Executive summary

On 20 January 2026, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) hosted a public consultation meeting to discuss issues related to the global mobility of individuals. The consultation had been announced on 26 November 2025, with the release of a public consultation document providing an overview of issues that arise from cross-border movement of people and seeking input from stakeholders on their insights and experiences. The OECD received more than 60 comment submissions reflecting perspectives on a wide range of issues.

The consultation meeting was conducted in a hybrid format, with five discussion sessions focused on economic trends in global mobility, corporate income tax matters related to global mobility, global mobility issues beyond tax, taxation of employment income and taxation of the gig economy and digital nomads. The sessions were led by panels that included members of the OECD secretariat, government tax officials, academics, representatives of nongovernmental organizations (NGO) and business representatives.

The consultation was an opportunity to gather input from stakeholders with varied perspectives following the OECD/G20's agreement to explore issues of global mobility of individuals using an evidence-based approach. Speakers during the consultation described the ongoing increase in global mobility, provided practical input on the areas for which greater clarity and streamlining of compliance requirements are most needed, and suggested potential approaches for developing guidance to facilitate the opportunities that global mobility offers for individuals and reduce barriers to the economic growth that global mobility drives.

Senior members of the OECD Secretariat stressed the importance of the future work on global mobility and the critical necessity of continued engagement with stakeholders as the work advances.

Detailed discussion

Background

On 19 November 2025, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released the 2025 Update to the OECD Model Tax Convention (OECD MTC), which makes modifications to the OECD MTC and its Commentary in a variety of areas. (See EY Global Tax Alert, OECD releases update to Model Tax Convention, dated 25 November 2025.)

Among the changes included in the 2025 Update are substantial additions to the Commentary on OECD Model Article 5 (Permanent Establishment). These changes are intended to ensure the Commentary reflects modern working arrangements under which individuals have the opportunity to perform all or part of their work from a location outside the country where the enterprise for which they work is located. The revised Commentary introduces an analytical framework that clarifies when use of a home or another relevant place, such as a second home, a holiday rental or the home of a friend or relative, in another country to carry out activities related to the business of an enterprise can amount to a fixed place of business permanent establishment of the enterprise. (See EY Global Tax Alert, OECD 2025 Update to the OECD Model Tax Convention - key highlights, dated 5 December 2025.)

The 2025 Update will be incorporated into the OECD Model to be published in 2026.

Public consultation

On 26 November 2025, the OECD released a public consultation document on the global mobility of individuals. The document provides an overview of issues that arise from cross-border movement of people and seeks input from stakeholders on their insights and experiences. The document primarily focuses on personal income tax and employment income, but also invites views on corporate tax challenges, including issues relating to the existence of a permanent establishment, the attribution of profits to such a permanent establishment, residence and transfer pricing.

On 14 January 2026, the OECD posted the more than 60 stakeholder comment submissions received, including the EY comment letter. The submissions include comments from businesses, industry associations, advisory firms and individuals.

On 20 January 2026, the OECD hosted a meeting to discuss the global mobility issues addressed in the comment submissions. The full-day meeting was conducted in hybrid format, with participants joining either in person at the OECD Conference Center in Paris or virtually. The agenda included panels on five topics, consisting of members of the OECD Secretariat, European Commission, ministry of finance and tax administration officials from several countries, academics, representatives of non-governmental organizations and representatives of businesses, industry associations and advisory firms.

Opening remarks

Manal Corwin, Director of the OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, opened the session by noting that the Secretariat is happy to support the robust workplan of the Committee on Fiscal Affairs and the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework. She stressed the importance of the work on global mobility, which she described as aligned with work on the digital economy, stability, certainty and economic growth.

Corwin said that work on global mobility will reflect an evidence-based, phased approach, with a focus on understanding the issues faced by stakeholders and governments and the differences across economies. She stated that engaging with stakeholders will be critical, noting that the comment submissions demonstrate how much experience and expertise there is available to draw from in this work.

Achim Pross, Deputy Director of the OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, described the comment submissions on global mobility as reflecting rich, diverse perspectives on a range of relevant topics, including tax policy, tax compliance and administration, domestic law and treaty law.

