DOCSLIB.ORG

Fifty Shades of Tax Dodging the EU’S Role in Supporting an Unjust Global Tax System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fifty Shades of Tax Dodging the EU’S Role in Supporting an Unjust Global Tax System STOP Fifty Shades of Tax Dodging The EU’s role in supporting an unjust global tax system A report coordinated by Eurodad Acknowledgements This report was coordinated by Eurodad with contributions from civil society organisations in countries across Europe including: 11.11.11 (Belgium); Centre national de coopération au développement (CNCD-11.11.11) (Belgium); Glopolis (Czech Republic); IBIS (Denmark); Demnet (Hungary); CCFD-Terre Solidaire (France); Oxfam France (France); World Economy, Ecology & Development (WEED) (Germany); Global Policy Forum (Germany); Debt and Development Coalition Ireland (DDCI) (Ireland); Re:Common (Italy); the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) (Netherlands); Instytut Globalnej Odpowiedzialnosci (Poland); InspirAction (Spain); Oxfam Intermón (Spain); Ekvilib Institute (Slovenia); Forum Syd (Sweden); Christian Aid (UK). A special acknowledgement goes to doctoral researcher Martin Hearson of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) for providing data and valuable input on the sections related to tax treaties. Each chapter was written by – and is the responsibility of – the nationally-based partners in the project, and does not reflect the views of the rest of the project partners. The chapter on Luxembourg was written by – and is the responsibility of – Eurodad. For more information, contact Eurodad: Rue d’Edimbourg, 18 – 26 Mundo B building (3rd floor) 1050 Ixelles, Brussels, Belgium tel: +32 (0) 2 894 46 40 e-fax: +32 (0) 2 791 98 09 www.eurodad.org Design and artwork: James Adams Copy editing: Vicky Anning, Julia Ravenscroft and Zala Zbogar. The authors believe that all of the details in this report are factually accurate as of 5 October 2015. The report has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union and Norad. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Eurodad, and the authors of this report and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the funders. Contents Glossary 4 Executive summary 6 Global overview 8 Report findings 28 Recommendations 38 European Parliament 39 European Commission 42 Belgium 46 Czech Republic 50 Denmark 53 France 57 Germany 61 Hungary 65 Ireland 70 Italy 74 Luxembourg 78 The Netherlands 82 Poland 86 Slovenia 89 Spain 92 Sweden 95 United Kingdom 98 Appendix 102 References 104 4 • Fifty Shades of Tax Dodging Glossary Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) See under Tax ruling. taxes through tax treaties, nor do they address the general division of taxing rights between nations. Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD) An EU directive regulating issues related to money Harmful tax practices laundering and terrorist financing, including public access to Harmful tax practices are policies that have negative information about the beneficial owners of companies, trusts spillover effects on taxation in other countries, such as and similar legal structures. The 4th Anti-Money Laundering eroding tax bases or distorting investments. Directive (Directive 2015/849) was adopted in May 2015. Illicit financial flows Automatic Exchange of Information There are two definitions of illicit financial flows. It can refer A system whereby relevant information about the wealth to unrecorded private financial outflows involving capital that and income of a taxpayer – individual or company – is is illegally earned, transferred or used. In a broader sense, automatically passed by the country where the income is illicit financial flows can also be used to describe artificial earned to the taxpayer’s country of residence. As a result, arrangements that have been put in place with the purpose the tax authority of a tax payer’s country of residence of circumventing the law or its spirit. can check its tax records to verify that the tax-payer has LuxLeaks accurately reported their foreign source income. The LuxLeaks (or Luxembourg Leaks) scandal surfaced Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) in November 2014 when the International Consortium This term is used to describe the shifting of taxable income of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) exposed several out of countries where the income was earned, usually to hundred secret tax rulings from Luxembourg, which had zero – or low-tax countries, which results in ‘erosion’ of the been leaked by Antoine Deltour, a former employee of tax base of the countries affected, and therefore reduces PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). The LuxLeaks dossier their revenues (see also below under ‘Transfer mispricing’). documented how hundreds of multinational corporations were using the system in Luxembourg