do you know if indicators for 17.1 have been agreed, and if so do they capture BEPs? On grey areas, where would you situate e.g. MNC tax planning that was internally estimated to have ~50% chance of being deemed legal if examined by courts?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
The "Illicit" discussion is like a mirror image of the "fair" discussion people tend to assume the pornography test ( IKIWISI ) works, but not look too closely -- I think cases help -- e.g. Acacia, FQM, AMT, Oyu Tolgoi, Rio in Australia as well as ones that dont make the news
But there's no need to pile that together with actual illicit stuff. Bribes and kickbacks paid to secret shell companies are a different kind of thing (as @MATruman pointed out long ago).
-
-
I don't have a strong view, but seems to me that MNCs doing 'legal' things they suspect wouldn't actually stand up to scrutiny is one place where 17.1 arguably overlaps with 16.3 (if I've got those right)
-
16.4
it's all a bit angels on pinheads.....but I think the case for avoidance really rests on early confusion over "misinvoicing". Otherwise no one wld be saying, "right, this target on gunrunning, gangsters, corruption & kleptocrats, lets include Qs on management fees here? " - 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
My rule of thumb on this is that any paper still quoting Christian Aid's Death and Taxes (such as the GFI one) isn’t worth reading... I see lots of complex calculations, but applied to estimates of misinvoicing that are wholly unreliable.
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.