A Belgian court has declined to end litigation brought by a US multinational group challenging the application of the European Union's minimum tax regime, keeping the company's fight against the levy alive, Bloomberg Tax reports.

The ruling, issued by the Belgian court, means the dispute over how the EU minimum tax — the bloc's implementation of the OECD's global 15% corporate minimum tax framework — applies to the US-headquartered group will proceed to further examination rather than being dismissed at an early stage.

What the case concerns

The EU adopted a directive implementing a 15% minimum effective tax rate for large multinational and domestic groups, in line with the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework's Pillar Two agreement. Member states, including Belgium, transposed that directive into national law, extending its effective minimum tax rules to in-scope groups operating within their jurisdictions.

The US group before the Belgian court is contesting the application of those rules to its situation. While the specific grounds of challenge are the subject of the continuing proceedings, the case forms part of a broader wave of litigation in which multinational enterprises and interest groups have tested member-state implementations of the minimum tax directive before national courts.

The court's decision

The Belgian court determined that the challenge should not be terminated at this stage. The claim therefore survives, and the substantive questions raised by the US group — including how the Belgian transposition of the EU directive interacts with the company's tax position — remain before the court for adjudication.

The decision is procedural in character: it preserves the litigation rather than resolving the underlying tax dispute. The court has not ruled on the merits of the group's objections to the minimum tax.

Practical significance

For practitioners, the ruling signals that Belgian courts are prepared to entertain challenges to the domestic application of the EU minimum tax directive, at least to the extent of allowing claimants their day in court. Tax counsel advising US-headquartered groups with Belgian operations will want to track the case as it moves to a substantive hearing, since the eventual reasoning could shape how the Belgian effective minimum tax rules are applied and enforced against foreign-parented groups.

The outcome may also carry implications beyond Belgium. National courts handling similar challenges have in several instances referred questions of EU law validity and interpretation to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Whether the Belgian proceedings produce such a reference remains to be seen as the case advances.

For now, the litigation continues. The US group retains its opportunity to argue that the Belgian application of the EU minimum tax regime should not apply to it as implemented, and the Belgian authorities will defend the levy's application under the directive-based national rules.

Further hearings in the case are expected as the Belgian court proceeds to examine the merits of the group's challenge.