Oxfam and the Tax Justice Network are joining together to launch a tax justice and human rights essay competition for legal students and professionals. With tax justice rising up the human rights agenda, we want to hear your ideas on how human rights law can be used in the fight against tax dodging.
Tax justice is a human rights issue
International tax dodging by multinational corporations and wealthy elites costs countries both rich and poor billions of dollars a year in lost revenues. This is undermining vital public services where they are most needed and further driving inequality at a time when the richest 62 people in the world have as much wealth as half the world's population. Overall, substantial damage is done to human rights through the use of tax havens, the opacity of corporate accounting, the manipulation of trade prices and the disguising of beneficial ownership. But national and international fora may provide scope for redress.
What we want
We're inviting 3,500-word complaints to identify the plaintiffs, defendants, remedies sought, and arguments that are considered enforceable in an existing legal forum. We seek complaints that could form the basis of effective advice to developing countries, or to groups of citizens in countries at any income level who have suffered, and want to know how they could best use law to protect their or their people's human rights in the face of tax injustice.
More information here:
https://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/even-it/2016-tax-justice-and-human-rights-essay-competition
NB: Reposted from TJN
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:
You’re planning to use a set of laws to punish companies who are already complying with another set of laws?
Slight flaw perhaps?
Your comment makes no sense
In an earlier comment today on another thread about the Google tax issue (which at the time of writing is still awaiting moderation) I made an observation about the fact that it is not just decision makers within the body politic who operate from the basis of logic which is wrong, but also many ordinary people who too many politicians do not have the leadership skills and aptitude to challenge.
Right now the phrase ‘I rest my case” is flashing red lights for attention in my head.
The shadow chancellor made THE key point in all this debate yesterday on Channel 4 news that the current position of tax avoidance by one set of companies (multinationals) is disadvantageous to not only millions of individual PAYE taxpayers but also tens of thousands of others companies operating within the tax law in this country.
The fact that the interviewer came back with a “yes but” response is little different from Jim’s response here.
These many other companies who do not have the financial clout of multinationals such as Google, Amazon, et al do not seem to elicit the same consideration from the Jim’s of this world who appear to cry crocodile tears over any and all criticism of the activities of multinationals, the powerful and those with the most economic resources. The many SME’s and similar companies cannot afford to employ well paid lobbyists to be seconded to Government to write the tax and other trade laws that benefit the multinationals when they return back through the revolving door to take advantage of the loopholes they have deliberately created.
So come off it Jim. You are not really trying to defend companies here. You are not concerned about the companies who are paying their wack and, like the rest of us PAYE taxpayers, subsidising the avoidance of tax payments by a large powerful number of multinationals. You are not even concerned about the law. Because the basis of the rule of law is that everyone is equal before the law and what you are defending here is the “right” of one group of companies to pick and choose what laws apply to them for their advantage to the detriment of other companies and the rest of us who cannot afford the lobbying and secondment to Government to write laws for their own benefit or negotiate advantageous sweetheart deals for themselves.
What you are doing in your twisted convoluted arguments is effectively telling everyone that you for one are willing to die in a ditch to defend the rights and interests of one group over the rights and interests of everyone lose, including the many non multinational companies who abide by the social contract like the rest of us.
I was very disappointed by Cathy Newman’s interview
If the government would not turn up she did not have to do their job for them
Well said.
You are missing the point. We should absolutely change the tax laws. What seems futile is using human rights laws to try and punish companies who are obeying the tax laws as they currently stand.
Bringing a human rights case against someone because they are not paying what Richard Murphy thinks they should be is a very weak argument and has no chance of success.
How about we change the tax laws instead?
Have you not noticed how much impact I and some others have had in doing just that in the last decade?
You know the point I am making. But thinking about it what about human rights claim against the politicians for making unfair and weak laws for multinationals?
Write an essay
If the tax laws are in places “an ass” then they deserve to be challenged by whatever legal means is appropriate.
The rule of law is just that. The problem is whose law rules!
Precisely.
The idea of prosecuting politicians using Human Rights legislation for making unfair and weak laws for multinationals who make substantial campaign contributions (as well as favourable or unfavourable newspaper and TV coverage) and who second their own specialists to help draft those laws, whilst at the same time criticising the very idea of using HR legislation against the multinationals is an interesting one.
It’s like demanding that the perp. who carried out the actual crime be ignored whilst at the same time demanding the individual who aided and abetted them ad the look out or the fence have the book thrown at them.
It would appear on the basis of the evidence so far that as far as some people are concerned multinationals can never do anything wrong, should never ever be challenged on their behaviour and attitude and they won’t hear a word said against them.
Bizarre.
It’s not bizarre it’s basic logic. As things stand there is no “perp” because the companies are obeying the law. How do you intend to use a set of laws to punish someone who isn’t breaking another set of laws?
I don’t understand why anyone would struggle with this concept.
So Google paid the wrong tax but did not break the law?
You can only claim that if not complying with the law is a third category
Do you agree?
And if it is then the issue is real
Which bit of seconding specialists to the Government to be involved in drafting tax, trade, and regulatory laws and then returning back to your client multinational company through the revolving door to take advantage of the loopholes you have put in are you having problems wrapping your head around Jim?
Ignoring the context in which those laws are drafted is a cop out. Not content with defending tax dodging by ignoring this context those of us, PAYE and non multinational company alike who are subsidising this freeloading, have to put up with question dodging as well.
When can we expect the same consideration from the battalions of Uriah Heep’s who constantly jump in to man the barricades in defence of such activities by this powerful minority of parasitic bloodsuckers but who deliberately ignore the subsequent inequities and disadvantages suffered by those who pay their/our wack?