Next week at McGill: Van Apeldoorn on Taxation, Exploitation, and Human Rights

On December 6, Prof. Laurens van Apeldoorn of the University of Leiden will present a working paper at McGill, hosted by the Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism at McGill Law and the Stikeman Chair in Tax Law (me). Here is the abstract:

Exploitation in global supply chains impacts prices that in turn bear on the allocation of corporate income tax revenue to jurisdictions where multinational enterprises transact. This presentation will develop a concept of exploitation based on the violation of the right to a living wage, put this in the context of discussions of transfer mispricing in multinational enterprises, and consider the economic dimension of the allocation of corporate income tax revenue in relation to public goods provisions in low-income countries where exploitation occurs.

Prof. Van Apeldoorn is currently visiting McGill’s Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism as an O’Brien Fellow in Residence (Sept-Dec 2017). He is Assistant Professor of Philosophy and a member of the Centre for Political Philosophy at Leiden University, where his research broadly focuses on the nature and prospects of the sovereign state and more recently considers the principles of international taxation in relation to global justice. As some readers will no doubt be aware, Laurens' presentation connects to collaborative work he and I are undertaking that probes the meaning and significance of taxing income "where value is created," working paper forthcoming.

The talk will be held from 1pm to 12:30 with lunch being served beginning at 12:30, in Chancellor Day Hall, Stephen Scott Seminar Room (OCDH 16), 3644 rue Peel, Montreal, Quebec. This event is free and open to all.

Dagan on International Tax and Global Justice

Tsilly Dagan recently posted this new paper on the limitations of normative tax analysis that constrains itself to the state. Here is the abstract:

Inequality, as well as the scope of the duty of justice to reduce it, has always been a central concern of political justice. Income taxation has been seen as a key tool for redistribution and the state was the arena for discussions of justice. Globalization and the tax competition it fosters among states change the context for the discussion of distributive justice. Given the state’s fading coercive power in taxation and the decreasing power of its citizenry to co-author its collective will due to global competition, we can no longer assume that justice can be realized within the parameters of the state. 

International tax policy in an effort to retain justice often opts for cooperation as a vehicle to support distributive justice. But cooperation among states is more than a way for them to promote their aims through bargaining. Rather, it is a way for states to regain legitimacy by sustaining their very ability to ensure the collective action of their citizens and to treat them with equal respect and concern. The traditional discussion in international taxation seems to endorse a statist position — implicitly assuming that when states bargain for a multilateral deal, justice is completely mediated by the agreement of the states. 

In contrast, this Article argues that such a multilateral regime intended to provide the state with fundamental legitimacy requires independent justification. Contrary to the conventional statist position, I maintain that cooperating states have a duty to ensure that the constituents of all cooperating states are not treated unjustly because of the agreement. I argue that not only cosmopolitanism but political justice too requires that a justiciable cooperative regime must improve (or at least not worsen) the welfare of the least well-off citizens in all cooperating states. I explain that cooperation alone is no guarantee of improved welfare and that certain transfer payments between rich and poor countries might be required to ensure this.

 This is an important and provocative paper, highly recommended reading.

Spiro on Citizenship Overreach

The always excellent Peter Spiro has recently posted this new article on SSRN, of interest. Abstract:

This Article examines international law limitations on the ascription of citizenship in the context of U.S. taxation of non-resident citizens. U.S. citizenship practice is exceptionally generous, extending citizenship to almost all persons in its territory at the moment of birth. At the same time that it is generous at the front end, U.S. citizenship is sticky at the back. Termination of citizenship on the individual’s part involves substantial fees and tax compliance. It is difficult to shed a citizenship one may never have wanted in the first place. 

This stickiness would be inconsequential if few costs were associated with the status. But the United States taxes its citizens on a worldwide basis. The 2010 enactment of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act has ramped up historically lax enforcement and imposes substantial administrative burdens on even middle-earner citizens abroad. 

In this frame, U.S. birthright citizenship and expatriation regimes may violate international norms, especially with respect to those "accidental Americans" who departed the United States as children. Even in the context of extremely relaxed historical constraints on state nationality practice, there were acknowledged nineteenth century limitations on the extension of citizenship to individuals with insufficient connection to a state -- citizenship over-claiming, as it were. The article also describes the historical requirement that naturalization be volitional, a norm now appropriately applied in some cases in the context of birthright citizenship.  

To the extent the ascription of U.S. citizenship compromises individual rights, there are tax fixes and there are citizenship fixes. Citizenship fixes include opt-in and opt-out mechanisms for birthright citizenship. The better solution may lie in frictionless exit for those with nominal ties to the national community. Though reform is more likely to be accomplished through the tax regime, the moment highlights the over-inclusiveness of U.S. citizenship and the growing salience of international law to citizenship practices.

I'm less confident than Peter that reform will ever be delivered through the tax regime, but I am very glad to see this important contribution to the growing literature focusing on the citizenship/taxation link.

