Burgers & Mosquera on Corporate Tax, BEPS, and Developing Countries

Irene Burgers (University of Groningen - Faculty of Economics and Business) and  Irma Mosquera Valderrama (IBFD) recently posted Corporate Taxation and BEPS: A Fair Slice for Developing Countries?, which explores the link between perceptions of fairness in the allocation of international tax revenues and buy-in to the BEPS framework by developing countries. Here is the abstract:

The aim of this article is to examine the differences in perception of ‘fairness’ between developing and developed countries, which influence developing countries’ willingness to embrace the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) proposals and to recommend as to how to overcome these differences. The article provides an introduction to the background of the OECD’s BEPS initiatives (Action Plan, Low Income Countries Report, Multilateral Framework, Inclusive Framework) and the concerns of developing countries about their ability to implement BEPS (Section 1); a non-exhaustive overview of the shortcomings of the BEPS Project and its Action Plan in respect of developing countries (Section 2); arguments on why developing countries might perceive fairness in relation to corporate income taxes differently from developed countries (Section 3); and recommendations for international organisations, governments and academic researchers on where fairness in respect of developing countries should be more properly addressed (Section 4). 

This is an important analysis because it is clear that the meaningful participation of non-OECD countries in the development of international tax norms going forward is both difficult and imperative in terms of both legitimacy and effectiveness of the evolving international tax order.

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.

Fleming Peroni & Shay on Corporate Tax, Credits, and even Customary International Law

Fleming Peroni & Shay recently posted a new article, of interest as it renews the authors' case, in the wake of BEPS, for both worldwide corporate taxation without deferral (a controversial proposal to say the least) and the foreign tax credit as an appropriate mechanism to allocate tax among home and host countries. As the abstract below indicates, the argument in favour of tax creditability is contra Dan Shaviro, who has argued for foreign taxes to be deductible rather than creditable. The FP&S argument in favour of full current taxation without deferral is contra almost everyone, so it's fun to see FP&S make it, especially in the face of what appears to be a rapidly rising tide of sentiment going in the opposite direction. 

My own view is that a switch to deductibility would increases pressure on capital importing countries to reduce their source-based taxes (a deduction does not fully offset the foreign tax, so it would make such taxes more costly to US firms as compared to fully creditable foreign taxes), and therefore transfer revenues from poor to rich countries. Deferral already places tremendous tax competition pressure on host countries, while ending it might enable some countries (to which US capital is a major source of inbound investment) to increase their source-based taxation (as explained in this paper). Therefore I was happy to see this FP&S paper give additional support to the beleaguered tax credit while still recognizing that there is such a thing as giving too much credit.

I was also intrigued to see FP&S begin their paper by picking up Reuven Avi-Yonah's premise that taxation on the basis of residence and source is customary international law. That is not only a relatively unusual argument to find in a US-authorized tax paper, but it is a potentially controversial perspective, which I am exploring in a paper of my own (making the international law case against citizenship based taxation). So, thank you Fleming, Peroni and Shay, for the additional citation support for my arguments.

It is also worth noting that FP&S include in this paper a defense of the corporate income tax in the form of footnote 200, which spans more than a page in tiny but useful print. It summarizes the main points regarding why corporate tax is necessary as a backstop to individual income taxation, citing to the main arguments for and against, thus serving as a valuable micro treatise on the subject.  

Finally, I note that FP&S only give the FTC two cheers instead of three because they feel that it conflicts with the principle of ability to pay, an argument I have not seen before and that gives me pause. Their argument is that foreign taxes are a cost to individuals attendant to investing abroad, and that crediting these taxes is too generous from the perspective of fairness, that a deduction would sufficiently account for the cost in terms of measuring ability to pay. I can understand that argument where the FTC is itself too generous, allowing cross-crediting and not restricting its application to double taxation. But I do not understand that argument applied to an FTC that restricts itself to a dollar for dollar credit of actual taxes paid, which I believe is the argument being advanced here. That's something to think about a little more.

In any event, abstract below and paper at the link above. Well worth a read.

 Reform of the U.S. international income  taxation system has been a hotly debated topic for many  years. The  principal competing alternatives are a territorial or  exemption system and a worldwide  system.   For reasons  summarized  in  this  Article, we favor worldwide taxation if it is real worldwide  taxation; that  is, a nondeferred U.S. tax is imposed  on all foreign income  of U.S.  residents at  the  time the  income is earned.  However,  this approach  is not  acceptable unless  the resulting double  taxation  is alleviated.    The longstanding U.S. approach for  handling the international  double taxation  problem is a foreign tax credit limited to the U.S. levy  on the taxpayer’s  foreign  income.   Indeed,  the foreign tax credit  is an essential element of the case  for worldwide taxation.  Moreover, territorial systems often apply worldwide taxation with a foreign tax credit to all income of resident individuals as well as the passive income and tax haven income of resident corporations.  Thus, the foreign tax credit also is an important feature of many territorial systems. The foreign tax credit has been subjected to sharp criticisms though, and Professor Daniel Shaviro has recently proposed replacing the credit with a combination of a deduction for foreign taxes and a reduced U.S. tax rate on foreign income.  

