Monday at McGill: Eric Zolt presents "Tax Treaties and Developing Countries"

On Monday at McGill, Eric Zolt continues the fall tax policy colloquium with a presentation of his working paper entitled Tax Treaties and Developing Countries. Here is the intro:

Academics and others over the last 50 years have called for developing countries to hesitate or refrain from entering into bilateral tax treaties with developed countries. Tax treaties seek to facilitate cross-border transactions and investments by reducing tax barriers and providing greater certainty to foreign investors. But treaty provisions invariably result in countries yielding taxing rights. Since at least the 1920s, treaties have arguably provided greater taxing rights to the country where the investors reside (generally, capital-exporting developed countries) rather than the country where the economic activity takes place (often, capital-importing developing countries). Where capital flows are roughly equal between countries, rules that skew taxing rights towards residence-based taxation away from source-based taxation result in little or no revenue shifting. But where capital flows are less even, the tax revenue consequences may be substantial. 

Critics of tax treaties between developed and developing countries contend that developing countries give up tax revenue and receive little in return. But this common position rests on a questionable narrative. It assumes that tax treaties result in a transfer of revenue from developing to developed countries. For several reasons, tax revenue yielded by developing countries likely results in relatively little revenue gains by developed countries. In the current economic environment, tax treaties are less about distributive rules between countries and more about developed countries assisting their multinational entities in reducing their foreign tax liability and developing countries using tax treaties to attract foreign investment. 

Framed this way, tax treaties share much in common with traditional tax incentives (such as tax holidays and favorable depreciation provisions). Viewing tax treaties as tax incentives changes the focus from whether the treaty provisions are fair to developing countries to whether this type of incentive generates economic benefits that justify the revenue costs. 

For some, perhaps many, developing countries, tax treaties with developed countries make little economic sense. But for many other developing countries, this decision is more complex. It requires making country-specific and treaty-specific determinations of the revenue costs and economic benefits from entering into tax treaties with developed countries.

Viewing tax treaties as primarily incentive delivery mechanisms provides a reason for substantial scrutiny of their costs and benefits--a rarity given the often oblique if not thoroughly opaque nature of treaty adoption and ratification procedures across countries. The paper makes the case that evaluating the effectiveness of tax treaties involving developing countries is complex and specific to the particular countries and treaty terms, and that the main issue to be queried should not be the fair distribution of revenues between differently situated countries but rather the economic costs and benefits of reducing taxation as an incentive for inbound investment.

Zolt argues that "the stylized world where tax revenue yielded by source countries is picked up by residence countries is more fiction than fact," at least, in a world in which most primarily capital-exporting (rich) countries have primarily territorial rather than worldwide tax systems as is the case today. The examination of alternative approaches to cost benefit analysis in the latter part of the paper provides a useful reminder that isolating the economic impacts of any given tax policy position is difficult, no less so when the policy in question is packaged in the form of  tax treaty instead of a statute. Zolt nevertheless concludes that

Countries (both developed and developing) need to do the hard work of estimating the economic consequences of entering into tax treaties. This country-specific and treaty-specific cost-benefit exercise will be challenging and frustrating, given the many different assumptions that will influence the calculations. But these challenges are similar to those for estimating the costs and benefits of tax incentives and other types of tax expenditures. The exercise will also inform a country’s negotiating positions by highlighting those provisions (such as zero or low withholding taxes) that contribute to potential revenue losses. 

This paper is a timely contribution to the ongoing debate about how, and by which countries, cross-border income ought to be taxed, and I very much look forward to discussing it on Monday.

The colloquium is supported by a grant made by the law firm Spiegel Sohmer, for the purpose of fostering an academic community in which learning and scholarship may flourish. The land on which we gather is the traditional territory of the Kanien’keha:ka (Mohawk), a place which has long served as a site of meeting and exchange amongst nations.

This fall the Colloquium theme is Designing Sustainable Tax Systems. The complete colloquium schedule is below and here.

Christians and Ezenagu: Kill Switches in the New US Tax Treaty

Recently published as part of the Brooklyn Law School symposium Reconsidering the Tax Treaty, this article looks at the introduction of new clauses to switch off treaty benefits where the treaty partner adopts certain kinds of tax rate or base reductions.  I think these clauses are interesting because they create a way for one country to control the future tax policy decisions of another. Whether other countries will agree to a treaty with such a provision is another story.

Here is the abstract:

The new US model income tax treaty contains an unusual addition: mechanisms for the parties to unilaterally override the negotiated treaty rates in specified circumstances. Previewed last year in proposed form — a first for Treasury — these new mechanisms work as kill-switches, partially terminating the treaty as to one or both treaty partners. The idea is to forestall a more problematic outcome, such as an enduring breach of one of the parties’ expectations, or the opposite, a complete termination of all the treaty terms in the face of such a breach. Yet embedding a kill-switch in a treaty creates distinct legal, procedural, and political pressures in the tax-treaty relationship that implicate treaty negotiation, ratification, interpretation, and dispute resolution. Kill-switches also communicate a defensive tenor in the tax treaty relationships among many countries. This Article analyzes the new kill-switch provisions and concludes that their introduction in the U.S. Model reflects the steady deterioration of tax treaties from essentially diplomatic documents premised on the good faith of the parties to detailed contracts drafted in anticipation of the opposite.

The Seven Rules for Tax Research, Now Ten

The OECD released the multilateral instrument (MLI) on tax, so (assuming that at least five countries ratify it), we have to revise the old rules for doing tax research. The MLI means that any given tax situation will be impacted by relevant statutes, relevant tax treaties, and the portions of the MLI that are in effect as to those treaties. So here they are, the revised rules for tax research:

You can find the text of the MLI here. The Explanatory Statement, also at that link, is so far only in English.

Three months after five countries ratify, the MLI will be in effect; subsequent accessions will take effect one month after ratification. However, as to optional provisions, no substantive changes take effect until both parties notify which provisions they intend to apply to which of their treaties. 

The OECD has designed three types of provisions and explains how they relate to existing tax treaties. Here are my notes to self:

Much more analysis to do obviously, but my first cut at this is to try to understand the process of integrating the MLI into the existing tax law order. 

OECD seeking "technical" input from the public on "multilateral instrument" to modify tax treaties

The OECD recently released what it calls a "public discussion draft" in connection with its work on the multilateral instrument (MLI), and seeks public input until June 30. As I explained in a post a  few months ago, the MLI is be used to 'modify' all existing tax treaties in force among signatory countries to conform to BEPS standards and recommendations. However, the released document is not actually a discussion draft of the MLI--there are no terms to be reviewed. The drafting committee, which currently includes 96 members (OECD members and "BEPS Associates"), only met for the first time two weeks ago so this is decidedly not a draft of substantive provisions to be debated in the public discourse. No, that would be chaos and contrary to the plan:

"the draft text of the multilateral instrument is the subject of intergovernmental discussions in a confidential setting."

Instead it is in effect a crowdsourced, and very carefully framed, issue-spotting exercise. The document consists of three pages: page one is the BEPS narrative (why the OECD undertook this project and what has happened so far). Page two describes what BEPS changes will be covered in the MLI once drafted. Page three lays out three "technical issues" the OECD faces in drafting the MLI, and finally gives the call for input. The discussion is very brief and in OECD-passive-speak so it's almost comical to summarize but here are the three issues, as I understand them:

1. the MLI must be able to modify existing treaties, and this will be done with "compatibility clauses."
2. the MLI will be broadly worded so will require commentary and maybe explanatory notes for consistent interpretation
3. the MLI will be in French and English but will interpret thousands of treaties written in different languages.

