EU Public Hearing on FATCA

Victoria Ferauge alerted me to the EU public hearing on FATCA coming up this Tuesday, 28 May from 3:30-5pm (Central European Std Time), which is 9:30 am Eastern Standard.  Victoria says:

Given my experience with the OECD, I wanted to be very sure this time around that "public" meant real people could attend. So I sent an email to MEP Sophie in't Veld (many thanks to Mark who passed along her email address).  This was her answer:
Dear Mrs Ferauge,
Thank you for your message. The meetings are public, so you can attend freely. The meeting will also be webstreamed via http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/committees/
With kind regards,
Sophie in 't Veld, MEP

It will be interesting to see how this goes and I very much look forward to Victoria's impressions.  By now FATCA's reach is beginning to be understood by a broader audience, but much (well-founded) fear and confusion remains due to the conflation of tax cheats hiding cash in complicated offshore schemes with Americans living abroad who are just trying to live their lives. I do hope that this public meeting will help clarify things.

France ups the ante for EU tax evasion

Cahuzac's denials and ultimate admission about hiding money offshore while serving as the anti-evasion officer-in-chief is very embarrassing for France, and so it should be no surprise to see the rhetoric heat up as new allegations surface about his attempts to move the money around in an ultimately futile attempt at subterfuge. From AFP:

J'ai dit quoi?

France said Sunday [ed: France is a country and cannot speak. It is not so difficult to write "French leaders said", and it is ever so much less distracting.]  it was looking to tighten Europe-wide measures against tax evasion as it scrambles to contain a fraud scandal that has rocked President Francois Hollande's government.

...Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici announced that France would seek to reinforce the exchange of banking information throughout Europe, based on a US ruling in place since 2010 that seeks to fight offshore tax evasion.

Well, the "rule" may have been in place but let us recall that it is not in fact yet in force...three years later, we're still working out the kinks over here, and there are many, many kinks.

More:

"I propose that there be an automatic exchange of information, a European FATCA," Moscovici said on Europe 1 radio.

Hollande's government has been shaken by the scandal, which erupted Tuesday after Cahuzac -- once in charge of tackling tax evasion -- admitted to investigators that he had a foreign account containing some 600,000 euros ($770,000). 

...Critics have been quick to round on Hollande and his ministers, accusing them of either trying to cover up the scandal or of mismanagement for having believed Cahuzac's denials.

...Hollande has tried to contain the fall-out from the scandal, saying he was unaware of the account and announcing Wednesday that a new law would be submitted within weeks that will establish greater control over ministers' wealth. 

The law would also ban any elected representative found guilty of tax fraud or corruption from holding any form of public office.

Query whether there would be enough people left to run the world if every country made this same pledge.

Who is to blame for Starbucks-style tax dodging?

The answer is "government" if you believe the Telegraph, from an opinion by "Richard Emerton, Head of Board Practice at Korn/Ferry Whitehead Mann" (an executive recruiting firm). He's enthusiastic about tax competition: the kind that will keep European companies "competitive" on a "level playing field" by lowering their taxes on purpose, and he's keen to blame government alone for any failure of tax policy to date, e.g. the kind of failure that led to the public shaming of Starbucks and friends.

I agree with Emerton when he says stop blaming the companies (alone) for failing to pay taxes when this is the system that has been deliberately set up to meet them. But let us not forget that the rules have long been written collaboratively amongst government and business interests with virtually no civil society oversight. Once again, multinationals have the best tax system money can buy. Emerton does forget to mention that part, and goes too far in shifting the blame to government alone. Excerpts:

...The UK Government has done a good job in creating a tax system that encourages businesses to set up in Britain and the Chancellor has made it clear he wants international businesses to operate here. It is therefore important he does all he can to prevent European politics from perverting his well-intentioned efforts to look at the problem from an international perspective.  

What strikes me as counter-productive about the debates that have taken place over the likes of Starbucks and Google is the anti-business rhetoric from many politicians in the search for public approval. A degree of anger from the public may be understandable, but is it directed at the right targets? Korn/Ferry’s latest “Boardroom Pulse” survey of FTSE 100 chairmen suggests that business leaders think not.

