The week before Iowa, a predominantly rural state in Midwestern United States, kicks off the presidential primary season, its rolling plains and cornfields are covered in snow and the political debate is heating up.
On February 3, this overwhelmingly white and sparsely populated state of barely three million will fire the starting gun for the race to the White House. Across the state, roughly 1,700 caucuses, which are in essence neighbourhood meetings, will take place in church basements, fire stations, school gymnasiums and even around kitchen tables.
Iowans will break into groups for their preferred candidate, something that in caucus parlance is called an “alignment”. If their candidate is not “viable” – another word often heard here in Iowa to refer to at least 15 per cent support within a group – the caucus-goers might have to go into a “realignment”. Eventually, every precinct in each of Iowa’s 99 counties will have chosen their candidate in a very public show of support that outsiders might think was both brave and archaic, some 150 years after the secret ballot became a system of voting.
People across the country will closely watch – as they have every presidential election year since 1972 – Iowa’s first-in-the-nation verdict. It will be the subject of breathless commentary both in the US and around the world despite criticism that Iowa is racially and temperamentally unrepresentative of 21st century America.
People across the country will closely watch – as they have every year since 1972 – Iowa's first-in-the-nation verdict. It will be the subject of breathless commentary in the US and around the world. This is because the Iowa caucuses will undoubtedly help winnow the crowded Democratic Party field
This is because the Iowa caucuses will undoubtedly help winnow the crowded Democratic Party field. It will build momentum for some candidates, and provide an early indication of who might win the nomination at the Democratic national convention in July and go on to challenge President Donald Trump on election day, November 3.
But the Iowa caucuses have a problem and it is the same this election season as it was in the last. There is a chance Iowa could deliver a result so close that it would be confusing. Even though Iowa voters are famous for making up their minds late, the indecisiveness this time around – half the electorate is still unsure of its choice – is significant.
At the same point in 2016, only 14 per cent were undecided in the Des Moines Register poll, for a race that featured just two top contenders: Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
“It came down to a coin-toss in 2016,” Scott Punteney, chairman of the Pottawattamie County Democratic Party, acknowledges ruefully. “So yes, we’re not absolute.” Even so, he insists: “Iowa does matter because it sets the way the rest of the primary plays out nationally. If you don’t have a strong showing in Iowa you couldn’t do anything."
That is part of Iowa lore but it happens to be inaccurate. Two Democrats – Michael Dukakis in 1988 and Bill Clinton in 1996 – became their party’s nominee without a win in Iowa. Mr Clinton, of course, went on to a two-term presidency.
Often enough, the winner of Iowa in either party has not been able to muster enough momentum to win the next contest on the election calendar in New Hampshire, which is right after the caucuses.
In 2016, the Republican Party's Ted Cruz narrowly won in Iowa but Mr Trump won the New Hampshire primary. Add to that the rather uncomfortable reality recounted by John C Skipper in his book The Iowa Caucuses: First Tests of Presidential Aspiration, 1972-2008: "Historically, Iowans have a dismal track record for picking presidents. Aside from incumbents, the state has picked only three winners since 1972: Jimmy Carter in 1976, George W Bush in 2000 and Barack Obama in 2008."
However, the mythology around the Iowa caucuses is powerful and self-perpetuating. Not only do people in the state pride themselves on being the first Americans to sit in judgement on the political line-up every four years, they concede to feeling the strain of the decision they have to make. “It’s harder than being a voter, because we’re not just pulling a lever, we have to weed out candidates, and no one else has done it before us,” one Iowan says.
People applaud for Joe Biden, one of the Democratic Party's presidential candidates, during a campaign town event in Iowa. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
Mr Punteney, who is also president of a powerful western Iowa union and has caucused for 20 years, says he loves it. “You get to talk to your neighbours in a way you wouldn’t otherwise," he says. However, some Iowans express doubts about the very public nature of caucusing. “I’d prefer to do it privately like the voters do in other states,” says a resident of Council Bluffs, a city of 62,000, where presidential hopefuls frequent steakhouses, cafes, bowling alleys, brew pubs and “hot-dish” house parties.
Iowa likes the attention and it asks the candidates penetrating questions about issues such as healthcare, retirement, the minimum wage, finances as well as issues such as the collapsing nuclear deal with Iran, America’s continuing military engagement in the Middle East and Palestinian-Israeli peace. The state’s boast, often proudly told as a joke, is that “we don’t decide until the fourth time we sit down with a candidate”. It is true that Iowans, unlike neighbouring Nebraska and South Dakota, get a lot of facetime with frontline politicians.
But this time round, that close-up view does not seem to have sealed the decision. Recent polls have showed Senator Bernie Sanders in the lead with Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend in Indiana, and Joe Biden, the former US vice president, in joint second place, Senator Elizabeth Warren in third and Senator Amy Klobuchar in fourth.
