Visualising Uganda’s (and others’) tax treaties

Interesting news from Uganda, where the government announced in its latest budget that it has finished formulating its new tax treaty policy, and will be renegotiating treaties that don’t comply. Seatini and ActionAid Uganda will no doubt chalk this up as a success! The news report linked to above also states that the the government plans to amend the awkwardly-worded anti-treaty-shopping clause in its Income Tax Act, although there are clearly still doubts about its application. According to a report in Tax Notes International, there’s an ongoing mutual agreement procedure between the Netherlands and Uganda to try to settle the ongoing Zain capital gains case, which turns on the applicability of that clause. 105_screen_shot_2016_04_29_at_6_11_10_am

So this is good timing for my working paper with Jalia Kangave, based on a submission we made to the Ugandan government’s review, to have been published by the International Centre for Tax and Development.

Here’s a link to that paper on Researchgate

When writing that paper, I thought that Uganda had a pretty good record of tax treaty negotiations, but some new visualisations of the ActionAid Tax Treaties Dataset suggest otherwise. For these I am indebted to Zack Korman, and to tax twitter for introducing me to him. Below are some maps Zach has made using the ‘source index’ I developed for the dataset (read more about that here). Red means a residence-based treaty that gives fewer taxing rights to the developing country, while green means a source-based treaty that gives it more taxing rights.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Links to high-res versions of individual images: Uganda map, Uganda bar chart, Vietnam, Mauritius, UK, Nordics

Uganda’s treaties are pretty red, meaning that most of its treaties restrict its taxing rights much more than average. Looking at the breakdown of the index shows that Uganda has some above-average withholding tax provisions, but its treaties are quite a lot worse than average in other areas. The slide show also gives some other countries for comparison. Vietnam’s treaties are mostly green, while Asian countries have got better deals from Mauritius (an offshore financial centre, not a developing country, in this context) than African ones. The UK’s treaties are pretty red, while the Nordics are very interesting: diverse in content, but consistent among themselves, giving good deals to Kenya and Sri Lanka, and worse ones to Tanzania and Bangladesh. This suggests that more source-based treaties with Nordic countries have been up for grabs for tough-negotiating developing countries.

Below I’ve posted some of Zach’s animated maps, on which it’s easier (and interesting) to follow the developments at earlier stages. There’s lots to comment on, but mostly I just keep watching them. The technical service fees map, at the bottom, is especially interesting, as it shows how countries have changed attitudes over time: watch how Pakistan suddenly changes position in the mid 1980s, for example.

World2

Above: All treaties in the dataset (red=residence-based, green=source-based)


Asia

Above: Asia (red=residence-based, green=source-based)


Africa2

Above: Africa (red=residence-based, green=source-based)


Vietnam2

Above: Vietnam (red=residence-based, green=source-based)


UK2

Above: UK (red=residence-based, green=source-based)


Nordic2

Above: Nordic countries (red=residence-based, green=source-based)


Netherlands2

Above: Netherlands (red=residence-based, green=source-based)


Slow WHT

Above: Management, technical service and consultancy fees WHT (green=included, red=excluded)

 

New data and working paper: measuring tax treaty negotiation outcomes

Today the International Centre for Tax and Development (ICTD) and ActionAid are launching a new dataset that I’ve developed over the last year. It’s the product of over a year’s work, mostly by an intrepid team of research assistants in the LSE law department, to code the content of over 500 tax treaties signed by developing countries. ActionAid, who funded the research assistants’ time, have also used the dataset to construct a league table for their campaigning work, and there’s a piece in the Guardian based on that. (I’m sure the headline, which criticises the UK, will provoke some debate.)

The aim of the dataset project is to make possible a whole lot of new research to get to the bottom of questions that have not been satisfactorily addressed in the literature to date. The jury is still out on whether tax treaties affect investment flows into developing countries, but do certain clauses matter more than others to investors? What determines the outcome of tax treaty negotiations: is it cooperation, power, or competence? What is a good outcome for a developing country from a tax treaty negotiation? Work on trade and investment agreements has already moved from a simple ‘is there a treaty?’ binary to studies based on the content of those agreements. With this dataset, we can do the same for tax treaties.

