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.

TJN on the rule of law and the forthcoming OECD report on base-erosion

The OECD is expected to release its plan to implement its anti-base-erosion project this Friday, and the Tax Justice Network has issued a pre-emptive strike as it were, predicting that the OECD will do very little by way of fundamental reform. Instead, TJN predicts a patchwork of half-hearted measures that will be delivered through the toothless mechanism of non-binding recommendations, instead of a full-throated commitment to real change, which the TJN says would require endorsement of combined reporting & formulary apportionment for multinational companies. I am still not convinced combined reporting is a panacea, but I understand TJN's perspective that arms' length reporting probably isn't capable of delivering the result they seek with respect to taxing the profits of multinationals on a global basis. You can read TJN's whole report here.

But I wanted to note something that particularly struck me in this report, an issue that I worked through at length not too long ago and that has been bothering me for quite a while, and that is the recognition that for the international tax law system to work, we desperately need more transparency regarding what lawmakers actually do when it comes to international tax compliance. Here is what I said on the subject in an article called How Nations Share:

In the case of international income, it is [tax] disputes and their resolutions, and not the law on the books, that constitute the international tax regime. Yet it is all but impossible for citizens to observe exactly how, or how well, their governments navigate this aspect of economic globalization. [Tax treaties] provide only a design for allocating international income among nation states. It is the application of these agreements that determines how revenues are allocated in practice. This application has taken place over the years through hundreds of thousands of interpretive decisions, the vast majority of which are not accessible to the public. Instead, international tax disputes are mostly delegated to institutions that resolve issues in informal, “non-law” ways with minimal public access to the decision-making process and its outcomes. As a result, international tax law in practice features little or no “law.”

In the article, I explained that when actual decisions about the taxation of multinationals are made through processes that lack judicial oversight and feature no public access whatsoever, this creates a huge knowledge gap between the law as written (in legislation and in treaties among other documents) and the law in action (after the competent authorities make their decisions).

The OECD has exploited this gap to its own institutional advantage, by making itself a norm aggregator and filtering mechanism. It thus deliberately creates a non-legal alternative to direct access to legal decision-making. This is a major, even if not well-understood, impediment to the development of law in taxation that has serious consequences precisely because it shields from public scrutiny just how much base erosion is actually going on. We (the public) simply cannot know how big the base erosion problem really is because we cannot access the competent authority decisions that in fact allocate income internationally. The OECD presumably knows the answer but suits its own political and institutional purposes by publishing a highly-processed version of events in the form of reports, guidance, etc.

Because I view this as a major problem for the rule of law which is made ever more serious by being ignored as an issue altogether, I was very gratified to see TJN pick up on the theme and call for publication of competent authority decision-making:

Currently, the MAP [competent authority dispute resolution process] is very secretive, and decisions often involving hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars are not published. The secrecy of both MAP processes and APAs greatly increases the power of frequent actors in these processes, i.e. the international tax and accounting firms – to the great detriment of the system as a whole. Publication of both would be a great step towards a system which could both provide and more importantly be seen to deliver a fair international allocation of tax.

TJN's worries about the repeat-player advantage gained by tax and accounting professionals are well-founded, but I think what is most clearly articulated here is that this is fundamentally a rule of law matter. Moreover, TJN puts this issue third in line in terms of reform priorities but I actually think it is much closer to being at the top of the heap in terms of structures that cause intractable problems for international taxation. I will be very interested to see how the continued pressure TJN has been able to place on OECD decision-making to date plays out on this particular issue.

FATCA delayed again, this time Treasury giving itself 6 months to get the house in order. Lesson: internationalizing a unilateral legal regime is really difficult.

Treasury issued a new Notice 2013-43 today, pushing the withholding deadline to July 1, 2014 (was January 1 2014), the portal opening to August 19, 2013 (was July 15), and the deadline to register as a FFI is now six months from when the portal opens, which I believe would be February 19, 2014 (was October 25, 2013) (but for some reason this date doesn't seem to be indicated in the Notice, instead it says "On or after January 1, 2014, each financial institution will be expected to finalize its registration information by logging into its account on the FATCA registration website, making any necessary additional changes, and submitting the information as final. Consistent with this 6-month extension, the IRS will not issue any GIINs in 2013. Instead it expects to begin issuing GIINs as registrations are finalized in 2014"). Accordingly, no GIINs will be issued in 2013, IRS "expects to begin issuing GIINs as registrations are finalized in 2014," with the first posting of the compliant FFI list by June 2, 2014.

All of this is going to require Treasury to amend the regulations and the model IGAs to adopt these rules, but taxpayers are advised they can rely on the Notice until that happens. Here is the explanation:

Comments have indicated that certain elements of the phased timeline for the implementation of FATCA present practical problems for both U.S. withholding agents and FFIs. In addition, while comments from FFIs overwhelmingly supported the development of IGAs as a solution to the legal conflicts that might otherwise impede compliance with FATCA and as a more effective and efficient way to implement cross-border tax information reporting, some comments noted that, in the short term, continued uncertainty about whether an IGA will be in effect in a particular jurisdiction hinders the ability of FFIs and withholding agents to complete due diligence and other implementation procedures. 