Some Recent Scholarship on Tax and Human Rights

I've posted on SSRN a new work in progress and two recently published works on the topic of taxation and human rights:

Human Rights at the Borders of Tax Sovereignty

Tax scholarship typically presumes the state’s power to tax and therefore rarely concerns itself with analyzing which relationships between a government and a potential taxpayer normatively justify taxation, and which do not. This paper presents the case for undertaking such an analysis as a matter of the state’s obligation to observe and protect fundamental human rights. It begins by examining existing frameworks for understanding how a taxpayer population is and ought to be defined. It then analyzes potential harms created by an improperly expansive taxpayer category, and those created by excluding from consideration those beyond the polity even if directly impacted by the tax regime. It concludes that a modified membership principle is a more acceptable framework for normative analysis of the jurisdiction to tax, even while acknowledging the overwhelming weight of existing perceptions about the bounds of the polity and the state-citizen relationship as significant barriers to acceptance.

Taxpayer Rights in Canada

Canada is one of many countries where taxpayer rights are becoming an increasingly common topic of discourse among policymakers, practitioners, and the public. Especially in light of recent developments regarding the global expansion of taxpayer information exchange, the role of taxpayer privacy and confidentiality rights have emerged as significant legal issues. This chapter surveys the contemporary theoretical, legal, and political landscape of taxpayer rights in Canada. Part I outlines the theoretical and legal sources from which taxpayers may be said to have rights. Part II examines Canada’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights and considers some of the historical, legal, and political issues that give rise to their core principles. Part III focuses in on the taxpayer’s right to privacy and confidentiality in the context of evolving global trends surrounding the use and exchange of taxpayer information. The Chapter concludes with some observations about where taxpayer rights may be headed in Canada.

Taxpayer Rights in the United States

Despite abundant sources of legal and quasi-legal protection against abuses of individual rights and freedoms, there are areas of contention regarding respect for taxpayer rights in the United States. This chapter lays out the framework of taxpayer rights and considers their meaning by considering a contemporary case, namely, the recent expansion of citizenship-based taxation through globally enforced financial asset reporting and information exchange. Part I outlines the theoretical and legal sources from which taxpayers may be said to have rights. Part II examines the US Taxpayer Bill of Rights and considers some of the historical, legal, and political issues that give rise to their core principles. Part III focuses in on the taxpayer’s right to be informed in the context of citizenship-based taxation in a globalized world. The Chapter concludes with some observations about where taxpayer rights may be headed in the United States.

Tax justice and human rights: call for essays on litigation strategies

I received the following notice by email, of interest:

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.

I have a few thoughts on this and I really look forward to seeing the results of the competition.

FATCA, Citizenship-Based Tax, and Taxpayer Rights

I recently sat down with Bob Goulder of Tax Analysts to talk about FATCA, citizenship-based taxation, renunciation, and taxpayer rights.

Global Justice Post-2015

The Global Justice Program at Yale University is currently hosting a conference exploring the post-2015 agenda for human rights and global justice. List of speakers and topics:

Day One: October 30 

Panel 1: Global Tax Fairness: Allison Christians, Manuel Montes, Erika Siu; Chair: Zorka Milin)  

Amartya Sen Prize Contest Ceremony 

Panel 2: Illicit financial flows, human rights and the post-2015 agenda - Discussion of Independent Expert’s Report: Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky, Nicholas Lusiani, Léonce Ndikumana, Esther Shubert; Chair: Tom Cardamon 

Panel 3: Addis, Post-2015, and future efforts against Illicit Financial Flows: Tom Cardamone, Steven Dean, Gail Hurley and Jakob Schwab; Chair: Laura Biron 

Day Two: October 31  

Statement of the Health Impact Fund (HIF) and mini-HIF, including discussion: Aidan Hollis, Thomas Pogge; Chair: Alex Sayegh  

Panel 4: Mini-HIF: Piloting the Health Impact Fund: Laura Biron, Aidan Hollis, Peter Maybarduk, Thomas Pogge, Jeffrey Sachs, Richard Wilder; Chair: Tendayi Bloom
Concluding Session on the Health Impact Fund  

Panel 5: Individual Deprivation Measure, Poverty Measurement: Sharon Bessell, Thomas Pogge, Scott Wisor; Chair: Yuan Yuan. 

Day Three: November 1  

Panel 6: Oslo Principles on Climate Change Obligations: Thomas Pogge, Jaap Spier, Kira Vinke; Chair: Shmulik Nili 

Panel 7: Sustainable Development Goals (Daniel Esty, Thomas Pogge, Jeffrey Sachs; Chair: Corinna Mieth.

I presented yesterday on the topic of "Global Tax Fairness." I discussed the connection between taxation and human rights, highlighting the challenges for the realization of rights and justice that are posed by tax competition and exploring whether and how systemic change is possible. I have a couple of works in progress on the topic and will post drafts when ready.

