The OECD Inclusive Framework

Christians, Allison; Apeldoorn, Laurens van

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3393140

Cited by 12 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the discussion of whether there is true participation on an equal footing of all members of the IF, see, e.g. Christians and Van Apeldoorn (2018), Christians (2019), Dickinson (2019) and Mosquera (2019b), Christensen, Hearson and Randriamanalina (2020).…”

Section: Andrea Riccardimentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing a (global?) minimum corporate income tax

Riccardi¹

2021

Nord J Law Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seven years have passed since the BEPS Action Plan was launched by the OECD, and Action 1 identified the tax challenges derived from the digitalization of the economy as a relevant area to be addressed. However, no concrete recommendations were delivered and, in an increasingly digitized economy, countries started acting unilaterally. Against this situation, as from January 2019, the stream of work at the OECD has changed and, apparently, a novel era - “BEPS 2.0” - has begun under the slogan of working on a “without prejudice” Almost eight years have passed since the BEPS Action Plan was launched by the OECD and Action 1 identified corporate income tax challenges derived from the digitalization of the economy as a relevant area to be addressed. As from January 2019, the stream of work at the OECD has changed. Apparently, a novel era - “BEPS 2.0” - has begun under the slogan of working on a “without prejudice” basis and a two-pillar approach with the aim of reaching an agreement on a global solution. Though the author recognizes the need to find a coordinated answer, she believes that in the construction of said solution, attention should be given to specific features and policy preferences evidenced by developing countries. Under this scenario, this contribution focuses on the so-called “Pillar Two” and assesses its “Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) proposal” from said perspective. After her analysis, the author concludes that this rushed political-driven proposal not only has been designed in the benefit of major and more advanced economies, but it goes far more beyond “BEPS”. In this vein, the author advocates for concentrating the efforts and resources on a transparent discussion that directly addresses efficient and fairer nexus and profit allocation rules – main concern for developing countries and, in the autor´s view, the base problem to be solved.

show abstract

Section: Andrea Riccardimentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing a (global?) minimum corporate income tax

Riccardi¹

2021

Nord J Law Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite so much influence, the OECD's decision-making process has been exclusionary and opaque. Even as it seeks to include non-member in some discussions, the reasons seem to have less to do with increasing their actual participation in setting the rules than securing their engagement and fostering a public perception of inclusivity (Christians and van Apeldoorn 2018b). Participation of developing countries in global tax policymaking is mostly circumscribed to the endorsement stage, with virtually no real involvement in idea conception and negotiation.…”

Section: Underrepresentation In Global Tax Platformsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing Developing-Country Tax Systems

Magalhaes

Ozai

2021

Nord J Law Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experts from the North have long tried to teach countries in the South how to tax. For decades, they assumed the main challenges were domestic and there was a right answer to be found somewhere in the developed world that could be replicated everywhere else. Only more recently have they dedicated more attention to the international realm, yet their solutions remain tied to technical rules designed by a few specialists, as exemplified by the OECD Secretariat’s “Unified Approach” for the taxation of the digital economy. From a critical and historical socio-legal perspective, this Article argues that such technocratic approaches are set to fail less-developed nations for as long as we continue to overlook the background causes of weak taxation at both the national and international levels. These involve difficulties in applying complex rule sets, but also the very way in which global tax policy is developed, who influences the process, and the resulting distributive consequences.

show abstract

“…Third, the same Council can at any time unilaterally take back the competencies delegated to the CFA. Fourth, as long as the full terms of the partnership engagement, governance structures, and procedural information of the IF are not publicly accessible, it is not possible to empirically analyze and evaluate the stake of developing countries in the IF (Christians and Apeldoorn 2018;OECD 2003). Finally, the OECD Council has retained a gatekeeper role by approving the formal invitation to new BEPS Associates (OECD 2017a, p. 18).…”

Section: Legitimacy Deficits In International Corporate Taxation Gove...mentioning

confidence: 99%