In consideration of these comments, and to allow for a more orderly implementation of FATCA, Treasury and the IRS intend to amend the final regulations to postpone by six months the start of FATCA withholding, and to make corresponding adjustments to various other time frames provided in the final regulations, as described in section III below.

There is also language about jurisdictions that have signed IGAs but have not yet ratified them according to their internal procedures for ratifying international agreements, in line with what the IRS agreed to in the Norway IGA, but notice that there are no hard deadlines here. Instead, FATCA partner jurisdictions get a "reasonable" period of time to get the IGAs through their respective legislative processes. I cannot see how a foreign jurisdiction would have any recourse to an unfavorable IRS determination that its internal ratification period is "unreasonable." I'd say that falls into a rather delicate area of diplomacy: I doubt the IRS will be eager to tell some other country its legislative procedures are too slow, sorry, you're off our whitelist. In any event:

A jurisdiction will be treated as having in effect an IGA if the jurisdiction is listed on the Treasury website as a jurisdiction that is treated as having an IGA in effect. In general, Treasury and the IRS intend to include on this list jurisdictions that have signed but have not yet brought into force an IGA. The list of jurisdictions that are treated as having an IGA in effect is available at the following address: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Pages/FATCAArchive.aspx. 

A financial institution resident in a jurisdiction that is treated as having an IGA in effect will be permitted to register on the FATCA registration website as a registered deemed-compliant FFI (which would include all reporting Model 1 FFIs) or PFFI (which would include all reporting Model 2 FFIs), as applicable. In addition, a financial institution may designate a branch located in such jurisdiction as not a limited branch. 

A jurisdiction may be removed from the list of jurisdictions that are treated as having an IGA in effect if the jurisdiction fails to perform the steps necessary to bring the IGA into force within a reasonable period of time. If a jurisdiction is removed from the list, financial institutions that are residents of that jurisdiction, and branches that are located in that jurisdiction, will no longer be entitled to the status that would be provided under the IGA, and must update their status on the FATCA registration website accordingly. 

More details in the link to the Notice. I have some questions about the various exceptions and wheretofores, including a general sense of confusion about which of the various procedures and penalties starts when, but I'll save these thoughts for another day.

Moral of the story: it's really, really difficult to get an international tax regime going on a unilateral basis. There is a story in this about the difference in making a unilateral rule first, and then repeatedly changing it to fix all the problems that inevitably arise, versus sitting around in international networks trying to make sure the rule will work first, before trying to implement it internationally. Empirical project for international law buffs!

Call for Papers: Annual Conference of the Canadian Council of International Law

The organizers of the CCIL's 2013 annual conference have issued a call for papers:

CCIL 42nd  Annual Conference: Call for Papers
Contemporary Actors and their Actions: A New Look at the Formation of International Law
November 14-16, 2013 - Ottawa, Ontario

The Canadian Council on International Law invites paper proposals or summaries of proposed presentations from faculty members, doctoral level graduate students in law and related disciplines, and practitioners, on topics dealing with the theme of its 42nd Annual Conference: “Contemporary Actors and their Actions: A New Look at the Formation of International Law”.

Paper proposals or summaries of proposed presentations in English or French should be no longer than a single page in length and should include a biographical statement or curriculum vitae.  Proposals are due June 3, 2013 and should be sent to manager@ccil-ccdi.ca.

Great topic. More info at the link.

Thoughts on the "you first, no you first" provision in Norway's FATCA agreement with the US Treasury

Norway signed an IGA with the US Treasury on April 15.  I blacklined the Norway agreement against the Model 1 FATCA, (you can download the comparison here) and note that some of the regular features appear, including deemed-compliance status for pension funds and "local" banks* but want to address in this post what I'll call the "you first, no you first" provision in Article 4, paragraph 6.

Some FATCA watchers were surprised to see this paragraph, and I admit I had not noticed it before so I assumed it was new--until I blacklined it and found that no, that paragraph is in the Model 1 Agreement (however it is not in the IGAs with Mexico or the UK), and the Model language is identical to that in the Norway agreement.

In any event, having now read this Art. 4 paragraph 6 more closely, I notice there is actually a good bit of maneuvering going on here. Here is the language:

6. Coordination of Timing. 

Notwithstanding paragraphs 3 and 5 of Article 3:

a) Norway shall not be obligated to obtain and exchange information with respect to a calendar year that is prior to the calendar year with respect to which similar information is required to be reported to the IRS by participating FFIs pursuant to relevant U.S. Treasury regulations;
b) Norway shall not be obligated to begin exchanging information prior to the date by which participating FFIs are required to report similar information to the IRS under relevant U.S. Treasury regulations;
c) the United States shall not be obligated to obtain and exchange information with respect to a calendar year that is prior to the first calendar year with respect to which Norway is required to obtain and exchange information; and
d) the United States shall not be obligated to begin exchanging information prior to the date by which Norway is required to begin exchanging information.

