View Details

We’re happy to announce the launch of a brand new website for our growing family of Tax Justice Network podcasts. As you’ll see, it’s bright, it’s colourful, and you’ll find it much easier to navigate. All podcasts are also available on most podcast apps.

We currently have five monthly podcasts and one new weekly podcast, all independent productions with their own hosts and producers bringing tax justice and financial transparency debate to their region. We’re planning more… As mentioned, they’re all available on most podcast apps. Here they are:

The Taxcast: (in English) Launched in 2012, the Taxcast is the Tax Justice Network’s longest running monthly podcast, hosted and produced by me, Naomi Fowler (and now Jo Barratt). Find it on your podcast app here or subscribe by email to me: Naomi [at] taxjustice.net

Justicia ImPositiva: (in Spanish) Launched in 2016, with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, this monthly podcast serves Latin America and is broadcast by radio stations across the continent. Find it on your podcast app here. Un podcast mensual sobre escándalos y análisis inevitables de corrupción, paraísos fiscales, evasión fiscal y secretos financieros.

الجباية ببساطة (in Arabic) Launched in 2018, our monthly podcast in Arabic is hosted and produced by Walid Ben Rhouma and Norhan Mokhtar and serves the Arab speaking world.Find it on your podcast app here.

بودكاست شهري عن الفساد والملاذات الضريبية والسرية المالية من قبل شبكة العدالة الضريبية.É Da Sua Conta: (in Portuguese) Launched in 2019, this monthly podcast is hosted and produced by Grazielle David and Daniela Stefano and serves Lusophone countries. Find it on your podcast app here. Um podcast mensal sobre como consertar a economia para que funcione para todos.

Impôts et Justice Sociale: (in French) Launched in 2019, this monthly podcast is hosted and produced by Idriss Linge, also a Tax Justice Network researcher, and serves Francophone countries. Find it on your podcast app here. Un podcast mensuel sur les scandales essentiels et l’analyse de la corruption, des paradis fiscaux, de l’évasion fiscale et du secret financier par Tax Justice Network.

The Corruption Diaries: (in English) In this brand new weekly podcast, we take listeners on a journey through the eyes of anti-corruption veterans who were on the frontline of key events that have defined our world today. Find it on your podcast app here. In Series 1 we sit down with leading white collar crime lawyer and Tax Justice Network senior adviser Jack Blum who tells us about his life’s work during a period of huge geopolitical change and transformed global tax and financial systems. From the BCCI scandal (Bank of Credit and Commerce International), to Panamanian dictator Noriega’s cocaine trafficking, to Lockheed Aircraft’s overseas bribes – Jack was there. Hosted by Naomi Fowler, and produced by Naomi Fowler and Jo Barratt.

View Details

Welcome to the latest episode of the Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast, the Taxcast. You can subscribe either by emailing naomi [at] taxjustice.net or find us on your podcast app. All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. You may have noticed we’ve rebranded all our podcasts, the new podcast website is here.

On the Taxcast this month: People power for tax justice is on the rise like never before. We kick off 2024 with inspiring stories on campaigns for tax reform from around the world: strategies, successes, limitations, and what we can learn from the first in-depth studies of their kind by International Budget Partnership.

Plus: Malawian poet and Senior Tax Investigations Officer Robert Chiwamba pays tribute to tax collectors everywhere. You can watch him perform We Will Count Them here.

Transcript of the show is here. (Some is automated)

Guests:

• Robert Chiwamba, Malawian poet and Senior Tax Investigations Officer (his youtube site is here, WATCH him here performing his poem We Will Count Them)
• Greg Leroy of Good Jobs First
• Paolo de Renzio, formerly Senior Research Fellow with the International Budget Partnership, now Senior Lecturer at the Brazilian School of Public and Business Administration of Fundação Getúlio Vargas in Rio de Janeiro.
• Produced and presented by Naomi Fowler of the Tax Justice Network.

~ #139 People Power

The last 10, 20 years have seen an important shift. Civil society has started learning this new language, these new skills, and has started engaging in debates around taxation.”

~ Paolo de Renzio

Further reading:

• A Taxing Journey: How Civic Actors Influence Tax Policy (open access – free pdf from International Budget Partnership and a summary paper on that work here
• Beneficial Ownership reporting begins in the US
• Proud to Pay More: 260+ millionaires and billionaires from 17 countries ask governments to tax them more
• The EU Court ruling on Beneficial Ownership registries in 2022
• A Tax Justice Network report on how to fix beneficial ownership frameworks

Here’s a summary of the Taxcast:

Naomi Fowler: Hello, and welcome to the Taxcast, the Tax Justice Network podcast. We’re all about fixing our economies so they work for all of us. I’m Naomi Fowler. Before we get started, a bit of podcast news for you. We’ve just launched a brand new podcast website, and you may have noticed the new Taxcast logo. The new website’s for all our sister podcasts too, so, the Taxcast and our monthly podcasts in Spanish, Arabic, French and Portuguese – all independent productions bringing tax justice to their part of the world. All of them are on our new site on podcasts.tax justice.net For the Taxcast, just as before, you can go straight to it on thetaxcast.com If you’re still seeing the old website, be patient, it’s all settling in still as it goes live. Anyway, on that website, you can get more information and further reading on every podcast we release right there. And as always, you can subscribe to the Taxcast by emailing me, Naomi[at]taxjustice.net

So, on the Taxcast this month, when it comes to tax justice, people power is on the rise like never before. We’re going to kick off 2024 with the first in-depth case studies on campaigning for tax reform from around the world. Strategies, successes, limitations, and what we can learn from it all. And none of these advances in tax justice would be possible without the unsung heroes, our tax collectors. They’re often invisible, often badly paid, often not recognized or respected for their work. Yet, they’re as important to helping our societies and human rights function as nurses, teachers and carers. Sometimes their work puts them in great danger. Some of them have been taken from us way before their time. And on the Taxcast this month, we have Malawian poet Robert Chiwamba here with us to perform his poem, We Will Count Them. Robert himself is a tax man. He works for the Malawi Revenue Authority as a Senior Tax Investigations Officer. Here he is, paying tribute to tax collectors around the world, past and present.

Robert Chiwamba: We will count them. One by one, name them. As they work without appreciation, we will appreciate them. Tax men. Men and women who are least loved. Risk-takers who know no peace. Insults raining on them like rains in the rain forest. But we will appreciate them, one by one count them as they work without appreciation.

We will recognize them. Tax men, men and women who have been branded thieves, development champions who have been convicted in public opinions courts without hearing their side of the story, and ambassadors who have risked it all for the sake of their country’s prosperity.

We will name them. One by one, appreciate them, as they work without being loved, we will recognize them, tax men. Men and women who are at the mercy of politicians, often given instructions contrary to the tax law, threatened, insulted, unrecognized, unappreciated, but we will recognize them, one by one appreciate them, as they work without recognition, we will recognize them.

Tax men, men and women who have carried us through and through, heroes who have supported our ailing economies, champions of fights against illicit trade, drivers of our economies, we will celebrate them, one by one name them, as they work without appreciation, we will recognize them.

Tax man, today’s your day. Pop the champagne, light your candles. We will drink to your prosperity, feast to your good health, dance the night off to your protection. Without tax, there’s no development. Without tax men, there’s no tax. Don’t despair, don’t relent. Be proud, be cheerful. We love you. We will celebrate tax men, one by one name them as they work without recognition, we will appreciate them.

Naomi Fowler: Robert Chiwamba, spoken word poet and Senior Tax Investigations Officer. Thanks. I’ll put a link to a video of him performing that in the show notes.

So, tax justice campaigns are on the rise around the world, and sometimes a surprisingly small group of determined people can do amazing things. Here’s a nice example from Greg Leroy of Good Jobs First in the United States. Good Jobs First is a corporate subsidy watchdog, and in their 25 years of campaigning, they’ve created things like the subsidy tracker, violation tracker, and a tax break tracker, all providing data that has enabled different groups to claw back a lot of public money. Here’s Greg.

Greg Leroy: Good Jobs First is the leading reform group within American economic development. A good example of how our data is empowering activists: nine years ago, some religious, faith-based activists in Louisiana discovered our data about individual deals with chemical plants, oil refineries, worth tens of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars, sometimes creating no new jobs at all. And together with the new governor that took office, they want an executive order and a bunch of reforms that have overhauled the state’s big property tax abatement program so that today, more than 300 million dollars per year that used to go into corporate bottom lines is going back to schools, back to libraries, back to infrastructure. And that number is headed toward 1 billion per year as the reforms play out. That’s progress.

Naomi Fowler: Brilliant! Tax justice campaigning can raise millions, even billions, and that changes lives.

Paolo de Renzio: A few years ago, we decided to start looking at the role that civil society can play in shaping tax policy with a particular focus on making tax systems and taxation more equitable.

Naomi Fowler: This is Paolo De Renzio, formerly Senior Research Fellow with the International Budget Partnership. He’s now Senior Lecturer at the Brazilian School of Public and Business Administration of Fundação Getúlio Vargas in Rio de Janeiro.

Paolo de Renzio: And one of the first things that we did was literally scout around, look around and see, you know, what are some interesting examples of civil society organizations engaging, trying to influence, tax policies in their country, in an effort to make tax systems more equitable. But successful stories of civil society campaigns there, there were not many of them and they had not been looked at in a lot of detail. So we said, as part of our internal learning process, we should definitely go out and collect these stories, collect stories from what these groups did, why they did it, how they did it, when they did it, with whom they did it so that we can start accumulating some knowledge and some lessons And then as we went along, you know the purpose of this exercise became much bigger as we started really uncovering very interesting material about these different campaigns, and the strategies and the narratives and the capacities and so on that these organizations deployed.

Naomi Fowler: So, the International Budget Partnership has produced a book, A Taxing Journey, How Civic Actors Influence Tax Policy. It’s open access, so it’s available online to download for free. I’ll put the link in the show notes.

Paolo de Renzio: I would say telling these stories and seeing what lessons we can learn from them had two main objectives. The first one is to inspire others to basically follow in the footsteps of these pioneering groups, you know, trying to distill the key lessons that others can learn from. And as you know, the movement is clearly expanding. There’s more and more groups in different countries who are engaging in this kind of work, so providing them with lessons, stories that they can get inspired by, examples of how different organization did things, to try and have a menu of options that they can use as they navigate this sort of new and often difficult territory.

The second objective goes beyond other civil society groups And it’s really trying to inject in the policy debates around tax reform in developing countries the idea that civil society can play a role and that civil society deserves to be recognized as a legitimate actor deserves to receive support from different actors within the country from donor agencies outside the country.

So, in the book, we also sort of include some lessons, not just for other civil society groups, but also for governments and for international agencies of different sorts, be it international NGOs that support this kind of work like Tax Justice Network, but others like Oxfam, the big NGOs, etc, and then official donors, both, let’s say bilateral, multilateral, but also philanthropic foundations that increasingly support this kind of work, so what does it mean for donors to, more effectively support the civil society work in this area? So internal learning, inspire other organizations and provide lessons for other actors like governments and donors.

Naomi Fowler: There are seven case studies in the book, and I’m going to run through them quickly: in Guatemala, the campaign to reform the tax administration after a huge corruption scandal, all the way up to the president and the vice president.

There’s France and gilets jaunes or the yellow vests and their social media driven revolt against poorly thought out environmental taxes and less well remembered with that is that part of all of it was Macron’s proposal to replace the wealth tax.

In Kenya, there’s Tax Justice Africa’s historic legal challenge to a double taxation agreement the Kenyan government signed with the tax haven of Mauritius. We covered that on the Taxcast.

In Mexico, a decade long fight to get transparency on tax amnesties, which turned out to benefit only a tiny section of wealthy Mexicans.

There’s a fascinating one in the Philippines with a campaign to increase so called sin taxes, so taxes on things like tobacco and alcohol, which helped to significantly expand health care.

In Uganda, the opposition to a regressive 1 percent tax on the value of mobile money transfers and a tax on the use of social media.

And in the United States, campaigns in three different states to increase income taxes on the wealthy.

Naomi: So, do you have a particular favorite that you really like?

Paolo de Renzio: That’s a tricky question, I mean, all of them are very interesting and fascinating in their own specific way. The ones that I found, let’s say, most inspiring, there’s two of them, Mexico and the campaign that Fundar spearheaded, and then sort of kept going for more than a decade, trying to, at the beginning, improve transparency levels around tax amnesties. So you know, whenever governments basically pardon tax and cancel tax debts, and there was this sort of recurring initiative new governments would undertake with the excuse of increasing revenue collection, but then in the end, it became just favors that they were handing out to a bunch of people.

And so they focused on identifying tax amnesties as the giving of what they call fiscal privileges, which I think is quite an interesting way to sort of frame the issue. And eventually it became much more than just the transparency campaign, it became something around fair taxation and the fact that so many people and organizations, business, get unfair advantages from the tax system, which they don’t really need. And that sort of makes the tax system more regressive and less fair. The interesting thing is that Fundar started off this campaign as basically, as legal, so going through the courts, trying to force government to publish information about tax amnesties and the beneficiaries. But then over time, sort of started adding different tactics, different strategies, engaging with different actors, combining their sort of legal action with technical analysis, with building coalitions, with using social media in very interesting ways, taking advantage of specific opportunities when there were changes in government, etc so that the ways in which the campaign developed over time, and became much more multifaceted and requiring them to basically develop and deploy new and different capacities was, I think, a fascinating example of how civil society can, you know, reach impact by building long term capacities and efforts to target specific tax reform initiatives.

The other one is the one in the Philippines, which possibly was the one with the with the biggest impact you could say, because Action for Economic Reforms is actually quite a small outfit but with a very driven staff that combines different kinds of technical, political communications capacities, and they basically managed to overcome the resistance of the most powerful lobby in Asia, the tobacco and alcohol lobby, by convincing the government to introduce so-called sin taxes on the use of on the consumption of alcohol and tobacco, and through that, generating revenues that funded a huge expansion in health coverage. Again, so the, so very interesting, so very important impact which was reached again with a multi-pronged campaign, they used a vast array of entry points, working directly with the government, working with health sector organizations that were interested in sort of highlighting the negative impact of alcohol and tobacco use, working with Congress in a very strategic way, again, the fact that when a government changed, you know, they were still, they found ways to work with the new government, even if it was ideologically quite distant from their own position.

So really very fascinating ways to think about tax tactics and strategy and deploying different capacities to make sure that the campaign was kept on track and reached maximum impact. So those two, I think would be the ones that were most inspiring for me.

Naomi: Yeah, really clever, really clever. So you make the point in the book that the lack of involvement of kind of regular citizens and civil society historically in tax policy making and decisions – but how that is changing and interest in tax and tax justice and the activism in that area is really growing. I mean, I’ve definitely seen that in the years since I started with these podcasts in 2012, when it was really a minority interest, so I mean, there’s definitely been a lot of quite successful building up of tax as the friend of the people rather than the enemy of the people, so I’m just wondering what kind of changes you’ve seen in your time looking in this field that have demonstrated this change in interest and activism around the area of tax?

Paolo de Renzio: Yes, so I think, you know, historically, if you sort of take a long historical view, it’s very clear that citizens and different types of civic actors have had limited engagement and limited opportunity to really engage with tax reform, But, you know, I definitely think that the last 10, 20 years have seen quite an important shift and I think it comes from a few different directions. There’s been an increasing recognition and debate in international development circles about the role that taxation can play in promoting development, there’s been a lot of action around international taxation reforms, you know, where Tax Justice Network, of course, has been a very important actor, which have also brought in civil society actors in different countries through the regional networks, etc. Civil society has started learning this new language, these new skills, has started engaging in debates around taxation.

What we found was that debates and action on international taxation reform moved faster than country level campaigns and country level debates, partly because of different political context and political realities within many developing countries. But I think that is also now changing and the skills that civil society actors CSOs have gained by engaging with international taxation reform debates are now gradually being transferred to more domestic issues and domestic initiatives. There’s a growing interest by international NGOs and donor agencies in supporting this kind of this kind of work, so there’s basically, I think, a number of different factors that are coming together to generate, to create a more favorable environment for civil society groups to engage in, in this kind of work.

That doesn’t mean that all of the efforts would be successful, there’s still lots of political resistance, still many problems with access to information, with technical skills and capacities within civil society and so on and so forth, which we recognize in the book, but certainly, quite an important shift that basically means that this work will continue to grow in the future. So hopefully we will see more groups getting engaged, more, interesting stories of impact, more lessons that can be learned about how to make this work more effective.

Naomi: Yeah, yeah, I think so. And so in terms of what works best in the most sort of successes that you’ve looked at – obviously, success is an interesting word and tax reform is a battle of ideas, and it’s about how we talk about it in the first place and we make that an accessible subject rather than something that people feel they don’t, they’re not going to be able to understand and it’s not going to make any difference to their lives, when in fact the opposite is true so, which of the case studies would you say that you looked at was the most successful in terms of changing the narrative on tax justice, do you think?

Paolo de Renzio: We could see basically three main types of narratives that civil society groups deployed to sort of make the case for tax reform. One, and probably the most common one, given that we were mostly looking at cases of of campaigns that were aimed at making the tax system more equitable, you know, issues around fairness, justice, equity, different ways to basically make the argument that tax systems were working in favor of wealthier individuals and businesses, and were actually working against poorer, lower income, more marginalized groups is something that we see across a number of the different of the different cases.

So, you know, from the Uganda campaign on the regressive nature of the taxes that were introduced by the government on mobile money transfers and social media use, you know, that we’re clearly working against, especially, for example, in the case of mobile money transfers, rural people who use their mobile phones to move money around much more than people who work in the big cities and have access to the banking system and have bank accounts and so on.

As I said, in the case of Mexico, Fundar, calling tax amnesties fiscal privileges and showing that basically those who were getting away with not paying taxes were definitely not people who needed those tax breaks, basically. So there’s a range of very interesting ways in which civil society groups use this argument of justice, equity, and fairness in different ways to make the argument for, for tax reform.

There’s a second set of narratives that were around the need for governments to raise more revenues to finance basic services and to be able to realize human rights in different ways. So the issue in the Philippines, for example, as I said, around finding financing for universal health coverage, in the United States, a number of campaigns were, you know, very clear in terms of, you know, we’re going to raise more money from rich people and we’re going to invest it in education and infrastructure, which are sectors that are sort of lagging behind and that are not able to sort of cover the costs of these important services. The issue of earmarking in technical terms is sometimes controversial, but it works really well from a narrative standpoint. If you’re able to show people that, you know, taxes are paid to finance public services rather than just to sort of disappear into a black into the black hole of government machinery, so it was interesting to see how different groups used that narrative.

And the third and final one is around transparency and ensuring that corruption does not basically eat away at the money that citizens contribute in taxation. So for example, the Guatemala case is very much about making the revenue administration agency more transparent, more accountable, and this was done right after a big corruption scandal where very senior people in the government, including the president and the vice president, were forced to resign because of schemes that they had concocted basically, to siphon money out of the revenue administration agency, you know, big focus on transparency and anti corruption measures.

Mexico, again, is a case in point where there was this decade-long battle to, force the tax administration to release the names of the beneficiaries of tax amnesties, which they very strongly resisted for a long time.

So these three sets of narratives are the ones that we identified as being used across the different cases, which we think can provide an interesting menu of options for groups that are interested in engaging in this kind of work, you know, depending on the type of tax, the kind of tax or the kind of campaign that people are interested in working on, then there’s a range of possibilities there in terms of a language that works, stories that work ways in which you can turn the technical language of taxation into something that people can relate to that can be used in in the media or can be used in social media for people to more easily connect and understand with the issue and as a consequence of that, support it.

Naomi: Mmmm. Yeah. And it’s – so many very well embedded popular misconceptions about tax, you know, low taxes stimulate the economy and the wealthy people are the wealth creators and they must be kept as wealthy as possible. And they’re really well embedded so it’s a long journey to try to change those stories that society tends to tell itself, but then one of the things that was really interesting in the book was about strategy. You were saying that the most successful campaigns you looked at used multiple strategies.

Paolo de Renzio: That was also another very interesting, very interesting aspect of the analysis that we did. The more successful campaigns were really multi-pronged strategies that brought together technical analysis and technical publications with direct engagement with executive, with building broad coalitions of civil society actors that could, you know, put more pressure on the government, working with the media, trying to work on these narratives and this messaging, working with parliaments and parliamentarians to create better ways to hold the government accountable.

Sometimes we had the sense that using multiple strategies was not necessarily something that was, you know, planned. It was more like a trial and error as these organizations were trying to make their point and achieve impact, trying anything and then seeing what stuck, what worked, but still, the ways in which they kind of went about identifying different entry points, developing different tactics over time, trying to see what worked, what didn’t work, what was worth investing more in and what might have been something that they didn’t have either enough capacity to cover, or didn’t have the right allies to basically carry forward and so on, was definitely a very interesting part of what we found.

So the two cases Mexico and the Philippines and I would also add the case of ECEFI in Guatemala and their campaign to reform the Revenue Administration Agency were the ones that sort of best provide the best picture of these purposeful, multi-pronged strategies that, that, you know, really try to push the issue in many different ways, and depending on where the context allowed more space.

You know, at a specific point in Guatemala, for example, there’s this corruption scandal that happens. They had had been doing work on, revenue administration reform quite some time so they had something ready that they could put in the media, bring to the table sort of, you know, build some momentum around. Then when there’s an election with the change of government, immediately they sort of go and work with new Congress people, new members of Parliament, providing technical input into the parliamentary debates around the new legislation that they were pushing for, so at the same time they were finding, you know, super interesting alliances outside of government. They worked with indigenous groups at local level. They worked with business associations at the national level, always trying to find where the overlap, where the useful overlap existed that they could utilize to basically push for their issue, push for the kind of reform that they thought was the best one for the country.

Yeah. So, the more successful campaigns were the ones that had multi-pronged strategies and worked on different fronts. At the same time you know, also recognizing that not always everything needs to be done. So, for example, social media campaigns in some cases worked really well, in some other cases that didn’t really make much of much of a difference. So there’s also that capacity to recognize when something is not working so that you sort of pull back resources and put them where they can be more impactful.

Naomi: Yeah. Adaptability. And they also had in Guatemala this really interesting political opportunity you could say, because there was such a big scandal over there with La Linea. it’s really interesting how there are occasions in the case studies where perhaps a campaigning group aligned too closely with the political opposition and that in some ways limited the success of their campaign. And the kind of tribalism that can come into play sometimes with campaigning is a really interesting one, and the type of bridges that you can build are very often quite surprising, you know, so you can come at tax campaigns from all sorts of positions, so you have to be really as wide and broad as possible. Even people who work in professions that you would not think, and even politicians who are ideologically coming from such a different perspective, there are meeting places there that can be used to progress particular policies in ways that, you know, if you’re too restrictive in the way you think about change it can limit the success of campaigns.

Paolo de Renzio: Yes, in many ways the issue of strategies is very interlinked with the issue of coalitions cause because yeah, whenever you’re working on, you know, a different part of your campaign or trying to use a different entry point to influence government policy, then there’s a different type of alliance that you need to build, there’s a different type of coalition that you need to sort of bring together to, you know, strengthen your position vis a vis those who resist the reform. And it is very interesting, in fact, across the cases to see how different groups went about building these alliances, these relationships, these coalitions very much across the spectrum, you could say, of actors that might have a role to play in tax reform. And this goes from, you know, working directly with different parts of government where these organizations could show that they could provide interesting technical inputs into even the inner policy workings of the government, you know, in many ways, building the capacity of government to think about policy reforms from the inside.

So we have clear examples – of Action for Economic Reforms in the Philippines, built very close collaboration with the reform unit in the minister of finance. We have FUNDAR in Mexico building the capacity of the institute for access to information, which is sort of the guardian of transparency within the country, helping them think about some of the positions that they developed over time with regard to tax transparency, for example.

So, you know, direct linkages with government, but also building alliances with different oversight actors from supreme audit institutions and parliaments and, you know, civil society is quite a broad field and there’s all kinds of people representing, or claiming to represent different groups with very different ideological standpoints with very, very different views on taxation and other aspects of government policy. So, really going out there and trying to find you know, all of all the different groups and associations, whether they’re from the business sector or from other parts of civil society, or from sector-specific movements, etc, and trying to sit down and think about where your interests overlap and what you can do together to try and push for the type of reform that is of interest to these different parties is something that is quite interesting that we see happening, throughout most of the most of the cases.

Naomi: Yeah, and then in terms of capacity you do make it very clear in the book that it’s technical capacity, political capacity, communications capacity, and a really important capacity to learn and adapt, you need all of them.

Paolo de Renzio: Yeah, and this is something that I think is very specifically relevant in my view for donor agencies and, you know, other outside supporters who often tend to think that what you need is kind of technical capacity to engage in tax debates. And if you build the technical skills within civil society groups and other civic actors, then everything else will follow, almost, you know, naturally. And what we very clearly see from the case studies is that technical capacity is only one of many types of capacities that are needed for successful campaigns, and technical needs to go alongside the political, the political needs to go alongside the communication. So the crafting of the narratives, the capacity to sort of deploy effective messaging strategies and so on, all of these are needed. What is interesting to see is that not necessarily all of these need to exist within an individual organization that is spearheading a campaign. They can bring in others who have who can contribute some of the skills that they don’t have so that then, you know, the coalition becomes the repository of the needed capacities, rather than the individual organization.

And then the final point, which you mentioned, is that this needs to be seen in a dynamic, long term perspective, where basically that capacity to reflect on your own action, learn from it and see where you may have made some mistakes, correct course, or, you know, finding out which capacities are missing and therefore either developing them internally or bringing them in from the outside this is something that, again, that we see as very important and an important lessons for other organizations that want to follow these footsteps.

Naomi Fowler: My thanks to Paolo De Renzio and the International Budget Partnership. Their book, A Taxing Journey, How Civic Actors Influence Tax Policy, is available online to download for free. The link is in the show notes.

And finally, a quick tax justice news summary for you. After 10 years of campaigning, a huge anti money laundering breakthrough in the United States, beneficial ownership reporting has now begun under the Corporate Transparency Act. On the 1st of January 2024, the Treasury Department began accepting filings on the true beneficial owners of many, not all, U.S. companies. Newly formed entities must now file within 90 days of formation.

In Davos, Switzerland this month, as global business elites, government officials, and representatives of global financial institutions met for the World Economic Forum, 260 millionaires and billionaires from 17 countries signed an open letter asking governments to tax them more. They wouldn’t even notice the extra payments! You can read more about that campaign on www. proudtopaymore. org

The same month, Global South countries met in Uganda for the 19th Non Aligned Movement Summit. There they discussed South to South cooperation on combating illicit financial flows, reducing to the barest minimum the processes and costs of the recovery of assets, and debt and climate crisis challenges.

And, in the European Union: the European Parliament and the European Union’s 27 national governments have taken some steps forward to agree regulations to harmonize anti money laundering rules across the bloc. Cryptocurrency platforms will be subject to enhanced due diligence measures. That’s much needed. We need more though!

Not so good on beneficial ownership registers is that a proposal to lower the threshold where firms must identify the beneficial owners of legal entities from the current 25 percent stake to 15 percent didn’t make it because of opposition from EU member states. By the way, at the Tax Justice Network, we’d like to see a no-threshold approach following the examples of Argentina and Ecuador.

But, provision has been agreed now across the block for access to beneficial ownership registries for journalists, academics and other parties with a legitimate interest. The devil’s in the detail there, but it is an advance from the EU court ruling that took us backwards on transparency in 2022 when judges ruled as invalid the legal requirements on corporations, trusts and other legal entities to publicly disclose the identities of their beneficial owners.

Okay, that’s it for now. We’ll be back with you next month. Thanks for listening. Bye for now.

View Details

We’re happy to announce the launch of the Tax Justice Network’s brand new weekly podcast The Corruption Diaries, available on most podcast apps. You can listen here to the trailer introducing the podcast, plus the first couple of episodes. Please share it far and wide! We’ll now begin releasing one episode a week, every Wednesday. Email me on naomi [at] taxjustice.net if you’d like me to send you a reminder as soon as we release each new episode.

In The Corruption Diaries podcast we take listeners on a journey through the eyes of anti-corruption veterans who were on the frontline of key events that have defined our world today, with stories and perspectives on reform you won’t hear anywhere else.

In Series 1 we sit down with leading white collar crime lawyer and Tax Justice Network senior adviser Jack Blum who tells us about his life’s work during a period of huge geopolitical change and transformed global tax and financial systems. From the BCCI scandal (Bank of Credit and Commerce International), to Panamanian dictator Noriega’s cocaine trafficking, to Lockheed Aircraft’s overseas bribes – Jack was there. As he describes in the podcast, he was in a unique position to view and understand corruption:

It was like sitting in an easy chair looking down a manhole cover in an open sewer!”

As U.S. Senate staff attorney Jack Blum served many U.S. administrations as presidents rose and fell, and he’s advised governments on asset recovery, fighting corruption and transnational corporations. He travelled the world meeting and holding to account notorious drug and gun runners, key informants, intelligence agents, politicians, lawyers, accountants and heads of multinational corporations alike. And so as you’ll hear, he has a wealth of experience, fascinating stories and important insights to share from his long and accomplished career.

The Corruption Diaries (find it on your podcast app **here**) The Corruption Diaries is produced by Naomi Fowler and Jo Barratt. Interviews with Jack Blum were recorded over several days at Jack’s home in Maryland by journalist Zoe Sullivan. It's free to broadcast by any radio station.

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (‘it’s your business’) produced and hosted by Grazielle David and Daniela Stefano. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode:

A falta de transparência, a falta de abertura para participação social, as tentativas de suborno e corrupção, as brechas na legislação, além de algumas dificuldades bem visíveis, como a falta de equipamentos ou pessoal suficiente….

Como nossos heróis e heroínas invisíveis se preparam para enfrentar os desafios da administração tributária?

Esse é o tema do episódio #56 do É da Sua Conta, especial de fim de ano e em homenagem a auditores e auditoras fiscais das administrações tributárias do Brasil e dos países africanos lusófonos.

• Qual o perfil ideal para trabalhar na administração tributária? Seleção, formação inicial e capacitação durante a carreira de auditoras e auditores com Márcio Verdi (CIAT).
• Cabo Verde, Angola, Guiné Bissau e São Tomé e Princípe: os desafios dos profissionais da tributação nos países lusoafricanos, com Clair Hickman.
• Fim da Escola Nacional de Administração Fazendária (ESAF), greve e falta de condições de trabalho: o que ocorre na Receita Federal? O Isac Falcão (Sindifisco Nacional) responde.
• Justiça fiscal como princípio norteador da formação de nossos heróis e heroínas, com Florencia Lorenzo (Tax Justice Network).

“Defendo que deve sempre haver uma formação inicial. Por melhor formada que a pessoa venha, ela precisa ainda entender, por exemplo, dos aspectos éticos, morais e código de conduta.”
~ Márcio Verdi, secretário executivo do CIAT

“Quando o servidor da administração tributária ingressa através de um processo seletivo transparente, com provas e título, faz uma melhora sensível no corpo funcional, e depois, inclusive, no oferecimento do serviço público daquela instituição para a sociedade.”
~ Clair Hickman, consultora para administrações tributárias em países lusoafricanos

“Quando o presidente (Lula) falou que é preciso colocar o rico no Imposto de Renda, não é que o rico ia pular pra dentro do Imposto de Renda, precisa de uma administração tributária pra fazer isso.”
~ Isac Falcão, presidente do Sindifisco Nacional

“Um sistema tributário que foca naqueles que têm maior capacidade contributiva, é também um sistema mais eficaz.”
~ Florencia Lorenzo, Tax Justice Network

Participantes:

• Beandrea Montoro, auditora fiscal em Guiné Bissau
• Clair Hickman, auditora fiscal aposentada e facilitadora de treinamentos e consultoria fiscal em países lusoafricanos
• Florencia Lorenzo, Tax Justice Network
• Isac Falcão, auditor da Receita Federal e presidente do Sindifisco Nacional
• Márcio Verdi, Secretário Executivo do Centro Interamericano de Administrações Tributárias, CIAT
• Pascoal Alves Junior, auditor fiscal em Guiné Bissau

Transcrição episódio #56

~ ESCOLA DE HERÓIS TRIBUTÁRIOS #56BÔNUS:
Greve na Receita Federal: por quê?

~ BÔNUS: Greve na Receita Federal: por quêPostos de fiscalização fechados à noite por falta de iluminação nos pátios, auditoras e auditores da Receita Federal em greve por mais de um mês em 2023, proposta do governo negada pela categoria. O que está acontecendo com a Receita Federal?

Neste episódio bônus, entrevista exclusiva com Isac Falcão, auditor da Receita Federal e presidente do Sindicato Nacional dos Auditores Fiscais da Receita Federal no Brasil, o Sindifisco.

Transcrição Bônus É da Sua Conta

Episódios Relacionados

• Heróis invisíveis e em extinção #44
• Colômbia: esperança de justiça fiscal para todes #45
• Heróis invisíveis 2: o desafio global #33
• Auditores fiscais: heróis invisíveis #32

É da sua conta é o podcast mensal em português da Tax Justice Network. Coordenação: Naomi Fowler. Dublagens: Cecília Figueiredo e Zema Ribeiro. Produção e apresentação: Daniela Stefano e Grazielle David. Download gratuito. Reprodução livre para rádios.

View Details

Welcome to the latest episode of the Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast, the Taxcast. You can subscribe either by emailing naomi [at] taxjustice.net or find us on your podcast app. All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. We’ll soon be launching our new podcast website, so look out for that!

In an extended Taxcast edition this month, a century of tax rule setting by the former imperial powers has been overturned: we look at the UN vote on global tax reform. Taxcast host Naomi Fowler follows events at the UN, the failed efforts to block it and explores what it all means with Alex Cobham of the Tax Justice Network.

Featuring:

• Alex Cobham of the Tax Justice Network
• UN representatives from Nigeria, South Africa, the Bahamas, the UK, the US, Spain, Russian Federation, Cameroon.
• Hosted by Naomi Fowler of the Tax Justice Network, produced by Naomi Fowler and Jo Barratt.

Transcript available here (some is automated)

~ #138 Overturning a 100 year legacy: the UN tax vote

“If the time of crisis imposes the time of change, then it’s time for cooperation to take precedence over competition. It’s time for international solidarity to take precedence over particular and selfish interest in the short term. African people are tired of numbers about assistance for development. They do not request more assistance. They request every partner running business, the physical or digital, individuals and companies making profit should pay the right price, the fair and just percentage in terms of tax. Then we could keep our promise to transforming our world, to ensuring the world we want, the future we want is a reality.“

~ UN Representative from Cameroon

“It’s a century waiting to have a globally inclusive body to set tax rules to throw over the decisions made by the League of Nations in the 1920s and 30s that we’re all stuck with the consequences of today. We don’t actually need tax rules that were set by the imperial powers, honestly, we can do better.”

~ Alex Cobham, Tax Justice Network

Further reading:

• The UN adopts plans for historic tax reform, Tax Justice Network
• “No” voters on UN tax reform enable 75% of global tax abuse, Tax Justice Network
• Follow developments on tax reform at the UN on the Tax Justice Network’s live blog: Road to UN vote on global tax reform
• Decolonising the International Tax System from Fadhel Kaboub‘s blog
• A new UN Tax convention – how will it change global tax governance? from Martin Hearson
• You can WATCH the vote at the UN here (the discussion on tax matters starts around 35 minutes)

Here’s a summary of the podcast:

Naomi: Hello and welcome to the Taxcast, the Tax Justice Network podcast. We’re all about fixing our economies so they work for all of us. I’m Naomi Fowler. On the Taxcast this month:

Clip 1: “African people are tired of poverty, they do not request more assistance. They request every companies making profit should pay the right price, the fair and just percentage in terms of tax.”
Clip 2: “The committee is now voting on draft resolution L18 Rev 1 entitled Promotion of Inclusive and Effective International Tax Cooperation at the United Nations.”

Naomi: It may not sound like it, but this is a historic vote at the United Nations on where the power lies for global tax rulemaking.

Clip 3: “The voting has been completed. Please lock the voting machine. The result of the vote is as follows: in favour 125, against 48, abstentions 9. Draft resolution A/C2/78/L18 REV1 is adopted.”

Naomi: Some nations tried their best to block it, but a landslide majority of nations voted to catapult the world into the next steps for fairer rulemaking on global tax. It’s all about who gets to decide, and how, and where.

UN representative from Nigeria: For developing nations this resolution represents a beacon of hope.

Naomi: This is the UN representative from Nigeria introducing the draft resolution before the vote on behalf of the Africa Group.

UN Representative from Nigeria: By standing together today, we commit not only to fairer tax systems, but also to a collective future where economic justice are not mere aspirations but achievable realities. The path is clear and the benefits are manifold.

Naomi: And here’s the South Africa representative.

UN representative from South Africa: For many Africans, fulfilling the UN Sustainable Development Goals is a matter of life and death. Unfortunately, their ability to meet these aims is hobbled by illicit and hidden movements of capital that amounts to vast billions each year. It is high time that the international community addresses this injustice in global taxing rights that is impoverishing millions, which goes back to the days of the League of Nations, when most member states were colonies and which has been perpetuated by the monopoly that rich country clubs have held over international tax rulemaking.

Naomi: We know that if we continue on our current trajectory where the ‘Club of Rich Nations’ at the OECD wields the power on tax rules in their own interests, countries are on course to lose 4.8 trillion US dollars to tax havens over the next decade. This vote aims to avoid those kind of astronomical losses by doing things differently through the United Nations and establishing a UN Tax Convention. Taxcast listeners will remember that in 2022 countries at the UN agreed by consensus to the preparations that have led up to this UN vote. So what have 125 nations just voted for? Alex Cobham of the Tax Justice Network:

Alex: So look, what’s happened, you know, last year there was agreement to move forward with intergovernmental discussions, so the real thing that it required was this report from the Secretary General to look at the options and then a debate in the General Assembly this year.
Naomi: Yes, and I covered that in the Taxcast. It’s the one called the day global power shifted. I’ll put that in the show notes. So the report was done, yeah.

Alex: Right, so that’s happened, and off the back of that a new resolution was brought forward by the Africa Group. And this resolution really does two things. So it sets the commitment to work towards a framework convention on tax. And in the immediate period, really from January to August, it says we will create, basically a committee of all of the UN member states in order to create the terms of reference for those negotiations. So it’s all of the countries of the world agreeing the terms of reference for the negotiation on a framework convention. And the idea is that will then be brought back to the General Assembly in September, and then the negotiations would go forward. So last year was kind of creating the context, saying this is what we’re looking at. And this year is, we’re kind of into the hard and fast steps, this really concrete committee to take it forward, to create the terms of reference. So we’re on the road, you know, we have a resolution now that commits absolutely and without equivocation to negotiating a framework convention, a legally binding outcome.

Naomi: Okay. We’re going to look at the no voters and their motivations in a minute. But why did nations agree by consensus last year, but this time it went to a vote?

Alex: Yeah, so, this is sort of UN technicality, last time they didn’t vote so it’s UN consensus, so nobody objected hard enough to say, let’s take this to the vote. So there were some objections, registered or reservations from some OECD countries but nobody wanted to resist enough to have a vote so it passes by consensus and that’s effectively as close as you get to unanimity. This year they wanted to stop it. And they fought really, really hard all the way through trying to stop it and only the almost complete unanimity of the G77 countries made sure that we had such an overwhelming result in favour.

Naomi: Right, and the G77, that’s a coalition of so-called ‘developing’ countries, so it was a landslide really, those 125 nations voting in favour of the resolution represent 80 percent of the world’s population. It’s a historic vote too, the last attempt to address global power imbalances through the United Nations was spearheaded by Jamaica in the 1970s, along with other newly decolonised nations. Back then, they passed the UN Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, and the aim of that was to reinforce the rights of all national governments to control multinational capital and specifically exercise democratic power over multinational corporations. The backlash against it from the most powerful nations dissuaded any similar attempts for nearly 50 years, until now. Here’s the representative from the Bahamas at the UN:

UN Representative from the Bahamas: This resolution is an important step towards an inclusive and equitable global tax system. For over six decades, the international tax policies formulated and dictated by the OECD neglected or failed to address the inherent challenges and the differences in development dynamics faced by the global south. Throughout these decades, developing countries have grappled with the disequilibrium of the international financial architecture, coupled with inconsistent contradictory tax and financial services policies, which have stifled economic growth.
Mr. Chair, this resolution envisions a future where services and trade benefit all countries fostering true inclusivity and cooperation. It will enable countries, particularly in the Global South, to actively participate in shaping international tax norms, while creating equity and development capacity where it did not exist before. It will also ensure the development of protocols to combat illicit tax related illicit financial flows, which cause the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue annually. By addressing this issue we are taking a significant step towards preserving the financial integrity of vulnerable countries while generating more revenue to finance development.
Mr. Chair, the overwhelming support for this resolution is a clarion call, indicating that the majority of the world recognises the inequalities of the current international tax regime and are victims of its arbitrary and inconsistent rules. In this vein, the Bahamas welcomes the passage of this resolution as an aspiration for equity, inclusivity, sustainable development and tax cooperation.

Naomi: The Bahamas co sponsored the draft resolution and we’ll talk a bit about their position later, which is interesting. Before the main vote happened on the draft resolution, Promotion of Inclusive and Effective International Tax Cooperation at the United Nations, the United Kingdom proposed an amendment to that draft resolution. Here’s the UK representative.

UN representative from the UK: During negotiations, the UK and others have sought to engage constructively to bridge the range of views and find a way forward that is in line with the ambition and which commands consensus. That is why we are now proposing an amendment to the resolution, which would change the text to just refer to a framework, rather than a framework convention.

Naomi: OK. So, what was the UK up to there? And why did they want to change the text to refer to a framework rather than a framework convention? What were they doing?

Alex: So, the UK brought forward this amendment. It’s not quite clear why it was the UK who brought it forward, because it was really the European Union’s position but I think just, you know, some OECD members trying to block things together. So the UK brought forward an amendment to strike out the word convention, basically from the resolution, in order to kind of get to a position where you have no legally binding outcome at all.
Naomi: Right, so in a way they were happy to talk shop, but not if it actually meant it was legally binding?!

Alex: I mean, that seems to have been the position, which is remarkable. Because bearing in mind, these are countries that sometimes complain that the UN is a talking shop, and they use that as an argument for why they shouldn’t do things at the UN. And in this case, they were demanding that the UN be a talking shop and have no possibility of being anything else so, yeah, it wasn’t, it wasn’t a very compelling position, I think, and certainly the Africa Group gave it very short shrift, and rightly so.
Naomi: Yeah, here’s the Nigerian representative’s response to that and there’s not much doubt what he thought about the UK’s intervention!
UN representative from Nigeria: Thank you very much, Chairman, and I would like to thank the UK delegation for its engagement and for its, uh, approach of trying to alter the resolution.
The position of the African Group is that the amendments being proposed by the UK delegation aim to, or would certainly preserve a restrictive status quo where developing countries remain marginalised in terms of international discourse. This approach denies us a voice in vital areas of agenda setting, norm creation, and decision making. The African Group, therefore, categorically rejects these amendments and strongly encourages all delegations to vote against them. We instead invite you to support and vote in favour of the draft resolution as it is, affirming our commitment to equity, inclusiveness and a global tax system where every member has an equal say.

Naomi: Well, that attempt by the UK to amend the draft resolution didn’t work. It was heavily defeated. Listen here to the results of the vote on their amendment.

UN representative: Delegations are kindly requested to indicate their votes. Those in favour of the proposed amendment contained in document A/C2/78/CRP 7, please signify. Those against and abstentions. The committee is now voting on the proposed amendment to draft resolution L 18 REV 1, as contained in document A C2 78 CRP 7.
Will all delegations confirm that their votes are correctly reflected on the screen? The voting has been completed. Please lock the voting machine.
The result of the vote is as follows in favour 55 against 107 abstentions 16. The proposed amendment contained in document CRP 7 is not adopted.

Naomi: So, that amendment got nowhere. Next, the United Nations voted on the Africa Group’s now unamended draft resolution. Just before that, the US representative gave a statement on why the US was going to vote against it. Let’s listen to a bit of that.

UN Representative from the US: The United States regrets that it cannot join consensus on this resolution and wishes to explain the reasons for this decision before the vote. The content of the resolution and the process followed over the course of negotiations have resulted in outcomes that are likely to duplicate and undermine existing intergovernmental negotiations on international tax cooperation.

Naomi: Duplicate and duplication are words you hear a lot from the no voting countries.

UN Representative from the US: The resolution has failed to achieve the consensus necessary to strengthen international tax cooperation for the benefit of all countries. Without broad consensus among countries, any process is unlikely to strengthen international tax cooperation or achieve meaningful results.

Naomi: Hmm, well, the United States has often opted out of international agreements on tax rules as they’re decided currently, so, yeah..! Next, the US representative went on to claim that tax rulemaking as it’s done now is all just fine. Nothing to see here!

UN Representative from the US: Negotiations of the Inclusive Framework occur in a setting in which 145 jurisdictions provide input and decisions are made by consensus. This approach affords every member a real voice in negotiations and decision making, which allows for the development of solutions with broad consensus that have a better chance of standing the test of time.

Naomi: So she’s sort of saying 145 jurisdictions agree tax rules together and it’s all great?!

Alex: So, you know, let me not call anyone a liar, you can only conclude from that that the U.S. delegate was exceptionally badly briefed, you know, the Inclusive Framework, and this is on the record by multiple participant countries, simply does not provide an effective voice to most of the Inclusive Framework members. In fact, a number of OECD country members, whatever that is, 38 or something members of the OECD, a number of them have expressed serious frustration at the failure of the process to be inclusive, even of their voices.
But apart from the practicalities, apart from all the people who’ve complained that this isn’t inclusive and highlighted – as ATAF, the African Tax Administrators Forum has done – highlighted that the processes for consensus is quite close to coercion, that sometimes they would be delivered documents at 10 o’clock at night, being told that if they had not raised an objection by first thing in the morning they would be assumed to be joining the consensus, right? Now, even for countries with very high capacity in their tax authorities and finance ministries, that’s a completely unreasonable ask and that doesn’t generate any genuine consensus at all. For countries which in many cases are seriously capacity constrained and operating in different time zones, that’s just outrageous, you know, and it’s clearly not consensus by anyone’s definition.
But look, even setting aside those questions about how the Inclusive Framework fails to work in practice, you only have to look at the governance to understand that what the US delegate said is completely wrong. There is no governance, no rules of procedure for the Inclusive Framework, so there is no basis on which the Secretariat legally is required or even can take the opinions and reflect them of the members of the inclusive framework. So if you look through the OECD’s governance, what you come to is the position stated that legally the secretariat is bound by, which says that they must prioritise the views of OECD members over any other country and that has to be the determinant of all the work that they carry out. And that’s equally true for the Inclusive Framework as for any other thing that the OECD does.
Now, if you wanted, you could think about changing the OECD’s governance, you know, you could create structures and rules of procedure where they could have transparent voting, where there could be decision making by the members of the Inclusive Framework, not by OECD members. But by the time you’ve done all that, you’d effectively have created a United Nations parallel. So there’s kind of a question, you know, why would you do that when we’ve already got the United Nations?! We’ve got the UN. We just need to give it a space to deal with tax.
Naomi: Ok. So, next, nations at the United Nations voted on the Africa Group’s unamended draft resolution. Here it is:

UN Representative and interpreter: The committee is now voting on draft resolution L18 Rev 1 entitled Promotion of Inclusive and Effective International Tax Cooperation at the United Nations.
The voting has been completed. Please lock the voting machine.
The result of the vote is as follows in favour, 125 against, 48 abstentions 9. Draft resolution A C2 78 L18 REV1 is adopted.

Naomi: Right, let’s take a look at the politics and the power relations behind all this. Let’s start with the nations which voted no, voted against the resolution. The first thing to say is that the 48 countries who voted no to the resolution are A) mainly OECD member countries, which represent only 15 percent of the global population and B) those no voting countries are responsible for three quarters of all countries’ losses to tax havens. That puts things in a different light, doesn’t it?! And that’s complicated by the fact that the tax benefits from reform would be good for all nations, not just the world’s poorest ones. And that’s because the wealthiest countries in the world actually lose the most tax revenue each year as a result of the way international tax rules currently work under the OECD. Poorer nations lose the biggest proportion of their potential tax revenues, so they’re hit very hard and they can weather that hit less than wealthier nations. So if wealthier nations also lose out, why did they vote no? Here’s Alex:
Alex: Well, a cynic might say that those countries actually don’t have an interest in fixing the problem. Although they are the biggest losers in terms of absolute revenues, they are also the home countries for the multinationals and professional services firms that are responsible for most of the cross border tax abuse in the world. I think that’s probably not fair.
Somebody even more cynical might say, these countries do kind of want to fix the problem, but not that much. Not enough to actually give up the disproportionate power that they have at the OECD. So they’d rather have this process at the OECD continue to fail to solve the problem, but it being their process and their organisation rather than a globally inclusive one. And again, you know, I think, or at least I hope, that that’s probably unfair to, at least for quite a few of those countries.
So I think maybe the fairer reflection would be to say there’s two things going wrong here. So one is that these countries governments are not under sufficient public pressure from their own citizens demanding that they do more about the problems of tax abuse. And that’s something that we, the tax justice movement should be thinking about and how do we, how do we change that dynamic when these losses are so huge and responsible for so much lost public services, so much excess inequality in these rich countries, as well as everywhere else? So that’s one part.
I think the other part is countries are afraid of what they don’t know. You know, it’s not countries, it’s people, it’s individuals, it’s, it’s government officials and the ministers that they brief, and they’re comfortable at the OECD, you know, they know it doesn’t work, and they know that when the US and France, the biggest member and the host country have a bilateral negotiation, everybody else pretty much has to accept the results because it’s the opposite of a democratic, uh, organisation, but they’re comfortable in it, it’s what they know. And they worry, particularly finance ministries who never engage at the United Nations, they worry that if they go somewhere else it might all be terribly different and scary. And so I think there is a process, you know, in the negotiations generally of people just getting kind of acclimatised, people from finance ministries and tax authorities who aren’t normally in UN spaces actually understanding that this is a place that’s got real possibilities, that the transparency isn’t something to be afraid of, actually it can help them get much better outcomes, and hold each other accountable, and allow their citizens to see that they are taking the positions that they say, outside of the meeting that they’re going to take. And I think, you know, genuinely, I think we’re going to get on a road where a lot of OECD countries really embrace this process. And we can kind of move forward to something much, much more effective, as well as much more inclusive than we’ve had at the OECD.
Naomi: Okay. Let’s look at the Yes voting countries. These efforts to move international tax rules setting to the United Nations have been led by the Africa Group and proposed by Nigeria. Co-sponsors of their draft resolution include Bahamas, Bolivia, Guyana, Russia, Thailand and Tonga. Russia’s interesting. Why Russia? Here’s the Russian Federation representative addressing the assembly before the vote:

UN Representative from the Russian Federation speaking through an interpreter: Mr. Chairman, dear colleagues, Russia is in favour of strengthening international cooperation in the area of tax matters and making it truly inclusive. We hear what the African Group is saying. The existing multilateral cooperation mechanisms within the OECD are neither inclusive nor effective. In this regard we support expanding the tax discussion in the UN and creating an intergovernmental platform with universal membership to discuss specific matters. The obstructive stance taken by most OECD countries, the position of developed countries is bewildering. Meeting the challenge of mobilising internal resources without establishing a fair and inclusive international tax system is not possible. Maintaining the status quo will not enable countries of the Global South to ensure self sufficiency or to decrease their dependency on external financial assistance.

Naomi: Here’s Alex.

Alex: So, I mean, you would like to think that, you know, Russia being aware that it’s very seriously exposed to financial secrecy that drives not just significant tax abuse, but also, you know, the very obvious problem of corruption, that it’s seen the light. I don’t think that’s, certainly not what we’ve really heard, but it’s a calculation that, you know, the G77 countries have really, felt so oppressed, and have been oppressed really, are currently being oppressed by the way the international tax rules operate by their exclusion from any effective voice in that process and the continuing extraction of profits by companies from OECD countries, so Russia sees an opportunity to align itself with the G77 and say, you know, we are much better friends of yours than the United States or the European Union. And that’s, you know, that’s fairly cynical, but it’s not surprising. And, you know, if you’re on the other side of that, if you’re the United States or the EU or the UK, you know, you should really think about whether, let’s imagine that you actually think the OECD is delivering something good, even if you did, which, you know, nobody could, but let’s say you did, you’d still have to think quite hard about where the G77 very clearly doesn’t take seriously the claims of the West to be kind of defending human rights and to be on the good side you know, this is such an obvious opportunity to say, in effect, you know, you’re right. And we can see that we’ve done this wrong and that we’ve acted unfairly for decades now. And it’s time, you’re right. It’s time that you and everyone had a seat at the table and, you know, get on the right side of history, right? You know, this is a process that’s going to happen anyway so it wouldn’t actually have cost very much to say, you know what, we’re going to champion it, instead of being the people who are trying to spoil it at every step. So just even on a kind of, you know, a very narrow political pragmatism basis, you think this was a bad decision by most of the OECD countries who opposed.

Naomi: Hmm. And looking at some of the, the other Yes voters, Colombia and Chile, they resisted a lot of pressure as OECD members wanting them to vote against or abstain and that’s quite an interesting and quite a brave stand they took, I think.

Alex: Yeah, I think the support for this is really kind of quite telling. Thinking of Chile and Colombia, you know, what they’ve done is exceptionally brave and important. I’ve just been in Oslo, and you know, Norway abstained, right, as another OECD member. They were under enormous pressure to vote to vote against, and to stick with the OECD bloc, and so for them even to move to abstention, never mind voting in favour, you know, just to get to abstention was really politically, felt costly for them. And this is a country that’s been, you know, an absolute champion of this kind of inclusive international tax cooperation and work on financial transparency for, you know, at least the last 20 years, so, you know, you can only imagine the pressure that the newer OECD members like Chile and Colombia were under so it’s, you know, it’s all the more admirable that they took this stand.
I think if you then look at some of the other supporters, even the co-sponsors, you see some unusual names when you’re thinking about kind of international tax cooperation. So one of the co-sponsors was the Bahamas, and the Bahamas is a country that’s been you know, frequently on the non-cooperative jurisdiction lists of the European Union or other kind of tax haven blacklists, and they’re always painted as an opponent of progress by those institutions. It is true that, you know, from our perspective, the Bahamas isn’t sort of perfect, you know, it’s got some work to do to become a bit more transparent and make sure it’s not kind of facilitating profit shifting, but it’s far from alone in that, and of course the Bahamas role is much, much smaller than that of some of the big OECD members, whether that’s the Netherlands or Ireland on profit shifting or the United States on financial secrecy. And yet the Bahamas ends up on these lists when no OECD member ever does. So for them to co-sponsor this is a signal that I’m sure they can imagine this process will lead to some further constraints on how they can operate, but clearly they’ve decided it’s much better to be part of a global process in which their voice can be heard, even if the outcomes in some cases may be to require them to meet certain standards than to be outside of a process forever at the OECD or the European Union, wherever, where they’re only ever going to be painted as criminals, you know, and if you look across the Caribbean, actually, the support was really comprehensive, I mean, it was kind of impressive given that that’s a region that’s often felt like international tax co-operation is just another word for coming to attack us, right?
So I think you can see a shift in dynamics here. Countries at different income levels from different regions of the world coming together because genuinely there is a central demand in this which is for everyone’s voice to be heard, not just this this group of OECD members.

