Corporate tax avoidance: a crime of globalization

Quo Vadis Kepatuhan Pajak?

“…Meskipun dianggap sistem pemu ngutan pajak yang paling ideal, otoritas pe mungut pajak di Amerika yaitu Internal Revenue Service (IRS) menyadari bahwa sistem self assessment mempunyai kelemah an karena wajib pajak dapat bertindak tidak jujur. Oleh karena itu, untuk mengatasi kelemahan tersebut, IRS menciptakan berb agai mekanisme pencegahan kecurangan pajak de ngan memberikan sanksi perdata dan pidana serta mengintensifkan pemerik saan pajak sebagai antisipasi tindakan ke curangan wajib pajak sekaligus mendukung keberhasilan self assessment (Ceccato & Benson, 2016;Evertsson, 2016;Levi, 2015;Mitchell & Stratmann, 2016).…”

State Aid and Taxation of Transnational Companies: A Study of State-Corporate Crime

“…In particular, I examined the structure of IKEA, a former Swedish TNC that became a Dutch charity organization to avoid paying taxes in Sweden and other countries of incorporation. After close analysis of this TNC, I found that IKEA had adopted the most stringent tax avoidance practices ever exhibited, including transformation of the ownership structure of the entire global conglomerate as well as the financial, commercial, and operational structures of the company's international operations (Evertsson 2016b). One can even argue that this strategy is an extremely wellorganized approach for conducting tax avoidance on a global scale.…”

“…Is this a situation that benefits society? Elsewhere, I have argued that tax incentives offered to international investors are the result of re-writing the rules of the economy in favor of the powerful (Evertsson 2016b). The fact is that competitive tax territories strive to provide international investors with favorable conditions and even secrecy at the expense of their own citizens.…”

Financial geography I: Geographies of tax

“…Other techniques include, but are not limited to: thin capitalization and inter-company loans, in which subsidiaries abroad can be used to create a system of loans and debt that allow parent companies to deduct interest payments if the subsidiary is located in a country, like the Netherlands, where such interest payments to the subsidiary are not taxed (Evertsson, 2016a; Nedham, 2013; Palan et al, 2010; Taylor and Richardson, 2012; Walsh and Ryan, 1997); paying for intangibles (Evertsson, 2016a; Nedham, 2013), including the shifting of royalties between countries to avoid taxation (Dharmapala and Hines, 2009); hybrid entities for investment (Evertsson, 2016a; Nedham, 2013); no reporting of country-specific revenues, known as country-by-country reporting (Hope et al, 2013; Palan et al, 2010; Seabrooke and Wigan, 2016; Wójcik, 2015) and patent boxes (Evers et al, 2015; Miller and Pope, 2015), which reduce the effective average tax rate on investments that qualify to be included in such a box. The latter technique can result in negative effective tax rates in countries such as Belgium, France, Spain and Hungary.…”

“…The latter technique can result in negative effective tax rates in countries such as Belgium, France, Spain and Hungary. Typically, corporations combine different techniques (Evertsson, 2016a; Taylor and Richardson, 2012).…”