This is actually not at all easy to read (on purpose? One always wonders).  But for sure this does not say, as some readers initially thought, that Norway can wait to give info to the IRS until the IRS begins to give info to Norway. In fact, it rather says quite the opposite. Nor, as I thought when I first read it, does it say that Norway need not exchange until Treasury begins to require equivalent information be reported on Norwegian account holders by US FIs to the IRS.

Instead, it says very simply that Norway need not exchange information with the IRS before the US Treasury regulations require FFIs to begin reporting to the IRS, and the IRS will not exchange info with Norway before Norway starts exchanging. All this use of negatives is confusing so let me try to put it in positive terms: it in effect says that Norway will start giving the IRS info once the IRS requires FFIs to begin reporting per the Treasury regs. Notice that Treasury makes no affirmative commitment on the part of the IRS to actually exchange thereafter--only that in any case it will not exchange before Norway does. It implies that it will be obligated to automatic exchange thereafter, but I am not sure even that is so clear.

The Mexico IGA--the only agreement that is technically in force right now--should provide ample proof that the Treasury has not committed to actual automatic exchange of information with its IGA partners (regardless of para. 6), and certainly that the Treasury is not going to go first. On the contrary, Treasury has only said that it will begin requiring US banks to provide the IRS with information on IGA-country account holders, which could be exchanged with such IGA partners if Treasury determines that such sharing would be appropriate. According to the Treasury, "Even when [an info exchange] agreement exists, the IRS is not compelled to exchange information… if there is concern regarding the use of the information or other factors exist that would make exchange inappropriate.”

No word on what those other factors might be, so read this as a broad grant of discretion to the Treasury, with no accountability required toward the IGA partner.

Mexico, it appears so far, has not yet been given the green light, so I can only assume that the status quo right now is Mexico dutifully turning over (on a monthly basis I believe) IGA-compliant information, while the IRS provides Mexico nothing in return. You might like to see what the American Banking Association thinks about this status quo. I think it is safe to say that the Florida and Texas Bankers Associations are determined to at minimum delay reciprocal automatic information exchange as long as possible, if they cannot eliminate it all together.

Now, if I have these facts incorrect and the IRS is actually exchanging information with Mexico under the IGA, I hope that someone will please correct me right away because this is tremendously important--as I have suggested before, the information Mexico could get from the IRS under such an arrangement could be explosive in terms of exposing the volume and direction of tax evasion as between these two countries (not that the public will get much or any information on these things--on the contrary we most likely will learn absolutely nothing, more's the pity).

One might say the USA won't similarly refuse to share information with Norway as such behavior smacks as bad faith, and countries have a positive duty to on the contrary act in good faith with respect to "international agreements". Moreover, it strains credulity to think that Treasury would start collecting information on Norwegian account holders from US banks, without actually planning to share it.

To that I would counter, presumably Norway knows exactly what it got in this deal: the same promises as have come before.

This is consistent with the rest of the IGA, which suffers from the same lack of reciprocity that in my view belies the character of these instruments as international agreements at all, even beyond their likely constitutional violation in the USA.  I recently wrote an article about the lack of reciprocity in the IGAs, why I think that is so problematic in terms of creating a perverse market advantage for the USA to facilitate tax evasion, and why there is not much reason for being optimistic that the necessary sea change will occur to make FATCA a viable multilateral regime with equal applicability to the world's largest destination for foreign capital. You can read that article here, and as alway I welcome feedback, especially to correct any of my misunderstandings.

To sum up, in my view the "you first, no you first" provision adds nothing in terms of greater reciprocity in the Norway IGA, while the same procedural and substantive defects we have already seen continue unabated.

* I also note a new conditionality to the local bank exception, in Annex I Part II.A.(e):

"provided thatNorway provides information on an automatic basis to the relevant Member State;"

This seems to mean that until Norway is actually exchanging info, its local banks will not be deemed compliant but will be withheld upon once the "you first" rule kicks in (i.e., once FFIs must begin reporting per Treasury regs).  

The local bank exception is a get-out-of-FATCA-free card for banks whose account holders--including US citizens--mostly live in the country. I've been told the provision is meant to help Americans living abroad whose local banks are dropping them in the (mistaken) hopes that this will relieve the FI of FATCA scrutiny. I have a lot of trouble with this local bank exception in terms of what the US appears to be trying to do with it, tempering citizenship-based taxation with an escape hatch that potentially encourages and even invited casual noncompliance, but that's a conversation for another day.

My intrigue with the new language in the Annex here is that I'm not sure why this condition applies only to local banks, and not other deemed compliant FIs. Those who think the FATCA regime is now deliberately aimed not at catching HNW Americans living in the USA and stashing cash offshore (few of whom hold large amounts of cash in accounts with their own names attached, as Lee Sheppard has repeatedly pointed out) but instead at imposing upon US citizens living abroad with their middle class wage earnings and their lack of effective representation in Washington, could have a field day with this provision. 

