“Research and policy analysis on illicit financial flows are unanimous in including multinational tax abuses in the definition" ?? Really?https://twitter.com/alexcobham/status/878294796665856000 …
-
-
Replying to @MForstater
e.g. see Interagency Task Force on Financing for Development http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Illicit-financial-flows-conceptual-paper_FfDO-working-paper.pdf …pic.twitter.com/Y7L3k1JNXo
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater
Lack of agreement extends to *which* multinational tax abuses are included, not whether any are. Do you know a definition excluding all?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alexcobham
Core definition seems to be illegally earned/transferred/utilised + cross border - so includes so tax related illicit flows = evasion
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater
That's the narrowest definition I think, yes - so you'd agree none would exclude multinationals?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alexcobham
How can it be that "The definition of an illicit financial flow has always included tax avoidance" if no consensus. & many don't?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater @alexcobham
e.g. working defns by
@ATAFtax@OECD@WorldBank@GFI_Tweets. Cameron HLP talks about avoidance & IFFs, but did not define as same thing.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater @alexcobham and
May have misunderstood. Maya defn deemed to = evasion. Alex but MNCs not excluded. Is MNC linkage to IFF only poss if guilty of evasion?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @iaincampbell07 @alexcobham and
Or I think, conceptually, a little wider - e.g. Evasion that isn’t caught is still an IFF
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
But eg as M Hodge said to Google “not illegal….immoral” —> = not IFF
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.