The FT's editorial on the OECD's Base Erosion and Profits Shifting report, published today, is interesting. It says (in part):
The best outcome would be an international agreement on how to link tax bases to real economic activity and limit the creation of brass-plate subsidiaries whose sole purpose is to locate the most profitable parts of businesses in low-tax jurisdictions or in no jurisdiction at all. But a global deal is a tall order and the OECD sets aside such radical reform in favour of a more incremental approach.
Absolutely right. As the Tax Justice Network, I and others have argued, the real need is for fundamental reform, and the FT has clearly accepted that only unitary taxation can really solve this problem. The OECD has, however, ducked that issue. The result, as the FT says is that:
It remains to be seen whether states can rise to the challenge and act together under the OECD's aegis. They need to amend ill-designed national rules and bilateral treaties whose aim of no double taxation has had the effect of double no-taxation. Without such action, the risk is that they will act unilaterally to the detriment of global trade. The report is a start but there is much work to do.
Again, spot on. The worry is, will they do it? With the UK dedicated to tax competition does the will to reform really exist? Or will, as the FT fears, the free-riders win?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Are you taking your conclusion re unitary taxation from the excerpt quoted? I can’t really see that it follows – linking taxation to economic reality doesn’t necessitate unitary taxation.
The FT has persistently said it does
That’s interesting. I have seen one FT article written by Nicholas Shaxson but struggling to find any others on Google (have full subscription), other than ones which mention it without taking a stance either way. Do you have any links?
John Kay has said so
So have editorials
I’m still struggling – are you able to provide links on this site? Would be interested to read.
It took me about 3 seconds to find this
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b6ef8ab4-388f-11e2-981c-00144feabdc0.html
I was asking for further editorials / actual articles than the one you’d already mentioned and I’d already mentioned. If you don’t have any other links, just say so. It will take even less than 3 seconds.
I hadn’t linked that one before
I’ve just posted another one
You are getting close to being banned though
I’m merely interested Richard – why on earth am I going to be banned? You mentioned the John Kay article, and then kindly provided a link to John Kay’s article. All I’m asking is if you can point me in the direction of others (being other than the one already mentioned by you – John Kay – and the one already mentioned by me – Shaxson).
I have already provided a link to another one