Naomi: And the countries that chose to abstain, again, interesting. There’s nine of them, so I’ll run through them quickly. Norway, Alex has talked about, then there’s Armenia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Iceland, Mexico, Peru, Turkiye, and the United Arab Emirates.
Let’s talk about some of the no voting countries, all of the EU countries voted as one block against the resolution. Here’s Spain’s representative at the UN speaking on behalf of the 27 EU countries after the vote. It’s that duplication word again, but they also seem to think that all that’s needed is to tweak the OECD rich countries club to make it more democratic. Have a listen. what you’re hearing is the UN interpreter interpreting from Spanish to English.
UN Representative from Spain, speaking through a UN interpreter: The EU and its member states recognise the important role played by the UN, including, but not limited to, its efforts to support developing countries in mobilising domestic revenues and to increase their ability to finance their development strategies. The EU and its member states are also committed to the ongoing work of the OECD and G20 inclusive framework, which strives to establish ambitious reforms to the international tax order, and its increasing number of members. We consider it is important to continue developing these global tax standards and avoid duplication of work or inconsistent outcomes, including agreements that have been built over the course of many years and that have global benefits, however imperfect they may seem.
However, we recognise that many UN member states have noted a lack of inclusivity in the existing international agreements, both in terms of their process and also in terms of establishing the agenda. We are resolute in terms of committing to improvements in this regard, both in terms of consultations and with member states and also respective international organisations, the EU and its member states support the efforts of the global framework to improve the inclusiveness of its membership.

Naomi: You’ve talked a bit about the EU already, voting as one bloc against the resolution. And you can see that there is some sympathy for the objections of many nations that they’re not getting a fair say in the making of global tax rules. So, they acknowledge there’s a lack of inclusivity, but still voted against as a bloc. It’s in theory, somebody is able to break out of that bloc and say, no, I’m going to vote for it? Or I’m not quite sure how the EU works in the UN for this kind of vote?

Alex: Yeah, so it doesn’t always, but it very often operates as a bloc, and, you know, at the second committee where this resolution came, that’s typically how it operates. What was different this time though is that the EU finance ministers had met in, I think, September and gave a recommendation that EU members should support option three, this non-binding framework without a convention. That was then interpreted by the lead EU member in the negotiations of this as an absolute outright position that couldn’t be changed. Now that EU member that led the negotiations was France, which of course is the host country of the OECD and always the most aggressive defender of the OECD. So I think the EU got themselves stuck into a position that they didn’t actually necessarily mean to take, but under a combination of pressure from the OECD itself and then from France, ended up tying everyone’s hands. I think there’s quite a bit of anger at France about that. And delegations understand how much geopolitically it’s kind of cost them to be on the wrong side of this and to fail to stop it anyway. So we’re already hearing that EU members will be actively participating in the, in the committee stage that will begin in January and February.
We’ll see if that’s an EU bloc position or if it’s much more open and positive members will be able to engage more positively. My guess is they’ll try and keep a bloc position, but there’s no way it’s going to be dictated by France next time, that’s the message that’s coming.
But one thing to say, you know, for the EU, I think what needs to happen really is a shift in understanding. You know, I heard the head of tax at the European Commission the other day saying he just didn’t know what the UN convention would include and that’s why it was difficult for them to take a position. I think, again, that suggests he simply hasn’t been briefed because there’s a lot of material out there on what could be included.
Actually, you know, the case you can make to the EU is very clear. Going back at least to 2000, the EU has been a leader in a whole set of areas, you know, it was the EU that took forward multilateral automatic exchange of information. The EU has really led on beneficial ownership, at least up to the European court ruling that’s put that in a bit of jeopardy. It’s leading now on public country by country reporting from July this year. That will be a requirement, not perfect, but you know, a big step on the road. And the European Union has led in efforts to try to get a type of unitary taxation with formulary apportionment within the European Union itself and that’s still something they’re still trying.
All of their work across each of those areas has been held up when they’ve tried to make it fully multilateral at the OECD or the related institutions, the Financial Action Task Force and the Global Forum. All of those things have been blocked by the biggest OECD member, the United States, and they’ve only ever moved when the United States moves, so when Obama requires automatic information provision to the US, it allows the EU to get the OECD to deliver a multilateral standard for automatic information exchange. When the US refuses to have public registers of beneficial ownership, then FATF the Financial Action Task Force can’t do it either and everybody else is stuck waiting for the international standard to approve.
If you’re the EU, you ask yourself, am I okay to get blocked every time by the United States, always and only ever able to go at the speed that whichever US administration is in power is willing to go? And you can see it in the current tax reform negotiations too, when, you know, under Trump one thing was possible, under Biden, another thing was possible, and it was almost irrelevant what the rest of the world thought. So everyone has spent all of this time doing what the U.S. has wanted them to do, with the net result that we will have nothing because the U.S. ultimately is going to say we can’t do it, and so no one else is doing it. The EU has to at some point think, is it possible that in a different setting, perhaps a more transparent and democratic one, we might actually be able to support the progressive things that we want to happen, happening multilaterally, that the US opposition could be set aside or overcome in that context in a way that it can’t be at the OECD? Because the OECD is so completely dominated by the US, you know, to the extent that the OECD cannot even say the United States is non-compliant with the Common Reporting Standard for automatic information exchange, even though the United States position is explicitly that they have not signed and will not sign ever, nor provide automatic information exchange, the OECD still can’t actually say that they’re non-compliant because that would be too controversial. Is this the institution for the European Union to set tax rules, to look for multilateral progress? I mean, I think a kind of a cold analytical view of things would suggest that this really is not the future for the EU’s hopes. And the UN convention creates exactly a space in which they could really move forward that agenda. The European Union has a lot to gain from this. It will be a way of opening the doors to the agenda that they’ve had for a very long time, but they need to get comfortable with it and stop feeling quite as afraid of the risks, as they would see it, of allowing countries in the G77 to have a voice as well.

Naomi: When it comes to the United Nations current role in tax governance at the moment I think it’s limited to an expert committee of 25 people who are nominated by member states, but they conduct business in their own capacity, I think. So what do you hope could happen now as a result of this vote to expand and develop its capacity?

Alex: I think it’s worth saying, actually there is quite a lot of tax capacity in the UN system. So the UN Tax Committee that you’ve mentioned, that’s one piece. And yeah, it’s an expert committee, so the experts are nominated by countries, but they are not supposed to be national representatives. Although very often when you see the OECD people blocking things, it feels very much that their role is representative. But you know, that committee, even as it stands, and even with relatively little resources, has actually done some really impressive work, particularly in the last few years.
You know, they’ve come up with treaty articles that really address the problems of digitalisation in a much quicker and more elegant way than anything that the OECD process is going to deliver. They’re working on things like wealth taxes now, so they’re kind of pushing the horizons of where things can go, so we shouldn’t downplay what they’ve already delivered, even with the constraints that have been put on them.
But then you have, you know, UNDP does a lot of work as part of Tax Inspectors Without Borders, collaborates with other institutions, supports national governments in their tax work. UNCTAD does a lot of work on the tax abuse of multinational companies. The UN regional economic commissions, especially the economic commission for Africa have really been, you know, among the biggest champions of tax work. And so they’re all these parts of the UN system where actually there is significant capacity and expertise.
And one, one possibility is just that you could bring together a lot of that into one place and, you know, and really without even any additional resources, you’d have a very powerful group, ready to go.
Look, what the convention offers the possibility of is really going to another level. So you’d have this, this real core of expertise sitting in one place now, rather than spread around the system with all of the data ideally coming in there and, you know, being responsible for generating public analysis of the scale of the problems. You’d have the UN saying, this is how bad the problems are, we’re tracking this, and this is where the real issues are and we need to deal with this and this and this, and doing it in such a way that, you know, instead of the OECD having all the information and publishing little bits of it for people like us to pick up and do what we can with, you could make all of the information at least at the national level, public through that process, so everyone has a common basis of knowledge to work from and to take into negotiations, you know, all of that. Again, it wouldn’t take a huge amount of resources, but having it centralised around this framework body would change the whole dynamic, and in particular for lower income countries outside the OECD who really lack access to information so much of the time, which just layers on top of the capacity constraints they have too, you know, creating a central resource would be extremely progressive because the benefits would be much bigger for the countries that are currently denied, denied information and currently lack capacity most.

Naomi: Right. And in terms of what they should focus on most, should it be a place that enables states with common cause to kind of form blocs together to resist the pressure more effectively than they can at the moment from the most powerful countries and that would help them implement region-wide things or even unilaterally, it gives them more power to implement things domestically that they want to enforce when it comes to multinationals? Or should it be taking an OECD type approach where they try to push tax rules as widely as possible everywhere, according to what they’ve agreed?

Alex: In a sense, this is the set of questions for the governments of the world, you know, and, and for the first time they will be able together to consider them. But we can say, look, here are kind of the relatively quick wins, things that we can, you know, really deliver within a couple of years of negotiations. And here is some more complicated stuff, which effectively will be the agenda for the framework body going forward.
What you can really do in the convention itself in the immediate protocols is more around transparency. You know, so you can take the OECD instrument for automatic information exchange and make it genuinely globally inclusive and address some of its significant shortcomings in terms of how easy it is to design income stream asset classes that are outside the reporting requirement, so you make it much better. And you make sure everyone’s included, and in particular, you allow lower income countries to receive information without immediately having to reciprocate, because you recognise, as the UN process, UN in general always does, that you have common but differentiated responsibilities, and you don’t expect everyone to do everything from moment zero. So it’s kind of, you know, significant wins there that will really generate additional revenues from the following year. We’ve also seen the injustice of, of cutting out most of the countries of the world from it so making that global and making it better will really deliver. So that’s A.
You know, B, you can imagine setting a beneficial ownership standard, which the United States might not like, but more or less everyone else would be happy to aim for of transparency of the ownership of companies, trusts, legal vehicles or other sorts. You know, you could really make significant progress quite quickly on that. Similarly, I think the tipping point is probably about on us getting to public country by country reporting. And if you did that in a multilateral convention, you solve the problem that we currently have that any government like the Australian one this year that tries to move ahead comes under enormous pressure because it’s only one government. You put that in a convention and you really kind of make it politically possible to do without countries getting picked off by the lobbyists. So that’s your ABC of transparency, potentially all there in the convention.
Then the question is on corporate tax, you know, we know what the ambitions are really, and this is true for OECD countries as well as others, we want multinationals profits to be declared and taxed in the places where their real economic activity takes place. So you could actually, even within the immediate convention, you could agree a shift to unitary taxation. There is a broad majority, I would say, in favour of a much more ambitious global minimum tax than this very complex and limited version that is the OECD’s pillar 2 version. So I think, we could move to a much broader and fairly shared global minimum tax at a rate of let’s say 25% rather than 15%. Now again, do you want to try and do that within the convention or you say that’s for the framework body to begin its work in a few years?
And then lastly, there’s a set of kind of governance and structure questions. How would the framework body work? What kind of regular are the meetings? What kind of rules for decision making? What kind of data will it collect? What will it publish? So, you know, this is a moment, a real possibility where things are going to start becoming clear literally within the next few months as the terms of reference for the negotiations are drafted. It’s exciting times, you know.

Naomi: Yeah, it is exciting. And what kind of timescale are we looking at to the day where we’re all celebrating because we’ve got a UN tax convention?

Alex: What the resolution has agreed is the creation of a committee of all UN members that will meet, probably four times for maybe five days a time in New York. It has to deliver a draft terms of reference in August. A key point within that is there’s a bureau to be created, which will be 20 members, 20 member states, and that’ll be divided four from each of the five UN regions. So at the moment, those regional blocks are working out who will be their members of the Bureau. And the Bureau will really steer the process and be, I think, responsible for a lot of the direction and the drafting, so that’s a key thing that will become clear in February, who’s going to be in there.
Then look, you know, that report in August goes to the General Assembly, there will be a debate in September, and then the next resolution will agree to take a final version of the terms of reference as the basis for negotiations to begin in 2025.

Naomi: And would it be, can it ever be legally binding because I’ve seen many UN conventions which are very commendable, and, you know, that are used for all sorts of research and reports to demonstrate where countries are not upholding their obligations, legal obligations under these conventions, but it doesn’t seem to go anywhere in terms of legal consequences, so to what extent are we talking legally binding with this convention?

Alex: You know, countries can always do what they want. Governments, governments can choose to break the law. I mean, you and I have lived through Brexit in the UK, we’ve seen our government repeatedly choose to break international agreements and laws that they are subject to. I suppose in the same way that individuals can break laws, you know, the fact that law is there doesn’t mean that nobody commits murder, but it does mean there is some accountability. And I think that’s the key thing, you know, if you look at the kind of human rights instruments that we’re often working on, you can feel frustrated that governments continually breach their human rights commitments, but there is at least a process when they’ve signed an instrument, there’s a process to hold them accountable for it. And some sense that this does over time strengthen behaviour. It reduces the degrees of violations. I think in the case of tax that the dynamic is probably significantly stronger than that. It’s more like, sort of two elements, you know. So one is things like the UN Convention Against Corruption, you know, another one in this kind of area, gives the basis for countries actually to pass a lot of domestic law and those are then held to, and perhaps held to much more clearly than, sadly, respecting the rights of people with disabilities, say, which, although people sign conventions, it’s very often breached day in day out, whereas on the corruption side you can see very specific legal changes put through by governments and then stuck to, so I think this is the kind of the immediate elements in the tax convention are of that sort. What matters, you know, yes, that it’s agreed and ratified, but actually the government then put it into domestic legislation as they do when there are successful OECD processes, though in this case everyone will have had a say, so this is already better.
And the other piece is, you know, as with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, it creates this framework body, and that creates the space for further negotiations and for governments to commit and deliver on further actions in years to come. You can say the climate case, you know, actually a lot of what you see is, if not backsliding, at least trying not to be ambitious, but think about, you know, if you want to see the glass half full, if there wasn’t a UN framework convention on climate change we probably wouldn’t even have that process of regular meetings where governments are at least called out for their opposition for their failure to be sufficiently ambitious. So, you know, having a tax convention doesn’t mean that everyone’s going to do the right thing on tax at all. But it creates the possibility that simply isn’t there at the OECD, that we can move forward on a whole set of things and that a group of the willing can really go further and faster than if they’re on their own and kind of exposed to being picked off by lobbyists and by the pressure of one or two powerful countries who don’t want progress. So it’s the basis for really sustained and significant progress, but it’s not a guarantee. That guarantee will only come from civil society, from people in the street and people like us demanding that once it’s in place, it’s really used by our governments and making sure our governments take ambitious positions and stick to what they end up agreeing.

Naomi: Ok, so 2025 is the year to be really hopeful about that we’re actually less than, well, what, two years away, less than two years away, possibly from a historic UN tax convention?

Alex: I think there’s a question over how quickly you can negotiate it. So, you know, the most ambitious possibility if you start the formal negotiations with a really good terms of reference in January 25, Spain will host the fourth Financing for Development Summit in 2025. Could you race to a convention text in time for the Financing for Development Summit and have global signatures then? I think it’s just about within the bounds of possibility, and more realistic I think it’s a staging point and you’re probably looking at signatures in 2026. So, you know, it’s not a matter of months, it’s definitely years, but it’s such a big shift. You know, it’s a century waiting to have a globally inclusive body to set these rules to throw over the decisions made by the League of Nations in the 1920s and 30s that we’re all stuck with the consequences of today, you know, to say, we don’t actually need tax rules that were set by the imperial powers, honestly, we can do better. So I want to be impatient, I want this today, but you know, if it takes a couple of years to get us past the legacy of the last hundred, we should probably be willing to take our time just a little bit.

Naomi: Yes, indeed. And you can really hear the desire for change from the representative from Cameroon who spoke after the vote to adopt the resolution. Again, what you can hear is the UN interpreter interpreting from French to English.

UN Representative from Cameroon: We are in crisis and the planet is in danger. At the current pace, we will be in an even more dramatic situation than currently. Although we are on the edge of the abyss, there is still time, it’s still possible to save the planet, to eradicate poverty, to ensure prosperity for all in a peaceful world.
If the time of crisis imposes the time of change, then it’s time for cooperation to take precedence over competition. It’s time for international solidarity to take precedence over particular and selfish interest in the short term. We must stand united with a very strong message to make sure there is no longer room for tax evasion, tax avoidance, money laundering, illicit financial flows.
We count on the support of every member state because one country is not in position to combat those cancers depriving developing countries from critical resources for sustainable development.
Mr. Chair, African people are tired of poverty, misery, hunger, tired of suffering from dramatic consequences of conflicts, natural disaster, tired of the narrative of corruption and that of local governance and corruption to explain the problem they are facing. African people are tired of numbers about assistance, assistance for development. They do not request more assistance. They request every partner running business, the physical or digital, individuals and companies making profit should pay the right price, the right price, the fair and just percentage in terms of tax. Then we could keep our promise to transforming our world, to ensuring the world we want, the future we want is a reality. Je vous remercie.

Naomi: That’s it for this month. Thanks for listening. Bye for now.

View Details

Welcome to our Spanish language podcast and radio programme Justicia ImPositiva with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, free to download and broadcast on radio networks across Latin America and Spain. ¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a nuestro podcast y programa radiofónico! Escuche por su app de podcast. (All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here.)

En este programa con Marcelo Justo y Marta Nuñez:

• La victoria de Javier Milei en Argentina y su repercusión regional y global
• ¿Habrá alguna vez unidad en América Latina?
• Entrevista con la viceministra técnica de Hacienda en Colombia, figura clave del pacto fiscal para América Latina que firmaron 16 países de la región
• Cerramos nuestra miniserie sobre los mitos fiscales con el mito 10: la corrupción

INVITADOS

• Juan Valerdi, catedrático de la Universidad de la Plata y ex asesor del Banco Central de la Argentina, publicaciones https://unlp.academia.edu/JuanValerdi
• Oscar Ugarteche director del Observatorio Económico latinoamericano, OBELA, profesor de la Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, la UNAM y autor de Historia Critica del FMI
• Maria Fernanda Valdez Viceministra técnica del ministerio de hacienda de Colombia y autora de Reducir la desigualdad “El Papel de la política tributaria”
• Andres Asiain, Economista, Director del Centro de Estudios Económicos y Sociales Scalabrini Ortiz

~ La victoria de Milei y su repercusión* Enlace de descarga para las emisoras: https://traffic.libsyn.com/j-impositiva/JI_dic_23.mp3 * Subscribase a nuestro RSS feed: http://j_impositiva.libsyn.com/rss * O envien un correo electronico a Naomi [@] taxjustice.net para ser
incorporado a nuestra lista de suscriptores. * Sigannos por twitter en http://www.twitter.com/J_ImPositiva * Estamos en facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Justicia-ImPositiva-1464800660510982/

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (‘it’s your business’) produced and hosted by Grazielle David and Daniela Stefano. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode:

Desmatamentos, exploração ilegal de minérios e de madeira: parte do dinheiro sujo dos crimes ambientais na Amazônia acabam em paraísos fiscais nos Estados Unidos. Quem são os responsáveis? Como parar com isso? Esse é o tema do episódio #55 do É da sua conta.

• Alessandra Korap fala sobre os impactos do garimpo e da mineração nos territórios dos mundurukus. Povos indígenas e comunidades tradicionais são as afetadas diretamente pelos crimes ambientais na Amazônia.
• A conexão entre crimes ambientais e crime organizado na região amazônica é explicada pelo professor e pesquisador Aiala Colares Couto (UEPA e Instituto Mãe Crioula).
• Pelo menos 281 bilhões de doláres de rendimentos anuais para criminosos. Relatório da FACT Coalition aponta os Estados Unidos como um dos paraísos fiscais que mais lava dinheiro advindo dos crimes ambientais. Vivian Calderoni, do Instituto Igarapé, comenta os achados do relatório.
• Fluxos Financeiros Ilícitos: como se definem e como combatê-los? Florência Lorenzo, pesquisadora da Tax Justice Network responde.

Participantes:

• Aiala Colares Couto, professor e pesquisador da Universidade Estadual do Pará. E presidente do instituto Mãe Crioula.
• Alessandra Korap, liderança munduruku
• Florencia Lorenzo, Tax Justice Network
• Vivian Calderoni, Instituto Igarapé

Transcrição do episódio 55

~ Criminosos na Amazônia lavam dinheiro nos EUA“A gente não sabe quem é pior: se são os garimpeiros ou as mineradoras”.
~ Alessandra Korap, liderança munduruku

“Me perguntaram uma vez sobre lavar dinheiro (das drogas) com ouro. Mas será que é lavagem? Porque se o ouro já é ilegal e contrabandeado, uma atividade ilegal não lava a outra atividade ilegal.”
~ Aiala Colares Couto, professor e pesquisador da Universidade Estadual do Pará

“Fraudes, corrupção e lavagem de dinheiro: três crimes essenciais para dar a aparência de legalidade. São fraudados documentos sobre esses bens florestais, ocultando as origens ilícitas e possibilitando que sejam comercializados, por exemplo.
~ Vivian Calderoni, Instituto Igarapé

“Precisamos saber quem são as pessoas que estão se beneficiando dessas transações e, portanto, desses crimes ambientais. Para isso, é central que todos os países garantam transparência de empresas ou outras entidades legais sobre quem são os proprietários, proprietários legais, mas também beneficiários finais”
~ Florencia Lorenzo, Tax Justice Network

Saiba Mais:

• A floresta doente: as crianças munduruku que não brincam e podem estar contaminadas por mercúrio, reportagem de Daniel Camargos e Júlia Dolce para a Repórter Brasil.
• Cartografia das violências na região amazônica: relatório final do Fórum Brasileiro de Segurança Pública.
• Relatório (em inglês) da Fact Coalition: Dirty Money and the destruction of the Amazon.
• Facções controlam tráfico e financiam crimes ambientais na Amazônia, diz pesquisador, reportagem de Leandro Machado na BBC Brasil

Episódios Relacionados

• A tributação pode solucionar a crise climática? #4
• EUA: maiores facilitadores da corrupção global #37

É da sua conta é o podcast mensal em português da Tax Justice Network. Coordenação: Naomi Fowler. Dublagens: Cecília Figueiredo e Zema Ribeiro. Produção e apresentação: Daniela Stefano e Grazielle David. Download gratuito. Reprodução livre para rádios.

View Details

Welcome to the latest episode of the Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast, the Taxcast. You can subscribe either by emailing naomi [at] taxjustice.net or find us on your podcast app. All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here.

On the Taxcast this month, the story of what happened when the US tax authorities, the IRS, decided to crack down on Microsoft, one of the world’s biggest tech companies. Worthy of a thriller movie with its twists and turns, there are many lessons for governments worldwide. And it’s not over yet.

Featuring:

• Zorka Milin of the Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency Coalition
• Paul Kiel of ProPublica
• Samantha Jacoby of the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities
• Andrew Leigh, Member of Parliament, economist, Australian Treasury
• Alex Cobham of the Tax Justice Network
• Hosted and produced by Naomi Fowler of the Tax Justice Network

Transcript available here (some is automated)

The only ones who benefit here are the big four tax advisors, in this case, tax advisors at KPMG. All of that was very lucrative for them. The downside was suffered by everyone else”

~ Zorka Milin

~ The People vs Microsoft Further reading:

• How a slick accounting maneuver led to a $29 billion tax bill for Microsoft https://fortune.com/2023/10/13/microsoft-back-taxes-irs-29-billion-propublica/
• The IRS Decided to Get Tough Against Microsoft. Microsoft Got Tougher https://www.propublica.org/article/the-irs-decided-to-get-tough-against-microsoft-microsoft-got-tougher
• What the Microsoft Tax Case Shows Us About Tax Transparency https://thefactcoalition.org/what-the-microsoft-tax-case-shows-us-about-tax-transparency/#:~:text=They%20had%20negotiated%20a%2015,Puerto%20Rico%20and%20the%20US.
• FT confirms OECD lobbied against Australian tax transparency https://taxjustice.net/press/ft-confirms-oecd-lobbied-against-australian-tax-transparency/#:~:text=The%20law%20requires%20multinationals%20operating,tool%20for%20accountability%20and%20deterrence.
• Microsoft, Cisco Shareholder Votes Demonstrate Increasing Investor Demand for Tax and Offshore Transparency https://thefactcoalition.org/microsoft-cisco-shareholder-votes-demonstrate-increasing-investor-demand-for-tax-and-offshore-transparency/
• KPMG’s pitch to Microsoft: ‘Planning Alternatives in Puerto Rico’ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6556275-KPMG-2004-Pitch-to-Microsoft.html and Microsoft 2003 Memo on Puerto Rico Factory https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6556274-Microsoft-2003-Memo-on-Puerto-Rico-Factory.html
• Bipartisan Senate Action Passes Minimal Test for IRS Funding While Multiple House Republican Bills Fail https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/bipartisan-senate-action-passes-minimal-test-for-irs-funding-while-multiple
• Revenue From BBB’s IRS Enforcement Funding Would Support Investments https://www.cbpp.org/blog/revenue-from-bbbs-irs-enforcement-funding-would-support-investments
• UN adopts plans for historic tax reform https://taxjustice.net/press/un-adopts-plans-for-historic-tax-reform/
• “No” voters on UN tax reform enable 75% of global tax abuse https://taxjustice.net/press/no-voters-on-un-tax-reform-enable-75-of-global-tax-abuse/

Here’s a summary of the show:

Naomi Fowler: Hello and welcome to the Taxcast, the Tax Justice Network Podcast. We’re all about fixing our economies, so they work for all of us. I’m Naomi Fowler. On the Taxcast this month, the story of when the US tax authorities, the IRS, decided to crack down on Microsoft, one of the world’s biggest tech companies.

Zorka Milin: The only ones who benefit here are the big four tax advisors. In this case, tax advisors at KPMG. All of that was very lucrative for them. The downside was suffered by everyone else.

Naomi Fowler: And before that- titanic power clashes seem to be the order of the day. There’s been another historic vote at the United Nations, a landslide vote on how international tax rules are decided. This vote now pushes the world on to the next stage. Here’s Alex Cobham of the Tax Justice Network.

Alex Cobham: Last week’s vote at the United Nations was absolutely historic. The countries of the Global South came together and demanded that after a hundred years in which the imperial powers or their, their successors at the OECD, the rich countries, have set the rules, that there should actually be a process at the UN to negotiate a convention on tax, international tax cooperation in particular, in which every country in the world will have an equal say, the right to participate fully. So it allows us to look forward to a position where we finally have a global tax body in which every country is represented.

Now this is really important for the countries of the Global South, starting with the Africa group who’ve led this. These are the countries that lose the biggest share of their revenues, each year to international tax abuse. And that international tax abuse is primarily caused by and facilitated by the rich countries, the members of the OECD and their dependent territories.

But there’s also a win here for those OECD countries themselves. They’ve insisted for so long on keeping the power at the OECD. And it’s not just exclusionary there, it’s also become completely ineffective, so the OECD members themselves lose, and all of us who are citizens of OECD countries too of course, lose the greatest amount of revenues in absolute terms to that cross border tax abuse by their own multinationals by individuals hiding assets and income streams offshore. So for all of us, the negotiation of the UN convention that will soon begin is an awesome opportunity to hold our governments to account, instead of going behind the closed doors of the OECD. People said we’d never get anywhere at the United Nations, that we just had to deal with the fact the OECD was exclusionary and kind of structurally unjust and get the best that we could out of that. I think we’ve moved on, So let’s celebrate just a little, and then the hard work begins.

Naomi Fowler: Yeah, the last time the Global South countries tried to bring decision making on tax rules to the United Nations was back in the 1970s. Now, 50 years later, they’re mounting this existential challenge to global power. In next month’s episode, we’re going to bring you our analysis of the vote, the attempts by some nations to block it, and we’re going to look at what happens next.

Back to the largest audit in history. It’s kind of a United States taxpayers versus Microsoft. And the story doesn’t begin where you’d expect.

[Anthem of Humacao]

This is the anthem of Humacao. It’s an absolutely beautiful location in Puerto Rico, about an hour’s drive from the capital city of San Juan. It’s got a 3, 000 acre nature reserve, lots of beaches and a population of around 50,000 at the last count, not including all the tourists. It doesn’t have an obvious connection to one of the world’s biggest multinationals, Microsoft. But, since 1989, Microsoft had a little facility there, employing about 85 people to burn Office and Windows software onto CDs.

Microsoft had enjoyed a 15 year tax deal with Puerto Rico on this little factory, which guaranteed them a tax rate of zero to 2%. Over the years, it saved them nearly $200 million in taxes. It’s not a huge deal for such a big corporation, but it’s nice if you can get it. That nice little 15 year deal was due to end in 2005, but a much more lucrative opportunity came up. This is Business Reporter at ProPublica, Paul Kiel.

Paul Kiel: They were actually about to close the factory because there was no point in having it there anymore when essentially KPMG, you know, one of the big four consulting and auditing firms came to them with a proposal and said, you know, Puerto Rico is actually a great, great place to have a factory if, if you have some sort of IP transaction.

Naomi Fowler: IP is intellectual property.

Paul Kiel: The idea of like a company like Microsoft selling it’s IP, its most valuable product, particularly to a small company in Puerto Rico is ludicrous ! And, you know, these types of transactions are not unique to Microsoft by any means

Naomi Fowler: Indeed they’re not. Multinational companies use all sorts of tax strategies to shift their profits to tax havens, and they do it to the tune of an estimated one trillion dollars a year.

In Puerto Rico, 43 percent of the population lives in poverty. Not much benefit to be had for them with the Microsoft deal. Except for a few jobs maybe. Anyway, this story’s been running for a long time.

Paul Kiel: 20 years, it’s, that’s how old it is. It’s a long time. It’s like, a child born, you know, the same year as the transaction was being audited, you know, is maybe in college now!!

Naomi Fowler: Ha ha. Anyway, KPMG’s brilliant idea was for Microsoft to sell its intellectual property to this 85 person factory it owned in Humacao. This time, KPMG persuaded the Puerto Rican government to give Microsoft a tax rate of close to zero percent. Microsoft shifted at least 39 billion in U. S. profits there. The IRS auditors, the IRS auditors discovered what they believed was some mightily creative accounting, some laughable numbers, in fact. Fast forward to 2023, and Microsoft announced the IRS had notified them that they owe 28. 9 billion dollars in back taxes, plus Penalties and interest. Microsoft disputes that.

Paul Kiel: And they’re going to appeal and that’s going to take another good long time.

Naomi Fowler: A very long time. It’s a fascinating story. It should be made into a thriller movie someday. Honestly, the twists and turns, the arrogance of Microsoft, the determination of the attorneys working for the IRS. I mean, wow.

Anyway, tax authorities don’t often challenge multinationals in this way, even in the United States. So how did this even happen?

Paul Kiel: This is a time when the IRS was actually like relatively well funded around 2010. You know, Obama’s president, they have an IRS commissioner who says is going to make this a priority. And so they stand up this new unit that’s going to audit these sorts of transactions more capably. I think it’s fair to say there had been some audits before that point, but they had not been particularly I guess, aggressive in their, in their posture towards how they’re approaching the issue. And you know, clearly back footed, like reacting as opposed to making any sort of stand. And so they, they hired a guy named Sam Maruca, who actually had been a lawyer in private practice. And he was sort of outspoken about the fact that, you know, some of these transactions were, were clearly a kind of, he didn’t use the word tax shelter, but essentially he’s saying that’s what they are. And that, you know, the IRS had gotten into a little bit of a losing streak in auditing these transactions and he thought the reason for that was that they weren’t essentially going about the audits the right way. And he brought over another attorney from a firm he’d practiced at, named Eli Hoory. He was actually pretty young at that time, not that far out of law school, had done some work in the private sector. And, you know, he also bought into that sort of idea. And so they were canvassing when they got there, 2010, 2011 for cases that they thought would be good, sort of like, let’s stand our ground sort of cases.

Naomi Fowler: And so, I mean, they had this new unit. It was in the height of some serious money and political will directed at corporate tax abuse. So do you put all this kind of action, which was quite unusual in several different ways, down to political will? Was it public pressure? What do you think spurred that kind of, setting up the unit, going quite aggressively after one big multinational?

Paul Kiel: Right, as for why this happened back in 2010, yeah, I think it’s, it was seen as you know, having corporations pay their right amount of tax. I mean, these, these profit shifts, shifting like, you know, to Ireland and all these other tax havens, like, you know, that’s not popular, people don’t like that idea. There’s not a lot of defenders of the principle, like, why that’s good policy. There was a lot of corporations on Capitol Hill saying, you know, we, we follow the law as it’s written, sort of thing. But so yeah, you know, I don’t, I don’t know if public pressure is quite the word for it, but I think it was seen as, you know, politically a positive idea. And that was why the IRS had the capital to do that. But I think it also also comes down to the personalities of people who are put in charge of the unit and decided to do things a certain way. Obviously, there wasn’t like, you know, the public was not clamoring for them to use these, you know, highly obscure tools that the IRS has and nobody knows about that, it’s their choice to decide how to carry out the mandate of, you know, having corporations pay their, pay the appropriate amount of tax.

Naomi Fowler: Yeah, I have found before that just a small, quite surprisingly small group of individuals can make a big difference in cases like this and in how tax authorities, uh, take action.

But, I mean, hiring a private corporate law firm to represent the agency, that, I don’t think that had happened before either, right?

Paul Kiel: No, it had never, it was kind of a creative idea they had, which comes back to them being from, in private practice. And basically like, I mean, frankly not, they were not very impressed with the litigators that the government had at their disposal. And basically like, we need, we need winners is kind of the idea and yes there was a big freakout on Capitol Hill about that and essentially they got into legislation that prevented it from happening going forward. I mean, obviously it’s not absolutely necessary for the IRS to have access to private litigators. What is necessary is for them to have capable litigators.

Naomi Fowler: Yeah, it’s fair to say as well that if an agency, a tax collection agency can pay well, then they can retain arguably some of the, the best people but I’ve found many times that you see a lot of people going to the other side, because they can earn a lot more money and they’re deploying those skills not for the public good, but for corporate good, I guess.

Paul Kiel: Right. Government salaries are not what you can earn in the private sector, so essentially you’re always, it’s not like they’re paid poverty wages, like you can get paid quite well by normal standards, but not by like, you know, working for a big four accounting firm standards. So the pitch is always like a public service sort of pitch. Or if you want to be less public service oriented, you know, there is value to have worked at the IRS. You want to go back into the private sector and, you know, maybe get paid a little more because of that experience, so they are trying to staff up. It’s going to take time.

Naomi Fowler: So the reaction of the big tech companies to this challenge from the IRS was really, really strong, and they actually managed to lobby enough to get a change in the law, restricting the ability of the IRS to use some of the same tactics in future. This reaction I mean, in lots of ways, it shows you how these very big corporations will act as one when it’s in their collective interest.

Paul Kiel: Right. Yeah. So, I mean the lobbyists argument on Capitol Hill is never, you know, we want to make sure that our big tech companies can send profits to tax havens, that’s not the way they frame their argument. It’s always, you know, taxpayer rights. You don’t want the IRS basically being unfair in how it audits people.

So you know, this, this unit, that was one of their cases and Microsoft was the big one. And so one of, one of the tools they have is called a designated summons. And essentially what it is is when a taxpayer is not being forthcoming with documents, they have not given them over in the typical process where the IRS asks for documents and they can stall or whatever. And then it’s up to the IRS to sort of take a stand. You know, it’s kind of more conventional to issue a normal summons, which would just be, you sue them in court and say, give me the documents, but the problem with that is the statute of limitations is still running. So you’re going to have the clock running out on you. It gives incentive to the taxpayer to, you know, drag their feet a little bit. Designated summons stops the clock. So that takes away the leverage that the taxpayer has in that situation, because instead of being able to run out the clock, they have to just sort of fight it out in court, however long it takes. And that’s essentially what happened in this case.

Naomi Fowler: There’s an internal appeals process where there’s an independent private check on audit findings. Some call the Office of Appeals the gift shop because complex transfer pricing audits looked at there end up reducing the amount of tax originally owed by about 81%. Microsoft was keen to move straight to that process for obvious reasons. The IRS tried to block that avenue and go straight to an open public court. No doubt they were cheered by frustrated IRS auditors everywhere who faced armies of corporate lawyers in other cases.

Paul Kiel: People who I spoke to are auditors often very frustrated with appeals, essentially giving cases away that took years to build on the appeal side they have, they have this idea of they have to weigh the litigation hazard, which is they’re saying, how, how likely is the IRS to lose in court? And they would come to the conclusion, we’re probably not going to win, maybe there’s a 20 percent chance to win, therefore we’ll mark down you know, the, the adjustment to 20 percent of what the IRS is wanting, like that sort of logic. And so they were particularly worried about doing all this work, building this great case, and then appeals is like, well, it’s a transfer pricing case. We don’t win, so we’ll just give it away. So they, they, they sought to skip appeals, and that was one of the big things they fought over.

Naomi Fowler: Microsoft won that particular boxing round and got its internal appeal. And from now on, new legislation will make it harder for the IRS on that front. That’s because this huge lobby of tech and business groups lobbied hard. And to cut a long story short, a bill was passed into law, meaning the IRS will have to follow a new process if they want to block appeals or designate summons. And when they do, they’ll have to report directly to Congress.

Paul Kiel: You know, lobbyists for the corporate world and for wealthy taxpayers are good at making arguments in a way that emphasize the taxpayer rights aspect of things. So you end up with bills that are like called the Taxpayer Rights Act or that sort of thing, when oftentimes they’re picking issues that really only affect like the largest corporate taxpayers, but oftentimes they’ll try to characterize them as hurting small business. So that’s what you’re up against if you’re supportive of, you know, more muscle behind tax administration.

Naomi Fowler: However, in one of the big victories so far for the IRS in this long running case, a judge agreed with the IRS’s view on Microsoft’s use of Puerto Rico. He wrote in his judgment, quote, ‘the court finds itself unable to escape the conclusion that a significant purpose, if not the sole purpose, of Microsoft’s transactions was to avoid or evade federal income tax,’ close quote. And he agreed with the IRS that documents from accountancy firm KPMG had to be turned over because they’d been promoting a tax shelter. And when you see these documents, you can see why Microsoft fought so hard to keep them confidential.

Paul Kiel: so there’s, there’s privilege similar to this attorney client privilege that, you know, an investigative agency can’t get to or, or a litigant. Same thing with tax advice. But in cases where, you know, a court decides it’s, there’s a tax shelter, those privileges get rolled back. And it’s, and it’s more, and essentially that’s what the, that’s what the IRS successfully argued in this case.

Zorka Milin: We know that these kinds of corporate tax schemes are zero sum. Actually, more than that, you know, this case shows they are a negative sum game, in which nobody really wins.

Naomi Fowler: This is Zorka Millin of the Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency Coalition.

Zorka Milin: So in this case, you know, take the people of Puerto Rico, where Microsoft barely paid any taxes, and they didn’t even create a meaningful number of jobs. And Puerto Rico, you know, that it’s one of the poorest parts of the U. S., and it’s also increasingly hit by you know, climate impacts like the, like the tragic Hurricane Maria a few years ago. So, you know, in Puerto Rico disaster relief and other basic public services are desperately needed.

And let’s not forget the U.S. Treasury. I mean, you know, the U.S. obviously suffered a gigantic, maybe even record breaking revenue loss which they’re now trying to, to recover from Microsoft. And also, think about Microsoft’s investors, they stand to lose, certainly if the IRS is successful, that would be a huge hit to the company’s bottom line, even for a company that’s, you know, as huge as Microsoft.

And so really the only ones who benefit here are the big four tax advisors. In this case, that would be the Microsoft tax advisors at KPMG who came up with this plan and managed to convince Microsoft’s executives to go along with it. And they also negotiated the controversial tax holiday with Puerto Rico. All of that was very lucrative for them. There was no downside. You know, the downside was suffered by everyone else.

Naomi Fowler: Indeed. Like tax authorities in many nations, the IRS was financially undermined for years. Soon after coming into office, President Biden injected huge amounts of money, and with the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRA, more investment was promised.

Samantha Jacoby: The funding is very important for the effort to overall for the effort to rebuild the IRS after over a decade of a budget cuts.

Naomi Fowler: This is Samantha Jacoby of the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Samantha Jacoby: The IRS budget, it’s sort of annual budget that that it gets every year is, is about 20 percent below what it was in 2010 after you adjust for inflation. So there was a, it’s sort of a deep hole that the IRS was in before the inflation reduction act passed and and kind of the, the whole idea behind it was, was to to get the, the IRS back to where it would have been without those cuts.

Naomi Fowler: the Biden administration was estimating that this new IRS investment should raise 400 billion over the next 10 years. you know if you look at what, what the IRS can do when it’s very, very determined and you’ve got a lot of political will and I’m just thinking about the Microsoft case at the moment and I know that they’re appealing but it just shows that with the right amount of funding that comes from very strong political will and belief in the tax authority as a public good, it can achieve a lot of things for the public, right?

Samantha Jacoby: Yeah, so it is it is it is clear that with with adequate funding that the, the IRS can can take on some of these large high impact cases and bring in a lot of revenue and you mentioned the Treasury estimate on raising 400 billion dollars in revenue but there’s there are some academics out there who think that that would be even higher. That return on investment would be even higher. There’s a study that found that for every dollar, the IRS spends on auditing very high income taxpayers, the, the government, the government gets back 12 dollars in revenue.

So that’s, that’s a huge return on investment. Whereas audits of low middle class households raise far less. And, you know, the, the, without that, that those resources, it’s, it’s clear that the IRS just doesn’t have the capacity to take on those kinds of cases.

The audit rates for millionaires and the largest corporations over the last 10 years fell by roughly 77 percent and 56 percent respectively from 2010 to 2017. The reason that that happens is tax returns of high income and high wealth people and large businesses are just they’re so complex auditing them is is labor and time intensive. And so without resources, without the sophisticated audit staff, the IRS just can’t do it. They’re, they’re, they’re just not equipped to, to sort of even identify those, those high impact cases, let alone pursue them and take on the, the, the, the corporations sophisticated tax advisors in court. But even, you know, even just a year into the inflation reduction act funding taking effect the IRS has already shown what it can do.

The Microsoft case of course, predated the the the IRA, but the, the IRS has has has has been very effective so far in using the new funding, both to improve the services that it provides taxpayers as well as, you know, it’s technology improvements and and even making investments in enforcement. So in terms of customer service, they, they made huge improvements over the last filing season in terms of improving the level of service that they’ve they’ve provided to taxpayers that people have been you know, getting their calls answered more, more quickly, they’ve the IRS has, has opened new taxpayer service centers to help people file their returns, they’ve made big improvements in digitizing the tax the tax return filing process on the enforcement side they’ve, they’ve announced a big new initiative to audit partnerships. Partnerships particularly large partnerships are really, really difficult to audit. And the IRS has historically almost never audited large partnerships. The audit rate was practically zero but they’ve announced that they’re going to start using AI tools to identify partnerships for audit. And, and those, those types of entities include hedge funds, large real estate firms that, that are really, they’re, they’re really sophisticated entities that are able to sort of structure their, their businesses so that it’s, it’s really difficult to unpack where their income is. And so that’s one area we’re seeing improving already just a year in. There there’s been efforts to pursue high income people who have not filed their taxes or failed to pay their their, their tax debts. Those efforts are already starting to pay returns as well.

Naomi Fowler: You’d think that’s something all politicians could get behind, but sadly that’s not the case. The Republicans are proposing to cut the vast majority of what remains of the 80 billion Inflation Reduction Act funding. Paul Kiel again.

Paul Kiel: I mean, it was pretty apparent to me from the beginning that that money would be under threat politically for the entirety of its life. And that’s, you know, what we’re seeing now. I mean, the Republicans have tried, it’s like a routine now, like every single bill they try to take away money from the IRS and you know, if we end up with an election where you have completely Republican controlled government, I think you have to expect them either gutting that pot of money or simply saying like the IRS gets no money in a normal, like it’s there are normal annual appropriations that are going out, they could just say, like, you just use that pot of money to do that, we’re not going to give any more. And that’ll be a threat for the, for the length of this, of this bill. So it’s, it’s unfortunately, the idea was to give the IRS this pot of money that couldn’t be touched and so that they could hire people with confidence. But it’s, it’s, given the political environment, it’s kind of impossible to entirely accomplish that so, it’s something that’s going to unfortunately have to be watched going forward.

Naomi Fowler: Samantha Jacoby.

Samantha Jacoby: It is very disappointing to see efforts to rescind that funding. for context, the IRS budget in 2023 was about 12 billion. So just that, that annual IRS budget would be cut by a significant amount. And then they would also rescind the vast majority of the long term. 80Billion dollars in funding that that Congress passed last year in the inflation reduction act.

So if that if those funding cuts were enacted that that would prevent the IRS from undertaking its planned rebuilding effort just sort of full stop it, it would cement in place the, the current depleted state of the IRS after a decade of cuts and the result would be continued dysfunction, understaffing, declines in the number of audits of the wealthy and corporations on top of what we’ve already seen.

it hasn’t been passed yet. And, and, you know, President Biden would of course have to approve it. So there, we’re still very optimistic that that, that IRS will retain most of its funding.

Naomi Fowler: Oh, I hope so. I mean, can he veto it then as President?

Samantha Jacoby: Yeah so the President can, has a veto, has veto power over it. And the Senate Democrats are in control and they’ve been supportive of IRS funding as well. But, yeah, but it’s unclear where we’ll end up, but there’s good reason to think that that the vast majority of the funding will stay in place.

Naomi Fowler: Let’s hope so. Meanwhile, pressure’s building on multinationals themselves from shareholders and investors who want to see much more transparency on tax. Zorka Milin again.

Zorka Milin: In the last couple of years, we’ve seen increasing demand for tax transparency in particular coming from investors, in a number of major companies, and that includes big oil companies. Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, in all of those companies, Oxfam America has filed shareholder resolutions, and it also includes big tech companies.

Notably, let me single out Microsoft itself, so at Microsoft, the shareholder resolution for country by country reporting will be put to a vote again at their upcoming AGM, which is taking place next month. When this happened last year at the AGM, this tax proposal was interesting, it actually had the greatest support out of any shareholder proposal that was put up for a vote last year.

And so, you know, it’s clear we’re seeing an upward trend. Here and at this point, I would say, really, it’s just a question of when and not if, and it’s also, you know, a question of whether it will come as a result of shareholder resolutions or maybe, eventually, we expect to see a more broadly applicable regulation that would come from the U. S. financial regulators, so the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Naomi Fowler: And like so many of these messes we report on on the Taxcast, things don’t have to be this way.

Zorka Milin: Okay, just imagine a world in which Microsoft had published all of its country by country tax information for all of the relevant years here. You know, maybe they did it voluntarily as, you know, some other companies have actually already been doing for many years, or maybe they did it because of a shareholder resolution that was successful, or maybe they were just following the law, you know, complying with a regulation that required all companies to provide this tax information. So if, whatever the reason, if that information was made public, then Microsoft’s investors would have spotted right away the incredibly striking mismatch that exists between Microsoft’s, you know, pretty insignificant operations in Puerto Rico versus the many billions of dollars in tax profits that the company had booked in Puerto Rico. And that would be a major red flag. And I think that would most likely deter a company like Microsoft from engaging in such very aggressive tax dodging. So in that sense, what I would say you know, tax transparency is like sunshine, as they say, it’s the best disinfectant.

Naomi Fowler: Currently, the situation is that under OECD rules, companies report the nature of some of the actual business they do country by country, But, that system’s really deficient in its current form, as Zorka Milin explains.

Zorka Milin: The OECD regime for country by country reporting, it is somewhat helpful. At least it’s helpful to those tax officials from those governments who can access it. And it’s important to note here that that doesn’t include most global South countries. So, you know, for them, it’s not really helpful at all.

Naomi Fowler: And many poorer nations need it the most because corporate tax is even more important to their tax base than in wealthy countries. And there’s another fundamental problem.

Zorka Milin: The larger point I would make here is that the OECD, it’s not really a transparency regime, I think that’s a misnomer because it’s not public. So, you know, I, I don’t think we can call something that’s not public, I don’t think that’s, that’s real transparency. And so it also means that this is of no use to investors. But, you know, while we’re waiting for regulatory action in the U. S. and maybe also the U. K., we actually already have some good news coming from Australia, we recently received a confirmation from a senior Australian government official from the Australian Treasury, Andrew Leigh:

Naomi Fowler: And here he is. Listen carefully, he’s talking about public country by country reporting. Very different.

Andrew Leigh: Australia is committed to public country by country reporting to hold large multinationals to account when it comes to their tax affairs. Country by country reporting is intended to shift behaviour in the way large multinationals disclose their tax information. It puts the onus on multinationals to be upfront about where they pay tax.

Australia plans to start our public country by country reporting regime on the 1st of July, 2024, aligning with the start date for the European Union’s regime. Our aim is to be world leading in country by country reporting, and we’ve consulted on it earlier this year. There’s broad stakeholder interest, and we’re considering feedback on compliance costs and alignment with other international standards.

We want Australia’s transparency commitments to be measured and targeted. It’s about encouraging a race to the top in business productivity, not a race to the bottom in tax compliance.

Naomi Fowler: This should be good news. We’re cautious because the Australian government was on the point of passing this legislation in its parliament earlier this year with a comfortable majority, but it faced a tidal wave of opposition and lobbying and they delayed it. The OECD, along with many others, lobbied strongly to stop this legislation that would have delivered the biggest breakthrough ever. Ever on the taxes of multinational corporations. That proposed Australian legislation would have affected at least one in five of them around the world and they’d have had to start publicly disclosing their profits and taxes. Zorka Milin again:.

Zorka Milin: Australia plans to start its public, so true transparency, public country or country reporting next year, 2024, and that day, that’s going to be a sea change in corporate tax transparency, and it will have major global impact that goes far beyond just Australia because the scope of the laws is such that it will cover many major multinationals and we also hope that it will cover all of their global operations. So that will be a major moment next year.

Naomi Fowler: It would make such a difference. So let’s hope Australia is now back on track with its commitment to public country by country reporting. I had one last question for journalist Paul Kiel of ProPublica who stuck with the Microsoft story for so long.

In my job where I’m trying to communicate these kind of long term battles that are going on, trying to explain to people some of the things that go on behind closed doors, some things which seem quite boring in some ways, and are not easy to explain or understand. I was just wondering what your take on it was, because you’ve been following this case and cases like this for a long time, such a long historical curve in a case like this. Just wondering about your thoughts on the capacity of media and journalists to reflect to people this type of very important case.

Paul Kiel: Right, right. I mean, it’s, it’s complex and not complex. It’s not complex in the sense that it’s apparent Microsoft did a somewhat ridiculous transaction just to save a lot of taxes. So people can people can get that. I mean, I made an effort, I mean, I was writing my story. I did this big story back in 2020 and that was for a general audience and well, first of all, I think the secrecy around tax administration is one thing that is sort of a hindrance like, it’s just really hard to write about this in a way that’s engaging at all because there’s so little public detail. And the only thing that made it possible for me to write that story was this fight that they had in court of these, of the summon and not only does that make a lot of stuff public that wouldn’t otherwise be public, but also the IRS and the Department of Justice are making arguments to a district court judge who is not a tax judge. And so they’re writing in a way that is geared towards a, you know, a smart lay person as opposed to a tax judge, like if you read pleadings in tax court, I mean, I’ve covered this stuff for a while now, I’m not a tax lawyer. It takes a while to get through, like, what are they even saying here? Right? Cause they’re just throwing statutes around and things like that. So it was only because this kind of rare case spilled into public view that I was able to write, you know, a story that people could follow.

A lot of times it just happens, you see the result. The only reason you see the result is if it’s a public company and they’ll just say like what had happened, but they’re allowed to keep those details quite secret. And that aspect has never really made a lot of sense to me is the public companies that are divulging all sorts of details to investors, but their taxes, they have a lot of leeway and their taxes are secret essentially, their tax return is like sanctified, you can’t know that, but here’s, here’s hundreds of pages of financials about this company. It’s like sort of ridiculous. So I think that is actually another aspect of it is there’s so few stories to tell because everything is secret. So, I mean, the idea is broadly popular of corporations paying more in tax, the rich paying more in tax, but the details are obscure to the point where it’s hard to sort of engage the public on it, I think is one big aspect of it.

Microsoft, it’s a big, complicated case. It’s going to be an appeal, it’s going to be private, it’s going to be outside of the public eye and then if they, if they don’t get, if Microsoft does not get the answer they want in appeals, then they will go to tax court, which is public. And that itself will take more time.

So so, you know, there’s always more to be done and you just have to fund the agency and have them hire capable people. You know, good things can happen.

View Details

Welcome to the latest episode of the Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast, the Taxcast. You can subscribe either by emailing naomi [at] taxjustice.net or find us on your podcast app. All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. In this edition of the Taxcast:

The US government has spent an estimated $1 trillion on their ‘war on drugs.’ But, over 50 years later, the cross-border flows of illegal drugs, arms and money have increased. In the second part of a two part series (part 1 available here) we look at the failed ‘war on drugs,’ the movement to decriminalise, regulate and tax, opportunities and challenges for lower income nations, and the role of tax justice.

Featuring:

• Associate Professor of International and Organised Crime at Bristol Law School, Dr Mary Young
• Zara Snapp, co-founder of Instituto RIA
• Sergio Chaparro Hernandez of the Tax Justice Network
• Martin Drewry of Health Poverty Action
• Max Gallien of the International Centre for Tax and Development and the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex
• Eric Gutierrez, of the International Centre of Human Rights and Drug Policy
• Taxcast host Naomi Fowler, co-produced with Jo Barratt of the Tax Justice Network

A transcript of the show available here: (some is automated)

“In terms of a percentage of global GDP, the tax that’s currently being lost by not taxing the drug market is about $232 billion per year. So to put that into context, that’s more than twice the annual spend prosecuting the war on drugs. And it’s way, way above the combined global aid budget.” ~ Martin Drewry

~ Drug War Myths, part 2Resources:

• Invest in Justice, Jamaica Case Study
• Cannabis taxation – A new revenue source for development? Max Gallien and Giovanni Occhiali
• Diverse models of legalisation, Max Gallien and Giovanni Occhiali
• Tax Justice and the Legal Regulation of Drugs (video)
• A quiet revolution across the globe: drug decriminalisation across the globe
• Inside Mexico’s war on drugs: Conversations with ‘el narco’
• Poverty, gender and violence in the narratives of former narcos: accounting for drug trafficking violence in Mexico Karina Garcia-Reyes https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/193726176/Final_Copy_2018_11_06_Garcia_K_G_PhD_Redacted.pdf
• Debunking the Narco Myth, Karina Garcia-Reyes
• A world fit for money laundering: The Atlantic alliance’s undermining of organised crime control: Young, Mary Alice; Woodiwiss, Michael
• Organised crime and security threats in Caribbean Small Island Developing States: A Critical analysis of US assumptions and policies: Young, Mary; Woodiwiss, Michael

Here’s a summary of the show:

Naomi: “On the Taxcast this month, we continue with part two of drug war myths. In Part 1 we challenged the idea of the supposed ‘goodies’ and the ‘baddies’. And in Part 2 we’re going to shine the spotlight on the less visible professional enablers, and we’re going to talk about how to fix the mess of the war on drugs – tax is an important part of it.”