Can States Shame Each Other into Good Behaviour?

Interesting new paper by Sandeep Gopalan & Roslyn Fuller, Enforcing International Law: States, IOs, and Courts as Shaming Reference Groups. From the abstract:

We seek to answer the question as to whether international law imposes meaningful constraints on state behaviour. Unabated drone strikes by the dominant superpower in foreign territories, an ineffective United Nations, and persistent disregard for international law obligations suggest that the sceptics have won the debate about whether international law is law and whether it affects state behaviour. We argue that such a conclusion would be in error because it grossly underestimates the complex ways in which IL affects state behaviour. ... We show that IL is enforced by states, courts, and international organizations by the imposition of shame sanctions on offenders and that these sanctions affect state behaviour in the same ways that traditional coercive sanctions do. In doing the above, we also develop the concept of a shaming reference group.

I'm in general a skeptic, viewing the tripartite failures highlighted in this abstract as overwhelming evidence that in the international community, might makes right, full stop. The tenth anniversary of America's unprovoked war on Iraq, which is now clearly characterized as a strategy to gain control over its oil resources that was planned far in advance of 9/11, seems too ample evidence backing the skeptical view. But I'm willing to engage that social pressure might have some amount of impact on state behaviour in some cases. At least, I am willing to believe that states will work hard to appear to be good citizens in the international legal order, and that this might cause some leaders to make decisions differently than they might absent shaming in the international community. But I remain at heart a skeptic so I will continue to believe that in practice states will use any power they have to achieve their ends at the expense of other states (much as leaders will do the same at the expense of their own people if they can get away with it).

This skepticism is reinforced by the part in the paper that talks about how shaming is undertaken and shows that the resources of the "shamer" come to bear in important ways on who and what gets shamed:

States are likely to be the principal enforcers of shame sanctions. ... States make evaluative opinions about other states all the time. Some have the resources to make elaborate justifications and provide evidence for those opinions in a legal manner. One example is the United States State Department’s annual human rights reports. These have come in for harsh criticism as being partisan. ...partisanship is a major problem for shaming. The US has also been accused of hypocrisy. 

Attacks based on the lack of neutrality and credibility to engage in shaming are severely debilitating, and do suggest that neutrality, or a perception thereof, is important if shaming sanctions are to work. This is not to say that shaming by individual states should be ignored altogether. Some states will be persuaded by the US State Department’s reports, and it must ultimately fall to a process of democratic debate to determine if the state being shamed is indeed deserving of punishment. There is nothing stopping Iran and Venezuela from issuing shaming reports of their own. If members of the international community believe these reports are the products of serious investigation and research, they will be credible. On the other hand, if they are merely propaganda, they are likely to be ignored. 

This suggests major cognitive bias problems if shaming is to be a regime for uncovering egregious offenders, at least, if we seek any sort of even-handed regime. If we don't worry about that problem, I think we're back to might makes right, and shaming just becomes another resource for wielding power to act in self-interest, while simultaneously shielding the shamer from reciprocal pressure.

It also suggests the major role of geo-politics in the name and shame game. In a footnote to the above paragraph, the authors highlight a particularly disturbing example:

...William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, remarked on the occasion of the release of the State Department’s annual human rights report: “The content of this report has little correspondence with the administration’s foreign policy; indeed, the U.S. is increasingly guilty of a ‘sincerity gap,’ overlooking abuses by allies and justifying action against foes by post-facto references to human rights. In response, many foreign governments will choose to blunt criticism of their abuses by increasing cooperation with the U.S. war on terror rather than by improving human rights.” 

This is a frightening and ultimately very discouraging status quo. It suggests that when we talk about shaming the result will not necessarily be better behaviour, but rather behaviour aimed at currying the favor of those who decide whom to shame. It worries me if that is the best we can do to guard against states doing terrible things to each other and state leaders dong terrible things to their people.

Treaty angle on PPL, the US foreign tax credit case

David Cameron has a fresh take on the PPL case which is worth a read, in yesterday's Tax Notes [gated]. He's wondering why no one has raised the US-UK tax treaty, which he thinks would resolve the creditability issue with ease.  He says:

... Because neither PPL nor Entergy raised the treaty issue, the Tax Court, the Third Circuit, and the Fifth Circuit relied solely on the requirements of section 901 and the regulations that define a creditable tax. The complete lack of any reference to the U.K.-U.S. tax treaty is extremely curious because the treaty provided more than adequate grounds to conclude that the windfall tax was creditable under U.S. law. 

...The [applicable] U.K.-U.S. tax treaty identified specific existing taxes imposed by the United Kingdom and designated them as income taxes for which a credit would be available (covered taxes).  

Importantly, covered taxes may well include foreign taxes that would not qualify as income taxes under domestic law.... 

...[T]he language describing the indirect credit under article 23(1) does not specifically refer to an "income tax" but only to a "tax paid to the United Kingdom by that corporation with respect to the profits out of which such dividends are paid." 

