Essentially you are carrying out a shadow unitary tax calculation, and then being surprised that it doesn’t reflect the actual tax paid under existing tax systems.
-
-
Here it is presented as $500 bn of avoidance via "illegal accounting processes". What on earth does that mean?pic.twitter.com/3ezrdQcNrs
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Thanks Maya. That's a mistake in the graphic, will sort it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @alexcobham @MForstater and
Fixed, thanks. On your point, Dan, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the overall argument, which might explain the element you don't follow (or don't like?) here?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Unless I am misunderstanding, your approach is to compare the tax that is actually paid with the tax that would be paid if taxable profit were aligned with “real economic activity”. 1/3
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanNeidle @alexcobham and
You then define the difference as profit shifting. But “real economic activity” is not how existing tax systems work. You’re not measuring profit shifting at all.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DanNeidle @alexcobham and
As the entire purpose of the BEPS project was to change the law, is it not a pointless exercise to only define BEPS in terms of how the law currently operates? Such an approach would entirely defeat the purpose of the BEPS project wouldn't it?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @georgenturner @alexcobham and
Of course I accept some of the alignment is down to intentional BEPS. But you cannot assume it all is, when that is just not how current frameworks work.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanNeidle @georgenturner and
It’s a category error - the misalignment calculations don’t and can’t measure tax avoidance or evasion. They measure the imperfection of the status quo vs an idealised unitary tax system
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DanNeidle @georgenturner and
You say it's a category error Dan, when it is explicitly identified on the approach that misalignment > shifting.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Here 500bn an estimate of misalignment is equated to avoidance.pic.twitter.com/Ni4JJSZd6S
-
-
Replying to @MForstater @DanNeidle and
No, the IMF methodology is about BEPS rather than misalignment. (Our BEA study is misalignment.)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @alexcobham @MForstater and
To repeat: “Lawfully achieved misalignment”= intentional tax avoidance. In reality misalignment = “natural misalignment” + evasion + avoidance. Where does your piece acknowledge that the first category exists?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 12 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.