How Starbucks Lost its Social License--And Paid £20 Million to Get it Back

I have a new column in Tax Notes International [gated] today, pdf available here, about Starbucks's £20 million promise to the UK after a firestorm of controversy erupted last year when it was revealed to have paid no taxes despite 14 years of franchise expansion in the country. 

Abstract:

UK Uncut's logo for Starbucks Protests

It is well accepted that corporations require various legal licenses to do business in a state. But Starbucks’ recent promise to pay more tax to the UK regardless of its legal obligation to do so confirms that businesses also need what corporate social responsibility experts call a “social license to operate”. Companies may now in effect be required to pay some indeterminable amount of tax in order to safeguard public approval of their ongoing operations. This suggests that even as the OECD moves forward on a project to salvage the international tax system from its tattered, century-old remains, the tax standards articulated by governments will no longer be enough to guarantee safe passage for multinationals. Instead, companies may have to deal with a much more volatile, and fickle, tax policy regime: one developed on the fly by public opinion.

As always, I welcome comments.

Taxcast on unilateral and multilateral approaches to the problem of base erosion

I contributed to this month's Tackle Tax Haven's podcast, together with the very interesting Krishen Mehta, formerly of PWC and now of Asia Initiatives where he works on tax policy issues. This month's topics included the OECD's report on the base erosion project and what countries can do unilaterally while they are waiting (potentially for a very long time) for multilateral change. Have a listen.

Quebec's governance crisis continues: mayor who resigned under fraud charge gets $267K severance

There is something seriously broken in a governance system that produces this result, as reported by  the CBC:

The City of Montreal has confirmed that former mayor Michael Applebaum has received more than $267,000 in severance pay. 

Applebaum resigned from office after being arrested in June on 14 charges including fraud and conspiracy.

City spokesman Gonzalo Nunez said the law governing severance payouts does not take into account the reason for the end of time in office, except in the case of death.

Mr. Applebaum and Mr. Tremblay should both disgorge their severance pay of course, and while they are at it, why not all the pay they have ever received from the taxpayers of Quebec, in restitution for abuse of office. But that's not what the law requires. More evidence that we are experiencing a serious governance crisis in Quebec.

Manal Corwin, now at KPMG, to discuss Reputational Risk Deriving from the Tax Transparency Movement

Fresh out of Treasury, Manal Corwin and some of her new/old colleagues will present a webcast next Tuesday on Tax Transparency and OECD Initiative on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting:

KPMG's Tax Governance Institute will host a webcast that addresses the implications of tax transparency and the potential impact of the OECD initiative on base erosion and profit shifting. Board and audit committee members, CFOs, tax directors and other business professionals interested in attending the program – one in a series of KPMG presentations on this timely topic – can register at: www.taxgovernanceinstitute.com.

The webcast will focus on "the debate over the shift of taxable business income out of the United States and high-tax jurisdictions around the world and into low or no-tax jurisdictions, and the resulting issue of tax base erosion." I'm not sure if debate is the right word there.  Is there a debate about these two phenomena existing as a factual matter? I think no.  Is there a debate about the appropriateness of such shifting and base erosion? I think decidedly yes.

Interestingly, however, KPMG suggests this is a debate about neither the existence nor the appropriateness of profit shifting and base erosion, but rather it is specifically about transparency, namely, the extent to which the public will gain a right to know about the existence and legal sanction of these practices:

The global debate on tax transparency has sparked both public interest and concerns among many companies, and the spotlight will grow brighter in coming weeks as the OECD prepares to deliver its coordinated action plan on base erosion and profit shifting and the European Commission moves forward with announced plans to address issues around tax fairness. With potentially significant changes in future tax obligations and reputational risks at stake, senior executives and board members at multinational companies should find this webcast, and those that will follow, especially useful as they formulate how their organizations should respond to the debate and possible outcomes.

[Emphasis mine.]  This statement is from Brett Weaver, who is described as "tax partner in KPMG's International Corporate Services practice and the firm's partner-in-charge of Tax Transparency" and a member of KPMG's "Tax Transparency Steering Committee," along with Corwin, who is described by KPMG as:

national leader of KPMG's International Corporate Services practice, principal-in-charge of International Tax Policy in the firm's Washington National Tax practice, and former deputy assistant secretary for Tax Policy for International Tax Affairs in the U.S. Treasury Department and U.S. delegate/vice chair to the OECD's Committee on Fiscal Affairs. 

