Recent research has tried to prove whether social norms, psychographic elements and attitudes have measurable effects on financial behavior. One of the areas where these elements’ influence is particularly relevant is tax compliance. The main factor to be considered as important in compliance behavior is tax morale, or the intrinsic motivation to pay taxes.
The present paper focuses on the implications of tax morale in tax compliance behavior in Albania. During the analysis we have tried to give the answers of two main questions. Which are the influential factors on tax morale of the Albanian taxpayers? And secondly,how does tax morale impact on tax compliance behavior in Albania? The purpose of this paper is to estimate the influence of internal and external factors on tax morale and then to analyze their effect on tax compliance behavior.
The conclusions of this paper are based on literature review and data analysis gathered from questionnaires to estimate the implications of those factors considered as relevant to tax morale. There is an evident connection between these factors and tax compliance behavior. As a consequence this paper is relevant to Albanian taxpayers’ attitude and further research studies are recommended to be made.
{"title":"Implications of Tax Morale in Tax Compliance Behavior: Albania’s Case","authors":"F. Balla","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3297478","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3297478","url":null,"abstract":"Recent research has tried to prove whether social norms, psychographic elements and attitudes have measurable effects on financial behavior. One of the areas where these elements’ influence is particularly relevant is tax compliance. The main factor to be considered as important in compliance behavior is tax morale, or the intrinsic motivation to pay taxes.<br><br>The present paper focuses on the implications of tax morale in tax compliance behavior in Albania. During the analysis we have tried to give the answers of two main questions. Which are the influential factors on tax morale of the Albanian taxpayers? And secondly,how does tax morale impact on tax compliance behavior in Albania? The purpose of this paper is to estimate the influence of internal and external factors on tax morale and then to analyze their effect on tax compliance behavior. <br><br>The conclusions of this paper are based on literature review and data analysis gathered from questionnaires to estimate the implications of those factors considered as relevant to tax morale. There is an evident connection between these factors and tax compliance behavior. As a consequence this paper is relevant to Albanian taxpayers’ attitude and further research studies are recommended to be made.<br><br><br>","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124539052","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This is a Question and Answer styled report on the present provisions on personal income tax in Nigeria, with a slight reference to the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and its non-application to Nigeria citizens with accounts in Foreign Financial Institutions.
{"title":"Nigerian Personal Income Tax - Questions and Answers","authors":"Ose Binitie","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3043698","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3043698","url":null,"abstract":"This is a Question and Answer styled report on the present provisions on personal income tax in Nigeria, with a slight reference to the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and its non-application to Nigeria citizens with accounts in Foreign Financial Institutions.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"96 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124181472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Irma Johanna Mosquera Valderrama, Addy Mazz, Luis Eduardo Schoueri, Natalia Quiñones, J. Roeleveld, P. Pistone, F. Zimmer
The overall aim of this article is to analyse the taxpayers' rights in relation to the emerging standard of transparency with specific reference to Brazil, Colombia, South Africa and Uruguay. Exchange of information between tax authorities is increasing rapidly all around the world. This global development is largely the result of the introduction of the standard of transparency by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ("OECD") with the political mandate of the G20 and more recently, in 2013, the introduction of the global standard of automatic exchange of information. Governments have agreed that exchange of information is necessary to prevent tax evasion and to tackle tax avoidance including aggressive tax planning. All surveyed countries have accepted the standard of transparency including the standard of automatic exchange of information. Furthermore, it is evident that the development of such standards appears to have taken place in a coordinated manner, led mainly by international organizations comprising governmental officials. This article has first provided a comparative overview of the rules that Brazil, Colombia, South Africa and Uruguay have introduced to protect the taxpayers' rights in the exchange of information process being the right to access to public information, the right to confidentiality, the right to privacy, and the procedural rights (right to be informed, the right to be notified and right to object and appeal). Thereafter, this article has assessed whether the rules introduced by the surveyed countries to protect these rights are consistent with the fundamental taxpayers' rights that belong to the rule of law of these countries and with the principles of good governance and fiscal transparency. The main conclusion is that the countries have introduced to some extent similar rules to protect the right to confidentiality, right to privacy and the procedural rights in the exchange of information. However, some differences may be found in the detail level of protection of confidentiality in South Africa and in respect of the procedural rights in Uruguay. One of the drawbacks of these rules is that the rules introduced by the surveyed countries do not ensure that the protection of the right to confidentiality and the right to privacy is effectively guaranteed. The results of the analysis show that these rules do not protect the taxpayer in case of breach of confidentiality or misuse of the information exchanged. This article argues that the differences among rules and the lack of protection for taxpayer information may hinder the effective protection of the taxpayer and the tax administration should guarantee the protection of the taxpayer rights as part of the rule of law. Therefore, this article provides in Section 4 three recommendations addressing the right to confidentiality, the right to privacy and the taxpayers' procedural rights. These recommendations may be extended (as best practices)