These are all very interesting international law issues and not technical tax law issues at all. They are also clear expressions of intent to cement the OECD's role as the principal curator of international tax norms. This is especially clear in respect of point 2, because consistent interpretation means that the OECD commentary and "guidance" must harden ("ossify") into more persuasive and ultimately binding legal authority. For a discussion of what that implies for the rule of law, see this old thing I wrote a long time ago.

Point 1 raises the issue that seems to me most difficult in terms of the transition to complete OECD domination of global tax policy: I am still not sure how the MLI is supposed to work on top of a network of individualized and distinct bilateral agreements among sovereign nations. The OECD says "If undertaken on a treaty-by-treaty basis, the sheer number of treaties in effect would make such a process very lengthy." Indeed it would but as a matter of law in many countries, revising an existing international agreement requires another international agreement that is ratified in the same manner as the original, which appears to require the signatories to come to a meeting of the minds as to the terms that govern their unique relationship. The OECD says that distinguished experts have carefully considered the public international law questions at hand. But I haven't seen any study and I don't quite understand how you get a coherent international tax law regime in anything like a "quick" process. The OECD's implied answer in point 1 only raises another question for me: what is a compatibility clause? Is this a well-understood mechanism in play in other areas of international law? Can I get a precedent somewhere to anticipate where we are going with this?

Further, is the MLI going to be a matchmaking exercise in practice? If country A agrees to revisions 1 through 6 as to countries B and C, but only revision 5 as to country D, and country B agrees to revisions 1-3 for countries A and D but only 5 and 6 for C, and countries C and D agree in principle but never ratify anything, then what, exactly, are the agreements between and among these countries?

I am also not sure what the agreement matrix looks like when there are multiple standards for several of the BEPS items.  Notably the "prevent treaty shopping" minimum standard provides multiple choices for defending treaties against "abuse": a principal purpose test, a limitation on benefits provision, an anti-conduit provision, or some combination. May each of countries A, B, C, and D choose a different combination vis a vis each of the others? It is difficult to see convergence. At the panel I attended in Montreal a couple of weeks ago this was a topic of vigorous discussion. The more I think about this, the increasingly uncertain I become regarding how this is going to work out in practice.

Any thoughts on these observations are welcome as I develop my thinking on these issues. And if you are submitting comments, please note:

 Comments and input should be submitted by 30 June 2016 at the latest, and should be sent by email to multilateralinstrument@oecd.org in Word format (in order to facilitate their distribution to government officials). Please note that all comments received will be made publicly available. ... Persons and organisations who submit comments on this document are invited to indicate whether they wish to speak in support of their comments at a public consultation meeting that is scheduled to be held in Paris at the OECD Conference Centre on 7 July 2016 beginning at 10.00 am.

Call for expressions of interest: Moot court on international taxation of digital services

I will be presiding over a moot at the annual conference of the International Fiscal Association this fall in Madrid. The topic as described below is vague, but suffice to say that recent news stories are driving (ahem) the topic forward. The moot is now open to expressions of interest by prospective participants who meet the eligibility requirements described below. Here is the info:

Young IFA Network Moot Court – Madrid, September 28, 2016 Expressions of Interest due June 15, 2016

All members of the Young IFA Network are invited to submit an expression of interest as a moot court speaker at the YIN Moot Court during the 70th Congress of the International Fiscal Association in Madrid, Spain.

YIN at IFA

During recent Congresses in Amsterdam, Kyoto, Brussels, Vancouver, Rome, Paris, Boston, Copenhagen, Mumbai and Basel, the Young IFA Network (YIN) organised a Moot Court.

YIN Moot Court Format

The YIN Moot Court will be held at the Conference Venue on Wednesday, September 28, 2016 from 3:15 pm to 4:45 pm. An acting Tax Judge (Allison Christians, Canada) will preside over a hypothetical tax case relating to digital services to be argued by young tax academics or professionals, one side representing the Tax Authorities and the other side representing the Taxpayer. At the end of the arguments, the acting Tax Judge will render her judgment on the tax case. The fact pattern for the case, the legal issues involved, and a summary of the case will be made available to the delegates before the start of the Moot Court.

Expression of Interest for Speakers at the Moot Court

YIN members that are interested in being one of the speakers at the Moot Court are asked to express their interest to Sanjay Iyer (sanjay@iyerpractice.com) on or before June 15, 2016 along with a brief profile/CV that shall assist the Committee in the selection of the speaker. Eligibility requirements: 1.     YIN Member of an IFA branch 2.     40 years of age or below 3.     Registered for the 2016 Congress in Madrid, Spain.

Kill Switches in the New US Model Tax Treaty

I posted previously on the new US Model, which was released in February of this year; I've now posted my article, co-written with McGill PhD student Alex Ezenagu, on the "kill switch" provisions in the new model. These provisions are found in the new articles and definitions involving special tax regimes and subsequent law changes, which would allow countries to switch on and off specified treaty benefits if their treaty partners get too aggressive in the ongoing race to the bottom on tax.

Here is the abstract:

The new US model income tax treaty contains an unusual addition: mechanisms for the parties to unilaterally override the negotiated treaty rates in specified circumstances. Previewed last year in proposed form—a first for Treasury—these new mechanisms work as kill-switches, partially terminating the treaty as to one or both treaty partners. The idea is to forestall a more problematic outcome, such as an enduring breach of one of the parties’ expectations, or the opposite, a complete termination of all the treaty terms in the face of such a breach. Yet embedding a kill-switch in a treaty creates distinct legal, procedural, and political pressures in the tax-treaty relationship that implicate treaty negotiation, ratification, interpretation, and dispute resolution. Kill-switches also communicate a defensive tenor in the tax treaty relationships among many countries. This Article analyzes the new kill-switch provisions and concludes that their introduction in the U.S. Model reflects the steady deterioration of tax treaties from essentially diplomatic documents premised on the good faith of the parties to detailed contracts drafted in anticipation of the opposite.

It has long been assumed that tax treaties are uncontroversially technical agreements that no one outside of tax circles cares about or pays attention to--including, it seems, all too many lawmakers tasked with adopting these agreements into law. But with the US Treasury and the EU competition commissioner trading barbs over the fence about what seems right or fair when it comes to global tax competition and coordination, this assumption might be changing. The consensus built up over decades by OECD nations is under stress as the pressure for coherence in the international tax realm increases. Treasury released these provisions in draft from last fall, expressly in order to influence the OECD's work on BEPS. Now that the provisions are in the model, it remains to be seen how they will play out as BEPS, currently at a mid-cycle of norm making, moves from the articulation of principles to the implementation phase. This article doesn't provide answers or predictions about the future but it examines one aspect of the ongoing contestation and tries to situate it in historical and contemporary terms.

Azémar and Dharmapala on Tax Sparing and Foreign Aid

Céline Azémar  and Dhammika Dharmapala recently posted "Tax Sparing, FDI, and Foreign Aid: Evidence from Territorial Tax Reforms," of interest. Tax sparing refers to the intentional exemption of income from tax by two countries working cooperatively. The idea of tax sparing is to ensure that tax incentives granted to investors by source countries are not “cancelled out” by income taxation in the residence country. This is typically accomplished by ensuring that the residence country gives credit for the amount of tax that would have normally been paid to the source country, instead of a reduced (or eliminated) amount that was actually paid according to an incentive scheme. In other words, tax sparing is treaty-based double nontaxation.

