If simple ratios like 'misalignment' between location of profits & employee headcount/payroll/sales don't make a lot of sense at the level of individual companies, what do the patterns which emerge when we look at aggregate data [e.g. Torslov/Wier/Zucman's paper] mean for #BEPS?
-
-
Show this thread
-
In my blog post i only look at 4 companies (so shouldn't read too much into it, but gives a clue). Some countries show up on both the 'positive' and 'negative' misalignment sides. e.g. UK, US, France and South Africa all appear on different sides for different companies
Show this thread -
In an aggregation this kind of thing would tend to cancel out, & only countries that appear on one side predominantly will show up (like Lux) -- this means the ratio isn't picking up 'profit shifting' exactly, but places w more mobile activities & management of intangiables
Show this thread -
i.e. the ratio doesn't pick up whether the mobile activities/intangibles are correctly priced and legally compliant, just that they are concentrated there. So then you end up back at the
#taxmantra discussionpic.twitter.com/Bme0S3e2wt
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes, the definition involves the distinction between 'illegal only' and 'illegal' plus 'legal but morally wrong'. If one advocates to count as illicit financial flows the broader set of 'bads', including legal tax avoidance, then one is obliged to count other 'almost' crimes.
-
Many thanks Alex. Very clear.
End of conversation
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.