In this Article, we respond to the criticisms and argue that the foreign tax credit is a robust and effective device.  Furthermore, we respectfully explain why Professor Shaviro’s proposal is not an adequate substitute.  We also explore an overlooked aspect of the foreign tax credit—its role as an allocator of the international tax base between residence and source countries—and we explain the credit’s effectiveness in carrying out this role.  Nevertheless, we point out that the credit merits only two cheers because it goes beyond the requirements of the ability-to-pay principle that underlies use of an income base for imposing tax (instead of a consumption base). Ultimately, the credit is the preferred approach for mitigating international double taxation of income.

 

How to rob from the poor and give to the rich: Border Tax Equity Act of 2016

In September, Donald Trump started calling for the US to tax imports from Mexico and China etc, on various theories having to do with his vision of what fair trade policy involving the United States would require. Democratic lawmaker Bill Pascrell appears to have seized the moment to re-introduce a bill that has failed multiple times in the U.S. Congress over the years, namely, the so-called Border Tax Equity Act. The idea of this act is simple: tax US consumers on imports and give the money to US companies that export things. If you find it amazing that anyone anywhere could support a tax and redistribute scheme like this, blame it on the pitch: Pascrell (and others) laud this as an answer to what they have characterized as a discriminatory practice, namely the exemption of exported products from value added taxes (VAT) by the 160+ countries that have federal consumption taxes. The argument is that "[t]he disparate treatment of border taxes is arbitrary, inequitable, causes economic distortions based only on the type of tax system used by a country, and is a primary obstacle to more balanced trade relations between the United States and its major trading partners."

This argument is specious and I don't expect the bill to pass but this issue is one that just does not seem like it will go away, I think because it is too easy to pitch the VAT border tax adjustment as "unfair." I had an exchange with trade expert Simon Lester almost ten years ago on this very subject, and re-reading my response today, it seems to cover the bases so I thought I would re-post it. You can see his original post here including a discussion in the comments between myself, Simon, and Sungjoon Cho on the matter. Sungjoon helpfully linked to a GATT working party report from 1970 but his original link is dead, however you can find that report here. Here is what I said (highlights added):

The great fallacy here is that the foreign exporter to the U.S. is somehow subject to no tax while the U.S. exporter is subject to two taxes. This is simply not the case. Other countries, especially our biggest trading partners (e.g. Canada) have both a federal corporate income tax and a federal consumption tax, while the U.S. has only a federal corporate tax. You cannot honestly assess the impact of the VAT in the context of only one country’s corporate income tax, and supporting this legislation this way is dishonest. The Textileworld site you reference conveniently ignores foreign corporate taxes in its analysis—I will leave you to decide for yourself why they might do that.

...I will give a drastically oversimplified example. Assume a U.S. person manufactures a product in the U.S. which it will sell in Canada. The company’s profit on the sale is subject to federal income tax in the U.S., plus VAT in Canada (there called a general sales tax). Let us assume a Canadian company makes a similar product. With the same profit margin as the U.S. company on that product, the big issue here is the different rates of federal corporate taxes each company pays to its home country, because both pay an equal amount of VAT tax in that market. What the export credit in the U.S. would do is lower the U.S . company’s federal income tax burden relative to the Canadian one.

Now flip the scenario, the U.S. manufactures and sells a product in the U.S., where there is no VAT, and the Canadian company manufactures a product in Canada to sell in the U.S. Now each company again will pay its income tax to its home country but what happens to the VAT? Well there is no U.S. federal sales tax, and Canada’s VAT only applies to sales in that market, so the VAT is not imposed on the Canadian product coming in to the U.S.—it is exempt from their VAT. Again, in the U.S. market, there is no price distortion other than the difference in corporate income tax burdens—neither product is subject to VAT. If the U.S. imposes a border tax, I think you might now see that as distortionary (to the extent you believe that a tariff is distortionary in any event). Now you might say yeah, but many states have state sales taxes, wouldn't that equalize the incoming product, exempted from sales (VAT) tax in its foreign country? The answer is, of course, yes. But you don’t see very many people complaining if New York does not impose its sales tax on a product being shipped out of New York for sale in Canada—that is a (much-ignored) direct corollary to the VAT exemption.

I could go on but this argument has been made many times before. I appreciate that tax is complex and there are many alternative taxes and scenarios in which they apply differently, so that it is easy to be swayed by something that “seem unfair.” The bottom line is that people will continue to compare VAT to income taxes when it suits their purposes (i.e., supports protectionist policies like the border tax), and not when it doesn’t (i.e, when they want to pressure a government to lower its corporate tax rate to align with other nations’ corporate tax rate). But don’t be fooled by someone who tries to get you to look at one piece of a complex puzzle and guess what the image is.

Further...

[I]f you seek a level playing field, border taxes and rebates do not achieve that, and in fact, I doubt anyone could ever be confident about how to go about getting it via tax breaks for some and tax penalties for others (I have some ideas about where I would start, but I'll restrain myself). A border tax/rebate does not operate like an inverse VAT or offset an extra cost imposed by a VAT. A border tax is a tariff and a rebate is a subsidy, plain and simple, and I would expect many of our trading partners to oppose it if enacted.

Incidentally, abolishing all income taxes might solve the problem of the income tax competition, but then you have a much different problem. By some estimates, if the U.S. were to abolish the income tax entirely in favor of a sales tax, the rate could be as high as 50%. More likely scenario: we keep the income tax just like it is and ADD a 10-20% federal VAT. This would get rid of the erroneous "VAT as distortion" complaint but I personally would rather keep the debate and take a pass on the VAT.

Today, I am less convinced that the income tax is worth saving and more open to a federal VAT, but that's a discussion for another day. To the above I would only add that in 2009 the US Congressional Research Service undertook a study called International Competitiveness: An Economic Analysis of VAT Border Tax Adjustments, well worth reading--the authors were Maxim Shvedov (now tax policy expert at AARP) and Donald Marples, whose more recent work on inversions with Jane Gravelle is also of interest. Their conclusion:

Economists have long recognized that border tax adjustments have no effect on a nation's competitiveness. Border tax adjustments have been shown to mitigate the double taxation of cross-border transactions and to provide a level playing field for domestic and foreign goods and services. Hence, in the absence of changes to the underlying macroeconomic variables affecting capital flows (for example, interest rates), any changes in the product prices of traded goods and services brought about by border tax adjustments would be immediately offset by exchange-rate adjustments. This is not to say, however, that a nation's tax structure cannot influence patterns of trade or the composition of trade.

In summary: No, taxing at the border for the reasons given does not introduce "equity." It introduces WTO-prohibited tariffs and export subsidies. One could imagine that if the tariffs so raised were used to fund public goods, the possibility for an equitable outcome could be increased. But taking the money out of the pockets of US consumers and putting it in the pocket of US exporters in no way fulfills the stated policy goal.

Understanding the Accidental American: Tina's Story

Tax Analysts has published my talk on taxpayer rights and citizenship-based taxation as enforced via FATCA, which I gave in November at the International Conference on Taxpayer Rights in Washington DC, organized by National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson. Tax Analysts' content is normally gated but they have made this column available on their free site.

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: 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)

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.

From the NYT: Lessons for International Tax from Oregon's Role as Sales/Use Tax Haven

Today's NYT has an article entitled "Buyers Find Tax Break on Art: Let it Hang Awhile in Oregon." The artful dodge is accomplished via simple arbitrage between a source, an intermediary, and a residence jurisdiction, so the story gives a nice illustration of a phenomenon we see play out on the international stage every day, only we have generally been taught to associate tax avoidance arbitrage with the likes of GE, Google, Apple, etc. Here is the simple pattern:

1. The collector lives in state A (the residence state)--in this example, California. 
2. The collector buys an expensive work of art in state B (the source state), in this case, New York. As the source state, state B could extract a tax purely on the occurrence of the sale, but chooses not to, rather basing its sales tax on place of use. 
3. State A generally imposes use taxes on items purchased from outside the state and brought into the state (this is to treat external sales the same as internal ones, which would be subject to sales taxes). But there is an exception: if an item is "used" in another state first, it is not subject to the use tax when it finally makes its way to state A.
4. To avoid the use tax, the collector can't keep the item in state B because then state B's sales tax will apply.
5. In comes state C, with no sales or use tax, in this case, Oregon. State C is a safe haven. Collector parks the asset in state C long enough to satisfy the residence state's exemption. 
6. Hey presto, neither sales nor use tax. 

Nothing illegal has occurred, as the NYT is very quick to point out. But it is also clear that this is a story for a reason, and the reason suggested by the headline is this outcome produces unfairness. 

After all, these are rich people dodging around helpless tax states with the help of sophisticated tax planners. This seems worth examining further given the parallels to corporate social responsibility and international tax planning à la Caterpillar as we have seen recently in the news, and in light of the actions of some states to try to curb international tax planning ... and please do not let it escape notice that this list includes Oregon. 

Let's identify a few problems and a few solutions in the overall tax regime created by the conflicting rules in the three independent states as suggested above. The problems seem to be:

1. residents of state A will likely object that it is not fair for state A to tax sales occurring in the state and not sales occurring outside the state (violates horizontal equity).
2. some residents of state A will likely object that it is not smart to tax sales occurring in the state and not sales occurring outside the state (people will react accordingly and the sales tax base will disappear). 
3. on the other hand, some residents of state A will argue it is smart to do this because it means more people will buy nice things and ultimately bring them into the state C, causing other spillover benefits in the long run. (If so we should question why state A has a use tax at all.)
4. state A cannot control either state B or state C but unless strict capital or other regulatory controls are applied against state A's population, state A's rules necessarily interact with B and C.
5. residents of state B might object that it is not fair for state B to tax sales only if the assets purchased stay in the state and not if they leave the state (violates horizontal equity)
6. on the other hand residents of state B will likely view it as smart for state B to tax sales only if the assets purchased stay in the state and not if they leave the state, because then more sales will occur in state B and with those sales come jobs and other spillover benefits.
7. state C just doesn't tax these things and so would seem to be neutral, acting without fault in the arbitrage.
8. state C residents likely view this neutrality as smart because the state benefits by facilitating the arbitrage between states A and B, and it can be expected to defend this benefit.
9. but what is smart for either states B or C or both creates an unqualifiedly unfair situation in state A.

So much for the problems. Are there solutions?  Again the illustration is enlightening.

1. A, B, and C could get together and demand a federal regulation to stop the arbitrage amongst the states. They could, but they won't (cooperation fails).
2. State A could threaten states B and C to stop facilitating the arbitrage or else (coercion). But what, exactly, does state A want? Does it want to force state B to tax on the basis of source? Does it want state C to tax as the conduit? Either of those would produce fairness in that the individuals would pay tax somewhere, but in neither case would it be state A collecting the tax. Also, depending on state C's political, economic, and social power relative to state A, the strategy could yield results, or not; certainly if harsh tactics are used, state A will be resented by its neighbors, and for what? No revenue, but a globally fairer system that neither B nor C wanted.
3. State A could change its own law to repeal the first use rule, which would eliminate the benefit of the arbitrage. No more icing on the cake per the collector routing through Oregon. (when people say tax planning is icing on the cake as the person did in this article, I picture a tiny cake with a tower of icing. So much icing that by the time you eat it all, there isn't any room for cake. But I digress.)

Now does it not seem that state A has the most power to fix the situation if it chooses to change its own law to nullify the arbitrage? Is this not what Oregon and other states are doing vis à vis the foreign earnings of state-registered companies?

This is what I am talking about when I say that tax avoidance is as much a supply side as a demand side problem. We can blame states B and C all day long for facilitating tax avoidance. But State A often holds the power to solve the problem itself. If state A does not do that, then we should be looking at why state A does not do that rather than why state B or state C stand by and allow or encourage and benefit from the arbitrage. Are democratic decisions being made to ignore the fairness problem in order to achieve a solution some people in state A consider to be smart, and if they are doing so, who are those people who think this is smart and have the people in state A who do not think it is so smart been allowed access to lawmaking in the same manner and capacity of those who do think it is smart?

Note that in this case there is no discussion about the problem of information asymmetry--that is, we are not looking at state B or C hiding the fact of the sale from state A. That is a different problem which state A might not be able to solve on its own (actually I believe it could but that is another story). But in terms of legal tax avoidance, I think this story is a wonderful illustration of the argument I often make, for example here and here, about who we should be looking to when facilitating legal tax avoidance becomes the central defining characteristic of a tax regime created by the interaction of multiple jurisdictions.

Thanks, New York Times, for inadvertently covering international tax policy in a fun story with pictures and even a graphic.

Call for Papers: Tax Justice & Human Rights Symposium, McGill, June 2014

We invite paper proposals for a Tax Justice and Human Rights Research Collaboration Symposium, to be held at the McGill Faculty of Law, Montreal, Quebec, from Wednesday to Friday, 18-20 June 2014.

The symposium will explore the fundamental connections between taxation and human rights by providing a forum for collaboration among students/emerging scholars, academics, civil society organization representatives, tax justice advocacy groups, tax policy makers, and researchers from around the world. The symposium seeks especially to bring developing-world perspectives into the discourse and to foster scholarly work for dissemination both within and beyond the academic setting.

The plurality of experience, in terms of training, background, country of origin, and area of expertise, will ensure that discussions and activities at the conference will have real-world impact. Indeed, there is a need within the tax-policy world for more cross-pollination between academic researchers and on-the-ground decision-makers. The connections and networking that we envision will take place at this conference should allow for meaningful discussions for years to come.

Paper proposals must be between 300-500 words in length and should be accompanied by a short résumé.

Please submit your proposal to the conference convener Professor Allison Christians, at [allison dot christians at mcgill dot ca].

Deadline for submissions: 30 April 2014. Successful applicants will be notified in early May 2014.

An initial 3-5 page sketch of the paper must be submitted by the end of May for circulation among panelists and feedback from the conference committee, but completed papers are not required; rather, we seek a readiness to collaborate and develop new heuristics for thinking about taxation and human rights. 

Conference fees for presenters will be covered by the conference organizers; travel and accommodation bursaries may be available to scholars and tax justice advocates from the Global South in connection with support from the Tax Justice Network, Canadians for Tax Fairness, Halifax Initiative, and other partners.

Please visit the Symposium's page on the Stikeman Chair in Tax Law website for more information. 

Avoidance, Evasion, and Taxpayer Morality

In light of the current sacrificing of Caterpillar on the altar of political posturing by lawmakers who are ultimately responsible for designing a global system that ensures US multinationals a world of tax-favorable opportunities, my latest SSRN post, Avoidance, Evasion and Taxpayer Morality appears à propos. It explores the difficult terrain we traverse when, confronted with the parade of household names apparently paying little or no taxes anywhere, we start talking about ethics and morality instead of law. Abstract:

In popular discourse, tax evasion by wealthy individuals is conflated with tax avoidance by multinational corporations to tell a single story about tax dodging and its negative impact on society. But conflating avoidance and evasion muddies the tax policy waters in important ways by turning legal obligations into moral ones. This Essay, prepared in connection with the Washington University School of Law colloquium on “Conceptualizing a New Institutional Framework for International Taxation,” makes the case for caution in using morality as a stop-gap measure to avoid drawing a regulated line between tax evasion and tax avoidance, while still meting out punishment within the undefined space between these two poles. It acknowledges the political gains derived from the rhetoric of morality but argues that the alternate view — that taxpayer behavior must ultimately be managed by law rather than social sanction — has the best chance of driving tax policy toward greater coherence in the long run because it makes the best case for more transparency in both lawmaking and the consequences of legislative decisions.

As always I welcome comments.

Next Week at NYU: Tax and Corporate Social Responsibility Symposium

I'll be taking part in this symposium on corporate taxation next Tuesday at NYU. Here is the description:

Tuesday, March 25, 2014  |  9:00 AM - 12:00 PM
D'Agostino Hall, Lipton Hall 

This symposium will feature two panels, “Should Corporations Pay Tax?” and “Should Corporate Tax Returns Be Public?”   

Participants include Reuven Avi-Yonah (Michigan), Allison Christians (McGill), Peter Barnes (Duke), Michael Schler (Cravath), Joshua Blank (NYU), Helen Scott (NYU), David Kamin (NYU), and possibly others.   

The event will be co-hosted by the Graduate Tax Program and the NYU Journal of Law & Business.   

It will take place from 9:15 AM to 12:30 PM on March 25th in Lipton Hall, D’Agostino Hall at NYU Law School, located at 110 West Third Street.

Additional info here, including this description:

From the enactment of the corporate excise tax in 1909 to the present, the corporate tax in the United States has generated intense debate.  Topics at the center of this debate have ranged from the fundamental purpose of the tax to moral obligations of corporations to pay tax to tax transparency and accountability.  This half-day symposium will continue the discussion by addressing two questions:  Should corporations pay tax?  And should corporate tax returns be public?  Each panel will feature leading tax and corporate law scholars and distinguished practitioners.  Participation from the audience in the discussion will be encouraged.

My recent writing on these subject includes a short essay entitled "How Starbucks Lost its Social License — And Paid £20 Million to Get it Back" on Starbucks' tax-dodging related image problems in Europe, a book chapter entitled "Tax Activists and the Global Movement for Development Through Transparency," on the global corporate tax transparency movement, and an article article entitled "Drawing the Boundaries of Tax Justice" which analyzes the fundamental justice questions surrounding the taxation of corporations (as well as humans).

Citizenship-Based Taxation and Taxpayer Rights Don't Mix

In this brief analysis, Taxpayer Rights, On and Offshore: the 2013 Taxpayer Advocate's Report to Congress, I looked at the problem created when an under-resourced tax agency is charged with implementing an over-expansive tax jurisdiction. Abstract:

In the 2013 National Taxpayer Advocate's Report to Congress, two concerns take center stage: the need for greater protection of taxpayer rights, and the increasing pressure on the system created by the U.S. tax regime’s extraterritorial reach. Neither of these issues is new; indeed, the NTA has repeatedly attempted to raise awareness of each over several years. But the Report demonstrates that these two concerns are on a collision course, and impact looks imminent for 2014 as the US doubles down on long under-enforced jurisdictional claims over nonresidents with US nationality or legal status. The basic impracticality of finding and claiming nonresidents with US ties is compounded by the violation of internationally recognized tax jurisdiction norms, creating an unsustainable enforcement rift that directly challenges the voluntarism theme that Olsen views as key to the fiscal system as a whole.

Further in, I argued that the NTA Report illustrates that taxing people on the basis of their nationality or legal status rather than their actual residence poses a serious problem for tax administration and violates international norms.

As a practical matter, globally rounding people up based on one government's ideas about their legal status is quite obviously unenforceable without assistance from other governments. This assistance fundamentally conflicts with a universally recognized (and far more just) jurisdictional claim based on actual residence. It is one thing for the US to say to individuals: if you have status under our law you must follow all of our laws no matter where you are. It is another to say to other countries--and much less individuals in other countries--if people who live in your country have US status as we define it, you are harboring potential criminals and you must help us find them and enforce our claim over them even if your government also claims them and even if our claim conflicts with your government's own law.

