Published on the 01/10/2026 | Written by Heather Wright

Digital tax fight moves beyond GST…

Australia has taken its strongest step yet towards taxing revenue generated by offshore software providers, with the Australian Taxation Office expanding the scope of royalty withholding tax rules covering software and intellectual property arrangements.

The move was quickly followed by New Zealand’s equivalent, Inland  Revenue, releasing draft guidance on how software payments, cloud services and SaaS subscriptions should be treated for tax purposes.

“The ATO takes a broader interpretation of when a royalty may arise in cloud-computing context.”

But while both countries are trying to update rules written long before the cloud era, they appear to be taking different approaches.

Under the ATO’s new ruling, TR 2026/2, some software and SaaS payments may be classified as royalties rather than ordinary commercial transactions, exposing a wider range of cross-border software arrangements to royalty withholding tax of between five percent and 15 percent. It’s a ruling aimed primarily at multinational digital giants such as Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, Google and Netflix, and distributors who structure intellectual property and revenue flows across multiple jurisdictions, and will see income earned from cloud and streaming services become taxable in Australia for the first time beyond GST.

By contrast, the Inland Revenue draft guidance, issued earlier this month and updating a framework dating back to 2003, largely maintains the view that most straightforward cloud software subscriptions do not give rise to royalty payments because customers are buying access to software, not the right to exploit the underlying IP. Consultation is currently underway on the draft interpretation guideline PUB00266.

“The ATO takes a broader interpretation of when a royalty may arise in cloud-computing context,” Deloitte New Zealand noted in a recent tax alert.

In both countries, global tech giants generate substantial revenue – billions in Australia’s case particularly – from local customers, yet the profits ultimately taxed in the country have often been significantly more modest after accounting for distribution and service fees and other cross-border payments within their corporate structures.

Chasing profits, not GST

For years, governments have focused on collecting GST from foreign suppliers of digital services. Australia and New Zealand both require many offshore providers to collect GST on products ranging from streaming subscriptions and digital advertising to cloud services and software licences.

GST, however, was only ever part of the solution.

When businesses buy cloud hosting, software subscriptions or online advertising, the GST paid is generally reclaimed through the normal input tax process. Governments collect the tax, but much of it is ultimately returned. The larger question has been how to tax the profits generated from those transactions when the underlying intellectual property is owned offshore.

That’s a debate that has simmered for years as the global tech giants generated billions in revenue while reporting far smaller local – taxable – profits.

The ATO’s new ruling is an attempt to address part of that issue as it targets billions in untaxed offshore software royalties.

A broader interpretation

The new ruling broadens the circumstances in which software-related payments can be treated as royalties for tax purposes. Jethro Byrne, Grant Thornton corporate tax partner, says the ATO has formed the view that Australian distributors ‘effectively posses the rights to on-sell or distribute software, which in its view is generally a royalty’.

 According to the ATO, payments may qualify as royalties when they are made for the use of, or right to use, copyright or similar intellectual property rights. The ruling points to situations where software intermediaries reproduce, communicate, modify or adapt software, or otherwise exercise rights associated with copyright ownership. It also addresses modern software distribution and SaaS arrangements.

The ATO has also made clear that it is particularly concerned about cross-border arrangements that may reduce or avoid tax on profits connected with Australia – an issue that has also long vexed many countries, including New Zealand.

For multinational software vendors, distributors and cloud providers, the Australian moves raise the prospect of much closer examination of how software revenues are structured and reported. Professional advisers have already warned them to reassess software licensing arrangements, treaty positions, withholding tax obligations and transfer pricing documentation in light of the ruling.

US pushback 

Australia’s tougher stance hasn’t been universally welcomed and has put it at odds with some of its biggest trading partners.

Previous drafts of the ruling drew criticism from the US Treasury and the US National Foreign Trade Council business association argues the ruling ignores recent Australian case law and ‘further erodes investor confidence as well as the overall business climate in the country’.

One of the more contentious aspects of the ATO’s position is that the ruling applies to payments made both before and after its publications. The ATO maintains the ruling reflects its longstanding interpretation of the law rather than a policy change, a position that could expose some existing arrangements to review.

Critics also argue that Australia’s interpretation of software royalties is pushing beyond internationally accepted practice.

Extensions ahead?

The Australian Institute of Company Directors meanwhile, is warning that while the ATO’s ruling targets software and tech, ‘it’s implications could soon reach almost all Australian industries’.

“While end-user companies aren’t directly impacted, boards should be aware the new tax will likely be built into the future pricing of their software subscriptions,” it says, while also warning that other industries with value tied to intangible assets could be future targets. It suggests sectors including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, motor vehicles and beyond could see similar attention in future.