OECD Pillar Two and iGaming: How the 15% GloBE Floor Hits MNE Operators in Malta, Curaçao, and Gibraltar

Any iGaming group with consolidated annual revenues at or above EUR 750 million and operations in more than one jurisdiction is within scope of the OECD’s Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) rules. Where a constituent entity in that group sits in a jurisdiction with an effective tax rate (ETR) below 15%, a top-up tax is due. For large operators holding licences in Malta, Curaçao, or Gibraltar, that top-up tax is not a remote risk. It is a current liability that must be modelled, documented, and reported through the GloBE Information Return (GIR).

Who Is In Scope: The EUR 750 Million Threshold and the Four-Year Test

The GloBE rules apply to MNE Groups with consolidated annual revenues at or above EUR 750 million. That threshold is deliberately aligned with the Country-by-Country Reporting (CbCR) requirement under BEPS Action 13, which means groups already filing CbCR reports can use those filings as a starting point for assessing GloBE exposure. The OECD Implementation Handbook notes that this alignment also allows tax policymakers to use CbCR data to assess the likely impact of the GloBE rules in their own jurisdiction.

The revenue threshold is not assessed on a single-year basis. Under the GloBE Model Rules, an MNE Group passes the threshold if it has revenues at or above EUR 750 million in at least two of the four fiscal years immediately preceding the year being tested. The consolidated revenue for the current year is excluded from that calculation, so groups know at or shortly after the beginning of a fiscal year whether they are in scope for that year. Groups whose consolidated revenues oscillate around the EUR 750 million mark must therefore track four consecutive years of data, not just the most recent year.

How the GloBE Top-Up Tax Is Calculated

The six-step computation

Once a group confirms it is in scope, the GloBE calculation proceeds on a jurisdictional basis. The core provisions in Chapters 1 to 5 of the GloBE Model Rules require the group to determine GloBE Income for each constituent entity, allocate that income to the jurisdiction where each entity sits, compute Adjusted Covered Taxes attributable to that GloBE Income, calculate the jurisdictional ETR by dividing Covered Taxes by GloBE Income, derive the top-up tax percentage as the difference between 15% and the jurisdictional ETR where the ETR falls below the minimum rate, and apply the top-up tax to the jurisdiction’s Excess Profits.

Excess Profits are defined as GloBE Income minus the Substance-Based Income Exclusion (SBIE). The SBIE is a carve-out designed to exclude a fixed return from substantive activities from the minimum tax base. During the transition period, the carve-out is set at 10% of eligible payroll costs and 8% of the net book value of eligible tangible assets located in the jurisdiction. These percentages decline to 5% each by 2033. The policy rationale is to focus the minimum tax on excess income, particularly intangible-related income that is most susceptible to base erosion and profit shifting, while preserving the benefit of tax incentives tied to genuine substance.

“The GloBE rules apply a system of top-up taxes that brings the total amount of taxes paid on an MNE’s excess profit in a jurisdiction up to the minimum rate of 15%.”, OECD GloBE Rules Fact Sheets, April 2026

For iGaming operators, the SBIE calculation is structurally constrained. The sector is asset-light and heavily IP-intensive. Licence fees, platform rights, and brand intangibles typically dominate the profit base, while qualifying tangible assets and payroll in any single jurisdiction are often modest relative to profits. The practical consequence is that the SBIE is unlikely to absorb a large portion of excess profits for most iGaming constituent entities located in low-rate jurisdictions, making the top-up tax percentage apply to a substantial share of GloBE Income.

The rule order for collecting the top-up tax

The GloBE rules establish a fixed priority order for collecting top-up tax across three mechanisms. The local jurisdiction collects first, using a Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax (QDMTT). If the local jurisdiction has no QDMTT, the parent jurisdiction collects under the Income Inclusion Rule (IIR), which imposes top-up tax on the ultimate parent entity (UPE) or, where applicable, an intermediate parent entity, in proportion to its ownership interest in the low-taxed constituent entity. Where low-taxed income remains uncollected under the IIR, a residual charge falls across fellow group members under the Undertaxed Profits Rule (UTPR), which denies deductions or requires an equivalent adjustment in subsidiary jurisdictions.