Here is an example of tax sparing from Article 21 of the 1993 tax treaty between Indonesia and the United Kingdom,:

For the purposes of paragraph (1) of this Article, the term “Indonesian tax payable” shall be deemed to include any amount which would have been payable as Indonesian tax for any year but for an exemption or reduction of tax granted for the year….”    

In this type of provision, an amount of tax would be credited by the taxpayer’s home country (presumably the UK) in accordance with the standard double tax relief provisions of the treaty even though not ultimately paid to the source country (presumably Indonesia).

If the residence country does not tax foreign income (i.e., is an exemption or territorial system as the UK is now), tax sparing would be pointless since the incentive in the source country accomplishes the desired result of nontaxation unilaterally. Yet this paper finds a surprising result: tax sparing increases FDI even after a treaty partner switches to a territorial system.

Here is the abstract:

The governments of many developing countries seek to attract inbound foreign direct investment (FDI) through the use of tax incentives for multinational corporations (MNCs). The effectiveness of these tax incentives depends crucially on MNCs' residence country tax regime, especially where the residence country imposes worldwide taxation on foreign income. Tax sparing provisions are included in many bilateral tax treaties to prevent host country tax incentives being nullified by residence country taxation. 

We analyse the impact of tax sparing provisions using panel data on bilateral FDI stocks from 23 OECD countries in 113 developing and transition economies over the period 2002-2012, coding tax sparing provisions in all bilateral tax treaties among these countries. We find that tax sparing agreements are associated with 30 percent to 123 percent higher FDI. The estimated effect is concentrated in the year that tax sparing comes into force and the subsequent years, with no effects in prior years, and is thus consistent with a causal interpretation. 

Four countries - Norway in 2004, and the U.K., Japan, and New Zealand in 2009 - enacted tax reforms that moved them from worldwide to territorial taxation, potentially changing the value of their preexisting tax sparing agreements. However, there is no detectable effect of these reforms on bilateral FDI in tax sparing countries, relative to nonsparing countries. 

These results are consistent with tax sparing being an important determinant of FDI in developing countries for MNCs from both worldwide and territorial home countries. We also find that these territorial reforms are associated with increases in certain forms of bilateral foreign aid from residence countries to sparing countries, relative to nonsparing countries. This suggests that tax sparing and foreign aid may function as substitutes.

The link to foreign aid is intriguing: it looks like compensation for the loss of a benefit. The OECD's Action Plans to counter BEPS are specifically designed to eliminate benefits like those created by tax sparing provisions. Is BEPS the end of tax sparing? If so, will BEPS also result in increased foreign aid?

Soft Tax Law & Multilateralism: Modifying treaties with anti-BEPS measures

As observers of global tax policy know, international tax issues are dealt with in bilateral treaties that more or less adhere to a 'model' tax treaty developed and periodically updated by the OECD (provisions in a rival UN Model are occasionally invoked, and the US has its own model with its own distinctions and idiosyncrasies). There are those who have long lamented the problem of having thousands of bilateral agreements that can't be easily or quickly updated when the OECD revises the model (thus curbing the impact of OECD soft law).

As part of the base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) initiative, the OECD is currently developing a
"Multilateral instrument on tax treaty measures to tackle BEPS" which would be used to 'modify' all existing tax treaties in force among signatory countries. The OECD says this mechanism (which it calls an 'innovative approach') 'would preserve the bilateral nature of tax treaties' even as it modified all existing bilateral treaties 'in a synchronized way'. The OECD says there are "limited precedents" for modifying bilateral treaties with a multilateral instrument.

But are there really any precedents at all? I couldn't think of any off-hand. A quick check with a few international law colleagues yielded few comparators. Tim Meyer suggested the EU harmonizing efforts on Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) as a candidate, albeit noting that this does not contemplate directly overriding existing BITs but requires EU members to change their bilateral arrangements to conform with EU investment policy.

Tim also made the interesting observation that"treaties that reference customary international law standards, such as BITs’ reference to the minimum standard of treatment" could be overridden in a somewhat similar fashion. He explained that "[i]f custom changed, such as through the promulgation of soft law documents or multilateral treaties, it would change the BITs that incorporate the customary standard. That isn’t exactly the same thing [as the new OECD multilateral instrument], but similar."

The OECD's work in developing "global consensus" has in the past led some to describe OECD standards as "soft law" and others to suggest that the OECD may be understood to articulate customary international tax law; moreover the OECD has itself now taken to describing its model as soft law (including in its 2014 report on the multilateral instrument). I have urged caution in defining OECD proclamations as soft law or customary law given the OECD's exclusive membership of mainly rich countries, which excludes all of the BRICs and most of the rest of the world, as I think the nomenclature lends an imprimatur of legitimacy to OECD proclamations that may not be deserved. But it seems clear that the BEPS action items, and the new global forum to "monitor compliance" with them, are intended to overcome the exclusivity problem while endowing OECD norms with ever-greater law-like effect (without offending the unicorn that is "tax sovereignty").

It seems likely to me that a multilateral agreement that modifies existing tax treaties is actually intended to ultimately replace those treaties, making small and incremental modifications until the underlying bilateral treaties become superfluous or extinct. Accordingly I view the OECD's multilateral 'modification' function to be an exercise in creeping harmonization as well as "ossification" (or maybe transformation) of soft law into hard law.

Adding together the other elements of BEPS, including the new global forum to compel national compliance with 'minimum standards' as they develop, I recently suggested that the OECD's tax folks are giving birth to a new global tax order complete with rules, audits, and reform processes. This is perhaps not the order envisioned by those who have in the past called for global tax coordination in a supranational body for the sake of pursuing global tax justice. If the OECD-based regime is not fully supranational yet, it is close, and it looks increasingly inevitable once it sets a multilateral agreement in place.

There are many fascinating threads of soft law and public international law are at work in these developments. I recently came across an article by Jung-Hong Kim on the topic, entitled A New Age of Multilateralism in International Taxation?, abstract:

 With the OECD/G20 BEPS project, the current international tax landscape is facing challenges and changes unprecedented for the past several decades. This paper looks at the development of bilateralism and multilateralism in the current international tax regime, takes stock of the BEPS works and analyzes the proposed Multilateral Instrument. Then, the paper discusses the emerging multilateral tax order in international taxation. 

Historically, bilateralism has been the constant trend of tax treaties, and later multilateral tax treaties have emerged in some regional areas. There being some deficiencies with bilateral treaties such as dilapidation, delay in entry into force and vulnerability to treaty shopping, the experience of multilateral tax treaties can help build a foundation for future development of a multilateral tax treaty to complement the bilateral tax treaty network. 

With a caveat that BEPS output is fluid at this stage, drawing on the various examples of existing non-tax multilateral treaties, the Multilateral Instrument will be a desirable and feasible tool to reflect the necessary changes resulting from BEPS project. For Korea whose tax treaties need a systematic upgrade after a noticeable growth in quantity, the negotiation on the Multilateral Instrument of the BEPS project will be a great opportunity to revisit the existing bilateral tax treaties and to make appropriate amendments with bilateral treaty partners in multilateral format. 