to lower their tax Beneficial ownership rates, in some cases to less than 1 per cent. A legal term used to describe anyone who has the benefit of ownership of an asset (for example, bank account, trust, Offshore jurisdictions or centres property) and yet nominally does not own the asset because Usually known as low-tax jurisdictions specialising in it is registered under another name. providing corporate and commercial services to non- resident offshore companies and individuals, and for the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) investment of offshore funds. This is often combined with a CCCTB is a proposal that was first launched by the European certain degree of secrecy. ‘Offshore’ can be used as another Commission in 2011. It entails a common EU system word for tax havens or secrecy jurisdictions. for calculating the profits of multinational corporations operating in the EU and dividing this profit among the EU Patent box Member States based on a formula to assess the level of A ‘patent box’ or ‘innovation box’ is a special tax regime that business activity in each country. The proposal does not includes tax exemptions for activities related to research specify what tax rate the Member States should apply to and innovation. These regimes have often been labelled a the profit, but simply allocates the profit and leaves it to the type of ‘harmful tax practice’, since they have been used Member State to decide what tax to apply. by multinational corporations to avoid taxation by shifting profits out of the countries where they do business and into a Controlled Foreign Corporation (CFC) rules patent box in a foreign country, where the profits are taxed at CFC rules allow countries to limit profit shifting by very low levels or not at all. multinational corporations by requesting that the company reports on profits made in other jurisdictions where it Profit shifting See ‘Base erosion and profit shifting’. ‘controls’ another corporate structure. There are many Public country by country reporting (CBCR) different types of CFC rules with different definitions Country by country reporting would require multinational regarding which kind of jurisdictions and incomes are covered. companies to provide a breakdown of profits earned, taxes General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) owed and taxes paid, as well as an overview of their economic GAAR refers to a broad set of different types of rules aimed activity in every country where they have subsidiaries, at limiting tax avoidance by multinational corporations in including offshore jurisdictions. At a minimum, it would cases where the abuse of tax rules has been detected. include disclosure of the following information by each Whereas GAARs can in some cases be used to prevent transnational corporation in its annual financial statement: tax avoidance by allowing tax administrations to deny • A global overview of the corporation (or group): The name multinational corporations tax exemptions, they do not of each country where it operates and the names of all its address the general problem of lowering of withholding subsidiary companies trading in each country of operation. Fifty Shades of Tax Dodging • 5 • The financial performance of the group in every country or non-binging. Tax rulings cover a broad set of written where it operates, making the distinction between sales statements, many of which are uncontroversial. One type of within the group and to other companies, including profits, ruling is the so-called advance pricing agreements (APAs), sales and purchases. which are used by multinational corporations to get approval of their transfer pricing methods. Tax rulings have attracted • The number of employees in each country where the increasing amounts of attention since they have been company operates. known to be used by multinational corporations to obtain • The assets: All the property the company owns in that legal certainty for tax avoidance practices. The documents country, its value and cost to maintain. exposed in the LuxLeaks scandal were APAs. • Tax information i.e. full details of the amounts owed and Tax treaty actually paid for each specific tax. A legal agreement between jurisdictions to determine the cross-border tax regulation and means of cooperation Special purpose entity (SPE) between the two jurisdictions. Tax treaties often revolve Special purpose entities, in some countries known as special around questions about which of the jurisdictions has the purpose vehicles or special financial institutions, are legal right to tax cross-border activities and at what rate. Tax entities constructed to fulfil a narrow and specific purpose. treaties can also include provisions for the exchange of tax Special purpose entities are used to channel funds to and information between the jurisdictions but for the purpose of from third countries and are commonly established in this report, treaties that only relate to information exchange countries