Dr Mary Young: “We need to be looking at white collar criminals.”

Naomi: “This is Associate Professor of International and Organised Crime at Bristol Law School Dr Mary Young.”

Dr Mary Young: “I now use the term ‘money managers,’ you know, the people who manage money. The people who manage money for us, manage money for criminals. And they manage it in exactly the same way, but we need to be focusing on these groups of people. And these groups of people are usually embedded within policymaking and they feed into
the vested interests of the US government and the UK to keep those financial services industries very tight, ticking and wealthy in financial secrecy centers. We only need to look at the scandals which are coming out, where we see different levels of tax abuse and I think that we, we shouldn’t differentiate between legal and illegal, I would blanket it all as a tax
abuse. And we see wealthy government officials, politicians, those of a high social status using these foreign tax havens and financial secrecy jurisdictions to maximize personal wealth, circumvent domestic tax laws, and where possible, hide dirty money.

You know, you have an amazing symmetry between organised crime and the upper world. Organised crime is just an economic enterprise. There are symmetries between legitimate organisations and organised crime bodies and upper world business ventures and they all have profit at their core. So, organised crime groups, legitimate businesses, the government,
massive NGOs even, huge organisations, business operations, they use bankers, they will need lawyers, they will need accountants.

One financial intermediary told me, ‘I’ve done very well out of it, thank you very much. My children have a brilliant life and I’m really wealthy.’ And he was very happy to tell me and boast about the amount of money he makes from being a private banker. And he was also rejecting any type of criticism about the overseas territories. So, financial intermediaries, they either know something is going on, but they will also embrace criminal organisations. Why wouldn’t you? You just do your job, you bring the money through, you keep your eyes on the numbers and you don’t ask any questions. Those financial intermediaries, those excellent mathematicians, numbers guys that criminal organisations use will be happy to
look the other way, it’s simply a job. You’re just part of a corporation, another type of corporation. This one just happens to be a bad business. So on that spectrum of illegality, you have your big corporations, your big multinational trading companies, the ones we see everywhere, you know, delivering our goods, for example, or inventing our phones. And then
you have other types of corporations which just happen to be operating at the illicit end of the spectrum, but they mirror, in so many ways, our huge organisations, and that’s when I feel a little bit like, hang on, maybe we shouldn’t be demonising criminal organisations quite so much as we should be investigating and focusing on the politicians, on the bankers, on
the accountants.

And that means stepping away from the obvious criminals. Step away from the drug traffickers and focus on what’s in front of you now, organised crime walks with us everywhere, it’s everywhere. Once you get used to identifying criminal outfits, even in the town you live in, you realize organised crime is a part of our life and we can’t really deny
that. So think of it as a circle. So you have your tiny circle in the middle, which might be those that we demonise already, the criminals. And then we branch out, and we have this network of white collar workers leading up to the top, leading up to politicians and governments. But conversely, if you talk to them, they don’t like to be called criminals. They don’t like to be associated with the criminality that we see reported about in the paper. Oh
no, they’re not as bad as drug traffickers. They’re not as bad as those who illicitly traffic wildlife goods, floras, faunas, ivory, rhino horn powder. No, they’re not part of that world, they don’t believe themselves to be part of that world, they are part of a different dynamic. They are somehow better. They’ve been to university, they’ve got degrees. So quite often
when you speak to some of these people, you speak to people who’ve investigated them, the white collar criminals reject the term criminality in some cases because they see themselves within a different sphere and let’s remember that offshore financial centres do not say they have secrecy laws.”

Naomi: “Oh of course not!”

Dr Mary Young: “They reject that term. I’ve been heckled for using the term secrecy. They call it ‘strong confidentiality.’ So you have these strong confidentiality laws and then you have another body of laws where there are really decent people who want to recover the proceeds of crime find it incredibly difficult to do so because of the criminal penalties set up
around releasing information. So, throughout the decades since the Organised Crime Control Act of 1971, we’ve had a raft of anti money laundering laws created by Western countries. which show they’re doing something, which tick the right boxes on paper, which say they’re
disrupting major criminal organisations engaged in narcotics and money laundering. But we would see huge amounts of money being recovered, we would see corrupt government officials being removed from office, and it just does not happen.”

Naomi: “It doesn’t. And throughout these decades of prohibition, the money flows from the illegal drug trade are only deepening inequalities and insecurity between the global south – where the ‘producer’ countries often are, and the world’s wealthiest and most powerful countries, which tend to be the main ‘consumer’ countries. Zara Snapp from the Instituto
RIA explains in this recent online event:”

Zara Snapp: “In Colombia they produce, you know, 95 percent of the cocaine in the world which is for export and less than 1  percent of the revenue gains stay in Colombia. And so this is something that’s important of then how are even revenue gains being distributed along the production chain? Whereas 68 percent of those revenues stay in the countries of
consumption, which is primarily the United States for that market, and some in Europe.”

Gustavo Petro speech (voiced by Marcelo Justo): ”Our silence in these 50 years has been complicit with a genocide in our countries because that is what the official war policy against drugs has caused in our Latin America, a genocide. The so-called ‘war on drugs’ policy has failed. It doesn’t work. If we continue, we are going to add another million deaths in Latin
America and we are going to have more failed states and we are going to have perhaps the death of democracy on our continent.”

Naomi: “That was Colombian president Gustavo Petro speaking recently at a Latin American and Caribbean conference on drugs. And there are important shifts happening in many countries. Some nations are turning away from prohibition to decriminalisation and regulation, in some cases legalisation.”

Music clip: Legalise it, Bob Marley live

Naomi: “ In 2015 Jamaica passed its Dangerous Drugs Amendment Act which did various things – it decriminalised personal possession of up to two ounces (or 56 grams) of cannabis, cultivation of up to five cannabis plants per household and also legalised and regulated  commercial cultivation and sale of cannabis for medicinal use.”

TV Presenter: “The passing of the bill comes as good news for the country’s Rastafarian community, which uses the herb for religious purposes. While marijuana would be legal, the bill makes provisions for it to be banned from public places. Plus, a licensing authority would have to be established in order to monitor cultivation, sale and distribution of marijuana for
medical and therapeutic purposes.

The bill was passed even as South American countries grapple with the impact of drug use and struggle to put an end to drug trafficking. In Mexico, Colombia and Argentina, marijuana possession in small amounts was decriminalised. Argentina is drafting a set of proposals to loosen restrictions on possession. Also in Guatemala, President Otto Perez Molina is proposing moves to push for the legalisation of marijuana. Chile and Costa Rica are also debating the introduction of medical marijuana policies. Uruguay last year became the first country in the world to approve the growth, sale and distribution of marijuana.”

Naomi: “ Jamaica’s just one of a number of nations that’s taken steps to decriminalise and regulate in place of punitive policies. Before they passed that bill, 15,000 people were being arrested every year for cannabis possession. A quarter of all Jamaica’s court cases were dealing with cannabis-related offences, their prisons were overcrowded and it was costing an estimated $US64 million a year in arrest and prosecution costs. It was a transformative step, putting public health and wellbeing first. It meant they were able to massively increase their health budget expenditure the following year. It all ran contrary to the perceptions of
outsiders. Dr Mary Young again:”

Dr Mary Young: “I’ve spent a lot of time in Jamaica over the years since 2012 and the people I’ve worked with in Jamaica are absolutely dedicated to undermining organised crime and actually are frustrated by the external elements which do not assist them in a positive manner. Drugs was traditionally seen as an issue for the U. S. as emanating from Jamaica. So,
there was a lot of focus on U. S. assumptions on what Jamaica was and how Jamaica operated. we carried out interviews actually with a number of people on the issue of drug trafficking and crime in Jamaica, and we were repeatedly told that drug trafficking as a main security threat is not relevant to Jamaica. It’s the firearms threat from the U. S. which is
relevant to Jamaica. But it was these historical U. S. assumptions and policies about drugs and organised crime which has kept Jamaica and other countries held down, especially if they’re countries which are indebted to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

So you have Jamaica an hour away from the Cayman Islands. One of them is hugely wealthy, highly developed and supported by Western governments, not just Western countries, many countries all over the world and the people within them will use financial secrecy centres, offshore financial centres, tax havens, whatever you want to call them. And next to it, an
hour away, you have Jamaica, which is indebted to the World Bank, the IMF, which is struggling against the massive tide of firearms which repeatedly come into its jurisdiction every single day. And when you start to look and see how much has been confiscated, it’s overwhelming to view.

But Jamaica is saying, hang on, actually, the biggest issue is firearms trafficking, and the multiple homicides that happen every year. What are you going to do about it? So when I’ve worked with peers and colleagues in Jamaica, we talk about the US needs to be checking its own borders, why are firearms coming out of the US? Why are they leaving Miami? Why is it
so easy for them to leave Miami and end up in Jamaica? And they’re all US manufactured. They can check the codes on the guns. They can check the brands on the firearms. Yet, the US doesn’t do anything at its end. And it comes back to that historical war on drugs.”

Naomi: “That ‘war on drugs’ has served organised crime groups, multinationals and financial secrecy centre self-interest all the more easily because of colonial attitudes and beliefs. Sergio Chaparro Hernandez of the Tax Justice Network:”

Sergio Chaparro Hernandez: “The world is increasingly realising that bad drug policies can cause more harm than drugs themselves. The painful history of bloodshed and corruption in a country like Colombia where I am from has a lot to do with bad drug policy. If we had opted for regulating drugs in a responsible manner rather than prohibition, we would have
prevented institutional destabilisation and violence with the thousands of deaths and all the harms they have caused.

The alternative will be a responsible model to legalise drugs, which recognises that instead of prohibiting drugs, they should be treated as a public health problem which builds upon the lessons learned from regulating industries such as tobacco or alcohol.

The United States has been the big driver of the war on drugs. And if a just international policy is to be advanced, any undue interference that prevents producer countries from choosing their own regulatory models should be eliminated, and countries that have driven the war on drugs should implement policies of reparation for the harms caused by
prohibition.”

Martin Drewry: ”We believe that prohibition is one of the things that creates and sustains extreme disparities of wealth within the countries of the global south that have kept them economically poor. And tax justice is an essential part of correcting that.”

Naomi: “This is Martin Drewry of Health Poverty Action speaking at a recent event:”

Martin Drewry: “So what do we mean by tax justice in the context of a legally regulated drug market? What is the role of tax for that, thinking especially of countries in the global south? First point I want to make is something about just the scale that we’re talking about. So the size of the global drug market, estimates vary from 0. 5 percent of global GDP to about 1 percent of global GDP. Some people think it’s a bit higher, certainly will probably become higher as the cannabis market grows, for example. But if we take that figure of 1 percent, the global average tax rate per, for the world is 29%. But what that would work out as in terms of a percentage of global GDP, the tax that’s currently being lost by not taxing the drug
market is about $232 billion per year, based on those estimates. So to put that into context, that’s more than twice the annual spend prosecuting the war on drugs. And it’s way, way above the global aid budget, the combined global aid budget. So, these aren’t small amounts, but for the poorest countries, it’s much, much more significant than that. So these numbers, in a country like the US or the UK, sure, you know, we did a report on legalising cannabis and it could have offered another billion pounds a year to the National Health Service. So it’s not insignificant, but you know, it’s not going to fund our health systems. But in the U. S., for example, per capita per year, the spend on health per person per year in the U. S. is $9,536. In Ethiopia, it’s 24. In Ghana, it’s 80. In the DRC, it’s 20. Across the lowest
income countries as a whole, it’s 41. So this is why tax is important. There are lots of things we can do with tax. Tax doesn’t just come, this is one of the key points, it doesn’t just come from a product-specific tax. So we have an alcohol tax, for example, and we can have a cannabis tax, and that’s important. But bringing the drugs market into the licit economy also
enables income tax, we want progressive corporation taxes, we want tariffs. One of the things in trade justice is that to address the disparities of wealth between the global south and the global north it requires building up the economies of the global south.

Now, Africa has a supreme comparative advantage for cannabis growing, for example. Most of the profits won’t come from the raw cannabis, they’ll come from the processed stuff, and they’ll come from derivatives, and they’ll come from other kinds of products associated with the use of cannabis. It’s important to build those industries in poorer countries. So one of the ways that you can do that is to prevent, and that’s another role of tax, preventing corporate capture because you disproportionately tax the rich corporations and their exports into the country, you put tariffs on those in order to protect the infant industry. So there’s a lot of things that can be done using tax as an instrument and we need to become experts in these because if we don’t design the proposals, the corporations will!”

Naomi: “And not only corporations, but the nations they’re headquartered in. Sergio Chaparro Hernandez worries that while decriminalised, regulated drug industry policies would indeed knock a lot of organised crime out of the equation, which is great, raise tax revenues and help improve things like healthcare, which is also great, but the benefits
economically could end up being dominated by – you guessed it, global north nations and their multinationals.”

Sergio Chaparro Hernandez: “What is paradoxical and grossly unfair is that producer countries will end up being late to the regulation game after decades of suffering the perverse consequences of prohibition, while the benefits will be reaped by countries that are consolidating a legal industry first, such as the United States and Canada.”

Naomi: “And those countries are moving fast now on decriminalising and regulating cannabis. It’s also kind of ironic that a number of tax havens or financial secrecy jurisdictions are developing regulated cannabis industries partly to move themselves away from overdependence on their finance sectors, just as the financial secrecy market’s getting slowly squeezed by transparency initiatives – pushed by people like us!

At the moment the global legal cannabis market alone is estimated at over US$24 billion and that’s expected to quadruple in the next ten years. So it’s easy to see why developing a decriminalised, regulated and taxed cannabis industry is attractive. But it depends on which country’s doing it: there are richer world producer nations and markets, and poorer producer nations and markets, serving different clientele and facing different realities and
economic power imbalances globally. All this enthusiasm for new revenues from regulated cannabis industries could end up with lower income nations dealing with yet more of the same domination by big players and global trade inequities that they already face. But, first things first:

Should lower income countries be focusing their land use on sustainable food production for domestic use, especially given the climate crisis? I mean, we know there’s this increased chance of crop failure that drives up food prices. Should they be thinking about developing a cannabis industry in that context?”

Max Gallien: “I think that’s an excellent question and I think looking at cannabis in the wider context of agricultural policy is, is really important.”

Naomi: “I’m talking to Max Gallien of the International Centre for Tax and Development and the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex:”

Max Gallien: “Obviously countries’ policy regarding cannabis cultivation will have to be placed within their wider kind of country-specific agricultural and industrial strategy. I think for many countries, dramatically expanding production is certainly risky, both given the young and uncertain global market, but also other priorities they may have in agriculture. The important thing to highlight, though, is that I think for many countries, cannabis production is already a reality. Many countries, including in Africa, are already producing cannabis, already have producers that have been used to producing this for a very long time,
that have been relying on and specialising in these crops for a very long time, that have regions that are particularly specialised in this, for example, if we think about the Reef Mountains in Morocco. So especially for these regions, thinking about the future of that crop and the future of its taxation and marketing is really important, even if we’re not necessarily
advocating for new large scale cannabis development.”

Naomi: “Right, right. it depends on the country and their own context. And because the decriminalized cannabis industry at least globally, is in its infancy, really, do you have hopes that this kind of newness represents an opportunity for lower income nation governments at least to try to do things differently in terms of the way they manage their economies? I know
you’ve written about some really interesting legalisation models, focused on incentivising smaller scale production for example.”

Max Gallien: “I think, yes and no. So, so on the one hand the market is still developing, and this is still a young global market, it’s a market that, you know, is more legalised in some areas than others, is more legalised with respect to certain types of products than to others. So, a lot is still in flux, and this is partly what makes this entire policies area so exciting. There
are very few opportunities where we get to see a new legal market develop, where we get to see policymakers shape the context for this market and what is furthermore really exciting is that we do see new models coming up, and we see really, really interesting ones. We see some countries opt for a less overtly commercialised cannabis market than the U. S. and
Canada has. Malta has been a good example of that, but especially Germany, a very, very large market, not opting for an openly commercialised model, but looking more at kind of smaller cannabis clubs and private production, is really, really interesting and makes this a really, really exciting market to watch.

However, while the market’s still developing and is still young, it’s also not in its complete infancy anymore. And I think that is really important for especially lower income and lower middle income country developers to, to keep in mind that yes, they have an opportunity to shape policy in a new way and to do things differently, but they’re doing that in a context of
a global market that is already developing, where they’re not the first movers.

If they’re focusing on their domestic consumption, there’s wide open spaces still, if they’re focusing on regional consumption. But if they’re looking at global markets, they will have to reckon with the existence of, especially the North American market, which is large and highly capitalised and highly commercialised. So in some ways, there’s wide new areas for
policymakers, but in other areas, there’s already the realities of kind of global competition that are already being developed.

One further point that I think is, is important to remember as well, is that there’s another market that already exists, which is the illegal market. So, obviously, the legal market is, is still in its infancy and is still being developed, but the illegal market has been around for a very long time. And despite some more optimistic projections, it’s not necessarily going to
go away by itself. So policymaking for the legal market will also have to keep in mind the effect of this new legal market on the already existing illegal market.”

Naomi: “Right, and what’s quite interesting is if you contrast the experience in Malta, for example, where I think they were running a non profit legalised market, where in Malta, they don’t necessarily have the same need or desire for a foreign currency to come in, and to trade internationally. Whereas if you look at Malawi, maybe they do, so that kind of nonprofit market, why would that work somewhere like Malawi?”

Max Gallien: “Exactly! So exactly the question for policy makers and countries that are thinking about legalisation is, are we thinking about a domestic market only, or are we thinking about export? And if you’re thinking about export, the policies around that will have to look quite differently than if you’re just thinking about satisfying a domestic market or
domestic interest. And that is particularly important for countries that are already de facto dependent on cannabis export. Morocco is a classic example of this, this is a country that is, although currently largely illegally, already dependent on cannabis export that has large numbers of farmers and entire regions that are quite dependent on this crop. And these
export structures so far have largely been illegal. They’ve been providing most of the European market for quite a long time. But they’re now competing with the new legalised market and are now having to situate themselves in relationship to new legalised market, to new products coming in from other places, being produced in other places. And
consequently, the policy choices look quite different than a country like Malta that can primarily think about its domestic market.

Naomi: “We’ve got to keep in mind here that of course, decriminalising and regulating these industries are about way more than revenue raising and development, they’re also about taking a different approach to prohibition that’s only enriched and empowered organised criminal groups and the professional enabler industry that’s there to serve them. Back to
Max again.

You say there are important lessons to be learned from the tobacco industry in terms of how nations can better design tax systems. I know that over 10 percent of the global tobacco market is still illicit, which is really interesting.”

Max Gallien: “It is. It’s, it’s a really, really important thing about the global tobacco market that we don’t talk about often enough is how much of it is illicit. Cannabis is interesting here, it’s one of those cases where, you know, we often say policies shape markets and markets shape policies. The tobacco industry has been highly concentrated around what we often
refer to as ‘big tobacco’, around these large multinational organisations that have certainly had their influence on how policy on tobacco taxation has developed, especially in lower income countries, especially in Africa. And there’s extensive documentation of the tobacco industry seeking to influence policymaking in this area, and especially lobbying for lower
taxes and pointing to the illegal markets as a reason for why taxes should be lower, arguing that if taxes on tobacco are increased, then smuggling will become more of a risk and this fraction of the market that is already illicit will grow. Now we’ve done a little bit of work at the International Centre for Tax and Development, we’re absolutely not the only ones who’ve done so, that have highlighted that that connection is really not that strong, that just
because you increase taxes does not necessarily mean smuggling goes up, and that that narrative under appreciates the role that the legal tobacco industry has also historically played in in tobacco smuggling, but I think it highlights that lobbying and industry influence on policymaking, especially when there’s a power imbalance between large multinational
companies and lower income countries administrations is is a real threat. And it’s something really concerning, I think it’s something that as the global cannabis market develops we’ll also have to watch out for.”

Naomi: Yeah, definitely because all experience tells us how markets always tend to organise themselves in terms of domination by the biggest, the most heavily capitalised players. And we know that tax justice and tax is a great tool to incentivise and disincentivise certain behaviours if governments want to do that. So do you have faith that governments, nations,
lower income nations in particular, can design a tax system that can do what no other nation has really done in the ways we’d like to see, not just in this economic sector, but, but in others?”

Max Gallien: “That’s a lot of faith you’re asking for! I think it’s, it is unlikely that what we’ll see in cannabis will be completely different from any other export crops from any other similar industries that we’ve seen. And I think seeing it develop completely different or seeing kind of these radically different models that we see in Malta or, or have been discussed in Mexico or other places becoming the global standard, I think that is unlikely.
However, where on that spectrum between a completely different approach and repeating some of the mistakes of of the past we lie, I think is really important and I think tax policy has a, has a big role to play in that. As you say, it can incentivise policies. It can play a central role in making sure you extract profits at the point where they’re accumulated and not
necessarily at the point where kind of smallholder farmers are engaging in traditional practices. It is also a way to shape markets. It’s a way to influence who gets to be involved in them. One of the things that we’ve seen in some countries that have really recently legalised is if the licensing fees for producing cannabis are really, really high, that often means that the
only producers that can pay these fees are already quite large organisations and that might crowd out other, other actors.

So I think all of this will be extremely difficult, but it will be helped if developing country policy makers can be part of a conversation quite early on where they can help identify what their goals In the legalisation process are, what their goals on a newly developing global legal market are. Is it around export? Is it around focusing on the domestic market? Is it
about focusing on smallholder farmers in, in a local context that already exist, or is it around expansion of production? what are their assumptions about an emerging international market? If they’re thinking about export, are they thinking about a regional export? Are they thinking about a more global scale? Are they thinking particularly about the kind of crop
itself or about processing and upgrading? So I think being very explicit about the goals, about the consequences of the goals, and then the policies that need to follow from that. It’s still an uphill struggle, but it gives you a bit of an advantage in a, in a very, very fast moving market.

I think that the writing is on the wall in terms of the creation of a global legalised market. I think it’s hard to imagine a future over the next few decades where that’s not increasingly becoming the norm and where these markets are not increasingly connected globally. So I think it’s also a question of positioning within that market, anticipating where it’s going to
go and thinking of what that means, especially for producers that have traditionally produced illegally. So, I think one of the motivations for me is really to think about from the perspective of places like Mexico, places like Malawi, places like Morocco, that are going to feel the changes of these changing global markets whether they change national policy or not, and
thinking how they can react to that and how they can anticipate that, I think, is, is really important.”

Karina Garcia-Reyes: “As a society, we have to accept that there’s no perfect solution.”

Naomi: “This is Criminology lecturer and writer Karina Garcia-Reyes of the University of the West of England. We heard from her in part one of drug war myths in the previous Taxcast.”

Karina Garcia-Reyes: “There’s no silver bullet here okay, and interestingly, we prefer a very violent strategy that is really damaging us instead of something more nuanced that actually minimises consequences, So, this is a very complex solution, I acknowledge this, but to me, legalising drugs is the first step, but we have to manage our expectations. Violence,
unfortunately, will always exist because even if we legalise drugs we have so many other markets in organised crime but at least from my perspective, in countries like Mexico, where most of this violence at the moment is linked to drug trafficking, to this market in particular, violence will be minimised considerably. And in a country with so many homicides and so
many disappearances, this is really something to consider because whereas the United Nations and the US and the UK dictate the global policy, we, countries like Mexico, Colombia, we are contributing with the deaths and disappearances. And that’s very, very painful.”

Naomi: “Eric Gutierrez of the International Centre of Human Rights and Drug Policy.”

Eric Gutierrez: “I would say that legal regulation of drugs is a key option to consider. Law enforcement has not won the war on drugs, there has been, you know, wars on drugs for decades now, and, you know, if there will be some kind of clampdown on tax avoidance mechanisms, that may be a way to win that war without firing a shot and at the same time move the illegal, illicit drug trade to legal regulation where taxes can be raised and be used
to pay for the public good. If there will be reforms to prevent tax avoidance, then taxing through the legal regulation of drugs will also work.”

Naomi: “This is a complicated subject. But it is clear that prohibition and punitive drug policies and the so-called war on drugs have a) failed and b) are making inequalities between north and south even worse. New approaches that are health and human rights-based are urgently needed across the board, it’s a matter of life and death. We know tax justice can play a key role in a decriminalised environment. And of course, the starting point for nations like the UK and the US is to put their own houses in order and end financial secrecy. And instead of investing in militarisation, they should be investing in harm reduction programmes, not only domestically but also overseas in the producer countries – it’s part of the reparations they owe, their moral debt.”

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (‘it’s your business’) produced and hosted by Grazielle David and Daniela Stefano. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode:

Poluição por combustíveis fósseis; contaminação do solo, rios, animais e vida humana por agrotóxicos. Tabaco, bebidas alcoólicas e ultraprocessados que prejudicam a saúde. A tributação pode colaborar para desincentivar estas e outras práticas nocivas.

O episódio #53 do É da Sua Conta explica como funciona a reprecificação com o imposto seletivo, ferramenta que, se bem desenhada, pode diminuir o efeito da crise climática, melhorar a saúde das pessoas e combater desigualdades. Grandes corporações, que contaminam mais, devem contribuir mais!

• Reprecificação: Florencia Lorenzo, da Tax Justice Network, explica como a reprecificação, um dos 5 “Rs” da justiça fiscal pode contribuir no combate à crise climática, na promoção de uma alimentação mais saudável e no desincentivo de outras práticas que fazem mal à saúde e ao meio ambiente.
• Bob Michel da Tax Justice Network traz evidências científicas de que imposto seletivo desincentiva práticas nocivas, como o tabagismo, na Europa.
• Reforma tributária no Brasil deve ser sustentável e prever transição para economia menos poluente através de impostos seletivos para combustíveis fósseis e agrotóxicos, comenta Mateus Fernandes, do Instituto Democracia e Sustentabilidade.
• Imposto seletivo para bebidas alcoólicas e ultraprocessados devem constar da reforma tributária brasileira. A proposta é da ACT Promoção da Saúde e Marcello Baird acredita que o projeto de lei que tramita no congresso nacional pode estar entre os pioneiros no mundo se for aprovado com estas medidas.

“Trata-se de tentar mudar o comportamento de grandes empresas, de grandes fundos de investimentos, para reorientar a economia para que quando façam suas decisões econômicas, levem em conta também o custo social dessa decisão de investimento.”
~ Florencia Lorenzo, Tax Justice Network

“Nos países europeus, a introdução do imposto seletivo sobre o consumo de cigarro onde esse tipo de imposto era uma novidade reduziu nitidamente o número de fumantes.”
~ Bob Michel, Tax Justice Network

“Qual é a nova revolução verde que a gente precisa fazer? Vai continuar sendo baseada em agrotóxicos, que recebem algo em torno de R$ 350 bilhões de incentivos por ano?”
~ Mateus Fernandes, Instituto Democracia e Sustentabilidade

“Imposto seletivo é uma medida super importante para desestimular o consumo de ultraprocessados. Há inúmeros dados que mostram como esses produtos são prejudiciais à saúde das pessoas, causando mortes e adoecimentos”
~ Marcello Baird, ACT Promoção da Saúde

Participantes:

• Antonia, agricultora ribeirinha brejeira no Sul do Piauí
• Bob Michel, pesquisador da Tax Justice Network
• Florencia Lorenzo, pesquisadora da Tax Justice Network
• Marcello Baird, ACT Promoção da Saúde Mateus Fernandes, assessor de advocacia e situação ambiental no Instituto Democracia e Sustentabilidade

Trancrição #53

~ Contaminou mais? Paga mais!Saiba Mais:

• Manifesto Reforma Tributária 3S: Saudável, Solidária, Sustentável
• Ultraprocessados, uma relação Tóxica, podcast Prato Cheio

Episódios Relacionados

• Justiça fiscal e aumento da probreza no mundo #1
• Qual reforma tributária o Brasil precisa? #5 As armadilhas das criptmoedas #50

É da sua conta é o podcast mensal em português da Tax Justice Network. Coordenação: Naomi Fowler. Dublagens: Zema Ribeiro. Produção e apresentação: Daniela Stefano e Grazielle David. Download gratuito. Reprodução livre para rádios.

View Details

Welcome to the 69th edition of our Arabic podcast/radio show Taxes Simply الجباية ببساطة contributing to tax justice public debate around the world. It’s produced and presented by Walid Ben Rhouma and is available on most podcast apps. Any radio station is welcome to broadcast it for free and websites are also welcome to share it. You can follow the programme on Facebook, on Twitter and on our website. All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here.

كيف تحوّل رياض سلامة، حاكم مصرف لبنان السابق، من شخصيًة إقتصاديّة يشاد بها في تحقيق الإستقرار للإقتصاد اللبناني بعد الحرب الأهلية، إلى متّهم رئيسيّ في عمليّة تسريع الانهيار الاقتصادي في لبنان بداية من 2019؟ في الحلقة #69 من بودكاست “الجباية ببساطة” نتناول قضية محافظ البنك المركزي اللّبناني السابق رياض سلامة وإتهمات الفساد المتعددة التي تشوبه في حوار مع الصحافيّة عليا إبراهيم، التي شاركت في ٱخر تحقيق عن سلامة تم نشره من قبل مشروع الإبلاغ عن الجريمة المنظمة والفساد.From a praised economic figure, hailed for bringing stability to the Lebanese economy after the civil war, to a main suspect in Lebanon’s economic collapse which began in 2019 – in episode #69 of the Taxes Simply podcast, we discuss the case of Lebanon’s former Central Bank governor, Riad Salameh with journalist Alia Ibrahim, CEO and Co-founder of Daraj Media, who also participated in the latest investigation into Salama that was published by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.

كيف نهب رياض سلامة أموال اللبنانيّين؟تابعونا على صفحتنا على الفايسبوك وتويتر https://www.facebook.com/ TaxesSimply Tweets by taxes_simply

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (‘it’s your business’) produced and hosted by Grazielle David and Daniela Stefano. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode:

O mundo segue perdendo pelo menos 480 bilhões de dólares para os abusos fiscais, de acordo com relatório “Estado da Justiça Fiscal 2023”. Uma convenção tributária nas Nações Unidas é uma das maneiras recomendadas pela Tax Justice Network e outras justiceiras fiscais para que o mundo pare de perder recursos para paraísos fiscais.

América Latina, Caribe e África conseguirão que a ONU seja um espaço realmente inclusivo e democrático para reformar a tributação e o sistema financeiro internacional? O episódio #52 do É da sua conta traz os resultados da Cúpula Latinoamericana e Caribenha, que aconteceu em junho de 2023, e explica o papel do bloco africano para levar a questão tributária às Nações Unidas.

• “O Estado da Justiça Fiscal 2023”: Florencia Lorenzo traz os valores perdidos por Brasil, Angola, Moçambique e América Latina ao abuso fiscal e as recomendações da Tax Justice Network para por um fim a estes abusos;
• Governos brasileiro e chileno avaliam a importância da Cúpula por uma tributação global e da Plataforma Tributária Latinoamericana e Caribenha para reformas tributárias dentro de seus países;
• Jefferson Nascimento (Oxfam Brasil) faz uma análise de como a sociedade civil participou e entende a contribuição da Plataforma LAC para o fortalecimento da justiça fiscal na região;
• A maior parte dos países do Caribe NÃO são paraísos fiscais, desmistifica Gabriel Casnati (Internacional Serviços Públicos);
• União África-América Latina e Caribe pode ajudar a combater lobby da OCDE e de empresas multinacionais em favor de uma Convenção Tributária Internacional, acredita Idriss Linge (Tax Justice Network).

Transcrição #52

Participantes:

• Florencia Lorenzo, pesquisadora da Tax Justice Network
• Gabriel Casnati, responsável pela área de Justiça Fiscal na América Latina e coordenador global da juventude sindicalista da Internacional de Serviços Públicos
• Jefferson Nascimento, coordenador de justiça social e econômica da Oxfam Brasil
• Guilherme Mello, secretário de Política Econômica do Ministério da Fazenda do Brasil
• Idriss Linge, produtor e apresentador do podcast Impôts et Justice Sociale, da Tax Justice Network
• Nicolás Bohme, coordenador de política tributária do Ministério da Fazenda do Chile
• Victor Dimitrov, agricultor e coordenador da Rede Consumo Consciente ABC

~ Convenção na ONU pode conter $480 bi de abusos fiscais #52“Componentes centrais estruturais do sistema que rege a tributação internacional tem falhado uma e outra vez e por isso essa edição do Estado da Justiça Fiscal 2023 tem essa chamada muito importante para produzir reformas substanciais nas regras e instituições que governam o sistema tributário internacional.“
~ Florencia Lorenzo, Tax Justice Network

“Nossos governos estão comprometidos domesticamente com as reformas tributárias necessárias para a redução das desigualdades, mas também estão ativamente atuando internacionalmente no debate de redução da evasão fiscal, do combate aos paraísos fiscais, de um sistema tributário internacional que seja capaz de realmente promover o desenvolvimento sustentável, social e ambientalmente.”
~ Guilherme Mello, Secretaria de Política Econômica do Ministério brasileiro da Fazenda

“O relatório da Tax Justice Network focou na democratização do debate tributário, principalmente na ampliação do debate dos espaços multilaterais e de alguma maneira a Plataforma representa parte desse objetivo; a gente tem que continuar dando os passos nesse processo, ainda em construção”
~ Jefferson Nascimento, Oxfam Brasil

“Trabalhadores caribenhos não se beneficiam desses paraísos fiscais e instam para que países latinoamericanos não se baseiem nas listas feitas pela Europa e abram caminhos para mais cooperação e negócios com os países do Caribe. ”
~ Gabriel Casnati, Internacional dos Serviços Públicos

“Se o dinheiro (recuperado dos abusos fiscais) estiver lá, governos terão de utilizá-lo para melhorar o acesso à escola, à energia, à escola para as meninas, à saúde, casas a preços acessíveis; resumindo o acesso aos Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável.”
~ Idriss Linge, Tax Justice Network

Saiba Mais:

• Recomendações da sociedade civil para ministros na Cúpula Latinoamericana e Caribenha por uma Tributação Global inclusiva, sustentável e equitativa.
• Episódios Relacionados
• Pacto Fiscal pode reduzir desigualdades na América Latina #49
• Regras de tributação global devem ser decididas na ONU #39
• Um retrato assombroso do abuso fiscal #31

É da sua conta é o podcast mensal em português da Tax Justice Network. Coordenação: Naomi Fowler. Dublagens: Edson Pinheiro Pimentel e Zema Ribeiro. Produção e apresentação: Daniela Stefano e Grazielle David. Download gratuito. Reprodução livre para rádios.

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in French, Impôts et Justice Sociale with Idriss Linge of the Tax Justice Network. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages every month in English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here and on most podcast apps. Here’s our latest episode: Pour cette 52ème édition de votre podcast “Impôt et Justice Sociale” produit par Tax Justice Network, […]

View Details

Welcome to our Spanish language podcast and radio programme Justicia ImPositiva with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, free to download and broadcast on radio networks across Latin America and Spain. ¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a nuestro podcast y programa radiofónico! Escuche por su app de podcast. (All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here.) En este programa […]

View Details

Welcome to the 68th edition of our Arabic podcast/radio show Taxes Simply الجباية ببساطة contributing to tax justice public debate around the world. It’s produced and presented by Walid Ben Rhouma and is available on most podcast apps. Any radio station is welcome to broadcast it for free and websites are also welcome to share it. You can follow the programme […]

View Details

Welcome to the latest episode of the Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast, the Taxcast. You can subscribe either by emailing naomi [at] taxjustice.net or find us on your podcast app. All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. In this edition of the Taxcast: We’re experiencing the hottest global temperatures ever recorded. For millions of […]

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (‘it’s your business’) produced and hosted by Grazielle David and Daniela Stefano. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode: Investimentos justos, economias melhores: Motivado pelo comentário da ouvinte Aurora de Armas no episódio anterior, o episódio #51 do É da […]

View Details

Welcome to our Spanish language podcast and radio programme Justicia ImPositiva with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, free to download and broadcast on radio networks across Latin America and Spain. ¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a nuestro podcast y programa radiofónico! Escuche por su app de podcast. (All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here.) En este programa […]

View Details

Welcome to the 67th edition of our Arabic podcast/radio show Taxes Simply الجباية ببساطة contributing to tax justice public debate around the world. It’s produced and presented by Walid Ben Rhouma and is available on most podcast apps. Any radio station is welcome to broadcast it for free and websites are also welcome to share it. You can follow the programme […]

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in French, Impôts et Justice Sociale with Idriss Linge of the Tax Justice Network. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages every month in English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here and on most podcast apps. Here’s our latest episode: Dans cette édition de votre podcast en français, produit par Tax Justice Network, nous avons le plaisir […]

View Details

Welcome to the latest episode of the Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast, the Taxcast. You can subscribe either by emailing naomi [at] taxjustice.net or find us on your podcast app. All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. In this edition of the Taxcast: In this episode Naomi Fowler looks at how the very wealthy […]

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (‘it’s your business’) produced and hosted by Grazielle David and Daniela Stefano. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode: Bitcoin, stablecoin, criptomoedas: por que são armadilhas? É possível regular, evitar crimes e tributar para que elas caibam em uma economia […]

View Details

Welcome to our Spanish language podcast and radio programme Justicia ImPositiva with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, free to download and broadcast on radio networks across Latin America and Spain. ¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a nuestro podcast y programa radiofónico! Escuche por su app de podcast. (All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here.) En este programa […]

View Details

Welcome to the 66th edition of our Arabic podcast/radio show Taxes Simply الجباية ببساطة contributing to tax justice public debate around the world. It’s produced and presented by Walid Ben Rhouma and is available on most podcast apps. Any radio station is welcome to broadcast it for free and websites are also welcome to share it. You can follow the programme on Facebook, on Twitter and on our website. All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here.

الضريبة الموحدة على الشركات والفرص الضائعةفي الحلقة #66 من بودكاست الجباية ببساطة يناقش وليد بن رحومة ومنتجة البودكاست نورهان شريف، ضريبة الحد الأدنى للشركات المقترحة من منظمة التعاون والتنمية الاقتصادية (OECD)، بالإضافة إلى نتائج الدراسة المنشورة حديثًا بعنوان “خيارات السياسات وفرص التمويل للمنطقة العربية في نظام ضريبي عالمي جديد” من قبل اللجنة الاقتصادية والاجتماعية لغرب آسيا وشمال إفريقيا (ESCWA).الضريبة الموحدة على الشركات والفرص الضائعةتابعونا على صفحتنا على الفايسبوك وتويتر https://www.facebook.com/ TaxesSimply Tweets by taxes_simply

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (‘it’s your business’) produced and hosted by Grazielle David and Daniela Stefano. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode:

A América Latina é a região com maior desigualdade de riqueza do planeta. Entre as várias causas da péssima realidade social e econômica está o abuso fiscal. De que forma um pacto regional sobre tributação pode contribuir para diminuir as desigualdades?

No episódio #49 do É da Sua Conta você escuta sobre quatro eventos que ocorreram, na Colômbia e no Chile, em maio de 2023 para avançar rumo à Cúpula por um Pacto Regional e à Plataforma com o objetivo de uma tributação equitativa, inclusiva e sustentável. Se houver participação popular, direitos humanos cabem nessa conta!

No É da sua conta #49:

• A importância de uma economia baseada em direitos humanos e o papel solidário da tributação para dimiuir desigualdades, com Pedro Rossi (Unicamp)
• Três encontros na Colômbia e um no Chile: os processos rumo à cooperação regional, com Sergio Chaparro (Tax Justice Network)
• Transparência fiscal: o papel da adoção do registro regional e global de ativos, com Florencia Lorenzo (Tax Justice Network)
• O papel do governo brasileiro para um pacto regional de tributação, com Antônio Freitas (Ministério da Fazenda)

“Política fiscal é composta por decisões sociais, em termos de financiamento de bens e serviços coletivos de transferências de uma parte da população para outra, dos mais jovens para os mais idosos, dos mais ricos aos mais pobres; pensar a ideia dos impostos como um pacto coletivo e a ideia dos direitos como algo fundamental nesse pacto.”
~ Pedro Rossi, Unicamp

“Anualmente, a região perde mais de 93 bilhões de dólares em receitas tributárias devido à existência de paraísos fiscais. Os membros ricos da OCDE e seus dependentes causam a maior parte das perdas fiscais e saídas financeiras ilícitas dos países latinoamericano. Então, um cenário cooperativo como uma cúpula regional é uma oportunidade de ouro para mudar de rumo.”
~ Sergio Chaparro, Tax Justice Network

“Não tem nenhuma outra região que chega na escala de deisgualdade da América Latina. Quando a gente pensa em ferramentas de transparência tributária, é preciso construir uma agenda que lide com essas questão também.” ~ Florência Lorenzo, TJN

“Grandes corperações e pessoas de alta renda utilizam mecanismos de planejamento tributário para minimizar pagamento de impostos, então é importante esse tipo de diálogo e de cooperação na esfera internacional. .”
~ Antônio Freitas, Ministério brasileiro da Fazenda

Participantes:

• Antônio Freitas, subsecretário de Finanças Internacionais e Cooperação Econômica, Ministério brasileiro da Fazenda.
• Florencia Lorenzo, pesquisadora da Tax Justice Network
• Pedro Rossi professor do Instituto de Economia da Universidade de Campinas (Unicamp – SP) e especialista na Iniciativa Princípios e Diretrizes de Direitos Humanos para a Política Fiscal
• Sergio Chaparro, coordenador de incidência global da Tax Justice Network

Saiba Mais:

World Inequality Report 2022, elaborado pelo World Inequality Lab: https://wir2022.wid.world/www-site/uploads/2021/12/WorldInequalityReport2022_Full_Report.pdf

Seminário de Política Fiscal 2023 da Cepal e reunião por uma Plataforma Tributária Regional

Seminário acadêmico do governo colombiano por um pacto fiscal regional

Episódio relacionado:

Registro global de ativos pode acabar com sigilo financeiro #37

Transcrição do episódio #49

É da sua conta é o podcast mensal em português da Tax Justice Network. Coordenação: Naomi Fowler. Produção e apresentação: Daniela Stefano e Grazielle David. Download gratuito. Reprodução livre para rádios.

View Details

Welcome to the latest episode of the Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast, the Taxcast. You can subscribe either by emailing naomi [at] taxjustice.net or find us on your podcast app. All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. In this edition of the Taxcast:

When dominant multinationals get to run the world, it’s not a happy place. Or a very secure one. For a long time governments have failed to take the threat from monopolies and the corporate concentration of power seriously, and deal with it. But recent crises have demonstrated how the neoliberal era is crumbling around us and governments must take action. In this episode we look at the challenges and how to tackle this in the public interest.

And, in the US, Minnesota nearly took a historic step for tax justice this month that could have changed everything by bringing corporate profit shifting to heel. The lobbyists said it was the end of the world as we know it – and sadly, they won – for now. What was the big deal? And what are the possibilities for other states and other countries?

Featuring:

• Nick Dearden of Global Justice Now
• Alex Cobham of the Tax Justice Network
• Nick Shaxson, Balanced Economy Project
• Stéphanie Yon-Courtin, MEP and Competition lawyer
• Christopher Gopal of the Global Supply Chain Center, University of Southern California
• Produced and hosted by the Tax Justice Network’s Naomi Fowler

Transcript of the show is here (some is automated)

~ Monopolies and market powerFurther reading:

• Monopoly capitalism: What is it and how do we fight it? A primer from Global Justice Now
• The 4 ‘R’s of tax: (the fifth R is Reparations, or Repair)
• Resisting Monopoly Capitalism (Global Justice Now event in London, March 2023) Opening plenary
• Resisting Monopoly Capitalism – Closing plenary
• Pharmanomics: How Big Pharma Destroys Global Health (published October 2023)
• How Monopoly Threatens Democracy and Security, an Open Markets Institute and Balanced Economy Project event
• Corporate taxation to curb monopoly power: a brief history and a proposal
• Tax havens meet monopoly power: why national competitiveness harms competition
• If tax havens scare you, monopolies should too. And vice versa.
• How local, state, and federal tax policies in the US undermine small business and fuel corporate concentration
• Reframing tax policy to reset the rules of the monopoly game
• To tackle corruption, start with monopoly power, Balanced Economy Project
• Nick Shaxson: Leaving the Tax Justice Network (setting up the Balanced Economy Project – the journey)
• Opponents of Minnesota’s Anti-Tax Cheat Bill Should Be Ashamed, Don Griswold

For more podcasts go to our website

Here’s a summary of the show:

Naomi: “Hello and welcome to the Taxcast, the Tax Justice Network podcast. We’re all about fixing our economies so they work for all of us. I’m your host, Naomi Fowler. You can find us on most podcast apps. Our website is www.thetaxcast.com You can subscribe to the Taxcast there, or you can email me on naomi@taxjustice.net and I’ll put you on the subscriber’s list. Let me know what you think of the show! Coming up later on the Taxcast – the state of Minnesota nearly took a historic step for tax justice this month. But the lobbyists won – for now:”

Alex Cobham: “If you’re a big four accounting firm or one of the major law firms that support multinational companies in their tax abuse, this is guaranteed to freak you out. What you want is to make sure that nobody ever tries it, that they feel the threat, the pressure before they get to that decision point, and they don’t go ahead. You tell them everything will go wrong for you, you tell them anything!”

Naomi: “Aaaah it was so close! We’re going to talk about that later. But first, the threats from monopoly power. A world where dominant multinationals get to run the world isn’t a happy place. Or a very secure one, as it turns out. For such a long time governments have been absent from taking the threat seriously and dealing with it. In the United States what they call the ‘anti-trust’ movement has a long history – the Biden administration has actually been much more active in protecting people and the economy, more than any administration in decades actually, there’s a VERY long way to go, obviously. But everywhere really, the threats posed to us all from monopolies just aren’t that well understood, some of the effects on our lives aren’t that obvious. And really, it’s more accurate to call it ‘concentrated market power’, ‘cos we’re talking about saturation by only a handful of companies in each sector. So what does that look like? Well, according to one estimate we’ve got a problem when only four companies are getting 40% of sales. That’s a market that’s distorted and it’s lost its competitive character.”

Nick Dearden: “The increasing build-up of corporate power, the increasing concentration of corporate power over lots of different bits of our economy over many years is actually the central feature of our economic system.”

Naomi: “This is Nick Dearden of Global Justice Now:”

Nick Dearden: “If four corporations have cornered the entire global market in grain, they effectively decide what gets grown and how, they decide what food we buy and at what price. They decide what we eat. And indeed who doesn’t eat. And you can apply that logic across the whole economy.”

Naomi: “It sounds a bit simplistic to say this but it seems like we only have one value – and that’s the sacred right to make a profit, no matter who gets hurt or killed. The climate crisis and lack of proper action is an obvious example.”

Nick Dearden: “Yes, and it’s endangering our very existence on this planet. And if we’re honest, you know, big business does not operate in any kind of a free market whatsoever.”

Naomi: “It’s often hard to see the era you’re living through when you’re in it, but we’ve been living through a neoliberal era for a very long time. But now it’s beginning to crumble. Here’s journalist Nick Shaxson, formerly of the Tax Justice Network and now with the excellent Balanced Economy Project. He’s speaking here at Yale University and describes here the kind of waking up with a hangover from the big party the night before…”

Nick Shaxson: “The new idea was that we should stop worrying about democracy, we should stop worrying about power, we should stop worrying really about the structure of markets and we should boil everything down narrow everything down to consumer prices and as long as consumers are happy everything’s great, and we should also focus on the internal efficiency of corporations, if corporations are efficient then they’re going to spread their wealth around and everything will be fine, so don’t worry about these other issues. This story, that was one of the components of what many people call neoliberalism, spread rapidly, it was obviously very well funded and it became the dominant narrative and it effectively allowed for the massive consolidation that we’ve seen since then. Private equity firms were among the drivers of this consolidation, buying up firms all over the place and bolting them all together, but many other drivers of consolidation. There was effectively a falling away of the state, the state decided to stand back and this was both under Republicans and Democrats, all the way up to the Trump administration. And so you had this story that once you start picking at it’s so obviously incoherent, it’s obviously wrong but power was with it and it carried, it survived and flourished across the world, spread across the world, spread to Europe, spread to other countries to Australia to Asia, to lower income countries and so we have the giants of today and there’s pretty much no government anywhere has been effectively cracking down until very recently. So the new movement came along with this new story saying ‘we need to start thinking about power again, we need to start thinking about democracy, we need to start thinking about the structure of markets and we need to start taking down these giants and regulating with confidence again in the interests of people.'”

Naomi: “Yes! Obviously the most recognised monopolies are easy to see because they clearly wield too much power – like Facebook, Amazon and Google. And not all monopolies are a bad thing – I mean, a well-run state healthcare monopoly that has the buying power to keep medical costs down and tackle pharmaceutical giants seems like an undeniably good thing. The National Health Service here in Britain is humanity at its very best, I’ve seen that for myself. And we used to have public-owned railways, public-owned water – sadly we lost those. But we can’t say all state-owned monopolies are run in the public interest in the ways they should be – we’ve got creeping private sector involvement, and sometimes the same extractive processes as any other dominant company. So our solutions must be about enshrining rights to essential things we all need, keeping them firmly in the non-profit sector. It’s gotta be also about democratising ownership and control, as well as – of course – breaking up corporate power where we need to.

And it’s bad. Very bad. In the States, despite the Biden administration being the most active for decades in tackling these big mergers – the top 1% of corporations make 81% of all sales and they own 97% of all assets. You can check out stats like that on www.businessconcentration.com – it’s pretty interesting. The biggest market players dominate our every waking hour – what we eat every day, how we travel, how we get our news and information, who we bank with, they influence what decisions our governments make, how much we pay for stuff, how much we fall short in tax revenues and the consequences of that. But if it seems like we’re taking on the impossible here, we’re not. As any good freedom fighter will tell you. Here’s Nick Shaxson again:”

Nick Shaxson: “I worked with the Tax Justice Network for many years. I started not quite at the very beginning but near the beginning, and it was just a tiny group of us and we had some demands and policy proposals that you know the powers, you know everybody said ‘oh that’s utopian nonsense, nobody’s ever going to do that’ and all of those proposals are now to one degree or another, with many gaps obviously, but have been accepted as mainstream policy by governments around the world. I’ve seen from the inside of a movement having you know some significant success and, you know, we made a lot of progress. Not as far as as much we want but the whole international tax justice movement, we did achieve a lot.”

Naomi: “That’s Nick Shaxson there, speaking at a recent event held by Global Justice Now called ‘the threat of monopoly capitalism.’ And you can’t really separate monopoly power and market concentration from tax havenry and corporate secrecy – all of them have happened because we’ve allowed huge imbalances of power across our economies. And just like tax havens and the companies who use them, it’s the same, it’s all about ‘escape’ – escaping things they don’t like – whether it’s taxes other small businesses pay, regulations, laws, accountability when things go wrong, transparency about how they operate or which politicians they’re funding. Here’s Nick Shaxson again:”

Nick Shaxson: “One of the things that I think is very important is that monopoly is – it’s like privatisation, it’s a form of privatisation, in a way privatisation of regulation because if you get a bunch of companies together and they form a cartel, their bosses collude to um rig prices or rig wages or whatever that is subject to public regulation, there’s anti-cartel laws and rules around the world and they can be stopped, they can be fined, they can be punished for that with public state regulation. But the alternative – and that’s what all the companies have been doing instead is just merging, they just join together and once they’re merged together it’s like a reinforced legalised version of a cartel and the public regulation has been pushed out, so we are seeing monopolisation as a kind of privatisation of regulation.”

Naomi: “Underlying the neoliberal era and globalisation was always the philosophy that markets will answer our needs and solve our problems. The pursuit of what’s the cheapest, with no other consideration – the State’s job is to get out of the way. But we’re finding out why that philosophy is so dangerous – and why markets left to their own devices can do the opposite of solving our problems. Here’s Nick Dearden again:”

Nick Dearden: “You can take a number of different sectors and look at it and, and see the problems. But what was really interesting to me about the pharmaceutical example was the more I started looking into it, these pharmaceutical corporations like to say, ‘we need these monopolies because otherwise we’d have no incentives to provide the medicines that society desperately needs.’ And it’s a complete and utter lie. Actually, the more power they have accumulated, the less creative, the less inventive they have become. It isn’t simply a matter of, they make some really important medicines and then they squeeze as much profit out of it as they can. That was may be the case in the 1960s and 1970s. Today, it’s not like that at all.”

Naomi: “Yes, we’ve seen how big companies put their efforts into financialising every aspect of what they do, and that includes minimising their taxes. Pharmaceutical companies – just like in pretty much every sector – have merged to the point where in the US between 1995 and 2015, 60 pharmaceutical companies merged into just ten. The number of companies producing vaccines fell from 26 in 1955, to 18 in 1980, to only four in 2020. Do you remember that urgent chasing of covid vaccines by different nations? This stuff left the world at a huge disadvantage dealing with Covid, especially poorer nations.”

Nick Dearden: “Pharmaceutical corporations are more like hedge funds. They don’t do, they don’t invent any of the medicines, you know, or very few of the medicines on their books, they buy out other companies that have done that research, they then sit on literal monopolies, I mean, you know, through the intellectual property, basically only that that company can make this medicine for at least 20 years. And there’s all sorts of ways that they try to extend that, and they squeeze as much out of it as they possibly can, because they’re making so much on every single sale, if you can only sell it to a few rich countries’ health systems, well, that’s okay, you know, and actually the very value of these companies comes not really from how much they sell, but from the value of the intellectual property they hold and how much investors assume that’s gonna be worth in the years to come. So it’s extraordinary really, because this system is supposed to be all about, you know, rewarding innovation. But what it’s actually done is completely hollowed out these enormous corporations. And I mean, I’ve just looked at the amount that these corporations return to their investors through dividends and share buybacks, it way exceeds their research and development budget, indeed for most, for most years, it exceeds their profit. It exceeds their net income. Because we live in a political system, in an economic model that assumes that the market will provide, it assumes that these corporations have all the answers, we’ve eroded all the institutions that would have allowed us to provide a counterbalance to all this. And so when the pandemic struck, even though basically all of the research into those medicines had already been done by the public sector or small biotechs, at the end of the day, we couldn’t actually produce them because we’re still dependent on these tiny pipelines. And so we had to turn to Pfizer and Moderna and AstraZeneca and say, ‘take all the money you want,’ um, handed it over. Now AstraZeneca behaved a bit differently, of course, but Pfizer and Moderna, I mean, sold hardly anything to the vast majority of the world, they just weren’t interested. Absolutely shocking! And that’s not just, it’s not just morally wrong, it’s stupid because as long as there were huge parts of the world unvaccinated, we were all at risk of a new, more virile and more deadly strain of the virus coming out and undermining the vaccines that we had had. But that seemed to be as of nothing to the pharmaceutical companies because well, if the, if the pandemic goes on longer, you know, there’s simply more money to be made. So there’s no interest, it’s not only that there’s no interest in equitably selling the medicines the world needs and researching the me the medicines that that, that, that all people urgently need. There’s not really any interest in researching anything other than, you know, drugs that have marginal differences on chronic diseases because those are the most lucrative drugs.”