There’s also a working paper that I’ve written for ICTD, which sets out some of the initial conclusions I drew from simple descriptive work using the dataset. For example, here’s the chart showing how common treaty provisions that allow developing countries to tax foreign service providers have been over time. The difference between the two is that with a ‘service PE’, developing countries can only tax the company’s net profits, and only if it is physically present for a certain length of time; with a WHT clause, they can tax gross payments to foreign service providers, as most do in their domestic law, regardless of whether there is a physical presence.  The growth in both the provisions highlighted is quite notable.dataset1

The story for capital gains is more mixed. Article 13(4) is an anti-avoidance tool that allows a developing country to tax capital gains from the sale of a company whose value is mainly physical assets in the developing country, even if the company is located abroad. It’s becoming more common, which is not surprising since variations on it are included in both the OECD and UN model tax treaties. Article 13(5) gives a developing country the right to tax gains from the sale of any company resident in that country, even if the sale takes place abroad. Interestingly, this provision is becoming more scarce, though countries such as Vietnam have only recently begun to tax in this way in their domestic law. dataset2

I also constructed an index that evaluates the content of 24 different clauses within each tax treaty to assess how much of the developing country’s taxing rights it leaves intact (a higher value means a bigger share of taxing rights for the developing country). This chart shows that treaties between developing countries and OECD members are gradually becoming more favourable to the latter, while in contrast developing countries are starting to get better deals with countries outside the OECD.

Overall negotiated content by date of signature and type of treaty partner

dataset3

The downward trend is driven by falling withholding tax (WHT) rates, while the upward trend is primarily in permanent establishment (PE) provisions, as we can see by disaggregating the index into these different components.

Average values of category indexes for treaties signed in a given year

dataset4

This is new information that I don’t think people have been aware of before, so I’m quite excited about it. Here’s the summary of the working paper:

Measuring Tax Treaty Negotiation Outcomes:the ActionAid Tax Treaties Dataset

This paper introduces a new dataset that codes the content of 519 tax treaties signed by low- and lower-middle- income countries in Africa and Asia. Often called Double Taxation Agreements, bilateral tax treaties divide up the right to tax cross-border economic activity between their two signatories. When one of the signatories is a developing country that is predominantly a recipient of foreign investment, the effect of the tax treaty is to impose constraints on its ability to tax inward investors, ostensibly to encourage more investment.

The merits of tax treaties for developing countries have been challenged in critical legal literature for decades, and studies of whether or not they attract new investment into developing countries give contradictory and inconclusive results. These studies have rarely disaggregated the elements of tax treaties to determine which may be most pertinent to any investment-promoting effect. Meanwhile, as developing countries continue to negotiate, renegotiate, review and terminate tax treaties, comparative data on negotiating histories and outcomes is not easily obtained.

The new dataset fills both these gaps. Using it, this paper demonstrates how tax treaties are changing over time. The restrictions they impose on the rate of withholding tax developing countries can levy on cross-border payments have intensified since 1970. In contrast, the permanent establishment threshold, which specifies when a foreign company’s profits become taxable in a developing country, has been falling, giving developing countries more opportunity to tax foreign investors. The picture with respect to capital gains tax and other provisions is mixed. As a group, OECD countries appear to be moving towards treaties with developing countries that impose more restrictions on the latter’s taxing rights, while non-OECD countries appear to be allowing developing countries to retain more taxing rights than in the past. These overall trends, however, mask some surprising differences between the positions of individual industrialised and emerging economies. These findings pose more questions than they answer, and it is hoped that this paper and the dataset it accompanies will stimulate new research on tax treaties.

Revenue foregone through tax treaties in context

In the recent Tax Justice Network Africa report on tax treaties, I had a go at estimating some costs to governments, based on a back-of-the-envelope figure for cross-border dividend and interests payments.  This is similar to the methodology used by SOMO and the IMF. (It’s a bit rough and ready, because some of the return on FDI figures I used will include reinvested profits, not cross-border remittances, but I’ve seen some other more sophisticated working recently that produces roughly similar figures.)

What I didn’t realise when I wrote that report is that both Uganda and Zambia break out withholding tax revenue (which includes taxes on domestic as well as cross-border payments) in their budgets, so we can set these very rough estimates in context. I’ve been curious for a while to know the order of magnitude of the importance of tax treaties.