The other participant on the webcast will be Philip Kermode, "director of the Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union of the European Commission".

It seems very clear to me that the "reputational risk" Weaver identifies is going to be something corporate tax managers and their legal & accounting advisers will be forced to price in going forward. The last paragraph illuminates this:

...the [KPMG] Tax Governance Institute ... provides opportunities for board members, corporate management, stakeholders, government representatives and others to share knowledge regarding the identification, oversight, management, and appropriate disclosure of tax risk.

I think it is safe to attribute the creation of reputational risk (or what some might call an internalizing of a cost that heretofore has been externalized thanks to strong corporate tax confidentiality laws), as well as any potential that may currently exist for systemic change to occur in the OECD's approach to the taxation of multinationals, to the international tax activist movement. As a result this should be a very informative webcast.

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.

Why It Would Be Great if Congress Was Forced to Buy Their Own Health Insurance at Full Cost

From FDL, highlights:

Making Congress and their staffers pay the full cost of their insurance is fine with me because that is how the law will treat millions of middle class families. All members of Congress and most staffers will have salaries high enough they would not qualify for subsidies on the exchanges. If Congress is going to make regular people with similar salaries buy insurance out-of-pocket than that should be good enough for Congressional aides.

I also have no problem with the law forcing Congressional staffers to lose their relatively good insurance because that is a long term goal of the law for everyone. The excise tax on “Cadillac coverage” was designed to stop employers from providing good insurance, covering a large share of your premium, and/or getting them to drop offering coverage altogether.  What might happen to Congress is very similar to what Congress intended to happen to others. 

Finally, if Congress is worried their staffers can’t afford to buy insurance out-of-pocket they can just use the money Congress would have spent on their premium and raise their salaries by the corresponding amount. The financing of the law was based on the theory that a dollar in benefits is exactly the same as a dollar in salary. The theory, put forward by Obama’s economists, advisers and the Joint Tax Committee is that if you force companies to offer their employees worse insurance, they will increase their wages by an equal amount. This sounds like a perfect opportunity to put the theory to the test.

Have laws apply to lawmakers the same as it applies to the governed, have the law play out as it was designed, and put the underlying economic theory to the test: these seem like common sense ways to make sure that our democratic decision-making structure is working. Unfortunately we have ample evidence that this structure is working better for lawmakers (and lobbyists) all the time, and correspondingly worse for everyone else.  Congress exempting itself from things that won't personally benefit its members is not a new story, and in light of the brazen roll-back of the "Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act" in order to make it easier for members to quietly line their pockets via insider trading, there is ample reason for pessimism.

Still, WAPO has a story about how Congress isn't really trying to exempt itself, just trying to fix some inadvertent writing in the code that caused some unintended consequence that only a few people understand enough to get upset about. A book could be written on that recurring theme.

Corporate tax transparency: Australia's work in progress

Australia is working on transparency and information sharing, and is seeking feedback by April 24 (this Wednesday):

On 4 February 2013, the Assistant Treasurer announced the Government’s intention to improve the transparency of Australia’s business tax system and that the Government would consider the views of the community in assessing what changes are appropriate. 

The Government seeks your feedback and comments on the issues outlined in this discussion paper. As this paper provides details about how these proposals could be legislated, you may wish to comment on law design as well as policy design issues in your submission. It would assist the consultation process if those stakeholders who have any concerns with the proposals could provide practical examples in their submissions demonstrating the implications of these proposals and how any alternative approaches could operate.

Highlights from the discussion paper:

On 4 February 2013, the Assistant Treasurer announced the Government’s intention to improve the transparency of Australia’s business tax system with a view to introducing necessary legislation later this year. ... 

This paper outlines three proposals that could give effect to this announcement. ...These proposals could complement existing corporate disclosure requirements and enhance the administration and regulation of Australia’s tax system and capital markets. ...

• Transparency of tax payable by large and multinational businesses. 

– The objective of this proposal is to enable the public to better understand the corporate tax system and engage in tax policy debates, as well as to discourage aggressive tax minimisation practices by large corporate entities. 

• Publishing aggregate collections for each Commonwealth tax. 

