Did they say 'lets put MNC taxation under 16.4 w illicit arms, crime and stolen assets' or 'lets put it under 17.1 with other tax issues?
-
-
Replying to @MForstater @NikoLusiani and
Ive talked to folks who were in the room/on Cameron HLP who say
#BEPS not in#IFFs ....If there was agreement I wish they'd written it down!1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Given context you'd expect any common intention on a big issue would be reflected in the agreed outputs? So poor drafting or no consensus?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @alexcobham @iaincampbell07 and
There doesn't seem too much doubt...pic.twitter.com/FApEfif5dE
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @alexcobham @iaincampbell07 and
That they meant to stress this issue.pic.twitter.com/E3LxcsXtt6
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @alexcobham @iaincampbell07 and
Here, they seem to separate out illicit financial flows and illicit non-financial flows, stating the need to make progress on both.pic.twitter.com/jRC7weBmcU
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
To me quotes show drafters wanted, inter alia, to separately address tax evasion and tax avoidance, and IFFs. Otherwise why separate?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
And the final draft goal the HLP came up with was "e) Reduce illicit flows and tax evasion and increase stolen-asset recovery by
$x"2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, the separation of evasion does suggest they didn't really know what was included in IFF. But zero evidence they meant to exclude avdnce
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I agree it suggests overall they didn't really know, hadn't looked too closely (and probably paid to much attention to the idea of $1trn
)
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.