{"title":"The Rule of Law and the Effective Protection of Taxpayers’ Rights in Developing Countries","authors":"Irma Johanna Mosquera Valderrama, Addy Mazz, Luis Eduardo Schoueri, Natalia Quiñones, J. Roeleveld, P. Pistone, F. Zimmer","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3034360","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3034360","url":null,"abstract":"The overall aim of this article is to analyse the taxpayers' rights in relation to the emerging standard of transparency with specific reference to Brazil, Colombia, South Africa and Uruguay. Exchange of information between tax authorities is increasing rapidly all around the world. This global development is largely the result of the introduction of the standard of transparency by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (\"OECD\") with the political mandate of the G20 and more recently, in 2013, the introduction of the global standard of automatic exchange of information. Governments have agreed that exchange of information is necessary to prevent tax evasion and to tackle tax avoidance including aggressive tax planning. All surveyed countries have accepted the standard of transparency including the standard of automatic exchange of information. Furthermore, it is evident that the development of such standards appears to have taken place in a coordinated manner, led mainly by international organizations comprising governmental officials. \u0000 \u0000This article has first provided a comparative overview of the rules that Brazil, Colombia, South Africa and Uruguay have introduced to protect the taxpayers' rights in the exchange of information process being the right to access to public information, the right to confidentiality, the right to privacy, and the procedural rights (right to be informed, the right to be notified and right to object and appeal). Thereafter, this article has assessed whether the rules introduced by the surveyed countries to protect these rights are consistent with the fundamental taxpayers' rights that belong to the rule of law of these countries and with the principles of good governance and fiscal transparency. \u0000 \u0000The main conclusion is that the countries have introduced to some extent similar rules to protect the right to confidentiality, right to privacy and the procedural rights in the exchange of information. However, some differences may be found in the detail level of protection of confidentiality in South Africa and in respect of the procedural rights in Uruguay. One of the drawbacks of these rules is that the rules introduced by the surveyed countries do not ensure that the protection of the right to confidentiality and the right to privacy is effectively guaranteed. The results of the analysis show that these rules do not protect the taxpayer in case of breach of confidentiality or misuse of the information exchanged. \u0000 \u0000This article argues that the differences among rules and the lack of protection for taxpayer information may hinder the effective protection of the taxpayer and the tax administration should guarantee the protection of the taxpayer rights as part of the rule of law. Therefore, this article provides in Section 4 three recommendations addressing the right to confidentiality, the right to privacy and the taxpayers' procedural rights. These recommendations may be extended (as best practices)","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121172612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Will the United States Tax Court apply Action 9’s recommendations regarding risk allocation for transfer pricing purposes? In short, no. The U.S. Tax Court will not apply the OECD BEPS Action 9 Recommendation regarding risk allocation for three reasons. (1) Two Constitutional reasons: (a) the Constitutional cavalcade of hierarchy regarding international law in the United States — much less the precedential value of a secondary source, such as OECD reports. (b) The concept of stare decisis that is embedded in the common law system of the Anglo-American tradition relies on cases being decided as they have been decided in the past. The tradition of upholding prior precedent is not easily broken — except for egregious reasons, such as regarding slavery. (2) Given the status of international law and international secondary sources in the United States in addition to the concept of stare decisis, the U.S. Tax Court — as all courts in the United States — consistently build on judicial application of law. Four key transfer pricing cases since the 1986 transfer pricing tax reforms in the United States will be shown to support the concept of stare decisis. (3) Finally, the most recent transfer pricing case — Amazon — shows that the Court still upholds the prior precedential cases through stare decisis. Moreover — and perhaps more importantly in the international context regarding other countries’ decision to implement Action 9 — had the IRS brought the argument of Action 9 forward, not only would the entire case would have been analyzed differently, but the prospect of bringing Action 9’s reasoning forward, the IRS would have for forfeited all claims to the pricing of the transferred intellectual property (IP) to the “empty company” — as will be shown later.