– The objective of this proposal is to enable better public disclosure of aggregate tax revenue collections, even when the identity of particular entities could potentially be deduced. 

• Enhanced information sharing between Government agencies. 

– The objective of this proposal is to build on existing information sharing arrangements and enable greater information sharing between the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and the Department of the Treasury with respect to foreign acquisition and investment decisions affecting Australia.

Australia's Treasury seeks to consider views from "the community"--not defined so no reason that can't mean the global community.  Address written submissions to: 

General Manager
Tax System Division
The Treasury
Langton Crescent
PARKES ACT 2600

TaxTransparency@treasury.gov.au

Thanks to Miranda Stewart for passing this along.

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.

US to OECD: target your anti-BEPS regime carefully

This is rich. The US wants the OECD to not go overboard on the BEPS thing.  From Tax Analysts [gated], Treasury International Tax Counsel Danielle Rolfes said that the Treasury wants to

"make sure that any suggested solutions are targeted at addressing the source of the problems and don't go beyond the scope of the BEPS project."

We are talking about a country that can't seem to distinguish between an au pair financing a trip to Europe and a billionaire stashing money in a series of hidden offshore accounts. Yet there's more:

...The BEPS project carries a risk of "scope creep," Rolfes said. ... "We want to stay mindful of what BEPS is and make sure that in trying to solve those problems we don't come up with solutions that are broader than necessary or that have other implications, particularly with respect to the allocation of taxing rights between two taxing jurisdictions," she said.

...While Treasury endorses the sense of urgency around the BEPS project and the feeling that the problems must be fixed, Rolfes said that U.S. officials intend to be thoughtful about how the rules should or should not be changed.  

I'm not sure what is meant by being thoughtful. Being thoughtful might mean thinking through what you need to change, how you mean to change it, how you avoid over-breadth and under-breadth at the same time, how much everyone has to spend in order to get the result you seek, and whether what you write as rules can be coherently implemented in practice.

Perhaps Rolfes is worried that if the OECD looks too closely at the allocation of taxing rights between two taxing jurisdictions, the world will see clearly that (1) the US is the most overreaching in this respect given that it taxes on the basis of citizenship and (2) the global North has long arranged the allocation to favor itself at the expense of the global South.  

Maybe it is just that Rolfes does not appreciate the finger pointing at US companies:

"It's not just U.S. companies that engage in BEPS. Moreover, all agree that the BEPS we are primarily concerned with is driven by tax planning that is perfectly legal."

Rolfes called some of the moralizing on this issue "ironic," though I think she means "hypocritical." It might not not sound right for the Treasury to use that word when talking about tax competition, so maybe this is carefully chosen rhetoric:

Rolfes [added]that while much of BEPS income lands in zero-tax jurisdictions, some of the elements of tax laws that enable BEPS are attributable to tax competition that's occurring between the same taxing jurisdictions that are trying to solve BEPS.

"This tax competition itself contributes to BEPS," she said.

She acknowledges that "many of the current international standards, such as those relating to transfer pricing and tax treaties, have been developed over many years by U.S. tax policymakers working with their counterparts in the OECD."  She says "We at Treasury are humbled ...And we want to make sure that any solutions we have are targeted to that problem and not to other problems."

Treasury economist Michael McDonald added that

The BEPS project should clearly undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the possible alternatives...clearly I think if the BEPS project is going to be successful, one has to weigh the benefits of the current [OECD] Transfer Pricing Guidelines, in addition to the costs."

Tax Analysts economist Martin A. Sullivan can't understand why the US is focused on the BEPS thing at all, since Dave Camp has a proposal for switching the U.S. to a territorial system:

"To me, that seems much more important than an OECD initiative. I don't understand how the two are going to work together. If Chairman Camp achieves his goal by the end of the year of putting the entire international tax system up for a vote, shouldn't that be our starting point?"

Rolfes responded that the BEPS project would still matter even if the US changed to territorial, since such a switch would not in any way make profit shifting less an issue. She also had some interesting things to say about participation and influence in tax policymaking via the OECD:

Treasury needs to be engaged in a significant tax policy initiative like BEPS, which would be undertaken by other countries with or without the U.S. ...Having a seat at the OECD table provides the United States the opportunity to be a part of the dialogue and to have an influence on how international tax rules are developed ... [and] other countries are not going to wait for the conclusion of the U.S. Congress's reform debate.

