Here's a short funny story about international tax and racism. (Ok, it's not that funny. But it's also about academic impact, and very much worth celebrating.)
On 7 April 2021, President Biden announces he's going to stop companies being "able to hide their income in places like the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, in #taxhavens."
On 13 April, @brooklyntaxprof wrote an open letter: it "may be true, in a sense. But it encapsulated the racism you promised to purge from our discourse. Tax experts you surround yourself with know Switzerland belongs at the top of any list of #taxhavens" thenation.com/article/econom…
This wasn't just a random swipe. @brooklyntaxprof has built a serious body of work on the racism embedded in international tax policymaking, not least this great piece with the new UN independent expert @AttiyaWarispapers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
By the way - you can see Profs Dean and Waris in discussion on these issues and why they matter, at our @TaxJusticeNet annual conference, here:
Back to our story, and lo! 28 April, in (much more high profile) remarks to a joint session of Congress, Biden corrects course:
"A lot of companies also evade taxes through tax havens in *Switzerland* and Bermuda and the Cayman Islands."
That's not the end, of course. International tax is still very much characterised by embedded racism. There's another story about the OECD reforms to tell, for example. But that's for another day.
Today, let's celebrate some real impact. Kudos @brooklyntaxprof!
A postscript. I'm telling this today because this piece brought it all back - and what an impressive list of officials, experts and organisations they've found to make themselves look foolish by claiming Switzerland is not a #taxhaven. thelocal.com/20211027/analy…
In case of doubt: Switzerland ranks #3 on the Financial Secrecy Index; 5th on the Corporate Tax Haven Index; and imposes roughly $13 billion in tax losses on the rest of the world each year. (But barely a palm tree in sight, how very dare Biden?) taxjustice.net/country-profil…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Very good news to see the World Bank finally end the ideological nonsense that was its 'Doing Business' rankings. But the report the Bank has published on the reasons why is almost unbelievable - the extent of corruption in the organisation is just mindblowing.
The report is the result of an independent external review which the Bank commissioned (fair play) to look at the revelations about manipulation of the data and rankings in 2018 and 2020. thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/84a922c…
The review points the finger variously at then-President Kim (or aides) & then-CEO Georgieva, who apparently pushed to change results for China- due to concerns over the implications of the country's view of its Doing Business score for the Bank's prospect for capital raising...
OK, the OECD statement is out - and *now* it's clear why so many countries have expressed reservations. oecd.org/tax/beps/state…
Circulating beforehand were suggestions that in pillar 1, over 30% of the 'residual' profit could be apportioned to the sales jurisdiction.
No joy for lower-income countries (or anyone who favours a more ambitious move to curtail arm's length abuse): it's left at "20-30%".
Also floated, the idea that the review period could be reduced to less than 7 (SEVEN) years - just in case it turns out not to deliver anything for lower-income countries.
No joy: "review beginning 7 years after the agreement comes into force" - not even 7 years from now...
Fascinating - both that ATAF is empowered to table its own proposal, following discussions with the US rather than the OECD, and also the detail: pointing towards a comprehensive apportionment of global profits of large multinationals...
Thinking more about @ATAFtax proposal, it seems highly significant. It returns to the spirit of G24 proposal which Inclusive Framework backed in early 2019 for OECD to evaluate (as 1 of 3). It was never evaluated, just discarded in favour of the secretariat's 'unified' proposal.
This new iteration creates a problem for the OECD, and for the G7 members who drive decisions there. It has become evident, again, that others are simply ignored. But the others are no longer standing quietly by...
As frustrated members made clear in 2020, the OECD Inclusive Framework does not make the decisions in the corporate tax negotiations they nominally lead, and nor even is it the G20 that gave the OECD the mandate - it is (still) the G7.
So where do they stand on Biden's 21% plan?
There are two important elements to this. First, do countries support a 21% minimum corporate tax rate? And second, do they support a fair distribution of the right to tax the undertaxed profits?
Starting with the US: safe to say, Biden administration supports Biden plan. That includes the 21% minimum rate; and at least opens the door to a distribution that doesn't give first bite at revenues to the headquarters country (hence GILTI/BEAT reforms). taxjustice.net/2021/04/08/300…
It is *very* difficult to understand why so much effort is being made to keep the Irish government onside in the OECD talks. If the talks deliver, the business model is bust - and the government's focus should be on finding a better future that doesn't rob others of revenues.
Ireland imposes large revenue costs on others - we estimate this one jurisdiction accounts for some 3.7% of the global losses due to tax abuse. iff.taxjustice.net/#/profile/IRL
As OECD negotiation on 'pillar 1' seem to be moving towards Biden administration's proposal that would not require global treaty change; and 'pillar 2' would be a coalition of the willing on a minimum tax rate - there'd no longer be an opportunity for Ireland or others to block.