Naomi: “And even if politicians in the wealthiest countries in the world don’t care about equitable access to drugs at prices that aren’t taking advantage of market dominance, they should care about this:”

Nick Dearden: “We are faced with antimicrobial resistance. Yes, we’ve overused antibiotics massively, but the pharmaceutical industry hasn’t researched any more of these things because there’s no profit in it, essentially because they would be second, third generation antibiotics that wouldn’t be used very much for the next 15, 20 years anyway. They’re not gonna make anything of them. Look, you just need to nationalise parts of this industry. It is simply not fit for purpose.”

Naomi: “When you look at the logic of governments letting the biggest companies decide on supply chains based only on the bottom line – without any thought about global security, the world we’ve allowed corporations to build gets riskier and riskier for all of us. This is MEP and competition lawyer Stéphanie Yon-Courtin speaking in Europe at an event called ‘How Monopoly Threatens Democracy and Security:'”

Stéphanie Yon-Courtin: “The pandemic has highlighted the EU’s long-existing structural problems related to the supply of medicines and the higher dependency on third country import for certain essential and highly critical goods and materials. In the wake of the pandemic it is as if we finally found out that we were 100% dependent on third countries such as China or India. One of the key lessons of the crisis is that there is a need to get a better grip an understanding of where Europe’s current and possible future strategic dependencies lie. The notion of resilience of supply chains was already much discussed before the pandemic in the context of ensuring availability of resources necessary for the twin transitions – green and digital – of the economy and society in Europe. It became as pertinent as ever with the crisis. Now facing this situation it seems clear that our competition policy plays an essential role – it’s one of the tools, a key one to increase our strategic autonomy and our industrial policy that could secure supply chains. I think we are slowly moving from a naive Europe to a pragmatic and realistic one – no choice. Now, with the Russian invasion to Ukraine we have no choice, no choice to face our dependency to Russian gas.”

Naomi: “In the case of Russian gas, markets – and the German government didn’t come out of this well either – allowed storage and pipelines to be monopolised, ignoring the obvious security threats. It ended up enhancing the dominant power of Gazprom, majority-owned by Russia, an expensive lesson. Here’s Christopher Gopal of the Global Supply Chain Center, at the University of Southern California, he’s speaking at the same event:”

Christopher Gopal: “The Russia issue is huge and will cause a great deal of grief to a lot of people, but this is nothing compared to the type of impact that something over in China and Taiwan can have on us. Russia has probably four to six major leverage points by which it can disrupt supply chains and some of them are not global. China has hundreds. Just to give you one example and when I say people are not ready for this, when we talk about the chip industry and the chip problem, what we felt in covid was a hiccup. If the chips from China and Taiwan are blocked from coming in for any reason, those two together own about 20 to 30% of the world’s production and the high-end chips. More to the point, the impact is not just on the chip industry, 100 billion dollars of plus. Those are the primary industries, the impact goes under the secondary industries, defence and aerospace, automobiles, heavy trucks, industrial equipment, infrastructure, all of these things and then cascades to things like tourism, food production, traffic lights, shipping, everything else. Something like that would have enormous impact, it could bring countries to their knees. I mean to say even worse – there could be even worse than semiconductors is pharmaceuticals – China produces, you know, the numbers vary from place to place but 90% of the antibiotics. A lot of the pharmaceutical chemicals, the APIs used in the production of pharmaceuticals, cortisone, all of these things, ascorbic acid – if that gets cut off we have no pharmaceuticals, we have no antibiotics, you know enough with the, the place comes down because lack of semiconductors, the place comes down because we have no medications. Our PPEs and so on are built in those areas, a cut off in those areas would be calamitous.”

Naomi: “Here’s MEP Stéphanie Yon-Courtin again on better competition policy Europe needs:”

Stéphanie Yon-Courtin: “If the political will is there, that’s another question. Let me name a few, four main milestones. First I think a paradigm shift in the objective of competition policy – the objective of competition policy I think has moved from a single perspective of maximising the interest of consumers to a more balanced objective, particularly with regard to taking into account Europe’s industrial interest. Second is the resilience – the resilience is now mentioned clearly as an objective of competition policy, and from now on competition policy instruments will also have to take into account resilience issue for all supply chains, that’s quite new. Third point is the announcement of a new competition framework, you know, including stated for semiconductors. I think this is a major step forward and a kind of an implicit recognition that the current framework is not adequate to address the urgency of the crisis and the importance of this dependency issue. We need to multiply this approach I think without waiting to be paralysed by drug, semiconductor shortage and think about now, right now for Europe. And the vaccine crisis has shown us that being excellent in research is not enough to meet our needs, we need to know how to produce, we need the right scale and vision necessary to overcome persistent industrial weaknesses.”

Naomi: “Big challenges – much of them caused by markets and market domination by a few companies. But that sounds to me like many European governments are recognising that States can no longer just stand aside. And at the heart of all of this has been misconceptions about ‘competition.’ You hear that word all the time, but in the neoliberalist era it moved from meaning businesses competing with each other on innovation and efficiency, to competiton between nations – so, governments climbing over each other to cut labour rights, cut taxes, cut regulation; a race to the bottom. In the long run that reduces real competition when it comes to creativity and diversity – small and medium companies get crowded out and governments don’t seem to know how to encourage anything else. And something as valuable as ‘collaboration’ doesn’t get a look in. But, going back to the pandemic for a moment – despite all those troubles in – for example – sourcing PPE during the pandemic across the world – do you remember that? What’s happened since then? Well, most countries have defaulted to relying blindly on markets again. Christopher Gopal again:”

Christopher Gopal: “From all my discussions with people in Europe and they’ve been mainly companies I have to have add, nobody, not Europe, has governmental policy. We are going back to the old normal, you know the financialisation of the supply chain where we hit just-in-time inventory, lowest cost, assets going out and for instance one of the biggest companies in the US, in the world rather, has just announced that they’re going back to China for cheap chips. Not having learned any of the lessons.”

Nick Shaxson: “This is about the corruption of markets really and this is about markets not working as they should.”

Naomi: “Nick Shaxson again:”

Nick Shaxson : “I think the United States has been so lax for so many years that anything that Europe does look good. Having said that, the record in Europe is appalling. Just for example I was looking the other day at the merger statistics. I think they get about 15,000 mergers a year in Europe and of those maybe I think three or four hundred get notified you know ‘here’s the merger it’s potentially gonna cause competition concerns, you guys are gonna have to look at it.’ If you look at the record of the mergers that are notified, which are mergers of potential concern since 1990, 0.4% of those have been prohibited – almost nothing – they just don’t block mergers, so that’s a sign that there’s serious trouble. Anybody who looks around in Europe will know that we have a problem with big pharma, with big agriculture, with big retail, with big tech, with the big four accounting firms, with big banks – we’ve got the same problems. We have social democracy here in Europe that takes off some of the hardest edges of these things but I think that whereas social democracy in Europe has been quite effective in certain areas such as tax policy, in terms of excessive concentrations of power, I think Europe has basically drunk the kool-aid. The fines that you see – several billion dollars on the the tech giants look big – you know once you have the number of billion in there it makes a great newspaper headline but again it’s almost a rounding error in the actual size of the profits that these companies are making, so Europe is especially weak in this area. It’s a very nuanced picture, of course there are positive things you can say about Europe, but Europe is not in a position at the moment to spread a beneficial Brussels effect around the world in this area. We’re working with hope to spread this new story and over time this is something that takes years to do to shift things in Europe so that Europeans wake up and I think Europeans are quite capable of waking up and doing things differently, I think there’s a lot of questioning going on.”

Naomi: “Nick Dearden again:”

Nick Dearden: “To prevent the increasing concentration of capital is really important. The problem is, I think competition regulators over the last 40 years have almost forgotten how to do that job. Although I am heartened by the fact that an antitrust activist was appointed, to the head of the US central regulation body, Lina Khan, and I’m even more heartened that she seems to be taking that job really seriously, I mean, only this week really interesting that they’re challenging a big pharma merger. And so, you know it is not the only answer, but it is part of the answer. We’re in this economy, which is supposed to be all about, you know, promoting small businesses. And we hear this from government all the time, and it’s just the opposite of the truth. In the sector I know best, the pharmaceutical sector, your only option, your best business model is ‘how can I get bought out by Pfizer?’ That’s it! I mean, what kind of a balanced economy is that creating? None, obviously.”

Naomi: “Yeah, quite! So what are the key things would you say to tackle market concentration,
monopoly power?”

Nick Dearden: “I would argue three things. First of all, what Biden has already started to do, which is industrial strategy, which is using the power of the state procurement and so on to begin shaping the economy. The thing I want to make sure is that doesn’t just become a form of corporate welfare, that doesn’t just become about de-risking the kind of investment that you want. There’s got to be a very clear public return. If we are putting this in, what do we expect back? And that’s gotta be about reshaping the way that the private sector operates. I think the second thing obviously is, is more use of alternative forms of economic unit, whether that be public sector but also, you know, cooperatives, I mean, let’s give some real competition to these behemoths and create that more balanced economy. And that’s not just gonna happen, you know, that needs a framework and a plan by government. And I think third, and I know this is gonna be welcome on your show, it’s financial regulation – because the deregulation of finance is absolutely crucial to how all of this happened. I mean, two or three massive investment funds now own a significant proportion of virtually all corporations traded in London and New York, and they are driving these kind of incentives ever more towards profit maximisation, and that is helping this corporate concentration, there’s only the big monopolies that can thrive in this kind of world. Because of financial deregulation, of course, as well, these behemoths can shift their wealth around the world and avoid taxes because we have such a financialised economy – as we’ve already talked about, you know, big pharma doesn’t particularly make medicines that we need anymore, what its job is, is to maximise shareholder wealth. So financialisation is the other side of the monopoly capitalism equation, and I think we cannot properly bring this kind of economy to heel and make it work in the public interest without controlling that, and without regulating how capital can be used.”

Naomi: “Yes, yes. And tax is such a strong tool for shaping markets and encouraging things that we want to see and discouraging things that we don’t want to see. This comes down to the fundamentals of the purposes of tax, I mean there’s five Rs of tax – everyone knows the Revenue ‘R’ – but the Repricing one is crucial here – pricing damaging behaviour out, and incentivising activity that’s beneficial to the majority of us. I’ll put a link to the five Rs in the show notes, but tax fixes, just off the top of my head – there’s excess profit taxes, financial transaction taxes are an obvious one, wealth taxes, windfall taxes, taxes to address the climate crisis – the list goes on, and governments just aren’t using the taxes that are available to them in the public interest. OK, thank you Nick Dearden for joining me on the Taxcast. He’s got a book coming out all about the pharmacuetical industry later this year – Pharmanomics: How Big Pharma Destroys Global Health – I’ll link to that in the show notes.

So, let’s head to Minnesota now in the United States. There were many eyes on Minnesota this month – we had great hopes, but there was huge scare-mongering by lobbyists, all because it looked like Minnesota might take a historic step in making big companies active there do worldwide combined reporting. It could have raised an estimated $600 million in extra corporate tax revenue over the next two years. Very sadly, the enabler professions and their arguments won the day and the proposal was dropped from the bill. But why do they hate it so much? Here’s Alex Cobham of the Tax Justice Network:”

Alex: “The idea of worldwide combined reporting sounds kind of technical and boring, but it’s really powerful. What we’re talking about is when US states decide the basis on which they’re going to apply a formula to work out how much profit they should be allowed to tax from a given multinational. Instead of looking at their share of the multinationals’ declared activity in the United States as a whole, they would look at their share of the multinationals activity globally. Now what that means is at a stroke, you put a pen through any profit shifting that the multinational is doing anywhere. And you’re just looking at, you know, if 1% of your global sales and employment, let’s say, is in Minnesota, if that’s the formula that you’re using, then 1% of the global profits will be taken as tax base by Minnesota. So you more or less switch to a complete unitary basis, you assess the profits at the unit of the multinational itself and you give up on the arm’s length principle that the OECD and before that the League of Nations have been defending for a hundred years, even though it’s become increasingly clear to everyone that it just doesn’t work, and that profit shifting is the only result of trying to do corporate taxation on that basis.

But here’s the thing, because this is such a good idea, because it is simple and powerful and pretty difficult to, to cheat, there’s enormous interest for the lobbyists in making sure it doesn’t happen anywhere. Because if it happens in one place, whether that’s one US state or one country, as soon as it becomes clear that it works, which, you know, I think there’s a general confidence that it absolutely will, and that it raises significantly more revenue, um, than trying to make arms length pricing or anything else work, then the demonstration effect to everyone else is going to be enormous. Why wouldn’t everyone just do the same thing? And of course, if everyone does the same thing, the effect is that there is no possibility of double taxation. If everyone says ‘we’re gonna take our share of the global profit,’ then if that’s done right, all global profit will be taxed precisely, once and once only. No double taxation, but also no double non-taxation. So if you are a big four accounting firm or one of the major law firms that support multinational companies in their tax abuse, this is guaranteed to freak you out. What you want is to make sure that nobody ever tries it, that they feel the threat, the pressure before they get to that decision point. And they don’t go ahead. You tell them you’re gonna lose all of your investment if you do this, everything will go wrong for you. We will hang you out to dry. We will make an example of you as people who don’t understand how to do corporate taxation. You tell them anything, you tell them, you’ll give them money for their political campaigns if they don’t do it, whatever it is. Not that I’m accusing anyone here of corruption, I’m sure, but the point is, you are desperate to stop that first state, that first country trying this. And, you know, that’s kind of what appears to have happened in Minnesota. We don’t know the basis on which the lead Democrat who brought this all the way forward flipped at the last moment and just took it out completely. But we do know there was an enormous amount of lobbying and we do know that that’s what happened. So we don’t know the basis of that decision, but you can be sure similar things will happen in each other case.”

Naomi: “I bet! If Minnesota had passed this proposal to implement combined worldwide reporting it could have shone the light not just for other US states to follow, but for other countries too – they could implement this couldn’t they?”

Alex: “The G24 group of lower income countries brought forward a proposal, you know, not dissimilar to do that globally, within the OECD inclusive framework process. And that was what pretty much demonstrated that the inclusive framework was not inclusive because the framework group of countries agreed that that would be the work plan for the secretariat, they would evaluate it and a couple of other options and then come back. And the secretariat at the OECD never did that. They didn’t do it because before they got there, the United States and France did a bi-lateral deal on a completely different approach, and then the secretariat came back to the inclusive framework and said, ‘hey, this is, um, this is the way we’re gonna go instead.’ So it became immediately clear, this is back in 2019, that the inclusive framework was a sham. There was no inclusivity for, for non-OECD members and that that type of option, even though the OECD had promised to the world to go beyond the arm’s length principle in that process, they didn’t mean going that far beyond, just a tiny tiny tiny little bit as they’re now trying in Pillar One. And that’s why the OECD process, of course, isn’t gonna really change the world because they gave up on the original ambition. And again, we’ll never quite be sure if that was the result of really intense lobbying but we know there was an enormous amount of lobbying and we know they were pushing very hard to limit the extent to which the OECD did actually go beyond the arms length principle.
So here we are.”

Naomi: “Here we are, yeah! So, lower income countries already tried to propose something like this combined worldwide reporting in the OECD, the not-so-inclusive OECD – which is after all, a rich countries club? Would it be easier, or harder for countries, rather than a US state like Minnesota to implement this?”

Alex: “You know, it’ll be interesting to see which is the next US state to consider this, given how much revenue it’s likely to to generate. For countries though, there is a limitation, which is that most countries have a significant number of double tax treaties that probably makes it impossible to go straight to a unitary approach of this sort and simply tax your share of the global profit. Now, that doesn’t mean that no one should do it. What it means is you probably want to do it in a group of like-minded countries and agree together that you will set aside these treaties. The European Union is still taking forward its BEFIT proposal, which would effectively do this within the EU. And there’s a question there about whether that can be extended, as in the Minnesota proposal to a worldwide combined reporting basis.”

Naomi: “BEFIT – that’s the EU’s “Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation” – it’s supposed to be a ‘single corporate tax rulebook for the EU, providing for fairer allocation of taxing rights between Member States.’ So where do the G24 group of lower income countries go? I mean we all know the OECD isn’t the place to get what they want, so how about the United Nations?”

Alex: “There’s also the process now around the, the proposal for a UN framework on international tax corporation. We know that both the African and the Latin American and Caribbean regional discussions have included the possibility of pushing for unitary taxation, which could be done at the regional or the UN, the full global level. So in a sense, if things get blocked by some OECD member countries, for example, within the UN process we could see regional moves to jointly, unilaterally move towards unitary taxation and their sort. So there’s a lot to play for. That’s a huge amount of revenue involved, in effect the 312 billion, that’s our last estimate for the annual tax revenue losses due to corporate tax abuse by multi-nationals. That would more or less be available to be reclaimed if countries switched to a unitary taxation basis. Bigger amounts of money in high income countries, but a bigger share of current tax revenues in lower income countries. So really a pretty strong incentive for everyone to make that shift. And it’s only the lobbying that continues to hold that very sensible step back. This year might be the year that we see that dam start to crack, and particularly within the UN process and the related discussions. Whether or not this proposal starts to become more concretely possible Minnesota might just be an early sign that this could be on the way.”

View Details

Welcome to our Spanish language podcast and radio programme Justicia ImPositiva with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, free to download and broadcast on radio networks across Latin America and Spain. ¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a nuestro podcast y programa radiofónico! Escuche por su app de podcast. (All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here.)

En este programa con Marcelo Justo y Marta Nuñez:

• Los cambios en el gobierno colombiano y la cumbre fiscal para América Latina
• Las recetas del Fondo Monetario Internacional bajo la lupa de un centro de análisis de Washington
• El debate sobre la moneda única para la región
• Y cómo América Latina financia el déficit de Estados Unidos de las últimas décadas

Invitados:

• Sergio Chaparro Hernández, de Tax Justice Network, la Red de Justicia Fiscal
• Alex Main del Center of Economic and Policy Research de Washington
• Pedro Páez Pérez, ex ministro de economía de Ecuador y autor de “Política Económica Transformadora y Nueva Arquitectura Financiera”
• Oscar Ugarteche, Director del Observatorio Económico Latinoamericano, OBELA
• Andrés Arauz, economista y ex candidato a la presidencia de Ecuador

~ Cómo América Latina financia el déficit EE.UU.MÁS INFORMACIÓN:

• Enlace de descarga para las emisoras: https://traffic.libsyn.com/j-impositiva/JI_mayo_23.mp3
• Subscribase a nuestro RSS feed: http://j_impositiva.libsyn.com/rss
• O envien un correo electronico a Naomi [@] taxjustice.net para ser
  incorporado a nuestra lista de suscriptores.
• Sigannos por twitter en http://www.twitter.com/J_ImPositiva
• Estamos tambien en facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Justicia-ImPositiva-1464800660510982/

View Details

Welcome to the 65th edition of our Arabic podcast/radio show Taxes Simply الجباية ببساطة contributing to tax justice public debate around the world. It’s produced and presented by Walid Ben Rhouma and is available on most podcast apps. Any radio station is welcome to broadcast it for free and websites are also welcome to share it. You can follow the programme on Facebook, on Twitter and on our website. All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here.

كيف إستحوذ الصندوق السيادي السعودي على مجموعة مستشفيات كليوباترافي العدد #65 من بودكاست الجباية ببساطة إستضاف وليد بن رحومة الصحفي محمد حميد صاحب تحقيق “من أبراج الإماراتية لـ”السيادي السعودي”.. كيف انتقلت ملكية مستشفى كليوباترا؟” المنشور على موقع المنصة ويأخذنا من خلاله للتعمق في رحلة الاستحواذات المتعددة التي تمت على مجموعة من المستشفيات والصيدليات المصرية بدءاً من ٢٠١٦ والتي بموجبها تهربت الكيانات المساهمة والمالكة لهذه الكيانات الطبية من دفع الضرائب المستحقة عليها وبالتالي حرمان مصر من عوائد ضريبية كبيرة محتملة.In episode #65 of the Taxes Simply podcast, host Walid Ben Rhouma speaks investigative journalist, Mohamed Hamid, author of the recently published piece “From the Emirati Abraaj to the Saudi Sovereign Fund. How was the ownership of Cleopatra Hospital transferred?” This investigative piece, published by “Al Manassa” takes us for a deep dive into a series of acquisitions that took place for a number of Egyptian hospitals and pharmacies starting in 2016. We look at the engineered tax abuse that resulted, depriving Egypt of potentially huge tax revenues.

كيف إستحوذ الصندوق السيادي السعودي على مجموعة مستشفيات كليوباتراتابعونا على صفحتنا على الفايسبوك وتويتر https://www.facebook.com/ TaxesSimply Tweets by taxes_simply

View Details

Welcome to the latest episode of the Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast, the Taxcast. You can subscribe either by emailing naomi [at] taxjustice.net or find us on your podcast app. All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. In this edition of the Taxcast:

It’s horrific that there are so many people across the world who still don’t have access to ‘survival rights.’ Things like basic sanitation, clean water, quality education, decent healthcare so that mothers can survive childbirth – and so their children can even survive their childhood! This is where tax justice gets the most urgent, because tax literally saves lives. In this Taxcast edition, host Naomi Fowler talks to people who’ve looked at new data that demonstrates this. We wish every CEO, every company board member, every shareholder and every government minister in the world would read this report. Then look us in the eye and tell us why they’re not moving every muscle in their body to do what is in their power to protect people, mothers and children. Because when they don’t, they do have blood on their hands.

Featuring:

• Eilish Hannah, University of St Andrews
• Alex Cobham, Tax Justice Network
• Rachel Etter-Phoya, Tax Justice Network
• Hosted and produced by Naomi Fowler, Tax Justice Network

A transcript of the show is available here.

“The world needs to start looking at tax as a human rights issue. Fair tax saves lives, tax abuse costs lives and the pathway to paying fair tax is through tax transparency. So corporations publishing their taxes and profits on a country by country basis, but also governments creating the right environment so that this is the norm, as opposed to the exception.” ~ Eilish Hannah, University of St Andrews

“We’re going to see more and more of this data being made public one way or another, both voluntarily and by mandate in different places. That’s the end game. In the meantime though, we’re losing time, we’re losing tax revenues, we’re losing the lives of children, of mothers. We’re losing public health and all sorts of public spending around the world. This is an urgent matter and we really should just move straight to public reporting, whichever way we can do it, wherever we are, as soon as possible.” ~ Alex Cobham, Tax Justice Network

“Just getting companies to disclose tax information is not something new. Already in the 1960s and ’70s African and Asian nations supporting the UN resolution on the New International Economic Order, were trying to gain sovereignty because they realised that even though they’d decolonised, the global economy was in the hands of the richest nations, in the hands of former imperial powers. And one of the ways this is done is through corporate power. Many of the multinationals are operating in these countries then, and still today are headquartered in the richest nations in the world. If companies aren’t paying their fair share of tax and are actually just shifting the profits out of countries, it means that governments are losing their revenue, losing their sovereign right to decide how to use taxpayer’s tax money and determine how to allocate it best for the nation. And government knows best, not companies.” ~ Rachel Etter-Phoya, Tax Justice Network

~ Tax Saves LivesFurther reading:

• How can corporate taxes contribute to sub-Saharan Africa’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? A case study of Vodafone. Report available here.
• EU fails to introduce real public country by country reporting (from 2021) https://www.eurodad.org/eu_fails_to_introduce_real_public_country_by_country_reporting
• The United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research https://www.wider.unu.edu/about

Here’s a summary of the podcast: Tax Saves Lives

Naomi: “Isn’t it horrific that there are so many people across the world who still don’t have access to what we could call ‘survival rights?’ Things like basic sanitation. Clean water. Quality education. Decent healthcare so that mothers can survive childbirth. And so their children can even survive their childhood?! This is where tax justice gets the most urgent, because tax literally saves lives. I’m going to talk to people who’ve looked at new data that demonstrates this. And I wish every CEO, every company board member, shareholder and every government minister in the world would read their report. And then look us in the eye and tell us why they’re not moving every muscle in their body to do what is in their power to protect people, mothers and children. Because when they don’t, they do have blood on their hands.”

Eilish: “The world needs to start looking at tax as a human rights issue. Fair tax saves lives, tax abuse costs lives and the pathway to paying fair tax is through tax transparency. So corporations publishing their taxes and profits on a country by country basis, but also governments creating the right environment so that this is the norm, as opposed to the exception.”

Naomi: “That’s Eilish Hannah of St Andrew’s University, one of the authors of the report “How can corporate taxes contribute to to sub-Saharan Africa’s Sustainable Development Goals? A Case Study of Vodafone.” Let’s start with a big multinational company. This report looks at Vodafone which, to its credit, for quite a few years, voluntarily published its accounts in each country it did business in. And yes, incredibly, many multinationals don’t have to do that still, we’ll talk more about that in a bit. Here’s one of their adverts – rather appropriately, this one features a mother giving birth in what looks like the back of a taxi:”

Vodafone advert: https://youtu.be/RGHyy_cTz7I

Naomi: “Isn’t that great?! Mother and baby are both doing well, all thanks to Vodafone! Now, most of these kind of companies are headquartered in wealthy, politically powerful nations. Vodafone is headquartered in the UK. But of course, they do business in many countries around the world. As this advert demonstrates. It’s an ad for Vodafone’s subsidiary in South Africa, Vodacom. It shows what looks like an emergency medical centre in the middle of nowhere, with a doctor and nurse, again, highlighting the lifesaving benefits of a decent phone connection:”

Vodacom advert: https://youtu.be/p_gZprbbMkk

Naomi: “So, Vodacom saves lives! Each year a company like this meets with its board and its shareholders, they publish a glossy brochure on how well things are going, and they take a few votes. But the accounts section of their glossy brochures may well be incomplete. That’s because for a long time many of these companies have been able to bundle up all their accounts from each country where they do business into one final convenient figure. That means they didn’t have to tell us their profits based on the business they were doing in each country, making it very challenging for tax authorities in those countries. Add to the mix that they were often using a tax haven or two, and shifting things all over the place to minimise their taxes still further! Well, the Tax Justice Network fought the good fight, arguing that multinationals should publicly report on their activities, country-by-country. For years we were told that it was an impossible dream, that it would never happen. Then the EU kicked off public country-by-country reporting for banks many years ago. And then they implemented – a watered down – country by country reporting version for multinationals headquartered in some jurisdictions. Under pressure, the OECD introduced its own version of country-by-country reporting, for the largest multinationals in all industry sectors. But, the data is private, and only easily accessible for OECD members. The EU has now required that this information is published by reporting multinationals operating in their jurisdiction, but, only for EU countries and a few others. You can see that bit by bit, it is getting harder for multinationals to hide from paying fair taxes in the places they’re actually doing business. But there’s still a long way to go. Here’s Alex Cobham of the Tax Justice Network:”

Alex: “So as of today, more than 90 countries or jurisdictions have implemented country by country reporting for private data under the OECD standard. Now because that data is not public, and is only exchanged privately between tax authorities, the OECD reckons that there are more than 3,300 bi-lateral exchange of information arrangements for country by country reporting in place. But of those – 93, I think it is, jurisdictions who are participating in information exchange, only nine of them are African, only two of them are least developed countries, only 28 are middle income countries. So this is overwhelmingly favouring OECD members getting access, and much less so the rest of the world.”

Naomi: “Hm. So, for example, African countries are rarely the headquarter countries for the world’s largest multinationals, right? That’s why what the most powerful nations do about this is so important. And obviously, there are historical reasons why, for example, African countries are so disadvantaged when it comes to getting access to country by country reporting by multinationals. There’s a history of disempowerment of those nations that’s a continuation of empire and patterns of extraction. Here’s Rachel Etter-Phoya of the Tax Justice Network:”

Rachel: “It’s interesting looking at the history because public country by country reporting or just getting companies to disclose tax information is not something new. Already in the 1960s and ’70s African and Asian nations supporting the UN resolution on the new international economic order, were trying to gain sovereignty because they realised that even though they’d decolonised, the global economy was in the hands of the richest nations, in the hands of former imperial powers. And one of the ways this is done is through corporate power. Many of the multinationals are operating in these countries then, and still today are headquartered in the richest nations in the world, and those efforts of African and Asian nations through the UN was really undermined and the club of the rich, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development really took the reigns to try and maintain their control over designing tax rules and designing and deciding on what information gets shared or not. So, although when the Tax Justice Network two decades ago started to raise the call again for having, for the first time, public country by country reporting, corporate transparency in tax matters, the OECD said it was impossible and not gonna happen. And now today we do see progress, so the OECD now publishes some data that some companies and countries are providing to the OECD about where they are paying their taxes and profits. But, this is all anonymised, it’s not including all companies, it’s not including all countries. And this information is only available to tax authorities that are part of the global network, exchanging information, and the majority of the African countries are not part of this. Not because they don’t want to be, but because the way to get to join and the rules to be able to join are set by the OECD and there’s some hurdles that are just not possible at the stage for African countries to jump through. Particularly because they are former colonised states, and it was the way that the colonies worked and they were plundered and they weren’t able to, at those times, they were on the back foot when setting up systems. And so it means that there’s just not the right access to information, even though African and Asian nations have been calling for this, and Latin American countries as well.”

Naomi: “And so many of the OECD ‘rich country club’ member states are made up of – not only the worst global offenders for draining tax revenue from other countries, but a lot of them are former colonisers! And, before we get to the fascinating results looking at the data from Vodafone publishing its accounts country by country in six African nations – which we now know changed people’s lives – what can national governments do faced with multinationals taking advantage of rules that don’t force public reporting, country by country? Here’s Alex Cobham again:”

Alex: “If a multinational refuses to provide its country by country reporting data privately to its home country tax authority, or more likely if that home jurisdiction refuses to ask for the data in order to exchange it with others, then other countries are actually able in those circumstances to say to the multinational, ‘you’re operating in our country. And so you need to give us the information directly.’ This is what’s called local filing of country by country reporting data. But – that local filing is extremely rare, and in practice the local subsidiary of the multinational is able to say, ‘oh no, we don’t have that information. The parent of the group has that data, but they don’t give it to us, and so we can’t give it to you.’ So, you know, again, it’s just one of the ways in which this weakening of the OECD approach, moving away from public data, has ended up recreating these kind of power inequalities. Where the multinational’s able to say ‘no,’ it often will do.”

Naomi: “Charming! The realities of power, eh? How likely are some of the world’s less politically and economically powerful governments to push multinationals?”

Alex: “A country that’s weaker still has the power to demand local filing, and indeed you could demand local filing across the board rather than rely on information exchange. But you’d need, in a sense, the political support. In most cases, you know, this is a filing requirement, so you only have relatively small fines in place if companies don’t comply. Again, you could say, ‘this is a condition of operating in our economy. If you want to make money here, you have to give us this basic transparency.’ But that would take significant commitment from the government. Of course, you know, increasingly as this data is published by companies rather like Vodafone, voluntarily, but also companies that are reporting under the Global Reporting Initiative standard, which is a much more technically robust standard than the OECD one, countries can go, tax authorities can go and get that data themselves. Most excitingly, Australia has just published draft legislation that would require all multinationals over the size threshold operating in Australia to publish their country by country reporting data. And that would give a whole set of other countries around the world access to that data directly. So look, we’re on the road here. We’re gonna see more and more of this data being made public one way or another, both voluntarily and by mandate in different places. If the OECD was at all forward thinking, they’d say, ‘look, we need to get ahead of this. We need to finally respond to the public consultation that we did in 2020, to which the OECD has never published any response. What that showed overwhelmingly was that civil society and investors with trillions of dollars of assets under management were calling for the OECD simply to converge to the Global Reporting Initiative standard, which is much better, and to make the data public. That’s where this goes. You know, even the big four accounting firms are starting to recognise that that’s the end game. And it’s a question of, you know, whether they can drag their heels for another couple of years, or accept it and get ahead now. So, countries at all income levels will have access to this data soon enough, and the entire OECD architecture, both the relatively weak OECD standard, and this ridiculous mechanism for information exchange, will become obsolete fairly quickly. In the meantime though, we’re losing time, we’re losing tax revenues, we’re losing, as the Vodafone report shows, with those tax revenues, we’re losing the lives of children, of mothers. We’re losing public health and all sorts of public spending around the world. This is an urgent matter and we really should just move straight to public reporting, whichever way we can do it, wherever we are, as soon as possible.”

Naomi: “Yes indeed! With me now I’ve got Eilish Hannah from St Andrew’s University and, again, the Tax Justice Network’s Rachel Etter-Phoya. They’re co-authors of the report looking at how corporate taxes contribute to what’s known as the sustainable development goals. Let’s start with you Eilish on what those are, just quickly:”

Eilish: “Yes, sustainable development goals are a set of 17 interlinked goals, grounded in human rights law. They were adopted by the United Nations in 2015 as a continuation of the Millennium Development Goals. And basically their aim is to make sure that no human being is left behind and to make sure that our actions today don’t harm the wellbeing of the planet in the future and doesn’t harm the wellbeing of future generations. So the specific goals that we looked at in this paper were: access to basic sanitation and clean water, quality education, and then maternal and child survival rates, sustainable development goals three, four, and six. The climate change emergency and the pandemic sadly have threatened their progress, and in some cases they’ve actually reversed the progress we’ve made.”

Naomi: “Rachel, you’re in Malawi, you know yourself how the pandemic, the climate crisis, and other events have undermined progress on those goals?”

Rachel: “So yeah, here in Malawi, we were already reeling from high inflation, I guess the global economic crisis, the impact of the war in Ukraine, and then Cyclone Freddie hit, not just Malawi but Mozambique as well in particular. And it’s called so much devastation and people are starting to pick up their lives again now, working to rebuild. But it’s had a huge impact on the individual level, but also on the national level with government needing to respond to immediate needs, but also longer term planning to provide public services that work for everyone.”

Eilish: “Yeah, climate change is unfortunately causing ecosystem disruption in high and low income countries but very sadly, this is worse in lower income countries. Governments are having to spend more money and revenue and resources on recovering from natural disasters caused by climate change as opposed to the sustainable development goals.”

Rachel: “Yeah and so with the sustainable development goals, they’re a roadmap and it’s not just for governments to implement, but for everyone, so all sorts of organisations, including companies and the private sector, which is why we were looking at Vodafone in the paper.”

Eilish: “So our modelling looks at decades-worth of government spending data that it gets from UNU WIDER database, and the World Bank database, so we know that from looking at past spending habits over decades that you know, if they do have, see an increase in revenue, they do spend more on these rights, and it’s also supported in the literature as well.”

Naomi: “OK, so what did you find? Let’s look at Vodafone and the data you’ve looked at and analysed – you’ve looked at their tax contributions in six African countries. Vodafone voluntarily published its profits on a country by country basis, right?”

Eilish: “Yeah, at the time of the study, it was voluntarily publishing its taxes and profits on a country by country basis.”

Naomi: “Ha! That in itself is a sign to me of how far things have come because when I first started producing the Taxcast in 2012, Vodafone was one of the first big symbols of tax injustice in the UK that came to popular consciousness. There was a huge scandal about a sort of behind closed doors deal that they did with with the tax authorities in the UK after some clever corporate maneouver when they bought a company and then they routed the purchase through Luxembourg. Some estimates say they legally dodged paying £6 billion in tax, you know, all perfectly legal. Vodafone says the dispute was over a complex interpretation of the law and that various courts reviewed it before they settled. We only really knew about that agreement with the UK tax authority because of a very brave whistleblower, a tax lawyer working there at the time. And if you’re listening, thank you! There was also a protracted legal battle in India I remember with tax authorities there. Vodafone won that case in fact eventually, but they obviously decided that it was bad business to be fighting governments over tax. Now, whether their decision to voluntarily publish their activities at country by country level means they’re actually paying for taxes that they should, that’s another issue, isn’t it? I mean, that would take another study, but good for them that they did this, right?”

Eilish: “Yeah, I completely agree. I guess there’s no guarantee from what they’ve made publicly available that they’re paying their fair share of their tax liability, you know, the only way to know that I guess would be to do misalignment studies and to have a full set of their accounts. But as you say, Naomi, I think publishing your taxes and profits on a country by country basis is a really important transparency measure, and I guess you should give credit where credit’s due, so, yeah, there is public information available, which is why we chose them.”

Rachel: “Yeah, and a company can be doing something right in one area and be doing something really problematic in another area, so there was allegations in 2020 that one of the companies that are part of the Vodafone Group in Tanzania blocked network or blocked SMSs when they related to the opposition party, and obviously that had an outcome for the elections and so yeah, it’s really interesting to see how corporates engage, and Vodafone is very up front about it supporting the Sustainable Development Goals, and – it’s not always such a straightforward story.”

Naomi: “Yes, potentially not, although I imagine they’d deny that. Anyway, as far as I can tell today, Vodafone is not still voluntarily publishing its country by country accounts any more, which is interesting. It’s headquartered in the UK, which, by the way, had committed years ago to requiring multinationals to report publicly, country by country but guess what? They reneged on that in 2020. We’ve estimated, with others, that that could have recovered at least £2.5 billion in corporate tax every year for the UK Treasury. Anyway, tell me about the data from Vodafone and what you did with it?”

Eilish: “Yeah, of course. So we have an econometrician on the team who does the modelling, so he looks at the impact that increased government revenue will have on access to clean water, sanitation and education and then the impact that has on survival rates. So we used that modelling to get these results, and we looked at how much tax Vodafone paid in six African countries, so: Tanzania, Mozambique, Lesotho, Kenya, Ghana and the DRC. We looked at their contributions to these governments between 2007 to 2017, the average contribution in that time period, and then worked out how many people would have increased access to their rights and then increased survival rates from there. It’s probably important to mention, given we’ve brought up their tax controversies they had in 2012 that they only started publishing their tax reports on the country by country basis from 2012. So the estimates pre-2012 we’ve presumed is the same as the average between 2012 to 2017, which very well may not be the case. It may well be lower, so that is a limitation of the paper there.”

Naomi: “Again, so many reasons why transparency is important!”

Eilish: “Yeah, no, it’s true!”

Rachel: “And what’s interesting in the model is that you take the figure and look at how governments have historically allocated their budget and assume that the governments will continue to allocate their budget in the same way, so split between all the sectors government always spends on. And then also there’s a five year lag because the research shows that generally, even if there’s an increase in spending in a certain sector, there’s a time lag of course before it has an impact on children being able to go to school or have access to clean water.”

Eilish: “Yeah, exactly yeah, and that’s based on their past spending habits, so the decades-worth of data from the databases that we talked about before.”

Naomi: “Yes, so – if a government typically was allocating say 10% of its revenue to health spending for many years – we know now from Vodafone’s data that each government received a certain amount of revenue from Vodafone, then you’ve kind of looked at it as 10% of this revenue will also be allocated to each sector the government is spending on, you can actually track it and its effects? That’s how we know that Vodafone’s taxes did change lives, right?”

Eilish: “Yeah, it’s true.”

Naomi: “Right. So what did Vodafone’s taxes mean for people?”

Eilish: “So yeah, so because of the taxes Vodafone paid between 2007 to 2017 over these six countries, it allowed over a million people to gain access to basic sanitation each year, and nearly a million people to gain access to basic drinking water each year, and cumulatively over 800,000 children were able to spend the next year in school. And because of increased access to these rights, over 54,000 children survived, and almost 4,000 mothers survived. And that’s just one company in just six countries. So, imagine how great it would be if every company did that in, in every country.”

Naomi: “Amazing!”

Eilish: “It’s got huge potential!”

Rachel: “It does, and it shows us how important corporate income tax is and why it’s so important that companies are paying their fair share where they do their business and they don’t shift it offshore. And of course we’re not saying that Vodafone is paying their fair share, but just judging on what they declared, that has already had a huge impact with children and women and whole societies where they’re operating, which is really good. The other interesting thing that we observed is that the more income governments have, the better the governance is as well, so there’s sort of a virtuous circle between the relationship between government revenue and governance, which then also then has another positive impact on governments being able to deliver public services and use money efficiently, whether it’s raised through tax or through borrowing or other ways that the government generates income.”

Naomi: “Yeah and we know from your report that in lower income countries, even a small increase in government revenue does have a massive impact. I should say that that’s why the Tax Justice Network’s really supportive of non-profit public services, right, whether that’s state run or cooperative run, and I think you only have to look at the poor value for money that people in the United States get for healthcare access to see how important that is. Also, corporate tax is particularly important to lower and middle income countries because they get more of their share of tax revenues from that than in OECD countries, for example, where they have other tax bases to tax from, you know, like income tax?”

Eilish: “Yeah. Very sadly, in lower income countries, many individuals don’t have access to their fundamental rights or survival rights. Clean water, sanitation and quality education, which we know have been the most pivotal reason for increased survival rates over recent years. Everyone should have access to these rights in every country. And tax revenue is so important in these countries because it does increase access to these rights and the most realistic, feasible short to medium term solution for individuals to access these rights is through corporation tax, over any other form of tax.”

Rachel: “Mm. And so using the University of St. Andrew’s and the University of Leicester’s GRADE model, the government revenue and development estimations model, we find that an increase in revenue has a far greater impact for the number of children being able to attend school than in a richer country. So, an increase in corporate income tax just has a far greater impact for people and children being able to access their fundamental rights.”

Eilish: “Yeah. Because it’s – a lot of the rights they don’t have access to are cheaper than say it would be to increase survival rates in a higher income country.”

Naomi: “And something that comes up a lot in many countries is there’s a lack of trust in a tax system and in the governments that administer the tax system. There’s a popular belief, and not just in lower income countries, that taxes paid won’t actually translate into better services for ordinary people. I mean, people often don’t have a lot of trust that taxes will actually translate to a better life for them and that the state will use revenue in the public interest. What you would say to that?”

Eilish: “And it’s a really good question because that’s always the question that comes up, is government effectiveness. And so we’ve done some recent research looking at this, that has shown that increasing government revenue through tax does increase government effectiveness, and that’s supported by other studies. I mean, it does take time, so there’s a lag effect but you know, there’s multiple reasons why it does improve government effectiveness. So we know when they spend more on education, an educated populace will hold their government to account more.”

Naomi: “Yeah, this question is really all about one of our five Rs of tax, where we talk about representation being such an important aspect of tax in terms of building trust between the state and the people who live there. Improving representation is often a very neglected function of tax, but it’s so important. It’s very encouraging for us all to see that a large company like Vodafone is paying taxes into the system though isn’t it?”

Rachel: “Yeah, it’s really hard, isn’t it? ’cause if you see it as, I guess the, the state public purse as a bucket and you feel like you’re putting money in it, but it’s got holes and it’s coming out, it’s really hard to be motivated to pay tax. And I feel that on a personal level, even though I so deeply and fundamentally believe in tax justice, and tax justice is part and parcel of the same coin about the need to have tax justice, but we also need to have justice in expenditure, which has an impact on effectiveness. And I think those really go hand in hand, and yeah, as the research does show, increase in government revenue does have a positive impact on governance or government effectiveness, and therefore eventually on public services, it takes a long time, but it is a virtuous circle.”

Naomi: “Yeah, and again, it’s also about keeping the profit motive out of the public realm, profits from things like water and health really degrade that belief and trust people have that governments can act in the public interest when it comes to tax revenue. We’ve seen that slow degradation of trust in the UK as the public service space has been squeezed harder and harder and opened up to private interests.”

Rachel: “Yeah taxes save lives and our paper shows that, I mean taxes mean that more children go to school, can drink clean water, more mothers survive – this all contributes to sustainable development goals and to societies in a way the way where governments remain sovereign, I think that’s really important that a lot of the companies historically have talked a lot about their corporate social responsibility and have talked up all their investments in schools in the area where they’re working, like mining projects investing in schools, investing in farming cooperatives, is all really good and important, but if companies aren’t paying their fair share of tax and are actually just shifting the profits out of the countries, it means that governments are losing their revenue, losing their right, their sovereign right to decide how to use taxpayer’s tax money and determine how to allocate it best for the nation and government knows best, not companies.”

Naomi: “Yes, all that can take a very long time, for sure. But I think we can all agree here that if you’re a politically powerful wealthy country, you’re probably a member of the OECD, you have a responsibility to the rest of the world to make sure that any multinational company that is headquartered in your jurisdiction must do country by country reporting publicly. And if you’re not making that happen, then as I said earlier, you do have blood on your hands, because you’re not doing all that you can to uphold the rights of people, not necessarily people in your own population, obviously that’s important, but people who are living elsewhere too. And there is that duty – a legal duty – on governments in those wealthy countries where so many of these multinationals are headquartered.”

Eilish: “A hundred percent. I think the world needs to start looking at tax as a human rights issue. As this paper’s shown, fair tax saves lives, tax abuse costs lives. And as you say governments don’t only have a duty to respect, protect and fulfill rights in their own jurisdiction, they have extra territorial duties as well to protect human rights abroad. And if a corporation that they have under their jurisdiction is undermining those rights, then they have an obligation to do something about that. And also the corporation has a duty to respect those human rights by supporting those governments in those countries by paying their fair share of tax, so yeah, in not tackling tax abuse, corporations are failing in their human right duties, host countries – they’re failing in their human right duties and definitely home countries, like the higher income countries are a hundred percent failing in their human right duties.”

Naomi: “Yeah. Nearly all of them have signed up to the UN’s Convention on Human Rights and to support the sustainable development goals. So that is the way to do it!”

Eilish: “Yes. The only thing I would add is, you know, we’ve talked very much about the impact of tax in lower income countries, but, you know, it also does impact people living in higher income countries as well. The Tax Justice Network show that people who are living in higher income countries, they lose 8% of their health budget each year because of tax abuse, so while we facilitate it, we’re also kind of shooting ourselves in the foot in doing that as well, and, you know, higher income countries, we do still have our own issues, we’ve got increasing health inequalities, the most deprived in the UK, their life expectancy is now going down, and increasing our revenue through tax would help with that!”

Naomi: “Yes indeed. We need governments everywhere and their finance ministers to be on the right side of history here. Public country by country reporting will save lives.”

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (‘it’s your business’) produced and hosted by Grazielle David and Daniela Stefano. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode:

Crise climática, pandemia, guerra, Inflação e altas taxas de juros. Dois terços dos países do mundo tentam resolver as múltiplas crises com cortes nos gastos sociais ao invés de realizar reformas tributárias que garantam justiças fiscal e social.

Diante desse cenário, o episódio #48 do É da Sua Conta traz uma receita que garante aumentar a arrecadação sem mexer nos impostos. Como? Com 3 ingredientes: combate à sonegação fiscal, aumento na transparência, com registro de beneficiários finais de empresas, e revisão das isenções fiscais, principalmente as que são privilégios. Transcrição: #48 É da Sua conta**

No É da sua conta #48:

• Contexto brasileiro: Marco Antonio Rocha, professor de economia na Universidade Estadual de Campinas, explica o novo marco fiscal, taxa de juros e inflação. Traz também alternativas de políticas econômicas que beneficiariam mais a maioria da população brasileira.
• Combate à Sonegação: Clair Hickman, do Instituto de Justiça Fiscal, traz a receita prática do que precisa ser feito para que os 200 bilhões de dólares parados no CARF sejam julgados e estejam à serviço da cidadania.
• Transparência fiscal: Florência Lorenzo, da Tax Justice Network, explica como o registro de beneficiários finais pode contribuir para aumentar receitas.
• Revisão das isenções fiscais: Rui Mate, do Centro de Integridade Pública, revela os custos dos benefícios fiscais de transnacionais que atuam no Moçambique e sugere que governo avalie se vale a pena liberar o solo para a extração de minérios.
• Juvândia Moreira, da Central Única dos Trabalhadores e Trabalhadoras, conta como centrais sindicais pressionam o governo para mudanças no CARF e envia um recado à audiência do É da Sua Conta.

“O governo poderia ter optado por uma trajetória mais longa de estabilização da dívida pública e, com isso, ampliar o gasto público no curto prazo para poder viabilizar uma série de políticas públicas que foram promessas de campanha. ”
~ Marco Antonio Rocha, Universidade Estadual de Campinas

“São 18 anos para a decisão final de uma autuação fiscal. Para diminuir o tempo de litigiosidade “o Ministro da Fazenda precisa determinar que Receita Federal e CARF sigam a mesma interpretação da lei.”
~ Clair Hickman, Instituto de Justiça Fiscal

“Um sistema de intercâmbio de informação entre autoridades tributárias só funciona se toda empresa que abrir uma conta bancária em outro país tiver que registrar e fazer pública a informação sobre os beneficiários finais.”
~ Florência Lorenzo, Tax Justice Network

“Percebendo-se que os benefícios só vão criar custos, não há necessidade de atribuir benefícios. Olhando concretamente para o setor extrativo, o recurso está na terra. Se o custo (à sociedade moçambicana) vai ser superior que a sua exploração, é melhor deixar lá.”~ Rui Mate, Centro de Integridade Pública

“Se o Estado está arrecadando menos e está investindo menos para gerar emprego e renda, é porque alguém está deixando de pagar imposto. E esse alguém são as grandes empresas.”~ Juvândia Moreira, Central Única dos Trabalhadores e Trabalhadoras

“Cada renúncia fiscal indevida é uma pessoa a mais passando fome, é uma pessoa sem creche, é uma pessoa sem médico, é uma pessoa sem medicamento no posto de saúde. É isso que nós não queremos continuar assistindo.”
~ Fernando Haddad, Ministro brasileiro da Fazenda

Participantes:

• Clair Hickman, Instituto de Justiça Fiscal
• Florencia Lorenzo, pesquisadora da Tax Justice Network
• Juvândia Moreira, Central Única dos Trabalhadores e Trabalhadoras (CUT)
• Marco Antonio Rocha, professor de economia da Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp, São Paulo)
• Rui Mate, Centro de Integridade Pública (CIP)
• Extra: áudios do ministro da Fazenda, Fernando Haddad, disponíveis em: O novo arcabouço fiscal vai permitir que o país cresça com sustentabilidade, Tikitok do ministro da economia, Fernando Haddad, Haddad anuncia medidas econômicase e diz: “era melhor não ter tido CARF do que ter desse jeito”, vídeo no Youtube

Saiba Mais:

• Haddad anuncia pacote de R$ 242 bi para melhorar contas públicas, artigo de Welton Máximo, Agência Brasil
• Transparência de benficiários finais na África e América Latina: avanços mais ainda há mais a fazer – artigo em espanhol de Eva Danzi, da Tax Justice Network

Episódios relacionados:

• CARF permite abusos fiscais bilionários #40
• EUA: maiores facilitadores da corrupção global #37

~ Como aumentar arrecadação sem aumentar impostos?É da sua conta é o podcast mensal em português da Tax Justice Network. Coordenação: Naomi Fowler. Produção e apresentação: Daniela Stefano e Grazielle David. Download gratuito. Reprodução livre para rádios.

View Details

Welcome to our Spanish language podcast and radio programme Justicia ImPositiva with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, free to download and broadcast on radio networks across Latin America and Spain. ¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a nuestro podcast y programa radiofónico! Escuche por su app de podcast. (All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here.)

En este programa con Marcelo Justo y Marta Nuñez:

• El sistema bancario mundial, ¿otra vez en la cuerda floja? ¿Quién va a pagar los platos rotos?
• Los países centrales se apartan del paradigma neoliberal. La reacción en América Latina.
• Cómo salvar los servicios públicos en épocas de crisis.
• Y el debate sobre el modelo fiscal de Colombia y su proyección para la región.

INVITADOS:

• Oscar Ugarteche Director del Observatorio Global Latinoamericano, OBELA, profesor de la Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM) y autor de Historia Critica del FMI
• Bruno Susani, doctorado de la Universidad de París y autor de “La economía oligárquica de Macri”
• Magdalena Sepulveda, Directora de la Iniciativa Global de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales
• César Caballero Reynoso, Gerente de Cifras y Conceptos, Colombia www.cifrasyconceptos.com

~ El sistema bancario mundial, ¿otra vez en la cuerda floja?MÁS INFORMACIÓN:

• Enlace de descarga para las emisoras: https://traffic.libsyn.com/j-impositiva/JI_abril_23.mp3
• Subscribase a nuestro RSS feed: http://j_impositiva.libsyn.com/rss
• O envien un correo electronico a Naomi [@] taxjustice.net para ser
  incorporado a nuestra lista de suscriptores.
• Sigannos por twitter en http://www.twitter.com/J_ImPositiva
• Estamos tambien en facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Justicia-ImPositiva-1464800660510982/

View Details

Welcome to the 64th edition of our Arabic podcast/radio show Taxes Simply الجباية ببساطة contributing to tax justice public debate around the world. It’s produced and presented by Walid Ben Rhouma and is available on most podcast apps. Any radio station is welcome to broadcast it for free and websites are also welcome to share it. You can follow the programme on Facebook, on Twitter and on our website. All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here.

في العدد #64 من بودكاست الجباية ببساطة إستضاف وليد بن رحومة الصحفي الإستقصائي محمد اليوسفي للحديث عن تحقيق صدر بموقع الكتيبة تحت عنوان “رجل الأعمال التونسيّ الطيّب البيّاحي في مغسلة الأموال القبرصيّة”. وجاء في التحقيق معطيات عن شبهات تبييض أموال وتهرّب ضريبي لحقت رجال أعمال تونسيّين من خلال الحصول على جوازات سفر ذهبيّة في قبرص اليونانيّة ومن ثم تكوين شركات خفيّة (بشكل مخالف للقانون التونسي) تنشط في مجالات مشبوهة.Tunisia: The Cypriot laundrette at the service of tax evaders: in episode #64 of the Taxes Simply podcast, Walid Ben Rhouma speaks with investigative journalist Mohamed Al-Yousifi about his recently published investigation on “Alqatiba” website titled: “Tunisian businessman Taieb Bayahi in the Cypriot money laundrette.” The investigation reveals suspected money laundering and tax evasion by Tunisian businessmen through the purchase of golden passports in Greek Cyprus and then forming anonymous companies.