{"title":"Amazon Inc., BEPS, and the New Method of Risk Allocation: Comparing U.S. Jurisprudence and OECD Approaches to Risk Allocation in the Post-BEPS Era of Transfer Pricing","authors":"Charles Edward Andrew Lincoln IV","doi":"10.31235/osf.io/nf98w","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/nf98w","url":null,"abstract":"Will the United States Tax Court apply Action 9’s recommendations regarding risk allocation for transfer pricing purposes? In short, no. The U.S. Tax Court will not apply the OECD BEPS Action 9 Recommendation regarding risk allocation for three reasons. (1) Two Constitutional reasons: (a) the Constitutional cavalcade of hierarchy regarding international law in the United States — much less the precedential value of a secondary source, such as OECD reports. (b) The concept of stare decisis that is embedded in the common law system of the Anglo-American tradition relies on cases being decided as they have been decided in the past. The tradition of upholding prior precedent is not easily broken — except for egregious reasons, such as regarding slavery. (2) Given the status of international law and international secondary sources in the United States in addition to the concept of stare decisis, the U.S. Tax Court — as all courts in the United States — consistently build on judicial application of law. Four key transfer pricing cases since the 1986 transfer pricing tax reforms in the United States will be shown to support the concept of stare decisis. (3) Finally, the most recent transfer pricing case — Amazon — shows that the Court still upholds the prior precedential cases through stare decisis. Moreover — and perhaps more importantly in the international context regarding other countries’ decision to implement Action 9 — had the IRS brought the argument of Action 9 forward, not only would the entire case would have been analyzed differently, but the prospect of bringing Action 9’s reasoning forward, the IRS would have for forfeited all claims to the pricing of the transferred intellectual property (IP) to the “empty company” — as will be shown later.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"106 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115921553","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The author examines the lowering of the threshold at which commissionaire, auxiliary, and building site and construction activities qualify as a permanent establishment under the Multilateral anti-BEPS Convention (MLI). With a view to countries planning to implement the provisions in this convention on permanent establishments within their tax treaty networks, the author argues for exercising a degree of caution. Some caution may be worthwhile to be exercised specifically with regard to the MLI provisions on commissionaire and auxiliary activities, as these provisions seem unlikely to have any substantial effect in terms of effectively shifting substantial tax base towards market jurisdictions. Attributing tax base to the market jurisdiction requires a fundamental restructuring of the way in which business profits are divided geographically in international taxation. In the absence of any moves in this direction, it would not seem sensible to alter the reference points for determining tax jurisdiction. Implementing these MLI provisions could meanwhile also prompt countries to seek to claim more of the ‘tax pie’ for themselves than they are entitled to under the existing international profit attribution rules. In that event, it would not seem inconceivable that such action could result in double taxation or double non-taxation, legal uncertainty and problems of an administrative nature – red tape.