Beyond BEPS, supposing that the work on the Multilateral Instrument results in a multilateral convention, the inevitable question is the emergence of a multilateral tax order. In terms of feasibility of such a multilateral tax order, there are both positive and negative sides. The positive side is that the relative success of Global Forum on Tax Transparency can be a guidance on the post-BEPS multilateral tax order. On the other hand, the phenomenon of diminishing multilateral trade regime and bilateral investment treaty regime seem to be a negative evidence. Another point to consider is the appropriate forum to manage the multilateral tax order. For this, there are two competing organizations, i.e., the OECD CFA and UN tax committee, each of which having some limit to be developed into an intergovernmental forum. 

After all, the essential question will be how those major players such as the U.S., EU, China, India etc. could build a consensus by compromising on the institutional and substantive aspects of the multilateral tax order. For now, for the emerging multilateral tax order to proceed on a sound basis, the work of the BEPS project should bear substantive and meaningful fruits. 

This is a useful contribution to the discussion and I would like to see more analysis on the OECD's developments, especially from the perspective of nonOECD countries that are being drawn in as BEPS Associates. I would be interested to hear from readers with thoughts on the public international law foundations and precedents, particularly any comparator regimes that I should be thinking about.

Dataset and research on tax treaties by Martin Hearson and ActionAid

Martin Hearson recently developed an an impressive dataset of tax treaties involving 519 agreements signed from 1970 to 2014 by low and lower-middle income countries in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. He prepared this dataset for ActionAid, an NGO that has taken on global tax policy as a development issue. Martin also posted a working paper detailing the methodology used to analyse and score each treaty. Here is the summary:

This paper introduces a new dataset that codes the content of 519 tax treaties signed by low- and lower-middle-income countries in Africa and Asia. Often called Double Taxation Agreements, bilateral tax treaties divide up the right to tax cross-border economic activity between their two signatories. When one of the signatories is a developing country that is predominantly a recipient of foreign investment, the effect of the tax treaty is to impose constraints on its ability to tax inward investors, ostensibly to encourage more investment. 

The merits of tax treaties for developing countries have been challenged in critical legal literature for decades, and studies of whether or not they attract new investment into developing countries give contradictory and inconclusive results. These studies have rarely disaggregated the elements of tax treaties to determine which may be most pertinent to any investment-promoting effect. Meanwhile, as developing countries continue to negotiate, renegotiate, review and terminate tax treaties, comparative data on negotiating histories and outcomes is not easily obtained. 

The new dataset fills both these gaps. Using it, this paper demonstrates how tax treaties are changing over time. The restrictions they impose on the rate of withholding tax developing countries can levy on cross-border payments have intensified since 1970. In contrast, the permanent establishment threshold, which specifies when a foreign company’s profits become taxable in a developing country, has been falling, giving developing countries more opportunity to tax foreign investors. The picture with respect to capital gains tax and other provisions is mixed. As a group, OECD countries appear to be moving towards treaties with developing countries that impose more restrictions on the latter’s taxing rights, while non- OECD countries appear to be allowing developing countries to retain more taxing rights than in the past. These overall trends, however, mask some surprising differences between the positions of individual industrialised and emerging economies. These findings pose more questions than they answer, and it is hoped that this paper and the dataset it accompanies will stimulate new research on tax treaties.

Nadia Harrison and Lovisa Moller produced a report based on the dataset, entitled Mistreated: The tax treaties that are depriving the world’s poorest countries of vital revenue. Here is the abstract:

Women and girls in the world’s poorest countries need good schools and hospitals. To pay for this, these countries urgently need more tax revenue. A little-known mechanism by which countries lose corporate tax revenue is a global network of binding tax treaties between countries. This report marks the release of the ActionAid tax treaties dataset – original research that makes these tax deals made with some of the world’s poorest countries easily comparable and open to public scrutiny.

 ActionAid also produced an interactive map showing overall treaty effects by country.

These are tremendous resources for anyone studying international tax policy. Bravo to Martin and ActionAid for devoting time and resources to getting this important work out into the world.

New US Model Income Tax Treaty: Now With Kill-Switches!

Treasury issued the new US Model Tax Treaty, via press release: 

​WASHINGTON - Today, the Treasury Department issued a newly revised U.S. Model Income Tax Convention (the “2016 Model”), which is the baseline text the Treasury Department uses when it negotiates tax treaties.  The U.S. Model Income Tax Convention was last updated in 2006.   

“The 2016 Model is the result of a concerted effort by the Treasury Department to further our policy commitment to provide relief from double taxation and ensure certainty and stability in the tax treatment of treaty residents,” said Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Tax Affairs Robert B. Stack.  “The 2016 Model includes a number of provisions intended to eliminate double taxation without creating opportunities for non-taxation or reduced taxation through tax evasion or avoidance,” he added. 

Many of the 2016 Model updates reflect technical improvements developed in the context of bilateral tax treaty negotiations and do not represent substantive changes to the prior model.  The 2016 Model also includes a number of new provisions intended to more effectively implement the Treasury Department’s longstanding policy that tax treaties should eliminate double taxation without creating opportunities for non-taxation or reduced taxation through tax evasion or avoidance.  For example, the 2016 Model does not reduce withholding taxes on payments of highly mobile income—income that taxpayers can easily shift around the globe through deductible payments such as royalties and interest—that are made to related persons that enjoy low or no taxation with respect to that income under a preferential tax regime.  In addition, a new article obligates the treaty partners to consult with a view to amending the treaty as necessary when changes in the domestic law of a treaty partner draw into question the treaty’s original balance of negotiated benefits and the need for the treaty to reduce double taxation.  The 2016 Model also includes measures to reduce the tax benefits of corporate inversions.  Specifically, it denies reduced withholding taxes on U.S. source payments made by companies that engage in inversions to related foreign persons.   

The Treasury Department has been a strong proponent of facilitating the resolution of disputes between tax authorities regarding the application of tax treaties.  Accordingly, the 2016 Model contains rules requiring that such disputes be resolved through mandatory binding arbitration.  The “last best offer” approach to arbitration in the 2016 Model is substantively the same as the arbitration provision in four U.S. tax treaties in force and three U.S. tax treaties that are awaiting the advice and consent of the Senate.  

The 2016 Model reflects comments that the Treasury Department received in response to the proposed model treaty provisions it released on May 20, 2015.  The Treasury Department carefully considered all the comments it received and made a number of modifications to the proposed model treaty provisions in response to those comments.
The Treasury Department is preparing a detailed technical explanation of the 2016 Model, which it plans to release this spring.  The preamble to the 2016 Model invites comments regarding certain situations that should be addressed in the technical explanation for the so-called “active trade or business” test of Article 22 (Limitation on Benefits).  See the preamble page 5.  The deadline for public comments on this subject is April 18, 2016.

Highlights mine. There is much to be discussed in this of course and I will make no attempt to be comprehensive here, but I made a quick comparison doc that might be useful; download here. Just at first glance: can you spot the BEPS? Action 6 is plainly at work, and probably others.