تونس: المغسلة القبرصيّة في خدمة المتهرّبين من الضرائبتابعونا على صفحتنا على الفايسبوك وتويتر https://www.facebook.com/ TaxesSimply Tweets by taxes_simply

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in French, Impôts et Justice Sociale with Idriss Linge of the Tax Justice Network. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages every month in English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here and on most podcast apps. Here’s our latest episode:

Dans cette édition de votre podcast Impôts et Justice Sociale produit par Tax Justice Network, nous revenons sur la publication du rapport de la transparence sur les bénéficiaires effectifs en Afrique, avec Eva Danzi, chercheuse chez Tax Justice Network. Nous vous proposons aussi une discussion que nous avons eue avec « Jules », un citoyen africain, avec lequel nous avons échangé des différentes activités de plaidoyer en cours pour une meilleure justice fiscale et sociale en Afrique.

Intervient dans ce podcast:

• ‘Jules,’ Citoyen Africain, Invité du Podcast, Cotonou, Bénin
• Eva Danzi: Chercheuse, Tax Justice Network

~ Quelle transparence pour la déclaration des bénéficiaires effectifs en Afrique? #48Vous pouvez suivre le Podcast sur:

• Le télécharger pour l’écouter hors connexion sous le sous ce lien
• Notre page facebook à l’adresse: https://www.facebook.com/impôts et justice sociale/
• Notre Twitter: www.twitter.com/ImpotsSociale
• La publication sur Youtube et notre site web www.impotsetjusticesociale.com
• Et pour ceux qui ont l’application Stitcher et iTunes ect
• Si vous souhaitez recevoir cette production ou être média partenaires ou simplement contribuer, vous pouvez nous écrire à l’adresse Impôts_sociale@outlook.fr

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (‘it’s your business’) produced and hosted by Grazielle David and Daniela Stefano. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode:

Cuidados com o lar, crianças, idosos, pessoas com doenças; trabalho precarizado e mal remunerado: as mulheres estãos exaustas! E a culpa também é dos super ricos … que seguem ditando as regras do jogo e contribuindo menos do que deveriam com impostos.

Orçamento público para serviços de cuidados por meio de uma tributação justa para aliviar o cansaço das mulheres, ao mesmo tempo em que se garante o direito ao cuidado de todas as pessoas, é o tema do episódio #47 do É da sua conta. Transcrição do episódio

No É da sua conta #47:

• Como as crises ambientais, econômicas, sanitárias e outras afetam proporcionalmente mais a vida das mulheres
• A relação secular entre a riqueza de alguns bilionários – a maioria no norte global – com a pobreza de milhares de mulheres – a maioria no sul global
• Nós mulheres estamos exaustas: ouvintes contam como lidam com as múltiplas jornadas e sugerem políticas públicas que aliviem essa sobrecarga.
• A tributação justa como solução: desigualdades de gênero na estrutura dos sistemas tributários devem ser corrigidas e deve-se investir em sistemas públicos de cuidados.

“Se traçarmos uma linha contínua, desde a colonização, a escravatura, vemos que são processos de extração de força de trabalho de populações periféricas, que estão na base da produção de riqueza para os grandes magnatas do capitalismo. As mulheres na África, América Latina e Caribe e Ásia continuam a ser exploradas através do trabalho produtivo e também reprodutivo.” ~ Âurea Mouzinho, Aliança Global para a Justiça Fiscal

“Na verdade, meu companheiro e filho contribuem com uma tarefa ou outra, um dia ou outro. É uma divisão desigual porque, no dia a dia, essa responsabilidade recai sobre mim.” ~ Teresinha Menezes, educadora social

“As noites são especialmente difíceis porque não temos cuidadora para um suporte prático nesse horário. Muito do meu trabalho é executado on line, às vezes no horário noturno. É comum que minha mãe não compreenda o que significa estar em chamada de vídeo e queira me interromper a todo custo. E isso com certeza gera algum grau de ansiedade a mais.” ~ Deborah Delage, consultora em amamentação

“Meu maior desafio é na hora de sair; pegar um transporte público com meu filho, uma criança de colo, pois as condições não são boas, está sempre cheio, às vezes não tem lugar para sentar. Vou levar o meu filho para a creche a pé e não tem como andar nas calçadas com o carrinho porque é esburacada, tem muitos desníveis.” ~ Michele Carvalho, artesã

“Os governos precisam reduzir a carga tributária injusta das mulheres e adotar uma tributação progressiva, redistributiva e igualitária de gênero. E isso inclui novas formas de tributação sobre o capital e a riqueza, bem como depender menos de impostos sobre o consumo também é importante.” ~ Roos Saalbrink, Action Aid

“É preciso gerar receitas e financiar uma transição para um sistema de cuidados público e formalizado. Os recursos para isso podem ser levantados a partir de políticas de justiça fiscal. A Tax Justice Network calcula que todos os anos se perdem quase meio trilhão de dólares para abusos fiscais causados por grandes multinacionais e de indivíduos muito ricos. Esses são recursos que poderiam ajudar a financiar essa transição.” ~ Florência Lorenzo, Tax Justice Network

“Um serviço público que eu pudesse contar seria o educativo, pra envolver toda a família nos cuidados, principalmente os homens, porque viemos de uma criação muito machista, muito preconceituosa. E a educação e os exemplos movem muito mais.” ~ Carla Avelina, administradora de empresas

“Reconhecer que a carga da mulher é maior é o primeiro passo para que a gente possa olhar e dizer que a gente pode dividir tarefas para que se reduza essa pressão sobre elas.” ~ Ivandro Claudino, analista de sistemas

Participantes:

• Âurea Mouzinho, Aliança Global para a Justiça Fiscal
• Carla Avelina, administradora de empresas
• Deborah Delage, consultora em amamentação
• Florencia Lorenzo, pesquisadora da Tax Justice Network
• Ivandro Claudino, analista de sistemas
• Michele Carvalho, artesã
• Roos Saalbrink, Assessora política em justiça econômica e serviços públicos responsivos a gênero na ActionAidTeresinha Menezes, educadora social

~ Mulheres exaustas: a culpa é dos super ricos #47Saiba Mais:

• A mulher malabarista: manutenção da vida e da economia do cuidado, cartilha do Instituto Equit.
• Mulheres e Cuidado – Perspectivas sobre a organização social de um bem público essencial, Revista Tuba, publicada por Ondjango Feminista
• The Care Contradiction – Action Aid e ISP, 2022
• Episódios relacionados: Por que mulheres são mais tributadas que os homens? #23

Conecte-se com a gente!
www.edasuaconta.com
Twitter
Facebook
Plataformas de áudio: Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Deezer
Inscreva-se: info@edasuaconta.com
Download do podcast em MP3: https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/edasuaconta/PP_47.mp3

É da sua conta é o podcast mensal em português da Tax Justice Network. Coordenação: Naomi Fowler. Produção e apresentação: Daniela Stefano e Grazielle David. Dublagem: Cecília Figueiredo. Download gratuito. Reprodução livre para rádios.

View Details

Welcome to our Spanish language podcast and radio programme Justicia ImPositiva with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, free to download and broadcast on radio networks across Latin America and Spain. ¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a nuestro podcast y programa radiofónico! Escuche por su app de podcast. (All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here.)

En este programa con Marcelo Justo y Marta Nuñez:

• El reino de los narcobanqueros en Ecuador: tambalea el gobierno de Guillermo Lasso
• América Latina, la necesidad de un nuevo modelo y un pacto fiscal en entrevista con la CEPAL
• La reforma impositiva de Gustavo Petro en Colombia y la pequeña y mediana industria
• El debate sobre la moneda alternativa al dólar para los intercambios de América Latina

Invitadxs:

• Andrés Arauz, economista y ex candidato a la presidencia ecuatoriana
• Daniel Titelman, director de la división de desarrollo económico de la Comisión Económica para América Latina (CEPAL)
• Maria Alejandra Osorio Arias, Directora Ejecutiva, ACOPI, central de pequeñas y medianas empresas en Colombia
• Oscar Ugarteche, Director del Observatorio Global Latinoamericano, OBELA, profesor de la Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, y autor de Historia Critica del FMI

~ Narcobanqueros, la reforma impositiva Colombiana, moneda alternativaMÁS INFORMACIÓN:

• Enlace de descarga para las emisoras: https://traffic.libsyn.com/j-impositiva/JI_marzo_23.mp3
• Subscribase a nuestro RSS feed: http://j_impositiva.libsyn.com/rss
• O envien un correo electronico a Naomi [@] taxjustice.net para ser
  incorporado a nuestra lista de suscriptores.
• Sigannos por twitter en http://www.twitter.com/J_ImPositiva
• Estamos tambien en facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Justicia-ImPositiva-1464800660510982/

View Details

Welcome to the 63rd edition of our Arabic podcast/radio show Taxes Simply الجباية ببساطة contributing to tax justice public debate around the world. It’s produced and presented by Walid Ben Rhouma and is available on most podcast apps. Any radio station is welcome to broadcast it for free and websites are also welcome to share it. You can follow the programme on Facebook, on Twitter and on our website. All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here.

في العدد #63 من بودكاست الجباية ببساطة استضاف وليد بن رحومة الباحثة مزن النيل لمناقشة ورقة بحثية بعنوان “السياسة اليومية للنظام الضريبي في السودان: تحديد ٱفاق الإصلاح” المنشورة ضمن مجموعة الصراع والمدنية البحثية التابعة لجامعة LSE بالمملكة المتحدة بالتعاون مع ماثيو بنسون ورجاء مكاوي. وتحدثت مزن النيل عن قصور النظام الضريبي السوداني في توزيع الثروة بشكل عادل سواء بين الأفراد أو الجهات زيادة على إعتماد الإقتصاد السوداني على الأنشطة الريعية دون إدماج لمختلف الفئات في العملية الإنتاجية.In episode #63 of Taxes Simply podcast, Walid Ben Rhouma hosts researcher Muzan Al-Nil to discuss her recently published paper entitled “The Everyday Politics of Sudan’s Tax System: Identifying Prospects for Reform,” published within the Conflict and Civility Research Group of LSE University in the United Kingdom, in collaboration with Matthew Benson and Rajaa Makkawi. Muzan discusses the failure of the Sudanese tax system in distributing wealth fairly, and the dependence of the Sudanese economy on rentier activities.

~ السودان: سياسة الولاءات وتركيز الثروات عبر الضرائبتابعونا على صفحتنا على الفايسبوك وتويتر https://www.facebook.com/ TaxesSimply Tweets by taxes_simply

View Details

We’re sharing this excellent live discussion between Caribbean Economist and Advisor Marla Dukharan, Alex Cobham, Economist and Chief Executive of the Tax Justice Network, and Professor Steven Dean, Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, “to find out the truth about the world’s biggest financial secrecy jurisdictions, the racial bias behind the tax blacklisting of former European colonies and developing states, and the history behind the discrimination in a global tax system designed to favour wealthy states.”

You can read Marla Dukharan’s research on the EU Blacklist here and there’s more further reading on this below.

We’ve written many times about the farce of the EU’s tax haven (and other) blacklists and how, if you want an objectively verifiable ranking, you need look no further than the Tax Justice Network’s Financial Secrecy Index. As Alex Cobham writes here, “There’s a long and largely ignominious tradition of tax haven blacklists, mainly at the OECD and IMF. They’ve tended to be subjective efforts, naming economically smaller jurisdictions with less political power, and steering well clear of major financial centres – regardless of their behaviour.” And incredibly, the EU’s tax haven list only applies to non-EU member states – and tortuously manages to not identify the US as non-cooperative, despite its well-earned #1 position on the Financial Secrecy Index. Well, how convenient…

Further reading:

• Barbados Today: https://barbadostoday.bb/2023/03/01/now-or-never/
• La Estrella de Panama (see Asi o Mas Claro? I and II): https://www.laestrella.com.pa/opinion/la-llorona/230307/llorona-7-marzo-2023
• Prof Steven Dean: https://www.brooklaw.edu/Contact-Us/Dean-Steven
• Colombia’s summit – our press release https://taxjustice.net/press/davos-colombia-announces-latin-americas-first-global-tax-summit-as-countries-gear-up-for-un-tax-negotiations/ and the Ministry of Finance page: https://www.minhacienda.gov.co/webcenter/portal/TributacionIncluyente/pages_TributacionIncluyente

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (‘it’s your business’) produced and hosted by Grazielle David and Daniela Stefano. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode:

É possível extrair minérios sem extrair vidas? Sim, mas é necessário cumprir e fortalecer as regulações e fiscalização do setor mineral, inclusive via tributação. As empresas de mineração são as que menos contribuem com impostos e o setor que extrai combustíveis fósseis é o que mais recebe subsídios governamentais no mundo.

Sobre a importância da tributação: 3,250 é o número de ambulâncias que poderiam ser compradas pelo município de Parauapebas (PA), na região amazônica, apenas se a Vale não desviasse lucros para paraísos fiscais e pagasse o que deve em Compensação Financeira pela Exploração Mineral, a CFEM.

Este é um dos dados de um estudo a ser lançado neste mês de março de 2023 sobre os abusos fiscais da Vale no Brasil e que é um dos destaques do episódio #46 do É da Sua Conta, que mostra que a tributação pode contribuir para que a mineração seja mais justa para as populações e o meio ambiente.

No É da sua conta #46: Transcrição

• Estudo inédito que mostra quanto a Vale deixou de pagar ao Brasil em CFEM no período de 10 anos e o que isso significa pras populações afetadas.
• Pessoas vizinhas a projetos de mineração de alumínio no Pará contam como estão sendo afetadas.
• Após 15 anos explorando mina de carvão em Moçambique, Vale se retira do projeto. O que ficou para os moçambicanos?
• Transparência no setor e cooperação tributária entre países são necessidades para a justiça fiscal na mineração.

Participantes:

• Giliad de Souza Silva, professor da Faculdade de Ciências Econômicas da Universidade Federal do Sul e Sudeste do Pará (Unifesspa)
• Inocência Mapisse, economista especializada em tributação e mineração
• Rachel Etter-Phoya, pesquisadora da Tax Justice Network
• Tádzio Coelho, professor da Universidade Federal de Viçosa, coordenador do Estudo a ser lançado em março de 2023, em parceria com associação Justiça nos Trilhos e Rede Igrejas e Mineração.

~ É possível extrair minérios sem extrair vidas? #46“Aqui no Malawi gostamos de falar que os minerais não são como milho ou mangas, porque não voltam a crescer. E é por isso que temos apenas uma chance de acertar os sistemas.”
~ Rachel Etter-Phoya, Tax Justice Network

“Pela Vale, houve um sub faturamento de CFEM de 1,8 bilhão de reais, o que vai dar, em dólares, 352 milhões de dólares. Mas a gente tem também as perdas que foram causadas à União, ao Estado do Pará, ao Estado de Minas Gerais e aos municípios das prefeituras onde a Vale mantém algum tipo de atividade mineradora referente à extração de minério de ferro.”
~ Tádzio Coelho, UFV

“O debate da CFEM é importante para pensar como essa contribuição se transforma em despesa e como ela pode estimular atividades econômicas que não são predatórias com os biomas onde esses territórios estão.”
~ Giliad de Souza Silva, Unifesspa

“A fiscalização, a monitoria, o controle são fundamentais em todas as fases – a descoberta, produção e exportação. Tem se garantir a presença do Estado e que haja monitoria nessas atividades.”
~ Inocência Mapisse, economista

Saiba Mais:

• Vale decide desinvestir em Moçambique – análise do Centro de Integridade Pública (CIP) por Inocência Mapisse e Rui Mate
• Justiça Nos Trilhos
• Podcast Raízes e Fronteiras, Universidade de Strathclyde e Rede Social de Justiça e Direitos Humanos

Episódios relacionados:

• O que ganhamos com isenções fiscais? #6
• A maldição da financeirização #8

É da sua contaé o podcast mensal em português da Tax Justice Network. Coordenação: Naomi Fowler. Produção e apresentação: Daniela Stefano e Grazielle David. Dublagem: Cecília Figueiredo. Agradecimentos: Thaís Borges, Rede Social de Justiça e Direitos Humanos e Universidade de Strathclyde. Download gratuito. Reprodução livre para rádios. Nosso site é www.edasuaconta.com

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in French, Impôts et Justice Sociale with Idriss Linge of the Tax Justice Network. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages every month in English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here and on most podcast apps. Here’s our latest episode:

Pour cette 47ème édition de votre podcast en français sur la justice fiscale et sociale en Afrique et dans le monde produit par Tax Justice Network, nous partageons avec vous quelques réflexions qui ont été soulevées lors de la conférence alternative de la société civile africaine au Mining Indaba 2023. Il aura été question de transparence sur les bénéficiaires effectifs, ceux qui en dernier ressort profitent des retombés de l’exploitation des ressources minières. Il a aussi été question de la prise en compte des intérêts des communautés riveraines des projets miniers. Pour en discuter nous vous proposons une conversation avec deux acteurs importants de la société civile d’Afrique francophone

• Maitre Jean-Paul Mulyanga : Directeur du Bureau de Liaison avec le Parlement pour la Conférence National Episcopale de RDC
• Birahime Seck : Coordinateur du Forum Civil, Sénégal

~ Exploitation minière et transition énergétique en Afrique: Leçons de l’Alternative Mining Indaba 2023 #47Vous pouvez suivre le Podcast sur:

• Le télécharger pour l’écouter hors connexion sous le sous ce lien
• Notre page facebook à l’adresse: https://www.facebook.com/impôts et justice sociale/
• Notre Twitter: www.twitter.com/ImpotsSociale
• La publication sur Youtube et notre site web www.impotsetjusticesociale.com
• Et pour ceux qui ont l’application Stitcher et iTunes ect
• Si vous souhaitez recevoir cette production ou être média partenaires ou simplement contribuer, vous pouvez nous écrire à l’adresse Impôts_sociale@outlook.fr

View Details

Welcome to the latest episode of the Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast, the Taxcast. You can subscribe either by emailing naomi [at] taxjustice.net or find us on your podcast app. All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. In this edition of the Taxcast:

After 30 years on the run, Italy’s most wanted fugitive Matteo Messina Denaro of the Cosa Nostra has been arrested in Sicily. We look at the costs of organised crime, both economic and societal, the contagion that financial secrecy facilitates, and how to reverse the rot.

Secrecy jurisdictions and tax havens have made it possible for mafiosi to progress from crossing physical borders with bank notes stuffed in suitcases, to being able to pour unlimited amounts of money into the financial system. Dirty money in, ‘clean’ money out. That money destabilises economies and corrupts democracies, while organised crime toxifies societies. The problem is that financial secrecy and tax havens are also the friend of commerce, multinationals and very wealthy, powerful people worldwide…

A transcript of the podcast is available here. (Some is automated)

Featuring:

• Professor of Criminology, Federico Varese
• Journalist, Stefano Vergine
• Surgeon in Malta and opinon piece writer, Kevin Cassar
• Hosted and produced by Naomi Fowler of the Tax Justice Network

“The mafia is not just a criminal phenomenon linked to money laundering, it’s a political, social and economic phenomenon. They interfere in the political process, they interfere in economic development. Ultimately we need State reform in all its parts. It really requires a fight against entrenched special interests.”

~ Professor Federico Varese

“Many banks and financial authorities don’t really care about who their customers are as long as they bring money in.”

~ Journalist, Stefano Vergine

“Some of these criminal organisations have a turnover every year which is basically the size of our economy…it is extremely difficult for journalists to do their job, it’s almost impossible to get clear answers.”

~ Surgeon, and opinion writer in Malta, Kevin Cassar

~ Organised crime and financial secrecyFurther reading:

• Dear European Court of Justice: You Were Played
• This Luxembourg Businessman Got Europe’s Corporate Registries Shut Down. But Whose Privacy Was He Protecting?
• Malta, the Mafia’s paradise, by Kevin Cassar

Here’s a summary of the podcast:

Naomi: “On this month’s Taxcast – the friend of organised crime and mafia networks is financial secrecy. Secrecy jurisdictions and tax havens have made it possible for mafias to progress from crossing physical borders with bank notes stuffed in suitcases, to being able to pour unlimited amounts of money into the financial system. Dirty money in, ‘clean’ money out. That money destabilises economies and corrupts democracies, while mafias toxify societies using force and fear. But the problem is that financial secrecy and tax havens are also the friend of commerce, multinationals and very wealthy, powerful people worldwide. That’s why the obvious solution of opening up secrecy jurisdictions is so hard to achieve.

I spend a lot of my time in Sicily, it’s a place that’s been limited for so long by the obsession people outside seem to have with the Sicilian mafia and the Cosa Nostra. Actually, the Cosa Nostra, as it once was, has been in decline for years, there’s been a lot of determination and bravery on the part of some Italian police and investigators. In my local town, the days when the judge had to have 24 hour guards with machine guns outside his house are long over. Actually he got sent to Calabria where the southern Italian mafias have become an even greater threat. Back on the island of Sicily though, something monumental just happened in January 2023:”

[Clips of shouts in the street as Matteo Messina Denaro is arrested, police sirens]

Naomi: “After 30 years on the run, Italy’s most wanted Cosa Nostra fugitive has been arrested. Matteo Messina Denaro boasted he could fill a graveyard with all his victims. You can hear the applause of passers by gathered on the street, some of them trying to hug the policemen, one of them is tearful.”

[Clip of applause from people in the street, and sirens]

Naomi: “Matteo Messina Denaro was sentenced in his absence for murders, including those of anti-mafia judges Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino in the 90s. That was a real turning point for many Sicilians, it’s a wound that goes deep to this day. Most main squares in Sicily are named after these two judges. In my local town square there’s a huge billboard with a famous photo of the two of them together. Written above it it says ‘citta contro tutte le mafie’ ‘city against all mafias.’ Back to the arrest of Matteo Messina Denaro:”

Professor Varese: “It’s wonderful news that he was arrested. He has been a fugitive for 30 years, he was the last big bosses to be a fugitive.”

Naomi: “This is Professor of Criminology and organised crime expert Federico Varese:”

Professor Varese: “It’s an amazing achievement, it was not easy to arrest him. The net was closing on him. People close to him had been arrested only a few months earlier..so you could somewhat imagine that this was coming, but it’s a fantastic news. It’s also symbolically very important because this man has been one of the most ruthless, violent, terrible killers in the history of the Sicilian Mafia, of course, he murdered women and children, he is one of the killers of Falcone. So it’s the end of an era.”

Naomi: “The end of an era for Cosa Nostra, I hope, compared to how it was in the past, but other mafia networks in Southern Italy like the Camorra and N’drangheta are still strong, still powerful and very dangerous. So if we look at the scale, just of all of the Italian mafias, I mean, it’s difficult to estimate these things as I know from the Tax Justice Network’s work, and the fact that transparency, and financial transparency isn’t there in so many places, but I’ve been looking at the estimated turnover of mafia business in Italy – according to the Bank of Italy it’s worth 2% of Italian GDP, that’s about 38 billion euros a year, that’s 104 million euros a day of dirty money washing through the system. I mean, can you speak to the scale and, you know, how big this is because 2% doesn’t sound like a lot, but it really is.”

Professor Varese: “Yeah, 2% is a lot. And the Bank of Italy is very reliable. There have been other numbers floating around like 7%, that’s I think, too much. It’s really important to see how this money, this figure is constructed. Uh, there is a lot of confusion over this because obviously what the mafia does, it extorts or ‘protects,’ depending on the point of view, businesses. So businesses pay a cut of their profit to the organisation mainly in Western Sicily, where the mafia is most rooted. And so we have to distinguish the business from the mafia income. So the business remains independent and makes money, but there is also often a tendency to confuse the turnover of the business with the profit of the business, with the profit of the mafia. And so it’s very, very hard to construct meaningful estimates. You can say that the Sicilian mafia is certainly in decline, partly because of this massive pressure from the police, and also because they have left the drugs trade. So they’re not any more involved in drugs as they used to be. Uh, now you can estimate the number of crime families, which are in Western Sicily and with some of them also in Eastern Sicily. And this is a number around 80 and the estimates of the membership is between one thousand and 400 ‘made’ members. So you can work out from that, but of course, not everybody makes all that much money, I mean, some are soldiers in the organisation who are probably just scraping through, and some, of course the bosses make much more. So it’s very hard to put a number to that. Certainly the Bank of Italy is a reliable source.

Another way to think about this is that there is an office, a procurator’s office in Palermo, which is responsible for managing property that are confiscated from people who are connected to the mafia, not necessarily mafia members, but also people connected to the mafia. So again, you can argue that maybe these confiscations happen very easily, but they estimate to have confiscated a third of the value of the Sicilian economy, so it’s a lot of money, so that would include items confiscated from people who are connected to the mafia, but not necessarily in the mafia so this goes also could be people who just pay protection money, which of course is illegal in Italy.”

Naomi: “So, you can see what a huge effect Cosa Nostra has had in Sicily all these years. As Professor Varese’s work has shown, Cosa Nostra tends to stay relatively local where they can maintain the tightest control with people they trust, but one of their favourite jurisdictions to launder money is in nearby Malta. Just one investigation not so long ago discovered people with links to Cosa Nostra were generating €14 million a month through illegal online gaming there. Some of that cash generated was being reinvested in legitimate businesses. But we’ll get back to Malta in a minute. This is journalist Stefano Vergine:”

Stefano: “What we know for sure is that over the last years, Italian authorities seized around 4 billion euros that allegedly belongs to Messina Denaro. It’s money that Messina Denaro invested through a number of his affiliates in legal businesses like supermarkets, wind farms, tourist companies, and also a lot of works of art. These assets were all in Italy, mainly in Sicily. The investments of course, were not done by him, they were done by people close to him. But of course, this might not be the whole wealth belonging to Messina Denaro. So, where could be the rest of his money? And for sure, we know that the global financial system provides a number of tools that help criminal organisations invest money. I’m thinking especially about tax havens and countries that guarantee the anonymity to beneficial owners of companies and of bank account holders. I’m thinking about Switzerland, for example, which borders Italy. Until a few years ago, bank secrecy was completely in place in Switzerland, and that means that if an Italian, for example, went to a Swiss bank with a bag full of cash, this person could deposit the money and no one would ever know this in Italy, neither judicial authorities. Now, things have partially changed and Switzerland started to exchange data of account holders with the authorities of countries that are part of the OECD. Still, hiding money, however is possible. And there are many places in the world that allow this to happen, officially or unofficially. One way is, for example, by using offshore companies linked to bank accounts that are based in a country where authorities don’t actually check properly who their client is. Let me mention some examples that I found out in my job – in 2016 on the magazine L’Espresso, along with a group of colleagues, part of ICIJ, we worked on the Panama Papers and we found out the names of dozens of offshore companies managed by a number of trusted men of mafia leaders. I’m talking about people like the Garabiano Brothers, Salvatore Riina, Bernardo Provenzano, who have been the absolute leaders of the Sicilian Mafia, the so-called Cosa Nostra. They were all sentenced to life imprisonment.

In one case, for example, we revealed offshore companies doing business in Africa with gold and diamond mines. These companies based mostly in the British Virgin Island were owned by the sons of Vito Palazzolo. We’re talking about mafia organisations that are based on familiar ties. It’s their strength. So Palazzolo was sentenced for being one of the biggest money launderer of Cosa Nostra when the Mafia organisation was led by Toto Riina, we’re talking about the nineties and its main business was trafficking heroin around the world. Palazzolo was sentenced for mafia back in the eighties, but the public didn’t know about these offshore companies owned by his sons until we revealed them in 2016. And this means that in the British Virgin Islands, no one raised a red flag on these companies, although the shareholders were sons of one of the biggest money launderers of Cosa Nostra.

There are a number of cases like this and in the Malta files, we also find cases like this, and this shows that you don’t necessarily have to go that far, you don’t have to go to the Caribbean, you can stay close to Italy and go to Malta. Uh, in 2017, we revealed that some mafia organisations opened companies in the island. I’m talking about Sicilian mafia, Camorra, N’drangheta, the Calabrian mafia. For example, we found a company based in Malta whose director was the heir of an important mafia clan based in Calabria, the so-called N’drangheta, the family is a big family specialised in cocaine trafficking with the South American cartels. So this is another example that shows how easy can be for a criminal organisation to open a company. Why is that? Even in countries where beneficial owners are not secret and where authorities officially collaborate with other countries, this is the case of Malta for example, many banks and financial authorities don’t really care about who their customers are as long as they bring money in. So this is, I think, what actually help criminal organisation to invest money overseas.”

Naomi: “And sometimes the best investigations that have given us the most information were only because this information was leaked, right? And not because it’s actually possible for somebody like you sometimes, a journalist, to actually get behind the wall of secrecy to be able to report on who’s behind a particular crime or a company involved in a crime right?”

Stefano: “That’s true. I mean, most of the times, yes, the best investigations are coming from a leak or let’s say from an internal source. It doesn’t have to be, you know, a huge leak like Panama Papers, which, which was a very good investigation and brought a lot of results. But still, yes, let’s say one way is to have a police source that is telling you things that have been already uncovered. Uh, the other way is to have an internal source or a whistleblower that can take you, that can bring you a lot of data or data concerning his company’s specific field of activity.”

Naomi: “Yeah, otherwise it can be like coming up against a brick wall. Let’s have a look at Malta as one of the favourite jurisdictions for Cosa Nostra money. The harm Malta’s done to itself and its people because of its oversized financial sector and offshore secrecy services is obvious. It’s not exaggerating to say it’s become a criminal state. Dirty money has undone the rule of law there, almost every check and balance. But it doesn’t stop there because once dirty money’s gone into their financial system, it washes into the global economy. This is Kevin Cassar. He’s a surgeon in Malta, who’s spoken out about how Malta has become a mafia paradise:”

Kevin Cassar: “Malta is just 60 miles south of Sicily. We can actually see Mount Etna on a clear day. So we are extremely close. We have regular ferries going across, which takes about just two hours by ferry. If you take a plane, it takes you 20 minutes to get to Sicily. The big advantage to mafiosi and other people in organised crime in Sicily is that Malta joined the European Union and we’re also, of course, we’ve got the Euro and we are part of Schengen, so there is free movement. So it’s extremely easy to get in and out of Malta and into Europe and from Sicily into Malta with very little or no checks at all. Now, in addition to that, Malta is the tiniest country in the European Union, which means that some of these criminal organisations have a turnover every year which is basically the size of our economy. And therefore, in a small place like this, it is extremely easy to pay your way into whatever position you want to get to.”

Naomi: “Dirty money is also what led to the murder of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, to shut down her investigations. And the mess the police made of that case, and allegations about politicians connected to it tell you everything about the state of justice in Malta. And just as telling, not long ago in Malta the post of Deputy Police Commissioner became vacant. No one applied for it and for me, that speaks very strongly about what a kind of a failed state Malta actually is.”

Kevin Cassar: “Yeah. It definitely is a failed state, and the problem is that the Prime Minister has almost absolute powers. So the Prime Minister appoints the police commissioner. The problem with that is that people who are deeply involved in gross corruption, who are involved in, you know, illegalities who are close to the Prime Minister, were never prosecuted. Um, so we have, for example, magisterial inquiries related to Pilatus Bank for example, which specifically said that the chairman of Pilatus Bank, which is this money laundering enterprise for the Azerbijanis, and for people close to former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat should be prosecuted. This man has never been prosecuted. We had another magisterial inquiry which looked into allegations that one of these secret financial structures set up by Mossack Fonseca belonged to the Prime Minister’s wife, former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat that is, and one of the accountants who was part of the same company that was working very closely with the Prime Minister, the conclusions of the inquiry was that this man should be prosecuted for perjury. This man was never prosecuted. So we have a state of impunity, which was one of the main conclusions of the Daphne Caruana Galizia inquiry.

So in answer to your question, why do people not want to join the police force in any, even almost at the, the lowest levels, let alone at the higher echelons? And the reason is that this is a completely corrupt institution. The police commissioner himself was finally removed when there was an order by the court that he should be investigated. That was months, if not years ago. No action has been taken against the former police commissioner.

There is also huge pressure, of course, on people who are in the police force who try to do their job. So we’ve had people, for example, like a chap who was investigating these people close to politicians and politicians themselves was basically hounded out of the force, and he’s now suing the government for discrimination and for basically not reintegrating him into the police force. We had another gentleman who was in the FIU, that’s the Financial Investigative Authority, who was basically kicked out when he started to work on these cases of corruption involving politicians. So it’s no surprise that nobody wants to get into a police force like that.”

Naomi: “No, no surprise at all.”

Kevin: “You know, we live in a country where we’ve had several bombings people killed with car bombs, the same type of bombs that killed Borsellino and Falcone. In a small country like this where you have bombs exploding and killing people, none of those bombings has been solved. The only one that has partially been solved is the Caruana Galizia bombing, and that’s because of the involvement of the FBI. So, can you imagine a small country like ours where we have multiple people killed from car bombings and nobody ever arraigned? And I tell you possibly why, because the people who are now under arrest, finally, the Maksar Brothers, they were clients of our current Prime Minister. So our current Prime minister was the lawyer defending the Maksar Brothers. So this is the sort of network that we have, which is, to me, it is far worse than what is happening in Sicily, because in Sicily, there is some rule of law, the state is trying to protect the citizens. In this country, our government, our authorities, our institutions, the police are all part of this criminal network.”

Naomi: “So, however bad things have been, and can be in Sicily, Malta is a classic captured state because of its big financial secrecy sector. And looking the other way when it comes to criminal money coming in extends to everything. It undermines fair public procurement in the public interest, which Sicilians know all about too. All of this erodes people’s trust in the State to provide for their needs. Kevin Cassar, as a surgeon, has seen this for himself only too plainly in Malta:”

Kevin Cassar: “We are really in dire straits because half of our health service was sold off to this company. They of course had absolutely no intention of, you know, improving the health service at all. And people in the health service, of course, can easily recognise a scam because you don’t sell half the health service to somebody who’s never run a clinic, let alone a hospital. Besides later on, we found out that the government entered into a secret memorandum of understanding with this group of businessmen before the actually request for proposals by government was made. So they had already identified and decided who was going to run this enterprise. Of course, after two years, and a lot of promises that they were going to build a new hospital, that they were going to revitalise an old hospital and develop more services. They promised that they would build another hospital in Gozo, they promised they would build a medical school in Gozo, they promised they would increase jobs, they promised they would increase beds. None of this happened. So from our point of view, what we’ve seen is that, for example, when Covid struck and we needed more beds, we were deprived of those beds. Today, we are still lacking those beds and we are ending up, for example, using beds or changing a staff canteen into a ward, we’re still using a staff canteen for a ward. So the reality of the situation in practice is that giving out this concession, as it was called to these people, has basically seriously eroded the quality of care that we can offer our patients. And of course, we’ve lost millions. So these millions, nobody really knows where they’ve gone. The National Audit Office have published three separate reports, which is, they’re damning reports. They highlight that this was a scam from start to finish. There has been no action taken at all against the people involved. That is 4 billion euros. So can you imagine in a small country like ours?!”

Naomi: “Yeah. Yeah. And I think my question to you then is, I think that none of the things that you are describing could happen without financial secrecy. That has been such a central part of the economy there in Malta, and that’s having a very bad effect, not just on people in Malta, but people in Sicily, people in Italy, people everywhere in the world, because it’s all connected, so my question is – as you know, we campaign against financial secrecy. We want the real beneficial owners of companies to be declared publicly, that there should be public registries, that there’s full financial transparency in all areas. So, what effect would full financial transparency on a place like Malta be, do you think?”

Kevin Cassar: “I, I think this is absolutely crucial. So half our public health service was sold to a company, and no single Maltese person actually knew the ultimate beneficial owner of the company behind this. It, it was so opaque, the structures upon structures were impossible. So we were being told as citizens that our half our health service was being sold to somebody, and we didn’t even know who this somebody was. So, you know, that is one big problem. But the truth is that leading our government, which is really a party that still has a massive support base in this country, are people who have been working tirelessly to make financial structures even more opaque. We’ve recently had the Minister of the Economy who’s made it even more difficult for citizens to identify who is the ultimate beneficiary owner of companies which are registered in this country. You can’t know who they are. There’s been about 10,000 companies that have been suddenly scrubbed off the Malta business registry. So we can’t go back historically once we find out that these companies were involved in illicit activity and find out who they were. So, it is extremely difficult for journalists to do their job, it’s almost impossible to get clear answers. This is a mafia state. This is a state captured by a small group of people who are making millions, who are becoming obscenely wealthy, and who are draining the funds of this country for their own personal gain. And that’s not something I am saying. It’s something that the US State Department has said, and this is why a former minister of energy and the chief of staff of the former Prime Minister can’t get into the United States as we speak.”

Naomi: “Journalist Stefano Vergine again:”

Stefano: “I think the main problem is the system, financial system that allows these kind of things. Because for example if you have foreign companies investing in Italy, but you are not able to find out who the beneficial owners are, well, that’s an issue, and you can’t do much from an Italian point of view. So I think this is the biggest problem.”

Naomi: “And again, the problem isn’t contained in one part of the world, the weak links in each jurisdiction interconnect and they’re easy to exploit. Professor Varese again:”

Professor Varese: “I think it’s obvious that you need to know who is the ultimate beneficiary of shell companies or trusts. And I think the kind of deregulations we see in London in which you can own a company which is owned by another company and you can easily create a company with fake names or you have these addresses in London which have thousands and thousands of companies in one address, I think all of that is facilitating massive criminal money transfers. So I think that, I think is crazy.”

Naomi: “And this is also where it gets politically tricky. No jurisdiction has clean hands and they’re all slow to cast stones because they’re all living in glass houses. But Malta has become such a threat to the EU for various reasons, that the EU Commission’s been monitoring events there, it’s done a number of reports on what’s going wrong. So, Kevin, what should the European Parliament, the Commission be doing to help tackle corruption in Malta do you think?”

Kevin Cassar: “A lot of people looked towards the European Union to act as, if you like, a protector for the people from its own government. Sadly, a lot of people here feel very let down by the European Union. The European Union has been very weak. The reality is that if Europe wanted to control this country, they could – by withholding funds. There are hundreds of millions coming from Europe. So the first thing that Europe should do is not simply write reports, but it must impose clear requirements. It should immediately withhold funds until all the measures have been taken to implement proper rule of law, to implement proper checks and balances, and to ensure that none of the money that is coming from Europe is diverted into criminal organisations, criminal activity and rampant corruption. But of course, Europe won’t do that because it’ll appear to be picking on a small state when it has much bigger problems, such as, you know, Hungary and Poland. But the truth is that as was done with the case of Hungary, changes will only come if there is severe imposition and restriction of funds to this country.”

Naomi: “The EU should take action. The trouble is the EU does things like maintain a ridiculous black and grey list system of jurisdictions it says are ‘non-cooperative for tax purposes’ and they need to improve governance in those areas. So, with these lists it doesn’t list any EU nations, no matter what they do, so it needs really to face up to its own failings. Professor Varese again:”

Professor Varese: “The social and political cost of the existence of the mafia is massive, that’s for sure. I mean there is more than just the economic value, right? I mean, the economic value is important, but they interfere in the political process, they interfere in the economic development of the island. And of course they generate fear and violence, although not necessarily a lot of murders, the fear that they generate is massive, and also they generate a distrust, you know, in the Italian state and among people themselves.

As for the Sicilian mafia, it’s fair to say that the Sicilian mafia, and even the arrest of Matteo Messina Denaro, is not going to disappear because of the arrest of one person. And yes, it is under huge police pressure, but unfortunately the mafia is still there and now all the bosses are in jail and new bosses will come up. So there’s really a question for Italy to ask what really we need to do to defeat once and for all the Sicilian mafia. And that is to regain the trust of the people in Sicily who distrust greatly the Italian state. And tax evasion is not just a feature of the mafia, it’s a feature of Italy in general. So I think the Italian state has to, and Italian political class has to, ask big questions of why the mafia is still not being eliminated. The mafia is not just a criminal phenomenon linked to money laundering, it’s a political, social and economic phenomenon, which is deeply rooted in the lack of trust in an Italian state, which is extremely inefficient. Only yesterday I read about a case in a civil court it took 20 years to be settled, 20 years! Imagine if you’re a business, and so that generates a demand for the mafia. And so business people turn to the mafia to settle disputes, even legal disputes. And then of course the mafia gets a foothold in the legal economy. They are paid for these services and then they launder them in the local economy. And so that is, to me is the root cause of the mafia, a deeply inefficient state and a state that is not trusted by the people. A lot of the job the mafia does is involved in construction, you know, they organise construction bids. And so making it more transparent the way construction contracts are allocated is very important and possibly to centralise more the bids, as opposed to keep them local. Because at the local level, the mafia is extremely powerful. So I think that tackling the money the mafia makes is certainly important, and we need to do that. But in itself, it may not be enough.”

Naomi: “No, no, definitely not. I’ve definitely seen exactly what you’re talking about in Sicily where somebody has something stolen and they don’t go to the police, they go to where they can receive a service. Um, and I don’t think anybody thinks that that’s the right way or the way that they prefer, but it is the way that they use often, you know, not all people, but, many people. And then, you know, it seems very important that a tax system must be accountable and it’s part of building trust with people. So how do you use a tax system to build trust, which is understandably gone in a place where to differing extents in Sicily, the state is really not in evidence, it’s not really present in people’s lives?”

Professor Varese: “Yeah, a simple, straightforward, and fair tax system is crucial. And, um, in the Italian case, you have a lot of exceptions, a lot of people, a lot of subgroups that don’t pay taxes. And so that generates a sense of unfairness and privilege that there are, there are small groups of well connected and well organised groups in society and in the economy who can avoid paying taxes. So there is the overwhelming burden of taxes is paid in Italy by people who are employed by the states, like teachers or professors or, or nurses. And so it gives you the impression that there is a section of society that overwhelmingly pays taxes and cannot avoid paying them and a section of society which doesn’t pay taxes. So, I totally agree, I think that is one of the key elements to making the state more efficient together with, of course, the justice system, especially the civil court system. Ultimately you need a functioning state, a state that function, and is not too complicated. So transparency, efficiency, and justice carried out quickly is crucial to regain trust in the state. This is absolutely crucial if you want to tackle the deep-rooted reasons. So ultimately we need the state reform in all its parts so that you have an efficient provision of goods and services, including welfare state, which is obviously not working very well. Imagine that in Sicily roads are like not really working across the island, and they often break down. So you cannot cross the island sometimes because there is an accident in the highway.”

Naomi: “Oh yeah, definitely. Near my town in Sicily there was a road that was closed off for years and years and we all had to go on a crazy long diversion because they didn’t fix it for so long. Sometimes Sicilians themselves get together and fix their own roads. I mean, staff who work in care homes looking after the elderly go on strike sometimes because they haven’t been paid for months. The local rubbish collection that people pay taxes for just stops. Once it happened for months, people were burning it to keep the rats and stray dogs away. Then they introduced another local ring-fenced rubbish tax – imagine how people feel when that stops working! I mean people will believe, and go for anything that seems to work in their lives.”

Professor Varese: “Yes, I don’t think it’s a matter necessarily of increasing expenditures. I think it’s a matter of spending better what we already spend and really restructuring the state. But it really requires the fight against entrenched special interests. So it’s costly politically, but the problem of the Sicilian mafia would never be solved by purely arresting people and military and police forces, though they’re extremely important of course, because these people have to be arrested like Messina Denaro, and they have been found guilty in court. So obviously that has to be done. And I would say investigations are actually quite efficient and quite thorough. But everything else is not. And until everything else is tackled and becomes a genuine national emergency, for the first time really, then I think the problem of the mafia will stay with us, and then yes, they will launder their money, they will interfere with politics, they will interfere with the local economy, they will generate fear and further distrust in the state.”

Naomi: “So much of this comes down to the failure to establish a social and economic model based on fundamental rights. Central to that is a transparent, fair and accountable tax and financial system. Without a system like that, a predatory one will form that generates injustices, inequalities, and democratic inadequacies where criminal opportunities for profit and power flourish and spread. The Matteo Messina Denaros of this world can’t enjoy the levels of wealth they do without these weak links of secrecy in our global financial system. As I say, some of those weak links also serve commerce and other rich and powerful people. That’s why public registries of the real owners of companies, trusts and foundations are so important. Failure to properly collect, verify and publish this information should mean fines and prosecutions. After years of pressure from anti-corruption campaigners, the European Union did finally take action to introduce a requirement for European countries to implement public registers of the beneficial ownership information of companies. But, a recent ruling from the European Court of Justice has reversed 10 years of progress. As a result, many leading European tax havens have once more restricted access. The winners from all this are the Matteo Messina Denaros of this world. And their professional enablers – unscrupulous lawyers, accountants, wealth managers, and bankers.

That’s it for this edition of the Taxcast. Thanks for listening. We’ll be back with you next month.”

View Details

Welcome to our Spanish language podcast and radio programme Justicia ImPositiva with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, free to download and broadcast on radio networks across Latin America and Spain. ¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a nuestro podcast y programa radiofónico! Escuche por su app de podcast. (All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here.)

En este programa con Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez::

• Colombia propone un pacto tributario regional.
• La Celac y el proyecto de una moneda alternativa al dólar para el comercio intraregional
• Las crisis políticas en Brasil, Bolivia, Ecuador y Peru
• Y los oligopolios, causa de la inflación mundial

Invitadxs:

• Sergio Chaparro Hernández, Tax Justice Network (Red de Justicia Fiscal)
• Pedro Páez Pérez, ex ministro de economía de Ecuador y autor de “Política Económica Transformadora y Nueva Arquitectura Financiera”
• Oscar Ugarteche Director del Observatorio Global Latinoamericano, OBELA, profesor de la Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, la UNAM y autor de Historia Oscar Critica del FMI
• Leandro Amoretti, economista y docente, co-autor del trabajo “Regimen de alta inflación, oligopolios y grupos económicos”

~ América Latina cambia en medio de la turbulencia mundialMÁS INFORMACIÓN:

• Enlace de descarga para las emisoras: https://traffic.libsyn.com/j-impositiva/JI_feb_23.mp3
• Subscribase a nuestro RSS feed: http://j_impositiva.libsyn.com/rss
• O envien un correo electronico a Naomi [@] taxjustice.net para ser
  incorporado a nuestra lista de suscriptores.
• Sigannos por twitter en http://www.twitter.com/J_ImPositiva
• Estamos tambien en facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Justicia-ImPositiva-1464800660510982/

View Details

Welcome to the 62nd edition of our Arabic podcast/radio show Taxes Simply الجباية ببساطة contributing to tax justice public debate around the world. It’s produced and presented by Walid Ben Rhouma and is available on most podcast apps. Any radio station is welcome to broadcast it for free and websites are also welcome to share it. You can follow the programme on Facebook, on Twitter and on our website. All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here.

في العدد #62 من الجباية ببساطة إستضاف وليد بن رحومة، الصحفية سناء عدوني، صاحبة البحث الإستقصائي “بولط تونس: غشّ ضرببي، تقويض للسوق ومعطيات شخصيّة لتونسيّين تُسرب إلى تل أبيب” في حوار تناول التجاوزات الخطيرة التي أقدمت عليها تطبيقة النقل منذ سنوات عدة، من تهرّب ضريبي، وتهريب أموال خارج البلاد، وتبييض أموال، وتسريب معطيات شخصية لمستعملي التطبيق من مواطنين نونسيّين إلى إسرائيل … في ظلّ صمت مُريب من السلطات التونسية.بولط تونس: تسريب معطيات نحو تل أبيب، تهرّب ضريبي وجرائم أخرى
تابعونا على صفحتنا على الفايسبوك وتويتر https://www.facebook.com/ TaxesSimply Tweets by taxes_simply

View Details

Welcome to the latest episode of the Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast, the Taxcast. You can subscribe either by emailing naomi [at] taxjustice.net or find us on your podcast app. All our podcasts are unique productions in five languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here.

In this extended special episode of the Taxcast, we look at the ‘Desai Papers’ leak – the story you probably never heard of: it goes back decades and looks at a key player in the making of a tax haven that’s been hurting Indians and Africans ever since.

We speak with a whistleblower and the journalist who broke the story. Is the Indian government investigating? What does the story tell us about the global economy?

Featuring:

• Mr J Gopikrishnan, Special Correspondent, The Pioneer
• Desai Papers Whistleblower
• Rachel Etter-Phoya, Tax Justice Network
• Taxcast host and producer, Naomi Fowler

Transcript is available here (some is automated)

~ The Making of Tax Haven MauritiusFurther reading and information:

• Africa and the Corrosive International Tax System
• India’s ‘Panama Papers’ on shell firms, tax loopholes gather dust
• Nishith Desai says his firm committed no illegality
• Indian Whistleblower’s Documents Allege Large-Scale Tax Evasion
• Hindenburg Research report: Adani Group: How The World’s 3rd Richest Man Is Pulling The Largest Con In Corporate History
• Adani Group says Hindenburg fraud claim ‘calculated attack on India’
• From Sugarcane to Sweet Tax Deals
• Not so miraculous: How an idyllic African island became a tax haven for some of the world’s biggest corporations

Image credit: “File:The Bank of Mauritius tower (in the centre).jpg” by Thierry is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

Here’s a summary of the Taxcast:

Naomi: “This month on the Taxcast – the making of the tax haven of Mauritius. Small islands are particularly well suited to become tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions. Because in small islands, elite groups of people are also small. And the financial and political engineering to set these things up almost always comes from outside, in partnership with these few island elites. What they do together may benefit them, but their actions have a disproportionate and harmful effect on millions of people across the world. That’s certainly the case with the island nation of Mauritius.

[Mauritian music]

Mauritius is far from a big global player in terms of financial secrecy compared to other jurisdictions like the United States, Switzerland, Britain and Singapore, for example. I mean, it’s ranked #51 in our Financial Secrecy Index – although don’t get me wrong, it definitely offers some high levels of secrecy. But it’s a much more significant global player in terms of helping multinationals underpay corporate income tax – it’s ranked 15th in our Corporate Tax Haven Index. It’s got tonnes of tax exemptions and almost non-existent transparency requirements for corporate reporting. The consequences really are deadly for ordinary people worldwide – particularly Indians and Africans.

[Mauritian music]

When you look at Mauritius, the state capture that’s usually a strong feature of small island nations that go down this route isn’t immediately obvious. I mean, Mauritius has long been praised for being Africa’s shining star when it comes to its economy and its democracy. The Economist’s Intelligence Unit has ranked Mauritius highly for years. This is youtube news channel the Rooster Report:”

“After Mauritius gained independence from Britain in 1968, the situation there looked pretty dire. After all, it had been reliant on sugar for economic growth for most of the colonial period, and many predicted that along with overpopulation this would cause the country to fall into economic despair. For a while, these critics were right, as Mauritius was quite poor well into the 1980s. However, it was in the 1990s that Mauritius was able to pull off an economic miracle and become one of the wealthiest nations in Africa.”

Naomi: “Many put the Mauritian so-called ‘economic miracle’ down to two main things, early on. Free education for everyone from pre-school to university, obviously that’s always a good investment. And the establishing of special export processing zones:”

Rooster Report: “Almost no import duties, low energy costs, and the free repatriation of capital, profits and dividends to an investor’s country of origin. It is because of this that a tonne of foreign investment is continuously poured into Mauritius.”

Naomi: “Hmmm. But, as you’re going to hear – there’s a LOT more to the so-called Mauritian ‘economic miracle’ than that. Foreign investment is very often not what it seems, and can in fact be money laundering on a massive scale. The Mauritian tax havenry and financial secrecy model is really hurting Africans and Indians. That’s because it’s swallowing up billions in tax revenue. Here’s Tax Justice Network researcher Rachel Etter-Phoya in Malawi:”

Rachel: “It’s shocking! Mauritius inflicts an estimated two and a half billion dollars of lost taxes on other countries every single year. India is affected and so are so many African countries. And the irony here is that Mauritius markets itself as the gateway to Africa for investment. But really, I think we should be calling it the ‘getaway from Africa’ and for the amount of profits that are shifted out to the rest of the continent as a result of tax haven Mauritius. Of course, Mauritius is also losing out thanks to the setup of tax havens and plundered states that is our global financial system. Mauritius does get a taste of its own medicine. Mauritius is losing an estimated 450 million each year to tax havens.”

Naomi: “And at the Tax Justice Network we’ve seen many times – as the money flows start to rise through places like this, internal strains and conflicts are never far behind. What goes on in a small island democracy starts to become very important to other bigger outside actors. And the international harm the tax havenry model is inflicting on ordinary people elsewhere, can become self-harm. Back to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s rankings of Mauritius – here’s the Rooster Report again:”

Rooster Report: “In the past few years the country has been in a downwards spiral. While Mauritius does well on almost every indicator, it has faced some criticism in regards to political leadership, as almost every prime minister has come from one of a handful of elite families. The country has also passed a few questionable bills into law, widespread accusations of voter fraud and foreign influence in the 2019 elections, multiple suspensions of parliament and, quite recently, the deployment of military police on protestors who were peacefully protesting. Therefore, we think it’s fair to say that while Mauritius was a model for the African continent a year ago, if it doesn’t fix up some major issues, it may soon lose its full democracy status.”

Naomi: “To understand what’s happening in Mauritius, we need to go back in time a bit, and take a look at external events and actors. And fly about 5,000 kilometres to India:”

Whistleblower: “You know, we tend to believe that tax havens are actually made in tax havens. But the reality is that it’s actually the victim countries or the victim jurisdictions where these tax havens are really made. And it’s all the illegal stuff, all the sort of evil stuff actually happens in the victim countries to enable formation of these tax havens and to sort of enable the abuse of various treaties and various loopholes.”

Naomi: “This is a whistleblower in India who leaked data which exposed the underbelly of the Mauritian economic miracle, its swallowing up of the tax revenue of nations who can least afford it, and the key role played by Indian law firm Nishith Desai Associates, going back decades. Here’s the journalist who broke the story of the so-called ‘Desai Papers’, Mr J Gopikrishnan of the Pioneer newspaper:”

J Gopikrishnan: “The whistleblower, I met the whistleblower, actually, it was during a lockdown period in the first Covid situation. All of a sudden I got some messages from him. So I said, come over to my apartment and he explained and he gave me all the documents. It is just like the Panama Papers or something like that. A tax firm owned by one Nishith Desai, Nishith Desai’s firm was advising firms how to avoid the taxes from India by floating companies in London, Cayman island and Mauritius, and how to – telling a thief how to steal things! So we come out in July 2021, big front page coverage, we gave a title ‘India’s Panama Papers,’ ‘Desai Papers’. It’s a 1.5 GB documents of legal advises how to avoid taxes.”

Naomi: “The 1.5GB of leaked data reveals tax-related correspondence between Nishith Desai Associates and 33 of India’s biggest corporations and several high-net-worth individuals. Nishith Desai Associates deny that they, or their clients, have ever broken any laws. The whistleblower worked for them as a software engineer. He says he leaked the data in the public interest:”

Whistleblower: “Sometime back I had worked on some software solutions to detect money laundering and financial fraud, right? Especially like you know, with the aim to identify terror cells and other sort of money laundering fraud activities that happen, especially across jurisdictions. So, you know, I had started understanding what goes on. These documents really basically show what goes behind the curtains. Because these documents clearly provide advice to the clients that, you know, do this, do that, you know, that way the tax authority will not know that you’ve got a permanent establishment in India. Create a structure over there, you know, have these kind of board members over there, dummy board members in Mauritius. Don’t give that person the signing authorities, you know, make the key people in India as your advisors, but not the general partners, right? Then sort of create more structures in Cayman Islands or like other jurisdictions where you will have holding companies or the beneficial owners would be over there, right? Even like how to sort of issue press releases, you know, what should be the wordings of the press releases? What should you put on the business cards? How long should your personnel stay in one office in India, you know, how to keep shifting places, you know, all that stuff.”