... The failure of the taxpayers in PPL and Entergy to raise the treaty issue is all the more curious given the IRS's recognition in a coordinated issue paper that the windfall tax involved a treaty issue.[The IRS claimed that the Windfall Tax would not be creditable because it was a one-time levy imposed on appreciation in value, but the] IRS's analysis of the treaty issue is not ... convincing. 

... The Supreme Court need not decide whether a formalistic or substantive analysis applies under section 901 because the U.K.-U.S. tax treaty provides an alternative argument -- a definition of an income tax at least as broad as that under section 901 and the application of a substantive analysis to determine if a tax satisfies that definition -- to conclude that the windfall tax is creditable based on the Tax Court's findings. 

...By ignoring the existence of the U.K.-U.S. tax treaty, the parties and the lower courts in PPL have overlooked a significant aspect of the case. The Supreme Court should not repeat their mistake.

I agree with David that the treaty argument should have been made, even though I am less convinced than he is that on substance the "windfall tax" is really even a tax at all--I think it looks like a purchase price adjustment. But that was also not an argument brought up by anyone at trial, instead the IRS conceded that the "tax" was in fact a tax. Having done so, the treaty does seem to present the more permissive regime.

But a big part of this story is David's puzzlement about the treaty being overlooked by all the parties and all the judges, despite the IRS having previously articulated a treaty-based position on the very tax in question. Can it be that the parties just assumed the treaty did not apply, or if it did apply, did not provide a different result? Can it be that they all made those assumptions without undergoing a close analysis, without doing any research?

If so David is suggesting that a big mistake has potentially been made, and if the Supreme Court rules against the taxpayer in PPL, it may have been a quite costly mistake. That's bad for the taxpayer and bad form on the part of the lawyers, but intriguingly, it also suggests that even in a top fight litigation situation like this, it is possible that the tax law experts on both sides overlooked an applicable legal regime, most likely because the regime in question involved international law rather than a statute in the tax code.

That is a fascinating observation for those of us who like to think about the rule of law as the product not of legal texts by themselves but of their dynamic implementation in practice. If a legal text exists but is ignored by the legal system, can it really be said to be law at all? David is suggesting that the US-UK treaty is a tree falling in a forest, unheard by anyone. Usually I am worried that people will imagine that they hear trees falling in forests when there are no trees at all--that is, I worry about non-legal assertions being treated as equivalent to law (for example, OECD guidelines). David's article suggests that the opposite may have happened in this case.

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.

Tax, Law and Development

Yariv Brauner and Miranda Stewart have posted their introductory chapter to Tax, Law and Development, a book to which I am contributing with a chapter on global tax activism.  Here is the abstract:

This book is the first collection of independent legal scholarship exploring the relationship between tax, law and the quest for human development. While acknowledging fully the challenge of tax competition in a global economy, this book rejects calls to end taxation of mobile capital even if this may be perceived to be a theoretical economic inevitability due to the difficulty of collection in an uncooperative environment. New approaches to economic development suggest we must abandon – or significantly downplay – the dominant normative approaches to tax policy, replacing these with contextualized, diverse, partial and incremental tax law reform approaches that take seriously the legal, social and political context. The innovative scholars who contribute to this book examine the role of law in national and international tax regimes across a range of topical tax issues, from the perspective of countries including China, Brazil, South Africa, India and the United States. Chapters discuss the reform of tax laws that are central to economic globalization, including tax incentives for foreign direct investment, their relationship with tax treaties and other international tax law, the problem of how to address fundamental equity concerns, and institutions of budgeting, tax law making and administration in a global era.

They conclude:

The variety of chapters presented in this book forcefully demonstrate the deep need and the wealth of opportunities for progress in this avenue of study of tax, law and development. The primarily economic and ‘one size fits all’ focus of tax policy to date has not been sufficiently matched by detailed legal, historical and contextual policy analysis that can fortify and enrich it, supporting the implementation of tax reforms within real world social and legal structures. A range of alternative approaches to development arise out of the critique presented by the authors in this book and surveyed in this Introduction. The chapters call for a direct acknowledgement of the challenges and contradictions of tax law reform for development, and emphasize patience, diversity, a trial-and-error approach, transparency, legitimacy or ‘ownership’ and constant feedback and evaluation in tax reform approaches. Although less apparently streamlined and ‘correct’, these alternative approaches to tax, law and development do not imply a loss of focus, even if they are slow, difficult to implement, and lack the appeal of promised panacea. Moreover, they often require careful coordination within and between countries that does not exist in the current international tax regime. This new approach does, however, promise some actual success. The goal of this book is unashamedly idealistic, to serve as the foundation that would jump-start further scholarship, and support real change in the global and national tax laws for economic development.

I'm looking forward to seeing the book in print.