In the meantime, I'm experimenting with making my powerpoint presentations available online (along with other resources in the future). You can view a list here: see pull down menu entitled "resources". Comments and suggestions are welcome.

In global tax governance, institutions matter.

José Antonio Ocampo posted a plea for institutional reform in tax policymaking today,  in which he decries the jealous guarding of tax policy exclusivity by OECD countries, especially the US and the UK. At the recent Financing for Development conference, developing countries called for a greater role for the UN in global tax governance but the OECD countries balked. Ocampo writes:

The OECD, whose members are essentially the world’s 34 richest countries, certainly has the capacity to set international standards on taxation. Yet the domination of a select group of countries over tax norms has meant that, in reality, the global governance architecture for taxation has not kept pace with globalization. 

The Monterrey Consensus reached in 2002 included a call to enhance “the voice and participation of developing countries in international economic decision-making and norms-setting.” But although the OECD invites some developing countries to participate in its discussions to establish norms, it offers them no decision-making power. The OECD is thus a weak surrogate for a globally representative intergovernmental forum.

I understand that it is costly and complicated to develop institutions that allow for meaningful participation by all people affected by transnational tax policy norms.  But the international tax system is a resource allocation machine that has significant impacts on people's life chances across all populations. I fail to see what principles of justice support a world in which a small and privileged group of people make decisions of both process and substance that directly impact, and yet purposefully and systemically exclude, the majority of the world's population. The substance of norms, rules, and standards may matter in global tax governance, but ultimately institutions matter even more.

UPDATE: China does NOT follow US lead, taxing its global diaspora. (If they did, it would be a terrible idea).

This is an update of an earlier post. Earlier today I wrote that the NY times reported that China is embracing US-style citizenship-based taxation, by enforcing "a little-known and widely ignored regulation: Citizens and companies must pay domestic taxes on their entire worldwide incomes, not just on what they earn in China." The update is that this is entirely wrong, and that the NY Times just completely mangled this story by failing to understand the difference between defining income and defining residence (a distinction to which I alluded in my original post, below).

The reality is discussed at length by Eric over at Isaac Brock, who explains that "No, China does not have citizenship-based taxation." Eric's interpretation has been confirmed to me by a couple of people I know who are Chinese tax experts. So, I invite you to go there to read the full account, which I won't repeat here except to quote the takeaway, which is:

China as a country has many flaws and lacks many freedoms, but at least it uses the same basic system of taxation followed by nearly every democracy and dictatorship: a system which avoids placing unreasonable barriers in the way of the basic human right to leave a country.

Thanks to Eric and thanks to my colleagues who took the trouble to write me personally to correct the record. I hope that the Times acknowledges the errors and writes a new article on the subject to confirm that yes, the US is alone in its comprehensive treatment of non-residents as if resident solely on the basis of legal status as nationals.

In my earlier post I noted that last year when reviewing constitutional articulations of the taxing power, I noticed that China's constitution would suggest that its tax authority could have a global reach:

Article 56: It is the duty of citizens of the People's Republic of China to pay taxes in accordance with the law.

Accordingly, though it seems that China's constitution leaves open the possibility for China to follow the flawed US approach, it thankfully does not. The Times reported that the move would "[put] China on the same side as the United States in a global debate over whether taxation should be primarily national or global," and then says "On the other side of the issue are European nations, Japan, Australia and Canada, all of which tax people within their borders but exempt most expatriates and overseas subsidiaries from paying income taxes in their home countries."

This is not quite right. There is a global debate about taxing multinational companies on their worldwide (group) incomes, or not. However, there is no global debate about taxing individuals on the basis of their nationality. There is the United States, and then there is the rest of the world, with a very few and very limited number of exceptions (discussed below). If China were to align with the United States on this, it would be very big news not just for the global Chinese diaspora, but also for the ongoing OECD project on automatic exchange of information and for FATCA, because both regimes will struggle to implement the impossible demands of birthright tracing, which is necessary to enforce citizenship taxation.

The taxation of citizenship is about the definition of tax residence, rather than the definition of income.  Many or perhaps most developed countries tax all individual residents, regardless of nationality, on their worldwide incomes. This makes sense because taxation is the pooling of resources for shared expenditures, and nationality and citizenship are irrelevant to this project. It would be absurd to only require citizens and nationals to pay for health care, schools, roads, police, courts, financial systems, etc, when the population using all of these goods and services includes noncitizens and nonnationals. Likewise,  it is absurd to expect individuals to pay taxes in your country merely because your citizenship laws have conferred a legal status on them.

As a result, the OECD's AEoI project envisions a global system to identify the tax residence of every individual that owns virtually any financial asset, anywhere in the world, so that governments can assess their residents' tax obligations. The US project on FATCA goes further, requiring the global system to identify the nationality of every individual that owns virtually any financial asset, anywhere in the world. It won't be easy to build the OECD's residence identification database, but it is perhaps possible, with the help of tax treaties that resolve dual-residence problems. On the other hand, if the whole world gets into the business of nationality identification, we are going to have problems. This involves tracing bloodlines and will quickly become extraordinarily complicated, if not impossible, as we have already seen with FATCA.

Every income tax system necessarily has extensive residence assignment rules, including the United States; it is just that the United States also includes nationality in its definition, while almost every other country does not. The United States does this even if such persons achieved US nationality through the accident of birth, even if they never stepped foot in the United States and have never used any US goods or services of any kind, even if they are also citizens and permanent residents of other countries from their birth, even if they have never has a social security number or a US passport, even if they do not know that that they are US nationals, and even though the claiming of persons as subjects by birth by a distant sovereign was the foundation for America's war for independence.

All other nation-states tax on the basis of residence, not nationality, with a few minor and limited exceptions. Here they are:

• Eritrea taxes nonresident citizens permanently, at a reduced flat rate of 2% of worldwide income. It does this to finance an ongoing war, and had been denounced by the United States and the UN for the practice.
• Finland treats nonresident citizens as tax resident for three years after the emigrate unless they demonstrate that they no longer have any ties to Finland. 
• France treats nonresident citizens as permanent tax residents if they move from France to Monaco, per a treaty between the two nations.
• Hungary treats nonresident citizens as permanent tax residents of Hungary, unless they also have another nationality or reside in a country which has a tax treaty with Hungary. 
• Italy treats nonresident citizens as permanent tax residents if they move to a blacklisted tax haven unless they demonstrate lack of ties to Italy. 
• Spain treats nonresident citizens as tax residents for five years following a move to a blacklisted tax haven.
• Turkey treats nonresident citizens as permanent tax residents if they work for the Turkish government or Turkish companies but exempts income that is taxed by the country where it is earned. 

Some countries used to but no longer practice citizenship-based taxation:

• Bulgaria used to treat nonresident citizens as permanent tax residents, but ended the practice with the adoption of a new income tax in 1998. 
• Mexico used to treat nonresident citizens as permanent tax residents, but ended the practice with the adoption of a new income tax law in 1981.
• Myanmar used to tax the foreign income of nonresident citizens at a flat rate of 10% but ended the practice in 2012. 
• The Philippines used to tax the foreign income of nonresident citizens at reduced rates of 1 to 3% but ended the practice with the adoption of a new tax law in 1998.
• The Soviet Union used to treat nonresident citizens as permanent tax residents, but after the country was dissolved in 1991, none of its successor states continued the practice. 
• Vietnam used to used to treat nonresident citizens as permanent tax residents but ended the practice in 2009. 

We can easily see how global AeOI might make it possible to reverse this trend. If China was to adopt citizenship taxation and exert the same pressure as the US has with FATCA to achieve it, two very important countries would be stretching the residence definition beyond the OECD's global AEoI database. Bearing the extra costs and burdens of these extra measures would surely convince other countries to consider following suit.

That's why I think this would be a terrible idea. Fundamentally, taxing on the basis of citizenship is wrong from a normative point of view. But it is also a terrible idea for practical reasons. First, it's invasive (to say the least) to make access to basic bank accounts contingent on tracing bloodlines. Second, doing so globally, including forcing the world's poorest countries to play along, is a huge waste of administration resources by everyone. Third, creating global asset databases for tax exchange purposes creates massive security issues that have not been assessed in light of the fact that this will be done on the basis of nationality rather than residence. Finally, and in the long run, taxing on the basis of citizenship effectively restricts labour mobility, serving a goal I have not heard explained by anyone.

In a world in which state's tax subjects include their globally dispersed diasporas, global asset information exchange will make it a duty of every state to sort its population for differential treatment according to the birthright laws of the other states. This has never been an agenda item on any of the discussions I have seen regarding tax information exchange. It should be.

Canadian government unveils Re-election Tax Credit

The Canadian government announced a new package of "family" tax cuts/credits last week, with an income splitting scheme and modifications to child care benefits and expense deductions. These are, of course, really just re-election tax credits--announced at what the CBC describes as a "campaign-style event." Earlier this year, at the Tax Justice & Human Rights Symposium I hosted at McGill, Jonathan Rhys Kesselman explained the distributional impacts of the type of cuts announced by the government. He had to embargo his presentation so it's unfortunately not among those now viewable at the McGill Tax channel, but fortunately his paper is now available [pdf here], and the Vancouver Sun has a story: Detailed analysis exposes more income-splitting flaws.

Kesselman's main arguments are:

• restricting the measure to couples with children is inconsistent with the purported fairness rationale of taxing couples at the same rates as singles
• families with the greatest need will get no benefits at all
• families don't have to demonstrate or undertake any actual child care obligations in order to get the benefits
• the policy will decrease the after-tax value of a family's second earner (because earnings are effectively taxed at the higher-earner's marginal rate) 

He ends by suggesting a number of alternative ways the government could spend money to support families in need without introducing these distortions.