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Engagement Guidance on Corporate Tax Responsibility Why and How to Engage with Your Investee Companies
    ENGAGEMENT GUIDANCE ON CORPORATE TAX RESPONSIBILITY WHY AND HOW TO ENGAGE WITH YOUR INVESTEE COMPANIES An investor initiative in partnership with UNEP Finance Initiative and UN Global Compact THE SIX PRINCIPLES We will incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis and 1 decision-making processes. We will be active owners and incorporate ESG issues into our 2 ownership policies and practices. We will seek appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by 3 the entities in which we invest. We will promote acceptance and implementation of the Principles 4 within the investment industry. We will work together to enhance our effectiveness in 5 implementing the Principles. We will each report on our activities and progress towards 6 implementing the Principles. CREDITS & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Authors: Athanasia Karananou and Anastasia Guha, PRI Editor: Mark Kolmar, PRI Design: Alessandro Boaretto, PRI The PRI is grateful to the investor taskforce on corporate tax responsibility for their contributions to the guidance: ■ Harriet Parker, Investment Analyst, Alliance Trust Investments ■ Steven Bryce, Investment Analyst, Arisaig Partners (Asia) Pte Ltd ■ Francois Meloche, Extra Financial Risks Manager, Bâtirente ■ Adam Kanzer, Managing Director, Domini Social Investments LLC ■ Pauline Lejay, SRI Officer, ERAFP ■ Meryam Omi, Head of Sustainability, Legal & General Investment Management ■ Robert Wilson, Research Analyst, MFS Investment Management ■ Michelle de Cordova, Director, Corporate Engagement & Public Policy, NEI Investments ■ Rosa van den Beemt, ESG Analyst, NEI Investments ■ Kate Elliot, Ethical Researcher, Rathbone Brothers Plc ■ Matthias Müller, Senior SI Analyst, RobecoSAM ■ Rosl Veltmeijer, Head of Research, Triodos Investment Management We would like to warmly thank Sol Picciotto, Emeritus Professor, Lancaster University and Coordinator, BEPS Monitoring Group, and Katherine Ng, PRI, for their contribution to the guidance.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxation: State and Local Ronald H
    Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 18 Article 15 Issue 2 Winter 1986 1985-1986 Illinois Law Survey 1986 Taxation: State and Local Ronald H. Jacobson Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Taxation-State and Local Commons Recommended Citation Ronald H. Jacobson, Taxation: State and Local, 18 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 767 (1986). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol18/iss2/15 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Taxation: State and Local Ronald H. Jacobson* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................... 767 II. INCOME TAXATION ................................ 768 A. Unitary Taxation .............................. 768 B. Tax-Exempt Financing......................... 771 C. Interest on Federally GuaranteedBonds ........ 773 III. PROPERTY TAXATION .............................. 776 A. Charitableand EducationalExemptions ........ 776 B. Condominium Assessment Classifications ....... 778 IV. SALES TAXATION - USE TAX EXEMPTION ........ 780 V. TAX PROTESTING .................................. 782 A . Property Tax .................................. 782 B. Retaliatory Tax ................................ 784 VI. LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAXING POWERS ............ 786 A. County Tax Penalty Retention ................. 786 B. Taxation by Home Rule Units ................
    [Show full text]
  • Creating Market Incentives for Greener Products Policy Manual for Eastern Partnership Countries
    Creating Market Incentives for Greener Products Policy Manual for Eastern Partnership Countries Creating Incentives for Greener Products Policy Manual for Eastern Partnership Countries 2014 About the OECD The OECD is a unique forum where governments work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Union takes part in the work of the OECD. Since the 1990s, the OECD Task Force for the Implementation of the Environmental Action Programme (the EAP Task Force) has been supporting countries of Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia to reconcile their environment and economic goals. About the EaP GREEN programme The “Greening Economies in the European Union’s Eastern Neighbourhood” (EaP GREEN) programme aims to support the six Eastern Partnership countries to move towards green economy by decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation and resource depletion. The six EaP countries are: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Republic of Moldova and Ukraine.
