STATEMENT BY DR. CARLOS CORREA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SOUTH CENTRE, TO THE MINISTERS AND GOVERNORS MEETING OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL GROUP OF TWENTY-FOUR (G24)
April 2022, Virtual Meeting
The lingering COVID-19 pandemic, monetary tightening and increasing geopolitical tension have slowed down the global economic recovery. Projections for the 2022 global GDP growth have been slashed by about one percentage point by major international institutions. Together with inflation, especially spikes in food and fuel prices, and ongoing supply chain disruptions, uncertainty and fragility are looming over the two-speed world economic recovery. This has dimmed the hope to halt or reverse the trend of the rapidly increasing number of people falling into extreme poverty and suffering from hunger. While the COVID-19 virus continues to mutate, the access to vaccination continues to be a major world concern. Developing countries’ supply and financing constraints for vaccines and critical medical products must be addressed.
In view of the multiple challenges faced by developing countries, the efforts of G24 in helping to coordinate the positions of developing countries on international monetary and development finance issues remain critical. The South Centre will continue to support those efforts.
Escaping the Fragility/Conflict Poverty Trap: How the interaction between service delivery, capacity development and institutional transformation drives the process of transition out of fragility
By Mamadou Dia
The main background and rationale of this research paper is that while donors’ scaled-up engagements in Fragility and Conflict-affected States (FCS) during the last decades were a resounding success in terms of official development resources devoted to FCS, the value for money compared to the ultimate goal of helping these countries move out of fragility was well below expectations. The World Bank ex post evaluation of the results of its engagement in FCS found that 80 percent of FCS that were on the harmonized list of fragile situations in 2012 remain on it today and the author’s observational study of a sample of 16 African FCS over a 5-year period found that only 1 made progress while 12 stayed in the status quo and 3 regressed. The main reason for the poor value for money is that while International Financial Institutions (IFIs) have spent tremendous amount of resources and brain power to build an excellent knowledge base about fragility and resilience, no such efforts were made to help understand the process and stages for a successful transition from fragility to resilience. The purpose of this paper is to help fill the knowledge gap in order to encourage development partners engaging in FCS to shift from a Fragility-focused to a Transition-based Engagement Business Model and thus minimize the risks of the poor value for money results. The paper will do so by outlining a methodology and framework for a better understanding of the process and a road map for a successful transition from fragility to resilience with measurable stage/sign posts and benchmarks to evaluate progress and necessary adaptation to donors’ strategic and operational support instruments.
Conceptualización de un Instrumento multilateral de la ONU
Por Radhakishan Rawal
Los cambios que ha sufrido recientemente la Convención Modelo de las Naciones Unidas sobre la Doble Tributación entre Países Desarrollados y Países en Desarrollo han dado lugar a disposiciones mas favorables a los países en desarrollo, al aumentar los ingresos fiscales a través de la imposición de tributos internacionales, por ejemplo, en la imposición de tributos a los ingresos procedentes del extranjero. En esta imposición se incluyen, entre otros, los impuestos sobre los ingresos procedentes de servicios digitales automatizados, pagos de programas informáticos y plusvalías. Normalmente, estos impuestos se incorporarían en convenios fiscales bilaterales a través de largas negociaciones. En cambio, un instrumento multilateral de las Naciones Unidas permitiria actualizar de una manera mas acelerada varios convenios tributatrios por medio de una sola negociación. Esto ayudará a los países en desarrollo a recaudar ingresos con mayor prontitud. En este informe sobre políticas se aborda la posible estructura de un instrumento multilateral de esa índole.
Mejora la regla del nexo para una distribución justa de derechos fiscales a países en vías de desarrollo
Por Radhakishan Rawal
Uno de los problemas abiertos para Pilar Uno en el debate de la tributación de la economía digital es el umbral del Nexo, que determinaría qué Empresas multinacionales (MNE) tienen una presencia tributable. Las economías muy desarrolladas o las economías más pequeñas en vías de desarrollo pueden verse privadas de derechos fiscales como resultado de umbrales de nexo como son descritos en la propuesta de Pilar Uno. Asimismo, inclusive cuando se adoptan umbrales más pequeños, a algunos países aún se les puede denegar derechos fiscales. El umbral financiero nunca fue un parámetro de distribución de derechos fiscales entre los países. Un ligero ajuste del proceso de certeza impositiva podría abordar el problema.