My current interest is in what I am calling the new "kill-switch" provisions, the special tax regime (art 3, 11, 12, 21, 22) and subsequent law changes (art 28) provisions alluded to in the bold highlighted text above. I'm working on a paper on this subject and will have more analysis soon.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Approves 8 Tax Treaties

Senator Rand Paul has been holding up tax treaties for several years but he apparently stepped away from the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday and eight slipped through. They will be considered by the full Senate which I assume will give consent to their ratification, since as far as I know Sen. Paul was the only opponent. From Reuters:

The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday approved eight long-delayed international tax treaties, which had been held up for years because of one Republican senator's objections, despite support from companies that want consistency in rules for how to do international business. 

The treaties are with Switzerland, Luxembourg, Hungary, Chile, Spain, Poland and Japan and the international convention on mutual assistance on tax matters. 

U.S. Senator Rand Paul objected to the agreements for privacy reasons, saying they would allow more inter-governmental sharing of financial information on citizens, which U.S. officials deny. Although the Republican is a member of the committee, he was not at the meeting where the pacts were approved by unanimous voice vote. 

It was not yet certain when the treaties would be considered by the 100-member U.S. Senate, where they need a two-thirds vote to be ratified.

Reconsidering the Tax Treaty: Brooklyn Law Symposium

I'm very pleased to participate in Brooklyn Law School's annual international tax symposium today. This year's theme is Reconsidering the Tax Treaty: a timely topic given the OECD's release of the BEPS Reports, especially Action 6, and the US Treasury's release of proposed new Model Provisions.

My working paper looks at these developments, with a specific focus on the proposed "special tax regimes" and "subsequent changes in law" switch off clauses--in effect, two built-in mini-override provisions. Mine is truly a work in progress and not ready for distribution yet but here is the basic framework:

Seeing STRs: A New Vision for Tax Treaties?

The new US Model treaty contains several new provisions designed to address treaty abuses, in line with the ongoing OECD initiative to counter base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS). Among these are two dealing with foreign law. The first denies treaty withholding rates on interest, royalties, and other income to taxpayers eligible for “special tax regimes” (STRs) in the treaty partner country. The second completely switches off the treaty withholding rates for all recipients of passive income items in prescribed situations where the partner country reduces its tax rate below 15%. The STR provision is limited in scope to taxpayers who receive special deals, but the subsequent law provision partially terminates the treaty as to every taxpayer (ostensibly in both countries) even if they do not benefit from the targeted regime. Both provisions seem designed to enact a new central purpose for tax treaties, namely, as peer-monitoring devices to create a world in which cross border capital flows are subject to at least a single level of tax, at a minimum tax rate. This article examines the international precedents for the new provisions and their implications for international tax relations going forward. It concludes with a discussion about the role tax treaties can and should play in curtailing tax competition among nations.

As always I welcome comments; will post a draft when ready.

Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) as Hybrid Tax Agreements

I recently published "Interpretation or Override? Introducing the Hybrid Tax Agreement." Here is the abstract:

In the effort to overcome foreign law impediments to the implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), the U.S. Treasury introduced intergovernmental agreements (IGAs). IGAs are hybrid tax agreements: Treaties to most of the world, in the United States they instead constitute an executive interpretation of the underlying tax treaty. This introduces a great deal of interpretive uncertainty where the terms of IGAs and tax treaties conflict. Prompted by recent queries in the EU regarding the legal nature of the IGAs, this article explores a concrete example of the legal principles at stake by examining how the public policy rules for information sharing found in US tax treaties interact with the information exchange provisions found in the IGAs.

Further in, I explain that it is difficult to understand how as a matter of international law the IGA, as a document that purports to "interpret" the underlying tax treaty, in fact obviates some of the provisions of the treaty, but do so only for the party other than the United States. I conclude:

Process matters in law. It is what makes the rule of law function as a legitimate source of authority. It is ironic that even as the United States partners with its fellow OECD members to try to address the major challenges to international taxation posed by hybrid legal entities and hybrid financial instruments, Treasury has invented the hybrid tax agreement. Conflicts resulting from this invention are inevitable and I anticipate they will be costly. I believe that Treasury took a few shortcuts around established legal precedents on the road to implementing FATCA. I understand that this may be considered expedient in the effort to get FATCA to work. But in the long run the sacrifice renders a disservice to the rule of law. That sacrifice deserves careful reflection by all those affected.

I continue to be fascinated by the rapid developments in international taxation over the past several years, in terms of both substance and process/rule of law.

Update on the Canadian FATCA Litigation

As readers may be aware, two Canadian citizens filed a lawsuit last year against the Attorney General and the Minister of National Revenue in the Federal Court of Canada (Federal Court File T-1736-14). Over the past two days in Vancouver, the parties have presented their arguments in a summary trial in front of the Hon. Luc Martineau. The summary trial involves arguments on the parties' affidavits and cross-examinations undertaken prior to the hearings--no live witnesses.

In broad strokes the suit seeks to prevent the Canadian Revenue Agency from furnishing to the US Internal Revenue Service the personal and financial account information of Canadian citizens pursuant to the FATCA IGA signed by Canada and enacted into law last year. This is not a charter-based (constitutional) challenge, rather it is a challenge that certain provisions of the IGA are unlawful based on the Canada-US Tax Treaty Act  (which in effect ratifies the US Canada Tax Treaty) and the Income Tax Act. Thus it is not about fundamental rights and freedoms at this stage, but about an interpretation of relevant laws, including the existing tax treaty.

The litigants are being funded by a grassroots group that organized itself for this purpose, called the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty/L'Alliance Pour la Défense de la Souveraineté Canadienne (ADCS). ADCS has many of the court filings available here and here and here, and one of the group's organizers has blogged about the proceedings here and here.  While the lawsuit made the news when it was filed, e.g. here and here among several others, I am seeing virtually no press coverage at this stage, except for one brief article here. That is a shame and I hope that journalists will renew their interest in this issue.

Long-time readers will be aware that I made a submission to the Department of Finance concerning many of the legal issues surrounding the adoption of the IGA, that I understand FATCA to be a tax treaty override that is not cured by the IGAs, and that I understand the IGAs to lack validity as legal instruments under US law. In connection with this litigation, I wrote two "expert reports" and was cross examined for purposes of the summary trial; the reports and transcript are part of the court record and mostly available at the links above, but I will also make the reports available on request. If and when additional information about the summary trial becomes available I will update this post.

Responses to Questions on Canada's Adoption of FATCA IGA

Back in November I noted that MP Ted Hsu presented an order paper question (OPQ 816) on the topic of the unusual process surrounding Canada's adoption of an intergovernmental agreement on FATCA. He asked a series of detailed questions about the treaty tabling and ratification process, and today he got his answers, the substance of which I have reproduced below; you can find the full document here.

I note that there is a common answer to many of the questions: "Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old is considered a cabinet confidence and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act." Therefore, most of the answers are: you will find out in 20 years.

Though the government continues to claim that it "followed the treaty tabling policy" and that it made procedural exceptions deliberately, according to stated procedures, and out of urgent need, the facts and the nonexistence of key documents declare otherwise.

Bottom line: if there is a treaty policy in Canada, it is that a sitting government can bind the nation to any agreement of any sort with no parliamentary oversight of any kind and with no transparency, and if that agreement violates existing laws and rights, then it will be up to those whose rights have been violated to mount legal action to assert those laws and get their rights restored. This is not just a matter of some arcane technical procedure. It is fundamentally a problem of access to justice. Law is not free. It is, in fact, quite expensive.

I note that all the answers below are from the Minister of Foreign Affairs except with respect to three answers from Finance, which are indicated in brackets.

ORDER/ADDRESS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
No. Q-816
By Mr. Hsu (Kingston and the Islands) 
Date November 24, 2014 

With regard to the Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America to Improve International Tax Compliance through Enhanced Exchange of Information under the Convention Between the United States of America and Canada with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital (the Agreement), the government's Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament (the Policy), and the statement of Peter Van Loan, Government House Leader, in the House on Monday, April 28, 2014, that "in this case, the fact is that the government, the cabinet, actually did grant such an exemption to the tabling policy. As such, the very words of the policy, the
requirements of the policy, have been followed. The processes for obtaining the exemption were obtained. As a result, the requirement that it be tabled in the House 21 days in advance of the legislation being introduced is not necessary and the policy is fully complied with" (the Statement):

(a) was an exemption to the government's Policy granted with respect to the Agreement;
• Yes.
(b) what is the difference between an "exemption" and an "exception" in terms of the Policy;
• Either term could be used in the context of the Policy.
(c) if the word "exception" is substituted for “exemption" is the Statement accurate;
• Either term could be used in the context of the Policy.
(d) on what basis was the Statement made;
• The Statement was made because the Agreement was granted an exemption to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy.
(e) how was the Government House Leader informed of the exemption or exception being granted to the Policy;
• The Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (the "Department") has no information on how the Government House Leader was informed,
(f) what documents or memos were created regarding this exemption or exception and what are their access or control numbers;
• Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act
(g) who was involved in this decision to grant an exemption or exception and at what stage were they involved;
• Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act
(h) what was the process, step-by-step, by which this Agreement was granted an exemption or exception;
• Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act
(i) who reviewed the decision to grant an exemption or exception, (i) when, (ii) why, (iii) how;
• Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.
 (j) does the Policy apply to the Agreement, and how;
• Yes. The Agreement was granted an exemption to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy,
(k) between what departments does correspondence exist-regarding the tabling of the Agreement under the Policy and what are the file numbers for these documents;
• There is some correspondence between the Department, and the Department of Finance. There are no file numbers for the correspondence,
(l) on what date was the Agreement concluded;
• [Finance] The Agreement was signed and made public on February 5, 2014.
(m) on what date was the Agreement tabled in Parliament;
• In the context of the Policy, "If an exception is granted, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification." (6.3b of the Policy), The Agreement was publicly tabled on September 15, 2014 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs as per Standing Order 32.2. That was the earliest opportunity for the Government to inform the House that Canada had agreed to be bound by the Agreement following its ratification - also the first sitting day of the House after the summer Parliamentary recess.
(n) on what date was the Agreement ratified;
• Canada ratified the Agreement on June 27, 2014.
(o) when was the House made aware of the text of the Agreement;
• In the context of the Policy, "If an exception is granted, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification." (6.3b of the Policy)". The Agreement was publicly tabled on September 15, 2014 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs as per Standing Order 32.2. That was the earliest opportunity for the Government to inform the House that Canada had agreed to be bound by the Agreement following its ratification - also the first sitting day of the House after the summer Parliamentary recess. Additionally, the text of the Agreement was set out in Schedule 3 to Bill C-31, the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, which was introduced in the House of Commons on March 28, 2014.
(p) how was the House made aware of the text of the Agreement;
• [Finance] Legislative proposals to implement the Agreement with the U.S., including related amendments to the Income Tax Act, were set out in Part 5 of the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 (Bill C-31 ). The text of the Agreement was provided in Schedule 3 of Bill C-31. Bill C-31 was introduced in the House of Commons on March 28, 2014.
• In the context of the Policy, the text of the Agreement was publicly tabled in accordance with the Policy on September 15, 2014. Additionally, the text of the Agreement was set out in Schedule 3 to Bill C-31, the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, which was introduced in the House of Commons on March 28, 2014.
(q) when was the House made aware of the granting of an exemption or exception to the Policy in the case of the Agreement;
• The House was first informed of the exemption through the Statement by the Government House Leader on April 28, 2014. In the context of the Policy, the House was made aware of the granting of an exemption when the Agreement was publicly tabled in accordance with the Policy on September 15, 2014.
(r) how was the House made aware of the granting of an exemption or exception to the Policy in the case of the Agreement;
• The House was first informed of the exemption through the Statement by the Government House Leader on March 28, 2014. In the context of the Policy, the House was made aware of the granting of an exemption in the Explanatory Memorandum which accompanied the Agreement when it was publicly tabled on September 15, 2014.
(s) when and by what means is the House usually informed that an exception has been granted to the Policy;
• In the context of the Policy, the House is usually made aware of the granting of an exemption to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy in the Explanatory Memorandum which accompanies the treaty when it is tabled publicly.
(t) in the absence of the point of order prompting the Government House Leader's response, how and when would the House have been informed of the exemption;
• In the context of the Policy, the House would have been made aware of the granting of an exemption to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy in the Explanatory Memorandum which accompanies the treaty when it is tabled publicly.
(u) what steps and measures are in place to ensure that Parliament is informed of exceptions being granted to the Policy;
• The Policy states: "If an exception is granted, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification."
(v) what steps are in place to ensure that Canadians are informed when exceptions have been granted;
• Informing Parliament publicly, as described under (u), is effective as a means of informing Canadians.
(w) what steps and measures are in place to ensure that Parliament is informed of exemptions being granted to the Policy;
• The Policy states: "If an exception is granted, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification."
(x) what steps are in place to ensure that Canadians are informed when exemptions have been granted;
• Informing Parliament publicly, as described under (w), is effective as a means of informing Canadians.
(y) what does "urgent" mean in the context of the Policy;
• The term "urgent" is not defined in the Policy.
(z) how was the ratification of the Agreement determined to be urgent;
• The U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act ("FATCA") was enacted by the U.S. in March 2010. FATCA requires non-U.S. financial institutions to report to the IRS accounts held by U.S. persons. Absent the Agreement, obligations for Canadian financial institutions to comply with FATCA would have been unilaterally and automatically imposed on them by the U.S. as of July 1, 2014. These obligations would have forced Canadian financial institutions to choose between (a) entering into an agreement with the IRS that would require them to report directly to the IRS on accounts held by U.S. residents and U.S. citizens, which would raise concerns about consistency with Canadian privacy laws; or (b) being subject to the 30 percent FATCA withholding tax on certain U.S.-source payments for not complying with FATCA.
The Agreement takes into account the objectives and provisions of the FATCA, while supporting Canada's objectives for improving the integrity and fairness of the Canadian tax system. The Agreement addresses the Canadian concerns about FATCA described above, as well as others. It was realized that observing the Policy's requirement of waiting 21 sitting days would have made meeting the U.S. FATCA deadline of July 1, 2014, unachievable. As a result, the ratification of the Agreement was determined to be urgent, and a request for an exemption to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy was granted.
