International Tax Reform Comment Letter to House Ways and Means Committee - Why a Worldwide Full-Inclusion System is Far Better for Our Country and Society than a Territorial System

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffery M. Kadet
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Hale

The author addresses the politics of business taxation and international tax competition as an interactive series of two- (and sometimes multi-) level games embedded in broader debates over international competition for investment and the distribution of fiscal costs and benefits within Canada. Drawing on several international relations theories (neo-institutionalist, public choice, and realist), the author explores the evolution of Canada's business tax system in relation to the evolving systems of other major competitors for international investment, especially the United States--changes that are occurring as part of a wider effort to balance and integrate competing and overlapping objectives of domestic and international economic policies. The author summarizes the historical and contemporary context for international tax competition, particularly with respect to income shifting, macro- and micro-challenges of tax arbitrage, and the tradeoffs involved in managing the domestic politics of taxation. The author concludes by identifying the options available for maintaining domestic fiscal and policy flexibility while responding effectively to growing tax competition, as embodied in the US tax reform of 2017 and other shifts in policy that point to declining political commitment to an open economy paradigm among Canada's major trading partners.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 265-269
Author(s):  
Lilian V. Faulhaber

In her article, Mason concludes that politics – or “bargaining over national interests”— “will play a starring role in determining the outcomes” of the current digital tax project. In this essay, I apply public choice theory to the politics of international tax and argue that two questions can shape our understanding of international tax negotiations and therefore help us predict the outcomes of future international tax reform projects. First, what interests are country delegates representing? Second, how are countries using their involvement in international negotiations to represent these interests? The first question highlights that country delegates are often not defending some agreed-upon “national interest” but are instead often protecting the interests of particular political parties, industries, or taxpayers, which in turn means that interests can change over time and that some voices are missing from debates. The second question highlights that country delegates can engage in international tax negotiations in a variety of ways. They can try to limit what, if anything, the negotiations achieve; they can try to push for more expansive results; and they can use the negotiations to provide international support for their own country's laws. This essay focuses on one particular version of this third type of engagement, where delegates use their country's involvement in an international project to validate and legitimate an idea or proposal that may previously have had little support. I refer to this involvement as “international legitimation,” and I argue that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project shows that delegates who took this approach may have achieved the most long-term success in that their inclusion of little-known provisions or concepts in the international outputs of the BEPS Project ended up leading to these provisions and concepts being adopted by countries around the world.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document