Back to Glossary

Entry · Tax

Double Irish With A Dutch Sandwich

The Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich was a corporate tax structure that routed profits through two Irish companies and a Dutch intermediary so that most of a multinational's income ended up taxed at a very low rate.

It was legal at the time, widely used by technology and pharmaceutical groups, and was closed by Irish law changes that fully took effect at the start of 2021.

From the Money Master HQ dictionary, founded by Shihan Sheriff (FCMA, VP of Finance at Nomod, CFO at Esanjo Ventures). How these definitions are written.

What it means

The structure had three moving parts, which is where the sandwich image comes from. One Irish company held the group's intellectual property but was tax resident in a jurisdiction with no corporate tax; a second Irish company did the actual selling into European markets; and a Dutch conduit company sat between them.

The mechanics worked through royalty payments. The trading Irish company earned the sales revenue, then paid most of it away as a royalty for the right to use the group's intellectual property, which left only a thin margin to be taxed in Ireland.

The royalty travelled via the Dutch company because Dutch rules meant no withholding tax was applied on the way through. The result was an effective tax rate in low single digits on a very large share of non-domestic profit.

Nothing in the chain was hidden; the arrangements were disclosed in filings and blessed by advisers, which is why the debate was always about whether the rules were right rather than whether the companies broke them. Political pressure ended it.

Ireland closed the residency loophole for new structures in 2015 and gave existing users until the end of 2020 to unwind, while a broader international effort produced country-by-country reporting and eventually a global minimum tax rate for large multinationals. The specific structure is now history.

Its legacy matters for anyone reading corporate accounts. The gap between a company's headline statutory tax rate and its effective tax rate is one of the most informative lines in a set of financial statements, and this structure is the classic illustration of how large that gap can become without anything illegal occurring.

In practice

Real-world examples.

1

Example

An analyst compares two software companies with similar operating margins and finds one reports an effective tax rate of 22% and the other 4%. Reading the tax reconciliation note, she attributes the gap to intellectual property held offshore rather than to superior trading performance.

2

Example

A finance director modelling an acquisition target discovers that most of the target's historic profit relied on a royalty structure being unwound after 2020. She reprices the deal using a normalised tax rate, cutting her valuation by roughly a fifth.

3

Example

A parliamentary committee questions a consumer technology group about paying very little tax on large domestic sales. The company explains that its local entity is a limited-risk distributor earning a small commission, with the profit recognised elsewhere in the group.

Formula

Calculation

Effective tax rate = Total tax paid / Group pre-tax profit x 100. Consider a group with $500,000,000 of pre-tax profit from international sales, where the ordinary statutory rate in its main operating countries is 25%. Without any planning it would pay $500,000,000 x 25% = $125,000,000. Under the structure, only a thin operating margin stays where the sales happen. Say $60,000,000 of profit remains taxable at 25%, giving $60,000,000 x 25% = $15,000,000. The remaining $440,000,000 leaves as royalties, passes through the Dutch conduit without withholding tax, and lands with an entity paying an effective 1%, giving $440,000,000 x 1% = $4,400,000. Total tax = $15,000,000 + $4,400,000 = $19,400,000. Effective tax rate = $19,400,000 / $500,000,000 = 3.88%. The difference against the statutory outcome is $125,000,000 - $19,400,000 = $105,600,000, which flows straight to net profit and shows up in the tax reconciliation note as a very large adjustment for foreign rate differences.

Case study

Seen in the real world.

Corvantis Systems is a fictional enterprise software group created for this illustrative example. Its research was done in one country, its intellectual property was held by an Irish-registered company tax resident in a zero-tax jurisdiction, and its European sales ran through a second Irish company that paid royalties on via a Dutch entity.

For several years the group reported an effective tax rate of about 4% while its statutory rate was 25%, and management pointed investors to earnings per share that were materially inflated by the arrangement. When Ireland's transition period ended, Corvantis had to bring the intellectual property onshore, and its effective rate rose towards the high teens over two reporting periods.

The illustrative lesson for investors is that a tax rate can be a business model risk. Analysts who had modelled the low rate as permanent had to cut forecast earnings sharply, while those who had normalised the tax charge from the outset found their valuations barely moved.

Watch out

Common mistakes.

  • Calling the structure tax evasion. It was tax avoidance, meaning it used the rules as written, and the response was to change the rules rather than to prosecute.
  • Assuming a low effective tax rate always signals aggressive planning. Loss carryforwards, research credits and genuine investment incentives produce low rates for entirely ordinary reasons.
  • Thinking the structure is still available. Ireland closed it for new entrants in 2015 and for existing users from the start of 2021, and a global minimum tax now limits the alternatives.

Questions

People also ask.

Why was the Netherlands involved at all?

Dutch rules allowed royalties to pass through without withholding tax, which removed the leakage that a direct payment would have suffered.

Was any of it illegal?

No, the arrangements were disclosed and accepted by tax authorities at the time; the criticism was directed at the rules and at the fairness of the outcome.

Where do I see this effect in accounts?

In the effective tax rate and the tax reconciliation note, which explains the bridge between the statutory rate and the actual charge.

Was this explanation helpful?

From the founder's library

Accounting Fundamentals: A Non-Finance Manager's Guide to Finance and Accounting, by Shihan Sheriff

Take it further with the book.

Build your financial confidence beyond this definition. Shihan's full-length guide, Accounting Fundamentals, takes the same plain-English approach and turns it into a complete, practical playbook for non-finance managers, business owners and students - with chapter-end quiz answers and presentation slides included.

US$2.24US$2.99

25% off with code MMHQ25, applied at checkout. Priced in USD - checkout may show the equivalent in your local currency.

View the book and save 25%
Last updated · October 8, 2026
Browse all terms →

Disclaimer

The information provided in this finance dictionary is for educational and informational purposes only. It should not be construed as financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Always consult with a qualified professional before making any financial decisions. Money Master HQ makes no representations or warranties about the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of this information. Use of this content is at your own risk.