Not sure what that survey asked, but let's assume it was something on the order of, "do you enjoy being publicly pilloried for doing your best to exploit every means of tax reduction your government generously makes available to you?" And the follow up question ought to have been (but probably was not) "Do you enjoy public scrutiny of your constant attempts to influence tax policy at every level of governance in order to achieve that generosity of spirit on the part of lawmakers?" To which the answer would no doubt have likewise been a resounding "business leaders think not." Emerton goes on:

While agreeing that the public has a right to be angry, many respondents felt that dissatisfaction should be directed towards the tax legislation and those in charge of it, rather than the companies observing it.Indeed, it is governments that have failed to modernise international tax legislation in decades, despite the wholesale changes that have taken place in the way businesses operate across borders. 

Oh, but Mr. Emerton, you failed to define a key term here: "those in charge of it." I mean, it's not like the companies that help write the law are shy about it. That is, after all, what organizations like the BIAC and the ICC are for, and if you don't know what the BIAC or ICC are, well, you're not trying hard enough to understand international tax. Look also for example at any number of marketing brochures by the likes of the big four. They are not hiding their influence, they are selling it as a product. Here's one by KPMG that I just happened to come across yesterday:

Our professionals have been directly involved in writing and reviewing the applicable Treasury regulations ... which govern tax-free separations."

You will come across this kind of claim all the time if you do any work at all in tax, so it is disingenuous at best to fail to mention industry influence as a major aspect of tax lawmaking at the national and international levels. But Mr. Emerton moves along quickly to make hay of the old adage that every one has a right to minimize their taxes and for company directors this has become a duty:

The chairmen we surveyed pointed out that company directors have a fiduciary duty to minimise tax bills, providing they are acting in an ethical manner and are not inviting legal risks.

That's a pretty vague provided, and a big weight to carry for fiduciary law. Emerton hammers it home:

Which raises a fundamental question stemming from the tax issue – should the primary duty of a company’s board and senior management be to its shareholders, or to the wider moral and social concerns of the public?

Notice this is assumed to be an either/or and not a both, and it's also committing the false dilemma fallacy. But having committed, we must have follow-through:

The chairmen we talked to were divided. Yes, business leaders have a duty to drive value for their shareholders. And yes, businesses also have a duty to act responsibly as members of wider society. It is the responsibility of the leaders of these businesses to strike a balance and most of them make significant efforts to do so. Inevitably, sometimes they get this balance wrong, but attacking them for trying to drive shareholder value while playing by the rules of the game will solve little. A better focus of our energies is to ensure that international tax laws are strengthened by the regulatory framework governing businesses, allowing them to focus on achieving long-term sustainable value for shareholders and for society. However, policymakers must ensure that this isn’t achieved at the expense of a level playing field for businesses across the world, not just one part of it.

The author channels every "we paid all the tax that is legally due" defense ever given in the face of public pressure against tax dodging. He also invokes the "level playing field" metaphor, which is always invoked for every destructive tax policy that was ever invented in response to every other destructive tax policy that was ever invented. So three cheers for tax industry rhetoric, bandied about in any tax policy dialogue to make sure no one thinks too hard about the systemic choices at issue here.

Score ten points to Mr. Emerton in pointing out that blame for tax dodging rests in a legal system that has been specifically designed to encourage it. But take away nine points for failing to mention the big part business plays in constantly perpetuating that kind of design. Then take away two more points for failing to mention that some things only look like dutiful tax minimization until the tax authority figures out what you are doing, and then they are clearly tax evasion. Cf Dow, Ernst & Young, and Jenkins & Gilchrist tax partners, and that's all in just one week.

That puts the column in the negative territory, which is right about where the author appears to think that the tax liabilities of fiduciary-duty-abiding corporate managers ought to keep their companies' tax burdens.

US fights EU on data privacy law, says EU should respect US right to regulate

For the life of me I cannot understand the FT's headline, which reads "Brussels fights US data privacy push."  No, it's the US sending a team of lobbyists to fight against EU regulation--the penultimate sentence of the article even labels this "aggressive lobbying."