It does feel frustrating that everywhere one looks, politicians just seem have no shame about trying to buy their next elections, and populations seem all too willing to be bought so long as you tell them it's for the "hard working" among us. The question is, whom does the Harper government define as hard-working? With this announcement, the message is: you are only a hard-working family, and therefore deserving of tax cuts, if you

• have a child under 18;
• with two parents;
• one of whom earns a lot;
• and who earns a lot more than the other.

If this doesn't describe your family, then it seems you are not working hard enough.

BEPS Monitoring Group Scorecard

The BEPS Monitoring Group, a consortium of tax justice folks who are watching the OECD as it works through its ambitious reconfiguration of the global tax consensus, released a report today, of interest. The indefatigable Sol Picciotto is the lead author. From the announcement:

Our overall evaluation is that while significant progress has been made, there have been some unhappy compromises, some obstacles encountered, and much remains to be done. Also, fundamental problems still remain. The OECD alone is not the appropriate body to revise global rules, and its approach has been to patch up the existing rules. Effective reforms will not be possible without reconsidering some of the foundations of the system designed 80 years ago. Today’s globalized economy requires a more global approach to apportionment of the tax base of multinationals. Changes in the rules should be geared towards treating multinationals as unitary enterprises which would reflect their economic reality.

I agree with Sol that the OECD is not the appropriate body to revise global rules, and this is because revising the global rules really requires revisiting the basic framework. If the framework is fundamentally flawed, which I believe it is, then going back to the same architect again and again for yet another renovation project appears to be folly. But the OECD has worked hard to make itself into a tax policy monopoly, so this is a predictable result. On this point, Sol says:

A project led by the OECD even with participation of other G20 countries is still an unsatisfactory way to agree global tax rules, and the underlying problem still remains that the Action Plan aims to patch up existing rules rather than re-examine their foundation. 

The views of states not directly involved in the process, especially the poorer developing countries which are more dependent on corporate tax revenues, need to be taken into account much more directly, and we will carefully scrutinize the OECD proposals to address this which are promised.

He observes that so far, the OECD appears unwilling to consider any revisit of the underlying international tax principles, namely, the residence-source split, even though we can clearly see that this split isn't doing the work it needs to do to allocate the global tax base (especially when it comes to the corporate income tax).

My view is that everyone who will be affected by the global tax consensus has a right to be involved in the conversation, while the OECD's basic exclusionary nature ensures that only those who happen to live in rich countries will have any representation. The UN Tax Committee is an obvious alternative policy space. Sol says: "Instead of trying to usurp the UN, the OECD should support an
upgrading of the UN Tax Committee. All states should have full rights of participation in the negotiation of the proposed multilateral convention, which should  not be limited to rubber-stamping the outputs of the OECD BEPS project." That sounds right to me.

But it's hard, messy, probably dreary and frustrating work that will involve a lot of time and effort, and in the meantime...what? As I said in my talk last week, we all know that in international tax, as in most other regulatory areas, powerful states don't have to wait, they can simply do what they want.  But can is not ought.  I think the OECD should keep working on BEPS but everyone ought to be working equally diligently toward comprehensive multilateralism even as the OECD puts together this latest patch, so that the next step in international tax relations is not another recall of the same architect, with the same blueprint.

Sol's report has a clear mission: get the OECD to take formulary apportionment seriously, as the "clear lodestar" to all the BEPS efforts. Maybe so; the naysayers have their points. But for me the strongest part of this scorecard is its observation that the process matters, that we need to keep talking about participation in governance and thinking about who is making the decisions about which voices will be heard.

Tax and Human Rights: What's Next? #TJHR

Yesterday we concluded the McGill Tax Justice and Human Rights Research Collaboration Symposium. It was an action-packed three days and I left feeling that what I had set out to generate had in fact been accomplished: a cross-platform, cross-disciplinary conversation on the intersection of taxation and human rights. Everyone learned a great deal about a range of people who want to think about how taxation and human rights concepts work together, and a range of ideas and challenges generated by that exercise. I think I came away with at least a sense of the current landscape of this field, its recurring themes and questions, and where the research is likely to go in the near future. 

I'll write some more on this as I have a chance to reflect on the proceedings and review some of the tape of the sessions I had to miss (running a conference is all too unfortunately more about moving people around and dealing with technology and such than sitting back and listening). We have sought waivers from the conference participants and will be able to upload some of the sessions, or parts thereof, in the coming weeks. We are also in process of obtaining permission to post papers and presentations, and as those come in we will post those as well.  Not all presenters and presentations will be available online but enough, perhaps, to give a sense of what took place over the past three days. Updates on available content will be available at the conference website, linked above. 

As with any conference, what the participants say is only part of the story: the other and more lasting part is the networking and connection building that takes place. I heard from some of the participants about exciting new connections and possibilities for future collaboration. I myself managed to connect with many participants with whom I hope to collaborate again in the future. It is an exciting field and one I believe is gaining momentum. There is much work to be done.

The photo on the conference flyer, reproduced above, is a detail of the grand entrance to Old Chancellor Day Hall at McGill. We added it to the flyer as a tribute to the history of research and learning that goes on in this institution, and as a symbol of openness, welcome, and inclusion that characterizes the Faculty of Law at McGill. I hope and believe that the symposium opened many doors for future collaboration on the subject of tax justice and human rights. 

More updates in the weeks to come. 

Today at McGill Law: Final Day of Tax Justice and Human Rights Research Collaboration Symposium #TJHR

Today is the third and last action-packed day of  conversation among students, academic researchers, and tax justice advocates and activists on the topic of tax justice and human rights. It has been a fascinating and enlightening experience so far. You can continue to follow the proceedings and make comments on twitter at #TJHR. Program and speaker info here.

Here is the final day's lineup:

Time	Topic	Location
08:30 – 09:00	Registration & Arrival Tea/Coffee	Atrium
09:00 – 10:30	6. Reducing Inequality: Tax Avoidance and Capital Flight Ofer Sitbon (PhD candidate, College of Law & Business, Tel Aviv), Moderator - James Henry (Senior Economic Advisor, Tax Justice Network),Kleptocracy and Human Rights - Steven Cohen (Professor, Georgetown University Law Center), Does Swiss Bank Secrecy Violate International Human Rights? - Brigitte Alepin (Partner, Agora Fiscalité), The Foundation - Steven Dean (Professor, Brooklyn Law School), A Tax Regime to Catalyze Social Enterprise Crowdfunding Lee Sheppard (Journalist, Tax Analysts), John Christensen (Director, Tax Justice Network), discussants	Moot Court (room 100)
10:30 – 10:45	Refreshment Break	Atrium
10:45 – 12:00	7. Reducing Inequality: Tax Avoidance and Progressive Taxation Neil Buchanan (Professor, George Washington University Law School), moderator - Chris Odinet (Associate Professor of Law, Southern University Law Center), Taxing Property Owners - Jean-Pierre Vidal (Associate Professor, Dept of Accountancy, HEC Montreal), Ethics in Taxation: what is it, and why should a tax specialist care? - Niko Lusiani, (Senior Researcher, Center for Economic and Social Rights), A Post-2015 Fiscal Revolution: Human Rights in the Struggle to Finance Sustainable Development James Henry (Senior Economic Advisor, Tax Justice Network), Attiya Waris (Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Univ. of Nairobi), discussants	Moot Court (room 100)
12:15 – 14:00	Lunch, Keynote Speaker Attiya Waris (Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Nairobi)	Thomson House
14:00 – 15:30	8. Justice in Labour and Capital Migration Samuel Singer (Associate, Stikeman Elliott), Moderator - Aldo Caliari (Director, Rethinking Bretton Woods Project), Unleashing the Potential of Human Rights Standards to Demand Tax Justice - Lynne Latulippe (Professor, University of Sherbrooke), Tax Competition and Paradigm Shift in International Law - Krishen Mehta (Senior Advisor, Tax Justice Network, New York), Can Developing Countries Attract Investment and Still Get a Fair Deal on Tax Justice? - Henry Ordower (Professor, Saint Louis University), Retreat from Progressive Taxation in the Swedish Welfare State: Does Immigration Matter? John Christensen (Director, Tax Justice Network), Neil Buchanan(Professor, George Washington University Law School), discussants	Moot Court (room 100)
15:30 – 15:45	Refreshment Break	Atrium
15:45 – 17:00	9. Environmental Tax Justice Jessica Magonet (BCL/LLB candidate, McGill Faculty of Law), Moderator - Toby Sanger (Senior Economist, Canadian Union of Public Employees), Tax Justice and Climate Change - Tracey Roberts (Visiting Assistant Professor, Seattle University School of Law), Tax – A Better Mechanism to Protect Rights in the Global Commons - Rodolfo Salassa Boix (Professor, National University of Cordoba),Distribution of Ecological Costs Through Environmental Taxes Stéphane Dion (MP for Saint Laurent-Cartierville), Jim Henry (Professor, Saint Louis University), discussants	Moot Court (room 100)
17:00 – 18:00	10. Roundtable on Tax Justice Campaigns and CSO Actions Imad Sabi (Head of Global Partners Program, Oxfam Novib), Moderator - Dennis Howlett (Executive Director, Canadians for Tax Fairness) - Duncan Wigan (Researcher, Copenhagen Business School) - Victoria Harnett (Campaigns & Communications Advisor, Aid & Development Finance at Oxfam International)	Moot Court (room 100)
18:00 – 18:15	Wrap Up and Closing Remarks, Allison Christians (Stikeman Chair in Tax Law, McGill Faculty of Law)	Moot Court (room 100)
18:15 – 20:00	Closing Cocktail	Atrium

Today at McGill Law: Day Two of Tax Justice and Human Rights Research Collaboration Symposium #TJHR

The conversation among students, academic researchers, and tax justice advocates and activists on the topic of tax justice and human rights continues at McGill today. You can follow the proceedings and make comments on twitter at #TJHR. Program and speaker info here.