    [Show full text]
  • Saleh Poll Tax December 2011
    On the Road to Heaven: Poll tax, Religion, and Human Capital in Medieval and Modern Egypt Mohamed Saleh* University of Southern California (Preliminary and Incomplete: December 1, 2011) Abstract In the Middle East, non-Muslims are, on average, better off than the Muslim majority. I trace the origins of the phenomenon in Egypt to the imposition of the poll tax on non- Muslims upon the Islamic Conquest of the then-Coptic Christian Egypt in 640. The tax, which remained until 1855, led to the conversion of poor Copts to Islam to avoid paying the tax, and to the shrinking of Copts to a better off minority. Using new data sources that I digitized, including the 1848 and 1868 census manuscripts, I provide empirical evidence to support the hypothesis. I find that the spatial variation in poll tax enforcement and tax elasticity of conversion, measured by four historical factors, predicts the variation in the Coptic population share in the 19th century, which is, in turn, inversely related to the magnitude of the Coptic-Muslim gap, as predicted by the hypothesis. The four factors are: (i) the 8th and 9th centuries tax revolts, (ii) the Arab immigration waves to Egypt in the 7th to 9th centuries, (iii) the Coptic churches and monasteries in the 12th and 15th centuries, and (iv) the route of the Holy Family in Egypt. I draw on a wide range of qualitative evidence to support these findings. Keywords: Islamic poll tax; Copts, Islamic Conquest; Conversion; Middle East JEL Classification: N35 * The author is a PhD candidate at the Department of Economics, University of Southern California (E- mail: [email protected]).
    [Show full text]
  • Doing Business in Belgium
    DOING BUSINESS IN BELGIUM CONTENTS 1 – Introduction 3 2 – Business environment 4 3 – Foreign Investment 7 4 – Setting up a Business 9 5 – Labour 17 6 – Taxation 20 7 – Accounting & reporting 29 8 – UHY Representation in Belgium 31 DOING BUSINESS IN BELGIUM 3 1 – INTRODUCTION UHY is an international organisation providing accountancy, business management and consultancy services through financial business centres in over 100 countries throughout the world. Business partners work together through the network to conduct transnational operations for clients as well as offering specialist knowledge and experience within their own national borders. Global specialists in various industry and market sectors are also available for consultation. This detailed report providing key issues and information for investors considering business operations in Belgium has been provided by the office of UHY representatives: UHY-CDP PARTNERS Square de l’Arbalète, 6, B-1170 Brussels Belgium Phone +32 2 663 11 20 Website www.cdp-partners.be Email [email protected] You are welcome to contact Chantal Bollen ([email protected]) for any inquiries you may have. A detailed firm profile for UHY’s representation in Belgium can be found in section 8. Information in the following pages has been updated so that they are effective at the date shown, but inevitably they are both general and subject to change and should be used for guidance only. For specific matters, investors are strongly advised to obtain further information and take professional advice before making any decisions. This publication is current at July 2021. We look forward to helping you doing business in Belgium DOING BUSINESS IN BELGIUM 4 2 – BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW COUNTRY AND NATION Belgium is a small country (30,528 square kilometres) at the centre of the most significant industrial and urban area in Western Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Denmark Ecotax Rates Green Budget Germany (Gbg)
    DENMARK ECOTAX RATES GREEN BUDGET GERMANY (GBG) EFR in Denmark: General Tax- Tax rate national cur- Tax rate – Name Typ Specific Tax-Base Base rency Euro € Denmark Waste manage- Charge on batte- ment - individual Lead batteries - car 1.61 € per ries Fee/Charge products batteries < 100 Ah 12.00 DKK per unit. unit. Waste manage- Charge on batte- ment - individual Lead batteries - car 3.23 € per ries Fee/Charge products batteries > 100 Ah 24.00 DKK per unit. unit. Waste manage- Charge on batte- ment - individual 2.42 € per ries Fee/Charge products Lead batteries - other 18.00 DKK per unit. unit. Waste manage- 33.6 - Charge on ha- ment - individual 250 - 88,000 DKK 11828 € zardous waste Fee/Charge products Hazardous waste per tonne per tonne. 185.20 € per Charge on mu- household nicipal waste 1378.00 DKK per per year collection / Waste manage- household per year on aver- treatment Fee/Charge ment - in general Municipal waste on average age. 2.20 € per Charge on sewa- Management of 16.40 DKK per m3 m3 on a- ge discharge Fee/Charge water resources Water consumption on average verage Duty on carrier Waste manage- bags made of pa- ment - individual Carrier bags made of 1.34 € pr per, plastics, etc. Tax products paper 10.00 DKK pr kg kg. Duty on carrier Waste manage- bags made of pa- ment - individual Carrier bags made of 2.96 € pr per, plastics, etc. Tax products plastics 22.00 DKK pr kg kg. 0.27 € per kg net Duty on certain 2.00 DKK per kg net weight of chlorinated sol- Hazardous che- weight of the sub- the sub- vents Tax micals Dichloromethane stance.