Shaffer on Transnational Legal Ordering

Gregory C. Shaffer has a new book of interest: Transnational Legal Ordering and State Change. Abstract:

Law can no longer be viewed through a purely national lens. Transnational legal ordering affects the boundary of the state and the market, the allocation of power among national institutions, the role of professions and their expertise, and associational patterns that provide new normative frames. This book breaks new ground for understanding the impacts of transnational legal ordering within nation-states in today's globalized world. The book addresses the different dimensions of state change at stake and the factors that determine these impacts. It brings together leading scholars from sociology and law who study the effects of transnational legal ordering within different countries. Their case studies illustrate how transnational legal ordering interacts with national law and institutions in different regulatory areas, and cover anti-money laundering, bankruptcy, competition, education, intellectual property, health, and municipal water law and policy in different countries. The book explains the extent and limits of transnational legal ordering in today's world.

Tax law is not specifically covered but international tax law folks will find much of interest here for thinking about how law emerges through networks and norms and evolves through transplantation into national spheres.

H/T Int'l Law Reporter

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.

What's FBAR got to do, got to do with it

Everything, I am guessing. Tina will give up her US citizenship now that she has attained Swiss citizenship.  Reason given: to "clarify her situation." John Nolte says "She's 73 years-old, her longtime partner lives overseas, and as far as I know she's not in any way making a political statement." He seems a bit puzzled about her decision to give up her status, and he welcomes her back anytime.

Well said. So why is she giving up her citizenship?  Short of making a political statement, I can think of only one good reason: America's newfound vigor for enforcing citizenship-based taxation, and all of the surveillance and form-filling that entails.  Just consider that giving up citizenship is not a simple matter of mailing in your passport. It can be a complex and time- and resource-consuming process which involves enhanced scrutiny and fees for those with high net worth, who are viewed as attempting to flee the tax jurisdiction.

The US has always had citizenship based taxation on the books, but it wasn't truly enforced until FBAR came under IRS authority and FATCA emerged as its enforcement mechanism in 2010.  Now those who have not been compliant will be "rooted out" (former IRS Commissioner Shulman's description of FATCA) with ongoing monitoring, and hefty fines for failure to file. Those who have been compliant will go on to face a regime that is increasingly byzantine, with new forms and requirement seemingly being piled on all the time, in a situation that is becoming very lucrative for tax return preparers and the compliance industry in general--just google FATCA compliance officer job posting and you will get the idea.  Of course, the regime is meant to catch Americans hiding their cash offshore: a laudable goal especially in light of so many high profile cases, many prominently featuring Switzerland.

So the question is whether Tina Turner is an "American" and if she, with her Swiss bank accounts, is "hiding offshore." This raises a series of unanswered questions about the relationship between the individual and the state, none of which, I think, are easily answered. These include, to which country does Tina belong, if she has dual citizenship?  Is this a first come, first served world, so she belongs to the US in perpetuity, based on her birth in Tennessee, no matter where she lives out her life?  Can she choose to belong to another country, or only if she is willing to pay the cost of her continued US status in the form of ongoing compliance with US tax law?  Is Tina going to be allowed to leave the US jurisdiction only on the condition that she renounces any right to come back?  What financial restrictions should a state place on people--especially wealthy ones--who want to move to other jurisdictions?

As long as Tina holds on to her citizenship, even if she is a dual citizen living in another country, the answer to the first question is that she is now and will ever be American. And as long as she has any accounts anywhere in the world outside of the US, the answer to the second is "guilty unless proven innocent on an annual basis." None of the other questions are answerable in law: all are a matter of opinion and, more than anything else, geo-political power.

I am sure that Tina's expatriation will be viewed by many as a response to the high US tax rate, or a betrayal of her US roots, or both. But it is likely neither.  As a Swiss citizen resident in Switzerland, Tina's worldwide income is subject to income tax (federal, cantonal, and municipal), wealth taxes, VAT, etc., and we can only speculate about how much tax she may be asked to pay in the US after credits, exemptions etc. as a US citizen living abroad.  It could very well be zero or close to zero.  So it is seems more likely this is about the hassle of filing a thicket of tax forms, year after year, despite owing little or no tax to the US, and stiff penalties for even "non-willful" infractions, including mistakes.  And it could be about having to do all of that because Americans living abroad are viewed as likely criminals because they have offshore bank accounts.  

If Tina has been tax compliant all these years, she may just be exhausted with the effort; if not, she may see many reasons to cut ties by going the drastic step of irrevocable renouncement.

I would very much like to know if there is some other reason to give up her US citizenship. "Clarifying" one's situation seems just abstract enough to cover the hassle of dealing with US tax compliance.

Note on Enforcing the Long Arm of the Tax Law

I came across this paper when I was doing some treaty research. It may be of interest: “But the Americans Made Me Do It!”: How United States v. UBS Makes The Case For Executive Exhaustion. No abstract, but here are some excerpts:

In 2008, the U.S. government launched an investigation into UBS AG (“UBS”) following the indictment and conviction of one of UBS’s senior bankers on charges of assisting a wealthy American with tax evasion. ...The United States filed a summons in federal court seeking information from UBS concerning the identities of ... unknown taxpayers. Swiss bank secrecy laws, however, explicitly forbade such disclosure. 