Session 1 — Economic trends in the global mobility landscape

Pross moderated the discussion on economic trends in the global mobility landscape, with presentations by government officials from Nigeria and the UAE and business representatives. The discussion focused on data collected through surveys and trends noted by the speakers.

Pross began by highlighting four categories of mobile work to be considered in the discussions: (1) short-term remote cross-border work, including business travel and remote work while visiting family or around holidays; (2) permanent or long-term cross-border work, including frontier workers and permanent remote workers (dispersed teams); (3) expatriates; and (4) digital nomads. Pross acknowledged there are different characterizations of the types of mobile workers reflected in the public consultation submissions.

Pross presented the results of various business surveys that are aligned with the OECD research in indicating that remote work (including cross-border work) has become a permanent and growing feature of labor markets.

He highlighted that businesses are increasingly taking a macro view of global mobility, considering demographic trends, future labor supply and shifting demand patterns in a more systemic way. He underscored that companies are compelled to access talent pools in jurisdictions where such skills were previously unavailable, reflecting a strong and accelerating trend. Pross concluded that global mobility contributes meaningfully to a broader growth narrative and ultimately represents a significant opportunity for employers and economies alike.

A business representative presented data from a 2024 workforce survey showing that hybrid and remote work patterns have remained strong well beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating these trends are now structurally embedded. Hybrid work emerged as the dominant model (58%), with fully in-person work the least common, and 20% employees having worked from another jurisdiction. Significant regional variation was noted, with 81% of hybrid or remote workers in Western Europe reporting cross-border activity, compared with 64% in the Asia-Pacific region (APAC) and much lower levels in North America and Central and Eastern Europe. Younger workers are leading the trend, as well as regular artificial intelligence (AI) users and senior executives, and mobility rates are highest in small firms. The panelist also observed that mobility is not limited to higher-income workers; in fact, a higher proportion of financially constrained employees reported cross-border work than those who are financially secure.

Pross echoed these findings and noted that start-ups are increasingly hiring talent directly where it is located, contributing to the broader shift toward flexible, distributed work.

Another business panelist stressed that global mobility is now a defining feature of the German labor market, with around 10 million individuals working cross-border. For companies competing for strategic and innovation-driven talent, mobility has become a core competitive factor enabled by digital infrastructure that reduces the relevance of physical location. The panelist highlighted the benefits for both economies and individuals, including enhanced productivity, knowledge exchange, innovation, labor-market participation — particularly for women — and higher employee satisfaction. She cautioned, however, that a widening gap persists between employee expectations and what current legal frameworks allow. Existing rules were designed for a more traditional, location-bound environment, limiting companies' ability to offer cross-border work and risking talent loss. The panelist called for simplification and modernization of these frameworks and noted that the OECD is well positioned to lead this effort.

A business commentator highlighted the demographic dimension of global mobility, noting that almost 90% of the world's young people live in developing countries, with India alone expected to add more than 100 million workers by 2030. The commentator stressed that economies facing such rapid labor-force growth must be supported to become market-ready participants in global mobility and urged that demography-driven mobility be treated as a priority workstream.

Olufemi Michael Olarinde, head of the Fiscal and Tax Reform Implementation Division of the Nigeria Revenue Service, observed that demographics are reshaping the future tax base more than any other factor, with tax policy increasingly needing to follow the worker rather than the workplace. Africa is the youngest region globally, and Nigeria is its largest labor market, with more than 50 million young people expected to enter the workforce in the coming decade. He noted that rising cross-border work creates challenges for African tax administrations due to limited traceability of income flows. Olarinde outlined potential policy responses, including real-time transaction capture, simplified tax filings for small enterprises, tax frameworks that consider digital entrepreneurs and further digitalization of tax administration, stressing that tax systems must remain simple for young entrepreneurs.

Shabana Begum, Executive Director of the Tax Policy Sector in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Ministry of Finance, indicated that the data presented by other panelists is in line with the research conducted by the UAE government. She highlighted that remote and hybrid work represent a key feature of the UAE labor market, which is largely expatriate focused. This has led the UAE government to amend visa programs and adjust working policies for federal government employees to enable work from outside the country. According to Begum, businesses in the digital services and technology sectors are driving the adoption of flexible work arrangements. She also indicated that, at the regional level, the degree of change in working arrangements varies, noting that in Saudi Arabi and Qatar civil servant remote work is now becoming possible and Kuwait and Oman are also making changes to their policies. She described UAE as at the forefront of these changes, given its role as a strategic hub for capital and talent in the region.

Session 2 — Corporate income tax: Update on progress and exploring other questions

The second session, moderated by Christian Kaeser, co-chair of the tax committee of Business at OECD (BIAC), discussed corporate income tax related issues. He noted that the rise of mobile work creates tax uncertainty, highlighting sourcing talent, managing virtual teams, senior management functions, AI integration in the business and risk control as major challenges. The panel, which included an Argentine government official, a representative of the African Tax Administration Forum and several business representatives, focused in particular on Permanent Establishment (PE) and transfer pricing issues.

Permanent establishment (PE) issues

Carlos Protto of Argentina's Ministry of Finance, who serves as the Vice-Chair of Working Party 1 (the OECD group responsible for technical work on tax treaty matters), introduced the recent and ongoing work of the Working Party on mobile work, which aims to balance employee desires for flexibility and business and government concerns about PE exposure and the rise of micro-PEs. The recent updates to the Commentary on Article 5 (Permanent Establishment) take into account these various interests. He noted that, instead of amending the OECD MTC itself, new guidance was developed very quickly to clarify how to apply existing tax treaty rules regarding PEs in light of increased mobile and remote work.

A business representative welcomed future opportunities for stakeholders to comment on draft proposals while they are being developed in the Working Party. Supported by other business representatives, he encouraged the OECD to publish an overview of how each jurisdiction intends to apply the updated commentary to its treaty network. He also noted that further guidance is needed to determine when situations that involve an employee in a different time zone than the enterprise's country may be considered a presence with a commercial reason. The BIAC tax committee co-chair emphasized the significance of this issue, particularly for software teams, and stressed that further clarification to provide certainty is required.

Business representatives noted that the current guidance mainly covers fixed-place-of-business PEs, specifically those triggered by home offices, and urged that future work address other prevalent fact patterns. These include remote work from coworking spaces, cross-border payroll situations, and cross-border activities of managerial staff that may trigger dependent agent PEs. Business representatives also pointed to complex scenarios that are increasingly relevant in multinational businesses. In this regard, businesses may be organized as matrix organizations with dispersed management or have other structures in which the organizational setup is not precisely aligned with the legal framework.

Business representatives called for simplified compliance related to remote work, including the possibility of tracking methods other than self-reporting by employees. Concrete suggestions included introducing time-based safe harbors or piloting a certificate of noneconomic presence, which are recommendations that take into account that employers may lack precise knowledge of employee locations.

Another business representative illustrated the real-world impact of these challenges by referencing business survey data that highlights how concerns regarding tax and social security implications significantly influence hiring and investment decisions. He noted that 67% of employers surveyed by the International Chamber of Commerce indicates that they already permit some form of international remote work, while a recent survey by the Silicon Valley Tax Directors Group highlights that 80% of responding employers avoid hiring in jurisdictions where they do not have a subsidiary, 50% have rejected potential investment opportunities due to PE risk and 90% impose restrictions on remote work due to PE risk.

Another business representative referenced the need to review profit allocation methods, in particular to reevaluate the application of the Authorized OECD Approach (AOA) in digitalized business environments in which companies and consumers interact via platforms and cloud software.

Business representatives also emphasized the importance of enhancing dispute resolution mechanisms related to dual residency, either through Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) mechanisms to address these issues or by establishing frameworks that enable countries to resolve them bilaterally.

Transfer pricing issues

Anthony Munanda, representing the African Tax Administration Forum, stressed the organization's aim to help member countries adopt new rules to provide certainty for both tax administrations and business. He also emphasized that Africa's growing internet access and youthful demographics create remote work opportunities but require clearer tax rules and guidance for cross-border profit allocation and PE determination. He recommended updating transfer pricing rules, revising functional analysis, and tracking value creation from remote activities to ensure fair and certain profit allocation.

A business representative referred to the common situation faced by multinational enterprise groups with complex and dynamic cross-border organizational structures, with employees who effectively serve associated enterprises in multiple countries. He encouraged the OECD to work on addressing these fact patterns and develop clarifications on how to compensate these services (e.g., whether as standard intra-group cost-plus services, or if their value merits it, as a share of profits or losses).

Consistent with BEPS Actions 8-10, the business representative reiterated that the starting point of the risk control framework is that risk allocation follows contractual terms, supplemented by an assessment of actual conduct. In a mobility-driven context, in which relocations, dispersed teams and remote leadership can shift who exercises control over economically significant risks, he stressed that entities exercising such control should be appropriately compensated and requested clear guidance on the consequences of such shifts, suggesting that a safe harbor for limited or transitional local participation in profits or losses could apply. Regarding the concept of DEMPE (Development, Enhancement, Maintenance, Protection and Exploitation) functions applicable to intangibles, he emphasized that legal ownership is the starting point of the analysis, but that countries interpret the concept of DEMPE differently. Global mobility increases the need for clear guidance on how DEMPE interacts with the concept of risk control.

The panelist noted that situations have been observed in which assertions about delineating the actual transaction go beyond what the contractual terms and conduct indicate. In some cases, tax administrations have claimed that simply because employees of a group are present in a country, part of the risk and part of the residual profit that can be somehow linked to it should be allocated to the employing entity. Sometimes such claims are based on paragraph 1.105 of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines; sometimes they almost completely disregard the risk control framework altogether. He suggested that the presence of virtual teams and hubs makes it particularly important that the OECD consider this issue carefully in its review. In addition, he requested clarity regarding whether changes in control of risk should lead to exit payments or other adjustments.

In relation to allocation of profit to PEs, the business panelist encouraged the OECD to consider whether there is scope to develop de minimis or safe harbor thresholds to avoid proliferation of micro-PEs. He also indicated that it has been asserted that the economic employer differs from the formal employer in fact patterns in which employees of a service company perform services for the benefit of a related company in another jurisdiction and those employees have a functional working relationship with individuals employed by that related company in the other jurisdiction. An economic employment relationship is assumed, and on that basis a PE is claimed to exist. He suggested the OECD consider providing further guidance on how the employer should be determined in these situations.

For highly dematerialized, AI-assisted, cloud-based business models, a business representative raised questions about whether the concept of "significant people functions" remains suitable for current practices. She suggested that optional, objective "concentration" diagnostics using macroeconomic indicators may make more sense.

Finally, another business representative highlighted two particular issues: global fund management and challenges specific to Asia. He stressed that clear rules on residence and PE are essential due to the use of investment vehicles with nonresident directors and the concentration of fund entities. He also observed that Asia faces challenges such as exchange controls limiting fund repatriation and complicated stock option rules. He suggested offering clear guidance in emerging markets, while also highlighting the MAP process's limitations in small cases and encouraging multilateral OECD solutions.

Session 3 — Global mobility in the wider context

Jasna Voje of the OECD Secretariat moderated a discussion of other nontax issues that increase the challenges facing cross-border employee activity. The panel included an official from the European Commission, academics, representatives of an NGO and a business representative. The discussion was aimed at increasing foundational awareness of these nontax matters to create greater appreciation of the disparity in country coverage and the potential complexity for both businesses and individuals.

The discussion began with a spotlight on Africa, with a business representative identifying trends and challenges. One major trend in this continent is a shift from the ability to travel and conduct business on a visitor visa to work authorization requirements. The speaker noted that the unprecedented number of new visa types across the region creates risks for short-term assignments and remote workers. She also noted that legal issues are significant as jurisdictions do not align on employment laws, furthering ambiguity in the cross-border context. She stressed that, from a tax perspective, double taxation can arise if an individual is taxable in two locations but cannot obtain a residency certification to minimize the tax burden. The business representative indicated that although countries across the region vary meaningfully in terms of infrastructure, sophistication and economic growth rates, this is a region of fast growth and meaningful opportunity. Overall, global mobility activity is moving faster in Africa than corporate Human Resources and Tax teams can handle.