Este artículo recomienda otorgar el derecho fiscal por Monto A de Pilar Uno, que abarca la porción principal de ganancias tributables de la economía digital, a todas las jurisdicciones del mercado, pero otorgar derechos relacionados con las jurisdicciones impositivas afectadas solo a aquellos países que cumplen con los umbrales de Nexo. Este enfoque resultará en una distribución justa de derechos fiscales y también garantizará que no haya una carga adicional en el proceso de certeza impositiva, que será más sencillo para países en vías de desarrollo.
These comments by the BEPS Monitoring Group (BMG) analyse the draft model rules on nexus and revenue sourcing, released by the OECD Secretariat on 4 February 2022 for public consultation, in the continuing work to address the tax challenges of the digitalised economy by the Task Force on the Digital Economy (TFDE) set up by the G20/OECD Inclusive Framework on BEPS. The BMG is a network of experts on various aspects of international tax, set up by a number of civil society organizations which research and campaign for tax justice including the Global Alliance for Tax Justice, Red de Justicia Fiscal de America Latina y el Caribe, Tax Justice Network, Christian Aid, Action Aid, Oxfam, and Tax Research UK. This report has not been approved in advance by these organizations, which do not necessarily accept every detail or specific point made here, but they support the work of the BMG and endorse its general perspectives. It is based on our previous reports, and has been drafted by Sol Picciotto and Jeffery Kadet, with comments and contributions by Abdul Muheet Chowdhary, Sakshi Rai, Sudarshan Rangan, Attiya Waris and Yansheng Zhu.
South Centre Comments on Draft Model Rules for Tax Base Determinations
The South Centre today provided its comments to the OECD Inclusive Framework’s Task Force on Digital Economy (TFDE) on the Draft Model Rules for Tax Base Determinations. These rules are part of the overall OECD project on the taxation of the digitalized economy known as Pillar One. They determine the amount of a Multinational Enterprise’s (MNE) profits that will then be partially redistributed to market jurisdictions, which are expected to be largely developing countries.
The Model Rules for Tax Base Determinations are of importance as this affects the amount of tax revenues that developing countries will finally be able to collect under the so-called “Amount A” of Pillar One.
The global minimum tax should provide an incentive for developing countries to raise their effective tax rate as close as possible to their statutory tax rates, which are often higher than the 15% rate. The average rate for South Centre and G-77+China Member States is around 25%. In any case it should be at least 15%, since any undertaxed profits would in any case be taxed at that rate by developed countries. Leading OECD countries have already adopted measures to protect their source tax base, which they intend to retain, such as the UK’s diverted profits tax and the US’s base erosion anti-abuse tax. Poorer countries have even more reason to do likewise. They should consider introducing or strengthening measures such as an alternative minimum tax on deemed or book profits, versions of which already exist in many countries. These are compatible with the GloBE rules, and should be regarded as an essential complement, to ensure that it contributes to both fair and effective taxation of MNE profits.
South Centre Comments on Draft Model Rules for Nexus and Revenue Sourcing
The South Centre offers its comments on the Draft Model Rules for Nexus and Revenue Sourcing. As a procedural matter, the extremely rapid pace of discussions is a matter of great concern for developing countries, a matter also raised by the African Tax Administration Forum (ATAF). While an urgent solution is needed to the taxation of the digitalization of the economy, this must mean one which incorporates the interests of developing countries.