So the US sees the OECD as playing an important role, and one that could have negative impacts on US policymaking choices absent Treasury's involvement. And this exchange shows that at least some at the Treasury are capable of articulating at least a sense of understanding the concept of regulatory overbreadth. But you could interpret these statements as at best tepid support for the OECD's initiative, at worst a foreshadowing of resistance to come. The US torpedoed the OECD's efforts on harmful tax practices, only to come up with the much more expansive and awe-inspiring FATCA on its own. If the US torpedoes BEPS, what will be in store for the taxation of multinationals? It should be a fascinating ride.

Anti-austerity Protestors in Portugal: "Screw the troika, we want our lives back"

Austerity is spreading across the globe like a bad virus, despite the vehement opposition of the general population. In Portugal, thousands of demonstrators have held marches across the country in protest. From Al Jazeera:

Tens of thousands of people filled a Lisbon boulevard during Saturday's protests and headed to the finance ministry carrying placards saying "Screw the troika, we want our lives back". 

The troika is a reference to the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank, the lenders behind the country's financial bailout. 

Many protesters were singing a 40-year-old song linked to a 1974 popular uprising known as the Carnation Revolution. 

Portugal is expected to suffer a third straight year of recession in 2013, with a two percent contraction. The overall jobless rate has grown to a record 17.6 percent. The marches were powered mostly by young people among whom unemployment is close to 40 percent.

 ...After several years of tax increases and welfare cuts, austerity is poised to deepen as the government looks for another $5.2bn to cut over the next two years. The national health service, education, pensioners and government workers are likely to be the hardest hit. The government is locked into debt-cutting measures in return for the $102bn financial rescue set up in 2011.  

More tax hikes and spending cuts are on the way for Portugal: when it comes to the IMF, you must pay your debts regardless of the consequences. That was always the IMF way of course, but when austerity plus regressive taxation was being imposed on impoverished countries with disastrous social and economic results, the global North didn't seem too bothered by it. One protestor in Lisbon is quoted as saying, "This government has left the people on bread and water, selling off state assets for peanuts to pay back debts that were contracted by corrupt politicians to benefit bankers." That scenario is lifted straight out of the IMF's playbook throughout Africa in the 1990s.

IRS brushes aside the constitution to make way for FATCA

In a Tax Notes International article [gated] today, Lee Sheppard discusses remarks about FATCA by Jesse Eggert, Treasury associate international tax counsel, at a March 1 IFA meeting. The most troubling aspect for me comes in the last part, when Sheppard describes a Q&A over the intergovernmental agreements and the IRS rep casually dismisses any constraints on the Treasury's attempt to bind the US with these documents as a matter of international law. There are two main questions here and both answers strike me as deeply problematic. First, there is this:

Can there be an IGA with a country that has no treaty or tax information exchange agreement? Yes, Eggert responded. It would have to be a Model II or nonreciprocal Model I . Amendments would have to be made to add information protections and assistance provisions.

With respect, this does not accord with what we have been given to understand so far about these IGAs. One need only read the preambles to the IGA models and signed agreements and consider the treaty power briefly to see that there is a very large legal difficulty here. As I have said before (and have a feeling I will be saying repeatedly), the Executive Branch cannot simply bind the US to any agreement it wants to without doing violence to a constitutional process that has been expressly laid out and subject to decades of analysis and debate by the country's most preeminent legal minds.

This is why the IRS has been very quietly implying that the IGAs interpret existing treaties. I don't agree on the merits that this could possibly be true, but the IRS needs it to be true because if it is not true, the only alternative is that the IGAs are sole executive agreements entered into by the executive branch with no congressional oversight whatsoever. That puts them on the most precarious legal ground in terms of foreign policy power in the US, and by this statement Eggert pushes them closer in that direction.

Second, there is this:

Does Treasury have authority to make IGAs? Eggert argued that IGAs are within Treasury's statutory authority to make FATCA regulations (section 1471(b)). Treasury and IGA signatories are discussing how to make domestic implementing laws consistent.