The July 2023 Administrative Guidance introduced a QDMTT Safe Harbour: where a jurisdiction’s QDMTT meets qualifying standards, the top-up tax for that jurisdiction is deemed zero for IIR and UTPR purposes. The Safe Harbour prevents double collection. As of April 2026, four rounds of Administrative Guidance have been published, the most recent in June 2024, supplemented by the Side-by-Side Package released in January 2026.

Which iGaming Jurisdictions Face the Highest GloBE Exposure?

Malta

Malta’s statutory corporate income tax rate is 35%. However, a shareholder refund mechanism allows non-resident shareholders of Maltese companies to reclaim a significant portion of tax paid at the corporate level, historically reducing the effective CIT rate to as low as 5% for qualifying structures. It is this refund mechanism, not the headline rate, that creates the GloBE exposure. Under the GloBE rules, the Covered Taxes calculation must account for any refundable tax credits: non-qualifying refundable imputation taxes are excluded from Covered Taxes and instead treated as income, which depresses the ETR calculation.

Malta transposed the EU Minimum Tax Directive (Council Directive 2022/2523/EU), which implements Pillar Two across EU member states, through domestic legislation effective for fiscal years beginning on or after 31 December 2023. Malta therefore operates an IIR and is required to apply the QDMTT. For MGA-licensed groups that are themselves in scope, the Malta QDMTT means top-up tax on Malta-sourced excess profits is collected by Malta first, rather than by the parent jurisdiction under the IIR. The QDMTT Safe Harbour applies, deeming IIR and UTPR obligations in other jurisdictions to zero for the Malta constituent entity.

Separately, the Malta Gaming Authority and the Malta Tax and Customs Administration (MTCA) announced coordinated VAT and gaming tax reforms in April 2026, taking effect on 1 October 2026 under Legal Notices 84 and 86 of 2026. The gaming tax changes replace the current uniform 5% gaming revenue tax with a differentiated structure: 15% on the aggregate gaming revenue for Type 1 games and 10% for Type 2, 3, or 4 games. These rates apply to gaming services provided within the territory of Malta, meaning they primarily affect revenue from players physically present in Malta rather than the cross-border services that dominate most MGA-licensed groups’ revenue. The VAT clarification, which refines the scope of the gambling exemption and improves input VAT recoverability for certain activities, does not affect GloBE ETR calculations directly. VAT is not a Covered Tax under the GloBE definitions. Compliance teams at in-scope MGA-licensed groups must model the GloBE position and the October 2026 gaming tax changes on separate tracks. For a full profile of MGA licensing obligations, see our Malta Gaming Authority licence requirements guide.

Curaçao

Curaçao’s iGaming sector operates under a corporate income tax regime with rates significantly below 15% for many structures. Curaçao has been legislating its Pillar Two implementation since December 2024, when Parliament approved and published the initial draft National Ordinance on Minimum Tax. That ordinance was formally submitted to Parliament in revised form by the Minister of Finance on 23 December 2025, with a parliamentary review initially expected in January 2026. The revised draft amended the December 2024 text to better align with the OECD GloBE Implementation Guidelines, including the Side-by-Side Package, and addressed technical considerations regarding coordinated global implementation.

The most significant development for iGaming operators came in April 2026. In a press release dated 13 April 2026, the Curaçao Minister of Finance announced a fundamental policy reversal: Curaçao will not implement the QDMTT. The government had initially intended to implement both a QDMTT and an IIR. Following consultation with financial sector stakeholders and an assessment of the OECD Side-by-Side Package, which reflected the United States’ revised position on Pillar Two implementation, the government concluded that a QDMTT would be counterproductive to Curaçao’s competitive position without providing offsetting fiscal benefit.