But other assessments suggest a different outcome, with Ms Klobuchar – a moderate Democrat from neighbouring Minnesota – possibly drawing support in unflashy western Iowa, while Mr Sanders and his fiery rhetoric does better in the eastern, more progressive part of the state.
Professor David Redlawsk, who wrote the definitive book on the relevance of the Iowa caucuses, says that county Democratic Party bosses have suggested Mr Biden might win and Mr Sanders will be in second place. But, he adds, the picture is far from clear.
If anything, Iowa seems to illustrate the very ideological divisions that the Democratic Party is struggling with nationally. To that extent, it is probably representative of the state of mind of the country.
Ten tax points to be aware of in 2026
1. Domestic VAT refund amendments: request your refund within five years
If a business does not apply for the refund on time, they lose their credit.
2. E-invoicing in the UAE
Businesses should continue preparing for the implementation of e-invoicing in the UAE, with 2026 a preparation and transition period ahead of phased mandatory adoption.
3. More tax audits
Tax authorities are increasingly using data already available across multiple filings to identify audit risks.
4. More beneficial VAT and excise tax penalty regime
Tax disputes are expected to become more frequent and more structured, with clearer administrative objection and appeal processes. The UAE has adopted a new penalty regime for VAT and excise disputes, which now mirrors the penalty regime for corporate tax.
5. Greater emphasis on statutory audit
There is a greater need for the accuracy of financial statements. The International Financial Reporting Standards standards need to be strictly adhered to and, as a result, the quality of the audits will need to increase.
6. Further transfer pricing enforcement
Transfer pricing enforcement, which refers to the practice of establishing prices for internal transactions between related entities, is expected to broaden in scope. The UAE will shortly open the possibility to negotiate advance pricing agreements, or essentially rulings for transfer pricing purposes.
7. Limited time periods for audits
Recent amendments also introduce a default five-year limitation period for tax audits and assessments, subject to specific statutory exceptions. While the standard audit and assessment period is five years, this may be extended to up to 15 years in cases involving fraud or tax evasion.
8. Pillar 2 implementation
Many multinational groups will begin to feel the practical effect of the Domestic Minimum Top-Up Tax (DMTT), the UAE's implementation of the OECD’s global minimum tax under Pillar 2. While the rules apply for financial years starting on or after January 1, 2025, it is 2026 that marks the transition to an operational phase.
9. Reduced compliance obligations for imported goods and services
Businesses that apply the reverse-charge mechanism for VAT purposes in the UAE may benefit from reduced compliance obligations.
10. Substance and CbC reporting focus
Tax authorities are expected to continue strengthening the enforcement of economic substance and Country-by-Country (CbC) reporting frameworks. In the UAE, these regimes are increasingly being used as risk-assessment tools, providing tax authorities with a comprehensive view of multinational groups’ global footprints and enabling them to assess whether profits are aligned with real economic activity.
Contributed by Thomas Vanhee and Hend Rashwan, Aurifer
Tamkeen's offering
Option 1: 70% in year 1, 50% in year 2, 30% in year 3
Option 2: 50% across three years
Option 3: 30% across five years
The bio
Studied up to grade 12 in Vatanappally, a village in India’s southern Thrissur district
Was a middle distance state athletics champion in school
Enjoys driving to Fujairah and Ras Al Khaimah with family
His dream is to continue working as a social worker and help people
Has seven diaries in which he has jotted down notes about his work and money he earned
Keeps the diaries in his car to remember his journey in the Emirates
Our legal consultant
Name: Dr Hassan Mohsen Elhais
Position: legal consultant with Al Rowaad Advocates and Legal Consultants.
What is blockchain?
Blockchain is a form of distributed ledger technology, a digital system in which data is recorded across multiple places at the same time. Unlike traditional databases, DLTs have no central administrator or centralised data storage. They are transparent because the data is visible and, because they are automatically replicated and impossible to be tampered with, they are secure.
The main difference between blockchain and other forms of DLT is the way data is stored as ‘blocks’ – new transactions are added to the existing ‘chain’ of past transactions, hence the name ‘blockchain’. It is impossible to delete or modify information on the chain due to the replication of blocks across various locations.
Blockchain is mostly associated with cryptocurrency Bitcoin. Due to the inability to tamper with transactions, advocates say this makes the currency more secure and safer than traditional systems. It is maintained by a network of people referred to as ‘miners’, who receive rewards for solving complex mathematical equations that enable transactions to go through.
However, one of the major problems that has come to light has been the presence of illicit material buried in the Bitcoin blockchain, linking it to the dark web.
Other blockchain platforms can offer things like smart contracts, which are automatically implemented when specific conditions from all interested parties are reached, cutting the time involved and the risk of mistakes. Another use could be storing medical records, as patients can be confident their information cannot be changed. The technology can also be used in supply chains, voting and has the potential to used for storing property records.