Naomi: “This whistleblower, his lawyers and journalists claim these leaked files contain incriminating evidence of tax abuse. Again, Nishith Desai Associates deny any illegality in their, or their client’s actions, although I’m sure they certainly wouldn’t deny how central they are in terms of business that uses Mauritius. And, all of this goes far beyond what’s demonstrably legal or not. The so-called ‘Mauritius route’ is causing serious tax losses to many nations. The whistleblower and his lawyer made this data available to the enforcement directorate at the central board of direct taxes in India, and later to the Black Money Commission.”

Whistleblower: “Uh, nothing happened because you know the statutory authorities as well as the government, they are very reluctant to investigate these things or to take any action. Then my house was raided and all my devices were taken away, and I’m a software engineer. Even during the covid times when you know, we were working from home and we were pretty much having a digital existence, you know, I did not have access to devices, which were very, very critical for my profession. Their intention was, you know, possibly to intimidate me, but also they wanted to recover all the evidence which would be in my possession. And perhaps also to figure out if I have sort of approached authorities or who I have shared this thing with.”

Naomi: “According to him, during the raid on his house, armed police were accompanied by personnel from Nishith Desai Associates, his employer, as well as from the big accountancy firm PwC. Now I find that interesting because a number of years ago now, in Luxembourg, staff from PwC were also present during a police raid on another whistleblower’s house, their own employee during the now infamous Luxleaks scandal. That was Raphaël Halet, who spent years in Luxembourg courts defending his right to have leaked in the public interest. With this raid in India, the court ordered that all the expenses of the raid be paid by Nishith Desai Associates, including the Court Commissioner and his assistant. Now according to the whistleblower, the court commissioner was a friend of Nishith Desai. Nishith Desai Associates accuse the whistleblower of accessing this data illegally and their civil case against him is ongoing. But he stands by his decision:”

Whistleblower: “The public in India needs to know the scale at which this fraud is happening, and how it’s happening. The evil consequences of tax avoidance, you know results in a substantial loss of revenue. It results in creation of a lot of black money, right? It sort of shifts the burden of taxation to law abiding, you know, simple citizens. And people with artful advisors are able to escape taxation, it results in a lot of inequality, injustice, right? It also results in a perpetual war waged between the tax avoider and his expert team of advisors, lawyers, and accountants on the side, and the tax gatherer and his perhaps not so skillful advisors on the other side. You know, we are hoping that the authorities take some action because there is a wealth of data available to them now.”

Naomi: “There’s no sign of that happening, yet. And this wasn’t journalist Mr Gopikrishnan’s first time writing about Mauritius and its financial services:”

J Gopikrishnan: “Some 15 years ago, also, I wrote an article looking, going to the Mauritius registry. There are two, three buildings in Mauritius where hundreds of companies have the same address at same office, and same cubicle. And these are pretended or covered in the garb of foreign direct investments into the country, but actually are India’s own black money coming back to make it as a white money through these small small countries. Nothing is happening there, just money laundering and money parking and money diverting through just a address. There is no staffers, nothing. I always say these tax havens are the red streets in the cities.”

Naomi: “They’re the what, sorry?”

J Gopikrishnan: “You know, what is Red Streets? Red Street is in every city, red street means there’s a prostitution street is there.”

Naomi: “Ah, right. Yeah. Like red zones.”

J Gopikrishnan: “Uh, you go, you go to particular street and do the prostitution and other things, activities don’t come to these areas. You do that area, where police will not come. So these tax havens are the red streets in cities, in this world. I think all nations and the United Nations should come together and come out against these tax havens and finish these tax havens, for the betterment of the entire world. If they simply cancel all these things, the matter is over.”

Naomi: “When it comes to the making of Mauritius as a tax haven, we need to go back to some pivotal moments in that journey. Here’s the whistleblower again:”

Whistleblower: “The Indo-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty, it was actually signed in 1982. At that time the Prime Minister of India was Mrs. Indira Ghandi, and the finance minister was Mr Pranab Mukherjee. So, they were visiting Mauritius in 1982. And they signed this agreement with Mauritius, and it was finally notified by the government of India in 1983. This was a purely an executive action. This was never tabled before the parliament. This had never been debated by the legislature. It has not been passed by the legislature. It has for the last several decades, it has stayed like an executive action. This treaty was pretty dormant till, I would say, early nineties. And the reasons were twofold. One was that the Indian economy till ‘91, was highly regulated and a closed economy. Similarly, like Mauritius, was also a very sleepy economy. So there was very little trade, or very little investment that could have happened between the two countries. But that started changing towards the late eighties, 1980s. In 1989, Mauritius attempted to become an offshore banking centre, was not very successful, but it tried to sort of become an offshore banking centre. In 1991 in India there were economic reforms, which were initiated in 1991, and the Indian economy was liberalised. It became an open economy and the Indian government started encouraging foreign investment into India. So right after that, right after these reforms and liberalisation, Mr. Nishith Desai, who’s the founder of Nishith Desai Associates, a boutique international taxation law firm in India, he somehow stumbled upon this Indo-Mauritius double taxation agreement, and he reached out to the Mauritius government. He actually went to Mauritius. He spent some time in Mauritius. He became close to the government of Mauritius, and he helped them become an offshore tax haven.”

Naomi: “We’ll get back to the forward-thinking Mr Nishith Desai who spotted the potential of this Double Tax Avoidance treaty. Around the same time India’s economy was liberalised, Mauritius enacted the Mauritius Offshore Business Activity Act.”

Whistleblower: “Mauritius Offshore Business Activity Act, or like MOBAA that actually made it into a tax haven. In 1992, Mauritius actually became a tax haven. And as part of this MOBAA act, Mauritius allowed foreign entities, foreign players who were not even citizens or residents of Mauritius, to set up entities in Mauritius, which would basically provide them Mauritius Tax Residency Certificate. You know, so by setting up what was known as a GBC1 company, you could actually become a Mauritius tax resident. And these shell companies did not attract any kind of taxation, you know, even if there was some taxation, it was nominal.”

Naomi: “By layering your GBC1 company with a GBC2 company and shifting your profits between them you could virtually arrive at a zero taxation rate. So, the Double Tax Avoidance treaty, combined with the Mauritius Offshore Business Activity Act, made double trouble for the tax revenues of other nations. The Mauritius Offshore Business Activity Act meant foreign entities could incorporate companies with limited public disclosure – so, some quite high levels of secrecy. And also there were some quite high levels of asset protection promised. The door was opened to all kinds of potential illicit activities and abuses.”

Whistleblower: “And this became like the most popular route to invest in India for the foreign investment. This became like the route that all the foreign investors in the West were using to enter India. So these were like, you know, public market funds, private equity funds, VC funds, corporates, high net worth individuals, right?”

Naomi: “As you can imagine, these are big players. And bigger and bigger players piled in on the action:”

Whistleblower: “The investment in India was definitely growing at that point of time, I mean, from virtually zero, it was now several billion dollars of investment every year, which was coming into India, but it was also resulting in a big loss of tax revenue to the Indian exchequer because, you know, all the sort of capital gains and everything that was, getting generated through these investments were not being taxed in India. And very soon, some Indians also started using this Mauritius route to roundtrip their funds.”

Naomi: “Round-tripping, as the name suggests, is a circular activity, and for no good reason! Here’s the Tax Justice Network’s Rachel Etter-Phoya:”

Rachel: “Round tripping! Sounds like a dance, doesn’t it? I like to think of it as more of a disguise. So you take your money out of India to another country, in this case Mauritius, then you bring it back into India and now it’s suddenly dressed up as foreign money, foreign investment. What’s the point of this disguise? Well, many countries try to attract foreign investment by providing all sorts of special incentives, tax breaks, tax holidays, and these aren’t offered to local investors. So domestic investors get away with dodging tax and exploiting rules that are not meant for them. And eventually this ends up harming the very government systems and public infrastructure that they are relying on to make their money and do business. And of course, another reason for the disguise is the good old fashioned money laundering, trying to clean dirty money.”

Whistleblower: “All these structures, or all these investments that were flowing into India through the Mauritius route were actually structured by Nishith Desai associates. Almost like, you know, I would say 99% of these investments were structured by Mr Nishith Desai and his firm Nishith Desai Associates.”

Naomi: “In a statement responding to the data leak, Nishith Desai Associates say there are good, practical reasons why firms use a jurisdiction like Mauritius. Quote:

‘They need a neutral jurisdiction for pooling vehicles which provides flexibility in terms of enforceability of contracts, simplified corporate laws, robust bilateral investment protection treaty with India, etc. There is absolutely no illegality in anything we or our clients have done.’

Now I’ve not seen this leaked data. The Indian authorities are the ones who should be looking at that. But let’s take a look at Mr Nishith Desai, because his role is really interesting in the development of this business around Mauritius. His legal and tax consulting firm Nishith Desai Associates has offices now in Mumbai, Singapore, Munich, New York and elsewhere. They’ve definitely hit the big time, over decades. Meanwhile, Mr Desai seems very admired in the business world. Here’s entrepreneur Lakshmi Pratury introducing him for her interview series, the Lakshmi Leadership Lounge:”

Lakshmi Pratury: “Today with us we have Nishith Desai. Nishith’s interest spans many things way beyond law. He’s someone who thinks about the strategy, the future trends. He’s a writer, he’s a lecturer, he’s a researcher and most importantly he’s a constant learner. Nishith himself is regarded as the father of international tax in India and as a true pioneer in the field of international tax law. Soon after India opened its economy in 1991, that’s when he really kind of pioneered the roots of asset management industry in India. He has assisted the governments of Mauritius and India in launching their offshore financial centres and much much more, and today you’ll see the pivotal role he’s playing in defining the future of finance.”

Naomi: “And here’s the man himself, Nishith Desai, speaking to Lakshmi Pratury:”

Nishith Desai: “I learned that actually I have to change the model to put in a place a principle – must do highest quality work in shortest possible time with least amount of people – always anticipate, prepare and deliver. The best thing is to look to the future, and prepare and visualise future strategic legal tax or ethical issues today, and try to find solutions okay? So for example every new technology, every new business model, every new social political economic development brings along with it a new strategic legal tax or ethical issue. The future may be uncertain but it’s not unthinkable. If I start doing research on the subject that are going to come in the future, then we have not only understood the technology, we have understood the business models which could be, so we started looking at what will the future technologies that will appear next five, ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty years as well.”

Naomi: “Nishith Desai. Investigative journalist J Gopikrishnan, who broke the Desai papers story for the Pioneer newspaper has a very different take on Nishith Desai and his firm doing business through Mauritius:”

J Gopikrishnan: “He is a key player, mixed with his legal background as a lawyer and his accounting firm, but he’s not a big lawyer in India at all. Legally, he’s nothing in India, but he’s only doing this legal plus tax activities, helping out, because all the corporate players want somebody to operate these things. So he’s doing as the service agent, like Panama Papers, that legal firm, he was doing this because he was not a legal firm in strictly big legal firm or something, and he himself is not a man seen in the courts or other things but he was doing all these things.”

Naomi: “There have been various attempts during previous government administrations in India to tackle the so-called ‘Mauritius route’ because of worries about the damage it was doing to Indian tax revenues, not to mention the money laundering risks. Here’s the whistleblower again:”

Whistleblower: “It boils down to the fact that the economic interest kind of dominates the political interest or the social interest. The government of India obviously doesn’t want to take any action against the large corporations, large sort of financial institutions, high net worth individuals who are actually benefiting because of this tax treaty or these offshore structures. And of course, people like Mr. Nishith Desai and other people who have now come into this industry, they have excellent relationships with both the government of India as well as the tax department, right? So, for example, Mr. Nishith Desai was very, very close to the previous government from 2004 to 2014. So he had very, very close connections over there. He obviously has like very good connections with the tax department. In fact it’s quite common to see some of like very senior tax officers socialising with Mr. Nishith Desai quite openly, right? So, you know, so that way the government itself is not very serious about prosecution.

Now what happens is that every now and then, there was a whisper that the government of India would want to renegotiate this agreement with Mauritius, may repeal it. But the moment any such whisper would be made public, there would be like a lot of pressure, very stiff opposition from government of Mauritius and the Mauritius route lobby. And, you know, the stock market would crash the very next day, the investors would threaten a pull out, and you know, immediately the government would come out with a clarification that they were not thinking of renegotiating or making any amendments to this tax treaty.

Now, another question is – is this Mauritius route legal as per the Indian law, right? And the answer to that is it’s not, so I’m not talking about the legality of the treaty, but I’m talking about the legality of this Mauritius route through which the majority of the investment into India was flowing in. In 1985, there was a landmark judgment by a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India which had five judges. And in that judgment, the Supreme Court of India had taken a very dim view of sham transactions which are done for the sole purpose of avoiding tax. The judgment make it very clear that as per the Indian law, what was happening through this Mauritius tax treaty was actually not permissible. Any structure or any transaction which is done, the sole purpose of avoiding tax is illegal and has to be struck down because if the person is a resident of India, then obviously all the income, all the capital gains accruing in India will be taxed in India, you will not be able to avail the benefits of the double taxation agreement. In case the person is deemed to be resident of both Mauritius and India, the place where you have effective management and the place of effective management will determine where this person is going to be the resident of. And most of these investments or these funds, or these businesses who were investing in India, they were actually operating out of India. Their key managements were professionals were in India. Their decision making was happening in India. All the management decisions were being taken in India, so their place of effective management was India. The government of India has been turning a blind eye to the treaty abuse. This is not something that we can blame just the Mauritius government, you know, the Indian government. The Indian sort of corporate lobby, the economic interest – they have been the driving force behind such a route to have been created and have prospered.”

Naomi: “Interestingly, the Indian-Mauritius Double Tax Avoidance Agreement formed the template for extraction from many African countries, as the whistleblower explains:”

Whistleblower: “Right after the Mauritius route became the most popular route for investing into India, several countries in Africa, they also signed a double taxation avoidance agreement with Mauritius. And these agreements were identical to what was signed by the Indian government. The only thing that was different was the government of India was replaced by a different country. That’s it. But you know, the terms, the language, everything of these agreements that were signed with the multiple African countries was identical to what was signed with India.”

Naomi: “Mauritius has signed double tax avoidance agreements with at least 46 states worldwide, 18 of them African. Imagine the money flows! Here’s Rachel Etter-Phoya again:”

Rachel: “A third of African countries, more or less have signed double tax agreements with Mauritius. And if that wasn’t bad enough, another third are negotiating or awaiting ratification. We’ve seen some really interesting action taken by civil society allies and governments across the continent in the face of these highly problematic treaties. Tax Justice Network Africa took the tax treaty that had been signed between the Kenyan and Mauritian government to the Kenyan high court because of risks the treaty posed, they said to the Kenya’s revenue and, and for procedural reasons. So it was amazing, because in 2019 the court actually ruled in their favour that the government hadn’t followed the correct procedure of tabling in parliament, so the double tax duty was voided and declared unconstitutional. What was a bit disappointing though, was that the court dismissed the substantive argument that the treaty would cause colossal damage and lost to the Kenyan economy or revenue. But, just a year later in 2020, both Senegal and Zambia tore up their treaties with Mauritius, and Senegal said that the treaty had caused the country to lose over 250 million US dollars over 17 years. And Zambia said the move was necessary because the treaty wasn’t balanced or fair. And according to one tax official that spoke with the International Consortium for Investigative Journalists, companies were just using the treaty to reduce taxes paid in Zambia, and they didn’t actually have any commercial activity in Mauritius.”

Naomi: “If you’re wondering why the so called Desai Papers leak didn’t make a bigger splash, even in India, I asked Pioneer newspaper journalist Mr Gopikrishnan who broke the story why he thinks that is:”

J Gopikrishnan: “None of the Indian media take it up or followed it up. Why? Because it was a report against the tax evasion of biggest companies in India who is advertising in every media. No media took it up. So this is the power of the corporates, power of the tax evaders, that’s it. But the sad part of this is government is not jumping into this, agencies are not jumping into this, this thing because these 33 files is a good document for the income tax and enforcement directorate to launch a prosecution and that’s the saddest part happening in India. The government has not cracked down. I published the report in 2020 on the government sitting on the whistleblower’s data, more than two years. But nothing happened. The company is still there. They’re still on this job because there’s no action came against them. Normally after our publication of this huge data, next day onwards income tax and enforcement directors who should have jumped into the company and interrogate and other things, that has not happened.”

Naomi: “Are you surprised?”

J Gopikrishnan: “I’m not surprised but I know this is how these big activities are going on when it comes to big, big companies, these things will happen. And even if the legal cases somewhere it goes to arbitration, legal arbitration is also some sort of settlement and arbitration means we decided to sit over a coffee or drinks. So there will be a compromise, just saying that you pay such and such, or I pay you such and such, you pay such and such, the issue is settled. This is how the financial crimes are settled.”

Naomi: “Time’s moving on and the Indian authorities have not yet taken any action that we know about on this leaked data. So far, the only legal action has been a civil case against the whistleblower, by Nishith Desai Associates. That case itself has some oddities about it, according to the defending lawyers involved. But, whether the so-called Desai Papers leak does demonstrate tax abuse or not, we already know that business transacted through Mauritius is resulting in serious tax losses to nations who can least afford it. We already know as well that Mauritius is exposing many nations to money laundering risks.

As Taxcasters will know, for the last 60 years, it’s been the OECD that’s been setting international tax rules, largely in the interests of their member states. Those same member states tend to be the nations sucking the most out of what are often former colonies.

As you heard earlier, some nations have now torn up their tax agreements with Mauritius, like Senegal and Zambia. And now it’s going to take some superhuman efforts by countries like these, united, in the United Nations to reform the global rules that are allowing all this extraction. Rachel Etter-Phoya again:”

Rachel: “It’s a bit like whack-a-mole. One tax haven reins in its ways, becomes more transparent and offers less corrosive tax deals. But then what do you know? Another one springs up. That’s why it’s so important that decisions on international tax take place at the United Nations, and why we’re still celebrating what happened last year when the African group put forward a resolution to start negotiations on international tax at the UN, and it was adopted by consensus, although of course there were efforts by some of the richest nations to thwart the resolution in its path. And up until then and for the last 60 years, the international tax system was decided by the Club of the Rich at the OECD. And you could tell because it worked for them and it worked in their favour and they protected tax havens in their midst. No African country had a seat at the table and neither did India, and now they do at the UN.”

Naomi: “The extent to which the most affected nations can remain united in the forum of the UN is critical now. And the financial secrecy space is being squeezed, slowly. But the role of whistleblowers continues to be critical because it brings what’s happening in the shadows into the sunlight. That’s why people like this whistleblower we’ve been speaking to, and the media willing to report on them need our support, and they do need strong public interest legal protections.

Just as I was about to release this podcast, a fresh scandal involving Mauritius has been exposed by Hindenburg Research – they do forensic financial research to aid investment decision-making – their own, and that of others. They’ve spent the last two years looking at Indian conglomerate Adani Group’s – quote – ‘brazen stock manipulation and accounting fraud scheme over the course of decades.’ By downloading and cataloguing the entire Mauritius corporate registry, Hindenburg Research claims to have uncovered all sorts of stuff about the Adani Group.

Adani family members dominate the business, apparently with a vast network of offshore shell entities in all sorts of jurisdictions with, Hindenburg says – quote: ‘no obvious signs of operations, including no reported employees, no independent addresses or phone numbers and no meaningful online presence. Despite this, they have collectively moved billions of dollars into Indian Adani publicly listed and private entities, often without required disclosure of the related party nature of the deals.’ Hindenburg Research says they’ve found funds – quote – ‘intentionally structured to conceal their ultimate beneficial ownership’ and – quote – ‘obvious accounting irregularities and sketchy dealings seem to be enabled by virtually non-existent financial controls.’

Now this is big because the Adani Group founder and chair Gautam Adani is Asia’s richest person. Now I have no idea whether Nishith Desai Associates has ever worked with the Adani Group, but they’re both like planets that have turned around the same Mauritian sun. Like Nishith Desai, Gautam Adani is also from Gujarat. Many Adani companies were incorporated decades ago when Nishith Desai Associates had a near monopoly on the so-called ‘Mauritius route’. Lots of these Adani structures look to be GBC1 entities, which enjoy low or no taxation through the Indian-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. And, whether any of these business transactions have been illegal or not, whether or not there’s ever been a working relationship between the Adani Group and Nishith Desai Associates, these two stories confirm just how deeply offshore opacity has become embedded in the Indian economy, like so many others. And that’s a threat to people, and to societies.

[Music from Mauritius]

So, Mauritius has now become infamous. Businesses that choose to use it really should think about the reputational risks. The Adani Group had more than $50bn wiped off its stock market value in the days following the Hindenburg Research report and its allegations. The Adani Group wrote a 400 page response, claiming it’s been in compliance with all laws. Hindenburg Research says the Adani Group hasn’t addressed – quote – “a single substantive issue we had raised”.

I’ll leave you with this final quote from Hindenburg Research – quote – ‘We believe the Adani Group has been able to operate a large fraud in broad daylight in large part because investors, journalists, citizens and even politicians have been afraid to speak out for fear of reprisal.’“

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (‘it’s your business’) produced and hosted by Grazielle David and Daniela Stefano. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode:

A reforma tributária mais significativa dos últimos tempos está sendo implementada na Colômbia. Isto porque em meio a um mundo focado na austeridade, o objetivo maior da nova lei tributária colombiana é promover justiça fiscal e social.

Aprovada em fins de 2022, a nova lei tributária já está em vigor e faz com que quem tem mais contribua mais, aumenta a arrecadação sem onerar as pessoas de baixa renda e permite que estes recursos voltem para a população em forma de políticas públicas, como saúde, educação e proteção ambiental.

Ou seja: é possível construir uma reforma tributária justa! Saiba como no episódio 45 do É da Sua Conta.

No É da sua conta #45:

• Primeira greve e protestos massivos pela questão fiscal: os fatos que permitiram a implementação de uma lei tributária para a justiça e igualdade social na Colômbia, com Mariana Matamoros, da ONG De Justicia.
• O diálogo com as diversas categorias para a construção coletiva da nova lei, com Diego Guevara, vice-ministro da Fazenda da Colômbia.
• O que se pretende fazer para o fortalecimento da Direção Nacional dos Impostos e Aduanas (DIAN), com Luis Carlos Reyes, diretor da DIAN
• Da Colombia para a América Latina e o Mundo: o engajamento colombiano para levar justiça fiscal ao continente e influenciar uma reforma tributária internacional, com Sergio Chaparro, líder global de política e incidência da Tax Justice Network.

Transcrição do episódio

“Os estudos sobre a tributação que permitiram uma pedagogia com a sociedade, mostraram que o nosso sistema tributário não era progressivo, e que mudanças urgentes eram necessárias, especialmente na forma como os benefícios fiscais vinham sendo gerados para pessoas e empresas. ”~ Mariana Matamoros, De Justicia

“Com a reforma tributária não se muda a estrutura do país de um dia para outro mas estamos dandos os passos na direção correta. O ponto importante é que ficou nítido que esta é uma reforma para por fim à dívida social.”~ Diego Guevara, vice ministro colombiano da Fazenda

“Estamos implementando um enfoque de gênero e de economia do cuidado para atender as necessidades das trabalhadoras e trabalhadores que têm responsabilidades em casa e que requerem flexibilidade, como por exemplo o trabalho remoto, o teletrabalho para simultaneamente cumprir o trabalho como funcionário e as responsabilidades em casa.”~ Luis Carlos Reyes, diretor de Impostos e Aduanas Nacionais da Colômbia – DIAN

“Vivemos um momento oportuno para insistir na necessidade de uma tributação que mobilize recursos suficientes para garantir os direitos dos povos na América Latina. ”~ Sergio Chaparro, Tax Justice Network

Participantes:

• Diego Guevara, vice ministro da Fazenda da Colômbia
• Luis Carlos Reyes, diretor de Impostos e Aduanas Nacionais da Colômbia (DIAN)
• Mariana Matamoros, líder de justiça fiscal na DeJusticia
• Sergio Chaparro, líder global de políticas e advocacy na Tax Justice Network (TJN)

~ Colômbia: esperança de justiça para todes #45Saiba Mais:

• O avanço que representa a Reforma Tributária, coluna de José Antono Ocampo no jornal El Tiempo
• Edição especial TeleSur: sobre a Greve Nacional da Colômbia em 28/04/2021

Episódios relacionados:

• 29 – Fim à tributação que penaliza os mais pobres

• 44 – Herois invisíveis e em extinção

É da sua conta é o podcast mensal em português da Tax Justice Network. Coordenação: Naomi Fowler. Produção e apresentação: Daniela Stefano e Grazielle David. Dublagem: Cecília Figueiredo, Pedro Philippe, e Zema Ribeiro. Download gratuito. Reprodução livre para rádios.

View Details

Welcome to the 61st edition of our Arabic podcast/radio show Taxes Simply الجباية ببساطة contributing to tax justice public debate around the world. It’s produced and presented by Walid Ben Rhouma and is available on most podcast apps. Any radio station is welcome to broadcast it for free and websites are also welcome to share it. You can follow the programme on Facebook, on Twitter and on our website.

All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages: English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode:

في العدد #61 للجباية ببساطة عدنا على أهم الأحداث الإقتصادية لسنة 2022 بدءا بتبعات الصراع الروسي الأكراني وتأثيراته على أسعار الطاقة والمواد الأولية وصولا إلى أزمة الغذاء في العالم وإنعكسات كل هذا على مستويات التضخم القياسية وترفيع نسب الفائدة المرجعية في العالم.في الجزء الثاني من الحلقة، يستضيف وليد بن رحومة، المحاسب القانوني محمد مصطفى للحديث عن الفاتورة الإلكترونية التي أقرتها مصلحة الضرائب المصرية ولاقت رفضا واسعا لدى أصحاب المهن الحرة والشركات الصغرى في مصر.الفاتورة الإلكترونية بين رفض المهنيين وإصرار مصلحة الضرائبتابعونا على صفحتنا على الفايسبوك وتويتر https://www.facebook.com/ TaxesSimply Tweets by taxes_simply

View Details

Welcome to our Spanish language podcast and radio programme Justicia ImPositiva with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, free to download and broadcast on radio networks across Latin America and Spain. ¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a nuestro podcast y programa radiofónico! Escuche por su app de podcast.

En este programa con Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez:

• La economía mundial de 2023
• La justicia fiscal en el mundo: dónde estamos y adónde vamos.
• El poder municipal, una vía para recuperar los servicios públicos privatizados
• Quiénes pierden, cuando ganan las grandes corporaciones

Invitados:

• Oscar Ugarteche, Director del Observatorio Global Latinoamericano, OBELA, profesor de la Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, la UNAM y autor de Historia Critica del FMI
• Sergio Chaparro Hernández, Tax Justice Network (Red de Justicia Fiscal)
• Daniel Chavez investigador de Transnational Institute
• Humberto Zambon, autor de “Hablemos de economía”

~Remunicipalización: el poder municipalMÁS INFORMACIÓN:

Nuestro Futuro Es Público: https://www.derechosypoliticafiscal.org/es/noticias/142-nuestro-futuro-es-publico

https://publicservices.international/resources/videos/nuestro-futuro-es-pblico—da-1-espaol?id=13519&%3Blang=es

• Enlace de descarga para las emisoras: https://traffic.libsyn.com/j-impositiva/JI_enero_23.mp3
• Subscribase a nuestro RSS feed: http://j_impositiva.libsyn.com/rss
• O envien un correo electronico a Naomi [@] taxjustice.net para ser
  incorporado a nuestra lista de suscriptores.
• Sigannos por twitter en http://www.twitter.com/J_ImPositiva
• Estamos tambien en facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Justicia-ImPositiva-1464800660510982/
• Nuestra pagina web, con más podcasts y más información

[Imagen: “Torino 2013 Contro la privatizzazione dell’acqua” by Ithmus is licensed under CC BY 2.0.]

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (‘it’s your business’) produced and hosted by Grazielle David and Daniela Stefano. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode:

Para promover políticas públicas que garantem direitos à toda população, é preciso investir na administração tributária, que é o órgão que arrecada os recursos para financiar a realização de políticas.

O episódio #44 do É da Sua Conta analisa a destruição das administrações tributárias no Brasil, Europa e Estados Unidos, ressalta a importância de investir nesse órgão fundamental para a realização de políticas, bem como na necessidade de contratação e valorização de herois e heroínas invisíveis e que, neste momento, estão em extinção: auditores fiscais.

No É da sua conta #44:

• O desmantelamento da Receita Federal no Brasil, com falta de investimento em tecnologias, cinco mil auditores fiscais a menos, se comparado com 2009, e portanto sobrecarga para os servidores que seguem neste órgão.
• Falta de fiscalização e menos serviços à população como consequência direta do desmonte da Receita Federal.
• A desigualdade social como consequência do desmantelamento das administrações tributárias: classe média e pobres contribuem com mais impostos e grandes empresas e super ricos escapam da tributação.
• A ideologia por trás do desmonte das administrações tributárias: neoliberalismo e austeridade fiscal.
• A importância de auditores fiscais e administrações tributárias fortalecidas para uma sociedade mais justa e para uma economia forte que inclua todas as pessoas.

“O que é mais urgente na receita federal é tampar certos ralos de dinheiro público; a receita federal precisa se equipar de pessoas, auditores fiscais motivados com o trabalho.” ~ Isac Falcão, Sindifisco Nacional

“Devemos comemorar os cobradores de impostos. Muitos deles são heróis. Em alguns países, eles são mortos por tentarem cobrar impostos de pessoas poderosas.” ~ Nick Shaxson, Tax Justice Network

“A quantidade de operações que visam elidir as pessoas do pagamento de tributos se torna sempre cada vez mais sofisticada, com cada vez mais estruturas que dão suporte às empresas pra fugirem da tributação. Nesse cenário em que a gente vê investimentos em bancas de profissionais assessorando grandes grupos internacionais favorecendo o planejamento tributário, a Receita Federal do Brasil, vem sendo sucateada.” ~ Patricia Gomes, auditora fiscal

“Administradores tributários servem para corrigir injustiças sociais profundas, para conseguir recolher o dinheiro de grandes bilionários, grandes empresas, grandes criminosos que escondem dinheiro. ” ~ Gabriel Casnati, Internacional do Serviço Público

“A falta de investimento na receita federal é lastimável, principalmente porque afeta a questão da fiscalização. O sistema tem que estar atualizado pra cada vez mais atender a população. Na medida em que há sucateamento da tecnologia integrada, que os sistemas não são atualizados e que não tem investimento isso tudo vai repercutir na vida e no cotidiano das pessoas.” ~ Telma Dantas, Fenadados

Participantes:

• Gabriel Casnati, coordenador de justiça fiscal para a América Latina da Internacional do Serviço Público
• Isac Falcão, auditor fiscal, presidente do Sindifisco Nacional
• Nick Shaxson, jornalista da Tax Justice Network
• Patrícia Gomes, auditora fiscal, presidenta do Sindifisco Ceará (2019-2021)
• Telma Dantas, dirigente sindical da Federação Nacional dos Empregados em Empresas e Órgãos Públicos e Privados de Processamento de Dados, Serviços de Informática e Similares (Fenadados)

~ Heróis invisíveis e em extinção #44Saiba Mais:

• Relatório Força de Trabalho, da Secretaria Especial da Receita Federal do Brasil –
• Quase mil fiscais da Receita Federal entregam cargos de chefia. Notícia do Correio Brasiliense de 30/12/2021
• Carta das organizações que lutam por justiça fiscal entregue ao futuro presidente, parlamentares e aberta à sociedade
• Ações dos EUA para contratar mais auditores fiscais artigo de Ryan Ermey (em inglês) – Don’t worry, the IRS isn’t hiring an ‘army’ of auditors—here’s what’s really happening
• Estudo da ISP (em inglês) – Internacional do Serviço Público sobre os efeitos da austeridade fiscal nas administrações tributárias da União Europeia

Episódios relacionados:

• 16 Sem democracia não há justiça fiscal

• 32 Auditores fiscais: Herois invisíveis

• 33 Herois invisíveis 2: o desafio global

• 40 CARF permite abusos fiscais bilionários no Brasil

• 42 Doações Milionárias à campanhas prejudicam democracia

• 43 Copa do mundo das injustiças

• Transcrição do episódio

Conecte-se com a gente!

• www.edasuaconta.com
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Plataformas de áudio: Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Deezer
• Inscreva-se: info@edasuaconta.com
• Download do podcast em MP3: https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/edasuaconta/PP_44.mp3

É da sua conta é o podcast mensal em português da Tax Justice Network. Coordenação: Naomi Fowler. Produção e apresentação: Daniela Stefano e Grazielle David. Agradecimentos: BandTV e Jack Mochila. Download gratuito. Reprodução livre para rádios.

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in French, Impôts et Justice Sociale with Idriss Linge of the Tax Justice Network. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages every month in English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here and on most podcast apps. Here’s our latest episode:

Pour cette nouvelle édition de votre podcast en français sur la justice fiscale et la justice sociale dans le monde, nous revenons sur la rencontre virtuelle d’experts organisée conjointement par Tax Justice Network et Tax Justice Network Africa pour échanger sur la connexion entre la Justice Fiscale et la Justice climatique. Les participants ont répondu aux questions de savoir pourquoi la justice fiscale et la justice climatique devraient être rapprochées et surtout comment financer les deux ambitions.

L’autre thématique du jour parle de l’accès au public des bénéficiaires effectifs en Europe. La Cour de Justice Européenne a estimé que cette possibilité qui existait jusque là pouvait violer d’autres et rendu l’accès à ces registres à condition de montrer un intérêt légitime. Pour de nombreux pays africains, c’est l’opportunité d’une meilleure transparence qui s’efface et cela l’est davantage pour la République Démocratique du Congo, riche pays d’Afrique, mais dont plus de la moitié des 90 millions d’habitants vivent en dessous du seuil de pauvreté. Nous avons posé la question à quelques citoyens de ce pays sur le point de savoir s’ils connaissaient les propriétaires effectifs de leurs mines

Interviennent dans ce sujet:

• Jean Mballa : Directeur Exécutif du Cradec
• Raissa Oureya : Chargée de Programme/Association Jeuner Verts
• Brendan Schwartz : Chercheur Principal IIED
• Abdoul Wahab Diakité : Président de la Coalition PCQVP Mali
• Richard Mukéna : directeur programme Droits de l’Homme/ONG Afrewatch

~ Pas de Justice Fiscale sans une vraie justice climatique #46Vous pouvez suivre le Podcast sur:

• Le télécharger pour l’écouter hors connexion sous le sous ce lien
• Notre page facebook à l’adresse: https://www.facebook.com/impôts et justice sociale/
• Notre Twitter: www.twitter.com/ImpotsSociale
• La publication sur Youtube et notre site web www.impotsetjusticesociale.com
• Et pour ceux qui ont l’application Stitcher et iTunes ect
• Si vous souhaitez recevoir cette production ou être média partenaires ou simplement contribuer, vous pouvez nous écrire à l’adresse Impôts_sociale@outlook.fr

[Image: “Skull-in-earth” by mlaaker is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.]

View Details

Welcome to the latest episode of the Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast, the Taxcast. You can subscribe either by emailing naomi [at] taxjustice.net or find us on your podcast app.

There’s been a shift in global power, a tax justice milestone, and the most powerful nations couldn’t stop it…

In this episode, Taxcast host Naomi Fowler gives you a fly-on-the-wall take on what happened at the United Nations on November 24th 2022. We look at the power plays around a fundamental global power shift – the beginning of the end of the OECD’s 60 year reign as the world’s leading rule-maker on global tax. Featuring:

• Alex Cobham of the Tax Justice Network
• Rachel Etter-Phoya of the Tax Justice Network
• The UN Chairperson, UN Secretary and UN representatives of Nigeria, South Africa, the United States, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Liechtenstein, Republic of Korea, and Eritrea.
• Produced and hosted by the Tax Justice Network’s Naomi Fowler.

A transcript is available here. (some is automated)

~ The Day Global Power Shifted“It was absolutely incredible to watch the proceedings at the UN to see what was like a boxing match where Nigeria, alongside all other countries that have really been cut out of international tax discussions, stood up and said, ‘this is the time to change the rules of the game’.” ~ Rachel Etter-Phoya

“The resolution really is a kind of watershed moment. The OECD has lobbied its absolute hardest to try to get this blocked. And yet the resolution in the end went through unanimously by consensus.” ~ Alex Cobham

“We look forward to taking further steps as urgently as possible. We have only eight years to realise our ambitious 2030 agenda. We will not achieve it unless we step up the pace of our efforts to reshape multilateralism for the 21st century.” ~ UN Representative for Nigeria

Further reading and information:

WATCH this historic UN meeting here (starts about 20 minutes in): https://media.un.org/en/asset/k1b/k1bummpe5z

• https://taxjustice.net/2022/11/22/%f0%9f%94%b4-live-blog-un-vote-on-new-tax-leadership-role/
• https://taxjustice.net/2022/12/15/un-resolution-for-an-intergovernmental-tax-framework-what-does-it-mean-and-whats-next/
• https://taxjustice.net/press/un-adopts-historic-decision-to-take-on-new-tax-leadership/
• https://taxjustice.net/press/un-secretary-general-signals-support-for-un-tax-convention/

Here’s a summary of the Taxcast:

in this month’s Taxcast – it may not sound like it, but this is history being made at the United Nations:”

UN Chair: “The committee will now take action on draft resolution L11 rev 1. May I take it that the committee wishes to adopt draft resolution L11 rev 1? I hear no objection. Draft resolution L 11 REV 1 is adopted.” [Bangs gavel]

Naomi: “We’re going to give you our fly-on-the-wall take on what happened at the UN on November 24th 2022. We’re going to look at the power plays around what really is the beginning of the end of the OECD’s 60 year reign as the world’s leading rule-maker on global tax:”

UN Chair: “I call to order the 25th plenary meeting of the second committee at the 77th session of the general assembly.”

Naomi: “OK so usually a meeting with a title like that would make my eyes glaze over. And a vote on a resolution called ‘L11 Rev 1’ wouldn’t exactly set me on fire either BUT, honestly, it’s a fascinating meeting. It’s all the more interesting because of the power dynamics. Because in many ways, we’re witnessing a shift in power. I’ll put a link to the video in the show notes, it kicks off at about 20 minutes in, it’s worth a look. But let’s start by understanding what this resolution is and what nations have just voted for. Here’s Alex Cobham of the Tax Justice Network:”

Alex: “Look, this is a great resolution, and yet it is much less than it could have been, much less than the original proposal from the Africa Group. I think we should say, first of all, what a just fantastic job the Nigerian delegation have done to get this through. I think without Nigeria’s leadership, it’s not clear who else would’ve stood up, and that’s been vital in, in getting this, this really unprecedented success. So even in the state that it went through, the resolution really is a kind of watershed moment. There’s three main elements to it. So first of all, um, most concretely, it calls for the Secretary General Antonio Gutierrez to produce a report on the options for a framework at the UN for intergovernmental discussions and decisions on tax rules. Um, so looking at the options and over the next six months or so, delivering a, a report to the UN.

Secondly, it calls for the beginning of intergovernmental discussions, not negotiations – that got watered down to discussions – but this is still significant. Um, and that we’ll see countries and regions, uh, coming together and starting to formulate their positions on these questions: to what extent do they want to see, uh, a full intergovernmental body on tax under UN auspices? What do they want it to cover? What issues, what aspects from, uh, transparency measures through to rule setting and so on? And what form do they think that should take? So it will effectively begin informally the process of negotiations.

And then thirdly, the resolution calls for and establishes a session in the next general assembly, so from September, 2023 to discuss the Secretary General’s report and to consider decisions, and that’s where you’d expect to see a resolution of the form that this one originally took. That basically fires the starting pistol on formal negotiations, sets out a timetable for those meetings and a budget to support that negotiation process. So that’s been delayed in a sense to next year, but what we’ve already got in place is very significant.”

Naomi: “And the Nigerian representative makes it really clear at this UN meeting about the interference and attempts to water all this down, let’s listen here:”

Nigeria rep: “Nigeria is happy to be taking this historic first step, but we are also troubled that this resolution could not be more ambitious. Most countries find it difficult to accept the legitimacy of international norms of forums that they have no effective voice in shaping. We also have not had a single globally inclusive forum on international tax cooperation. Unfortunately, the enormous pressure put on sovereign countries by the secretariat of another less inclusive international organisation is regrettable, but something we hope we can all move past as we forge ahead together.”

Naomi: “She’s talking here about the OECD, when she’s mentioning pressure put on countries by ‘another less inclusive international organisation’! The OECD does seem to have seen this vote as a paradigm shift that threatens their dominance in the area of international tax, or they wouldn’t have tried so hard to stop, or weaken this resolution, right?”

Alex: “Yeah, it’s funny to hear the Nigerian statements referring to the very significant extent to which, although they don’t name it, the OECD has lobbied its absolute hardest to try to get this blocked. And yet the resolution in the end went through unanimously by consensus. That’s quite a condemnation of the OECD. Uh, in fact, their lobbying was thought by some to be so extreme that it actually put people off voting against this resolution who might otherwise have been more sympathetic.”

Naomi: “So it backfired! Even though the resolution did get passed, afterwards a load of countries, (largely OECD members) then complained about how they weren’t happy about it after all!”

Alex: “Yes I think, you know, from the OECD’s point of view, they’d be pretty disappointed that although these countries are so unhappy, none of them was willing to actually go the whole way and object.”

Naomi: “Ha, no, interestingly they weren’t willing! Joining us to analyse the vote on this historic UN resolution is the Tax Justice Network’s Rachel Etter-Phoya in Malawi. Rachel, what did you make of this UN meeting?”

Rachel: “Naomi, it was absolutely incredible to watch the proceedings at the UN to see what was like a boxing match where the underdog Nigeria, representing the Africa group at the UN, alongside all other countries that have really been cut out of the international tax discussions to stand up and say, ‘this is the time to change the rules of the game, to start negotiations on international tax’. It was so incredible because it is so different from how we’ve seen international tax negotiations over the last few years. The OECD, so the club of the richest nations, former imperial powers, they’ve been setting the rules for the last 60 years. They’ve had their banquet and they’ve been eating at it. They did in the last couple of years try to bring in a few more, but it wasn’t to the banquet table, it was really around it, catching the scraps. And in this so-called inclusive framework, countries were pressured to sign up to things that they maybe wouldn’t have signed up to otherwise. And the African Tax Administration Forum called out political pressure and coercion of members in these negotiations.”

Naomi: “Yes. What’s really striking to me straight away, just visually when you watch this UN meeting is that nations are all there, seated in alphabetical order, so you get Cameroon sitting next to Canada, Nepal sitting next to the Netherlands and New Zealand. Because if you compare that to the OECD, that’s not the case at all for, let’s say, Malawi is it?”

Rachel: “Malawi doesn’t have a seat at this banquet table. It’s not even in the room getting scraps. And there are other countries like this, so you cannot talk about inclusivity if you are not talking about the entire world. And you have to look at the power dynamics in the room and who actually is calling the shots. And even though there are challenges with the UN system, at least every country is sitting side by side.”

Naomi: “Yes! And the African Group of nations have really led the way throughout the process, all the way to the successful passing of this resolution:”

Rachel: “Sorting out the international tax system is really important for everyone and it’s really important for Africa. Africa is a net creditor to the world because of illicit financial flows, flows of money that flow out of the continent illicitly. You might assume that the greatest flows are from criminal and corrupt activity, but actually the high level panel report from a few years back that assessed the scale of illicit financial flows by the African Union saw that 60% of the illicit flows out of the continent are actually through trade. And unless we sort out the international tax system, this is not going to change. Countries have already committed to curbing illicit financial flows, which requires a change in the international tax rules in signing up to the 2030 agenda for development, known as the sustainable development goals. And part of the Addis Ababa action really explicitly states that we need to curb illicit financial flows if we’re gonna be able to finance the development that we need across the world. And this is also really explicit in Africa’s own continental blueprint for development, the Africa we want, which is the Africa Union 2063 agenda. And delegates mention this as a reason for the resolution – that we need to change the tax system to tackle illicit flows. So that’s why it’s so important to hear South Africa reminding all the other UN members in the room that they have an obligation to implement the Addis Ababa action agenda on financing the development goals. And part of that is tackling illicit financial flows, which requires a shake up to the international tax rules because multinational companies are at the moment able to exploit the rules so that they can shift the profits out of the countries where they’re actually doing business, where they’re employing people, where they have the most customers, where they’re extracting resources.”

Naomi: “Yes, and for particularly the smaller, less economically powerful nations, plundered nations, the OECD really hasn’t delivered. Just one example is with the minimum global corporate tax rate of 15% – a while back we saw countries like Nigeria rejecting that for many reasons – not least that it actually undercut their corporate income tax rate of 30%! Here’s the South African representative making a statement strongly supporting Nigeria’s tabling of this UN resolution:”

South Africa rep: “South Africa supports the resolution tabled by Nigeria on behalf of the African Group entitled ‘Promotion of Inclusive and Effective International Tax Cooperation at the UN.’ It is now seven years since the world adopted the first ever target to reduce illicit financial flows including corporate tax abuse following the report of the high level panel on illicit financial flows out of Africa, chaired by South Africa’s former President Thabo Mbeki. This remains of critical importance for global efforts in support of sustainable development goals. Developing countries have for many years been calling for a global intergovernmental process to deal effectively with tax matters. Paragraph 29 of the Addis Ababa action agenda emphasises that member states will increase the engagement on tax matters with a view of enhancing intergovernmental consideration of tax issues. We therefore believe that the time is now to realise one of the important aspect of the Addis Ababa action agenda with a huge potential for scaling up domestic public resources. By supporting the adoption of the resolution before us, member states are indicating their support for an equitable and just world and expressing support for the right to development for all states. A UN tax convention will set global standards and create the mechanism for transparency and accountability to address illicit financial flows and corporate tax abuse amongst others. The UN is the most appropriate venue for this discussion due to its universal membership and all-inclusive character. We therefore call on all member states to support this resolution, thereby recommitting to strengthened international development cooperation. I thank you.”

Naomi: “That’s the South African representative there. In this UN meeting we’re hearing so many representatives saying what a great process the OECD has for achieving better global tax rules for all nations, and how inclusive it’s been!”

Alex: “Yeah, in the debate we are, we are hearing a lot from the core OECD member countries about how the OECD process is perfect and we don’t need anything else, but they’re arguing from a very weak position. You know, clearly the OECD process is not inclusive. The OECD is, you know, in its own articles of association, is required to prioritise the economic interests of its own members, but also the inclusive framework process itself has been widely criticised by pretty much all of the non-OECD member countries in it, because it doesn’t give them a vote, it doesn’t give them an effective voice, they’re really almost just there to, to sign on the dotted line and that’s become increasingly clear. But it isn’t just that the OECD process hasn’t been inclusive, it also hasn’t been effective, so it hasn’t delivered on its own timetable. So, even for the OECD members, I think they themselves know it’s quite a stretch to say that the OECD process has done anything other than really slowly fail and take up lots of people’s time and resources.”

Naomi: “And even though this resolution gets passed unanimously in the end, look what happens here – I mean, the United States makes a last ditch attempt to water it down even further by putting forward an amendment to the resolution for a vote. Here’s the UN chair:”

UN Chair: “An amendment to operative paragraph two of draft resolution L 11 rev one was submitted by the United States of America and circulated in document A/C2/77CRP2. In accordance with rule 130 of the rules of procedure of the general assembly, the committee will take first a decision on the proposed amendment.”

Naomi: “Check this out…”

UN Chair: “I now give the floor to the representative of the United States to introduce the draft amendment.”

Naomi: “And now we get the vaguest explanation of this amendment from the US representative, I think they know it’s going to fail and they’re wasting their time:”

US rep: “Thank you Madame Chair and thank you to the facilitator of this resolution and fellow delegates. I will be brief. Hopefully all have had the opportunity to review the amendment we’ve put forward. Operative paragraph two calls for intergovernmental discussions at the United Nations in the spirit of undertaking a truly inclusive process to strengthen international tax cooperation. For this reason, the United States strongly feels that it is not in the spirit of beginning an inclusive process to prejudge the outcomes of these discussions – in this paragraph, our edit does not preclude any option from the discussions. It simply does not limit the conversation. We hope you’ll consider our amendment. Thank you.”

Naomi: “Erm, Alex, what’s the US trying to do here?”

Alex: “This amendment was really very weak. What it tried to do was to water down the content of the intergovernmental discussions that will follow to make them so vague as to be almost meaningless, so it was sort of a pure wrecking amendment. Word on the grapevine, and, you know, you hear lots of things, so perhaps shouldn’t put too much weight on this, but the word on the grapevine in New York was that the US had been very heavily lobbied by corporate lobbyists. And so they put this amendment down, you know, because they thought they, they should but then didn’t push other countries as hard as the US sometimes does, but I think it’s also there is an absolute clarity a very large majority of UN member states that want this to go ahead.”

Naomi: “So they’re going through the motions without conviction, that is what it sounded like! Er, let’s listen to this – so all the country representatives are now voting on whether or not to accept this US amendment to Nigeria’s resolution:”

UN Chair: “The committee will now commence the process of voting on the amendment on draft resolution L11 rev 1 contained in CRP2. Those in favour of the proposed amendments to draft resolution L11 rev 1 please signify. Can we have the voting screen up? Yep. Perfect. So those in favour please signify, those against, and abstentions.”

UN Secretary: “The committee is now voting on the proposed amendment draft resolution L 11 rev 1 entitled ‘Promotion of Inclusive and Effective International Tax Cooperation at the United Nations contained in document CRP2. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are correctly reflected on the screen? The voting has been completed. Please lock the machine.”

UN Chair: “I thank the secretary. The result of the vote is as follows: in favour 55, against 97, abstentions 13. The proposed amendment to operative paragraph two of draft resolution L11 rev 1 is rejected.”

Naomi: “Ha ha ha, now THAT is something the US is probably not used to – they got voted down!”

Alex: “Yes, I’m sure the US is, is really not used to not getting its own way, including at the UN! It’s also a quite significant sign, just how few countries were willing to back that.”

Naomi: “Hmm. And now that’s out of the way, before Nigeria’s resolution gets voted on, a number of nations are wanting to make statements. Here’s Singapore having its say:”

Singapore rep: “In the current climate, when the UN is expected to address ever more complex and evolving challenges, it is imperative especially for delegations from small states that we avoid duplication of efforts as far as possible and maximise the limited resources available to us. We are also mindful of the important work on this topic already being done at other forum such as the OECD G20 inclusive framework on base erosion and profit shifting and its two pillar solution. It is in this spirit that Singapore engaged in the negotiations in good faith and worked with like-minded delegations to put forward compromise proposals that reflect a delicate balance and diversity of views on this matter.”

Naomi: “Alex, Singapore isn’t an OECD member, why do they seem so against a more inclusive UN forum for deciding global tax rules?”

Alex: “Singapore is a funny one. I mean, it’s kind of long been known that within the G77 group, which is 134, I think, countries of mainly with lower per capita incomes, former colonies and so on, Singapore has very often been the one that stood out on tax issues in particular, and tried to block unanimity. And the G77 operates by unanimity. What we’ve heard, although this hasn’t been publicly confirmed, is that in this case, the OECD actively sought out high level policy makers in Singapore and asked them to prevent a G77 position in favour of the resolution. Now, with Singapore being by far the biggest corporate tax haven even within the G77, perhaps that’s canny politics by the OECD, but it seems pretty destructive and, and really kind of puts the lie to any claim that they’re fighting this because they care about ending tax abuse. You know, you choose your friends and your allies in this game, and they seem to have done that here.”

Naomi: “Interesting! And now the UK’s wanting to speak ahead of the vote on the final resolution. Let’s listen:”

UK rep: “In recent years, we’ve collectively made significant progress at the OECD.”

Naomi: “Er who’s ‘we’?!”

UK rep: “The global forum on tax transparency, the inclusive framework on base erosion and profit sharing and the OECD’s two pillar solution are all significant steps in building a fairer international tax system for all, including developing countries. These initiatives are open to all. Non-OECD members, participate in them on an equal footing.”

Naomi: “Er…I don’t think so! And now the UK representative’s making it clear they voted in support of the US’s amendment, that’s the one that just got voted down:”

UK rep: “On the present resolution, we voted in favour of the amendment because the original language prejudges new initiatives at the United Nations which could duplicate and potentially undermine existing OECD work.”

Naomi: “A lot of nations use this word ‘duplicate’ over and over throughout the session, which is quite interesting. Time for the vote now, the actual vote on the actual resolution…”

UN Chair: “The committee will now take action on draft resolution L11 rev 1. May I take it that the committee wishes to adopt draft resolution L11 rev 1? I hear no objection. Draft resolution L 11 REV 1 is adopted.” [Bangs gavel]

Naomi: “Now, you’d think that would be that right? This historic resolution is passed, it’s passed by consensus, so it’s unanimous. But then there are quite a lot of sulky, antagonistic statements from some countries which, after all, have just agreed to pass the resolution, right Rachel?”

Rachel: “So what I found fascinating at the proceedings was that after the US’s blow didn’t really land and didn’t wipe out the strong resolution, and then all the nations by consensus passed the resolution that is going to pave the way for tax negotiations to happen at the UN, there was a series of speeches given like additional blows, as if the match hadn’t ended. It was quite incredible, countries were laying their cards on the table. So we saw OECD member states talk a lot about duplication of efforts because they say that through their programme BEPS, which is base erosion and profit shifting, that they’ve been working on this and that the UN shouldn’t duplicate the efforts, but as we know, these, these efforts at the OECD have not been inclusive. So you have countries that enable the most financial secrecy according to the Financial Secrecy Index, I mean the notorious tax havens like Singapore, the US, Luxembourg, coming out after the resolution has passed to sort of throw punches in the air and say, ‘we don’t like this because it might duplicate efforts’ or ‘it’s gonna cost a lot of money’ and still trying to defend their banquet table as inclusive, as effective. And you have to imagine the other delegates in the room who are not at that banquet table or maybe just around the edge of that table in the inclusive framework who are shaking their heads inside.”

Naomi: “Yeah, we saw one nation after the other, overwhelmingly OECD member states, using this UN forum to kind of parrot very similarly worded objections about a resolution they all just reluctantly passed, it was like they were all reading from the same page!”