    [Show full text]
  • Imports in GST Regime (Goods & Services Tax)
    Imports in GST Regime (Goods & Services Tax) Introduction Under the GST regime, Article 269A constitutionally mandates that supply of goods, or of services, or both in the course of import into the territory of India shall be deemed to be supply of goods, or of services, or both in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. So import of goods or services will be treated as deemed inter-State supplies and would be subject to Integrated tax. While IGST on import of services would be leviable under the IGST Act, the levy of the IGST on import of goods would be levied under the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Custom Tariff Act, 1975. The importer of services will have to pay tax on reverse charge basis. However, in respect of import of online information and database access or retrieval services (OIDAR) by unregistered, non-taxable recipients, the supplier located outside India shall be responsible for payment of taxes (IGST). Either the supplier will have to take registration or will have to appoint a person in India for payment of taxes. Supply of goods or services or both to a Special Economic Zone developer or a unit shall be treated as inter-State supply and shall be subject to levy of integrated tax. Directorate General of Taxpayer Services CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS www.cbec.gov.in Imports in GST Regime (Goods & Services Tax) Importer Exporter Code (IEC): As per DGFT’s Trade Notice No. 09 The taxes will be calculated as under: dated 12.06.2017, the PAN of an entity would be used as the Import Particulars Duty Export code (IEC).
    [Show full text]
  • European Parliament Resolution of 26 March 2019 on Financial Crimes, Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance (2018/2121(INI)) (2021/C 108/02)
    C 108/8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 26.3.2021 Tuesday 26 March 2019 P8_TA(2019)0240 Report on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance European Parliament resolution of 26 March 2019 on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance (2018/2121(INI)) (2021/C 108/02) The European Parliament, — having regard to Articles 4 and 13 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), — having regard to Articles 107, 108, 113, 115 and 116 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), — having regard to its decision of 1 March 2018 on setting up a special committee on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance (TAX3), and defining its responsibilities, numerical strength and term of office (1), — having regard to its TAXE committee resolution of 25 November 2015 (2) and its TAX2 committee resolution of 6 July 2016 (3) on tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect, — having regard to its resolution of 16 December 2015 with recommendations to the Commission on bringing transparency, coordination and convergence to corporate tax policies in the Union (4), — having regard to the results of the Committee of Inquiry into money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion, which were submitted to the Council and the Commission on 13 December 2017 (5), — having regard to the Commission’s follow-up to each of the above-mentioned Parliament resolutions (6), — having regard to the numerous revelations by investigative journalists, such as the LuxLeaks, the Panama Papers, the Paradise Papers and, more recently, the cum-ex scandals, as well as the money laundering cases involving, in particular, banks in Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, — having regard to its resolution of 29 November 2018 on the cum-ex scandal: financial crime and loopholes in the current legal framework (7), (1) Decision of 1 March 2018 on setting up a special committee on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance (TAX3), and defining its responsibilities, numerical strength and term of office, Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0048.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecotaxes: a Comparative Study of India and China
    Ecotaxes: A Comparative Study of India and China Rajat Verma ISBN 978-81-7791-209-8 © 2016, Copyright Reserved The Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC) is engaged in interdisciplinary research in analytical and applied areas of the social sciences, encompassing diverse aspects of development. ISEC works with central, state and local governments as well as international agencies by undertaking systematic studies of resource potential, identifying factors influencing growth and examining measures for reducing poverty. The thrust areas of research include state and local economic policies, issues relating to sociological and demographic transition, environmental issues and fiscal, administrative and political decentralization and governance. It pursues fruitful contacts with other institutions and scholars devoted to social science research through collaborative research programmes, seminars, etc. The Working Paper Series provides an opportunity for ISEC faculty, visiting fellows and PhD scholars to discuss their ideas and research work before publication and to get feedback from their peer group. Papers selected for publication in the series present empirical analyses and generally deal with wider issues of public policy at a sectoral, regional or national level. These working papers undergo review but typically do not present final research results, and constitute works in progress. ECOTAXES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INDIA AND CHINA1 Rajat Verma2 Abstract This paper attempts to compare various forms of ecotaxes adopted by India and China in order to reduce their carbon emissions by 2020 and to address other environmental issues. The study contributes to the literature by giving a comprehensive definition of ecotaxes and using it to analyse the status of these taxes in India and China.
