it’s actively amplifying them through measures such as public country-by-country reporting, the redesigned Voluntary Tax Transparency Code and the Australian Tax Office’s (ATO) justified trust program. The survey’s finding that 84% of global respondents expect further increases in public tax disclosures reinforces that Australia’s trajectory is consistent with, albeit ahead of, global norms.

Transparency strategies require strong tax governance, alignment of public statements, and board-level assurance. This mirrors Australia’s shift from disclosure to demonstrable control, where governance quality, explainability and evidence underpin both regulatory trust and public credibility. While rapid adoption of AI by tax functions in Australia may improve accuracy and efficiency in reporting, governance becomes even more imperative to ensure model oversight, validation and auditability.

While data integrity has always been key, it’s more important than ever for businesses to ensure data is consistent and reconciled across multiple disclosures, and that they can explain outcomes to a non-tax audience. This requires a single source of truth with a clear accountability framework and robust internal controls.

Globally, tax incentives are emerging as a primary policy tool. In Australia, this is evolving further, with transparency shifting from a compliance obligation to a gateway condition for accessing economic benefits and maintaining social licence.

In Australia, we echo the survey’s need for simplification and reduction in increasing regulatory layering and welcome the Board of Taxation’s red tape reduction review, which seeks to rationalise disclosure frameworks.

For Australian organisations, the strategic priority is clear: build integrated, governance-led transparency frameworks capable of delivering consistent, credible and explainable tax disclosures across multiple regimes, turning compliance into a source of trust rather than risk.

- Kara Singleton

The OECD’s guidance gives employers more certainty on cross-border employment and remote work. It should reduce the risk that temporary remote work unexpectedly creates a permanent establishment (PE) or other corporate tax exposure overseas. For multinationals, that means lower compliance costs, less administration and more flexibility.

However, the benefits for individual Australian workers are less certain. Australian tax residency rules remain complex and continue to create significant uncertainty for individuals undertaking long-term overseas assignments or remote work arrangements. Recent decisions, including Quy v Commissioner of Taxation, reaffirm that factors such as family connections, social relationships and economic ties are fundamental to determining tax residency. Australian employees may need to make substantial changes to their personal circumstances, which may discourage them from accepting overseas opportunities despite the OECD’s efforts to modernise international tax principles.

Australia is also competing from a difficult tax position. It offers limited targeted concessions, has comparatively high personal tax rates, and faces rising living and housing costs. That combination makes it harder to attract globally mobile talent.

The cost lands with employers. To attract foreign professionals, or bring Australians home, businesses may need to pay more through higher salaries, tax equalisation, relocation support or other incentives. For growth businesses and small to medium enterprises (SMEs), that can be a material barrier.

The challenges are compounded by ongoing discussions about Australia’s future tax policy and revenue needs. Recent federal budget measures regarding the taxation of wealth, capital and investment structures may contribute to uncertainty for internationally mobile individuals. Concerns about future tax changes and the treatment of Australian assets while living abroad may further discourage international mobility and investment.

Australian SMEs face additional limitations. While cross-border work arrangements can provide SMEs with access to global talent and new markets, many smaller businesses lack the resources, expertise and advisory support needed to manage complex international employment arrangements.

Consequently, the practical benefits of the OECD guidance are likely to be realised more readily by large multinational organisations than by SMEs, which may continue to avoid international hiring due to perceived compliance and global tax risks.

- David Thomlinson

The 2026 Global Tax Policy Survey highlights a clear shift: digitalisation and AI are now central to how tax functions create value, manage risk and engage with revenue authorities. With digitalisation identified as a top-three policy theme by 56% of respondents, the issue for tax leaders is no longer whether to adopt digital tools, but how to design a future-state tax function that is more connected, governed, and insight-led.
For Australia, this is particularly relevant as the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) continues to embed a digital, data-driven administration model, with a growing focus on real-time reporting, data transparency and justified trust, and an increasing expectation that large corporates can evidence tax positions through real-time, data-led assurance.

