The implementation of Pillar 2 represents a major step forward in international tax cooperation. However, this policy note finds that the Global Minimum Tax does not necessarily make Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) rules redundant. First, the two regimes only partially overlap. Pillar 2 applies exclusively to multinational groups with annual revenues above €750 million, while CFC rules cover a much broader range of firms and specifically target low-taxed passive income that remains vulnerable to profit shifting. Second, empirical evidence suggests that CFC rules are effective in limiting aggressive tax planning. Studies consistently find that weaker CFC regimes are associated with higher levels of profit shifting toward low-tax jurisdictions. Third, Pillar 2 contains important limitations. Substance-based carve-outs, tax incentives, and recent international compromises can significantly reduce its effective tax floor. In several EU Member States, existing CFC rules impose higher effective tax thresholds on foreign profits than Pillar 2 itself. These findings suggest that Pillar 2 should be viewed as a complement to, rather than a substitute for, CFC rules. As the EU considers future simplification of its tax framework, policymakers should preserve and strengthen CFC rules, pursue greater harmonization of their design, and continue efforts to improve the effectiveness and ambition of the global minimum tax and international tax.