(aa) who made the determination in (z), (i) how, (ii) on the basis of what information, (iii) with what authority, (iv) under what criteria;
• Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.
(bb) how was the decision in (z) reviewed, (i) by whom, (ii) how, (iii) when, (iv) by what criteria;
• Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.
(cc) who are or were the lead ministers with respect to the Agreement in terms of the Policy and how was this determined;
• The Minister of Finance is the lead Minister with respect to the Agreement. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is responsible for tabling treaties under the Policy.
(dd) when and how did the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the lead ministers seek approval from the Prime Minister for an exemption to the treaty tabling process;
• Approval from the Prime Minister was sought. Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.
(ee) when was the approval in (dd) granted and how;
• Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.
(ff) what correspondence is available -with file and control number- to corroborate the information provided in response to (dd) and (ee);
• Approval from the Prime Minister was sought. Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.
(gg) was a “joint-letter that clearly articulates the rationale to proceed with the ratification, without tabling in the House of Commons" created;
• No.
 (hh) with respect to the letter in (gg), (i) who created this letter, (ii) when is it dated, (iii) how can it be obtained, (iv) who has access to it, (v) to whom is it addressed;
• No such letter was created.
(ii) was the letter drafted in consultation with the Treaty Section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the relevant Secretariat in the Privy Council Office;
• Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.
(jj) what documentation exists - with file or control number for each document - to corroborate the information provided in response to (ii);
• No such document exists.
(kk) who is responsible for retention and access of such joint letters;
• There are no special provisions for retention and access of such joint letters. Joint letters would be subject to the normal retention and access legislation, regulations, and guidelines for the Government of Canada.
(ll) with respect to the Agreement, were the responsible ministers and the Minister of Foreign Affairs aware early on of the need to request an exemption to the treaty process prior to obtaining Cabinet authority to sign a treaty;
• Yes.
 (mm) how is "early on" defined for purposes of the Policy;
• The term "early on" is not defined in the Policy.
 (nn) how is "aware" defined for purposes of this provision in the Policy;
• The term "aware" is not defined in the Policy.
(oo) was a request made in a Memorandum to Cabinet, seeking policy approval for the Agreement;
• Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.
(pp) what Memorandums to Cabinet exist relative to this agreement, (i) what are their dates, (ii) are they subject to privilege, (iii) who made them, (iv) what are their record or control numbers;
• The Department of Finance will respond to this question and sub-questions. Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act
• [Finance] Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old is considered a cabinet confidence and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.
(qq) which document in (pp) can be said to "clearly articulate the rationale for the exception to the treaty tabling process";
• Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.
(rr) what is the rationale for the exception to the treaty tabling process with respect to the Agreement;
• The response in (z) outlines the rationale for requesting an exemption to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy.
(ss) who determines the rationale per the Policy;
• The rationale was prepared through consultations by officials on behalf of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Minister of National Revenue.
(tt) what is an acceptable rationale per the Policy;
• There is no definition of “acceptable rationale” under the Policy.
(uu) how is rationale defined in terms of the Policy;
• The term "rationale" is not defined in the Policy.
(vv) is there a minimal level of sufficiency for a rationale per the Policy and if so what is it;
• There is no definition of a "minimal level of sufficiency" for a rationale under the Policy.
(ww) when was the exception granted;
• Information pertaining to Memorandums to Cabinet which are less than 20 years old are considered cabinet confidences and details of these are excluded from disclosure under the principles of the Access to Information Act.
(xx) did the Minister of Foreign Affairs "inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification" per the Policy;
• Yes. The Agreement was publicly tabled on September 15, 2014 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs as per Standing Order 32.2.
(yy) when did the actions in (xx) occur and how;
• The Agreement was publicly tabled on September 15, 2014, which was the first sitting day of Parliament after the Agreement was ratified.
(zz) in 2014, how many exemptions or exceptions were granted under the Policy before the Agreement;
• In 2014, there were two exemptions granted under the Policy. The first was concerning the Agreement. The second was concerning the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement.
(aaa) in 2014, was the Agreement's rationale for exception unique;
• Yes. The ratification of the Agreement was determined to be urgent, and a request for an exemption to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy was granted.
(bbb) in 2014, was the Agreement the only item determined to be urgent in terms of the Policy;
• In 2014, the Agreement was one of two items determined to be urgent in the context of the Policy.
(ccc) is the Government House Leader always informed of exceptions and exemptions under the Policy and, if so, how;
• The Department has no information on how the Government House Leader would be informed of exemptions to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy. There are no special provisions under the Policy to inform the Government House Leader of exemptions.
(ddd) is the House always informed of exceptions or exemptions under the Policy and, if so, how;
• In the context of the Policy, "If an exception is granted, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification." (6.3b of the Policy).
 (eee) how early could the Agreement have been tabled in Parliament;
• It was realized early on that observing the Policy's requirement of waiting 21 sitting days would have made meeting the FATCA deadline of July 1, 2014, unachievable. As a result, the ratification of the Agreement was determined to be urgent, and a request for an exemption to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy was sought, and subsequently granted. Since an exemption to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy was granted, the Agreement was to be tabled at the earliest opportunity following ratification. This was done as early as it could have been when the Agreement was tabled, in accordance with the Policy on September 15, 2014. It should be noted that the text of the Agreement was also set out in Schedule 3 to Bill C-31, the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, which was introduced in the House of Commons on March 28, 2014.
(fff) how was the date in (eee) determined;
• Since an exemption to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy was granted, the Agreement was to be tabled at the earliest opportunity following ratification. This was done as early as it could have been when the Agreement was tabled, in accordance with the Policy on September 15, 2014. It should be noted that the text of the Agreement was also set out in Schedule 3 to Bill C-31, the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, which was introduced in the House of Commons on March 28, 2014.
(ggg) if the Agreement could have been tabled earlier in Parliament than the date in (o), (i) why was it not, (ii) what decisions were made in this regard, (iii) who made these decisions, (iv) how, (v) on what basis; and
• Since an exemption to the normal treaty tabling process under the Policy was granted, the Agreement was to be tabled at the earliest opportunity following ratification. This was done as early as it could have been when the Agreement was tabled, in accordance with the Policy on September 15, 2014. It should be noted that the text of the Agreement was also set out in Schedule 3 to Bill C-31, the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, which was introduced in the House of Commons on March 28, 2014.
(hhh) if the Statement could have been made sooner in the House than Monday, April 28, 2014, (i) why was it not, (ii) what decisions were made in this regard, (iii) who made these decisions, (iv) how, (v) on what basis?
• The Department has no information on this question.