Regarding OECD Tax Administration 3.0, the survey found that 60% of respondents are seeing some movement and 27% are seeing significant progress. This points to a future where tax compliance is increasingly embedded and automated, helping organisations manage growing complexity and compliance expectations, and shaped by data exchange between taxpayers and revenue authorities.

The opportunity for Australian tax leaders is to use this shift to reimagine the tax operating model. In practice, organisations are beginning to adopt AI-based compliance software to improve accuracy, strengthen regulatory compliance and free capacity for higher-value activity. However, these benefits will only be realised where technology is underpinned by strong governance, trusted data and clear accountability. Governance is therefore not an overlay but the foundation that enables organisations to rely on digital outputs, evidence tax positions and build confidence with boards, auditors and regulators, particularly in the context of ATO assurance programs.

One of the most important enablers is data quality. Progress along the digitalisation and AI maturity curve is often constrained by reliance on spreadsheets, manual reconciliations and fragmented data sources. Leading organisations are addressing this through more automated, analytics-led and AI-enabled ways of working, where compliance processes are integrated, insights are generated in near real time, and risk can be monitored more proactively.

Over time, the future state is likely to involve more autonomous and self-updating compliance processes. However, that progression starts with getting the data environment right, including ownership, lineage, standardisation, controls and accessibility.

Tax technology design will also continue to evolve to embed analytics from the outset. Future-state tax platforms will provide dashboards, trend analysis and risk indicators that enable leaders to move away from manual reporting and make faster, better-informed decisions.

The imperative is clear: digitalisation presents an immediate opportunity to build a tax function that is more predictive, transparent and resilient. Those organisations that capture the most impact will be those that combine automation, analytics, governance and high-quality data to turn compliance activity into assurance, insight and strategic value.

- Matt Howard

As outlined in the 2026 Global Tax Policy Survey, stability and policy certainty are critical to investment decisions. In Australia, changes in government policy (here and abroad), combined with broader economic uncertainty, have impacted a range of large-scale sustainability initiatives.

Incentives have also become increasingly central to business energy transition strategies, particularly for capital-intensive industrial projects that may not meet internal return thresholds. The survey found that 59% of respondents were exploring grants and incentives, while 34% were already fully leveraging them.

Australia offers a suite of incentives, both established and recently announced, targeting sustainability initiatives. These include clean-fuel–related schemes and production tax incentives such as the Green Aluminium Production Credit and Hydrogen Production Tax Incentive. More broadly, government agencies and targeted programs support sustainability through grant, debt and equity funding for priority investments, alongside mechanisms such as the Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) Scheme and the Guarantee of Origin scheme.

- Greg Pratt

Australia joined 140+ countries in endorsing the OECD ‘Pillar Two’ framework, a new set of globally consistent rules designed to mandate a minimum tax, currently set at a rate of 15%. Australia’s legislation commenced for income years beginning on or after 1 January 2024, based on the financial reporting year end of the ultimate parent entity.

Pillar Two is a tremendous addition to the reporting and compliance obligations imposed on multinational enterprises. The threshold scope is global turnover of €750m or more and a multinational presence, but the scope of the rules can also extend to entities that are 50% or more equity accounted by an in-scope group.

In the Australian context, companies, partnerships and trusts that have a large cornerstone investor (50% or more) have found themselves brought into the rules with complex compliance obligations and potential exposure to additional taxes as a result.

Whilst the concept of a global minimum tax is relatively simple, there are several reasons it’s extremely difficult for organisations to implement. The key issue is accessing the data required for the calculations and disclosures necessary in the GIR (GloBE Information Return), a standardised global document that is subject to automatic exchange between tax authorities under a multilateral agreement. The calculations are based on the OECD Model Rules released in 2021 and subsequent guidance that has been released in multiple tranches since. However, each jurisdiction that has implemented the rules must do so via domestic legislative amendment, leading to nuanced localised considerations becoming necessary.