Thus status-based taxation is no less a poaching of other countries’ internationally recognized jurisdictional claims over taxpayers than the kind of poaching FATCA was ostensibly designed to attack (namely, that of the US tax base by other countries via bank secrecy). The basic unenforceability of status-based taxation coupled with its poaching of other jurisdictional claims would make it a total non-starter were nations to get together and discuss a multilateral adoption of status-based taxation as a policy everyone could get behind.

 But FATCA is a big stick that is bypassing any such conversation, going straight to the technical problem of compliance and enforcement under the banner of stopping tax evasion. There might be no remedy in international law for tax jurisdictional overreach but that only confirms that it must be challenged from both within and without the nation engaging in the bad behavior.

Ireland: Oasis for American multinationals, desert for Irish workers

From last Sunday's NY times, opinion write Fintan O'Toole discusses life in Ireland, after it first gorged on a panoply of tax reforms meant to lure in multinationals, and then starved under austerity under financial crisis. Of note:

...Ireland has two economies: a global one dominated by American high-tech companies, and a domestic one in which most Irish workers have to make their living. The first is indeed booming. Not least because of those low corporate taxes, large global corporations find Dublin convivial for reasons other than its pubs and night life. The sheer scale of Ireland’s dependence on this kind of investment for its exports can be judged by the fact that Irish gross domestic product took a serious hit in 2013 when Viagra (which is made by Pfizer in County Cork) went off patent in Europe. Broadly speaking, however, the global side of the Irish economy has remained robust. 

But home is where the heartache is: in the domestic economy outside the gated community of high-tech multinationals. Outside Dublin, property prices are still falling. Wages for most workers have dropped sharply. Unemployment remains very high at 12.8 percent — and that figure would be higher if not for emigration. There’s always been a simple way to measure how well Ireland is doing: Go to the ports and airports after the Christmas vacation and count the young people waving goodbye to their parents as they head off to the United States, Canada, Australia or Britain, where they have gone to find work and opportunity. 

...[People in Ireland] are not convinced that the cruel scale of the punishment was necessary or that the nasty medicine has, in fact, worked. 

Behind both of these propositions looms the great contradiction in the supposed success story of Irish austerity. It was austerity only for citizens. Running parallel to all the cuts in public spending and all the calls for fiscal responsibility has been a program of spending so lavish that it makes a drunken sailor look stingy. 

The converse proposition is that when it comes to contributing to the mechanisms of the state--rule of law, infrastructure, educated workforce, etc etc, which fully support those multinational gated communities--the state looks primarily to workers to do the bulk of the heavy lifting, in the form of personal income taxes (41% at the top) and consumption taxes (23% on most goods). But Ireland is not alone in this political decision.

The story of feasts for corporations, famine for workers is a familiar one, and the trade off is supposed to be the positive externalities corporations bring. In other words, the political tradeoff that politicians think they are making goes as follows: we can give up our tax on corporate income if that lures more corporations into our jurisdictions which then hire our workers, whom we can then tax on their incomes and then again on their consumption, to pay for luring in more corporations, in a virtuous cycle. O'Toole's column strongly suggests that the externalities are not anywhere near what was expected or would be needed to continue the virtuous cycle.

The problem for the state is that the owners of corporate capital have received their benefit up front, but when they do not produce their side of the equation in exchange, there is no way for government to demand a refund.

Thus we can add Ireland's story to the multiple examples that exist in various iterations of it around the world, including for example the constant intra- and inter-state fights to lure in manufacturers, filmmakers, and sports teams. Maybe governments should be thinking about adding a carve-back clause to the fiscal bargain that creates oases for bargain-seeking multinationals, which would disgorge untaxed profits when it is clear a party to a tax incentive-fueled deal is not bringing what they said they would or could.

New series of papers on why government can and should bring financial services into the tax base

The Victoria University of Wellington (Australia) has a new SSRN issue of interest, featuring a series of papers by Sybrand van Schalkwyk and the ever-prolific John Prebble, all on the topic of consumption tax and financial services. The first of these is the big picture:

"Value Added Tax and Financial Services"  Asia-Pacific Tax Bulletin, Vol. 10, pp. 363-370, 2004 Victoria University of Wellington Legal Research Paper No. 29/2013 Value added tax (VAT) is a relatively modern development. Designers of VAT recognized from the outset that the way in which financial institutions are remunerated creates significant difficulty when the tax is applied to their services. Administrative difficulties relate to imposing invoice-based VAT on service fees charged as part of the margin between buy and sell rates. Theoretical reasons relate to arguments that financial services should not be taxed under a consumption tax because, it is argued, financial services are not consumed in the way in which goods and services are consumed. Because of these difficulties, most jurisdictions have opted to exempt financial services from VAT. However, the commonly accepted reasons to exempt financial services from VAT are not compelling, since financial services are no different in relevant respects from other services. Moreover, there are methods by which financial services could be brought within the VAT base. Furthermore, although exemption is the simplest way for a VAT to treat financial services, it causes significant distortions in the economy.  This paper is of special interest to me because it confirms my own view that societies are increasingly accepting tax systems that intentionally tax the "easy-to-tax" most vigorously, the "hard-to-tax" much less vigorously and more randomly, and the "impossible-to-tax" not at all, and that these categories have been intentionally constructed from regulatory decision-making that renders various activities to a given category in systematic and purposeful ways. There are fundamental justice issues at stake in these regulatory outcomes. If Prebble and van Schalkwyk are correct that exempting financial services from VAT is a policy choice that has been made on the basis of an unexamined theory that these flows are hard or impossible to tax which in turn has been decided because of a failure to institute measures that would make them easy (or at minimum easier) to tax, then the failure to include financial services within existing VAT systems is a grave source of injustice within that tax policy choice (that is, in addition to and apart from the question about whether consumption taxation is itself a violation of justice in the exercise of taxation by states). The papers that follow focus on various ways to increase the coherency of the taxation of financial flows--what I would suggest is an effort to show us that financial flows could in fact be easier to tax, if not "easy-to-tax," given various regulatory reforms: "Defining Interest-Bearing Instruments for the Purposes of Value Added Taxation"   Asia-Pacific Tax Bulletin, Vol. 10, pp. 418-426, 2004Victoria University of Wellington Legal Research Paper No. 30/2013  This is the second of a series of four articles on the taxation of financial services under a value added tax. The first article considered whether, from a theoretical viewpoint, financial services should be included under a value added tax. It concluded that the arguments in favour of treating financial services in the same manner as any other service outweighed the arguments against doing so. This second article considers the definition of interest bearing financial instruments in some detail. It also considers the kinds of activities that qualify as financial services in relation to the instruments. The definition of financial services is important where a different type of treatment is applied to financial services. If financial services were taxed like any other service, then no definition would be needed. However, where, as in New Zealand, supplies of financial services can be exempted, the definition of financial services becomes very important. Alternatively, if some financial services are to be zero rated or taxed but not others, then it is necessary to have a global definition of financial services followed by individual definitions of the particular kinds of service that are to be brought within the tax base one way or the other. This article begins by considering interest-bearing instruments.  "Imposing Value Added Tax on Interest-Bearing Instruments and Life Insurance"  Asia-Pacific Tax Bulletin, Vol. 10, pp. 471-468, 2004 Victoria University of Wellington Legal Research Paper No. 31/2013  Exemption of financial services from Value Added Tax (VAT) is commonly accepted as being an anomaly in the New Zealand goods and services tax legislation. While exempting financial services from VAT is attractive to the legislature because it is a simple way of addressing the difficulties of applying VAT to financial services, it causes significant distortions, for instance tax cascading, which in turn causes price distortions. The application of VAT to interest-bearing financial instruments and life insurance is complicated by the way in which financial intermediaries charge for these services. The first part of this article investigates how interest-bearing instruments can be taxed under VAT, and the second part how life insurance can be taxed under VAT. There are several options for the treatment of interest-bearing instruments. They can be exempted, zero-rated, or included in the tax base. In this last category, there are three possible methods of including interest-bearing instruments: the invoice, cash flow, and truncated tax flow systems. The last is recommended because policy makers have come to realize that the cash flow system cannot be applied without significant modification.  "Imposing Value Added Tax on the Exchange of Currency"  Asia-Pacific Tax Bulletin, Vol. 10, pp. 469-483, 2004 Victoria University of Wellington Legal Research Paper No. 32/2013  Exemption of financial services from Value Added Tax (VAT) is commonly accepted as being an anomaly in the New Zealand goods and services tax legislation. While exempting financial services from VAT is attractive to the legislature because it is a simple way of addressing the difficulties of applying VAT to financial services, it causes significant distortions, such as tax cascading, which in turn causes price distortions. The application of VAT to services that bring about the exchange of currency is one instance where financial services could be included in the VAT base. Services bringing about the exchange of currency are a species of financial service, but are inherently different from other financial services since they are relatively simpler than other financial services. Reasons advanced for exempting financial services in general do not necessarily apply to services bringing about the exchange of currency. Bravo to the authors--this represents a lot of work and adds much to the discussion of how economically-integrated yet politically independent nations can approach the subject of taxation from the perspective that justice matters in policy decisions.

Manal Corwin, now at KPMG, to discuss Reputational Risk Deriving from the Tax Transparency Movement

Fresh out of Treasury, Manal Corwin and some of her new/old colleagues will present a webcast next Tuesday on Tax Transparency and OECD Initiative on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting:

KPMG's Tax Governance Institute will host a webcast that addresses the implications of tax transparency and the potential impact of the OECD initiative on base erosion and profit shifting. Board and audit committee members, CFOs, tax directors and other business professionals interested in attending the program – one in a series of KPMG presentations on this timely topic – can register at: www.taxgovernanceinstitute.com.