“The Government considers it not opportune to implement the QDMTT at this time. Recent consultations indicate that introducing this measure would harm the competitive position of the Curaçao financial sector without significant domestic revenue benefits.”, Curaçao Minister of Finance, press release, 13 April 2026

The consequence for in-scope groups with Curaçao constituent entities is direct: there is no QDMTT Safe Harbour available for Curaçao. Top-up tax on Curaçao-sourced excess profits will be collected by the parent jurisdiction under the IIR, or, where the UPE is not in an IIR jurisdiction, distributed across fellow group members under the UTPR. Groups must identify which jurisdiction in their structure carries the IIR obligation and ensure that entity is filing correctly. Operators considering new structures using Curaçao licensing must factor the absence of the QDMTT Safe Harbour into their post-GloBE tax modelling. The first top-up tax return filing deadline in Curaçao is expected to be 30 June 2027, subject to final legislative terms.

The Curaçao LOK regulatory reform, which replaced the master/sub-licence model with direct licensing under the Curaçao Gaming Authority, is a separate but concurrent structural change that compliance teams must track alongside the Pillar Two position. Our Curaçao LOK framework transition guide covers those regulatory obligations in full.

Gibraltar

Gibraltar raised its corporate tax rate from 10% to 12.5% in 2021, and further to 15% for financial years beginning on or after 1 August 2021, specifically in anticipation of Pillar Two. Gibraltar also enacted a Qualifying Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax, aligning with the GloBE mechanics as a British Overseas Territory that has historically attracted significant iGaming groups given its GRA licensing and proximity to the UK market. At a 15% statutory rate with a QDMTT in place, most Gibraltar constituent entities will not generate a GloBE top-up liability, provided the effective rate on GloBE Income does not fall below 15% after all adjustments. Groups must verify this on the jurisdictional computation, not the statutory rate alone, because effective rates can fall below 15% when tax credits, incentives, or timing differences reduce Covered Taxes relative to GloBE Income in a given fiscal year.

Groups with iGaming operations licensed by the Gibraltar Regulatory Authority (GRA) should work with local tax advisers to confirm that their jurisdictional ETR meets the 15% floor on an ongoing basis and that the GRA-licensed entity’s QDMTT position is correctly reflected in the GIR filing. The UK’s own Pillar Two legislation, effective for accounting periods beginning on or after 31 December 2023, implements both the IIR and a domestic QDMTT under the Multinational Top-up Tax provisions. For in-scope groups with a UKGC-licensed entity as the UPE or intermediate parent, the UK IIR may apply to collect top-up tax on low-taxed income arising in non-QDMTT jurisdictions including Curaçao.

Jurisdiction-by-Jurisdiction GloBE Exposure at a Glance

Jurisdiction	Nominal CIT Rate	QDMTT in Place	IIR Implemented	Key Exposure for iGaming Groups
Malta (EU)	35% statutory / effective ~5% via refund mechanism	Yes (EU Directive)	Yes	Shareholder refund depresses ETR, QDMTT collects top-up locally, refund treatment in Covered Taxes requires careful modelling
Curaçao	Below 15% for most structures	No (reversed April 2026)	Pending (draft ordinance)	No QDMTT Safe Harbour, top-up tax collected via IIR at parent or UTPR across group, first filing expected 30 June 2027
Gibraltar	15% (from 1 August 2021)	Yes	Yes	Statutory rate at floor, verify jurisdictional ETR under GloBE computation, effective rate must remain at or above 15% after adjustments
Isle of Man (GSC)	0% / 10% for banks	Yes (domestic IOM QDMTT legislation enacted)	Yes	Zero rate creates maximum top-up tax exposure, QDMTT collects locally, SBIE carve-out limited for asset-light iGaming structures
Alderney (AGCC)	0%	Dependent on UK/Crown dependencies framework	Depends on UPE jurisdiction	Zero-rate jurisdiction with limited domestic substance, IIR likely to apply in parent jurisdiction

This table serves as a scoping map, not a final determination. Jurisdictional ETR under GloBE departs from statutory rate in every case because GloBE Income is computed from financial accounts with specific adjustments, and Covered Taxes are allocated and adjusted differently from local tax law. Professional tax advisers with GloBE expertise must compute the jurisdictional ETR per the Model Rules.