{"title":"Lowering the Permanent Establishment Threshold via the Anti-BEPS Convention: Much Ado about Nothing?","authors":"Maarten Floris de Wilde","doi":"10.54648/taxi2017047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2017047","url":null,"abstract":"The author examines the lowering of the threshold at which commissionaire, auxiliary, and building site and construction activities qualify as a permanent establishment under the Multilateral anti-BEPS Convention (MLI). With a view to countries planning to implement the provisions in this convention on permanent establishments within their tax treaty networks, the author argues for exercising a degree of caution. Some caution may be worthwhile to be exercised specifically with regard to the MLI provisions on commissionaire and auxiliary activities, as these provisions seem unlikely to have any substantial effect in terms of effectively shifting substantial tax base towards market jurisdictions. Attributing tax base to the market jurisdiction requires a fundamental restructuring of the way in which business profits are divided geographically in international taxation. In the absence of any moves in this direction, it would not seem sensible to alter the reference points for determining tax jurisdiction. Implementing these MLI provisions could meanwhile also prompt countries to seek to claim more of the ‘tax pie’ for themselves than they are entitled to under the existing international profit attribution rules. In that event, it would not seem inconceivable that such action could result in double taxation or double non-taxation, legal uncertainty and problems of an administrative nature – red tape. ","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124331687","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Economic theory dating back to Domar and Musgrave (1944, Quarterly Journal of Economics 58, 388-422) suggests that the tax treatment of gains and losses can affect incentives for firms to undertake high-risk investments. We take advantage of a 2002 tax reform in Japan as a natural experiment to test the theory. This tax reform introduced a consolidated taxation system (CTS). The CTS allows business groups to offset gains with losses across firms in their group. Thus, the CTS can mitigate disincentives to high-risk investments. Using information on R&D as the investment risk measures, we estimate dynamic investment models with unique panel data of Japanese firms between 1994 and 2012. For identification, we take an instrumental variable approach in a difference-in-differences framework or in a triple-differences framework. We provide evidence that the CTS increases R&D, in agreement with Domar and Musgrave (1944). We also find evidence that the CTS enhances risk-sharing across group members and across asset types. These findings suggest that mitigating tax asymmetries is an effective policy to help encourage both risk-taking and risk-sharing.
追溯到Domar和Musgrave (1944, Quarterly Journal of Economics 58, 388-422)的经济理论表明，对收益和损失的税收处理会影响企业进行高风险投资的激励。我们利用日本2002年的税制改革作为自然实验来检验这一理论。这项税制改革引入了综合税制(CTS)。CTS允许企业集团用集团内各公司的亏损来抵消收益。因此，CTS可以减轻对高风险投资的抑制作用。本文以研发信息为投资风险测度，利用日本企业1994 - 2012年的独特面板数据估计了动态投资模型。为了识别，我们在差异中的差异框架或三差异框架中采用工具变量方法。我们提供的证据表明，CTS增加了研发，与Domar和Musgrave(1944)一致。我们还发现证据表明，CTS增强了集团成员和资产类型之间的风险分担。这些发现表明，减轻税收不对称是一项有效的政策，有助于鼓励冒险和风险分担。
{"title":"Corporate Tax Asymmetries and R&D: Evidence from the Introduction of Consolidated Tax Returns in Japan","authors":"Masanori Orihara","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2811008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2811008","url":null,"abstract":"Economic theory dating back to Domar and Musgrave (1944, Quarterly Journal of Economics 58, 388-422) suggests that the tax treatment of gains and losses can affect incentives for firms to undertake high-risk investments. We take advantage of a 2002 tax reform in Japan as a natural experiment to test the theory. This tax reform introduced a consolidated taxation system (CTS). The CTS allows business groups to offset gains with losses across firms in their group. Thus, the CTS can mitigate disincentives to high-risk investments. Using information on R&D as the investment risk measures, we estimate dynamic investment models with unique panel data of Japanese firms between 1994 and 2012. For identification, we take an instrumental variable approach in a difference-in-differences framework or in a triple-differences framework. We provide evidence that the CTS increases R&D, in agreement with Domar and Musgrave (1944). We also find evidence that the CTS enhances risk-sharing across group members and across asset types. These findings suggest that mitigating tax asymmetries is an effective policy to help encourage both risk-taking and risk-sharing.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131115022","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The issue of corporate residence has recently attracted a great deal of attention in both the popular press and in academic discourse, primarily because of the phenomenon of corporate inversions. The consensus among commentators is that the root of the problem is a flawed definition of corporate residence, and they have therefore proposed replacing the current definition, which relies upon place of incorporation, with another that relies upon control and management, home office, customer base, source of income, or the residence of shareholders. The thesis of this article is that the concept of tax residence is inapplicable to corporations. Residence in tax law delineates the boundaries of distributive justice, and whereas corporations cannot be parties to a scheme of distributive justice, corporate residence is a misnomer. The incongruity of corporate residence along with the fact that residence is a fundamental concept in international taxation is one reason that the current international tax regime has proven unviable. The article then goes on to describe in broad outline an international corporate tax regime that avoids the problem of corporate residence by focusing on shareholders instead of on corporations.
