The phrase 'speaking truth to power' is one attributed originally to Quakers - although no one is quite sure who first said it. As a Quaker I like it: it's what I seek to do.
I did so at the OECD yesterday. The second half of the afternoon session of the public consultation on transfer pricing descended into what I considered a farcical discussion for more than an hour on the transfer pricing adjustments needed if a member of staff tried to leave a company with their know-how.
Now there may be an issue of concern for tax here (although, overall, I suspect not) but if that is the case it firstly did not need discussion at length between a few representatives of the tax profession at length for an hour or more, and secondly was clearly not the issue of highest priority (or anything near it) in international tax.
So, after an hour of listening to paint dry I intervened and made the point that 99.9% of the world's population would not think this issue a priority in world taxation. I'm absolutely confident I am right.
The intervention clearly took some by surprise. I am sure it was considered by some that I breached etiquette. I really do not mind if they did. The session was a perfect example of just why the OECD has missed the point, and has become so far behind the times, on international tax issues. A tiny coterie of advisers were permitted to hijack debate and the whole decision making process to pursue a point of near irrelevance where, no doubt, in due course, they hope to offer 'value added' consultancy services to their clients on how to address an issue largely of their own creation whilst all around the international tax system fails to deliver on its key objective, which is the payment of the right amount of tax in the right place at the right time. I have little doubt that this is also part of their aim.
The OECD is an inter-governmental body. It is not a business think tank. It has to be accountable.
It has to deliver to the almost entirely democratic states who make up its membership. In that case the need is for it to focus on the issues of concern in society, and not the issues of concern to big business alone.
That motivated my intervention. It may have been unusual. But it really is time that the OECD realised it has a duty to deliver for the people to whom it is accountable - and as a member of civil society representing quite a number of large NGOs I think that in many ways I am closer to those people than the representatives of the Big 4 present.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Similarly, I suspect that 99.9% of the worlds population would not think that CBCR is a priority in international tax.
Clearly not or the G8 and G20 would not have explicitly endorsed it
To put it another way – those in the population in general who take any interest in corporate tax want the answers CBC can supply, I would suggest
And that is more than 0.1% of the world population I would also suggest
One the one hand you say the OECD has missed the point and then you go on to suggest that the G8 and G20 have explicitly endorsed CBC. I would suggest they have explicitly endorsed the BEPS project and by implication that includes a review of transfer pricing documentation referred to Action 13. CBC reporting forms part of Action 13 – it is not an Action Point itself.
7 of the 8 members of the G8 are members/associates of the OECD as are 17 of the G20. If they were that taken by CBC they would easily ensure it was adopted by the OECD.
CBC has been specifically endorsed
I was at the OPECD on Tuesday
That was said
It will happen
That was also said
Sounds like a filibusterer. We’ve seen quite a bit of that in the US govt. system this year. We’ve gone from the Divine Right of Kings to the Divine Right of the corporate interests. Both were/are forms of worshiping graven images-so to speak.
Does OECD not offer grants for study in such areas? I think a properly funded group of experts, yourself included, could determine the importance of such issues.
Richard, the trick is to ensure that the 99.9% are not left holding all the “truth,” whilst the remaining 0.1% hold on to all the “power”. Well done, keep up the good work.
I’ve no doubt that you are more in touch with civil society than the big four, Richard. From what I see and read most of their actions are directed at advancing the interests of big business and the 1% (what I’ll refer to here as the elite) and/or advising government on how best to advance the interests of those same entities. In so doing they simultaneously advance their own interests – and profits – of course.
That said, we have to remember that many people of a certain ideological persuasion automatically conflate the interests of the elite and civil society, affording the former primacy over the latter. Our government is made up of such individuals. Which brings me to my point, which is that as far as CBC goes some governments are clearly far more committed to this than others. I know Cameron can be credited with raising it at the G8/G20 meeting earlier this year, but as with what we’ve seen happen with domestic tax policy, he and the Tory party more generally, have taken the art of saying one thing while doing another to new heights, so I doubt you can count on our government to put any pressure on the OECD. But I’m sure you knew that, anyway.
The evidence of the ;ast two days is the backlash to CBC is fierce
The worry for the OECD must be civil society put this on their agenda and will report if they fail
Richard
The “experts” are trying to lose everyone in a game of counting the angels sitting on a pinhead – two words summarise their actions obfuscation and obstruction!
Keep up the good work, the elite that you face do not represent civil society, they governed purely by unenlightened self interest, which ultimately leads to the destruction of society.