An NGO representative stated that generally Social Security systems are not only financing mechanisms but also delivering an expectation of future benefits, including sickness and medical, employment injury and pension benefits. He noted that, today, 195 countries require mandatory participation in the local social system for qualifying workers. In the international context, gaps in coverage can lead to reduced benefits, which can lead to future poverty and other negative consequences. Because of this, he said that social security systems must work together. As of 2020, there were 660 agreements covering social security and although this number continues to grow, it doesn't cover all countries, all categories of coverage and all workers. He indicated that, in many countries, detached workers who leave their country of origin can often remain covered in their home jurisdiction for up to two years before coverage switches to the host country. Social security agreements aim to minimize gaps while ensuring that there is a right to benefits at the end of a worker's career or should an accident occur.

The NGO representative described the goal of social security cross-country alignment as recognizing diversity while avoiding loss of coverage/protection or unjustified double taxation. The situation of teleworkers can be especially complex as the laws do not contemplate situations in which the relevant social security jurisdiction and its translation to future entitlements is unclear.

Silvia Kersemakers of the European Commission emphasized the role that the European Union will play in the coordination of national social security systems while not impacting their autonomy. For this coordination, the focus will be on equal treatment, aggregation of contribution periods, export of benefits and confirmation that only one social contribution will apply based upon the jurisdiction where the activity is performed (the lex loci laboris principle). But there are some exceptions for posted workers, self-employed persons and workers working across multiple states (here a focus on substantial activity defined as 25% or more of working time or income is determinant). Under one potential solution, cross-border teleworkers and/or their employers could opt-in (with the other party agreeing) to allow full participation in the resident country even if less than 50% of the worker's time is spent working in this country.

Two academics raised other issues, such as the determination of benefits and coverage in cross-border cases. One key issue raised was the application of unemployment coverage. The academics noted that an employee who had been working in a host country may become unemployed and seek unemployment benefits while returning to and searching for work in his resident country. They considered this to be an issue that needs multi-country cooperation.

Session 4 — Taxation of employment income in the context of global mobility

Following the prior session's discussion of the wider context of cross-border employment issues, this session focused on specific employment tax complexities associated with global mobility. Silke Bruns of the German Federal Ministry of Finance moderated the session, with a panel that included a member of the OECD Secretariat, a Swiss government official, academics and business representatives.

Melissa Dejong from the OECD Secretariat provided a summary of three key employment fact patterns and the complexities of each that were identified in the comment submissions.

The first and simplest case was that of short-term business travel whereby the employer and employee are based in one country, but the employee is working for a short, limited time in another country. This kind of arrangement is also increasingly requested by employees.

Dejong indicated that comment submissions referred to a circular issue that could arise even if Article 15 of the MTC could be relevant. Specifically, if the employee's short-term presence triggers a PE for the entity bearing their remuneration, Article 15 might not apply as expected. On a practical level, even short-term travel might create compliance obligations for the employer and there would be administrative challenges around the need for day-counting and documentation. There were concerns raised as to what happens in branch structures that are not covered by the wording in Article 15.

The second case was that of an employee relocating on a longer-term arrangement. Here, the issues are not new (including the employee's traveling back and forth to the original jurisdiction, possibly due to family commitments) but are exacerbated by the ability to work remotely.

Comments noted that particular problems arise if there is no tie-breaker clause incorporated in the relevant treaty. However, even if such a clause exists, the interpretation of the concept of the "center of vital interests" is not always clear cut. The taxation of stock-based compensation payments also can create complexity. There are administrative challenges around day-counting, as well as complexities arising from differing tax years between the two jurisdictions as well as overlap issues in the transitional years of moving from one jurisdiction to the other.

