The BEPS Project

Lukas Hakelberg
{"title":"The BEPS Project","authors":"Lukas Hakelberg","doi":"10.7591/cornell/9781501748011.003.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter reveals the US government's struggles in assuming its usual leadership position in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) initiatives. This happened for entirely domestic reasons: the Obama administration's inability to implement its preferred solution to BEPS (base erosion and profit shifting)—a tightening of controlled foreign company (CFC) rules—in the face of opposition by US multinationals, paired with the administration's strong political commitment to tax fairness, which prevented the administration from abandoning the initiative altogether. The administration's lack of purpose initially opened agenda space for other governments. Between the release of a first set of discussion drafts and the final BEPS reports, however, the United States fought a successful rearguard battle, retrenching attempts at expanding the taxing rights of source countries and essentially preserving the status quo. This success occurred despite the inclusion of the Group of 20 (G20) emerging economies, which could be expected to shift the power balance away from the United States, and in accordance with the preferences of US multinationals. The diffusion of unilateral initiatives by source countries, which are still subject to political conflict, confirms their frustration with the outcome of the BEPS project.","PeriodicalId":356523,"journal":{"name":"The Hypocritical Hegemon","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Hypocritical Hegemon","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7591/cornell/9781501748011.003.0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter reveals the US government's struggles in assuming its usual leadership position in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) initiatives. This happened for entirely domestic reasons: the Obama administration's inability to implement its preferred solution to BEPS (base erosion and profit shifting)—a tightening of controlled foreign company (CFC) rules—in the face of opposition by US multinationals, paired with the administration's strong political commitment to tax fairness, which prevented the administration from abandoning the initiative altogether. The administration's lack of purpose initially opened agenda space for other governments. Between the release of a first set of discussion drafts and the final BEPS reports, however, the United States fought a successful rearguard battle, retrenching attempts at expanding the taxing rights of source countries and essentially preserving the status quo. This success occurred despite the inclusion of the Group of 20 (G20) emerging economies, which could be expected to shift the power balance away from the United States, and in accordance with the preferences of US multinationals. The diffusion of unilateral initiatives by source countries, which are still subject to political conflict, confirms their frustration with the outcome of the BEPS project.
BEPS项目
这一章揭示了美国政府在担任经济合作与发展组织(OECD)倡议中通常的领导角色时所遇到的困难。这完全是由于国内原因:面对美国跨国公司的反对,奥巴马政府无法实施其首选的BEPS(税基侵蚀和利润转移)解决方案——收紧受控外国公司(CFC)规则,再加上政府对税收公平的坚定政治承诺,这使得政府无法完全放弃这一倡议。奥巴马政府缺乏目标,最初为其他政府开辟了议程空间。然而,在发布第一套讨论草案和BEPS最终报告之间,美国打了一场成功的后卫战,遏制了扩大来源国征税权的企图,基本上保持了现状。这一成功是在20国集团(G20)新兴经济体加入的情况下取得的,这可能会改变美国的力量平衡,并符合美国跨国公司的偏好。仍然受到政治冲突影响的来源国单方面倡议的扩散证实了它们对BEPS项目结果的失望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信