Here is the day's lineup:

Time	Topic		Location
08:30 – 09:00	Registration & Arrival Tea/Coffee		Atrium
09:00 – 09:15	Welcome remarks: Allison Christians (Stikeman Chair in Tax Law, McGill Faculty of Law); Dennis Howlett (Executive Director, Canadians for Tax Fairness); John Christensen (Director, Tax Justice Network); and Jean Symes (Program and Policy Analyst, Inter Pares)		Moot Court (room 100)
09:15 – 10:00	1. Setting the Stage William Stephenson (Editor in Chief, McGill Law Journal), Moderator - Kim Brooks (Dean and Weldon Professor of Law at the Schulich School of Law at Dalhouse University), Why Justice Matters for Tax Policy - Ignacio Saiz (Executive Director, Center for Human Rights in Economic Policy), The Evolving Norms and Standards of Human Rights - Allison Christians (Stikeman Chair in Tax, McGill Faculty of Law), Who Has Rights, What Rights, and Against Whom?		Moot Court (room 100)
10:00 – 11:15	2. Human Rights and Tax Justice Reports Aldo Caliari (Director, Rethinking Bretton Woods Project), Moderator - Lloyd Lipsett (President and Rapporteur, International Bar Association Task Force on Illicit Financial Flows, Poverty and Human Rights): IBA Human Rights Institute Task Force on Illicit Financial Flows, Poverty and Human Rights Report - Kate Donald (Adviser to the UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights), UNHRC Report - Adrienne Margolis (Founder and Editor, Lawyers 4 Better Business), L4BB Report David Quentin (Senior Adviser, Tax Justice Network), and Shirley Pouget(Senior Program Lawyer, Int. Bar Assoc. Human Rights Institute), discussants		Moot Court (room 100)
11:15 – 11:30	Refreshment Break		Atrium
11:30 – 12:45	3. Gender and Fiscal Justice Liz Nelson (Partnership Development and Resources Coordinator, Tax Justice Network), Moderator - Annick Provencher (Professor, Faculty of Law, Université de Montréal),From the Invisible Hand to the Invisible Woman - Rhys Kesselman (Professor, School of Public Policy, Simon Fraser University), Income Splitting and Alternatives for Family Tax Cuts in Canada - Kathleen Lahey (Professor, Queen's University Law School), Sex Equality and Tax Justice: Gender Impact of Tax, Benefit, and Other Fiscal Policies Kate Donald (Adviser to the UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights), Attiya Waris (Senior Lectrurer, Faculty of Law, Univ. of Nairobi), discussants		Moot Court (room 100)
12:45 – 14:15	Lunch, Keynote Speaker Thomas Pogge (Leitner Professor of Philosophy and International Affairs, Yale University) VIA SKYPE		Thomson House
14:15 – 15:45	4. Fiscal Justice: Regional Challenges and Initiatives May Hen (Master's candidate, Simon Fraser University), Moderator - Savior Mwambwa (Policy and Advocacy Manager, Tax Justice Network - Africa), The Reform of the Global Tax System: Keys Issues and Lessons from Africa - André Mendes Moreira (Associate Professor of Tax Law - Federal University of Minas Gerais), Indirect Taxes and Tax Justice - Misabel Machado Derzi (Professor of Tax Law, the Federal University of Minas Gerais), Guerre fiscale, Bourse Famille et Silence - Renaud Fossard (Latindad), Latin American Countries: Local Issues and International Influences Lyne Latulippe (Professor, University of Sherbrooke), John Christensen (Director, Tax Justice Network), discussants		Moot Court (room 100)
16:45 – 16:00	Refreshment Break		Atrium
16:00 – 17:30	5. Reducing Inequality: International Corporate Tax Reform Jo Marie Griesgraber (Executive Director, New Rules for Global Finance Coalition), Moderator - Erika Siu (Tax Research Consultant, International Centre for Taxation and Development), BEPS Monitoring Group Activities: An Update - Michael Knoll (Theodore K. Warner Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School), Competitive Neutrality and the EU Model - Lee Sheppard (Journalist, Tax Analysts), OECD Initiative on BEPS - Robert Fox (Executive Director, Oxfam Canada), Business Among Friends: Why corporate tax dodgers are not yet losing sleep over global tax reform  Samuel Singer (Associate, Stikeman Elliott), discussant		Moot Court (room 100)
17:30 – 17:45	Announcements		Moot Court (room 100)
17:45 – 18:30	Refreshment Break: Atrium	Breakout Session: IBAHRI Update on Tax and the Millennium Development Goals, Moot Court (room 100)

Today at McGill Law: Tax Justice and Human Rights Research Symposium #TJHR

Today is the first day of the Tax Justice and Human Rights Research Collaboration Symposium, a three-day conversation among students, academic researchers, and tax justice advocates and activists on the topic of tax justice: what is it, how is tax connected to human rights or how could it be, and what research needs to be done to further this emerging field? You can follow the proceedings and make comments on twitter at #TJHR.