Again with all due respect, this just simply is not true as a matter of US law. The executive branch does not have the power to authorize itself to enter into treaties without congressional oversight. It is the constitution that provides the treaty power, and Congress is expressly involved. Congress could have granted the executive specific authority in this case, as it has done in other cases, but it clearly did not do so here. It is not clear what Eggert means by "making domestic implementing laws consistent." Maybe that refers to the domestic laws of treaty partner countries, which will have to change their data privacy laws to accomodate the information sought by the IRS. If so, that has nothing to do with the US. From what we have seen so far, it seems clear that the IRS is treating the IGAs as operational once the other country so indicates it is operational from their perspective (cf Mexico).

Arguing that the authority is implied within Congress' mandate to Treasury to issue regulations under 1471 is blowing a hole through the treaty power. It argues that Congress empowers the Executive Branch with treaty making authority with each and every directive to enact regulations. It makes a farce of the congressional executive agreement process that has been begrudgingly accepted as authentic by most constitutional scholars today. And never mind the old standard, the Article II treaty power. By this logic if the President wants an international agreement--any international agreement of any kind--he never needs to consult the Senate again, he can simply find some reference by the Congress directing his regulators to regulate. If Eggert is right in this assessment, it is not a stretch to see this as the beginning of the end of the Article II treaty ratification process in the United States. In other words if this works, then it's anything goes when it comes to the Executive Branch overriding domestic law with an international agreement.

Finally, I note that one other Q&A Sheppard mentions is also intriguing, though on the surface it seemed uncontroversial:

Existing IGAs will be interpreted to say that countries may choose the definition of an item in the final regulations which came later in time. Treasury will not amend IGAs wholesale when regulations change, Eggert explained.

This may seem benign--it provides flexibility despite the apparently rigid parameters of the documents (which are treaties, after all, and not so easy to just unilaterally alter at whim). But this is in fact very interesting as a legal matter because it quietly moves the world a little closer to yet another US tradition that many people in other countries find odd if not outright incompatible with international law, namely, the treatment of treaties as equal in legal status to other laws, including statutes and case law, so that treaties can be overridden at any time by a new statute or judicial decision. But it goes a further step to include regulations within that overriding scope--where they might not so clearly belong even under US law.

In other words, the IRS is saying that not only does the "last in time" rule apply to IGAs (as they would to any US international agreement), but we'll apply the last in time rule to other countries too (even if under their own laws the treaty would override later-enacted domestic laws); moreover the last-in-time rule is now extended to treasury regulations (a unilateral law that will be used to "interpret" a bilateral agreement, yet another controversial treaty interpretation position), and finally we are going to make it the treaty partner's choice to pick among the regimes to get the best result (which treats treaty partners not as negotiators in a bilateral agreement but rather in the same way as taxpayers subject to an elective regime).

It is getting progressively more difficult to keep up with the sheer volume of violations of laws and norms being undertaken by the IRS in order to get FATCA to work. It is rather disheartening (in the sense of being a scholar who studies legal process as though it matters) to realize that to many or most people involved in this project, all of these violations are just technicalities and semantics getting in the way of a result everyone wants.

What an OECD "public briefing" teaches about the rule of law.

The ACA representative who attended the OECD public briefing on FATCA posted a comprehensive description here. The substance of the briefing is important of course and it is well explained in the post, but I note that we can also learn a little more about the OECD and about international tax lawmaking from this participation, and these are things worth noticing for anyone interested in how the rule of law develops in taxation.

• There were no other members of civil society present (non-government, non-business), and there were empty seats, even though Victoria was initially denied entry because space had to be reserved for business interests. So the OECD is still an epistemic community talking with itself. That is important in terms of framing public discourse about what matters and what doesn't for taxation, as well as what questions ought to be answered and what the answers ought to be.
• The issues are all cast as technical compliance ones, as if the politics and policies are all resolved. They are not, but casting things as merely technical in nature makes it easier to turn aspiration into law; it's a common modus operandi for tax regimes, and the OECD has used it consistently over its lifespan.
• Treaty competent authorities will be working out the technical details on how automatic information sharing is going to take place, including registering FFIs and sending info through the IRS portal.  So more and more international tax will get worked out through these obscure, opaque, non-law making diplomatic channels, and there will be less and less law to work with as a result.

These are notable phenomena in the context of simultaneous calls for transparency and accountability in governance, including from the OECD itself.