Why are the US lobby troops going into battle? Because the EU seeks to impose a fine of 2% of global annual revenues for any company, anywhere in the world, that violates the data rights accorded to EU citizens. US lobbyists and a sympathetic administration seem all too eager to push other countries to ease up on their regulatory burdens on US companies, so it is not surprising to see them in full force against the EU parliament here. But this effort is especially rich given that it comes at the very moment that the US is seeking to impose a fine of 30% on any company, anywhere in the word, that violates its own data sharing requirements. From the story:

Viviane Reding, EU commissioner for justice, said that the EU was determined to respond decisively to any attempts by US lobbyists – many working for large tech groups such as Google and Facebook – to curb the EU data protection law.

“Data protection is a fundamental right in Europe which is clearly enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Whilst this may not be the case in other parts of the world, one thing is clear: if companies want to tap into the European market they have to apply European standards.” 

Ms Reding’s firm approach is likely to spark a diplomatic battle between Brussels and Washington, which has actively been trying to water down the EU’s tough new privacy legislation by handing US companies a de facto exemption from it. 

“Europe, the United States and other democracies around the world share many of the same values,” said William Kennard, US ambassador to the EU at a conference on European data protection and privacy. “We need to accept that each of these democracies has the right to choose whatever legal framework is suited best for them to defend and protect those values.”

Translation: respect our sovereign authority to write the laws we want to write to regulate our companies; don't use sanctions or threat of sanctions to force our companies to abide by your laws.  Or, do that to other countries, but give us an exemption because we're good guys that share your values.  Further:

US tech companies are trying to shield themselves from the legislation as they argue that it would be unfair for them to be subject to EU laws that are too stringent and could result in expensive administrative burdens and hefty fines for errant companies.

So here we have a US ambassador stating the cause for US companies that complain of the "unfairness" of stringent and expensive compliance costs backed by hefty penalties for noncompliance. The EU's position is, we are trying to protect our people wherever they go in the global market. The world is our jurisdiction to the extent it impacts the people we call "ours," and we aim to protect our people.

Are we not coming to a place where it is becoming obvious that global markets cannot peacefully co-exist with autonomous states?  Not one world government at all but instead an impenetrable mass of overlapping and conflicting regulatory states, a venn diagram of massive and chaotic proportions, and no possible way for anyone to comply with all of it.  Stock tip: invest in data compliance companies, they might be the most important drivers of the global economy in the near future.

Germany rejects Swiss Rubik deal...again

Also from Tax Analysts [again, gated]:

The upper house of the German parliament (Bundesrat) has again voted to reject the agreement with Switzerland aimed at taxing the undeclared assets of German taxpayers. 

This was the Rubik deal: basically, Switzerland won't share any information on individual accounts but will collect withholding taxes and pay them over. Here's a short explanation with a horrid graphic. I haven't discussed the deals much here, but it's had lots of play over on TJN [shorter and more to the point here]--it's a pretty wacky deal, really. I mean, how do you keep anyone honest in terms of withholding and paying over the "right amount" of tax if you can't pry any info from them?  From Tax Analysts:

The agreement was similar to one reached between Switzerland and the United Kingdom. It called for a one-time charge on all undeclared assets held in Switzerland as well as an ongoing withholding tax on income earned in undeclared accounts. The agreement also would have allowed German tax authorities to make a limited number of information requests that would not require the level of detail expected for standard treaty requests. 

Social Democratic Party lawmakers have long objected to the agreement, saying it was too lenient and that tax evaders should not be allowed to remain anonymous.

I take it that the deal was little more than an end run around the European Savings Directive. Certainly with Switzerland talking FATCA with the US it's hard to imagine any country in Europe settling for Rubik's weak tea.

Exit taxes and human mobility

An interesting article in Tax Analysts [gated] talks about exit taxes (taxes imposed on assets when a person or entity migrates to another nation) as an impediment to human mobility. I'd say yes, exit taxes do impede mobility, and whether and when they are justified is debatable and under-studied. But there's no universally recognized human right to mobility across national borders, as we well know. (There should be, of course, but that's a discussion for another day).

Instead, every country has high barriers to entry, some more onerous than others, and many have high barriers to exit, some more onerous than others. The US is high on both sides. Many people want to come in and are denied the chance; many others want to leave and can't escape the clutches. It's an odd world.