The first GIR deadline for in-scope multinational organisation was 30 June 2026. It was apparent that some jurisdictions’ systems have struggled to be ready to receive data by 30 June 2026, and there was international recognition that there could be administrative delays associated with the activation of exchange agreements, which organisations should not be penalised for, through a common understanding document released by the OECD.

From a policy standpoint, it has been widely acknowledged that tax authorities should take a transitional approach to penalties as organisations work to upskill their resources, including tax and finance teams and systems, to meet these new obligations. However, groups must not be complacent as the Pillar Two obligation sit within the penalty framework for significant global entities (SGEs).

Moreover, the Pillar Two rules can lead to new taxes (referred to as ‘top-up tax’) which are parallel to ordinary corporate income tax. Tax and finance leaders have the opportunity to understand how these new tax obligations intersect with existing obligations in a way that unlocks efficiencies and improves coordination. Since Pillar Two is a global minimum tax that crosses borders and pulls data from various parts of an organisation (mainly tax and finance but also legal and corporate structuring functions), organisations are finding ways to multipurpose data whilst ensuring full compliance with their new global obligations.

From an Australian perspective, the Australian Taxation Office has invested considerably in developing processes and systems to implement Pillar Two. This shows that Pillar Two will be an important feature for organisational leaders to factor into their tax and finance governance framework from now on. The rules continue to evolve as both technical and administrative guidance is released by the OECD and tax authorities internationally; this is a dynamic area that will be of interest to a broad number of stakeholders given the various potential impacts on reporting, tax payment and data governance.

- Amelia Teng

Trade and tariffs have traditionally been viewed as a compliance-driven function focused on managing cross-border obligations. Increasingly, however, trade policy developments are influencing broader business decisions, including sourcing, supply chain design, sustainability, investment and risk management.

Recent geopolitical developments, evolving industrial policies and the increasing use of trade-related measures have demonstrated how quickly the operating environment can change for globally connected businesses. Consistent with the survey’s findings, organisations are responding by reassessing supply chains, diversifying sourcing arrangements and embedding greater flexibility into their operating models.

A key shift is the growing interconnectedness of trade policy with other regulatory and commercial priorities. Trade-related requirements now intersect with sustainability reporting, modern slavery legislation, carbon border adjustment measures introduced in the European Union, sanctions and export controls, and broader supply chain resilience initiatives. As a result, trade can no longer be considered in isolation. Decisions in one jurisdiction, whether driven by environmental policy, industrial strategy or national security considerations, can have direct implications for sourcing, pricing and market access across global operations.

For Australian businesses, this interconnectedness is particularly relevant. Regulatory developments in major trading jurisdictions are increasingly shaping customer expectations and supply chain requirements, even where those measures do not directly apply domestically. Initiatives such as carbon border adjustment measures, supply chain due diligence requirements and expanding environmental, social and governance (ESG) reporting frameworks are already influencing how Australian organisations engage with global customers and suppliers. In practice, this means businesses often need to prepare for emerging requirements in advance of local implementation.

Recent years have also highlighted the vulnerability of global supply chains to external disruption, including trade policy changes, geopolitical tensions, shipping constraints and energy market volatility. These developments can affect lead times, input costs and access to key markets with limited notice. The survey highlights that businesses are adopting a range of responses to these conditions, including supply chain redesign, market diversification and operational adjustments. In this environment, resilience and agility are becoming critical differentiators rather than operational considerations.

Against this backdrop, organisations are increasingly integrating trade considerations into broader strategic decision-making. This includes assessing supply chain exposure to tariff and regulatory risk, evaluating alternative sourcing models, and embedding trade, tax and sustainability perspectives into investment and procurement decisions.

The trend suggests that trade is evolving from a transactional compliance function to a strategic lever supporting business resilience, market access and long-term value creation.

- David Ware