阳光是最好的消毒剂吗?重新评估BEPS行动5的税收裁决透明度

P. Hasson
{"title":"阳光是最好的消毒剂吗?重新评估BEPS行动5的税收裁决透明度","authors":"P. Hasson","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3647362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The OECD's BEPS Project was a major attempt to harmonize tax principles between jurisdictions and prevent tax motivated artificial profit shifting. One aspect of the BEPS Project is Action 5's tax ruling transparency framework. High-profile instances of tax avoidance, such as LuxLeaks and the Apple-Ireland state aid case, have only elucidated the extent to which tax authorities can use rulings to facilitate tax avoidance. However, it should not be expected that Action 5's tax ruling transparency will materially curb the use of rulings to aid tax avoidance.<br><br>For Action 5's transparency framework to achieve its goal, it must deter either countries from issuing favorable rulings that depart from the issuing country's tax laws and principles and other international tax norms or firms from utilizing these favorable rulings. This paper argues that Action 5 does not have this deterrent effect. However, when tax ruling transparency is coupled with a disgorgement mechanism, such as EU state aid law enforcement, transparency is likely to reduce the number of instances where tax rulings will serve as an effective tool to induce tax motivated income shifting. As such, this paper argues that a disgorgement mechanism, analogous to EU state aid law enforcement but with a different substantive backdrop, should be implemented to effectuate the desired behavioral responses to Action 5's tax ruling transparency.","PeriodicalId":132443,"journal":{"name":"European Economics: Political Economy & Public Economics eJournal","volume":"195 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Sunlight the Best Disinfectant? Reassessing BEPS Action 5's Tax Ruling Transparency\",\"authors\":\"P. Hasson\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3647362\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The OECD's BEPS Project was a major attempt to harmonize tax principles between jurisdictions and prevent tax motivated artificial profit shifting. One aspect of the BEPS Project is Action 5's tax ruling transparency framework. High-profile instances of tax avoidance, such as LuxLeaks and the Apple-Ireland state aid case, have only elucidated the extent to which tax authorities can use rulings to facilitate tax avoidance. However, it should not be expected that Action 5's tax ruling transparency will materially curb the use of rulings to aid tax avoidance.<br><br>For Action 5's transparency framework to achieve its goal, it must deter either countries from issuing favorable rulings that depart from the issuing country's tax laws and principles and other international tax norms or firms from utilizing these favorable rulings. This paper argues that Action 5 does not have this deterrent effect. However, when tax ruling transparency is coupled with a disgorgement mechanism, such as EU state aid law enforcement, transparency is likely to reduce the number of instances where tax rulings will serve as an effective tool to induce tax motivated income shifting. As such, this paper argues that a disgorgement mechanism, analogous to EU state aid law enforcement but with a different substantive backdrop, should be implemented to effectuate the desired behavioral responses to Action 5's tax ruling transparency.\",\"PeriodicalId\":132443,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Economics: Political Economy & Public Economics eJournal\",\"volume\":\"195 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Economics: Political Economy & Public Economics eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3647362\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Economics: Political Economy & Public Economics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3647362","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

经合组织的BEPS项目是协调各司法管辖区之间的税收原则,防止税收驱动的人为利润转移的重大尝试。BEPS项目的一个方面是行动5的税收裁决透明度框架。一些引人注目的避税案例,如LuxLeaks和苹果-爱尔兰政府援助案,只是说明了税务机关可以在多大程度上利用裁决来促进避税。然而,不应指望第5项行动的税收裁决透明度会实质性地遏制利用裁决来帮助避税。为了使行动5的透明度框架实现其目标,它必须阻止两个国家发布偏离其税法和原则以及其他国际税收规范的有利裁决,或者阻止公司利用这些有利裁决。本文认为,行动5没有这种威慑作用。然而,当税收裁决透明度与分配机制(如欧盟国家援助执法)相结合时,透明度可能会减少税收裁决作为有效工具来诱导税收动机性收入转移的情况。因此,本文认为,应实施一种类似于欧盟国家援助执法但具有不同实质背景的分配机制,以实现对行动5税收裁决透明度的预期行为反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is Sunlight the Best Disinfectant? Reassessing BEPS Action 5's Tax Ruling Transparency
The OECD's BEPS Project was a major attempt to harmonize tax principles between jurisdictions and prevent tax motivated artificial profit shifting. One aspect of the BEPS Project is Action 5's tax ruling transparency framework. High-profile instances of tax avoidance, such as LuxLeaks and the Apple-Ireland state aid case, have only elucidated the extent to which tax authorities can use rulings to facilitate tax avoidance. However, it should not be expected that Action 5's tax ruling transparency will materially curb the use of rulings to aid tax avoidance.

For Action 5's transparency framework to achieve its goal, it must deter either countries from issuing favorable rulings that depart from the issuing country's tax laws and principles and other international tax norms or firms from utilizing these favorable rulings. This paper argues that Action 5 does not have this deterrent effect. However, when tax ruling transparency is coupled with a disgorgement mechanism, such as EU state aid law enforcement, transparency is likely to reduce the number of instances where tax rulings will serve as an effective tool to induce tax motivated income shifting. As such, this paper argues that a disgorgement mechanism, analogous to EU state aid law enforcement but with a different substantive backdrop, should be implemented to effectuate the desired behavioral responses to Action 5's tax ruling transparency.
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
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