Here is an @FTAlphaville article from @nickshaxson about the distinction between tax avoidance and evasion and the question of what "illicit financial flows" meanshttps://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/05/16/1557994769000/No--corporate-tax-avoidance-is-not-legal/ …
-
Show this thread
-
People who are cited in the article: "British tax barrister Clair Quentin, who developed the concept of Risk Mining", "TJN's Director Alex Cobham", "Jolyon Maugham, a prominent UK tax barrister", Sol Picciotto ... and some nameless person at CGD. Who could that be Nick?
2 replies 3 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
The article spends a lot of time on the 'grey' area of tax which is legally due, where audits can enforce compliance. Reasons for audit adjustments can include normal uncertainty, aggressive avoidance & behaviour that might be evasion.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
We are all agreed this tax should be paid. Clear laws, more audit capacity. Stronger enforcement, including penalties for egregious behaviour. All important.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
But I do not think it aids understanding to bundle all of the revenue at stake in CIT audits with "illicit financial flows" - i.e. with money laundering, fraud, corruption, theft of public assets, organised crime. Different stuff. Different remedies. (also not really a 'flow').
3 replies 1 retweet 4 likesShow this thread -
What Nick fails to mention is the *further* category that he & colleagues at TJN are proposing to be included in measures of "illicit financial flows" -- that is 'misalignment' with the tax that would be legally due if tax laws were different: based on formulary apportionment.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 likeShow this thread -
This measure creates apparent massive "illicit financial flows" out of ordinary tax compliance.https://www.cgdev.org/blog/proposed-sdg-indicator-illicit-financial-flows-risks-conflating-ordinary-business-dirty-money …
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread
He also fails to mention that most of what is included in *current* headlines on IFFs (and presented as being 'evasion by multinationals') is based on adding up gaps and mismatches in trade data which don't seem to be a good indicator of anything actually going on in tax.
-
-
This researcher stands by her conclusion, and asks that next time if you going to try to take on someone's arguments in a national newspaper at least do them them the courtesy of saying their name.pic.twitter.com/ctcHlF9Dkm
2 replies 4 retweets 11 likesShow this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.