European Commission weighs a flat charge on every firm above €100 million in EU revenue

If the contribution is the same for every company in scope ^[2], a firm with €100 million of EU revenue and one with €10 billion get the same bill. Measured per euro of sales, the smaller firm pays a hundred times as much ^[19]. A DST scales the other way, because it is charged on revenue from advertising, marketplaces and user data ^[6]. Setting the lump sum in revenue bands would narrow that gap and move the design back toward a revenue tax.

The yield of a flat levy is the charge multiplied by the number of companies above the threshold. The reporting includes neither figure, and it does not mention bands. The estimates in circulation cover new digital taxes. Over the seven-year 2028-2034 budget ^[3], the Parliament's figure implies around €175 billion ^[12] and the Commission's €35 billion ^[17], about a fifth as much ^[16].

The design also shows what the Commission is setting aside. The OECD's Pillar 1 talks were meant to tax large multinationals' profits where their customers are ^[13]. While they stalled, several member states went ahead with national DSTs ^[14]. A charge tied to EU revenue that ignores sector drops the argument about where profits should be taxed. It taxes size instead, and in return Brussels gets a levy it hopes Washington will not treat as aimed at American firms ^[1][6].

If the Commission tables a uniform lump sum, the bill spreads across every large company selling in the bloc ^[8]. Member states that are already hesitant ^[7] could instead dilute or delay it, and Crypto Briefing expects some to try ^[9]. Or Washington decides the levy is, in Crypto Briefing's words, "a DST under a different name" ^[9]. In that case the EU ends up with a wider base and the same exposure to tariffs of up to 100% ^[5].

I think the third outcome carries the most risk. A charge designed to avoid singling out US groups still covers any of them with more than €100 million in EU revenue ^[1][9]. The best argument against that view is the flat sum itself. As a share of sales, it would be smallest for the largest groups ^[19]. That gives the Commission a defence in Washington, and the companies just over the threshold pay for it. Revenue bands would make the larger groups pay more and weaken that defence. I am wrong if Washington lets a charge that ignores sector pass without invoking its DST tariff threat ^[5].