The third case, that of an employee working permanently for an employer in a different jurisdiction, is on the rise and is likely to increase, according to comment submissions.

Comments noted that particular challenges arise if the employee travels to the employer's jurisdiction, potentially bringing day one taxing rights into play in the employer's jurisdiction in addition to individual taxability in the employee's home location. Practical issues also arise in terms of board meetings and the increase in virtual board meetings.

In addition, treaties may address the concept of "frontier workers," but it is not clear that this concept will apply across the wide scope of today's cases nor that a simple expansion of the concept would fit the new ways of digital working. Safe harbors may well be helpful as would clear, simplified administrative requirements triggered as a result of employee taxation, especially for the withholding of tax on employee remuneration.

The fourth working pattern, that of digital nomads, was addressed in the next session.

Bruns described some approaches that already have been developed by various tax authorities. She explained that Germany, which borders eight other jurisdictions, has three bilateral treaties with specific cross-border rules (with Austria, France and Switzerland). It also has two treaties (with Luxembourg and the Netherlands) containing de minimis rules based on days worked. She noted that Germany has a particular rule with the Netherlands addressing situations in which a business location is on the border itself — in which case there is an alignment with the social security position.

Bruns drew particular attention to the modernization of the Austria-Germany treaty. Under the new protocol, there are exclusive taxing rights in the residence country of the employee, provided the individual lives and works in the designated border zone and spends no more than 45 days in the other country outside the border zone. The negotiation of the new protocol was relatively straightforward as the levels of tax levied and collected in both jurisdictions were very similar. She noted that it might not be as easy to negotiate such an outcome in other situations.

Bruns also described the approach in the France-Germany treaty. That treaty gives taxing rights to the residence country of the employee but requires a separate payment as compensation between the two countries of 1.5 % of the total annual gross remuneration of frontier workers. This jurisdictional-level payment is an aggregated amount that was a negotiated number. Bruns noted that treaties need to meet the needs of the contracting countries and in this case it was important to produce a solution that was principles based.

Pascal Duss of the Swiss State Secretariat for International Finance noted that the Swiss rules are largely based on the assumption of physical employee movement but there are additional rules that apply to teleworkers. An agreement between Switzerland and France, signed in 2023, contains a teleworking threshold of up to 40% for all cross-border workers. Temporary assignments carried out on behalf of the employer in the country of residence or in a third country are considered in calculating the 40% and must not exceed 10 days per year. He further noted that this provision brings with it some complexity and, therefore, widely replicating it may not be easy.

The remainder of the session focused on comments from the business representatives and academics on issues they suggested be considered in taking forward the work in this area. These included comments that:

• The three-pronged test in paragraph 2 of Article 15 gives rise to various issues, including challenges in identifying the "employer," given complex corporate structures including partnerships, hybrid entities and commissionaire arrangements.
• Provisions addressing the taxation of frontier workers may not be easy to adapt for remote working, but a de minimis rule or safe harbor for short-term visits could address some key concerns for employers.
• Consideration should be given to whether employer withholding of tax from remuneration outside its home jurisdiction could be replaced with payments between the two jurisdictions' tax authorities.
• Consideration should be given as to how proposals could be implemented, which could involve a multilateral instrument or a menu of solutions from which to choose. At the same time, it should be recognized that a large part of the future talent pool may be in locations not covered by bilateral treaties.
• Terms such as "centre of vital interests" and "economic employer" may need to be revisited in the context of global mobility. A refreshed view of the concept of economic employer may be warranted.
• Regulatory issues that may determine how businesses are structured (such as in the financial services sector) should be factored into any proposals. Because banks often use branch structures, Article 15 is of limited help to them.
• Concern was expressed that if effective safe harbors or other "guard rails" are not developed and agreed upon, businesses will continue to need to develop their own policies, which can be more restrictive than may be necessary.

The business representatives and academics stressed that developments in the area of global mobility should provide simplification and legal certainty. In this regard, they noted that coordinated guidance on day counts and safe harbors could be valuable, as could efforts to reduce administrative costs especially with regard to payroll obligations and to lessen the risk of double taxation. In addition, they urged that future work reflect the importance to businesses of access to talent and the importance to countries of encouraging development of local talent.

