Still relevant on why the definition of illicit financial flows should include aggressive tax avoidance: it looks like the biggest part of the problem & the biggest fix to developing country revenue https://bit.ly/2NU03Lr @TaxJusticeNet
-
Thanks for v helpful comments. I agree illegal $ flows & aggressive tax avoidance (ATA) need different answers. And huge work to do on both. But if ATA is denying
$bns of state revenue, then it's a big deal. E.g. https://bit.ly/2wYd68p & https://bit.ly/2CFjd6V
Yes. They are separate questions. (1)Should avoidance/BEPS be included under IFFs (i argue no. they are different things)? (2) how big is BEPS for developing countries? I don't think it makes sense to argue it should be in IFF because its 'biggest part of problem'
-
-
Here is something I wrote a while back on the scale of estimates of the BEPS prize for development https://www.cgdev.org/blog/how-big-transfer-pricing-prize-development … (its not nothing but its not as big as people hope)
-
Also the chapter & background paper from UNCTAD WIR2015 I think is v. good to help think about proportions (and impact on investment)pic.twitter.com/SwGnYP0fM1
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.