The upshot is that revenue foregone from the lower tax rates on qualifying dividends and interest in tax treaties (which is just one part of the revenue foregone through tax treaties) is about 15 percent of withholding tax revenue. As WHT revenue is about 40 percent of corporate tax revenue and five percent of total tax revenue, this means the revenue foregone is something like five percent of corporate tax revenue, and a little less than one percent of total tax revenue.  Here’s how I get there.

Estimating revenue foregone

Here’s the table from the TJN-A report. I take figures for the primary return on foreign direct investment and assume that investment from each country gets the same return. Then I apply the tax rate discount in the treaty to that those estimated flows. The revenue foregone using 2012 data is about US$17m in Uganda and US$42m in Zambia.

wht table

Uganda

Here’s the table from Uganda’s budget. The 2011/12 withholding tax (WHT) outturn works out at about US$130m using the exchange rate on 1st January 2012. The revenue foregone of US$17m is about 13 percent of total WHT revenue, or 0.7 percent of Uganda’s total tax revenue.

uganda

Zambia

For Zambia I only have the 2014 budget figures, which we can assume with inflation will be larger than those for 2012, the year for which the revenue foregone is estimated, and hence this will be an underestimate of the proportions. WHT foregone of US$42m is 15 percent of the total WHT revenue of US$280m, or 0.8 percent of total tax revenue (using the exchange rate on 1st January 2014).

zambia

Since these calculations don’t include the revenue foregone through reduced rates of other withholding taxes on portfolio dividends, royalties and technical service fees, never mind all the other ways in which tax treaties curb taxation of foreign investors, it seems reasonable to conclude that the total of all revenue foregone from Uganda and Zambia’s tax treaties is of the order of several percent of their total government revenue. There may be benefits to offset these costs, but the starting point for a cost/benefit analysis of tax treaties is certainly to estimate the costs!

UN tax committee meets this week: but what is the UN model for?

I’m on my way to the UN tax committee’s annual session in Geneva. This year’s agenda contains quite a few interesting topics. I can’t write about them all, but I thought I might pick out three that seem particularly interesting. Since they are all discussions about the model treaty and its commentary, the common question that they pose is, “what is the purpose of a model tax treaty?” I think you can take three (not mutually exclusive) views about this:

  1. It tells countries what works technically. It combines the wisdom of some of the most experienced tax officials in the world to produce a technically sophisticated template that negotiators can rely on.
  2. It tells countries what is politically palatable. If a provision is included in the UN model, for example, a group of experts from developed and developing countries have all been willing to agree to its inclusion, so neither side is going to consider it too outrageous.
  3. It tells countries what is acceptable behaviour. The models sketch out the concepts and principles that committee members think should underpin a country’s international tax system. It conveys an expectation that a country’s tax rules should be compatible with these concepts and principles.

From an international relations side, we might say that the first two purposes are about reducing transaction costs for negotiations, by providing countries with information ahead of time. The last one, on the other hand, would suggest that treaties act as instruments through which norms about acceptable behaviour are established and diffused within an international community.

The status of the OECD transfer pricing guidelines

When the 2010 update to the UN model treaty was being finalised, there was some controversy around article 9, which deals with transfer pricing and the arm’s length principle. The commentary to the previous version of the UN model stated that the OECD’s transfer pricing guidelines were “internationally accepted guidelines” and recommended that countries should follow them. A minority of committee members didn’t accept this view, and so rather than resolve the conflict, the commentary now records that [pdf] “The views expressed by the former Group of Experts have not yet been considered fully by the Committee of Experts, as indicated in the Records of its annual sessions.” Unusually, the record of the discussion identifies the dissenters as the Chinese, Brazilian and Indian members of the committee. It is worth noting that none of these three individuals are still members of the committee.

The new committee is going to discuss a proposed wording to resolve those differences. This wording states only that the OECD guidelines “contain valuable guidance” and adds that

the Committee has developed the United Nations Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing for Developing Countries which pays special attention to the experience of developing countries, reflects the realities for such countries, at their relevant stages of capacity development, and seeks broad consistency with the guidance provided by the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines.

There is a furious letter [pdf] from the US Council for International Business, which seems to be targeted directly at India, China and Brazil:

It seems inconsistent for G20 countries and other non-OECD countries that are now advocating for their views to be reflected in the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines to accept concessions from others participating in the development of those Guidelines and then undercut the very outcome of those negotiations by arguing elsewhere for positions that were rejected in that forum. If any notion of “fairness” has relevance in international tax, surely it should include the concept that acceptance of an invitation to bargain on an equal footing over a set of rules carries with it the good faith obligation to live by those same rules.

The letter argues that the UN Manual was not produced with enough participation from businesses, that the OECD guidelines are now formulated with input from “a broad spectrum of countries”, and that the proposed UN aim of “broad consistency” will permit “multiple, inconsistent applications of that principle, will lead to multiplied disputes, increased double taxation, and ultimately to serious damage to the cross-border trade and investment that fuels economic growth and development.”

This might be an argument based on purpose 1, 2 or 3 above. On 1, USCIB is arguing that the changes will create technical problems. On 2, it is arguing that the political signalling effects of the OECD and UN models undermine each other when countries agree to one thing at the OECD and push a different position at the UN. Finally, on 3, it is clearly concerned about diluting the clear message sent by the treaty commentaries at present, which is that the OECD guidelines are the only internationally accepted authority when it comes to transfer pricing.

Capital gains

Both as a discussion in its own right [pdf], and through a paper for the Extractive Industries subcommittee [pdf], there’s a lot of discussion of “indirect transfers”, where a capital asset in a developing country is sold, but the transaction takes place through the sale of a holding company located in another country. I have written about an example of this recently, and it was highlighted in the recent IMF spillovers report. As I observed, it doesn’t look like the G-20/OECD processes are going to look at this problem in any depth, so this is an instance where the UN committee is examining an issue of clear concern and interest among developing countries.

The discussion focuses on article 13(4) which covers the sale of a company whose value consists principally of immovable property. This may include a mine, or a capital-intensive business such as a mobile phone network. The UN papers highlight a range of administrative issues: how a developing country can know if a sale taking place abroad falls within the scope of this article, how to value the gain, how to define “immovable property” since the model treaties are not as clear as they could be on this matter.

What interests me most is the question of how to actually collect the tax, when the payment is made outside the country, and when by definition the company making the gain may no longer have any assets in the country. As the extractives paper observes:

While both the UN and OECD Models now contain optional Assistance in the Collection of Tax Debt Articles for countries wanting to provide for this in bilateral tax treaties, and there is a multilateral OECD/ Council of Europe Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters on the subject, this is not yet something most developing countries have provision for in their bilateral or multilateral relationships.

This is something tax authority officials from developing countries are definitely seeking from renegotiations. In the meantime, the extractives paper describes alternatives, which include asking the purchaser (who by definition will have assets in the country) to withhold the capital gains tax when paying for the transaction, and refusing to grant export licenses until the capital gains tax has been collected.

I don’t know how controversial this is going to be, but insofar as it is about providing advice to developing countries, I think that makes it a matter of purpose 1.

Services taxation

The committee is going to discuss a draft article [pdf] that would allow developing countries to tax technical services. This is a provision that exists in some form in many tax treaties already, and has been introduced into models such as the East African Community’s new model treaty. But neither the UN nor OECD model treaties include it. From a technical point of view (purpose 1), this new addition should be a good thing: since these provisions are fairly popular among developing countries’ tax treaties already, having an international Committee of Experts formulate a model provision built on their collective wisdom is surely a good thing.

That’s not the view taken by the International Chamber of Commerce in a letter [pdf] that outlines the main arguments likely to be raised against a withholding tax on management fees. The ICC is opposed to such a tax per se, but it emphasises that it is even more concerned about the double taxation that might result if countries impose such a tax it unilaterally. Here is what it says:

Given that it is the unanimous view of OECD Member States that the source basis taxation is not appropriate for services performed by a nonresident outside that State, it is unlikely that the country where services are performed will give up its right to tax and therefore such a provision is unlikely to serve as an effective model for bilateral agreements. While the UN Model reflects different interests than the OECD Model and different rules are therefore appropriate in some cases, it should be considered if deviating from a rule in the OECD Model that reflects unanimous agreement among OECD member countries will inevitably lead to conflicts in treaty negotiations. Doing so will likely encourage countries to take aggressive unilateral positions (in the absence of a treaty). The adoption of this rule on a unilateral basis will increase double taxation, reduce cross-border trade and increase costs for local consumers.

This is an argument that really goes to the heart of what the UN model is for. I think the ICC’s concern is that including an article sanctioning withholding taxes on technical fees in the model treaty will embolden developing countries to insist on the right to levy such taxes, and that this will make it harder for them to reach agreement with developed countries. That’s purpose 3.

An opposite argument, of course, would be that the UN committee, with members from OECD and non-OECD countries, should be in a good position to formulate an article that reconciles the concerns of OECD members and non-members. That’s purpose 2.

Following the ICC’s argument cited above, the model treaty’s job is not to provide a template that is to be used where countries do agree to include a particular provision. It is about circumscribing a definition of what is considered reasonable behaviour by a developing country. Keep it out of the model, they are saying, to discourage developing countries from doing it altogether.

Time we scrutinised China’s tax treaty practice, too

Democracy in action: David Gauke at Monday's delegated legislation committee session

Democracy in action: David Gauke at Monday’s delegated legislation committee session

On Monday the UK parliament took a total of 17 minutes to scrutinise new tax treaties with Zambia, Iceland, Germany, Japan and Belgium. I’ve complained before about how paltry these debates tend to be, and was all set for another blog along those lines. There was, indeed, much to grumble about. No questions from the opposition about the UK’s renegotiated treaty with Zambia at all, a week after the IMF warned that developing countries should exercise “considerable caution” when entering into tax treaties.

Instead, Labour’s Shabana Mahmood asked how the UK’s treaty making priorities were set, and why there is no treaty with Brazil. The response from the Minister David Gauke was considerably less informative than what I’m sure Mahmood could have found out by asking, say, her colleague Stephen Timms, Gauke’s predecessor.

But something interesting did come up when Gauke was introducing the Zambia treaty. He noted that the withholding tax rates have been reduced in line with Zambia’s treaty with China. And indeed they have. It seems to be China, often regarded as the champion of source state taxation at the UN tax committee, which is responsible for the lower withholding tax rates. I’m going to explain here why I think both the UK and China have questions to answer about these treaties.

The UK-Zambia renegotiation: a missed opportunity

The UK-Zambia renegotiation looks like a ‘balanced package’, meaning that Zambia will have gained and lost in roughly equal measure. Looking at the treaty, I don’t think it can be seen as a win for Zambia.

What it lost was withholding tax rates. Zambian tax on dividends to British portfolio investors will be reduced under the new treaty from 15% to 5%, and tax on royalty payments for the use of British intellectual property will drop from 10% to 5%. This matches what’s in the 2010 Zambia-China treaty [pdf], so it looks like Britain was keen to keep its investors competitive relative to their Chinese competitors.

By way of context, Zambia’s non-treaty rates are much higher, 15% and 20% respectively. We can argue about the economic case for this level of withholding tax, but treaties are not just about rates, they’re about the right to raise rates. It will be five years before Zambia can re-examine these low withholding rates in its treaty with the UK.

What Zambia got in return for the reduced withholding tax rates was the UN concept of services permanent establishment, which will allow it to tax services provided within Zambia by British businesses or individuals. To do so, Zambia won’t need them to have a physical fixed base in Zambia, as it would have done before, but it will need them to be physically in Zambia, furnishing services, for at least 183 days in a given year.

(There are also some modernising changes, which may in practice benefit Zambia more than the UK. This includes simple anti-abuse wording such as the “beneficial owner” clause in the withholding tax articles and a “property rich companies” clause into the capital gains article. It also includes information exchange and assistance in recovery articles. These should be good for Zambia, if it takes advantage of them. The information exchange clause could, for example, allow Zambia to get hold of country-by-country reporting on British companies if that proposal is implemented by the OECD.)

But the overall picture, taking into account the lower withholding taxes, is of a treaty that is still much more disadvantageous to Zambia than one based on the UN model would have been. I’m not even sure it’s a better position than the OECD model. Since Zambia was not nearly as aggressive at negotiating after independence as, say, Kenya, it started this renegotiation from a lower base: already low withholding taxes, no taxing rights over British airlines, limited capital gains tax rights, and no right to tax management fees, to name a few examples.

In a context in which some countries are re-examining their tax treaties with developing countries, and organisations such as the IMF are calling into question the benefit of tax treaties on current terms, there would have been a strong case for the UK to seek not a balanced negotiation, but a reapportionment of taxing rights towards Zambia, in line with the UN model. It’s a real shame that the treaty slipped through parliament on Monday without anyone at least asking about this.

China is driving the falling withholding tax rates

This argument for a more pro-source taxation treaty between the UK and Zambia would be easier to make if the 2010 China-Zambia treaty had been more generous. But in fact the terms of the two treaties are near identical. On the face of it, it seems quite likely that Zambia has been bounced into this renegotiation to help keep British mining, agriculture and manufacturing companies more competitive in the face of competition from China. These companies will benefit from the lower withholding tax rates but are unlikely to be affected by the services permanent establishment quid pro quo.

The IMF report talked about “strategic spillovers” from tax policy, in which one country’s policy pushes other countries towards a response. I’m now starting to wonder if China’s negotiating stance might be having just such a strategic spillover, contributing to the decline in withholding tax rates in treaties also picked up by the IMF. Below you’ll see that China’s treaties with sub-Saharan countries have the lowest withholding taxes in a sample of countries investing into Africa.

Withholding taxes in treaties with sub-Saharan countries, 1973-2012

Withholding taxes in treaties with sub-Saharan countries, 1973-2012

China’s treaties are newer than other countries’, so what if this trend is just an artefact of the general decline? Not so if we look at just the last 20 years, where the story is much the same, with only Mauritius (which has several zero withholding tax treaties) having a more advantageous treaty network.

Withholding taxes in treaties with sub-Saharan countries, 1993-2012

Withholding taxes in treaties with sub-Saharan countries, 1993-2012

Let’s now test whether those three Chinese treaties in Africa are typical of China’s treaties more generally. This time we’re looking at all low-income countries. Not only is China the largest signatory of treaties with this group among my sample, it also emerges as one of the most demanding negotiators.

Withholding tax rates in treaties with low-income countries, 1993-2012

Withholding tax rates in treaties with low-income countries, 1993-2012

Withholding taxes are of course only one part of the source-residence balance in a tax treaty. I took a quick look at the China-Africa treaties, and – aside from the services permanent establishment.- there is no sign that they include pro-source provisions such as withholding taxes on management fees, or a “limited force of attraction”. It’s been well-documented that China favours expansive source taxation in its treaties with outward investors, while denying them to capital-importing developing countries.

The UK-Zambia treaty seems to be an example of a strategic interaction between two countries, one (the UK) with a longstanding investment base in Zambia, and the other (China) posing a threat to that investment. It’s all very well to criticise countries like the UK for not being more generous in negotiations with developing countries, but in doing so, critics should be careful not turn a blind eye to countries outside the OECD, who may even be the ones leading the race to the bottom.

“Tax, Law and Development”: recommended reading for campaigners

This spring, two academic books have come out that offer an opportunity to look at tax and development from different perspectives. “Critical Issues in Taxation and Development” edited by Clemens Fuest and George Zodrow is going to be the economists’ take, using “modern empirical methods” to answer a lot of “what is the effect of X on Y” questions. I haven’t got my hands on it yet, but in the meantime I’ve been reading “Tax, Law and Development” edited by Yariv Brauner and Miranda Stewart.

The contributors to Tax, Law and Development don’t follow a strict empirical approach, rather they give their own reasoned opinions on how various laws, policies and institutions in international tax affect developing countries, and how they might be changed for the better. This is a work of critical legal scholarship, a position staked out by its editors in the book’s introduction, which argues that “we cannot avoid the challenge of tax competition by calls to end taxation of mobile capital, even if this may be perceived to be a theoretical economic inevitability.”

The book covers “on the ground” issues such as tax expenditure reporting in India and fiscal federalism in China, as well as international tax justice topics such as tax treaties, information exchange and country-by-country reporting. Each reader will find different parts interesting, and so here I’m going to pick out a few chapters that were the most useful for me.

Quite a large chunk of the book covers tax incentives, reflecting how big an issue this is for tax and development policy. Brauner and Luis Eduardo Schoueri’s chapters demolish the idea that tax incentives are purely a domestic policy issue for developing countries, by looking at how they interact with tax treaties and national policy in developed countries.

A controversial mechanism through which this can occur is tax sparing, through which a developed country offers its tax residents a credit against its tax bill for the tax they would have paid in a developing country, even if that country waives the tax to encourage investment. This way the taxpayer gets to keep the benefit from the tax incentive, rather than it being captured by their home state. As Brauner points out, policy advice from developed country-dominated organisations such as the IMF and OECD has for some time been that tax incentives are a poor use of the money, yet by continuing to give tax sparing agreements in their treaties, these governments keep on encouraging it.

Schoueri’s paper also discusses matching credit, a quasi-incentive included in some tax treaties whereby a developing country agrees to lower its withholding taxes on inward investment, but the developed country at the other side continues to offer a credit as if withholding taxes were still levied at higher non-treaty rate. A mainstay of Brazil’s tax treaty network in the 1970s, this mechanism ensures that inward investors, rather than the treaty partner’s fisc, benefit from the lower rate.

Many countries – including, increasingly, the UK – exempt their residents’ overseas profits altogether, in which case tax sparing and matching credit may be less relevant considerations. Here Schoueri argues that the system currently has inbuilt a kind of distorting reverse tax sparing: when the residence country decides not to tax some of its residents by exempting their foreign income from taxation, the source country is prevented by tax treaties from claiming this untaxed income for itself. As described above, when it’s the source country that foregoes revenue, it can be captured by the residence state. Schoueri argues for a more symmetrical arrangement.

Tracy Gutuza’s chapter on the South African headquarters regime is also about the impact of a tax incentive on developing countries. This one was created by the South African government to compete with the tax haven of Mauritius as the base for multinationals’ holding companies when investing into the rest of Africa. Who can blame them, I wondered, when even the UK is joining in the race to the bottom? Nonetheless, it’s a cautionary tale about the need to look at the BRICS with a critical eye. The regime twice fell afoul of the OECD’s 1998 definition of harmful tax practices, and Gutuza argues that the resulting social pressure was enough for it to be withdrawn or modified in both cases…except that as of 2011 it’s back.

Towards the end of the book comes a series of chapters preoccupied with this kind of social pressure. Pasqual Pistone is concerned about the solidification of “a kind of global norm concerning the exercise of taxing jurisdiction” as legal fact, Heather Stewart the “hybrid mode of global tax governance” emerging from tax information exchange cooperation, and Allison Christians “whether awakening public attention to multinational tax planning will provoke sufficient political attention to compel paradigmatic change.”

The latter paper was an interesting read for me, because it devoted quite a bit of space to the drafting of a report within the OECD tax and development task force [pdf] in which I was a participant. It’s interesting that to the outside observer, basing her analysis on published documents, certain events in the process took on a much greater significance than they did to those of us involved at the time, while other occurrences that felt much more significant don’t get a mention because they took place in private. One could say that this demonstrates the limits of desk-based research, but actually it made me rethink my own understanding of what happened at the time, as well as of the importance of the written record.

This is another good reason for campaigners to read this book. Not just to expand their hinterland, but also to see how their movement and the issues they work on are seen from a different, and largely sympathetic, perspective.

ABF’s misleading statements

I try to use this blog to stimulate debate, rather than just pumping out propaganda. I particularly enjoyed the debates that the Starbucks case provoked, with Ben Saunders‘ investigation involving more twists than The Killing.

But today I’m quite annoyed, so this is probably a slightly more partisan post than normal. Day 2 of the Associated British Foods versus ActionAid story has been the “ABF denies” stories, which is natural. But what has annoyed me is that ABF’s statements are so selective and misleading, and that the journalists who’ve written them up don’t seem to have examined them critically at all. I was especially surprised by the piece in Tax Journal, because I’d expect the industry press to scrutinise both sides’ claims extensively.

In most cases, ABF either mischaracterises ActionAid’s argument, or makes points it already made in the correspondence [pdf] between the two organisations, and which are addressed directly in the report [pdf]. This is why it’s so frustrating to see the ABF line appearing as the last word in these stories.

So, below I’ve been through all the new ABF statements I’ve found since the ActionAid report was published, and explained why I don’t think they discredit the original report. I believe this is known in the blogosphere as “fisking“.

Continue reading