Alex: “This point we are hearing about, you know, the potential duplication of the OECD process, about the scarcity of resources. I mean, this is really, it’s not a question for UN member states, it’s a question for the G20 to consider. It gave this mandate to the OECD to set these rules in 2019, even after the OECD had effectively failed in the first attempt from 2013 to 2015. The G20 countries have given the OECD an enormous amount of resources to do this, while at the same time, the core members of the OECD have repeatedly starved the UN system, including the UN tax committee of any resources to do its job. Oh, and let’s not forget the inclusive framework member countries have been required to pay the OECD for their membership at a table where they don’t have an effective voice or vote. Um, you know, so we should be thinking about their scarce resources, and we should very much be encouraging them to allocate those scarce resources to a process where they do have the chance of an effective voice and effective vote. And that’s only gonna happen, uh, at the UN. So this isn’t an argument that that really holds any water at all.”

Naomi: “No. And after the resolution is passed, the US representative gives a pretty strong and disappointed statement, listen to this:”

US rep: “The United States joins consensus, but wishes to clarify its position on critical issues related to this resolution. We disagree with the notion implied by this resolution that there is not presently a highly inclusive forum working to strengthen international cooperation on tax. A United Nations intergovernmental process proposes a process that will tear down much of the progress that has been made in international tax cooperation since the 2008 to 2009 financial crisis and will undermine the inclusive framework at the OECD through which so much progress is being made. For that reason, the United States must dissociate itself.”

Naomi: “Ouch! Sore losers! Remember that part of the resolution calls for the UN Secretary General to make a report on the next steps to enhance tax rule setting leadership at the UN, something the Secretary General has supported. The US doesn’t like that:”

US rep: “We feel calls for a new report by the Secretary General at this time are inappropriate. Establishing a UN-headquartered open-ended ad hoc intergovernmental committee to recommend new actions will undermine efforts both to stabilise the international tax system and help it become fit for purpose for the 21st century. Thank you.”

Naomi: “Hmmm. And as for what the Liechtenstein representative says, I really can’t take this seriously:”

Liechtenstein rep: “Madame Chair, the strengthening of international corporation on taxation matters has been a longstanding priority for Lichtenstein. As a member of the global forum on transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes as well as the OECD G20 inclusive framework on base erosion and profit shifting, Lichtenstein is committed to international collaboration to tackle tax avoidance, ensure a more transparent tax environment and strengthen the rule of law.”

Alex: [Laughs] “Yeah, Liechtenstein, I mean, Liechtenstein has for a long time at the UN, been very much at the forefront of European jurisdictions fighting any kind of tax or transparency progress. To hear them say, you know, ‘we are against this because we are really strongly with the OECD’s efforts against tax abuse,’ you know, really confirms just how far jurisdictions like that, that are so heavily involved in facilitating tax abuse see the OECD process as being on their side, you know, the rest of us can draw our own conclusions!”

Naomi: “And Rachel, your personal favourite – or I should really say unfavourite statement after the resolution was passed is from South Korea?”

Rachel: “I found it quite astonishing to hear South Korea in quite a patronising manner, say that the Africa group had not followed the correct process in drafting the resolution. They even explicitly stated, this delegate from South Korea, that they do not agree that an inclusive discussion can take place only at the UN. I mean that’s convenient to say when you’re sitting at the OECD’s banquet table, isn’t it?!”

Naomi: “Ha, exactly! Let’s hear what the representative of the Republic of Korea has to say on the drafting of the resolution:”

Korea rep: “It was deeply unfortunate to see in the first place a draft simply tabled to establish a new legally binding mechanism without any preparatory work to accommodate different views and identify common ground. The draft, which was supposed to serve as a basis of the negotiations only referred to unrealistic promises to create a new mechanism and ignored all relevant achievements, efforts and progress accumulated over a very long time. This year’s process should not constitute the precedent for our future process and must not ever be repeated again. The Republic of Korea agrees on the need for ensuring more inclusiveness and effectiveness in international tax cooperation. My country, however, does not agree that an inclusive discussion can take place only at the UN. The discussion should be guided by a pragmatic and effective approach instead of a political and simplistic one. We may have to ask ourselves if such a rush to launch of the UN consultations could promote and advance the relevance of the UN and ensure genuine inclusiveness. It might be convenient and easy to rely only on binary views like developed and developing when we see the world, but especially for tax matters, with such an approach we are certain that we’ll not be able to reach any meaningful outcome.”

Naomi: “Wow, she’s being quite rude there in saying the African Group of nations brought this process forward in a rush, and in a simplistic way, they’ve been working on this for years!”

Rachel: “And some explicitly say that ‘actually what you’re saying isn’t correct.’ I mean, the Eritrean representative speaking on behalf of the Africa Group says that we need a space that has equal footing for tax negotiations, clearly meaning that the OECD’s process and inclusive framework is not that.”

Naomi: “Right, here’s the Eritrean representative:”

Eritrea rep: “Tax-related illicit financial flows inclusive including tax evasion and avoidance are global problems and require global solutions and global cooperation, and no other multilateral fora is better than the United Nations to address such challenges and provide inclusive solutions. Effective international tax cooperation remains neglected in the global economic governance and needs concerted joint efforts to bridge that gap through a comprehensive United Nations framework on tax. Developing and developed countries need to join forces in pursuit of just, global UN-led solutions. The African group stresses the need to promote tax cooperation and the establishment of a governance structure where all member states can participate on an equal footing, contrary to the structures that we have today. The group stress the need to reinforce the global fight against illicit financial flows, including tax avoidance and evasion by increasing transparency and cooperation between governments and by creating more coherent and less complex global tax rules, standards and structures that fully take into consideration the interests, concerns and needs of developing countries. This resolution is a milestone toward ensuring a high standard of transparency. The resolution aims to ensure cooperation among all member states to establish one coherent global system designed to work for all countries, and not just a few.”

Rachel: “And I guess at the end of it all, after all is said and done, Nigeria’s representative speaks so powerfully about how historic the resolution is and what it means to the sovereignty of African nations and other nations who finally have a place at an inclusive table.”

Nigeria rep: “Madam Chair, Nigeria’s presidency of the 74th General Assembly had jointly convened with Norway as President of Economic and Social Council, the high level panel on financial accountability, transparency and integrity for achieving the 2030 agenda. One of the recommendations made over a year ago was a need for a fully inclusive and effective international tax cooperation at the United Nations. Madam Chair, African ministers publicly have stated their desire for a United Nations tax convention six months ago. We look forward to taking further steps as urgently as possible. We have only eight years to realise our ambitious 2030 agenda. We will not achieve it unless we step up the pace of our efforts to reshape multilateralism for the 21st century. I thank you.”

Naomi: “That’s the Nigerian representative. Alex, will this resolution really help African and other nations do that? I mean we can hear in this session from the US and many others, that although this resolution was unanimously passed by consensus, things seem far from consensus, some of the world’s most powerful countries don’t like this at all – what are the battles ahead now, hopes and challenges?”

Alex: “This is such an important question. Again, I want to reiterate what a great job Nigeria has done with the full backing of the Africa group. And they’re really right to say there’s only eight years left, almost, you know, eight going on seven. The sustainable development goals were inaugurated in 2015 and included the first ever commitment to curb illicit financial flows, including from the panel chaired by Thabo Mbeki, the high level panel on illicit financial flows out of Africa, they’re dominated by corporate tax abuse. So it’s really crucial that we get policy progress in that area. We also have within the sustainable development goals, tax identified as the primary means of implementation. So, everything that the world has committed to in terms of the 2030 agenda really depends on effective progress against the international tax abuse that drains the world of perhaps half a trillion dollars in revenues every year and forces inequalities systematically higher.

The point I think now going into the discussions is whether in good heart, the EU, the US, the UK, Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, you know, whether this set of countries wants to carry on blocking to try to keep their disproportionate power at the OECD intact at the expense of making effective progress against tax abuse, they have to really decide and come out and say it. Do they want to keep a bit more power, power that they can’t make effective? Or do they want to become part of a bigger and genuinely inclusive process that has the potential to finally deliver effectively against international tax abuse, against illicit financial flows? And for the 2030 agenda that they’ve all signed up to, we’re starting to get to the point that countries have to make their positions clear and be judged accordingly. There’s no more room to hide in the opacity of the OECD process.”

Naomi: “You’ve been listening to the Taxcast from the Tax Justice Network. That’s it for now, thanks for listening. We’ll be back with you next month.”

View Details

Welcome to the 60th edition of our Arabic podcast/radio show Taxes Simply الجباية ببساطة contributing to tax justice public debate around the world. It’s produced and presented by Walid Ben Rhouma and is available on most podcast apps. Any radio station is welcome to broadcast it for free and websites are also welcome to share it. You can follow the programme on Facebook, on Twitter and on our website.

في العدد #60 من بودكاست الجباية ببساطة سلطنا الضوء على خفايا تتظيم قطر لكأس العالم لكرة القدم فيفا 2022 وتأثيره على نظامها الضريبي في ظل تعالي أصوات تنادي بالمقاطعة بسبب انتهاك حقوق العمالة الأجنبية. في هذا العدد نتحدث عن فضيحة إختلاس 2.5 مليار دولار من مصلحة الضرائب العراقية والمنحة الامريكية لدعم الموازنة الأردنية وتضرر قطاع بيع السيارات في مصر جراء إنخفاض قيمة الجنيه المصري مقابل الدولار.The World Cup 2022 and the dark side of Qatar:
In episdode #60 of Taxes Simply, we shed light on the subtleties of Qatar’s organisation of the FIFA World Cup 2022 and the impact on its tax system, in light of the voices calling for a boycott as a result of violations of the rights of migrant workers. We also look at the embezzlement scandal of 2.5 billion dollars from the Iraqi Tax Authority, the recent US grant to support the Jordanian budget, and the damage to Egypt’s car sales sector due to the depreciation of the Egyptian pound against the dollar.

كأس العالم: الجانب المُظلم من قطرتابعونا على صفحتنا على الفايسبوك وتويتر https://www.facebook.com/ TaxesSimply Tweets by taxes_simply[Image thanks to: “Zinedine Zidane, Marco Materazzi” by Doha Stadium Plus is licensed under CC BY 2.0.]

View Details

Welcome to our Spanish language podcast and radio programme Justicia ImPositiva with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, free to download and broadcast on radio networks across Latin America and Spain. ¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a nuestro podcast y programa radiofónico! Escuche por su app de podcast.

En este programa con Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez:

• La reforma tributaria en Colombia, hoja de ruta para un cambio en toda América Latina.
• Conferencia sobre una de las luchas centrales de la actualidad: servicios públicos o un mundo manejado por los mercados.
• La diferencia entre lo público y el estado para la provisión de servicios públicos para toda la población.
• Y ¿cómo va la marcha de la lucha por la justicia social y tributaria en este mundo de pandemia, inflación y guerra?

INVITADOS

• Fabio Arias, miembro del consejo directivo de la Central Unitaria de Trabajadores de Colombia
• Rosa Pavanelli, secretaria general del PSI, Sindicato Internacional de trabajadores públicos
• Javier Marquez, Corporación Ecológica y cultural Penca de Sabila
• Ricardo Martner, ICRICT, Comisión Independiente para la Reforma de la Fiscalidad Corporativa Internacional

~Hoja de ruta para un cambio en toda América LatinaMÁS INFORMACIÓN:

Nuestro Futuro Es Público:

• https://www.derechosypoliticafiscal.org/es/noticias/142-nuestro-futuro-es-publico
• https://publicservices.international/resources/videos/nuestro-futuro-es-pblico—da-1-espaol?id=13519&%3Blang=es
• Enlace de descarga para las emisoras: https://traffic.libsyn.com/j-impositiva/JI_dic_22.mp3
• Subscribase a nuestro RSS feed: http://j_impositiva.libsyn.com/rss
• O envien un correo electronico a Naomi [@] taxjustice.net para ser
  incorporado a nuestra lista de suscriptores.
• Sigannos por twitter en http://www.twitter.com/J_ImPositiva
• Estamos tambien en facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Justicia-ImPositiva-1464800660510982/

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (‘it’s your business’) produced and hosted by Grazielle David and Daniela Stefano. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode: Copa do Mundo das injustiças #43 Paraísos fiscais, violação de direitos trabalhistas de imigrantes, empresas de apostas desportivas online sediadas em […]

View Details

Welcome to the latest episode of the Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast, the Taxcast. You can subscribe either by emailing naomi [at] taxjustice.net or find us on your podcast app. In this episode, Taxcast host Naomi Fowler discusses sovereignty, the ‘boomerang effect’ and the relevance of the ‘Third World Movement’ today to our global economic system with Dr […]

View Details

Welcome to our Spanish language podcast and radio programme Justicia ImPositiva with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, free to download and broadcast on radio networks across Latin America and Spain. ¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a nuestro podcast y programa radiofónico! Escuche por su app de podcast favorita. En este programa con Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez: La victoria de Lula […]

View Details

Welcome to the 59th edition of our Arabic podcast/radio show Taxes Simply الجباية ببساطة contributing to tax justice public debate around the world. It’s produced and presented by Walid Ben Rhouma and is available on most podcast apps. Any radio station is welcome to broadcast it for free and websites are also welcome to share it. You can follow the programme […]

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in French, Impôts et Justice Sociale with Idriss Linge of the Tax Justice Network. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages every month in English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here and on most podcast apps. Here’s our latest episode: Dans cette édition de votre podcast en français produit par Tax Justice Network, nous revenons sur plusieurs […]

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (‘it’s your business’) produced and hosted by Grazielle David and Daniela Stefano. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode: Doações milionárias à campanhas prejudicam democracia #42: A democracia é fundamental para que a economia funcione para todas as pessoas. E as eleições […]

View Details

Welcome to the latest episode of the Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast, the Taxcast. You can subscribe either by emailing naomi [at] taxjustice.net or find us on your podcast app. In this episode: Nelson Mandela famously said, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” Yet millions of children in the world still […]

View Details

Welcome to our Spanish language podcast and radio programme Justicia ImPositiva with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, free to download and broadcast on radio networks across Latin America and Spain. ¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a nuestro podcast y programa radiofónico! Escuche por su app de podcast favorita. En este programa con Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez: Justicia Impositiva o cómo […]

View Details

Welcome to the 58th edition of our Arabic podcast/radio show Taxes Simply الجباية ببساطة contributing to tax justice public debate around the world. It’s produced and presented by Walid Ben Rhouma and is available on most podcast apps. Any radio station is welcome to broadcast it for free and websites are also welcome to share it. You can follow the programme […]

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in French, Impôts et Justice Sociale with Idriss Linge of the Tax Justice Network. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages every month in English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here and on most podcast apps. Here’s our latest episode: Pour la 44ème édition de votre podcast en français sur la justice fiscale en Afrique et […]

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (‘it’s your business’) produced and hosted by Grazielle David and Daniela Stefano. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode: Educação + impostos = vidas transformadas #41 A crise global da educação foi tema da Cúpula da Educação Transformadora da ONU, […]

View Details

Welcome to the latest episode of the Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast, the Taxcast. You can subscribe either by emailing naomi [at] taxjustice.net or find us on your podcast app. In this episode, Taxcast host and producer Naomi Fowler explores tax as a tool for racial justice and the launch of a new report by Decolonising Economics. Transcript of the […]

View Details

The etymology of tax is “to fix”, and so…we ask ourselves “howcan tax help address racial wealth inequality [and] repair the harms of structural racism that are embedded into our economic system?” ~ Decolonising Economics, Tax as a Tool for Racial Justice report These are crucial questions. And it’s taken many of us involved in […]

View Details

Welcome to our Spanish language podcast and radio programme Justicia ImPositiva with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, free to download and broadcast on radio networks across Latin America and Spain. ¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a nuestro podcast y programa radiofónico! Escuche por su app de podcast favorita. En este programa con Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez: El nuevo discurso en […]

View Details

Welcome to the 57th edition of our Arabic podcast/radio show Taxes Simply الجباية ببساطة contributing to tax justice public debate around the world. It’s produced and presented by Walid Ben Rhouma and is available on most podcast apps. Any radio station is welcome to broadcast it for free and websites are also welcome to share it. You can follow the programme […]

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in French, Impôts et Justice Sociale with Idriss Linge of the Tax Justice Network. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages every month in English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here and on most podcast apps. Here’s our latest episode: Pour cette 43ème édition de votre Podcast en français sur la justice fiscale et la justice sociale […]

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (‘it’s your business’) produced and hosted by Grazielle David and Daniela Stefano. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode, CARF permite sonegações bilionárias no Brasil #40: Cerca de 1 trilhão de reais (USD 192 bi)  está para ser julgado no […]

View Details

Welcome to the 56th edition of our Arabic podcast/radio show Taxes Simply الجباية ببساطة contributing to tax justice public debate around the world. It’s produced and presented by Walid Ben Rhouma and is available on most podcast apps. Any radio station is welcome to broadcast it for free and websites are also welcome to share it. You can follow the programme […]

View Details

Welcome to our Spanish language podcast and radio programme Justicia ImPositiva with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, free to download and broadcast on radio networks across Latin America and Spain. ¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a nuestro podcast y programa radiofónico! Escuche por su app de podcast favorita. En este programa: La asunción de Petro en Colombia y el nuevo equilibrio […]

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in French, Impôts et Justice Sociale with Idriss Linge of the Tax Justice Network. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages every month in English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here and on most podcast apps. Here’s our latest episode: Pour cette 42ème édition de votre Podcast en Français produit par Tax Justice Network, nous revenons sur la […]

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (‘it’s your business’) produced and hosted by Grazielle David and Daniela Stefano. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode, Registro global de ativos pode acabar com sigilo financeiro #39: Todas as negociações globais por direitos que ocorrem na ONU esbarram […]

View Details

Welcome to the latest episode of the Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast, the Taxcast. You can subscribe either by emailing naomi [at] taxjustice.net or find us on your podcast app. In this episode Taxcast host Naomi Fowler investigates the phenomenon of pop-up sweet shops on one of the world’s busiest shopping locations, Oxford Street in London and the […]

View Details

Welcome to our Spanish language podcast and radio programme Justicia ImPositiva with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, free to download and broadcast on radio networks across Latin America and Spain. ¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a nuestro podcast y programa radiofónico! Escuche por su app de podcast favorita. En este programa:  Los desafíos que enfrenta Gustavo Petro en Colombia. ¿Es posible […]

View Details

Welcome to the 55th edition of our Arabic podcast/radio show Taxes Simply الجباية ببساطة contributing to tax justice public debate around the world. It’s produced and presented by Walid Ben Rhouma and is available on most podcast apps. Any radio station is welcome to broadcast it for free and websites are also welcome to share it. You can follow the programme […]

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in French, Impôts et Justice Sociale with Idriss Linge of the Tax Justice Network. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages every month in English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here and on most podcast apps. Here’s our latest episode: Dans cette 41ème édition de votre podcast en français sur la justice fiscale en Afrique et […]

View Details

Welcome to the latest episode of the Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast, the Taxcast. You can subscribe either by emailing naomi [at] taxjustice.net or find us on your podcast app. In this spisode we look at Amazon’s tax challenge: Annual shareholder’s meetings used to be pretty staid and boring affairs. But, as inequality has boomed along with corporate […]

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (‘it’s your business’) produced and hosted by Grazielle David and Daniela Stefano. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode, Registro global de ativos pode acabar com sigilo financeiro #38: De um lado 33 milhões de brasileiros passando […]

View Details

Welcome to our Spanish language podcast and radio programme Justicia ImPositiva with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, free to download and broadcast on radio networks across Latin America and Spain. ¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a nuestro podcast y programa radiofónico! Escuche por su app de podcast favorita. En este programa con Marcelo Justo y Marta Nuñez: Más secretos del índice […]

View Details

Welcome to the 54th edition of our Arabic podcast/radio show Taxes Simply الجباية ببساطة contributing to tax justice public debate around the world. It’s produced and presented by Walid Ben Rhouma and is available on most podcast apps. Any radio station is welcome to broadcast it for free and websites are also welcome to share it. You can follow the programme […]

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in French, Impôts et Justice Sociale with Idriss Linge of the Tax Justice Network. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages every month in English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here and on most podcast apps. Here’s our latest episode: Le mois de mai 2022 a été marqué par la publication par Tax Justice Network de […]

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (it’s your business) produced by Grazielle David, Daniela Stefano and Luciano Máximo. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode: Os Estados Unidos estão no topo do Índice de Sigilo Financeiro 2022 da Tax Justice Network. Isso significa que além […]

View Details

Welcome to the latest episode of the Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast, the Taxcast. You can subscribe either by emailing naomi [at] taxjustice.net or find us on your podcast app. Which nations are the world’s biggest financial secrecy offenders? And what does it tell us about the world, about politics and about democracy? How high does your country rank in […]

View Details

Welcome to our Spanish language podcast and radio programme Justicia ImPositiva with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, free to download and broadcast on radio networks across Latin America and Spain. ¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a nuestro podcast y programa radiofónico! Escuche por su app de podcast favorita. En este programa: Estados Unidos se convierte en el primer proveedor de secreto […]

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in French, Impôts et Justice Sociale with Idriss Linge of the Tax Justice Network. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages every month in English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here and on most podcast apps. Here’s our latest episode: Pour cette 39ème édition de votre podcast francophone produit par the Tax Justice Network, nous partageons avec vous […]

View Details

Welcome to the 53rd edition of our Arabic podcast/radio show Taxes Simply الجباية ببساطة contributing to tax justice public debate around the world. It’s produced and presented by Walid Ben Rhouma and is available on most podcast apps. Any radio station is welcome to broadcast it for free and websites are also welcome to share it. You can follow the programme […]

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (it’s your business) produced by Grazielle David, Daniela Stefano and Luciano Máximo. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode: Sobe o preço do barril de petróleo, sobem os custos de produção e os preços de quase tudo para os […]

View Details

Welcome to the latest episode of the Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast, the Taxcast. You can subscribe either by emailing naomi [at] taxjustice.net or find us on your podcast app. In this Taxcast episode we ask – do politicians believe in the societies they serve or not? Are they really a part of them, or do they live […]

View Details

Welcome to our Spanish language podcast and radio programme Justicia ImPositiva with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, free to download and broadcast on radio networks across Latin America and Spain. ¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a nuestro podcast y programa radiofónico! Escuche por su app de podcast favorita. En este programa: Fin del pensamiento único. El multilateralismo bipolar que activó la […]

View Details

Welcome to the 52nd edition of our Arabic podcast/radio show Taxes Simply الجباية ببساطة contributing to tax justice public debate around the world. It’s produced and presented by Walid Ben Rhouma and is available on most podcast apps. Any radio station is welcome to broadcast it for free and websites are also welcome to share it. You can follow the programme […]

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in French, Impôts et Justice Sociale with Idriss Linge of the Tax Justice Network. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages every month in English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here and on most podcast apps. Here’s our latest episode: Pour cette 38ème épisode de votre podcast en français sur la justice sociale et la justice […]

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (it’s your business) produced by Grazielle David, Daniela Stefano and Luciano Máximo. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode: Sanções a oligarcas exigem fim de sigilo fiscal #35 Tão logo a guerra na Ucrânia começou, os governos dos Estados […]

View Details

Welcome to the latest episode of the Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast, the Taxcast. You can subscribe either by emailing naomi [at] taxjustice.net or find us on your podcast app. With Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, even the most hardcore ‘let the planet burn’ believers can no longer deny that fossil fuel dependency is a national and an […]

View Details

Welcome to our Spanish language podcast and radio programme Justicia ImPositiva with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, free to download and broadcast on radio networks across Latin America and Spain. ¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a nuestro podcast y programa radiofónico! Escuche por su app de podcast favorita. ¿Qué es un paraíso fiscal?, primer capítulo de nuestra serie mensual para explicar […]

View Details

Welcome to the 51st edition of our Arabic podcast/radio show Taxes Simply الجباية ببساطة contributing to tax justice public debate around the world. It’s produced and presented by Walid Ben Rhouma and is available on most podcast apps. Any radio station is welcome to broadcast it for free and websites are also welcome to share it. You can follow the programme on Facebook, on Twitter and on our website.

في هذا العدد الواحد والخمسين )#51( من الجباية ببساطة نستضيف الباحثة في الشأن العمراني شيماء الشرقاوي للحديث عن تعديلات قانون الايجار القديم والذي يحدد العلاقة بين الملاك المستأجرين، وبمثابة قنبلة موقوتة تهدد الحق في السكن لملايين المصريين. في أخبارنا المتفرقة نعود على تداعيات الحرب الروسية الاوكرانية على الاقتصاد العالمي والمنطقة العربية زيادة على تسريب وثائق “كريدي سويس”. ترقب بعد تعديلات قانون الإيجار الشائك في مصر تابعونا على صفحتنا على الفايسبوك وتويتر https://www.facebook.com/ TaxesSimply Tweets by taxes_simply

View Details

The tragedy that’s unfolding now with Russia and Ukraine is the consequence of the resource curse and the finance curse, hand in hand with ‘Butler Britain’ and other tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions.

All roads lead back to global financial secrecy and all the things we at the Tax Justice Network have been campaigning about for so many years. War can be a time when decades can happen in a few days. It is now clear that the economic costs of handling all that dirty money hurts every country involved. It’s hurting Russia and Russia’s majority populations, because it has helped Vladimir Putin turn Russia into a kleptocratic, mafia-infested gangster state. It’s hurting Ukraine, for reasons we all know. And it’s hurting countries like Britain, handlers of corrupt Russian loot, not least by corrupting its politics – and its national security.

Among the world’s people who understand corruption better than anyone else in the world are Russians and Ukrainians. For them, corruption has had clear and terrible consequences. In Britain it has taken much longer for the effects to be felt. It’s surely no coincidence that Ukraine was the world’s first country to introduce a public registry of the real owners of companies. They wanted to do what they could to make it harder for another Yanukovich to steal and loot again with the same impunity. But they also needed other countries to step up and take action, not only to protect them, but to stop the poison from running through the veins of other nations too. (You can read our 10 measures to expose sanctioned Russian oligarchs’ hidden assets here).

Back in 2014 I interviewed the incredible Daria Kaleniuk of Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Action Centre on the Taxcast, the Tax Justice Network podcast. It wasn’t long after the fall of the outrageously corrupt Yanukovich. You may have seen her on television recently, as she harangued an uncomfortable looking British Prime Minister on the Polish/Ukrainian border about all the Russian oligarchic money that has been welcomed in London, and the abject failures of the British to seize corrupt money.

Just had a chance to ask a question to @BorisJohnson https://t.co/4ee6eXJj6g

— Daria Kaleniuk (@dkaleniuk) March 1, 2022

During his time in power, Yanukovich and his associates used offshore services and shell companies prolifically – at least $70 billion flowed out within a few years and by the time he fell, only half a million dollars was left in the state coffers. Ukrainians famously raided his opulent palace and work by the Ukrainian investigative journalist, Sergii Leshchenko and the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Centre revealed that the palace compound had been one-third owned by an anonymous UK shell company and two-thirds owned by an Austrian bank. In other words, the ownership structure of the palace hid the identity of the true owner.

What Daria Kaleniuk told me when we spoke on the Taxcast back in 2014 is sadly as crucial now as it was then to get through to voters, to citizens and their politicians in tax haven/financial secrecy nations such as the UK. I wonder if the war currently raging means we might really start to listen. I asked her how she and other Ukrainians felt about the fact that so much of the Ukrainian people’s money ended up in the City of London.

“We see that when Europe wants us to change and asks that we have to change, Europe has to change itself as well. It’s not enough to only change Ukraine. If they want to prevent corrupt capital to flow into the EU they can do this, and there are anti money laundering directives that are just not implemented well in Europe because it’s profitable to get this cash and it looks like for the benefit of developed countries to receive the proceeds of corruption while they appear not be corrupt themselves, and I think it’s not right. We are surprised that there is not the political will to pass the law on beneficial ownership…including trusts. We can’t understand why these countries don’t want to create a really powerful anti-corruption tool especially when we know..these jurisdictions were used to launder billions from the developing country of Ukraine.”

She speaks of the critical need to include trusts and foundations in public beneficial ownership registries – because if we don’t, she says, ‘all the money will flow to trusts,’ making the job of those such as the Anti-Corruption Action Centre even harder when trying to protect the public interest of Ukrainians.

As she also says, “I believe beneficial ownership law…will be a really long and hard fight but we have to win it because we’ve paid too high a price.”

Now governments appear to be scrambling to cut off dirty money flows, which they’ve been warned about for so long. But when the British Prime Minister says ‘no country is doing more than the UK to tackle this issue,’ it is false. His own political party is hopelessly compromised, financed heavily by Russians who bought British passports, as well as by the City of London which has resisted anti-corruption measures for decades (along with lawyers, accountants, high net worth wealth managers, gallery owners, estate agents, luxury goods sellers, company formation agents, private equity investors, private schools, and the like.) UK laws have helped oligarchs go after British journalists, rather than the other way around (do read this link, it’s pretty terrifying, even if there is a presumably Ukraine-related bright spot).

The solutions remain the same as we have been advocating for years. Those very wealthy people who put assets in their own names are known as ‘the stupid rich’ in some circles. If what is now happening in Ukraine doesn’t alert us to the dangers of secret ownership and financial secrecy, perhaps nothing ever will.

Now is the time to properly resource our law enforcement and equip them for the battle ahead, in the interests of all people bar the crooked elites – in Russia, in Ukraine, in Britain, and anywhere else.

Image: “20140224_101416” by Journalist/Dutch RTL News/Berlin is marked with CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in French, Impôts et Justice Sociale with Idriss Linge of the Tax Justice Network. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages every month in English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here and on most podcast apps. Here’s our latest episode:

Pour cette 37ème édition de votre podcast en français sur la Justice Fiscale et la Justice Sociale produit par Tax Justice Network, nous partageons avec vous un entretien que nous avons eu avec Jean Mballa, Directeur Exécutif du CRADEC et défenseur pour un meilleur système fiscal en Afrique. Selon lui, les notions de Redéfinition des prix, de Représentation dans les discussions fiscales, mais aussi une meilleure Répartition des Revenus collectés, sont la clé pour un financement efficace de l’adaptation aux changements climatiques dont les conséquences sont prévues pour être catastrophiques en Afrique.

Participe à ce programme

Jean Mballa Mballa : Directeur Exécutif, CRADEC

Les 4 Rs de la justice fiscale pour financer l’adaptation aux changements climatiques en Afrique Vous pouvez suivre le Podcast sur:

• Le télécharger pour l’écouter hors connexion sous le sous ce lien.
• Notre page facebook à l’adresse: https://www.facebook.com/impôts et justice sociale/
• Notre Twitter: www.twitter.com/ImpotsSociale
• La publication sur Youtube et notre site web www.impotsetjusticesociale.com
• Et pour ceux qui ont l’application Stitcher et iTunes ect
• Si vous souhaitez recevoir cette production ou être média partenaires ou simplement contribuer, vous pouvez nous écrire à l’adresse Impôts_sociale@outlook.fr

[Image: “Broadcast Tower” by Steven Beger Photography (Beger.com Productions) is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0]

View Details

“When we work [formally] in a company, we know that there is agreed time for rest, holiday, health services, meal and other rights. While driving cars for app companies, I tried to set a goal to rest one day a week, but there was no way.” What Paulo Rogério Cândido is saying could be the story of millions of Brazilian workers who, in search of an income, turn to digital apps companies that provide intermediation services in exchange for a work relationship based on exploitation.

This affects the entire working class. In É da sua conta episode #34, Luci Praun explains the concept of uberization, which is related to the objective of large companies to profit more and more at the expense of informal workers. What are the effects on the job market, the economy and our health? How does this business model impact tax?

We show that there is a way out: Spain and the European Union are implementing regulations to minimize uberization, explains Clemente Ganz Lucio. And while change for the entire working class does not arrive in Brazil, initiatives such as workers cooperatives that operate their own travel app, such as the one Paulo Rogério helped to build, are proof that it is possible to stop the gears of labour precariousness.

In episode #34 of É da sua conta, we discuss:

• What uberization is and its effects on life, the economy and the job market
• How Spain is giving back labour rights
• The tactics of digital technology companies such as Uber to pay less tax
• How a drivers’ cooperative in Araraquara (São Paulo) is giving back rights and dignity to workers

Quotes from the episode

Precariousness is a process that occurs objectively and subjectively in a work environment dominated by goals, anchored in performance evaluations. App deliverers, for example, are evaluated all the time. It is a job that generates quite significant mental exhaustion and insecurity.”

Luci Praun, UFABC and Ufac

“I started driving at 5 am and stopped at 7 am, 8 pm. When I started as an app driver, just before the pandemic, I made 40 rides a day to earn an income to at least stay indoors.”

Paulo Rogério, Comappa

“Uber has created more than 50 financial branches in tax havens. It used complex loans between different branches in various countries and other mechanisms to transfer profits from higher-tax countries to low-tax countries. This is a transfer pricing ploy to pay less tax.”

Nick Shaxson, Tax Justice Network

“Spain has been making a series of changes seeking to replace the regulatory standard that guides quality employment, remuneration and increased income. It made a tax and administrative inclusion of application companies, which now have to pay taxes in relation to their economic activity and in the employment relationship.”

Clemente Ganz Lucio, Labour Unions Forum

View Details

Welcome to the latest episode of the Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast, the Taxcast. You can subscribe either by emailing naomi [at] taxjustice.net or find us on your podcast app.

In this episode we bring you the story of a pensioner robbed of his dream retirement who shares his story with us of his fight for justice in multiple jurisidctions. Tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions don’t just hurt us because they’re places of impunity for the rich and for criminals. Quite ordinary people can get caught up in them too. And when things go bad, you may not get the help from regulators and law enforcement that you hope for. It is imperative that you are absolutely sure your Independent Financial Advisor is a fit and proper person.

Plus, we share the news of a great loss to Malawi, and to the world, of tax official Mr Alinafe Bonongwe, who was taken from us for doing his job bravely and in the public interest. You can read more about him here: https://taxjustice.net/2022/02/17/in-honour-of-a-tax-collector-taken-from-us-in-the-line-of-duty/ May he rest in peace.

The transcript is available here. Some is automated and may not be 100% accurate.

Featuring:

• Pensioner (un-named)
• Rachel Etter-Phoya of the Tax Justice Network
• Produced and hosted by Naomi Fowler of the Tax Justice Network

Stolen Dreams #119 Taxcast special feature summary:

We know that so-called ‘blue collar crime’ tends to get all the attention. But white collar crime is seen as somehow more acceptable, less serious – they’re men in suits after all (- well, they’re usually men!) In this Taxcast episode, we hear the experiences of one pensioner’s fight for justice, in multiple jurisdictions. Since there are various legal proceedings in process, and still to take place, we’re going to call him our pensioner. Here’s some of that story which he shares with us on the Taxcast:

Pensioner: “I was in the fortunate position of being able to retire relatively early and it had always been a long term ambition of ours to try and live permanently in the sunshine somewhere. We had always put in motion the process of emigrating to the States, we’d already bought a plot in Southwest Florida. So that was where it all started, and then talked to my UK accountant and said you know, what do I do now about pensions? And they said, well, you know, there are such things as these QROPS.”

(QROPS is a special pension arrangement. It stands for Qualifying Recognised Overseas Pension Scheme.)

Pensioner: “Basically it’s available to any overseas citizens who have worked and lived and have earned a pension in the UK, who then when they go back to their motherland, can transfer their UK pension into one of these QROPS. So, one of the things that came to light in the early stages when we were going through the process with an American lawyer to get our green card sorted, was we needed to be careful that we didn’t get caught in the trap of being taxed in two separate jurisdictions. They were specialist immigration lawyers, he said, I do know that there are other Brits who have taken out QROPS because there’s a double taxation treaty between the UK and the US with Malta. So he said, we’ve got quite a few of our green card holders who have got pensions based in Malta because of this double taxation treaty and he said you know, it seems to work fairly well.”

Naomi: “If you’re getting a sinking feeling at this point, as our pensioner says, hindsight is a great thing.”

Pensioner: “So on the back of that, I did some Google research and this was in the early days of Malta having been granted status by HMRC”

Naomi: “HMRC is Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the British tax authorities.”

Pensioner: “and I think I’m right in saying that my pension provider was one of the first, or if not, the very first to be granted a licence by the MFSA to operate or administer a QROPS.”

Naomi: “The MFSA is the Malta Financial Services Authority. Remember that, it’ll come up later. Did you know at the time when you started this whole business, did you know much about Malta as a jurisdiction?”

Pensioner: “No. Well, no. I mean, the, the ironic part is that when the subsidiary company was granted the MFSA licence, the MD of the parent company said, ‘anybody that decides to come with us can rest assured that as Malta is a full member of the EU, they will be fully protected by EU law and consumer protection, and I thought, yeah, you know, safe as houses, aren’t we?!”

Naomi: “Very reassuring!”

Pensioner: “Yes! Because this was a new venture in Malta, they had set up a contract with the Maltese shell companies to have all the administration of the Maltese pension provider supplied by one of their subsidiary companies in the UK. They were a UK FCA-regulated company, so that bit you know, stacked up,except that, of course, when it all started to go belly up, it transpired that this service administrative company was not FCA-regulated at all. It was registered in the UK, but was un-regulated.”

Naomi: “The FCA is the UK Financial Conduct Authority, the regulator for financial services. So, we’ve got two jurisdictions so far – Malta and the UK. Now enter Stage Right – the Independent Financial Advisor, the IFA:”

Pensioner: “I then obviously looked to see, try and find a pension advisor who was specialised in QROPS. Um, this name came up, did my research on that. He’d said at the outset that he was CII-qualified and he was FCA regulated, He claimed that had G60 advanced pension transfer qualifications, and the MD of the parent company in the UK, he’d been on various pension advisory boards, his CV you know, gold-plated in theory, as were the people involved in his Maltese company, you’ve got a former ambassador, who was a lawyer and specialised in financial services, so I, like the hundreds of others who eventually got sucked in, thought, well, this is the way to go. So anyway, the money got transferred and we moved to the States and so a policy was opened by my trustee company in Malta with one of the big insurers in the Isle of Man, all of whom assured me that they had done due diligence on my advisor. On paper, everything looked hunkydory.”

Naomi: “So, now we’ve got Malta, the UK and the British Crown Dependency of the Isle of Man. And of course, the IFA, the Independent Financial Advisor:”

Pensioner: “My IFA assured me that the list of investments that he was going to put in my portfolio were all low risk, which I said, well, you know, I worked really hard to accumulate it, so I don’t want to be speculating, so low risk is absolutely fine. He said, no, no, I assure you that everything will be low risk and this, that and the other.”

Naomi: “So, our pensioner retires, and he starts living the dream in Florida. But only a year later the first ‘low risk’ investment in which his pension was invested went belly-up – that’s now subject to legal proceedings involving the UK’s Serious Fraud Office. That was soon followed by more of these supposedly ‘low risk’ investments going bad.”

Pensioner: “Then there was another one and then another one and another one, and I started to ask my highly qualified IFA, you know, what was going on? And he said ah, don’t worry about it. He said, all these are sound, it’s just they’ve got cashflow problems – all sounded plausible, you know. And he said, you know, some of the funds are regulated by the Isle of Man FSA and so I said, okay. Anyway, I, I just had a gut feeling then that all was not as it should be and I started to ask pointed questions of my IFA and he was being ever more devious in the replies I was getting. Out of the blue he said, I am resigning as your IFA and I wish you luck, but I will not now enter into any further correspondence with you. And at this stage, you know, I was relying on him for information as to what was going on with the suspended funds. Well, I obviously went back to my QROPS provider in Malta and said, you know, what is going on? And I also, at the same time sent an email to the admin provider in the UK because at that stage they were still contracted to provide all the administration for the QROPS in Malta. So they both acknowledged and said, ‘oh, you know, we’re sorry to hear this, leave it with us.’ And I did leave it with them and they’re still dealing with it!”

Naomi: “Our pensioner turned detective. He discovered that his IFA – Independent Financial Advisor had been suspended by the Chartered Insurance Institute for quite some time.”

Pensioner: “And the FCA meantime had also confirmed that the IFA had never been regulated by them either as an individual, the various companies which he had set up in various jurisdictions, none of which were regulated anywhere, some of which weren’t even registered, he’d just made up a company name and given an address in Italy, and it then transpired much further down the line that all these addresses that he’d given were just accommodation addresses. Um, but anyway, hindsight’s a wonderful gift, isn’t it?!”

Naomi: “It is indeed. Scammers do use accommodation addresses, they open letterbox companies in the UK, they trade on Britain’s supposed respectability and trustworthiness! We’ve reported before on the Taxcast about the kind of ‘wild west’ of Scottish and English limited partnerships. And then Companies House, the UK companies registry is an open joke.”

Pensioner: “So, I mean, this guy’s been operating for a long, long time and has scammed millions and millions and millions in fees and conditions and god knows what, facilitated and enabled by the insurers and indeed by HMRC because, you know, I’ve been backwards and forwards with HMRC for goodness knows how long saying, how can you allow these registered companies to still be operating when the UK Treasury last summer put Malta on its red list as being a jurisdiction which needs treating with great care? ‘Nothing to do with us!’”

Naomi: “Our pensioner didn’t take all this sitting down:”

Pensioner: “So I then contacted a law firm in the UK because that stage all the administration was still being carried out by the unregulated company in the UK. They, in fairness, were very, very diligent, which is how so much of this information I think I’ve already shared with you came to light about the use of 14 different addresses, the fact that he was never, ever regulated in the UK. He denied that he’d lived in the UK, but in fact, he was on the electoral register. Um, they used trace agents, you know, the whole nine yards. And of course, as each day went by, it became more and more obvious that I was a victim of a huge scam.”

Naomi: “Just as it looked like he was getting somewhere, possibly the worst news of all came from our pensioner’s lawyers:”

Pensioner: “My UK lawyer said, ‘look, although this contract between the QROPS in Malta and the administrative company in the UK says that the contract had been drawn up in accordance with English law, the reality is that – and they took advice from a barrister – because the trustees were based in Malta, the jurisdiction lay in Malta. So it was at that stage that I then appointed the lawyer in Malta to represent me, who has been an absolute star, I have to say, and then he submitted judicial papers as they call it in Malta to the courts to start a litigation case against the QROPS provider in Malta. And he said, I’ll tell you now, this will drag on for years, it will end up eventually in the European courts, because he said, everybody here is a friend of a friend of a friend, they have got their friends in all the places where they need them to be, to ensure that what happens in Malta, stays in Malta.”

Naomi: “That is exactly the situation in other small island jurisdictions that we’ve come across where the conflicts of interest are ridiculous, it’s the same thing that you’ve experienced, so it’s really interesting.”

Pensioner: “Yeah, and it’s the same in the Isle of Man. Because the insurers are based in the Isle of Man I’ve submitted complaints to the Isle of Man constabulary, the Isle of Man FSA, the Isle of Man financial ombudsman service. And it’s the same with the FCA. They all say, well, no, no, I hear what you’re saying, but the jurisdiction is in Malta, so they know what’s going on, but they just don’t want it to stick with them do they? It’s the classic ‘we’ll pass the parcel until the music stops, and hope it doesn’t stop with us!’”

Naomi: “So, I mean, you’ve got a lot of evidence which you’ve collected. There’s a lot of litigation and a lot of processes that you’ve gone through. You’ve tried to pursue justice with HRMC, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Financial Action Task Force, Malta’s Financial Services Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority, you’ve been to your Member of Parliament, you’ve been to the police, how would you describe the process of trying to get some kind of justice or some kind of accountability?

Pensioner: “Um, character building!”

Naomi: “And then, our pensioner unexpectedly discovered he wasn’t alone.”

Pensioner: “We had an email from the QROPS provider in Malta, where inadvertently, they had put 30-plus people in copy rather than putting us all in blind copy, which was an update from the liquidators of one of the Isle of Man failed funds basically telling us, you know, good luck with this, you’re gonna get, you know, half or nothing! I assumed I was no longer the only one who’d been caught up in this, but the provider obviously was desperate not to let it out that there were between 60 and 70 members of just this one QROPS provider who had been advised by this now absconded IFA.”

Naomi: “So you, you got in touch with each other because you realised there were other victims in the, the email chain?”

Pensioner: “Yes, once this infamous email was shared amongst us, myself, and one other sort of have started basically an action group, for want of a better term. And I got in touch with them and said look, I’ve, you know, had lawyers in the UK on it since 2017, a lawyer in Malta on it. We’re just part of an absolute huge scam in many, many different jurisdictions. And we’ve been sharing…”

Naomi: “Horror stories?”

Pensioner: “Oh, yeah, horror stories is the right way to describe it!”

Naomi: “Can I ask you, I mean, you don’t have to answer this at all, but can you give an idea of what you’ve lost personally?”

Pensioner: “Personally, well, over a million, well, over a million. I hope to goodness, in one respect, you know, I am one of the biggest losers. Fortunately it hasn’t brought us to our knees. I mean, we’ve had to move back to the UK, but I mean, I haven’t lost everything.”

Naomi: “Do you know, I mean, you’ve been in touch with some of the people that were involved in the same scam that you were, do you know any of their stories?”

Pensioner: “Oh, heartbreaking. I, I, I mean, there’s one lady who was a nurse and is still working as a nurse in the States and she said ‘I can’t afford to envisage taking out legal action against them because of the legal fees involved.’ And I mean, that is heartbreaking. There is somebody who died destitute in Spain because he had been scammed out of everything, his house had been repossessed and he died just days before the bank was gonna take the keys from him. I’ve shared that with the MFSA and with the police and everybody in Malta saying, you know, how can you allow this to happen and not take action? And the reality is because so many of those people involved are high up in government circles, have been former MPs, are former ambassadors and so on, and they’re all just looking after themselves. Truly scandalous.”

Naomi: “So in terms of, I mean, in one sense you could look at this as a story about Malta being a really bad and unsafe jurisdiction to do business. However, you could also say, this is also a story about lack of enforcement in many jurisdictions, so you’re talking about the Isle of Man, you’re talking about the UK where the company was registered there and actually, that wasn’t safe either. So this is not just a story about ‘don’t put your money in Malta’!”

Pensioner: “No, oh no, no! And it’s basically stick it under your mattress and look after yourself, because all these people that are meant to be batting for you aren’t interested, or are incapable, or dare I even suggest it, perhaps facilitating because of the benefits they receive. I mean, certainly that’s the case in Malta, and I’m increasingly convinced the same as in the Isle of Man, because you’ve got exactly the same scenario – small island, heavily reliant on financial services, they all know each other, all the auditors will know each other, all the insurers will know each other. And when I’ve got literally thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of documents, how any of them can sleep straight in bed at night, I have no idea.”

Naomi: “I don’t know either, and here’s a question for you – how would you sum up – what is the Malta Financial Services Authority for?”

Pensioner: “Um, to cover the tracks of the criminals who are operating there!“

Naomi: “I thought you might say something like that! And the conflicts of interest run beyond a small island culture where everyone knows everyone – in the Isle of Man for quite some time the insurance industry regulator also had a remit to promote the industry! That would cast some doubt on the proper assessment of new applicants wanting to do business there. Now, I know there are good people who work hard for regulators and they try to do the best they can – but we see time and time again that regulators are understaffed, underinvested in, and they often have no teeth. So far, neither the regulators nor law enforcement in the Isle of Man, in Malta or in the UK have dealt effectively with the criminality involved in our pensioner’s case:”

Pensioner: “I’ve identified 50+ breaches in law – one of which clearly states that where, um, you can show that the regulated body has wilfully neglected to protect your interests they are obliged to reimburse you for the losses you have incurred. You know, it’s there in black and white. All the MFSA has done so far, they’ve concentrated on the regulatory breaches. They’ve ignored all the criminal breaches because of course, if they actually go that way then of course it opens up a huge, huge can of worms. And one of the other big things that’s been relevant to our scheme is that they have refused to confirm whether they have indemnity insurance, and the MFSA have not confirmed whether they have or haven’t. And I fear the fact that nobody is saying so is that perhaps they have, but the insurers are saying well, you know, we’re not gonna pay out on this because you’ve been naughty boys, haven’t you?!”

Naomi: “Yeah. Yeah. That’s very likely!”

Pensioner: “Well, I would think it’s very, very, very likely!”

Naomi: “Our pensioner had early hopes that the Maltese Police might investigate the criminal aspects of his case. After a long wait, his lawyer had a go:”

Pensioner: “They said that they’ve been investigating, you know, and they clearly hadn’t. He said, well, you know, it’s up to you because if you don’t fulfill on the report that you said you were going to make, then I’m gonna just take it to the European court of law because my client’s human rights to justice are being denied. Within an hour, he had an email back from the Assistant Commissioner who is in charge of financial crime saying you will hear shortly from superintendent so-and-so, on progress that we are making. We are still waiting. I think this will be the end of Malta as a jurisdiction for pensioners because none of the insurers will now touch it with a barge pole, they won’t be able to get insurance for their indemnity liabilities.”

Naomi: “What would you say to anybody, you know, to, I don’t know, to yourself back then, when you were looking at pension options?”

Pensioner: “If I knew then what I know now, I would’ve just left my pension with the company. Um, the, the, yeah.”

Naomi: “What do you think has happened to your money, and to the money of the other people who have been involved in this scam?”

Pensioner: “Somebody somewhere is living off it very, very nicely, one of whom, no doubt is my now absconded fraudster IFA and his family.”

Naomi: “They’re probably living in Florida!”

Pensioner: “Well, they quite probably are, you know, they may even have bought the house that we had to sell! You know, the IFA, his company, or his final company was registered in Panama, so he was having his fees paid into a Barclay’s account in the Isle of Man, who no doubt have been sending the money to, you know, Panama or Cayman islands or whatever. And the Isle of Man have said, well, there’s no reason for us to investigate because there’s no evidence of criminal activity. And I said, well, excuse me, I think there is because you know, that money has been paid by Isle of Man-registered and regulated insurer’s, money taken from our portfolios and you’ve been paying fees and commissions. And I mean, my fees for transferring into the policy initially were over 43,000 pounds. And then he’s had commissions from all these high risk bonds and God knows what, it’s staggering.”

Naomi: “It is staggering.”

Pensioner: “I’ve gone back to the head of the economic crime unit in the Isle of Man, I said, you’ve got to review this now because you can’t now say this is just a regulatory matter. This is a criminal matter. I’ve spent more than £70,000 on legal fees so far, on top of the money I’ve lost. And this is why I’m doing so much myself, because if I’d been trying to pay lawyers to do it, you know, I’d want millions to gather the information and the evidence that I’ve got. But anyway, I’m not giving up!”

That’s part of our pensioner’s story, for which we thank him for sharing with us on the Taxcast. We wish his group of pensioners good luck in their ongoing battles for justice. We’ve seen so many times that on the surface so many jurisdictions look good. They’ve got coats of arms, official bodies with crests above their names, shiny office blocks, oak panelled meeting rooms, and glossy brochures. But when things go wrong, you really can’t be sure they’ll help you…

[Image: “Photo captured in Ormond Beach, Florida” by Daniel Piraino is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0copyGo to image’s website]

View Details

Tax collectors around the world are too often unacknowledged and unseen heroes. Many of them face huge challenges as a result of trying to do their job honestly, and in the best interests of their countries and their people.

We are very saddened at the Tax Justice Network to hear of the murder of tax collector Mr Alinafe Bonongwe, who worked for the Malawi Revenue Authority.

Forever in Our Hearts, Alinafe Bonongwe pic.twitter.com/isBHdI2cuT

— MRA (@MRA_Malawi) February 13, 2022

From our understanding of this terrible loss, Mr Bonongwe was very effective in fighting against the smuggling of goods and tax evasion at a border post where he was based. He is described by those who worked with him and knew him as ‘a warrior for justice’ and he has by no means been the only tax official to have been threatened. He was subjected to a social media campaign which attempted to smear his reputation, presumably aiming to have him removed from his position. This didn’t succeed, and unfortunately the next step seems to have been to murder Mr Bonongwe. Murder is a terrible thing no matter who is the target, but no one should be killed for doing their job well and honestly.

Here is a tribute to Mr Bonongwe from the State President His Excellency Dr. Lazarus McCarthy Chakwera:

Condolence Message from the State President His Excellency Dr. Lazarus McCarthy Chakwera @LAZARUSCHAKWERA pic.twitter.com/YZeeVSPk2W

— MRA (@MRA_Malawi) February 11, 2022

Fellow Malawian Gerald Chavez Kampanikiza, reporting on this crime, says:

This should be awake call to Malawi government to look into issues of security for MRA senior officers both domestic and customs. Here are the people working daily collecting revenue for the country and salary for president, vice president, state house officials, ministers and all civil servants but surprisingly security is not given to them.”

The Tax Justice Network calls on all governments to do everything they can to protect their tax collectors and ensure they are safe to carry out their jobs fairly and in the public interest.

Around the world, tax collectors are undervalued, taken for granted, and often poorly paid. That must change. When a society loses good people like Mr Bonongwe, it becomes crystal clear how much they are the life blood of our nations. We offer our condolences to Mr Bonongwe’s family and to the Malawian people. May this warrior for justice rest in power. As the Malawi Revenue Authority says, ‘The fight will continue. You have not died in vain. Forever in our hearts.’

View Details

Welcome to our Spanish language podcast and radio programme Justicia ImPositiva with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, free to download and broadcast on radio networks across Latin America and Spain. ¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a nuestro podcast y programa radiofónico! Escuche por su app de podcast favorita.

En este programa con Marcelo Justo y Marta Nuñez:

• Un mundo sin paraísos fiscales. Les contamos cómo cambiaría en nuestra vida cotidiana y laboral si nos libramos del mundo offshore.
• ¿Qué es la financiarización de la economía global?
• El FMI viola sus propias reglas en el acuerdo con Argentina.
• Cuántas multinacionales hay y cuántas pagarán el impuesto mínimo

INVITADOS:

• Edmund Fitzgerald, experto en finanzas de la Universidad de Oxford y miembro de ICRICT, la Comisión Independiente para la reforma de la Fiscalidad corporativa internacional
• Oscar Ugarteche, director del Observatorio de América Latina, y autor de “La gran mutación” www.obela.org
• Dr Karina Patricio Ferreira Lima, especialista en derecho internacional de la Universidad de Leeds
• Yago Alvarez Barba, responsable de la sección económica del periódico digital “El salto diario” https://www.elsaltodiario.com/

~ Un mundo sin paraísos fiscales… MÁS INFORMACIÓN:

Enlace de descarga para las emisoras: https://traffic.libsyn.com/j-impositiva/JI_feb_22.mp3

Subscribase a nuestro RSS feed: http://j_impositiva.libsyn.com/rss

O envien un correo electronico a Naomi [@] taxjustice.net para ser
incorporado a nuestra lista de suscriptores.

Sigannos por twitter en http://www.twitter.com/J_ImPositiva

Estamos tambien en facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Justicia-ImPositiva-1464800660510982/

[Imagen: “Rainbow” by Arch_Sam is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0]

View Details

Welcome to the 50th edition of our Arabic podcast/radio show Taxes Simply الجباية ببساطة contributing to tax justice public debate around the world. It’s produced and presented by Walid Ben Rhouma and is available on most podcast apps. Any radio station is welcome to broadcast it for free and websites are also welcome to share it. You can follow the programme on Facebook, on Twitter and on our website.