{"title":"The Myth of Corporate Tax Residence","authors":"David R. Elkins","doi":"10.7916/CJTL.V9I1.2856","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/CJTL.V9I1.2856","url":null,"abstract":"The issue of corporate residence has recently attracted a great deal of attention in both the popular press and in academic discourse, primarily because of the phenomenon of corporate inversions. The consensus among commentators is that the root of the problem is a flawed definition of corporate residence, and they have therefore proposed replacing the current definition, which relies upon place of incorporation, with another that relies upon control and management, home office, customer base, source of income, or the residence of shareholders. \u0000The thesis of this article is that the concept of tax residence is inapplicable to corporations. Residence in tax law delineates the boundaries of distributive justice, and whereas corporations cannot be parties to a scheme of distributive justice, corporate residence is a misnomer. The incongruity of corporate residence along with the fact that residence is a fundamental concept in international taxation is one reason that the current international tax regime has proven unviable. \u0000The article then goes on to describe in broad outline an international corporate tax regime that avoids the problem of corporate residence by focusing on shareholders instead of on corporations.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115236877","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This letter responds to the request in Notice 2017-28 for public comment on recommendations for items that should be included on the 2017-2018 Priority Guidance Plan. Recommendations in this letter cover various treaty abuse situations.
{"title":"Letter to IRS Concerning Notice 2017-28, 2017-2018 Priority Guidance Plan - Tax Treaty Matters","authors":"Jeffery M. Kadet","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2978793","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2978793","url":null,"abstract":"This letter responds to the request in Notice 2017-28 for public comment on recommendations for items that should be included on the 2017-2018 Priority Guidance Plan. Recommendations in this letter cover various treaty abuse situations.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133957956","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
President Trump has decreed that for every new regulation, two old regulations should be repealed. The next time the IRS wishes to adopt a new tax regulation, I have two candidates for repeal: cost sharing and “check the box”, the 1997 regulation that enables US-based multinationals to shift profits from high to low tax foreign jurisdictions without triggering US tax. Both of those regulations run directly contrary to the intent of Congress in enacting Subpart F (the CFC rules) in 1961 and amending Code section 482 by adding the super royalty rule in 1986. They are the technical building blocks underlying the ability of US based multinationals to avoid US tax on profits economically earned in the US. It is high time for both of them to go.