In any event, the Dutch exit tax has run into trouble becuase Europe has created a right to mobility within the EU zone, via the "freedom of establishment," under article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The ECJ deemed the Dutch exit tax a violation of that freedom in Commission v. Netherlands (C-301/11), saying that while an exit tax may be justified to ensure a balanced allocation of taxing rights between member states, the Dutch obligation to immediately pay the exit tax was "disproportional." Tax Analysts explains:

Under Dutch tax law, when a taxpayer operating a business moves its place of management to another country, including another EU or European Economic Area member state, the taxpayer becomes subject to a tax assessment for the (deemed) capital gain upon exit. The tax is imposed on the unrealized profits (for example, goodwill, hidden reserves, and tax reserves) attributable to that business. 

The exit tax rules apply both to legal entities and to individuals that relocate their businesses' place of effective management from the Netherlands to another country. 

...As could be expected, in its January 31 decision, the ECJ referred to its previous decision in National Grid Indus. That case concerned Dutch exit tax imposed on a company that relocated its place of effective management from the Netherlands to the United Kingdom. The ECJ approved of the concept of exit taxes because of the need to ensure a balanced allocation of taxing rights between member states. However, a "balanced allocation measure" of this type must satisfy the proportionality test, and the ECJ found the immediate payment obligation disproportional. Because the cross-border relocation exposed the taxpayer to a cash flow disadvantage that would not have existed if the relocation had been domestic, the ECJ deemed the immediate taxation of the unrealized (foreign exchange) gains under some circumstances to be in violation of the TFEU principle of freedom of establishment. 

...This judgment comes as no surprise, as both the state secretary of finance (through the above policy statement) and the lower house of the Dutch parliament (through a draft bill) had already recognized this restriction in domestic law. On December 4, 2012, the lower house approved a bill of law concerning the deferral of exit tax. ... After the bill of law is approved by the upper house (which is expected in early 2013), the new rules will take effect retroactively from November 29, 2011 (the date of the ECJ decision in National Grid Indus). 

The Dutch parliament has drafted a bill to allow for deferral on a retroactive basis and the authors conclude that hopefully, a lesson has been learned. For those outside the EU zone, of course, there is no great comfort to be had but this is another interesting development on the connection between the state and the individual in a world featuring ever-increasing mobility.

FATCA will/will not work: discuss

TJN ran two stories recently on FATCA's impact on tax competition. Which is right?

Story #1 says Austria and Luxembourg "may be forced to abandon banking secrecy because, in agreeing to implement FATCA with the US:

"EU member states could impose [automatic information exchange] on these two recalcitrant jurisdictions by invoking the 'most favoured nation' clause, explains Pascal Saint-Amans of the OECD."

 EU Directive 2011/16/EU contains a most favoured nation clause: if a Member State provides wider cooperation to a third country than that provided for under the directive it may not refuse such wider cooperation to another Member State that requests it on its own behalf."

So if these countries provide automatic information exchange to the U.S., then they are not allowed to refuse it to other E.U. member states.

TJN says thanks to FATCA, "the all-important amendments to the EU Savings Tax Directive are therefore likely to be passed this year, and Swiss efforts to torpedo this transparency initiative will have failed." Conclusion: FATCA will turn into its ultimately goal, a global tracing system under which no one can hide behind bank secrecy to evade their taxes, what some like to call GATCA.

Story #2 says Hong Kong is set to grab all the tax haven business:

Hong Kong just became an even better place for company directors who value secrecy. The Chinese territory, already ranked fourth in a list of 71 "secrecy jurisdictions" by the Tax Justice Network, has proposed new laws making it harder to identify the directors of non-public companies.

TJN says in response: "Tax havens. As we have said - this is where real power in the world increasingly lies. And the race to the bottom on secrecy continues apace."

If FATCA will shut Austria and Luxembourg as tax havens, why not Hong Kong?

The IGAs don't, I think, really explain things: in the absence of IGAs, FATCA is supposed to apply directly to all foreign financial institutions.  So it is the IGAs that would change the scene on the EU directive.  These agreements, let's be fair, really don't have a single thing to do with the FATCA statute from a legal perspective.  In other words, no one in the world needs FATCA to order into an agreement on automatic information exchange, countries could have (and in some cases have already--US, Canada) agreed on automatic info exchange years, decades, and even a century ago (which in fact they also did, see some of US early agreements).  FATCA is just a very big stick that is forcing Luxembourg and Austria to so agree, thus apparently opening themselves up to similar agreements throughout the EU.  Score one for dreams of multilateralism, but only among rich countries.