The webcast will focus on "the debate over the shift of taxable business income out of the United States and high-tax jurisdictions around the world and into low or no-tax jurisdictions, and the resulting issue of tax base erosion." I'm not sure if debate is the right word there.  Is there a debate about these two phenomena existing as a factual matter? I think no.  Is there a debate about the appropriateness of such shifting and base erosion? I think decidedly yes.

Interestingly, however, KPMG suggests this is a debate about neither the existence nor the appropriateness of profit shifting and base erosion, but rather it is specifically about transparency, namely, the extent to which the public will gain a right to know about the existence and legal sanction of these practices:

The global debate on tax transparency has sparked both public interest and concerns among many companies, and the spotlight will grow brighter in coming weeks as the OECD prepares to deliver its coordinated action plan on base erosion and profit shifting and the European Commission moves forward with announced plans to address issues around tax fairness. With potentially significant changes in future tax obligations and reputational risks at stake, senior executives and board members at multinational companies should find this webcast, and those that will follow, especially useful as they formulate how their organizations should respond to the debate and possible outcomes.

[Emphasis mine.]  This statement is from Brett Weaver, who is described as "tax partner in KPMG's International Corporate Services practice and the firm's partner-in-charge of Tax Transparency" and a member of KPMG's "Tax Transparency Steering Committee," along with Corwin, who is described by KPMG as:

national leader of KPMG's International Corporate Services practice, principal-in-charge of International Tax Policy in the firm's Washington National Tax practice, and former deputy assistant secretary for Tax Policy for International Tax Affairs in the U.S. Treasury Department and U.S. delegate/vice chair to the OECD's Committee on Fiscal Affairs. 

The other participant on the webcast will be Philip Kermode, "director of the Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union of the European Commission".

It seems very clear to me that the "reputational risk" Weaver identifies is going to be something corporate tax managers and their legal & accounting advisers will be forced to price in going forward. The last paragraph illuminates this:

...the [KPMG] Tax Governance Institute ... provides opportunities for board members, corporate management, stakeholders, government representatives and others to share knowledge regarding the identification, oversight, management, and appropriate disclosure of tax risk.

I think it is safe to attribute the creation of reputational risk (or what some might call an internalizing of a cost that heretofore has been externalized thanks to strong corporate tax confidentiality laws), as well as any potential that may currently exist for systemic change to occur in the OECD's approach to the taxation of multinationals, to the international tax activist movement. As a result this should be a very informative webcast.

McGill Law Journal Podcast on Tax Avoidance

I recently sat down with David Groves of the McGill Law Journal to talk about tax justice as part of the Journal's podcast series. From the MLJ website:

Tax Avoidance, Tax Evasion, and Tax Justice with Professor Allison Christians

Apple, Google, Starbucks: Some of the biggest corporations on the planet are paying virtually no tax on the profits they make. We sat down with Professor Allison Christians, H. Heward Stikeman Chair in Tax Law, to discuss fairness and justice in taxes. 

You can listen to the podcast here.

Webcast of McGill Roundtable on Tax Justice-now online

Last week the McGill Faculty of Law hosted a public roundtable on Tax Justice featuring John Christensen, James Henry, Diana Gibson, and Frédéric Zalac. If you missed the live webcast, you can now view the archived version online here.

The Boundaries of Tax Justice

I posted a draft of this paper on SSRN some time ago but neglected to post it here, so here it is. I argue that because governments chase wage-earners and consumers doggedly while selectively overlooking or ignoring other taxpayers, the imposition of income taxation as it is practised by states today is fundamentally unjust. Abstract:

The story of our time may be the awakening of society to an epidemic of global tax dodging by the world’s elites. Citizens, watchdog groups, and even government officials are puzzled, frustrated, and sometimes outraged by the phenomenon, wondering where the nation-state lost its way in regulating its people and its resources, and why it is standing by, apparently helplessly, as its tax base erodes while austerity measures undermine the welfare state. This paper demonstrates that the sequence of tax base erosion-austerity-welfare state erosion is a story about a crisis of tax justice. It does so by revisiting how Canada's historic Royal Commission on Taxation, in its search for guiding principles for tax reform, turned to tax justice as the central component for any tax system. It shows why nations have consistently failed to meet these guiding principles, instead taxing the easy-to-tax more or less comprehensively, the hard-to-tax more or less randomly, and the impossible-to-tax not at all. It demonstrates that the result is that no state today imposes taxation justly: instead, taxation as exercised around the world today is overwhelmingly characterized by arbitrariness and injustice. The paper concludes that if governments cannot or will not pursue justice in taxation, they have at minimum a duty to explain to society why this goal is no longer worthy of pursuit.

This paper includes a discussion of who should be considered a "taxpayer" by a state. I argue that citizenship-based taxation is unjust from both a human and statist perspective, and I therefore make the case for residence-based taxation. As always, comments are welcome.