特朗普总统下令，每出台一项新法规，就必须废除两项旧法规。下次美国国税局希望采用新的税收法规时，我有两个废除的候选方案:成本分担和“复选框”(check The box)。1997年的这项法规使美国的跨国公司能够将利润从高税收的外国司法管辖区转移到低税收的外国司法管辖区，而不会触发美国的税收。这两项法规都直接违背了国会在1961年颁布第F部分(CFC规则)和在1986年通过增加超级特许权使用费规则来修订法典第482条的意图。它们是总部位于美国的跨国公司能够避免在美国以经济方式赚取的利润在美国纳税的技术基石。他们俩都该走了。
{"title":"Amazon vs. Commissioner: Has Cost Sharing Outlived Its Usefulness?","authors":"R. Avi-Yonah","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2961235","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2961235","url":null,"abstract":"President Trump has decreed that for every new regulation, two old regulations should be repealed. The next time the IRS wishes to adopt a new tax regulation, I have two candidates for repeal: cost sharing and “check the box”, the 1997 regulation that enables US-based multinationals to shift profits from high to low tax foreign jurisdictions without triggering US tax. Both of those regulations run directly contrary to the intent of Congress in enacting Subpart F (the CFC rules) in 1961 and amending Code section 482 by adding the super royalty rule in 1986. They are the technical building blocks underlying the ability of US based multinationals to avoid US tax on profits economically earned in the US. It is high time for both of them to go.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121906354","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Russian Abstract: Ниже рассмотрены некоторые предложения и сценарии по ликвидации всеобщей избирательной привилегии. Основа реформы, - апелляция не только к здравому смыслу избирателя, но, прежде всего, к моральному чувству, борьба против очевидных конфликтов интересов. Последние же вызывают постоянное и неуклонное снижение моральных стандартов в политике и на государственной службе (вплоть до открытого бунта против законно избранной власти бюрократов и клиентов бюджета). Показано, что опасности мощного народного движения в защиту привилегии по опыту прошлого ожидать не стоит. Не говоря уже о том, что легко доставшаяся и используемая для продажи голоса привилегия не создает достаточных стимулов ни идти на риск, ни брать на себя иные издержки политического активизма. English Abstract: In this paper authors are focused on some practical moves and scenarios of repeal of Universal Suffrage. The principal idea of the Reform is to appeal not to more or less clear practical advantages of Taxpayers' Democracy, but, first and foremost to moral feelings of the citizens. Moral failures of Universal Suffrage, numerous conflicts of interests immanent to the system cause an urgent need to stop it corrupting influence on the society. The process of dumbing down of moral standards, both voters and politicians, could be broken. Historical experience provides a number of evidences the repeal will not resulted in significant insurrections. The groups which acquired this privilege without tough struggle and using it as a leverage to extort rent aren't ready to fight, taking on the risks and costs of political struggle (political activism on personal level).
{"title":"Дорога к демократии налогоплательщика и воина: '...Если захотите – это не сказка' (A Long Way to Taxpayers' Democracy...If You Will It)","authors":"K. Yanovskiy, S. Zhavoronkov","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2960966","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2960966","url":null,"abstract":"Russian Abstract: Ниже рассмотрены некоторые предложения и сценарии по ликвидации всеобщей избирательной привилегии. Основа реформы, - апелляция не только к здравому смыслу избирателя, но, прежде всего, к моральному чувству, борьба против очевидных конфликтов интересов. Последние же вызывают постоянное и неуклонное снижение моральных стандартов в политике и на государственной службе (вплоть до открытого бунта против законно избранной власти бюрократов и клиентов бюджета). Показано, что опасности мощного народного движения в защиту привилегии по опыту прошлого ожидать не стоит. Не говоря уже о том, что легко доставшаяся и используемая для продажи голоса привилегия не создает достаточных стимулов ни идти на риск, ни брать на себя иные издержки политического активизма. \u0000 \u0000English Abstract: In this paper authors are focused on some practical moves and scenarios of repeal of Universal Suffrage. The principal idea of the Reform is to appeal not to more or less clear practical advantages of Taxpayers' Democracy, but, first and foremost to moral feelings of the citizens. Moral failures of Universal Suffrage, numerous conflicts of interests immanent to the system cause an urgent need to stop it corrupting influence on the society. The process of dumbing down of moral standards, both voters and politicians, could be broken. Historical experience provides a number of evidences the repeal will not resulted in significant insurrections. The groups which acquired this privilege without tough struggle and using it as a leverage to extort rent aren't ready to fight, taking on the risks and costs of political struggle (political activism on personal level).","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124762066","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号