scholarly journals Debt or Profit Shifting? Assessment of Corporate Tax Avoidance Practices Across Lithuanian Companies

Author(s):  
Egidijus Kundelis ◽  
Renata Legenzova ◽  
Julijonas Kartanas

Significance The rulings come as the EU advances legislation to increase transparency on corporate tax rulings and after the G20 on October 9 endorsed the new OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) framework for countering corporate tax avoidance. Impacts These EU rulings suggest similar decisions are imminent involving Apple in Ireland and Amazon in Luxembourg. The rulings will inspire further challenges to similar arrangements; they are the major threat to similar policies. Most BEPS measures will require changes to bilateral tax treaties and could face national-level delays or rejections. Monitoring of BEPS implementation will commence, but compliance will be voluntary and thus limited.


Author(s):  
Alex Cobham ◽  
Petr Janský

exy2Tax avoidance by multinational companies is the most widely recognised tax abuse, and also the most heavily researched aspect of illicit financial flows (IFF). This chapter provides a critical survey of the leading estimates, highlighting the range of methodological innovation and alternative data. While the global range of estimated revenue losses is wide (between around $200bn and $600bn a year), consistent findings include that it is only a handful of jurisdictions that benefit from profit shifting at the expense of all others; and that lower-income countries lose the highest share of current tax revenues. While there is no single, perfect estimate in the literature, it does point the way to a potential indicator for the UN target.


2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Zucman

This article attempts to estimate the magnitude of corporate tax avoidance and personal tax evasion through offshore tax havens. US corporations book 20 percent of their profits in tax havens, a tenfold increase since the 1980; their effective tax rate has declined from 30 to 20 percent over the last 15 years, and about two-thirds of this decline can be attributed to increased international tax avoidance. Globally, 8 percent of the world's personal financial wealth is held offshore, costing more than $200 billion to governments every year. Despite ambitious policy initiatives, profit shifting to tax havens and offshore wealth are rising. I discuss the recent proposals made to address these issues, and I argue that the main objective should be to create a world financial registry.


Author(s):  
Leyla Ates ◽  
Alex Cobham ◽  
Moran Harari ◽  
Petr Janský ◽  
Markus Meinzer ◽  
...  

In this chapter, we set out a new approach to the geography of profit shifting, based on a range of objectively verifiable criteria. These are combined in the Corporate Tax Haven Index, published for the first time in 2019. We present the technical argument for the index as a meaningful representation of the global distribution of the risks of corporate tax abuse and explore the new geography that emerges. Our findings show the UK’s dominant responsibility for corporate tax avoidance risks and the colonial roots of many exploitative double tax treaties. We discuss the index’s political implications for the immediate process of international tax reform, and for the longer-term prospects for global governance in this area. Greater clarity about the geography of profit shifting is likely to support growing demands for redistribution not only of taxing rights but also of decision-making power in the global architecture for tax governance.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-131
Author(s):  
Peter Koerver Schmidt

Abstract It is argued th**at the higher degree of economic integration across borders and the international trend towards a reduction of corporate income tax rates have had a significant impact on the Danish corporate tax regime in recent years. Accordingly, during the last ten years the Danish statutory corporate tax rate has been lowered further, while several government actions at the same time have been taken in order to combat international tax avoidance and evasion. As a result, new anti-avoidance provisions have been introduced and some of the older anti-avoidance provisions have been tightened in order to prevent base erosion and profit shifting. Thus, to some extent Denmark has already tried to address a number of the key pressure areas mentioned in the recently published OECD BEPS report, such as international mismatches in entity and instrument characterization, the tax treatment of related party debt financing, transfer pricing and the effectiveness of anti-avoidance measures. However, the article concludes that these anti-avoidance provisions often suffer from being quite complex, very broad in scope and open to criticism from an EU law perspective.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-131
Author(s):  
Michael Motala ◽  

Over the past decade, international tax governance has evolved with bewildering speed in response to the challenges of digitalization and widespread corporate tax avoidance. Since the launch of the Group of 20 (G20)-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) initiative in 2012, 135 countries and 14 international organizations have joined the BEPS Inclusive Framework, committing to implement new global standards on corporate tax, which has already been lauded as a revolution in the architecture of international tax law and policy. Even further expanding the scope of the OECD’s work on international taxation in a landmark announcement in March 2021, the U.S. administration further proposed imposing a global minimum corporate tax at a rate of 21% to be implemented through an international agreement by mid-2021. If the new OECD initiative is agreed, will the plan to implement a minimum corporate tax be fully implemented by G20 members, and if so, will it do enough to address the tax challenges of digitalization embodied in corporate tax arbitrage? Although the evidence suggests legislative and public policy compliance is likely to be high among G20 members, this article argues the minimum tax initiative is unlikely to go far enough to address deficiencies in global tax dispute resolution, which are extremely germane to the success of the proposed minimum tax. As explained in this article, U.S. leaders and global policymakers must enhance the mutual agreement procedure (MAP), a cornerstone of tax dispute resolution, given a growing body of tax litigation in investment law that threatens the implementation of BEPS 2.0. To do so, global policymakers must also reconcile the conflict of norms between tax sovereignty and investor protection contained in the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime. Only by addressing the conflict between the principles of tax sovereignty and investor protection can they prevent a tidal wave of investor disputes that will challenge the implementation of the minimum tax through national tax laws.


Author(s):  
Thomas R. Kubick ◽  
G. Brandon Lockhart ◽  
John R. Robinson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document