But Hong Kong, poised to take over, shows why FATCA can't get us to GATCA, i.e., there will be no worldwide information exchange, and the world is still safe for tax cheats. The reason for this lies in s S. 1471(f), which reads:

Subsection (a) shall not apply to any payment to the extent that the beneficial owner of such payment is—

(1) any foreign government, any political subdivision of a foreign government, or any wholly owned agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing...

(3) any foreign central bank of issue...

Translation seems to be: no big stick on payments that go to state-owned financial institutions.  That, I take it, describes China's entire financial system, including Hong Kong and Singapore.  Tell me if I am wrong about this, because I truly want to know.  If I am right, then FATCA moves tax havens around on the board but doesn't actually end the gravy train for tax cheats.

If that in turn is true, then the application of onerous compliance and filing issues on americans living in high tax countries to try to hunt down tax cheats who will not even be there seems particularly troublesome.

US to Europe: our airlines won't obey your tax laws

The EU is trying to take the high road on pollution, but the US insists on the low road:

The Senate unanimously passed a bill on Saturday that would shield U.S. airlines from paying for their carbon emissions on European flights, pressuring the European Union to back down from applying its emissions law to foreign carriers.

...Republican Senator John Thune, a sponsor of the measure, said it sent a "strong message" to the EU that it cannot impose taxes on the United States. 

The aviation industry is happy of course; as the EU was already considering backing down, "to avert a trade war with major economic powers such as China and the United States, allowing time to forge a global agreement on climate charges for the aviation industry."  But that's waiting for Godot: "attempts to address this problem on a global basis have been festering for more than 15 years in ICAO and the United States is at the centre of the problem," according to Transport & Environment, an NGO based in Brussels.

In the meantime, I'm not sure I understand how the U.S. can simply declare that its airline industry can ignore the law in Europe.

Tax transparency: EU development

Richard Murphy points to a press release from Global Witness regarding developments in country-by-country reporting for the extractive industries in the EU:

Global Witness welcome today's European Parliamentary committee vote requiring that EU oil, gas, mining and timber companies publish their payments to governments to help deter corruption.  

The vote brings Europe one step closer to shining a light on payments worth billions of Euros by extractive companies to governments, which have previously remained secret, enabling corrupt government officials to siphon off or misappropriate natural resource revenues.

...The text also contains thresholds for payments that align with similar US 'sunshine' rules for US listed extractives companies set at the end of August.

...a final version of the directive goes to all MEPs for a European Parliamentary vote later in the year.

Arlene McCarthy MEP, the Parliament Rapporteur on the Transparency law, said after the vote in the legal affairs committee: "With this vote we now have a strong negotiating mandate to force the Member States and Commission to accept the Parliament's amendments, putting us on track to create strong global transparency standards, with equivalent rules in the EU and the US." 

More at the link.  

US continues campaign against EU airline tax

The US will host a meeting in order to "pil[e] further pressure on the EU to back down and the international community to find a global solution..." to greenhouse gas emissions.  From Reuters.  "Finding a global solution" is of course a euphemism for "doing nothing."  That's because of course the EU tax is a step toward a global solution, and it would be effectively global if the US adopted it.  Instead, the plan here is to gather officials from similarly opposing countries including India and China--a "coalition of the unwilling"--to agree to retaliatory measures against the EU.  Behind every diplomatic effort is a lobbyist:

Airlines will not have to pay for the permits until next year, and are pressing their governments to agree on a global deal before then.   

Russ Bailey, a senior attorney for the Air Line Pilots Association, a U.S. lobby group, said time is running out for EU ETS opponents to come up with a viable alternative. 

"There is a sense of urgency because airlines have to start paying next April. We hope there will be a resolution that becomes clear enough before then," he told Reuters Point Carbon."  

I doubt that Bailey has in mind a resolution that every country will adopt the EU system, even though that would be crystal clear as far as resolutions go.  The global deal sought here is reversion to the status quo, of that there can be little doubt.  

