Maya Forstater

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.

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

You say it's a category error Dan, when it is explicitly identified on the approach that misalignment > shifting.

No, the IMF methodology is about BEPS rather than misalignment. (Our BEA study is misalignment.)

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?

To be fair, in the Vienna paper it is spelled out. But caveats are quickly discarded. As Alex notes he does not make it clear in his recent briefing. What is the chance that anyone else will make the distinction if the indicator is made the official UN marker for "illicitness"?

Presumably Alex is not proposing that the UN have a marker for "illicitness" which is simply a calculation of the difference between the status quo and a unitary tax system?