Session 5 — Taxation of the gig economy, digital nomads and implications of special regimes

This session looked at the working methods of digital nomads and the issues that can arise for digital nomads, including reporting requirements and the operation of special regimes. The session was moderated by Paul Hondius of the OECD Secretariat, with a panel that included a Kenya government official, academics and business representatives.

The session started with a discussion of the wide range of activities covered under the concept of content creator activities and the ways in which those activities can be structured and monetized. A panelist noted that although activities undertaken by digital content creators increasingly involve a paid component, a large portion of that income may not be reported under the OECD Model rules for reporting by platform operators. This could be because of the need for the income to result from personal services, the need for the amount of the consideration to be known by the platform in question or because what is being received is "blended consideration."

Nickson Omondi, of the Kenya Revenue Authority, described the recent development of Kenya's digital nomad visa, stressing that digital employment is a key economic driver in Kenya and noting that the informality of these businesses and the instability of the income flows can create challenges for the tax administration. One academic identified the fragmented approach taken for the taxation of digital nomads today, including personal income tax exemptions under some visas that may extend for one to two years. In many cases, this can lead to situations of no taxation, whereas the absence of these exemptions can lead to double tax scenarios. Individuals are left to manage safe harbor rules and de minimis guidelines. Further, as discussed in the previous session, the disconnect between social security and tax rules can lead to either overpayment or a lack of protection. She encouraged digital nomads to ask the employer to withhold tax and allocate the withholding across all jurisdictions based upon where time was spent to minimize issues. She also suggested that consideration be given to amending Article 4 of the MTC to include a new category of "international tax resident."

The speaker further indicated that special tax regimes can be helpful but can raise fairness and coordination issues. Such regimes tend to either compensate for expatriation-related costs (principally in the first year after relocation) or be aimed at attracting particular skilled or high net-worth individuals. She further suggested that, in order for these regimes to be seen as legitimate, they should be objective and transparent, limited in time and not simply facilitating double nontaxation. She expressed the view that these regimes should be evaluated on a regular basis to confirm their social and economic value.

The session ended with comments from two digital nomads who focused on some practical matters. These included the need for simplicity, fairness and exchange of information so that all may trust the integrity of the international tax system (similar to comments made in the prior session). They shared that from their experience, digital nomads are trying to understand taxation, not avoid it. They noted how quickly the rules can change as classification changes (e.g., from employee to freelancer). With 1.1 billion knowledge workers and 20-40 million digital nomads, this is a growing issue. If individuals who work abroad for 10-90 days are added in, the affected population rises to approximately 150 million people.

One of the speakers further noted that there are fundamental differences between digital nomads and the concepts of "temporary work from anywhere" and "hire from anywhere," stressing that it is important to be clear on those differences and their implications. He described hire from anywhere as typically driven by business need, whereas work from anywhere is employee driven. Ultimately, harmonization of even the most basic definitions is needed across tax and other areas to improve clarity and facilitate companies' ability to access the skills they need globally. One of the speakers summed up with the comment that "if we get this right, there is huge economic opportunity for all."

Closing remarks

In brief closing remarks, Pross referenced global mobility as a growth driver and stressed the importance of the work ahead. Dejong summarized the meeting discussion as covering a range of topics including tax treaties, transfer pricing, tax administration, tax certainty and economic impacts and noted that a range of different experiences around the world were presented. She closed the meeting by underscoring that global mobility is about people and opportunities.

Implications

This public consultation marks the start of Inclusive Framework work on the topic of global mobility. The comments received and the consultation held will be considered in determining the scope of the project to come. The OECD Secretariat stressed the importance of continued engagement with stakeholders in connection with the work ahead.

Companies should monitor the development of the Inclusive Framework's work on global mobility and consider taking the opportunity to provide input on the issues that are most relevant for their businesses. Companies may also want to engage directly with policymakers in the jurisdictions where they operate.