Country-by-country reporting has outgrown its compliance roots. With the EU's public disclosure clock ticking and jurisdictions like Australia raising the bar on explanatory requirements, multinational tax departments face a new reality: data is going public, and narrative needs to be ready now
Key takeaways:
-
-
-
Country-by-country reporting will only increase in complexity — Australia’s enhanced Country-by-country reporting (CbCR) requirements — reconciling taxes accrued against taxes credited — are a preview of where other high-scrutiny jurisdictions are heading, and companies need to build that explanatory analysis capability now, systematically, rather than scrambling later.
-
There has to be a shared narrative from corporate teams — The EU’s public CbCR is a reputational event, not just a filing. So that means tax, communications, and investor relations teams need a shared narrative before the data goes public — inconsistencies create exposure you do not want to manage reactively.
-
Rethink your filing jurisdiction in light of changes — If EU filing jurisdiction was chosen at initial implementation and never revisited, look again. Guidance has matured, and a more efficient or better-suited option may now be available.
-
-
WASHINGTON, DC — Among the many pressing topics discussed in detail at the recent Tax Executives Institute (TEI) Midyear Conference, country-by-country reporting (CbCR) and its ability to reshape the corporate tax industry, certainly had its place. Between escalating local jurisdiction requirements, the European Union’s public disclosure framework, and Australia’s push for deeper explanatory disclosures, CbCR has quietly evolved from a transfer pricing filing obligation into something far more strategically consequential.
The floor is just the floor
The creation of the Country-by-Country Reporting framework by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was intended as a minimum standard for countries. And now jurisdictions are increasingly layering additional requirements on top of the OECD’s basic template, resulting in a widening gap between the standard requirements and what tax authorities actually want.
Currently, Australia is the most pointed example. Australian tax authorities are now requiring multinational groups to go beyond the standard CbCR data fields and provide explanatory narratives that reconcile taxes accrued against taxes actually credited. This requires corporate tax departments to bridge the gap between financial statement accruals and their organizations’ cash tax positions in a way that is coherent, defensible, and consistent with positions taken elsewhere.
At the TEI event, panelists explained that for tax departments this will carry complex timing differences, deferred tax positions, or significant jurisdictional mismatches between booked and cash taxes. Indeed, this additional layer of scrutiny will need dedicated attention.
Please add your voice to Thomson Reuters’ flagship “Future of Professionals” research, a global study exploring how the professional landscape continues to change. Share your perspective here
The broader signal matters: Australia will not be the last jurisdiction to move in this direction. So that means that tax departments should treat Australia’s approach as a leading indicator of where other high-scrutiny jurisdictions could be heading. Building the capability to produce this kind of explanatory analysis systematically — rather than scrambling jurisdiction by jurisdiction — would be the smarter long-term investment for corporate tax teams.
Public CbCR in the EU: The transparency ratchet has turned
For US-based multinationals with significant European operations, the EU’s public CbCR directive has fundamentally changed the calculus. Unlike the confidential tax authority filings most corporate tax departments are accustomed to, the EU’s public CbCR rules put organizations’ jurisdictional profit and tax data into the public domain, making it visible to investors, journalists, civil society groups, and organizations’ employees and customers.
The EU framework specifies which entities trigger the reporting obligation and which entity within the group is responsible for making the public filing. That scoping analysis is not always straightforward for complex multinational structures and getting it wrong could present both reputational and legal risk.
Choosing a filing jurisdiction is not purely an administrative decision — it is a choice that affects the regulatory environment that governs the disclosure, the language requirements, the timing, and the interpretive framework that applies to data.
For US-headquartered groups, the implications extend well beyond Europe. Public CbCR data is now being read alongside US disclosures, reporting on ESG activities, and public narratives about tax governance. Inconsistencies, including those technically explainable, could create unwanted noise about the company. This is clearly another reason why the tax function should partner across the business — in this case with the communications team — to make they both are aligned to tell the CbCR story instead of being caught off guard by a journalist or an investor during an earnings call.
Questions that US multinationals should be asking
Fortunately, US multinationals with multiple EU subsidiaries are not required to file public CbCR reports in every EU member state in which they have a presence. Instead, under the EU framework, a qualifying ultimate parent or standalone undertaking can satisfy the public disclosure requirement through a single filing in one EU member state, provided the relevant conditions are met. Germany and the Netherlands have emerged as two of the more popular choices for this consolidated filing approach, given their well-developed regulatory frameworks and the depth of available guidance on what compliant disclosure looks like in practice.
The strategic implication is meaningful. Choosing a filing jurisdiction is not purely an administrative decision — it is a choice that affects the regulatory environment that governs the disclosure, the language requirements, the timing, and the interpretive framework that applies to data. Corporate tax departments that defaulted to a filing jurisdiction early in the EU implementation process should take a fresh look. Regulatory guidance has matured significantly, and there may be a more efficient or better-suited path available than the one originally chosen.
The uncomfortable divergence
There is a notable irony in the current environment. Domestically, the IRS and U.S. Treasury’s 2025-2026 Priority Guidance Plan reflects an explicit focus on deregulation and burden reduction, detailing dozens of projects aimed at reducing compliance costs for US businesses. Meanwhile, the international compliance environment has moved in the opposite direction, adding disclosure layers, explanatory requirements, and public transparency obligations that many US businesses cannot avoid simply because they are headquartered in the United States.
This divergence has a direct implication for how tax departments allocate resources and make the internal case for investment in international compliance infrastructure. The burden internationally is not going down — indeed, it is intensifying — and that argument is now backed by concrete examples rather than projections.
3 things worth doing now
There are several actions that corporate tax teams should consider, including:
Audit CbCR data quality with Australia’s enhanced requirements in mind — If you cannot readily reconcile taxes accrued to taxes credited at the jurisdictional level, that gap needs to be closed before it becomes an authority inquiry.
Revisit EU filing jurisdiction strategy — If your jurisdictional decision was made at the time of initial implementation and has not been reviewed since, it is worth a fresh look before the next reporting cycle.
Develop an internal narrative around public CbCR data before it circulates externally — Your company’s tax story should not be a surprise to the corporate teams involved in communications, investor relations, or ESG — and in today’s world, assuming such news stays quiet is no longer a safe assumption.
While CbCR started as a tool for tax authorities, it today has become something more visible, more public, and more consequential than that — and that trajectory is not reversing any time soon.
You can download a full copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s 2026 Corporate Tax Department Technology Report here