Austerity vs the Social Contract

Yves Smith has a post on how austerity is being used to destroy the social contract:

Greece has been told to reduce health care from its current 10% of GDP to below 6%. Imagine what would happen if the US were told to cut its medical expenditures by over 40% in a one or two year period. And if the IMF boot were put on the US neck, and we were told to get medical spending down to 6% of GDP, we'd need to reduce it by 2/3.

In a Real News Network interview, Rob Johnson of the Roosevelt Institute describes further how the EuroCrisis has become a tool to break the social contract:

More discussion and a lot of commentary at the link.

US pressure on EU tax

Will the EU airline emissions tax prevail, or will it fall under pressure from the US?   Opinio juris points us to this story:

(Reuters) – Senate lawmakers and the Obama administration on Wednesday stiffened their opposition to a European law that targets emissions from commercial jetliners and applied new pressure on Brussels and the United Nations to resolve global concerns. 

...The issue is especially important to the United States, whose airlines have a mature and lucrative transatlantic business. American Airlines, United Airlines and Delta Air Lines are looking to grow international travel.

The tax is described as a fee for permits to fly to and from EU airports.  That's not a tax at all really.  It's a toll charge.  Don't want to pay the toll?  Don't fly to or from Europe.  Why are toll charges for roads, or consumption taxes for that matter, perfectly uncontroversial but toll charges for flying a cardinal sin?  The answer is plainly that the airline industry wants to continue externalizing the costs of pollution on the public and the EU tax makes that harder for them to do, so the answer is to seek help from US government to stop that happening.  I call it a clear breach of the government's fiduciary to duty to the polity at large to help industry accomplish this goal (I've been reading Evan Fox-Decent).

Ku says: "The ECJ has held that the EU tax does not violate international treaties or customary law.  This seems plausible to me, but I wonder if the political pushback the EU is getting will ultimately force it to back off.  I'm betting yes."

I would like to think the EU can resist the pressure, but I fear that Ku is making the correct bet.  US industry lobbyists are very well funded and organized and have proved time and time again their ability to get US lawmakers to exert pressure on other countries to change their laws to suit US business interests.  In the case of India's controversial post-Vodafone tax reform, the lobbyists might not have been successful in preventing passage of the law, but they might have prevailed anyway if the law has little effect in practice as this story suggests.  The game theorists out there can comment on the strategy behind pushing forward with a formal law under the assumption that enforcement will be nil.  Sounds like Dodd-Frank, and it seems like an all-too common strategy for politicians, especially in tax, maybe in other regulatory areas involving lots of complexity and trickery.

One additional aspect of the Reuters story is that Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is calling the EU an outlier, acting alone and unilaterally, and that the US needs to see "real signs of flexibility from the EU."  No mention of why they should be entitled to hold such expectations, why the EU should not be allowed to govern itself.  But a threat if "real signs of flexibility" are not seen:  "The administration has threatened unspecified action if a compromise is not reached, but LaHood said no decision had been made on possible steps.  He said discussions within the administration, however, are centered on the possibility of the United States filing a formal complaint to the United Nations."

After trying to stop the UN from doing something it doesn't like, the US might like the UN to help it stop the EU from doing something else it doesn't like.  I thought the US wanted out of the UN: it's a threat to freedom, it's neither wise nor neutral, etc.  There's a song for this kind of relationship.

EU fin trans tax

The EU proposes an FTT of 0.1% for shares and bonds and 0.01% for derivatives, after a couple of years of debate:

Parliament has been calling for a financial transaction tax for close to two years and the Commission tabled a legislative proposal for one late in 2011.  The latest Eurobarometer survey shows that 66% of Europeans favour such a tax.

It's designed to slow down speculative trading of course and includes this compliance measure:

The resolution also raises the stakes to make evading the FTT potentially far more expensive than paying it. Taking the UK stamp duty approach, the text links payment of the FTT to the acquisition of legal ownership rights. This means that if the buyer of a security did not pay the FTT, he or she would not be legally certain of owning that security.  As FTT rates would be low, this risk is expected to far outweigh any potential financial gain from evasion.

Like buying a car, you can't get a license plate unless you pay your sales taxes; here, no tax, no title.  But compliance is complicated, is it not, by existing rules that allow for confidentiality of ownership and chains of ownership through trusts etc outside the jurisdiction?  I'm not sure the stamp duty method can cope with this.

Council of Europe: Stop Tax Havens with Corp Tax Transparency

From Europe, we see movement on corporate tax transparency in the form of a council resolution:

Strasbourg, 27.04.2012 – The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has demanded a series of steps to end what it calls “massive tax avoidance, evasion and fraud” caused by secrecy jurisdictions, tax havens and offshore financial centres. 

Adopting a resolution ... the parliamentarians said tackling global distortions due to harmful or predatory tax practices – including bank secrecy, lack of transparency and effective public oversight, regulatory dumping, predatory tax arrangements and abusive accounting techniques within multinational companies – was “a moral duty” because they drain public finances and cause serious harm to the public interest. 

The resolution calls for the following corporate tax disclosure items:

• country-by-country reporting by multinationals wherever they operate, across all business sectors
• a ban on anonymous accounts, off-balance-sheet bookkeeping and bearer shares
• disclosure of the ultimate beneficial ownership of all business entities, notably trusts and funds
• moving towards the automatic exchange of all tax information

With this kind of disclosure, that NYT story on Apple would not be so maddeningly imprecise.


h/t Richard Murphy, for whom this is "another campaign win"--quite so.  

Austerity in Two Charts

A couple of recent Krugman columns dealing with austerity are of interest.

this one from yesterday, focuses on the US and shows how public sector employment has fallen under Obama save the census spike; Krugman wants to show that while the U.S. is not the focus of much of the talk about austerity, there are austerity measures being implemented here:

and this one from the day before, focusing on Europe and showing a growth/austerity plot:

The mixed messages in his comments illustrate the difficulty in reading that chart, and one of his readers helpfully points us to this xkcd depiction.  But I think he is showing that greater austerity leads to lower GDP growth, so that more austerity translates to a longer/worse recession.  

On austerity

On the pain in Spain, and in Greece and in the Czech Republic and in the Netherlands...

And here is an interview with Amartya Sen on austerity and democracy:

Question: Professor Sen, do you have the impression that economists and economic policy makers are learning the right lessons from the most severe economic and financial crisis since the Great Depression? 

Answer: I don’t think that at all. I’m quite disappointed by the nature of economic thinking as well as social thinking that connects economics with politics. 

What’s going wrong? 

Several features of policy making are worrying, particularly in Europe. The first is a democratic failure. An economic policy has to be ultimately something that people understand, appreciate and support. That’s what democracy is all about. The old idea of “no taxation without representation” is not there in Europe at the moment. 

...If you are living in a southern country, in Greece, and Portugal and Spain, the electorates views are much less important than the views of the bankers, the rating agencies and the financial institutions. One result of European monetary integration, without a political integration, is that the population of many of these countries has no voice. Economics is de-linked from the political base. That I think is a mistake and it goes completely against the big European movement that began in the 40s and fostered the idea of a democratic, united Europe. . .

The Lobbyists are Winning: Corporate Tax Transparency edition

The activist-led movement to increase multinational tax disclosure is proving to be a full-employment program for natural resource industry lobbyists.  The money and energy available for fighting against transparency seems limitless.  We have seen the effects of this in the US, where Dodd-Frank's section on extractive industry transparency has been completely undermined and consistently sidelined as a result of lobbyists.  We have seen the effects in Canada, where the industry managed to kill transparency legislation all together by means of a tidal wave of lobbying by the energy industry there.  Today the FT tells a similar tale unfolding in the EU.

There is a perhaps not obvious but very pernicious undercurrent in this transparency contest.  It is that in each country, lobbyists are using the success of the lobbyists in the other countries to bolster the cause for their own success.  No matter we may like to think about the nature of tax policy as somehow a sacred and protected space for purely national politics, that hallowed chamber of sovereign entitlement, it's clear that lobbying is fully globalized and therefore tax policy is, too.

Today's FT story provides a case in point.  First, the FT notes that the EU's work on transparency was prompted by the inclusion of new corporate tax information disclosure standards for resource extractors (think oil, gas, etc):

The European Commission last year proposed a scheme that allowed for payments for specific projects to be tracked, with reporting requirements that broadly matched the US approach enacted in the Dodd-Frank Act.

Just by putting the possibility of corporate tax transparency into legislation, even though it could not and still cannot be implemented without further action through federal regulations, Dodd-Frank put extractive industries transparency on the map of legislative possibilities, and therefore cleared some space for the policy to spread to other nations (I analyze this more thoroughly in my forthcoming book chapter on global tax activism).