    [Show full text]
  • OECD Economic Surveys Belgium February 2020
    OECD Economic Surveys Belgium February 2020 OVERVIEW www.oecd.org/economy/belgium-economic-snapshot/ This Overview is extracted from the Economic Survey of Belgium. The Survey is published on the responsibility of the Economic and Development Review Committee (EDRC) of the OECD, which is charged with the examination of the economic situation of member countries. This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. OECD Economic Surveys: Belgium© OECD 2020 You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to [email protected]. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at [email protected] or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at [email protected]. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Executive Summary Belgium performs well in many economic and well-being dimensions, but some risks are building up The resilience of public finances should be increased Improving labour market outcomes is key Boosting potential growth requires higher productivity growth 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Belgium performs well in many economic increase vulnerabilities and lower the resilience and well-being dimensions, but some risks of the financial system.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Fairness and the Tax Mix David G. Duff Associate Professor Faculty
    Tax Fairness and the Tax Mix David G. Duff Associate Professor Faculty of Law University of Toronto Visiting Associate Professor Faculty of Law University of British Columbia November 2008 I. Introduction Justice, John Rawls famously wrote, is the first virtue of social institutions.1 Since a society’s tax system is one of its most basic and essential social institutions, the justice or fairness of this tax system is an important subject for social and political theory, as well as for practical politics. In order to assess the fairness of any particular tax or the tax system as a whole, however, it is essential to consider the purpose of the tax and the tax system in general. Although the most obvious purpose of most taxes is to raise revenue to finance public expenditures, this is not the only rationale for taxation which may also be employed to regulate social and economic behaviour and to shape the distribution of economic resources.2 For this reason, the concept of tax fairness is necessarily pluralistic, depending on the particular purpose for which the tax is imposed. Not surprisingly, therefore, modern welfare states typically levy a mix of taxes, including personal and corporate income taxes, broad-based consumption taxes, excise taxes on specific goods or services, payroll taxes, property or wealth taxes, wealth transfer taxes, as well as user fees and benefit taxes. Since the justification for any tax presumably depends on the legitimacy of the underlying purpose which it is designed to promote, the concept of fair taxation is necessarily secondary and derivative – depending on more fundamental principles concerning the fairness or justice of the public spending that taxes finance, the regulatory goals that they support, and the distribution of economic resources that they help to define.
    [Show full text]
  • Explanation of Proposed Income Tax Treaty Between the United States and Hungary
    EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED INCOME TAX TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND HUNGARY Scheduled for a Hearing Before the COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE On June 7, 2011 ____________ Prepared by the Staff of the JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION May 20, 2011 JCX-32-11 CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 I. SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 2 II. OVERVIEW OF U.S. TAXATION OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND INVESTMENT AND U.S. TAX TREATIES ....................................................................... 4 A. U.S. Tax Rules ................................................................................................................. 4 B. U.S. Tax Treaties .............................................................................................................. 6 III. OVERVIEW OF TAXATION IN HUNGARY .................................................................... 8 A. National Income Taxes ..................................................................................................... 8 B. International Aspects ...................................................................................................... 11 C. Other Taxes .................................................................................................................... 13 IV. THE UNITED STATES AND HUNGARY: CROSS-BORDER INVESTMENT AND
    [Show full text]