Purpose
Turn a proposed business change into a structured, decision-ready tax impact analysis — comparing multiple planning options side-by-side on effective tax rate, cash tax, and risk so the tax leader can recommend a path with defensible reasoning. Replaces one-off spreadsheet exercises and ad-hoc advisor memos with a repeatable modeling framework.
When to Use
Invoke this skill when the user asks to:
- Model the tax impact of entering a new country or U.S. state market
- Compare tax structures for an acquisition or merger (asset vs. stock, entity placement)
- Evaluate an entity restructuring, IP migration, or supply chain reorganization
- Assess repatriation, dividend, or cash mobilization options
- Compare "do nothing" against 2-4 planning alternatives for a strategic change
- Prepare a tax scenario summary for a CFO, board, or steering committee
Inputs Required
Before starting, collect:
- Business change: What is happening — new market entry, acquisition, restructuring, repatriation, IP move
- Current structure: Existing entity footprint, holding company jurisdiction, and where value/IP currently sits
- Financial parameters: Relevant revenue, taxable income estimates, deal value, or cash balances by jurisdiction
- Jurisdictions in scope: Countries and states involved, plus any treaty relationships that matter
- Planning options to test: Any specific structures the user wants compared (if none, generate reasonable alternatives)
- Constraints: Non-tax factors that limit options — legal, regulatory, operational, or timing
- Time horizon: Single-year impact or multi-year projection (default: 3-year)
If financial parameters are directional rather than precise, model with clearly labeled assumptions and flag sensitivity. This analysis is a planning aid, not a substitute for jurisdiction-specific advice or a formal opinion.
Instructions
Step 1: Frame the Baseline
Establish the "do nothing" scenario as the comparison anchor.
- State the current effective tax rate (ETR) and cash tax position given the existing structure
- Identify the tax attributes in play: NOLs, foreign tax credits, GILTI/Subpart F exposure, interest limitations (163(j)), BEAT exposure
- Note what changes automatically if the business change proceeds without any planning This baseline is Scenario 0 and appears in every comparison.
Step 2: Define 3-5 Planning Scenarios
Build distinct, realistic structuring options. Use the option set the user provided, or generate across these levers:
- Entity placement: Where the new operation, target, or IP is legally domiciled
- Financing structure: Debt vs. equity funding, intercompany loan pricing, thin-cap limits
- IP and value chain: Where IP is owned, licensed, or migrated; where profit is earned
- Transaction form: Asset vs. stock acquisition; taxable vs. tax-free reorganization; 338(g)/338(h)(10) elections where relevant
- Timing: Sequencing steps to preserve attributes or defer recognition
Name each scenario clearly (e.g., "Scenario B — Acquire via existing Irish holdco, stock deal").
Step 3: Model Each Scenario Across Three Dimensions
For every scenario, work through:
Federal / home-country layer
- Taxable income impact, applicable rate, and any regime interactions (GILTI, FDII, BEAT, 163(j))
- One-time items: gain recognition, purchase price allocation, step-up amortization, transaction cost treatment
State / sub-national layer
- Nexus created or changed, apportionment shifts, state conformity to federal treatment
- Combined vs. separate filing implications
International layer
- Withholding taxes on cross-border flows, treaty relief availability, foreign tax credit utilization
- Local country tax on operations, CFC rules, Pillar Two / global minimum tax exposure (15% floor)
- Permanent establishment risk and transfer pricing posture
Step 4: Quantify and Compare
Produce the core comparison table with a row per scenario and columns for:
- Projected ETR (steady state)
- Year 1 cash tax vs. baseline
- Multi-year cash tax over the horizon
- One-time tax cost (transaction/restructuring)
- Net present value of tax cash flows vs. baseline (if horizon > 1 year)
State every material assumption inline. Where a number is estimated, mark it and give the driver.
Step 5: Flag Risks Per Scenario
For each scenario, list the top risk factors:
- Substance / anti-avoidance: Economic substance, GAAR, PPT, business purpose exposure
- Transfer pricing: Defensibility of profit allocation and intercompany pricing
- Contested positions: Areas likely to draw audit attention or require a reserve (uncertain tax positions)
- Regime volatility: Pillar Two, pending legislation, or treaty changes that could erode the benefit Rate overall risk per scenario as Low / Medium / High with a one-line reason.
Step 6: Rank and Recommend
- Rank scenarios on a blended view of tax efficiency and risk — not lowest ETR alone
- Name the recommended scenario with a 3-4 sentence rationale tying it to the user's constraints and time horizon
- Identify the single biggest sensitivity that could change the recommendation
- List the next diligence steps required before execution (advisor sign-off, transfer pricing study, legal review)
Output Format
- Structure: Baseline framing → scenario definitions → per-scenario modeling → comparison table → risk flags → ranked recommendation
- Length: 1,000-1,400 words plus one comparison table
- Format: Structured document with a central comparison table; scenario detail in labeled subsections
- Sections: Baseline (Scenario 0) → Planning Scenarios → Federal/State/International Modeling → Comparison Table → Risk Flags → Recommendation & Next Steps
- Tone: Director of Tax briefing a CFO — precise, assumption-transparent, decision-oriented; quantified where possible, honest about uncertainty
Quality Checklist
Before delivering output, verify:
- [ ] A baseline "do nothing" scenario is modeled and used as the comparison anchor
- [ ] 3-5 distinct planning scenarios are defined, each with a clear name and structure
- [ ] Every scenario is analyzed across all three layers (federal, state, international)
- [ ] The comparison table has a row per scenario and includes ETR, Year 1 cash tax, and one-time cost
- [ ] Pillar Two / global minimum tax exposure is addressed wherever cross-border structuring is involved
- [ ] Each scenario carries an explicit Low/Medium/High risk rating with reasoning
- [ ] A single ranked recommendation is made — not a menu without a pick — with the biggest sensitivity named
Notes
- The lowest-ETR option is frequently not the right recommendation once substance risk and audit exposure are weighed — rank on the blend, not the headline rate
- Since Pillar Two took effect, structures that shift profit to sub-15% jurisdictions often deliver less benefit than the nominal rate suggests; always test the top-up tax
- When financial inputs are rough, model anyway with labeled assumptions — a directional comparison of structures is more useful to the decision-maker than waiting for precise numbers
- Flag clearly where a formal opinion, transfer pricing study, or local-country counsel is required before any position is taken
How to use this skill
This file is a Claude Code skill in Anthropic's standard format — markdown with YAML frontmatter at the top.
Installing in Claude Code:
~/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads in every session anywhere on your machine (recommended for skills you'll use across multiple projects)<your-project>/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads only when working in that project (recommended for project-specific skills)
Restart Claude Code or open a new session to register.
Using in Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Gemini, or other AI tools:
- Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
- Send your task or request as your next message — the AI will apply the skill where it fits
For Claude Code skill details: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/skills