في العدد #50 من الجباية ببساطة نناقش مع الباحثة في العدالة الضريبية نرهان شريف، تقرير حالة العدالة الضريبية 2021 والذي نُشِر بشكل مشترك من قبل شبكة العدالة الضريبية “TJN”، والتحالف العالمي للعدالة الضريبية، والاتحاد العالمي للخدمات العامة الدولية زيادة على جولتنا مع الأخبار الضريبية في لبنان، مصر، المغرب، تونس والعراق بين العدالة الضريبية و العدالة في توزيع اللقاحات تابعونا على صفحتنا على الفايسبوك وتويتر https://www.facebook.com/ TaxesSimply Tweets by taxes_simply

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in French, Impôts et Justice Sociale with Idriss Linge of the Tax Justice Network. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages every month in English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here and on most podcast apps. Here’s our latest episode:

Pour cette 36ème édition de votre podcast impôts et justice sociale proposé par le réseau Tax Justice Network, nous vous proposons un entretien avec Nohoum Diakite, le coordinateur au Mali de la coalition Publiez Ce Que Vous Payez. Avec lui nous revenons sur les enjeux de la justice fiscale pour ce pays, qui depuis pratiquement deux ans est géré par des militaires et qui actuellement fait l’objet de sanction par la CEDEAO sous-région dont elle est membre. Nous discutons proposons aussi une déclaration du ministre Lanciné Condé en charge de l’économie, des finances et du plan en Guinée Conakry, qui dont son avis sur les exonérations fiscales.

Dans ce podcast vous écouterez

• Nouhoum Diakite, Coordinateur de Publiez Ce Que Vous Payez Mali
• Lanciné Conde, Ministre en charge de l’Economie des Finances et du Plan/ Guinée Conakry

~Mali – l’exigence de la justice sociale au-delà des sanctions et de la junte #36 Vous pouvez suivre le Podcast sur:

• Le télécharger pour l’écouter hors connexion sous le sous ce lien.
• Notre page facebook à l’adresse: https://www.facebook.com/impôts et justice sociale/
• Notre Twitter: www.twitter.com/ImpotsSociale
• La publication sur Youtube et notre site web www.impotsetjusticesociale.com
• Et pour ceux qui ont l’application Stitcher et iTunes ect
• Si vous souhaitez recevoir cette production ou être média partenaires ou simplement contribuer, vous pouvez nous écrire à l’adresse Impôts_sociale@outlook.fr

[Image: “Broadcast Tower” by Steven Beger Photography (Beger.com Productions) is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0]

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (it’s your business) produced by Grazielle David, Daniela Stefano and Luciano Máximo. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode:

Abusos fiscais ocorrem em todos os países, sejam eles de alta ou baixa renda. Mas as desigualdades em investimentos nas administrações tributárias e na capacitação de auditores fiscais faz a diferença na arrecadação entre Sul e Norte Global.

O episódio #33 do É da sua conta mostra com exemplos vindos da Guiné Bissau e África do Sul que para diminuir esses abusos é preciso investir na formação e treinamento de auditores fiscais. Afinal, como arrrecadar receitas e contribuir para projetos de nação com justiça social e igualdade se esses profissionais não estiverem bem preparados?

Você ouve no É da sua conta #33:

• A realidade das administrações tributárias de Guiné-Bissau e da África do Sul
• As administrações tributárias em países de alta e baixa renda
• Preços de transferências: como multinacionais manipulam preços e sonegam impostos
• O mundo precisa avançar na democratização do debate global sobre tributação
• A cooperação internacional para justiça fiscal
• Consequências dos abusos fiscais por super-ricos e multinacionais

Mais capacitação, trazer mais consultores para trabalhos conjuntos, dar mais experiências aos nossos técnicos. Tudo isso ajudaria muito nossa administração fiscal evoluir e o próprio estado a obter receitas fiscais em níveis mais aceitáveis para que não dependa tanto da ajuda exterior.”

~ Karim Mané, Contribuições e Impostos da Guiné-Bissau

O fisco da África do Sul era um órgão estatal autonômo, separado do governo. Isso é um profundo reconhecimento de que o serviço de arrecadação de receitas, particularmente quando se trata de países em desenvolvimento, é importante para guiar o país rumo sua soberania fiscal.”

~ Johann van Loggerenberg, ex-auditor fiscal na África do Sul

O comitê [sobre impostos] da ONU precisa ser transformado num comitê mais inclusivo, com o aumento de membros para fortalecer a participação dos países em desenvolvimento. É uma forma de fazer uma contraposição institucional da perspectiva dos países da OCDE.”

~ Marcos Valadão, Tax Initiave do South Centre

Está na hora de os grandes organismos internacionais começarem a atuar e realmente ajudar os países mais pobres a enfrentar abusos fiscais.”

~ Clair Hickman, auditora fiscal aposentada no Brasil

Os efeitos [dos abusos fiscais] são: os ricos ficam mais ricos e os pobres que recebem serviços governamentais reduzidos têm que pagar aqueles impostos que os ricos não pagam.”

~ Nick Shaxson, Tax Justice Network

Participam deste episódio:

• Clair Hickman – auditora fiscal aposentada no Brasil e diretora do Instituto de Justiça Fiscal
• Johann van Loggerenberg – ex-auditor fiscal na África do Sul
• Karim Mané – Direção Geral de Contribuições e Impostos da Guiné-Bissau
• Marcos Valadão – Tax Initiave do South Centre
• Nick Shaxson – Tax Justice Network

Herois invisíveis, o desafio global #33 Saiba mais:

• Análise de Marcos Valadão: O SISTEMA TRIBUTÁRIO INTERNACIONAL CONTEMPORÂNEO SOB A PERSPECTIVA DOS PAÍSES EM DESENVOLVIMENTO
• Entrevista completa com Johaan van Loggerenberg (em inglês) no Taxcast #101: Tax Collection, a labour of love.

Conecte-se com a gente!

• www.edasuaconta.com
• Twitter
• Facebook
• Plataformas de áudio: Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Deezer ect
• Inscreva-se: info@edasuaconta.com
• Download do odcast em MP3 https://traffic.libsyn.com/edasuaconta/PP_33.mp3

É da sua conta é o podcast mensal em português da Tax Justice Network. Coordenação: Naomi Fowler. Produção: Daniela Stefano, Grazielle David e Luciano Máximo. Apresentação: Daniela Stefano e Luciano Máximo. Redes Sociais: Luciano Máximo. Dublagem: Luiz Sobrinho. Download gratuito. Reprodução livre para rádios.

View Details

In this special edition and first Taxcast of 2022, host Naomi Fowler talks with tax justice and anti-corruption campaigners and experts in Europe, Africa, the US and Latin America. What are our hopes and fears for 2022? And what should we be looking out for?

Featuring:

• John Christensen, economist and campaigner
• Andrés Arauz, economist and former presidential candidate in Ecuador
• Ryan Gurule of the FACT Coalition
• Rachel Etter-Phoya of the Tax Justice Network
• Idriss Linge of the Tax Justice Network and podcast host of Impôts et Justice Sociale
• Eva Danzi of the Tax Justice Network
• Produced and hosted by the Tax Justice Network’s Naomi Fowler

The transcript of the show is available here (some is automated and may have some inaccuracies)

Further information:

• Paper questioning the legal validity of the IMF’s Stand-By Arrangement with Argentina by Kariina Patricio Ferreira Lima
• The Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast for French-speaking Africans is available here
• A previous Taxcast which includes more information on Kenya’s Financial Transaction Tax
• The ‘cowboy cocktail’ in Wyoming story from the ICIJ

2022: Hopes and Fears #119 Taxcast summary:

On the Taxcast’s world tour, the first stop is the UK where economist John Christensen discusses the European Union’s ‘un-shell’ iniciative, which aims to tackle shell company secrecy:

“This is a step in the right direction, particularly the proposed directive makes provision for the authorities of one country to order the company based in another country, which will make it harder for fraudsters in, let’s say Italy, to hide behind a shell company in let’s say Luxembourg. And of course there are caveats. For example, the entire investment management industry is exempted from the current provisions, which strikes me as an unnecessary loophole, likely to benefit rich people. And that will probably require revision in a future directive. And I also think that there needs to be stronger sanctions against companies that are shell companies from applying for any kind of government or state procurement. But overall, Naomi I think this is a welcome move towards consigning shell companies and the tax havens that host them to history.”

John discusses the ongoing fall-out from Brexit and the precarious position of the City of London, which is still hoping to negotiate passporting rights into the EU:

“To be honest in the last year, there seems to have been little or even no progress towards negotiating a new arrangement which will allow the city to sell its services within the European single market based on this notion of equivalence. Equivalence refers to the regulatory practices applied after the UK left the single market and therefore lost the passporting rights that applied within the single market. Now Brussels requires that the regulations of third party countries, which refers to countries who are not member states of the European Union, those regulations of financial markets must be equivalent in practice to the rules for financial services that are built in to the single market rule book. Now, when you talk to European Union officials and politicians, they are rightly concerned that the UK government will quickly deregulate financial services in the UK in order to use race to the bottom tactics to attract more footloose capital to London. British officials and the City of London people, they argue that it’s now over a year since the UK actually left the single market. And there’s no evidence that the UK is preparing a bonfire of regulations. Well, I think we need to take that argument with a very large pinch of salt because there’s no way that they’re going to reveal their deregulatory intentions while still engaged in the negotiations with Brussels over equivalence! The deregulation will come later on! Meanwhile, however, the evidence from the business tracker survey by accounting firm EY show that London financial services firms, out of the 222 financial firms they surveyed, 44% of the companies said that they plan to relocate more work and more staff to financial centres within the European Union. And if you listen to the mood music in Brussels, it seems that attitudes towards the UK have been hardening over the last 12 months. It’s been recognised for many years that London was by far and away the largest European financial centre and European Union politicians are anxious they don’t continue to rely on a financial centre outside the single market. So they’ve been saying to banks and to accounting firms that they won’t accept brass plate operations as a means of accessing the single market, which means that banks are under more pressure to relocate away from London to places like Amsterdam and Frankfurt and Paris. Now at the level of politics and the 2022 presidential elections in France give Macron every incentive to make life even harder for Johnson and for his Brexit negotiator, Liz Truss.

As far as the finance curse issue is concerned, yes, I’ve argued that a smaller financial services sector would be better for the UK economy as a whole. And that argument still applies. But unfortunately, as a result of tax concessions offered by the UK minister of finance in 2021 to attract investment to the UK economy, experts are anticipating a surge of capital inflow during 2022, especially coming from the United States. The UK government will be presenting this as good news, but the vast majority of this capital inflow will be used to acquire existing companies, leading to reduced market competition, probably job cuts and loss of innovation. So from a finance curse point of view this year will bring further bad news for the UK economy.”

John has a few warnings for 2022 which continues to see the UK plagued by its ‘finance curse’, despite so many banks looking to jump ship to the EU, and the wrong kinds of investment comes in:

“Many countries have been trying to stimulate recovery from the COVID pandemic by offering short term tax breaks to business investors. Now this is something of sugar rush, harmful in the long run as the deep pocketed investors, private equity, for example, and large multinational companies use this moment to acquire smaller competitors. So I’m expecting to see many sectors of the global economy become even more concentrated, and therefore less competitive and innovative. Global security will continue to deteriorate, liberal democracy will remain on the ropes,”

Next stop is Latin America where Naomi Fowler speaks with economist and former presidential candidate in Ecuador, Andrés Arauz for his take on the region and the big changes coming up in 2022 in that region. They discuss the progressive new governments in Peru and Chile and the importance for the whole region, in fact for the world, of Chile’s process for a new constitution:

“A constitution basically changes the rules of the game, and it’s going to happen like that in Chile with regards to taxation, with regards to investor state dispute settlement, with regards to sovereignty with some of the trade agreements that are unfair for most of the people with major changes to social progress, such as those in the area of health, education and pensions. So, the constituent assembly now has a president that will accompany it and that’s very important for this political process and for the region in general.”

2022 will also see two potentially transformative elections in Brazil and Colombia. Andrés Arauz identifies one big challenge coming up in 2022 – ‘a forseeable crisis’ for Argentina, because of

“the International Monetary Fund, the private creditors that have put Argentina on the spot in a very difficult position since the Macri administration. But now with the time to collect on behalf of the IMF is putting Argentina in a very, very difficult path to sustain the populations’ human rights, social rights, economic rights. So, we will see a show down between Argentina and the IMF and implications it has for the whole region are huge, and I would dare say for the world as well, so I really hope that the IMF, and US leadership within the IMF, is open minded, it shows some flexibility so that the Argentinian government can have a restructuring of the IMF loan that the prior administration agreed to. And that we can have a policy that is coherent with the need to recover people’s rights in the context of the post pandemic and the paradigm changes that occurred in the midst of the pandemic. So hopefully we will see some transformational change there, and I think we really have to push to get the IMF to agree to give flexibility and a decent restructuring in favour of the Argentinian people.”

Interestingly, there’s a brand new legal analysis where Karina Patricio Ferreira Lima of the University of Leeds School of Law questions the legal validity of the IMF’s Stand-By Arrangement with Argentina. She claims it violates the IMF’s own articles of agreement. You can read more on that here.

Andrés Arauz moves on to discuss El Salvador, which hit the headlines in 2021 when its young President Nayib Bukele adopted bitcoin as its legal tender. They did that through the Chivo wallet, a government-run app:

“We’re gonna see unfortunately El Salvador most likely heading into a full blown debt crisis. And probably will show that the cryptocurrency experiment will not be enough, even though it is innovative in some directions, it also reproduces the same logic that favours transnational capital, that favours foreign investors over the local population, but interestingly has been a contestant to the power of banks in El Salvador, especially foreign owned banks – recall that El Salvador privatised it’s basically entire banking system to foreign banks and they have shown that they have not been able to include financially most of its population so the experiment with the Chivo wallet there is a very, very interesting case that we should not be quick to dismiss and we should study a lot more to understand what really is going on, especially in the interest of the Salvadorian people.”

You can see why Salvadorians would want to liberate themselves from the US dollar. And an estimated 70% of El Salvadorians don’t have a bank account so it’s a very cash-based society. But, take-up of bitcoin’s been slow. We go on to talk more about cryptocurrencies later in the show. Next stop is Colombia and Brazi, both facing big elections in 2022:

“I think the issues in Brazil are going to be very, very interesting. It’s gonna be a very heated election. Unfortunately Bolsonaro is preparing a showdown with international intervention and, you know, foreign interference into the Brazilian election, he’s called onto the most conservative forces in the world to try to avoid a Lula victory, which would bring Brazil back to the path, not only of dignity for its people, but also for major social reforms. And something that’s very important for us, which is Latin American integration. And that means basically a brotherhood of Latin American countries pushing together in one direction – that of integration among the peoples in the education sphere, in the economics sphere, in the productive sphere, the financial sphere. And this will be very, very important for perhaps the next couple of decades. Now we also see that, you know, basically all of the accusations that were against Lula and the progressive workers party there have now been dismissed by the courts. And in fact, what has been shown is that it was basically a lot of lawfare with interference from foreign countries trying to direct judicial officials into incriminating the former president Lula, but now he has been declared innocent on all of the charges that he was accused in the last few years. So this will definitely be an opportunity for vindication and to teach a lesson to those who think that weaponising the justice system is the way to go.

And then in Colombia, in Colombia we’ve seen protests over tax justice issues and in Ecuador we started to see something similar as well. I think that in Colombia there will be a major change, even if the progressive candidate Gustavo Petro does not win, there will be substantial change in Colombia because Colombians have had it, you know. After the peace process, the left and the progressive moments have had more opportunity to show their proposals, present a platform and an agenda without the stigma of being associated to the guerillas or to the revolutionary armed forces of Colombia. So I think there’s a huge opportunity there in Colombia. If there is a change there, it will not be easy because of the way these countries have been ran for almost 200 years with political, economical, elites basically running the show behind the scenes and for any progressive alternative to come about is really, really worth recognising, ‘cause it is too hard, and especially in Colombia where you’ve had, you know, hundreds of people being killed only last year, basically these people are, uh, social leaders, people from the countryside campesino leaders, worker union leaders. So, we really have to become watchdogs of the issue in Colombia.”

And as for Mexico and Central America:

“I think Mexico and Central America are also going to be key actors in the region in Latin America. We’ve seen a progressive Mexican government in terms of tax justice that wants to apply most of the principles that perhaps, you know, are not revolutionary, but are a great path forward in terms of demanding that especially foreign and international corporations comply with local law, including taxation obligations and respecting workers rights. So in general, it’s going to be a packed year for Latin America with lots of hope, lots of hope, but also with a few risks there, especially the oncoming March showdown between Argentina and the IMF.”

The Taxcast travels on to the United States and speaks with Ryan Gurule of the FACT Coalition next and the transformative investment President Biden’s administration is making into the IRS, the US tax authorities.

As Taxcast host Naomi Fowler says, “The United States is one of the only nations in the world so far to start to reverse the decades of cuts we’ve seen to tax collection and enforcement. And I think the US had got down to a third less auditors to do the job than in 2010, and it’s losing billions in tax revenue. If you look at the British experience, we’ve seen resources for tax collection virtually halved in a decade, despite the fact that each tax collector can bring in up to 30 times their salary in terms of tax revenue, and no other tax authority in Europe has cut its staff more than the UK, except for Greece. So the US’s investment commitments sound really amazing, and I know the Build Back Better Act is in a bit of trouble but if they can pass it would include funding to support criminal investigations, cryptocurrency monitoring, and compliance and enforcement personnel.”

Ryan Gurule tells her, “the Build Back Better is a little bit on the fritz right now, so we’re not exactly sure how that picture’s going to shape out. And I think that’s actually the biggest question we have around all of this is kind of what it looks like to help move forward Biden’s agenda as we head into a midterm election year, which is going to be a question. Obviously, the IRS funding is such an essential component to tax justice in general. The current build back better provisions contemplate something around $44 billion in investment over the next 10 years in the IRS for enforcement, but that actually is just one part of the picture. In fact, the bill actually contemplates closer to $80 billion in funding for the IRS over the next 10 years. And that’s broken down into a variety of different areas – around 44 to 45 billion would be for enforcement, but very importantly, close to 2 billion would be for taxpayer services, 27 billion for operation support, closer to 5 billion for business systems modernisation. All these things are essential to getting the IRS running in the 21st century, even though we’re already a quarter of the way into this century, it’s time to really start investing in the IRS and tax authorities all over the globe. As you mentioned, right now we have a system whereby our tax authorities have been depleted. They’re running on technologies and with staff that just cannot keep up with sophisticated tax planning. And you know, the result is essentially here in the US alone, probably a $1 trillion tax gap or more is what the estimates are. When you have dramatic cuts for institutions like tax enforcement authorities, the implications have dramatic class and race problems as well. What you see is that tax authorities sort of abandon going after the most complicated tax planning strategies, because they don’t have their resources to do it. And that overwhelmingly and disproportionately leads to auditing of the low hanging fruit, so to speak. So it’s really important to help fund the IRS to relieve some of the auditing pressure on those groups in particular, and to redirect it towards where there’s a lot bigger return possible for the US government in auditing wealthier taxpayers.”

Ryan Gurule goes on to discuss anonymous shell companies in the United States. The Tax Justice Network’s work on the Financial Secrecy Index shows the US is one of the world’s top corruption enablers and financial secrecy offenders. Famously in the US, you have to give more information to get a library card in some parts of the States than to create a company. The US has finally been getting a lot more of a spotlight on this from journalists, with stories like the ‘cowboy cocktail’ in Wyoming. The US’s Corporate Transparency Act was enacted in January, 2021, but it’s not yet been implemented.

“Broadly speaking,” Ryan Gurule says “the Corporate Transparency Act in the United States is a landmark bill that is the first time that beneficial ownership information will be required for corporations, limited liability companies and quote, similar entities that are created by filing with the State office in the US. They’re going to have to, for the first time, disclose their beneficial ownership in a central registry that’s to be maintained by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network within the US Department of Treasury in the US. You know, in the US, we don’t have a federal corporate law, so to speak. Our corporations, our entities are all governed at the state level in the United States, so different states unfortunately compete around different ways to attract business and investment and one of those has been really a rush to compete for financial secrecy, which is an unfortunate trend, both in the US itself, but also globally. And I think the Corporate Transparency Act reflects a global movement to help sort of shed a spotlight on financial secrecy and in the US in particular, I think it reflects for the first time kind of some self-reflection that we are helping to contribute to financial secrecy, we are in many ways a tax haven, in many ways the biggest tax haven, and this bill is a step in the right direction to recognise that addressing that status begins with shedding a spotlight on our own governance practices in the US and how that contributes to financial secrecy and tax evasion and corruption worldwide. The Corporate Transparency Act in some ways it’s completely revolutionary in the United States, but in other ways, it doesn’t go all the way as far as some of our international counterparts have gone. The way the law is currently written, the registry itself will not be made public, but it will be available to different law enforcement agencies and tax agencies, based on processes set up within the statute that will then be implemented by regulation as well. So to your question – will this eliminate anonymous shell companies as is claimed? In some ways, yes. Importantly, it’ll address some very broad swathes of entities, but what the scope of that bill is is currently being fleshed out. And that’s exactly what you’re asking as well, so in the US the bill itself was enacted in January, 2021, but it requires regulations to implement it so that process is ongoing right now, the regulation writing process. And quite frankly, we think that businesses and banks and other financial institutions are really wantng to benefit from more transparent markets as well. And that’s been shown by their support of these measures.”

The FACT Coalition hopes the Corporate Transparency Act will go into effect on January 1st of 2023.

In 2021, in Biden’s first year in office, there were a lot of interesting speeches about corporate taxation, the race to the bottom between nations on tax and the real meaning of competition from Secretary to the Treasury, Janet Yellen. We also saw an agreement of a 15% global minimum corporate tax rate. They were initially talking about 21% and 28% minimum global corporate tax rates. Lots of countries weren’t at the table, some of the ones who were, like Nigeria, rejected the deal. Naomi asks Ryan in the Taxcast if he gets any sense of that rate being raised or any other changes that might happen or pressure that might be brought to bear around that.

“You know, I think I am sort of a jaded optimist, I guess, you know, trying to see the positive in the OECD process. There are a lot of flaws, but I think it’s important, at least I think it’s important to remember that for whatever the OECD agreement lacks, which is a lot, it is an incredibly transformative agreement. It does change over a hundred years of tax international tax policy, and not the least of which by recognising that the current international minimum rate is 0%. It’s not as high as you and I would’ve liked to see, and it’s not as high as a lot of developing countries would’ve liked to see, and there’s problems that have led to that. But 15% is higher than 0%. And I am a big believer in process leads to results. They don’t incorporate the voice of developing nations, and it’s really difficult to imagine that a process that is exclusive could result in inclusive results, right?! So, that is one really valid criticism and I think one that we saw play out in the results of the negotiations themselves. And I think there are certainly ways to reform how the process is done and what we would like to see is real substantive conversations around improving this deal, starting tomorrow.”

Next and final stop for the Taxcast this month was Africa. Taxcast host Naomi Fowler spoke with the Tax Justice Network’s Idriss Linge, who also hosts and produces the Tax Justice Network’s French language podcast for French-speaking Africa – Impôts et Justice Sociale. Although the OECD seems to think that countries can still work with the minimum global tax rate of 15% by topping it up themselves unilaterally to higher rates they already may have in place, that’s not so easy for lower income countries to do:

“It is not that easy for low income countries to benefit from that agreement. We don’t really think this will benefit Africans and moreover, the problem is that the agreement has excluded sectors like the mining sector and the financial sector, which are really, really generating cash in Africa without paying too much taxes. I hope, based on the way the COVID pandemic was handled internationally, African governments will open their eyes and stop providing fiscal gifts to multinational companies, which mostly are based on G20 countries which don’t need that kind of gift so they should be thinking about how they are reforming their fiscal policies, so that the multinational should be paying the fair amount of tax that is needed because 17.5 billion tax lost because of multinational and wealthy individual, it’s a lot for African countries, any penny is a lot for African countries where there is a need for everything.”

And of 2022 he says, “I think climate finance and climate change issue are going to be at the top of the topic that will be discussed for Africans. Africa, especially Sub Saharan Africa needs resources for green energy, because it needs to invest in improving current access and changing infrastructures. It also needs to invest in the 600 million people who still don’t even have access to conventional energy. So African government have no choice but to invest in mitigating the risk for climate change, which will really squeeze the fiscal policies of African economies even more, as well as finding money to repay the debts, including the one that have been used to finance green energy infrastructure, they need to address hunger, diseases and other economic and social consequences of climate change. Saving Africa is also saving the world’s capacity to move towards clean energy because according to scientists the rainforest is capturing every year the equivalent of what is being produced by all the cars in the world, so we need to protect that.”

The Congo Basin is of course home to the world’s second largest rain forest.

Idriss says, “unfortunately the capital markets access for African is tough because of the perception of risk. And even on the domestic side, they can’t raise enough revenue because of profit shifting and consequently tax loss. According to the IMF report 750 million dollars per year were lost in the mining sector. And according to the Tax Network estimates we think that $17.5 billion as a whole were lost as tax. So it’s a major problem. So, tax justice for allocation of resources is an absolutely key struggle. Africa still faces challenges from inflation and social problems like universal healthcare coverage which is lacking, malnutrition and poor education, all of them which are sources of conflict. The problem continues that African governments need to strengthen their tax system, but they are choosing to increase tax on consumption, unfortunately.”

Taxcast host Naomi Fowler goes on to speak with Tax Justice Network’s Rachel Etter-Phoya in Malawi about cryptocurrencies:

“This is something we want to be keeping an eye on this year, and to learn more about ourselves, both the pros and cons, the risks and opportunities, right? So at the moment, according to Chain Analysis, Africa accounts for 2% of the global value of crypto assets or cryptocurrencies, and the most significant channels in terms of value with Africa is between East Asia followed closely by Europe and North America. There are some indications that this may be starting to replace those traditional channels of remittances because its cheaper to move cryptocurrencies and to challenge the cartel of price fixers in these traditional money transfer companies. But it’s hard to tell because of course, cryptocurrencies are opaque in nature. There’s been different approaches to how to how to regulate or how to respond to cryptocurrencies. Some African countries have banned Central Banks from processing any transactions relating to crypto assets, like in Africa’s largest economy in Nigeria, which happened early in 2021. The Nigerian government had various motivations for this. They were concerned with money laundering, cybercrime, and concerned about the preference perhaps that if cryptocurrencies grew over the Naira, the Fiat currency, they’d face challenges in actually being able to control money in the economy, through the monetary policy.”

Rachel describes an interesting example of how cryptocurrency was mobilised by activists when the Nigerian government cracked down on groups involved in the huge demonstrations against the brutal Special Anti-Robbery Squad in the Nigerian police force or SARS.

“With the demonstrations to end SARS, the now disbanded special anti robbery squad, which was a police unit with a long history of brutality, torture and extra judicial killings, the organisations that were involved in leading these demonstrations, some of them had their bank accounts closed, and they ended up turning to crypto assets and cryptocurrencies to raise money, and to receive donations because local payment options weren’t available. What we’ve also seen last year in Africa is, and in Nigeria, their policy to ban cryptocurrencies really hasn’t been effective, so they’ve introduced a digital currency that they call the eNaira. Of course, this isn’t the same as a cryptocurrency – it’s controlled, it’s centralised, it’s linked to the national currency, to the Naira, so it’s not really an investment or financial asset in the way that cryptocurrency would be, but it’s an interesting move.

They have said that the aim is to be more financially inclusive, but if you require someone to have a national ID, or you have to have access to electricity and wifi to be engaged in using the eNaira, I’m not sure to what extent this is really bringing people along, or if it actually could cut people out..when it’s a cash-based economy, but there are some positives, I think there seems to be some positive reception that this may be used for remittances, which is a huge part of some of the financial flows for Nigeria and the Nigerian economy. And if we look further south to South Africa, it’s taken a completely different approach to crypto assets. Last year, they announced that instead of banning, they want to regulate. And so this year we’re looking to South Africa to see how they are planning to formalise a relationship between banks and crypto providers. And they’re also talking about their digital currency, they’re creating their own one. So we are keeping an eye on this across the continent and beyond and what it means for also financial secrecy and transparency.”

The development with e-currencies or digital currencies that central banks are starting to introduce themselves is set to multiply in 2022. And this seems to be part of the wider move away that we’re seeing around the world from cash, which is a risk for lower income groups who often don’t have bank accounts. (An estimated 38 million Nigerians don’t have bank accounts.)

It seems a tempting way for governments to ‘modernise’ and regulate, and presumably tax and protect consumers if it all goes wrong, unlike with cryptocurrencies, as things currently stand – preferable in some ways to just allowing cryptocurrencies to bypass the regulatory system?

Taxcast host Naomi Fowler says: “There are so many questions to ask ourselves, but I think if digital currencies were set up to be accessible and fair and transparent, could they provide benefits for ordinary people versus volatile crypto currencies? Or just are they just going to allow the usual players to dominate and capitalise? By the end of 2021, we saw 14 digital currencies being piloted, 16 in development and 40 are in research phase. With cryptocurrencies institutional adoption to some extent and regulation of cryptocurrencies seems inevitable, but the whole point with crypto was for it to be decentralised and not be monopoly dominated, but that seems to be the logical direction of travel. It definitely needs watching, especially as anonymous shell companies are being cracked down on. Obviously we’re really suspicious of tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions jumping on that, and that’s really unlikely to be about helping poor people!”

John Christensen forsees bumps in the road for cryptocurrencies from another perspective too:

“I think in 2022 we’re going to see increased volatility with almost all cryptocurrencies, and that volatility will be accompanied by more countries cracking down on the huge energy demands of crypto currency mining. And that’s partly because we’re in the middle of a gigantic global energy crisis.”

View Details

Welcome to the 49th edition of our Arabic podcast/radio show Taxes Simply الجباية ببساطة contributing to tax justice public debate around the world. It’s produced and presented by Walid Ben Rhouma and is available on most podcast apps. Any radio station is welcome to broadcast it for free and websites are also welcome to share it. You can follow the programme on Facebook, on Twitter and on our website.

تونس: قانون الإقتراض المُقنّعفي هذا العدد من الجباية ببساطة #49 نستضيف رئيس الجمعية التونسية للحوكمة الجبائية، إسكندر السلامي في حوار مع وليد بن رحومة حول قانون المالية لسنة 2022 المثير للجدل في تونس، ومدى تكريسه لمبدأ العدالة الاجتماعية من عدمه.في أخبارنا المتفرقة، كانت لنا جولة في المنطقة العربية مع أهم الاحداث التي ميّزت سنة 2021. تونس: قانون الإقتراض المُقنّع تابعونا على صفحتنا على الفايسبوك وتويتر https://www.facebook.com/ TaxesSimply Tweets by taxes_simply

View Details

Welcome to our Spanish language podcast and radio programme Justicia ImPositiva with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, free to download and broadcast on radio networks across Latin America and Spain. ¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a nuestro podcast y programa radiofónico! Escuche por su app de podcast favorita.

En este programa:

• La economía mundial en 2022
• ¿Qué pasará en América Latina y por qué la negociación entre el FMI y Argentina puede tener un impacto de largo alcance para la región?
• Un balance del 2021, ¿paso adelante o retroceso en la lucha contra los paraísos fiscales y por la justicia social e impositiva?
• La piratería marítima de los paraísos fiscales

INVITADOS:

• Oscar Ugarteche, Director del Observatorio Global Latinoamericano, OBELA, profesor de la Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, la UNAM y autor de Historia Critica del FMI
• José Antonio Ocampo, ICRICT, la Comisión Independiente para la Reforma de la Fiscalidad Corporativa Internacional
• Rodolfo Berajano, Latindadd
• Daniel Roy blog Mundo Global blog

La economía mundial en 2022 y la piratería marítima de los paraísos fiscales MÁS INFORMACIÓN:

Enlace de descarga para las emisoras: https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/j-impositiva/JI_enero_22.mp3

Subscribase a nuestro RSS feed: http://j_impositiva.libsyn.com/rss

O envien un correo electronico a Naomi [@] taxjustice.net para ser
incorporado a nuestra lista de suscriptores.

Sigannos por twitter en http://www.twitter.com/J_ImPositiva

Estamos tambien en facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Justicia-ImPositiva-1464800660510982/

Imagen: “Container Ship” by NOAA’s National Ocean Service is licensed under CC BY 2.0

View Details

Welcome to the latest episode of the Tax Justice Network’s monthly podcast, the Taxcast. You can subscribe either by emailing naomi [at] taxjustice.net or find us on your podcast app.

In edition 117 we take you to the tax haven of Jersey off the coast of France, and the intruiging story of the discovery of 333 boxes of incriminating evidence of fraud. Those boxes have revealed some ugly truths about this small island tax haven that affect us all.

Featuring:

• Tanya Dick-Stock and Darrin Stock
• Produced and hosted by Naomi Fowler of the Tax Justice Network, with special thanks to investigative journalist Nicky Hagar.

The transcript of this podcast is available here (some is automated and may not be 100% accurate)

It’s like a movie set. Because what you think you’re looking at and what’s really happening are two very different things. For me, it’s about accountability. I want to see reform in Jersey. I want a spotlight on judges, on the police, on the entire justice system.”

~ Tanya Dick-Stock

We want to change the narrative. And what people need to understand is that when you bring that bad element onto your turf, it all comes with a cost and it’s like a cancer. If you don’t deal with it, it will kill the host, it’s inevitable.“

~ Darrin Stock

Jersey’s Pandora’s Boxes #117 You can hear the Taxcast edition on rising inequality and dysfunction in Jersey here: https://taxjustice.net/2019/04/26/inequality-and-dysfunction-in-the-tax-haven-of-jersey-a-taxcast-special-edition/

You can also read more about this story on the following links:

• https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1qwpnk6j1zv70/The-Heiress-the-Queen-and-the-Trillion-Dollar-Tax-Shelter
• https://eic.network/blog/huge-new-tax-haven-leak-reveals-specialist-money-laundering-company
• https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2020-10-05/lost-trust-leaked-files-expose-jerseys-inaction-on-fraud-scandal

[Image credit: “P9060140” by dnas2 is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0]

Here’s a summary of the ‘Jersey’s Pandora’s boxes’ story with some excerpts from the podcast:

Jersey is a beautiful place. It’s also a British Crown Dependency and tax haven, offering all sorts of financial secrecy. There’s an estimated £1 trillion sitting in this tiny island’s trusts, companies, funds and foundations. It’s a major artery into the City of London.

Now, picture St John’s Manor. a Jersey estate of 58 acres – a spectacular manor house with landscaped gardens, a lake, its own chapel, and a Japanese water garden.

Says Tanya Dick-Stock, the daughter of Canadian multi-millionaire John Dick, “It’s in many ways like a fairy tale, it’s got ponds and geese and chapel, and there’s nothing like it, the air is better, you sleep better, or I used to sleep better there and I really loved it. I’d hoped to grow old there.”

Her father John Dick has been immersed for years in court cases involving trusts, transactions, banks and law firms across the world. Much of them concern the activities of a Jersey trust company called La Hougue, which was once head quartered at St John’s Manor. Says Tanya, “For some reason different newspapers, news sources are still saying that my father allegedly owns La Hogue, or I’m alleging he owns La Hougue. No, I’m not alleging anything. A court of law, not one, but two have adjudicated John Dick owns La Hougue. It’s not me saying it, it’s a court of law.”

At some point her parents set up a trust: “I guess you could kind of look at it as an inheritance, actually the trusts were set up as part of my parents’ divorce settlement and so a large part of the marital assets instead of being divided between the two of them, they put them into trusts specifically for my brother and myself. There were three different trusts there and one of them, by my 40th birthday, I was to receive half of the trust assets and then my brother upon him reaching the age of 40 would have gotten his half. And how much was in the trust – we’ve tracked hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds, so I think there’s at least half a billion – we’re not done calculating yet.”

It’s clear that Tanya didn’t have your average childhood, being from the family that she was. She says her father told her that the money in her trust had gone: “In 2010 he came to me one day and basically said, ‘bad news Tanya, uh, the trusts are bust, all the money’s gone and I’m really sorry about that.’ And I’m thinking, whoa, hold on! There is no way that this money can be gone! I want to know what happened! When I did start digging into it there was still about a hundred million in assets still in the trusts. At the end of the day, I was able to save about a hundred million.”

Her father claims he was also the victim of fraud and other trustees of La Hougue have denied allegations put to them by many journalists, although through his lawyer a former trustee did admit in a US court to fabricating documents. Tanya and her husband Darrin Stock have been battling her father in the courts, and speaking out publicly for quite some time.

“You don’t put yourself through what we have for money and now it’s
about justice and it’s about everybody else. It goes beyond a movie, if you saw a movie, you wouldn’t believe it” says Tanya.

Darrin Stock is Tanya’s husband: “People on that island are scared to death of the authorities there. And I mean, who wants to live that way? And you rapidly lose the gas to fight when it’s just about the money. I’ve heard enough stories now that I actually have nightmares about what I’ve heard and it bothers me so much. Why we’re doing these interviews is not for Tanya’s sake. We’re doing these interviews for the other people. We can be a voice. We can be an organiser. We can be the lightning rod to help bring change.”

“Since coming forward,” says Tanya “I’ve been contacted by a lot of victims, people who don’t have a voice and they have encountered some of the same things that I did, I am by far not the only one who’s been stolen from and defrauded.”

Darrin says “It took us almost three years to come to the conclusion that we were going to go public. And then when Tanya and I made the decision to go public, we decided we couldn’t go kind of public. Either you were going to do it all, or you just don’t do any. And so then we decided that we had to put our name to it.”

Speaking out publicly has meant laying out every aspect of their lives for
journalists to check up on, including former investment banker Darrin’s own dispute in the past over a tax bill in the United States.

Back in Jersey it’s almost ten years ago now that Tanya discovered the ‘Pandora’s boxes’ of incriminating evidence. She found them in St John’s Manor, the incredible place where she grew up. At the time she was preparing for her wedding there.

“In 2012 we were married on the 4th of July. And in the process of
planning for the wedding I was looking for a place that I could store all the boxes of Tiki torches and flower urns and all the stuff that was coming in and I needed a staging area. There was an old squash court and nobody used it. So I thought, well, that’s perfect, it’s close enough to the house, you know, so I got the master key out and I go running down there, I open the door and much to my dismay, I’m looking around and there are just boxes and boxes and boxes. Did you see Raiders of the Lost Ark? You know that last scene where they’ve got the Ark of the Covenant and it’s been boxed up and they’re wheeling it in to that warehouse with all the boxes, and the camera pans back and you just see more boxes, and more boxes. And that’s what it felt like, ‘cause they were piled as tall as I was, and my heart sank because I’m thinking ‘I need this space for my wedding!’ And they’re dusty and they’re dirty and there’s like dried leaves and spider webs and dead bugs. And I’m thinking, ugh, this is trash, I got to get rid of it. So my first thought is let’s toss it. And then I’m looking at the labels on the side and I noticed that there are trust names and some of them are my trust names.”

There were 333 boxes in total, and what turned out to be 350,000
documents. After the wedding and the honeymoon Tanya and her husband Darrin started to go through the boxes. There’s a treasure trove of evidence on some who used La Hougue’s services – tax cheats, a porn king and convicted tax fraudster, Russian and British oligarchs, there are even links to the famous missing Botticelli Madonna and Child painting from 1485, not to mention the disappearance of more than $100 million from the notorious US savings and-loans scandal back in the 1980s. As incriminating evidence mounted, Tanya’s husband Darrin followed the trail to Panama, the infamous tax haven exposed by the Panama Papers.

“La Hougue tried to move from Jersey in 2007, 2008,” he says. “La Hougue
changed its name to PanTrust and moved to Panama. PanTrust is the extension of La Hougue. So in 2015, as we’re digging into the boxes deeper and then we were like, well, maybe we should go to Panama, you know, and go down there. And everybody’s like, ‘Panama is so corrupt and you’ll never get anything out of it’ and we thought well, I mean, why not take a shot, right? So I myself flew down to Panama to meet with the regulator.

We’d gotten some legal counsel down there and what they had prepped me for was basically that we were going to go in and make a formal complaint to some junior person and then that was going to, you know, probably have a junior lawyer involved. And then it would take an hour or two, then we’d go. I walk in to the meeting and it was pretty obvious early on that something was afoot because they actually took us up to the main floor of where the headquarters of the regulator is, because in Panama, the trust world is regulated by the banking division and so the head of regulation is actually a cabinet level position. So you’re talking about an actual government agency that you’re dealing with, appointed by the president of Panama. I walk into this boardroom that’s got 40 people sitting at this table. I mean, the head of the investigation, the head of police, the head of banking, the regulator himself is there, their lawyers are there. And so we have, we have triggered something, we have walked into something and we don’t know what it is. Shortly after that meeting the Panama regulator terminates Pantrust’s trust license. The Panamanian regulator took the unprecedented step of issuing an unbelievably scathing letter of just the danger to society that this organisation is. Panama of all places where everybody said they would do nothing is the only jurisdiction that actually did something, which is the shocking part. And you look back at Jersey and you’re expecting them to actually be the ones that would be the upstanding white Knight. And they want nothing to do with this.”

Tanya’s father John Dick denies any involvement in fraud. Tanya does remember as a child going into her dad’s office and getting told off for playing with a load of old typewriters, old ink, old sheets of paper, stamps, all sorts of things. That’s significant because of some of the things they found in the boxes, as Tanya explains in the Taxcast:

“Some things you just know are wrong like, you know I ran across a memo and they were talking about ‘you need to be careful when you’re fabricating this document that you use old paper and old ink. So if they test it, they can’t tell that it’s a fake.’ And yeah, I think everybody pretty much understands that that’s bad.”

After going through the boxes with a team of experts Tanya and Darrin went to the police in Jersey, expecting them to investigate:

“I was told that Jersey places an affirmative duty on its people that if you see suspicious activity you are bound by law to go and report it. You don’t have a choice. So, you know, talk about suspicious activity, there was evidence of money laundering, fraud, identity theft, so Darrin and I, we went to the police and we filled out police reports, one of the detectives came to the squash court and he’s looking around all of these boxes and he says, ‘so all of these boxes are fraud?’ And we said, ‘yes’. And he goes, ‘so it’s not just like every day records and you know, a couple of bad documents thrown in?’ We’re like, ‘well, you know, we haven’t been through all the boxes, but no, I mean, it’s pretty chock-a-block with fraud.’ And so he takes the cover off one of the boxes, he reaches in, he pulls out a random piece of paper and it talks about shredding the documents, which is against the law, you have to keep the documents for trust companies. And it talks about shredding the documents, hiring commercial shredders, getting black bin bags and then burning them at the tip. So he looked at that and he went, ‘yep okay, I take your point.’ And then the police seized the documents and the detective said it was one of the worst cases he’d seen where there was such a plethora of evidence. And it went from him being very excited about prosecuting it to him going, ‘oh, by the way, I’m uh, kind of retiring.’”

Tanya and Darrin say it’s when when they began to engage with law enforcement and the courts in Jersey that the realities of a State captured by finance really started to show themselves. “There’s a culture in Jersey that they call ‘the Jersey way’,” says Naomi Fowler, the Taxcast podcast host, “you know, you don’t stand up and speak out against the kind of insularity and conflicts of interest that you get in a small jurisdiction like this, it’s one of the reasons so many small islands tend to become popular places for secretive finance sectors.”

“I never understood it until I found myself in front of two Jersey judges,” Tanya says. “They were both my father’s former lawyers for 20 some years. The head of the police commission, he was also my father’s former lawyer, I mean the conflict of interest is astronomical. When we started going through the boxes, I found another document too that made it very clear – the trustee of La Hougue, the guy who was doing the day to day stuff, there was a memo he sent to my father and one of La Hougue’s clients was very unhappy and had threatened to go to the Jersey regulator. There’s a memo that I found that was in the boxes where he writes to my father and he says, ‘well, one of our clients has threatened to go to the Jersey regulator. He’s very unhappy right now. And I told him that he could basically pound sand and I’m not worried about it because we’ll just immediately pay our way out of it as usual.’ I’m like – pay our way out of it as usual!?!”

Before the police came to take all the boxes away Tanya and Darrin were able to copy a large chunk of the documents, The police later allowed them access to make further copies, as well as giving them a digital copy of what they had copied. They estimate they have about 80% of what they originally found and they are making much of that accessible to journalists through
the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project to help facilitate further investigations.

“Jersey is like a movie set,” says Tanya. “Because what you think you’re looking at and what’s really happening are two very different things.“

“Yeah,” says Darrin. “It’s important for other people to pay attention to what’s happening here, because this really affects everyone, the rule of law.“

“I’ve spoken to people who’ve lost their pensions, lost everything through scams that have used offshore secrecy and the impunity that can
exist in those places, and it’s been really devastating to them,” says Taxcast host Naomi Fowler. “But tax havens, secrecy jurisdictions also attract a lot of people doing unsavoury things, hiding criminal, proceeds, cheating on their taxes, that type of thing. And they’re not going to go to the authorities when they get ripped off. So, you know, you have this really big culture of impunity left right and centre. And there’s often a kind of panic to protect the jurisdiction from any negative publicity, from any scandal because they
don’t want to drive away the money.”

“Yeah,” says Darrin. “When we started pushing on this, we’ve run across some horrific crimes, I mean, it’s very black and white what had happened and Jersey would not investigate it. And on the surface, I think people look at that and they go, ‘Jersey’s trying to protect its good reputation.’ And the reality of it is, is they’re not, what they’re really trying to do is protect their bad reputation. Because what they’re trying to tell the underworld is ‘come to us and nothing will ever be investigated. You can do whatever you want and nothing will be investigated.’ And that’s the signal that they’re sending to the underworld to bring the business there. Where I think the average guy walking down the street sees or hears this rumour that Jersey is not doing an investigation and they’re like, ‘well, they don’t want to tarnish their image’ – you’re missing the point. It’s quite different. You know, we’ve been contacted by people in Jersey that have had their homes stolen. And that’s why Tanya was such a threat to them, sitting with boxes of some of the most incriminating evidence, and you know, the last thing they’re going to do is do an investigation.

What does it mean to us as a society? The system has been bastardised in a way. Now it works for the 2% and it punishes the other 98%. And what we want to be able to do is help Jersey spin it backwards, where it helps the other 98% and it punishes the 2% that are doing the crimes.

And what people need to understand is that when you bring that bad element onto your turf, it all comes with a cost. It’s like a cancer. If you don’t deal with it, it will kill the host, you know, it’s inevitable. They’re not going to investigate anything because any investigation is going to unearth what they don’t want the world to see. And that’s the tragedy. At some point, you get to a point of no return and I think that’s where Jersey’s gotten to – it’d be the last place you’d do business! We’re talking to the people in Jersey and the people of Cyprus and the people of the United States and the people of England, because what’s happening is the rot that’s in Jersey, and I could give you example after example after example of where they’ve exported it all over the world and absolutely decimated your courts, and you don’t even know it. This is a much bigger picture and it literally touches each and every person.”

“For me, it’s about accountability” says Tanya. ” I want to see reform in Jersey. I want a spotlight on judges, on the police, on the entire justice system.”

It’s now almost ten years since Tanya and Darrin first discovered these boxes of evidence in St John’s Manor, Jersey. In Panama, the authorities revoked La Hougue’s sister company’s licence so it could no longer operate from there. In the US there have been important admissions in court, and litigation is ongoing. In Jersey there have been no criminal charges, prosecutions, or regulatory penalties imposed. Tanya Dick-Stock now faces huge court costs and is blocked from participating in Jersey court proceedings. These Jersey rulings, with all their potential conflicts of interest, could prejudice, or at least influence courts in other jurisdictions.

Financial secrecy is at the heart of this unresolved scandal and it really needs to go. For that laws must change. And financial regulators and tax authorities must be independent, well funded and empowered to enforce those laws.

Do listen to the full story in the Tax Justice Network podcast, the Taxcast.

View Details

Welcome to our monthly podcast in Portuguese, É da sua conta (it’s your business) produced by Grazielle David, Daniela Stefano and Luciano Máximo. All our podcasts are unique productions in five different languages – English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Portuguese. They’re all available here. Here’s the latest episode:

Auditor fiscal, técnico alfandegário, cobrador de impostos. Sem essas trabalhadoras e trabalhadores não teríamos arrecadação de receitas para um governo criar e executar políticas públicas que promovam direitos, como educação, saúde, saneamento básico e muitas outras.

O É da sua conta de dezembro de 2021 traz histórias impactantes desses heróis e heroínas invisíveis e a importância do seu trabalho. Profissionais aposentados do fisco narram situações de trabalho nas quais arriscam a própria vida e especialistas falam sobre a importância de fortalecer a administração tributária em tempos de austeridade fiscal.

• Gilvan David, que iniciou sua trajetória de auditor fiscal em Goiás nos anos 1960, conta sua história, que envolve ameaças, oferta de propinas e até o assassinato de um colega
• Os riscos da PEC 32, que propõe uma reforma administrativa que precariza os serviços públicos o Brasil
• Como valorizar o trabalho e a carreira dos auditores e auditoras fiscais
• Clair Hickman, auditora da Receita Federal, narra como agiu nos anos 1990, na busca de sonegadores no Brasil
• Os ataques às administrações tributárias globalmente

Naquela época [anos 1960, 1970], vários colegas foram assassinados. Um episódio ficou muito conhecido na cidade de Inhumas [Goiás]: um colega chamado Everlan estava com outro colega fiscalizando uma empresa de um cerealista. Em dado momento o empresário apanhou uma arma e disparou contra os dois auditores. O Everlan veio a óbito e o outro escapou por pouco.”

~ Gilvan David, auditor fiscal aposentado

Tinha um cidadão em Curitiba que movimentava mais de US$ 20 milhões em várias contas bancárias. A gente descobriu que ele não declarava imposto de renda. Investigamos quem era a pessoa e fomos atrás. Chegamos numa casa bem simples, mal cuidada. Morava lá um senhor de uns 60 e poucos anos, cabelo já bem grisalho, com um calção quase caindo e uma camiseta toda amassada, ruim, estragada, feia. Arregalou os olhos para gente e ficamos medo. A gente se identificou e disse que precisava identificar a origem do dinheiro. A princípio ele se negou a falar, mas a gente continuou insistindo com muito jeito.”

~ Clair Hickman, auditora fiscal aposentada

É preciso que os agentes do fisco tenham garantias, prerrogativas que os protejam do assédio institucional, da perseguição, da retaliação e eventualmente até mesmo da demissão.”

~ Charles Alcântara, Fenafisco

Os ricos são muito bons em fazer lobby para garantir que as pessoas mais pobres paguem os impostos e eles, não paguem. Por isso a gente precisa de uma administração fiscal forte, não apenas tecnicamente forte, mas também politicamente forte.”

~ Nick Shaxson, Tax Justice Network

Participam dessa edição:

• Charles Alcântara – presidente da Fenafisco
• Clair Hickman – auditora fiscal aposentada e diretora do Instituto de Justiça Fiscal
• Gilvan David – auditor fiscal aposentado
• Nick Shaxson – Tax Justice Network

Auditores fiscais: heróis invisíveis #32 * Conecte-se com a gente! * www.edasuaconta.com * Twitter * Facebook * Plataformas de áudio: Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Deezer ect * Inscreva-se: info@edasuaconta.com * Download do podcast em MP3

É da sua conta é o podcast mensal em português da Tax Justice Network. Coordenação: Naomi Fowler. Produção e apresentação: Daniela Stefano, Grazielle David. Redes Sociais: Luciano Máximo. Download gratuito. Reprodução livre para rádios.

View Details

Welcome to the 48th edition of our Arabic podcast/radio show Taxes Simply الجباية ببساطة contributing to tax justice public debate around the world. It’s produced and presented by Walid Ben Rhouma and is available on most podcast apps. Any radio station is welcome to broadcast it for free and websites are also welcome to share it. You can follow the programme on Facebook, on Twitter and on our website.

الجباية ببساطة #48 ماذا تبقى من مشروع طلعت حرب؟في العدد #48 من الجباية ببساطة نستضيف الباحث الإقتصادي المصري محمد جاد، أحد مؤلفي كتاب “ماذا جرى لمشروع طلعت حرب؟ مصر والنظام المالي في مئة عام” للخوض في تأثر السياسات النقدية المصرية بمشروع طلعت حرب ومدى تطابقها مع تجارب نقدية أخرى في المنطقة من حيث الإنفتاح على النظام المالي العالمي والمانحين الدوليين. زيادة على جولة في الأخبار الضريبية والإقتصادية للمنطقة العربية والعالم. الجباية ببساطة #48 ماذا تبقى من مشروع طلعت حرب؟ تابعونا على صفحتنا على الفايسبوك وتويتر https://www.facebook.com/ TaxesSimply Tweets by taxes_simply

View Details

Welcome to our Spanish language podcast and radio programme Justicia ImPositiva with Marcelo Justo and Marta Nuñez, free to download and broadcast on radio networks across Latin America and Spain. ¡Bienvenidos y bienvenidas a nuestro podcast y programa radiofónico! Escuche por su app de podcast favorita.

En este programa:

• Los Papeles de Pandora y la hora de la justicia para los presidentes de Chile y Ecuador.
• El día después del Impuesto mínimo a las multinacionales de la OCDE y el G20. ¿A quién favorece? ¿Cómo es el camino de acá en más?
• ¿Por qué en el acuerdo del G20 y la OCDE faltan las multinacionales del sector financiero, un actor protagónico del abuso tributario y las maniobras con paraísos fiscales?
• Y en medio de la pandemia, ¿cómo es la situación fiscal del mundo con estos agujeros del sistema financiero internacional?

INVITADOS:

• Ricardo Martner de la Comisión Independiente para la Reforma del Impuesto Corporativo Internacional ICRICT
• Andres Arauz, ex-candidato a presidente, ex-director del banco central de Ecuador, y economista de la UNAM, la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico
• Edmund Fitzegerald, experto en finanzas de la Universidad de Oxford y miembro de ICRICT, la Comisión Independiente para la Reforma del Impuesto Corporativo Internacional
• Hernan Arbizu, financista
• Rodolfo Berajano, Latindadd y Red de Justicia Fiscal de América Latina y el Caribe (RJFALC)

Los papeles de Pandora, el fraude fiscal, los bancos y la pandemia #66 MÁS INFORMACIÓN:

Enlace de descarga para las emisoras: https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/j-impositiva/JI_dic_21.mp3

Subscribase a nuestro RSS feed: http://j_impositiva.libsyn.com/rss

O envien un correo electronico a Naomi [@] taxjustice.net para ser
incorporado a nuestra lista de suscriptores.

Sigannos por twitter en http://www.twitter.com/J_ImPositiva

Estamos tambien en facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Justicia-ImPositiva-1464800660510982/