The Dubious Legal Pedigree of FATCA intergovernmental agreements (and why it matters)

My latest column in Tax Analysts' Tax Notes International is here.  I argue that the IGAs have a dubious legal pedigree because they are not treaties, not congressionally-authorized executive agreements, and not interpretations of existing agreements; therefore they are sole executive agreements--entered into by the executive branch with no authorization or oversight from Congress. This puts them on very shaky ground in terms of the constitutional process for binding the US internationally, and I argue that this is both unhelpful to other governments as a practical matter (IGAs override the statute, so if they fail, then what) and an unnecessary muddling of the rule of law, which should make other governments wary (if you have a process in place to bind the US under international law, why aren't you using it).

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.

OECD "public briefing" --update

***updated**

A development on the public briefing. After being turned away, Victoria Ferauge has now been given the green light to attend tomorrow's FATCA/TRACE briefing on behalf of American Citizens Abroad. I am very glad to see this resolution. It worries me when international bodies ostensibly working on behalf of society try to manage which sectors of society count when it comes to policymaking.  Access to meetings is the barest form of participation in such matters.  I look forward to hearing from Ms. Ferauge regarding what she hears and sees at the meeting, and am glad that she will be able to attend with only one day's notice.  (be sure to note if you are asked for your passport to gain entry).

----

Last Thursday I mentioned that the OECD had advertised a "public meeting" on their website about TRACE and FATCA, and I said:

...you can also attend in person for 100EUR if you are a financial institution, a practioner, or a journalist, according to the information.  Though it is not stated, I will simply assume that non-interested observers, such as academics, NGO reps, etc., are also warmly invited.  

I am sorry to have to report that this is apparently incorrect, at least, when one NGO (American Citizens Abroad) tried to send a rep, she was rebuffed because space is running out and "government and business have priority."

Frankly, this is outrageous.  The OECD has been a club for the revolving door crowd for far too long.  When I have criticized the absence of NGOs and other disinterested observers at the OECD I am told  they are represented by government. If that ever was the case, I think we can safely say it is not the case now. The OECD cannot simply isolate anyone who doesn't stand to benefit from government-big business collusion forever. Eventually it must lose its ability to state with a straight face that it works on behalf of the peoples of its member states.

Message to OECD therefore: do not call it a public meeting if it is not a public meeting, if it is only another forum for government bureaucrats and business leaders, call that what it is: an international lobbying session.

Now, if I am wrong and there is an NGO or any other disinterested, non-business person who is going to be allowed to go to this "public meeting" at which what is going to be discussed by bureaucrats and busienss leaders is how governments will be monitoring and taxing human taxpayers who constitute the peoples represented by the member states, then please, please someone let me know.

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.

Should you (virtually) go to Antigua to gamble or download?

What an odd story from Above the Law last week:

Antigua & Barbuda can now legally offer downloads of copyrighted U.S. works, and there's not a damn thing the U.S. can do about it. The decision marks the latest chapter in the long-running trade dispute between the U.S. and the tiny Caribbean nation over Antigua's internet gambling industry. The U.S. banned Antigua's internet casinos, Antigua took the U.S. to court through the WTO, and Antigua won — and has continued to win — consistently throughout the appeal process.

ATL describes WTO dispute resolution thusly:

"Because you pulled Sally's hair, she gets a free shot to kick your friend from school in the nuts. Justice!!!"

But what Antigua really wants is a deal:

"The economy of Antigua and Barbuda has been devastated by the United States government's long campaign to prevent American consumers from gambling online with offshore gaming operators," Harold Lovell, Antigua's finance minister, said in a statement. "We once again ask our fellow sovereign nation and WTO member, the United States of America, to act in accordance with the WTO's decisions in this matter, before we move forward with the implementation of the sanctions authorized this day by the WTO."

I have two multi-part questions and two asides.

1. just as a factual matter, can people currently download US-copyrighted works from Antigua with impunity? That is, would that not be a breach of copyright on the part of the downloader, even if it is not for the download-facilitator? Obviously i have no understanding of copyright law.
2. can a nation state, as a matter of power/capacity, prevent its people (however it defines them) from gambling offshore via the internet?  And if it can, why shouldn't it?  This is a loaded question.

No sugar industry sans big gov

From Tim Carney: 

Last fiscal year, Americans paid about 69.9 cents per pound of refined sugar. The world price was less than 27.8 cents. 

