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').
-
Show 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.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
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 thread -
Replying to @MForstater
looking at that chart with 5 categories (clearly criminal to clearly legal) is it right that wherever line is drawn, trying to cram everything into a binary illicit/licit can be wrong in either direction?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CarterPaddy
Yes. And what is the point? If we want to have a discussion about evasion and avoidance we have language and concepts for that. Bundling all under "Illicit financial flows" w organised crime & money laundering confuses and means it cant be discussed clearly.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MForstater @CarterPaddy
The point seems to be the political project of changing a discussion about corruption in the developing world into a discussion about multinational tax avoidance.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DanNeidle @MForstater
I think TJN also felt that if avoidance by MNCs didn't get into that SDG, it wouldn't feature anywhere? (and *potentially* imo that consideration could outweigh counter arguments)
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @CarterPaddy @MForstater
I don't think it does. Conflating avoidance and evasion is counter-productive in every sense except creating a large number you can put on posters. The ways you counter avoidance are nothing to do with the ways you counter evasion.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
And, the SDGs, for what they are worth were developed through an intergovernmental process. If the governments of the world had wanted to put BEPS in there they would have. Probably not between gun-running and organised crime.
-
-
@MForstater over here acting like the G77 has the same clout as OECD countries
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.