Members have just concluded the second Tax Policy Interest Group (TPIG) meeting for the year, focusing on Pillar Two and the OECD’s “side‑by‑side” package.

The discussion was both candid and timely. Members gained key takeaways on:

🔹 Pure tax mechanics: The side‑by‑side package reflects a political compromise (notably for the US) and weakens the original “level playing field” narrative — creating real uncertainty for businesses.

🔹 Singapore’s balancing act continues: Keeping the QDMTT supports certainty and reputation, but competitiveness remains a pressure point in a high‑cost environment where incentives matter.

🔹 Compliance burden is heavy: Many groups face multiple parallel computations (CbCR, simplified ETR, full GloBE) with effort often outweighing actual top‑up tax exposure.

🔹 Incentives aren’t dead but redesigned: The shift toward SBTI/QTI opens space to preserve incentive value, but key questions remain around “generally available” incentives, legacy regimes, and tight substance caps.

🔹 No one‑size‑fits‑all answer: A blanket 15% approach may be sub‑optimal; firms should model different incentive “toolkits.”

🔹 Engagement with policymakers matters now: Competitiveness, legacy investments, and certainty featured strongly, with support for near‑term, evidence‑based industry engagement.

Pillar Two is evolving fast and our next moves will matter. Continued, constructive dialogue between business and government will be critical to getting this right.

A big thank you to James and Yeo Ying from Ernst & Young for sharing their expertise and perspectives, and to our TPIG members for the active engagement.