Most of the world’s governments — eager to mobilize more tax revenues to finance development and curb pervasive tax-avoidance schemes, such as those revealed in the so-called Luxembourg Leaks scandal last year — have an interest in collaborating on taxation matters. Yet at the Third International Conference on Financing for Development, held in Addis Ababa last month, the momentum toward strengthening international tax cooperation came to an abrupt halt.
Developed countries blocked a proposal at the conference to establish an intergovernmental tax body within the UN to replace the current UN Committee of Experts. These countries insist that tax cooperation should take place exclusively under the leadership of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a body that they control.
The rest of the world should hope this will prove to be a pause rather than an end to progress on international tax cooperation, which began 13 years ago, at the first International Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico. Two years later, in 2004, the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) upgraded its “ad hoc group” of tax experts to a regular committee. This meant that the experts would meet regularly and have an expanded mandate that went beyond merely updating a model double-taxation treaty.
Four years later, at the second International Conference on Financing for Development, in Doha, Qatar, policymakers acknowledged that more needed to be done in tax matters, and asked ECOSOC to consider strengthening institutional arrangements. And then, in the year leading up to the Addis Ababa conference, the UN secretary-general endorsed the need for “an intergovernmental committee on tax cooperation, under the auspices of the United Nations.”
His endorsement, along with strong support from non-
governmental organizations and the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation, gave greater force to the demand by developing countries, organized around the Group of 77 and China, for an equal voice in setting global tax norms.
Up until the 11th hour of negotiations in Addis Ababa, they stood firm in calling for an intergovernmental body with the mandate and resources to create a coherent global framework for international tax cooperation, but to no avail.
Developed countries, led by the US and the UK — home to many of the multinational corporations implicated in the “Lux Leaks” — succeeded in blocking this much-needed advance in global governance. In the end, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda provides that the current Committee of Experts will continue to function according to its 2004 mandate, with three additional meeting days per year, all funded through voluntary contributions.
That is a profoundly disappointing outcome.
The developed countries have an argument — but not a convincing one. The OECD, whose members are essentially the world’s 34 richest countries, certainly has the capacity to set international standards on taxation. Yet the domination of a select group of countries over tax norms has meant that, in reality, the global governance architecture for taxation has not kept pace with globalization.
The Monterrey Consensus reached in 2002 included a call to enhance “the voice and participation of developing countries in international economic decision-making and norms-setting.” However, although the OECD invites some developing countries to participate in its discussions to establish norms, it offers them no decisionmaking power. The OECD is thus a weak surrogate for a globally representative intergovernmental forum.
Such a body must operate under the auspices of the UN, which bears the institutional legitimacy necessary to respond effectively to the challenges of globalization with coherent global standards to combat abusive tax practices and ensure fair taxation of corporate profits worldwide.
Despite the disappointment in Addis Ababa, the call for reform of the international tax system is not likely to be silenced. Instead, it will grow louder on all sides, as the developed countries’ counterproductive resistance to any give and take on international cooperation results in a tsunami of unilateral tax measures beyond OECD control.
Jose Antonio Ocampo, a professor at Columbia University and chair of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation, was a Colombian minister of finance and UN undersecretary-general for economic and social affairs.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs