Search

This Article is about how the world reestablishes international tax order. The Article focuses on the OECD's work on profit reallocation and asks whether this multilateral effort can be successful in stabilizing the international tax system. The analysis centers on the current leading concepts for reallocating profit among jurisdictions under what is known as 'Pillar One' of the OECD work programme. To analyze whether any Pillar One concept can be turned into a stable multilateral regime, it is necessary to specify certain elements of what a proposal to reallocate profits might entail. Accordingly, this Article sets out two strawman proposals. One strawman uses a 'market intangibles' concept that explicitly separates routine and residual returns. The other strawman may reach a similar result, but does not explicitly attempt to separate routine and residual returns. Instead, in current OECD parlance, it might be described as a 'distribution-based' approach. The Article asks whether either of the two strawmen could be agreed upon and stabilized multilaterally given the tools of modern international tax diplomacy. I conclude that the current procedural and institutional architecture for cementing international tax relations among states is inadequate to stabilize either of the strawmen. Nevertheless, with certain changes, reestablishing order may be possible. Moreover, I conclude that there are six key structural decisions that impact the ability to stabilize the international tax architecture of any Pillar One approach and that these decisions are likely to be implicitly made in the course of choosing a political direction for Pillar One work in 2019. The choices made with regard to these decisions determine whether or not it will be possible to stabilize Pillar One. Even if good resolutions are reached along these six dimensions, there are only a couple of paths to stabilize the system. One path would involve using every tool in the current OECD arsenal in new and more expansive ways, and then substantially depoliticizing international tax matters and removing G20 involvement, such that logics of appropriateness developed among tax administrators isolated from political pressures and acting through transnational networks could lend stability to a new set of rules and principles. Even then, only a few Pillar One compromises could be stabilized this way. The alternative path, which could stabilize a broader range of proposals, requires formalizing the new regime in international law through a true multilateral treaty., INTRODUCTION 132 I. EXISTING MECHANISMS FOR MULTILATERAL COORDINATION IN INTERNATIONAL TAX MATTERS 135 A. The G20 Economic Soft Law Model 135 B. The OECD Model Treaty and the Multilateral Instrument [...]

The article focuses on the issues related to the international tax avoidance by multinational corporations with the launch of Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project as an attempt to changeinternational taxnorms since the 1920s. It mentions that institutional and procedural architecture for multilateral action used in international financial law with the project focused on tax transparency. It also mentions that need to broadens the international economic governance.

The international tax system is in the midst of a contest between automatic information reporting and anonymous withholding models for ensuring that nations have the ability to tax offshore accounts. At stake is the extent of many countries' capacity to tax investment income of individuals and profits of closely held businesses through an income tax in an increasingly financially integrated world. Incongruent initiatives of the European Union, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Switzerland, and the United States together represent an emerging international regime in which financial institutions act to facilitate countries' ability to tax their residents' offshore accounts. The growing consensus that financial institutions should act as cross-border tax intermediaries represents a remarkable shift in international norms that has yet to be recognized in the academic literature. The debate, however, is about how financial institutions should serve as cross-border tax intermediaries, and for which countries. Different outcomes in this contest portend starkly different futures for the extent of cross-border tax administrative assistance available to most countries. The triumph of an automatic information reporting model over an anonymous withholding model is key to (1) allowing for the taxation of principal, (2) ensuring that most countries are included in the benefit of financial institutions serving as cross-border tax intermediaries, (3) encouraging taxpayer engagement with the polity, and (4) supporting sovereign policy flexibility, especially in emerging and developing economies. This Article closes with proposals to help reconcile the emerging automatic information exchange approaches to produce an effective multilateral system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]