Why is that? Why, industrial policy/central planning of course: state-provided infrastructure, subsidies, import quotas, tariffs, etc. But according to the beneficiaries of all of this central planning, it's not all the planning.  It's global competition from mercenary states that don't have things like...wait for it....labor and environmental protections!

"Go down to Brazil," [anti-NAFTA sugar farmer James Dickson] says. "Check out the working conditions." Brazil's labor costs are much lower, and so are its environmental regulations. "They do stuff to their sugar we would never do."

Carney says not so fast, there's plenty of that to go around:

The federal government also made it possible for the industry to get cheap labor from the Bahamas and Jamaica. Through the British West Indies program, which was created during the Great Depression, "the United States government played a direct role in negotiating employment contracts for offshore laborers," explained Everglades historian David McCally. Uncle Sam even paid to ferry cane-cutters from the islands to Florida. 

The guest-worker program put in place exploitative pay levels and work rules. For its part, Florida helped the industry by making it difficult or even illegal for cane cutters to quit. One farmer, lobbying the USDA against allowing Puerto Rican cutters, explained his reason: "Labor transported from the Bahama Islands can be deported and sent home, if it does not work, which cannot be done in the instance of labor from domestic United States or Puerto Rico." 

All of this was the subject of a little known film called H2 Worker by Stephanie Black (who also produced Life and Debt, a must-see for anyone interested in development economics) which you should watch if you haven't yet, even though it is admittedly quite slow in parts.

Carney concludes:

Florida sugar cane is an industry literally built on big government, and growers know it will wither in a free market.

Not literally. But otherwise true enough.

International tax as revealed in SEC filings

I've written before about how opaque international taxation is because most of the law is worked out in ways that are not made visible to the public, namely through non-judicial review of transfer pricing and related disputes among nations.  I've argued for both corporate tax disclosure and publication of competent authority agreements as a remedy to much of this opacity. Tax Analysts' Transfer Pricing Roundup [gated] offers a fascinating window onto this world:

Transfer Pricing Roundup summarizes significant tax disputes that publicly listed firms have disclosed to regulatory authorities. The regular monitoring of these disclosures sheds light on the friction points within the U.S. system of transfer pricing enforcement. Many of the disputes profiled here involve adjustments resulting from controversial cost-sharing arrangements.

Some of the highlights:

• Accenture PLC, a global management consulting, technology services, and outsourcing company, reported its unrecognized tax benefits could decrease by $637k or increase by $208k depending on how things go with some settlements, lapses of statutes of limitations [read: if they were going to catch us with our fingers in a cooky jar, it's about to be too late] and other adjustments relating mostly to transfer pricing matters 
• Amazon is disputing transfer pricing adjustments in the US that would result in additional tax of $1.5 billion, and in France to the tune of $250 million. 
• Amazon also recorded reserves for tax contingencies of $336M for 2012 and $266M for 2011, to cover transfer pricing, state income tax, and research and development credit positions.
• Cooper Cos. Inc., a medical device company, has $29.5M in "unrecognized tax benefit," $5M of which relate to transfer pricing and other issues "that could significantly change in the next 12 months because of expiring statutes [see above] in unnamed jurisdictions." 
• Dell continues an ongoing battle with the IRS over transfer pricing adjustments dating back to 2004-2006. Dell reports that "An unfavorable outcome in this matter could have a material effect on the company's operations, financial position, and cash flows."
• Microsoft is also involved in a protracted battle with the IRS over transfer pricing involving 2004 to 2006, which could have a "significant impact" on the company's financial statements if it is not resolved in Microsoft's favor. Microsoft does not expect resolution any time soon: must be some thorny issue to work out there. Microsoft's tax contingencies and liabilities are huge: $7.7B and $7.6B as of December 31, 2012, and June 30, 2012, respectively.

Much, much more at the link. Most of these are pharma and software companies--i.e., lots of IP that has been moved offshore and is busy stripping income out of high-tax countries with variations on the dutch sandwich, which looks a little something like this:

Now with Less Fiber!

My feeling is that it is a real shame that most or all of these cases will get settled and eventually quietly erased from balance sheets with little or no explanation and therefore no advancement in the development of international tax law whatsoever, despite all of the resources that will have been sunk into the cause by the private sector and government alike. What a shame.