The GloBE Information Return: Filing and Data Obligations

Every in-scope MNE Group must file a GloBE Information Return (GIR). The GIR was finalised by the OECD in July 2023 following a public consultation. In July 2024, the OECD released a draft GIR XML Schema and User Guide to facilitate both domestic filings and automatic exchange of information between tax administrations. The default mechanism is local filing in each implementing jurisdiction. Central filing, where the GIR is filed once and exchanged automatically with other jurisdictions via Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement, is under development.

The PwC Pillar Two Data Input Catalog (January 2025) documents the scope of data collection required. The GIR’s Annex A1 compiles data points at the level of each constituent entity, covering entity classification for GloBE purposes (incorporated entity, permanent establishment, hybrid entity, reverse hybrid, or tax transparent entity), GloBE Income or Loss, Adjusted Covered Taxes broken down into current and deferred components, ownership percentages, and substance data for the SBIE calculation. For a large iGaming group with constituent entities across twenty or more jurisdictions, this means assembling and reconciling data from entity-level financial accounts across every jurisdiction, not from the consolidated group accounts alone.

The data infrastructure implications are significant. Most iGaming groups’ existing financial systems were built for statutory and consolidated reporting, not per-jurisdiction GloBE Income computation with entity-level covered tax tracing. Cross-functional coordination between tax, accounting, finance, and legal is required to ensure completeness and consistency. The transitional CbCR Safe Harbour, available for fiscal years commencing before 1 January 2027 in implementing jurisdictions that have adopted it, allows groups to use existing CbCR data as a simplified basis for determining whether a full GloBE computation is needed. However, the Transitional CbCR Safe Harbour applies a minimum rate of 17% in 2026 and 2027, meaning that jurisdictions where the jurisdictional ETR falls between 15% and 17% require a full GloBE computation even under the transitional route.

The Simplified ETR Safe Harbour, introduced by the OECD in the April 2026 FAQs, is designed to replace the transitional measure. It relies on a stripped-down set of data points based on the GloBE Rules themselves, sets the safe harbour threshold at 15% rather than 17%, includes the Substance-Based Tax Incentives Safe Harbour, and does not carry a “once out always out” rule. Groups that failed the transitional safe harbour in a prior year can still elect the Simplified ETR Safe Harbour for a subsequent year.

Does the GloBE Apply to iGaming Groups Below EUR 750 Million?

No. The GloBE rules do not apply to MNE Groups below the EUR 750 million consolidated revenue threshold. Groups below the threshold are not required to file a GIR or pay top-up tax under the IIR or UTPR. However, jurisdictions may choose to apply a domestic minimum tax to smaller groups under local law, and the four-year lookback means groups approaching the threshold must monitor their position annually. A group that crosses the threshold in two of any four preceding fiscal years becomes in scope even if its most recent year falls below EUR 750 million.

Structural Implications for iGaming Group Architectures

Most large iGaming groups operate with IP holding entities, B2B licensing arrangements across jurisdictions, and intercompany royalty flows. This architecture intersects directly with the GloBE rules in two ways. Royalty payments from operating companies to IP holding entities in low-rate jurisdictions reduce GloBE Income in the operating company (reducing its ETR exposure) but increase GloBE Income in the IP holding entity, which may itself be in a low-rate jurisdiction with a below-15% ETR. The BEPS Action 8-10 transfer pricing guidance on intangibles applies to these arrangements independently, but Pillar Two provides an additional layer: even a transfer pricing-compliant royalty arrangement does not prevent top-up tax if the IP holding entity’s jurisdictional ETR falls below 15%.

