A found an odd postscript to last week's exchanges with Mike Devereux on corporation tax reform in the letter's page of the FT where I (and others) proposed a unitary apportionment method of solving the international corporation tax problem and Mike proposed an extension of what is, in effect VAT, which he calls a destination based cash flow tax base for corporation tax. That postscript is in the Guardian where Mike and Judith Freedman, also of the Oxford Centre for Business Taxation, suggested:
So what should be the basis for taxing multinational corporations? The Guardian sometimes seems to suggest that tax should be based on "residence", sometimes on "physical presence", and at other times "profits". But what do all these phrases mean when the taxpayer is a corporation? A corporation is a legal person, but in practice most corporate groups are made up of a network of companies. The group typically has shareholders across the globe, and assets, employees and customers scattered throughout many countries. In a system based on taxing profits, it makes sense for the group to move its profits to where the tax is lowest. The way to combat this is to find a new basis for taxing corporate groups, based on factors such as where assets are located, employees work or sales are made. The European commission has been working on proposals for such a system, but they are difficult to formulate and agree. A worldwide solution needs even broader international co-operation.
People are allowed to change their minds, of course. But it's worth noting that I have never seen explanation as to why Mike has done so. After all, he has moved from arguing for tax in all those places where a company adds value to arguing for a tax that will almost entirely be paid in the wealthiest countries on earth. Why has he chosen that new bias? It's a question needing an answer when ethically it is an argument that is almost impossible to sustain, even if the regressive aspect of the tax within those countries that would tax is ignored.
Hat tip to Nick Shaxson.
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:
That article was published in the Guardian in February 2009… more of a pre-script than a post-script. I’m sure you would agree with the last paragraph:
“The more radical steps require us to ask fundamental questions about what we are taxing and why. Only then will we find an appropriate solution to the problem of taxing multinational corporations across national boundaries.”
I agree
I have asked those questions
And have proposed an answer
Mike has offered a VAT
Should we be questioning the very idea of corporation tax ?
If a corporation is legally ‘A person’ why is a corporation given any special consideration ? Why do we regard income earned from employment and unearned income from investments as being in some way a different category of income.
In a recent thread elsewhere, ‘we’ were looking forward to the prospect of starting with a blank slate of tax policy, philosophy and regulation in an Independent Scotland.
Yes, I know…..It’s complicated 🙂 But what we’ve got is like Microsoft software used to be. Piles and piles of fixes and patches on no trousers. Microsoft did something about it. They made some new trousers. They have a similar underlying problem that there are rogue elements (elements…not elephants ) constantly trying to hack the system.