South Asia and the Need for Increased Tax Revenues from the Digitalized Economy
By Abdul Muheet Chowdhary
It is understandable why Pakistan and Sri Lanka, both members of the OECD Inclusive Framework, rejected the Two Pillar solution of the OECD on the taxation of the digitalized economy. Both Pillars would have deprived them of badly needed revenues, especially Pillar One. South Asian countries, amongst the poorest in the world and with high levels of external debt, must conduct a careful cost-benefit analysis if they are considering proceeding with Pillar One. Agreeing to this means foregoing unilateral measures on all companies, including those out-of-scope and losing vital policy space. Further, the agreement will have a long shelf-life and likely last for the next 30-40 years. Thus, all developing countries, including from South Asia, should be clear about what they are ‘getting into’.
Impact of a Minimum Tax Rate under the Pillar Two Solution on Small Island Developing States
Deadline: 15 March 2022
Pillar Two will end the race to the bottom in tax matters as allowed by the absence of a minimum global tax, likely affecting many financial services in some developing countries, removing the option for them to rely upon tax competition as an economic model. Hence, there is a need to understand how the Pillar Two rules are going to affect developing countries, particularly in small islands developing States where a large portion of their economies rely on tax-related financial services. It is necessary to consider development strategies aiming to deal with the potential disruptions and job losses posed by Pillar Two. These development strategies must provide pathways through which these countries can ensure employment opportunities to their people that require similar skill sets from some soon-to-be redundant segments of the financial industry. These can also highlight future financial sectors with potential where these countries can consider exploring/reorienting to benefit their economies.
Accordingly, this call for papers invites analysis on the effects of Pillar Two inSmall Island Developing States that are Member States of the G-77+China. The proposals can either provide generalized suggestions for a whole set of countries or provide customized advisory for individual countries.
This call invites established scholars, early career academics, PhD students and practitioners (policy makers, tax officials, lawyers) across multiple disciplines to submit abstracts.
Taux Minimum d’Impôt Mondial : Détaché des réalités des pays en développement
Par Sébastien Babou Diasso
Sous la direction des pays du G20 et de l’organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economique (OCDE), le Cadre Inclusif sur la réforme de la fiscalité internationale a adopté le 8 octobre 2021 une solution à deux piliers visant à résoudre les défis auxquels sont confrontés les pays dans le système fiscal actuel au niveau international. Cependant, le moins que l’on puisse dire, c’est que ces solutions n’apportent pas de réponses aux préoccupations de nombreux pays en développement, en particulier le taux d’impôt minimum de 15%, dans un contexte où la plupart des pays en développement membres de Centre Sud et du G-77+Chine ont déjà des taux effectifs bien au-dessus de ce minimum. Cette note vise à informer sur les niveaux actuels des taux d’imposition effectifs dans les pays en développement, pour lesquels les données sont disponibles, et à montrer pourquoi il ne serait pas pertinent de prendre en compte le taux minimum adopté dans le cadre inclusif. Mobiliser plus de ressources fiscales des entreprises multinationales est important pour les pays en développement pour la réalisation des Objectifs de Développement Durable. Nous recommandons donc que les pays en développement ignorent simplement le pilier deux et maintiennent leurs taux d’imposition actuels, ou les augmentent à des niveaux plus adaptés à travers l’application de mesures unilatérales plutôt que d’accepter d’être soumis à la procédure indiquée dans le pilier deux s’ils décident de l’appliquer.
Global Minimum Tax Rate: Detached from Developing Country Realities
By Sebastien Babou Diasso
Under the umbrella of the G20 and the OECD, the Inclusive Framework adopted on 8 October 2021 a two-pillar solution to address tax challenges arising from the digitalization of the economy. However, these solutions do not respond to the needs of many developing countries, in particular the global tax minimum rate of 15%, in a context where most developing countries, defined as Member States of the South Centre and the G-77+China, have an average effective tax rate higher than the adopted rate. This policy brief provides information of the current effective tax rates in some developing countries, and highlights why the minimum rate of 15% in Pillar Two is insufficient for them. Tax revenue mobilization is important for developing countries to achieve the sustainable development goals. It is thereby recommended that developing countries simply ignore Pillar Two and maintain their current higher rate or increase their rate to an appropriate level and enforce it through unilateral measures rather than the rule order under Pillar Two, which they will have to follow if they decide to implement it.