The FT reports that industry in the EU responded by protesting the new rules as unnecessary, onerous, etc.--in other words, a set of self-serving arguments with which those of us who have been following this issue in the US and Canada have become all too familiar and most of which do not hold up under scrutiny.  But lobbying works very well, and so the EU is considering a much less transformative version of the proposal, one that would not require very much disclosure if any at all.

The FT closes the circle by concluding that:

If the compromise passes in Brussels, it will bolster industry arguments that the US rules being drawn up to implement Dodd-Frank should be watered down to match the EU approach and ensure a level playing field.

The idea that tax policy is in any sense a purely national project could not be more clearly debunked.  The EU's imminent adoption of a more lax standard arms lobbyists in the US with a fresh round of anti-transparency ammunition.  Their ability to use this to further the anti-transparency cause in the US will in turn re-invigorate lobbying in Europe and elsewhere.  This will continue until transparency is uniformly killed, unless the pro-transparency lobby gains a similarly viral foothold from which to reinvigorate the campaign for transparency.  It is an international game with fascinating network aspects and effects.  Too bad then that in the meantime, a policy that really ought to be implemented, not least because it is in fact written into the rule of law here in the US at least, will be stalled indefinitely.

On a related note, it is worth recognizing that a new euphemism is emerging in international tax policy that is steadily gaining ground through casual and unexamined use.  That is the idea that this or that tax policy is necessary to "ensure a level playing field." Both sides of the transparency issue have used the term to support completely opposing goals in the past, so it would seem that the term means very little.  That means a translation is in order when people use the term to score political points.

Let us be clear then that when used by opponents of transparency, "ensuring a level playing field" is what people say when they mean that the lobbyists are winning.  That is because a level playing field would quite obviously exist when the market has full information--that is, when all multinational companies engage in full disclosure of their tax payments in all countries, and all stakeholders--shareholders, taxpayers, governments, and watchdog groups--have the same information about how generous tax policies support industry all over the world (this is how the pro-transparency crown use the term).  When what is sought is a market with little or preferably no publicity of this kind of information, "the level playing field" means something very close to the current status quo--the product of all that successful lobbying to date.

OECD vs. UN and the making of soft tax law

TJN recently ran a guest post on the UN's attempt to build an institutional rival to the OECD for international tax policy.  The UN's work is currently confined to a committee, and the G77 would like it "upgraded to an intergovernmental entity."  The OECD and the EU oppose.  The post gives an interesting account of the issues and interests at stake.

Banks vs Transaction Taxes

The EU is contemplating a financial transactions tax, with two thirds of Europeans in support and the banking lobby against.  From a recent article in Der Spiegel:

Speaking directly after Schäuble, Luxembourg Finance Minister Luc Frieden showed why the lobbyists, and not democracy, were going to win out on that day. "We have to think about the competitiveness of the financial industry," he said. The small country between the Mosel and Sauer Rivers earns 24 percent of its gross domestic product with banking products. 

"There are many good reasons to exempt the investment industry from a tax on the financial sector," the Association of the Luxembourg Fund Industry had told the country's finance minister before the meeting. In addition to Luxembourg, the Maltese finance minister also voiced concerns. The banking system is the blood veins of the global economy and must be treated with caution, he said.

The article discusses the predicted effects of broader or narrower transaction taxes on the European and American markets, and concludes:

It is considered certain -- and desirable -- that a general tax would change practices in the financial industry. The European Commission, the EU's executive, forecasts that 15 percent of securities and 75 of derivative deals would be eliminated in the future because, with the new tax, they would simply not be profitable anymore.

Critics of the financial system, like London economist Paul Woolley, view this as the most important benefit of a financial transaction tax. "It's critical that we increase the cost of potentially dangerous transactions that are also highly questionable from a social standpoint."

The EU continues to negotiate over the tax without the benefit of Britain's participation, as David Cameron is solidly against:  ''I will block it unless the rest of the world all agreed at the same time that we were all going to have some sort of tax.'' 

Dan Shaviro discusses the merits of a financial transactions tax versus a financial activities tax here, or you can use a short cut and just watch him talk about it.