UBS was caught in a classic conflict-of-laws dilemma. On the one hand, UBS and its employees would face potential criminal sanctions if they violated Swiss bank secrecy laws to comply with a U.S. court order. On the other hand, UBS could decline to comply with a potential U.S. court order and face contempt of court....

...U.S. courts thus have a dilemma when the United States, through its executive agencies, wants parties to disclose foreign accounts for tax or other investigatory purposes but bank secrecy laws stand in the way of these investigations. While many courts have used balancing tests to solve this problem, they have found that U.S. law-enforcement interests trump the interests of foreign nations. This places a defendant financial institution in the position of either providing client data in violation of its home state’s laws to meet the demands of the United States or disregarding U.S. discovery orders to meet its home state’s legal requirements.  

... One of the factors for a court to weigh in the balancing formula is “the availability of alternative means of securing the [requested] information.” 

This Comment uses the recent tax investigation into UBS and its account holders as a case study to argue that the alternative means factor from the Third Restatement should be a mandatory step for Executive Branch agencies to exhaust before they can petition a court to compel disclosure of foreign discovery that would require the defending party to violate foreign law. 

This mandatory step, which this Comment terms executive exhaustion, is derived from the concept of administrative exhaustion, in which courts decline to hear cases until the moving party has exhausted all available administrative remedies. The application of executive exhaustion will prevent courts from having to engage in the Third Restatement’s balancing test. By avoiding the Third Restatement’s balancing test, a court can avoid placing parties in a catch- 22—following one state’s laws at the expense of violating those of another state.

And from the conclusion:

[F]ederal courts are aware of the various international interests at stake in certain high-profile litigation. .... Even after the United States, the Swiss government, and UBS came to an agreement regarding the transfer of data, the independent Swiss judiciary held that the UBS client data could not be transferred pursuant to the Treaty Request Agreement because the agreement was not actually a treaty—and thus not officially Swiss law.  If the Swiss government was unable to transfer data pursuant to an agreement it drafted and signed, how did the IRS and the DOJ realistically believe that UBS would be able to comply with a possible order compelling disclosure? An order compelling disclosure would have resulted in a full-blown diplomatic disaster, with the Swiss seizing UBS client data and the IRS and DOJ moving to have contempt-of-court sanctions imposed against UBS.   

In light of the powerful international interests at stake when it comes to an order compelling disclosure of information in violation of foreign law, it is imperative that Executive Branch agencies seek all alternative means before petitioning a court for disclosure. Federal courts should be the last resort for compelling disclosure when an Executive Branch agency seeks information from abroad that would require the violation of foreign law.

 You can read the full paper at the link.

Current status of US tax treaties, with FATCA IGA update

Latest US tax treaty update is available here, with a new section covering the developments on FATCA IGAs. I'm still not convinced they should be included in such a list, since from the US perspective these appear to be nothing more than competent authority agreements, presumably entered into under the CA's authority "to clarify or interpret" existing treaty & TIEA provisions.  Certainly, it seems that no internal legislative procedure will be undertaken to get these in force in the US--they await only the internal ratification by FATCA partners.

I have seen absolutely nothing offered by the IRS or Treasury that explains the character of these agreements, so I am deducing that they are being considered CA agreements from what I've seen so far.  But I'll admit the evidence is conflicting and confusing: for example, the IGA with the UK was apparently signed by a non-Treasury embassy official, and not the CA, so how could it be a CA agreement?

Fortunately, at some point the mystery will be solvable: I'll be able to confirm the legal status of the IGAs as soon as the first one enters into force, by checking to see if it lands in the pages of the US treaties and international agreements series. If it does not (as I suspect), then the IGAs really belong only in a list of competent authority agreements, where they will be treated not as treaties or international agreements per se but merely as interpretations of existing treaties. That will be interesting because it really stretches the boundaries of how I think we've understood up until now the competent authority's ability to stray beyond the text of the treaty. Of course, even if they do not end up in the TIAS I can certainly understand why Connery et al included them in their regular tax treaty update, because they sure look like treaties, don't they.

If I am wrong, though, and the IGAs do land in the treaties and international agreements series, then things get even more interesting.  We will be witnessing an unprecedented first in the history of US treaty making: the introduction of sole executive agreements on tax, not pre-authorized by congress, not expressly authorized by any existing treaty, and serving to override existing statutory tax law without any congressional oversight at all. Intriguing to say the least.

Of course, none of this has any bearing on the legal force of the IGAs from an international perspective. In the eyes of the world, these are just like any other international agreement. But in terms of those who think about the treaty making power in the US, I would think this would be a very interesting and controversial development.

International Law and Language Policy

Here is an interesting new book, by Jacqueline Mowbray: Linguistic Justice: International Law and Language Policy (Oxford 2012).  From the abstract:

Globalization and migration are producing societies of increasing linguistic diversity. At the same time, English is achieving unprecedented global dominance, smaller languages are becoming 'extinct' at an alarming rate, and ethnic tensions in countries from Belgium to Tibet continue to centre on questions of language. Against this background, the issue of how to ensure justice between speakers of different languages becomes a pressing social concern. Matters of 'linguistic justice' are therefore drawing increasing scholarly attention across a range of disciplines. 

