BEPS行动13中的公平原则与公式分配:利益相关者的视角

IF 4.6 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE Accounting in Europe Pub Date : 2023-04-03 DOI:10.1080/17449480.2023.2192356
Z. Akhand, Amin Mawani
{"title":"BEPS行动13中的公平原则与公式分配:利益相关者的视角","authors":"Z. Akhand, Amin Mawani","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2023.2192356","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper analyses comment-letter lobbying by different stakeholders to influence OECD’s documentation rules on transfer pricing within the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project. Using a content analysis of stakeholders’ comments to a discussion draft on documentation requirements of Action 13 of OECD’s BEPS policies, we offer some evidence that professional accounting firms may have viewed the new documentation requirements as a stealth paradigm shift away from the arm’s length principle (ALP) to formulary allocation (FA). Our analysis suggests that other stakeholders from academia and civil society were sceptical of the comments expressed by the professional tax firms, regarding them as a means to resist changes in transfer pricing documentation. We suggest that professional accounting firms’ comments may have represented implicit lobbying against changes to the ALP regime that may have been considered beneficial to taxpayers in reducing their aggregate tax burden despite its implementation and rule complexity.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":"20 1","pages":"225 - 243"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Arm's Length Principle vs. Formulary Apportionment in BEPS Action 13: Stakeholders’ Perspectives\",\"authors\":\"Z. Akhand, Amin Mawani\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17449480.2023.2192356\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This paper analyses comment-letter lobbying by different stakeholders to influence OECD’s documentation rules on transfer pricing within the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project. Using a content analysis of stakeholders’ comments to a discussion draft on documentation requirements of Action 13 of OECD’s BEPS policies, we offer some evidence that professional accounting firms may have viewed the new documentation requirements as a stealth paradigm shift away from the arm’s length principle (ALP) to formulary allocation (FA). Our analysis suggests that other stakeholders from academia and civil society were sceptical of the comments expressed by the professional tax firms, regarding them as a means to resist changes in transfer pricing documentation. We suggest that professional accounting firms’ comments may have represented implicit lobbying against changes to the ALP regime that may have been considered beneficial to taxpayers in reducing their aggregate tax burden despite its implementation and rule complexity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45647,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounting in Europe\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"225 - 243\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounting in Europe\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2023.2192356\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting in Europe","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2023.2192356","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文分析了不同利益相关者的意见信游说,以影响经合组织在税基侵蚀和利润转移(BEPS)项目中转让定价的文件规则。通过对利益相关者对OECD BEPS政策第13项行动要求的讨论草案的意见进行内容分析,我们提供了一些证据,表明专业会计师事务所可能将新的文件要求视为一种从公平原则(ALP)到公式分配(FA)的隐形范式转变。我们的分析表明,来自学术界和民间社会的其他利益相关者对专业税务公司所表达的意见持怀疑态度,将其视为抵制转让定价文件变化的一种手段。我们认为,专业会计师事务所的评论可能代表了对ALP制度变化的隐性游说,尽管其实施和规则复杂,但可能被认为有利于纳税人减少其总税负。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Arm's Length Principle vs. Formulary Apportionment in BEPS Action 13: Stakeholders’ Perspectives
ABSTRACT This paper analyses comment-letter lobbying by different stakeholders to influence OECD’s documentation rules on transfer pricing within the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project. Using a content analysis of stakeholders’ comments to a discussion draft on documentation requirements of Action 13 of OECD’s BEPS policies, we offer some evidence that professional accounting firms may have viewed the new documentation requirements as a stealth paradigm shift away from the arm’s length principle (ALP) to formulary allocation (FA). Our analysis suggests that other stakeholders from academia and civil society were sceptical of the comments expressed by the professional tax firms, regarding them as a means to resist changes in transfer pricing documentation. We suggest that professional accounting firms’ comments may have represented implicit lobbying against changes to the ALP regime that may have been considered beneficial to taxpayers in reducing their aggregate tax burden despite its implementation and rule complexity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounting in Europe
Accounting in Europe BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
7.10%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
Exploring Multi-level Drivers of Accountants’ Opinions on the Changes Introduced by the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive Does Readability of Textual Disclosures in Modern Slavery Reports Pay Off? Evidence from a Regulatory Setting Sales Order Backlog and Credit Ratings Double Materiality Disclosure as an Emerging Practice: The Assessment Process, Impacts, Risks, and Opportunities The Usefulness of Financial Reporting Quality in the Access to Bank Debt for Private Firms
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1