The substance-based income exclusion provides some relief here. If the IP holding entity has genuine qualifying payroll and tangible assets in its jurisdiction, the SBIE reduces the Excess Profits subject to top-up tax. During the transition period, the carve-out is 10% of payroll and 8% of tangible assets, declining to 5% each by 2033. For most IP-holding structures in low-rate iGaming jurisdictions, the payroll and asset base is modest relative to the royalty income passing through. Groups that wish to maximise the SBIE must substantiate the headcount and asset values at the entity level with reliable documentary evidence in each fiscal year.

The GloBE rules explicitly focus on “excess income” such as intangible-related income as the primary target of the minimum tax. iGaming groups whose profit base is dominated by IP-linked returns in sub-15% jurisdictions are therefore structurally exposed in a way that groups in capital-intensive industries are not. This exposure grows over time as the SBIE carve-out percentages decline toward 5% by 2033.

What Compliance Teams Must Do Now

Groups confirmed within scope must complete a jurisdictional ETR mapping across every constituent entity location. This is distinct from a CbCR analysis: the GloBE Income computation requires adjustments to book income that differ from CbCR data points, and Covered Taxes must be allocated entity by entity before aggregating at jurisdictional level. The PwC Pillar Two Data Input Catalog identifies more than two hundred discrete data requirements at the constituent entity and jurisdictional level, covering income, taxes, substance data, ownership, and election history.

For Curaçao specifically, groups must map their IIR exposure: which implementing jurisdiction in the group’s chain is the UPE or highest-level intermediate parent with an IIR, and has that entity’s local Pillar Two return been configured to capture Curaçao-sourced top-up tax? The absence of a Curaçao QDMTT means that tax does not remain in Curaçao. It moves to wherever the IIR applies in the group structure. If no group entity is in an IIR jurisdiction, the UTPR will allocate the residual top-up tax across implementing jurisdictions based on substance factors.

For Malta, the interaction between the shareholder refund mechanism and the GloBE Covered Taxes calculation requires specialist local analysis. The treatment of the Maltese imputation credit system under the GloBE rules is a known area of technical complexity, and the April 2026 Administrative Guidance on cross-crediting CFC and taxable branch regimes adds a further layer of computation for groups with CFC positions affecting Malta entities. Groups must not assume that Malta’s EU Directive implementation resolves their GloBE liability: it determines where the top-up tax is collected, not whether it is due.

Qualified legal and tax counsel must be engaged for jurisdiction-specific application of the GloBE rules. The interaction of the GloBE regime with Malta’s corporate tax refund system, Curaçao’s evolving domestic legislation, and Gibraltar’s QDMTT implementation each raises technical questions that require specialist advice. The analysis in this article reflects the OECD Model Rules and the primary source documents cited, jurisdiction-level domestic law and administrative guidance may modify outcomes and is subject to change.

Key Resources

The following primary sources underpin this article. Compliance teams and tax counsel should verify all jurisdictional positions against the most current domestic legislation in each implementing jurisdiction.

OECD Minimum Tax Implementation Handbook (Pillar Two), 2023, the authoritative overview of the GloBE rules’ core provisions, scope determination, ETR computation, top-up tax mechanics, and QDMTT design. Available at oecd.org.

OECD GloBE Rules Fact Sheets, April 2026, concise summary of the top-up tax mechanism, jurisdictional ETR formula, and Excess Profits computation. Available at oecd.org.

OECD FAQs on GloBE Model Rules, April 2026, covers the Side-by-Side Package, Simplified ETR Safe Harbour, Substance-Based Tax Incentives Safe Harbour, and updated CFC tax allocation methodology effective for fiscal years from January 2026.

Curaçao Minister of Finance, press release, 13 April 2026, confirms the government’s decision not to implement the QDMTT following the OECD Side-by-Side Package. Available at gobiernu.cw.

MGA / MTCA, Legal Notices 84 and 86 of 2026 (published 1 April 2026), source for Malta’s gaming tax and VAT reforms effective 1 October 2026. Available at mga.org.mt.