Here is the day's lineup:

Day 1: Emerging Scholars Symposium

Wednesday, 18 June

Time	Topic	Location
08:30 – 09:00	Registration & Arrival Tea/Coffee	Atrium
09:00 – 09:30	Welcome Remarks: Daniel Jutras (Dean, McGill Faculty of Law)	Room 316
Panel A	Samuel Singer (Associate, Stikeman Elliott), Moderator	Room 316
09:30 – 10:00	Leyla Ates (PhD candidate, University of Wisconsin and Istanbul Kemerburgaz University), Developing Countries And Globalization of Tax Law Making: Turkısh Tax Law Reforms on Fighting Tax Evasion Steven Dean (Professor, Brooklyn Law School), discussant
10:00 – 10:30	May Hen (Master's candidate, Simon Fraser University), Who runs the Cayman Islands? Field notes on elite tax discourse Lyne Latulippe (Professor, University of Sherbrooke), discussant
10:30 – 10:45	Refreshment Break	Third floor lobby
Panel B	William Stephenson (Editor in Chief, McGill Law Journal), Moderator	Room 316
10:45 – 11:15	Regina Duarte (LLM Candidate, Federal Univ. of Minas Gervais, Brasil),Globalization, Tax Competition and Tax Base Erosion: a Matter of Human Rights Henry Ordower (Professor, Saint Louis Univeristy), discussant
11:15 – 11:45	Martin Hearson (PhD candidate, LSE), Why Do Developing Countries Sign Tax Treaties? Lee Sheppard (Journalist, Tax Analysts), discussant
11:45 – 12:15	Montano Cabezas (LLM Candidate, Georgetown University Law Center),Giving Credit Where it is Due: Rethinking the Corporate Tax Paradigm Kim Brooks (Dean and Weldon Professor of Law at the Schulich School of Law at Dalhouse University), discussant
12:15 – 13:45	Stikeman Chair’s Luncheon featuring a keynote talk by James A. Robb, Stikeman Elliott	Atrium
Panel C	Sas Ansari (Phd Candidate, Osgoode University), Moderator	Room 316
13:45 – 14:15	César Alejandro Ruiz Jiménez (LLM Candidate, Vienna University), Right to Property and Taxation Stephen Cohen (Professor, Georgetown University Law Center), discussant
14:15 – 14:45	Juan Agustin Argibay Molina (LLM Graduate, McGill), Trade Mispricing in Argentina: A Case Study Neil Buchanan (Professor, George Washington University Law School), discussant
15:45 – 15:15	Daisy Ogembo (Assistant Lecturer, Strathmore Law School, Nairobi), VAT Refunds and Tax Justice Andre Moreira (Associate Professor of Tax Law, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil), discussant
15:15 – 15:30	Refreshment Break	Third floor lobby
Panel D	Sarah Blumel (Independent), Moderator	Room 316
15:30 – 17:00	Incubator Session: Designing a Research Project, Methodology & Collaboration, and Publishing Adrienne Margolis (Founder and Editor, Lawyers 4 Better Business);Krishen Mehta (Senior Advisor, Tax Justice Network); Gabriel Monette(Réseau Justice Fiscale); and Shirley Pouget (Senior Program Lawyer, International Bar Association Human Rights Institute)
17:00 – 19:00	Cocktail reception	Atrium
19:00 – 20:30	Roundtable on Tax Justice and Human Rights: Open to the Public Allison Christians (Stikeman Chair in Tax, McGill Faculty of Law), Moderator Featuring Alex Himelfarb (Director, School of Public and International Affairs, York University); Kate Donald (Adviser to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights); Attiya Waris (Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Nairobi); and Denise Byrnes(Executive Director, Oxfam Québec)

This Week at McGill Law: Tax Justice and Human Rights Symposium #TJHR

This week I am so pleased to welcome to the McGill Faculty of Law an international group of students, academics, researchers, and activists to collaborate on the topic of tax justice: what is it, how is tax connected to human rights or how could it be, and what research needs to be done to further this emerging field. You can find info about the symposium, including the full program and speaker bios, here. I hope that this collaboration will raise interesting questions, inform, educate, and inspire future work on this emerging topic.

I will post each day's program as we get to it this week; we will be on twitter at #TJHR and welcome input from participants whether they are virtual or on the premises.