Reply by the Offices of the Prime Minister and the Privy Council
With regard to the Agreement, the Privy Council Office has no information in relation to part (ii) regarding a letter drafted in consultation with the Treaty Section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Questions on the Canada-US FATCA Agreement

MP Ted Hsu has presented an order paper question (OPQ 816) on the topic of the unusual process surrounding Canada's adoption of an intergovernmental agreement on FATCA. I have noted many times the anomalies surrounding the US approach to these agreements, and in Canada's case these anomalies appear to have been compounded by odd and unexplained internal procedural decisions. I am working on a paper on this topic but it is slow going, not least because it is tremendously difficult to study Canadian treaty policy--it is vague, features unwritten rules that are apparently made to be broken, and written policies that lack any semblance of meaningful procedural limitations or parameters. If there is a rule of law here, I have yet to find it.

Mr. Hsu's inquiry follows on a statement made by Peter Van Loan, Government House Leader, in the House on Monday, April 28, 2014, that the government, "actually did" comply with its own treaty tabling policy, in response to a point of order raised by MP Marc Garneau back in April regarding the failure of the Government to table the IGA prior to ratification. Mr. Hsu seeks a number of details from the Government; I take it that answers are due on January 26, 2015. Some of the questions clearly illustrate that treaty-making in Canada is really quite a mysterious process. Here are a few of the OPQ highlights--just a small selection of the many detailed aspects of the question:

• was an exemption to the government’s Policy granted with respect to the Agreement;
• on what date was the Agreement ratified; 
• what steps and measures are in place to ensure that Parliament is informed of exceptions being granted to the Policy; 
• what does “urgent” mean in the context of the Policy; 
• did the Minister of Foreign Affairs “inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification” per the Policy; 
• is the Government House Leader always informed of exceptions and exemptions under the Policy and, if so, how; 
• is the House always informed of exceptions or exemptions under the Policy and, if so, how;
• if the Agreement could have been tabled earlier in Parliament [than it was], (i) why was it not, (ii) what decisions were made in this regard, (iii) who made these decisions, (iv) how, (v) on what basis?

All good questions and I, for one, would like to know the answers, not just for better understanding the meaning and implications of the IGA in terms of both its legal status and its substance, but also for understanding the treaty process in Canada more generally. It is a maddeningly opaque regime.

Daurer and Krever on Tax Treaties; one line summary: Them that's got shall have, them that's not shall lose

Veronika Daurer and Rick Krever recently posted Choosing between the UN and OECD Tax Policy Models: An African Case Study on SSRN, of interest. Here is the abstract:

This paper reports on a study of the tax treaty policy of a group of eleven East African countries. African tax treaties tend to follow one of two model treaties, an OECD model treaty that favours the interests of capital exporting nations and a United Nations model treaty that allows capital importing countries to retain more taxing rights. The study compares the policy outcomes in treaties signed by these countries with African nations, with relatively wealthy OECD countries, and with non-African countries that are not members of the OECD. It also compares selected outcomes in African–OECD treaties with those results in treaties between a group of Asian countries and OECD members to see whether African countries have been more or less successful at wringing preferences from wealthier nations. The study suggests the African countries studied have not been as successful in retaining taxing rights in treaties with OECD countries as have Asian countries. On the other hand, OECD countries are often more generous to African countries than are other African countries.

The paper notes that the data on the connection between tax treaties and foreign investment is still inconclusive, so we can't say that what countries lose in tax revenue given up in the treaty they gain somewhere else. The data being inconclusive is consistent with my research on this some years ago, and what I've kept up with since. Although the authors are very careful in their claims, the overall message is pretty clear: powerful nations systematically use their economic clout to gain advantage over less powerful nations in tax deals. Countries share the global tax base through tax treaties. The OECD model treaty overwhelmingly designs how they do so. So this is international tax relations as the OECD has crafted it, very carefully and deliberately, over the span of decades.

Here is Daurer & Krever's conclusion:

The jurisdictions reviewed in this study are found in the same part of Africa and have histories that share many features. The similarities in their backgrounds are not reflected in their networks of tax treaties with wide variations in the features of their treaties and sometimes significant differences in the extent to which they rely on OECD model treaty or UN model treaty precedents. 

The extent to which jurisdictions choose to forgo taxing rights may depend on relative bargaining powers vis-à-vis treaty partners or domestic ideology regarding possible direct economic benefits from increased investment or indirect consequential benefits from enhanced relationships that might follow a retreat from taxing rights. As a general rule, larger and more economically advanced economies tend to retain more taxing rights in treaties than smaller, less advanced economies. Considered as a group, these African countries appear not to have been as successful as Asian countries in retaining taxing rights. Regional countries may find it beneficial to review each other’s treaty policies and consider whether the revenue costs of less reliance on the UN model and more reliance on the OECD model might outweigh the perceived investment or ancillary benefits that they hope will flow from the transfer of taxing rights to capital exporting nations. 

Regional countries might also wish to look at why OECD countries are often more generous in agreeing to greater retention of taxing rights by African countries than neighbouring African nations. 

Bruce Zagaris on US Perspectives on Information Exchange

Bruca Zagaris has a two-part article on U.S. policies on the exchange of information in tax matters, published  by Tax Analysts on June 9 and  June 17, of great interest (but gated, unfortunately). He provides an overview of the applicable treaties (bilateral and MAATM), TIEAs and IGAs, and discusses the various forms of information exchange. He gives a nice level of detail on how information exchange requests are processed in the US and how the US achieves its information goals vis a vis other countries. He goes through the legal structures and the developments at the OECD and EU. He then provides a series of detailed hypotheticals focusing in on US information exchange policy with respect to Latin America. Bruce is very clear about the lack of reciprocity that characterizes the US position toward information exchange and notes, rightly, I believe, that this position is sure to lead to conflict going forward.

His conclusion is rather bleak but I don't disagree with anything he is saying. Here are a few excerpts:

The U.S. budgetary problems, the pay-as-you-go system, the revenue estimates obtained for the anti-tax-haven bills, and the proclivity of some members of Congress to focus on tax enforcement and compliance directed at U.S. taxpayers concealing money abroad ensures that the anti-tax-haven bills will constantly be appended to appropriations legislation in this session of Congress and in future sessions. There are so many anti-tax-haven initiatives and the lack of actual reciprocity by the U.S. government, as opposed to the rhetoric, may well lead to dispute resolution proceedings soon and to disagreements within the international initiatives of the OECD and FATF, as a result of the perceived lack of a level playing field. 

A global trend toward criminalization of tax compliance and enforcement will continue.... Governments will continue to try to privatize tax enforcement by deputizing FIs and service providers regarding reporting, ethics, and a range of other requirements. Criminal investigations and prosecutions of noncompliant institutions and service providers will continue. 

... Disagreements are likely to continue among the OECD and developing countries about the proper financial architecture, not only in tax policy, but also financial regulation. If possible, the G-8 countries will try to continue to centralize decision-making in elite informal groups, such as the G-20, the Financial Stability Forum, and the OECD and the groups it controls, such as the Global Forum on Taxation. 

... OECD and Latin American governments, including the United States, Argentina, Mexico, and Brazil, will continue to impose sanctions through blacklists and countermeasures against small financial center jurisdictions, both unilaterally and through international organizations (for example, the OECD and IMF) and informal groups (for example, G-20, FATF, and Financial Stability Board), even though small-state offshore financial centers do a much better job of enforcing the prohibition on anonymous companies and bank accounts than do large OECD countries, and the United States is the main offender in failing to enforce the international standards prohibiting anonymous companies 

The biggest potential impediment to the United States achieving its global tax priorities is the political gridlock, especially regarding the budget, spending, raising taxes, and raising the debt limit. ... 

The upshot of globalization and increased penalization of international tax and money movement flows is increased pressure on financial intermediaries, including lawyers, trust companies, banks, accountants, and other wealth management professionals who must advise clients. Increasingly, tax authorities, law enforcement, and regulators will be acting to obtain information and bring administrative and criminal cases for reporting violations, nonpayment, nonfiling, and allegedly fraudulent activities, or conspiracy to do the same.

All in all this is a tremendous resource for anyone wanting to understand information exchange from the US perspective. I hope that others will undertake similar analyses for other countries, so that we can start to understand what tax information exchange actually looks like now, and what it will likely look like going forward. The combination of non-reciprocity, a starved administration, and political gridlock in the US with a continued policy jealousy on the part of the US and its close "elite" allies that Bruce describes portends deep trouble ahead for the rest of the world, especially as these countries continue to reserve their own rights to act as tax havens.