How does international law contribute to linguistic justice? This book explores that question by conducting a comprehensive, interdisciplinary examination of international law on language ... the book explores the conceptual framework which underpins international law on language, unearthing underlying assumptions and ideas about what constitutes a 'just' language policy from a legal perspective. ..

This explores an interesting aspect of international society and culture.  More at the link.  

Scholarship on Global Citizenship

International Law Reports posts the latest issue of Global Society, a special issue on the topic of Cosmopolitanism and Global Citizenship--of interest especially to anyone thinking about citizenship-based taxation (perhaps especially in a post-FATCA world--you can see what's occupying my thoughts these days).  Contents at the link.  Good vacation reading, especially if you're travelling across a border to visit family.

Call for Papers: The Changing Face of Global Governance: International Institutions in the Internat

From the International Law Association - British Branch, another call for papers of interest to many of us studying international tax law through the lens of institutions like the OECD, the G20, and the UN.  The topic is The Changing Face of Global Governance: International Institutions in the International Legal Order.  The conference will be at the University of Oxford, April 12-13, 2013. Info:

...In the past, the content of the term 'international institutions' was by and large exhausted by reference to international organisations. However, the term comprises today not only traditional intergovernmental organisations but includes an expanded range of formal and informal institutions of global governance. The conference will explore the full range of international institutions, including international judicial and quasi-judicial organs, which—even when they are (subsidiary) organs of an international organisation—have acquired a life of their own; conferences of parties with wide-ranging powers over the interpretation and application of international treaties; compliance mechanisms; hybrid organisations which provide vital content to generic provisions of international treaties; a system of international criminal justice diffused in States and complemented at the international level; non-governmental organisations; informal networks of regulators, and so forth. 

Papers will examine the role of international institutions in making, developing, interpreting, applying and enforcing international law and thus shaping the legal landscape of international and transnational interaction in a globalised world. The conference theme explores the multifarious impact of ever-present international institutions on international law, both by querying their impact in the areas of law-making and law-enforcement and by tracing their presence and importance in 'sectoral regimes' of international law, ranging from the law of armed conflict to international economic and investment law, through to the global environment.

More info at the link; h/t Int'l Law Reporter

Workshop on social economic rights in practice-Coventry

The Human Rights Centre in Practice and the Institute of Advanced Study at the University of Warwick are holding a workshop tomorrow on Strategies for realising social economic rights in practice: Multi-disciplinary experiences from early career researchers.  The program asks:

1. Should social economic rights be considered human rights at all?
2. How helpful is the international legal framework in enabling the achievement of these rights?
3. How do we measure social economic rights in practice?
4. What lessons can we learn from practitioners in our pursuit of achieving social economic rights?

Interesting.  Hope to see some of the papers as they emerge from abstract to publication.

The Disabilities Convention and the making of international law

Tyler Cowan had this to say: "More generally, the U.S. will be most interested in ratifying Conventions only if they bind other nations in a useful way to the United States."

That, I think, sums up US foreign policy: the society of states is by no means a society of equals, therefore neither good faith nor fair dealing is requisite in matters of international negotiation. All that is requisite is the power to bind other nations to your own goals. That certainly explains US foreign policy in international tax: the lopsided (north/south) tax treaty network, the TIEA network, and the growing FATCA network. 

Conversation on the Sources of International Law

An interesting dialogue is taking place over at EJIL over Jean d'Aspremont's book, Formalism and the Sources of International Law: A Theory of the Ascertainment of Legal Rules. Philip Allott posted today, and he says the book

evokes subliminally two recurring nightmares – one social, one intellectual. Socially, it reminds us of the failure of law to secure its proper place in international society. Intellectually, it reminds us of the part played by the modern university in the disempowering of the human mind.

Wow. His subsequent comments are lengthy but well worth the read. He begins by talking about the academic research & writing exercise, which produces an "industrial-scale intellectual effort" in sorting and analyzing competing views, all "while, the wicked world goes on its merry way to ruin." Allott asks that toughest of all question for the academic writer: 

Why would anyone choose to write creatively and intelligently about the philosophy of International Law? They are unlikely to be heard by those who exercise international public power – politicians, diplomats, civil servants, intergovernmental officials, international judges and arbitrators, legal practitioners – the international ruling class, a self-satisfied and self-regarding conspiracy, many of whose members have the crudest ideas about the nature of law, and many of whose members relentlessly abuse public power, national and international.

He answers the question in power terms and concludes that "more or less sophisticated ideas only escape haphazardly and fortuitously [from universities] into the outside world where, if they are not appropriated by public power or mass culture, they wither and die."

That is a depressing but true reflection of reality, I am afraid. In any event, read the whole thing to get his reaction to more of the substance of the book.