That @oxfamgb report about Mongolia suggests that any lender reducing Mongolian withholding tax below 20% is acting unethically. What rate of withholding applied to Oxfam's loan to Mongolia in 2012? https://www.ft.com/content/b5b42004-0f10-11e2-9343-00144feabdc0 … 1/5
-
Show this thread
-
Doubt it was 20%. When Mongolia signs tax treaties with most of the world reducing withholding to 10%, there's nothing surprising or unethical when people take advantage of that. 2/5
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
But more fundamentally, lenders don't normally bear the cost of withholding tax. They've priced a deal on an interest rate of x% and expect to get that. Withholding tax is, almost always, the cost of the borrower - whether the borrower is a small business or a government. 3/5
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Here the borrower was the Mongolian government. My bet is that the terms of the loan made any withholding the government's cost. So charging withholding tax would meant that, effectively, the Mongolian government was taxing itself. 4/5
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
So the Oxfam story ignores the wider context, and ignores the commercial terms of lending. It suggests a lender would have magically given up its agreed return, in a way that no commercial party would. And Oxfam need to explain what they did in 2012. 5/5
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Strictly speaking its a @SOMO story (their report) @OxfamAmerica @fp2p are just repeating it.
-
-
Thanks. 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.