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.
Outcomes and Recommendations of the FIRST AFRICAN FISCAL POLICY FORUM
South Centre and Coalition for Dialogue on Africa
The Coalition for Dialogue on Africa (CoDA) and the South Centre co-organized the First African Fiscal Policy Forum on 16 December 2021 with the theme “Inequalities in Taxing Rights”. It was the first of a series of dialogues aimed to bring together key stakeholders from Africa and the Global South on tax matters, to examine the legitimacy of the international tax reform processes and illicit financial flows and the place and role of Africa in the processes. The dialogue discussed contents of the Two-Pillar Solution of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) and its implications for African countries. It analyzed other alternatives to the Inclusive Framework, including recommendations of institutions such as the United Nations High-level Panel on Financial Accountability, Transparency and Integrity (UN-FACTI) and Article 12B on Taxation of Automated Digital Services of the UN model Tax Convention. The forum sought to discuss the reasons some countries such as Nigeria, Kenya, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka did not endorse the Inclusive Framework proposals and made recommendations for African countries.
Una carga molesta para naciones en vías de desarrollo: Cláusula de NMF en tratados impositivos
Por Deepak Kapoor, IRS
La cláusula de la nación más favorecida (“NMF”) de los convenios para evitar la doble tributación encarna el principio básico de no discriminación y tiene por objeto aportar paridad a las oportunidades empresariales y de inversión entre los países y las jurisdicciones partes en los tratados. La incorporación de disposiciones como las cláusulas de la NMF y de no discriminación en los tratados de tributación pretende promover la equidad entre las partes en los tratados. En el contexto de los tratados de tributación entre países desarrollados y en desarrollo, las cláusulas de la NMF también actúan como herramienta de negociación para contemplar mejores tipos impositivos en los tratados.
Sin embargo, últimamente, estas cláusulas han empezado a manifestar unos efectos negativos en los países de origen, que en su mayor parte son países en desarrollo. Por lo general, no parece que las cláusulas de la NMF estén creando posibles riesgos si son operativas entre dos países con el mismo grado de desarrollo, pero, cuando la relación se establece entre un país desarrollado y otro en desarrollo, donde una parte recibe de la otra más inversiones de las que hace, ese tipo de riesgo es inevitable. Recientemente, se han producido problemas a raíz de diversas interpretaciones de las cláusulas de la NMF por parte de los tribunales que han obligado a los países de origen a ampliar los beneficios de los tipos reducidos y el ámbito de aplicación restringido a los países parte en el tratado con arreglo a las normas de la NMF. Esa clase de interpretaciones beneficiosas han ido más allá del objetivo y el propósito básicos de las cláusulas de la NMF.
A tenor de causas judiciales que han tenido lugar recientemente en Sudáfrica y la India, parece que las cláusulas de la NMF están creando oportunidades de “reducción de impuestos” y están dando lugar a una erosión involuntaria de la base imponible de los países de origen. El problema también radica en la redacción y las formulaciones ambiguas de las cláusulas de la NMF, que finalmente provocan resultados negativos inesperados para los países que están obligados por compromisos futuros. Por consiguiente, en estos momentos, las jurisdicciones de origen necesitan con urgencia un examen exhaustivo de las cláusulas de la NMF existentes en los tratados de tributación, sus relaciones cruzadas y sus posibles efectos secundarios negativos en otros tratados.
Artículo 12B: una solución del tratado tributario del Comité sobre Cooperación Internacional en Cuestiones de Tributación de la ONU para la tributación de ingresos digitales
Por Rajat Bansal
La tributación sobre los ingresos de las empresas multinacionales dedicadas a actividades digitales por las jurisdicciones de origen y las de mercado es actualmente el desafío más importante para la comunidad tributaria internacional. El actual conjunto de miembros del Comité en cuestiones de tributación de las Naciones Unidas finalizó, en abril de 2021, una medida de tratados tributarios para abordar este desafío. Este informe explica la justificación para la solución particular de agregar un nuevo artículo a la Convención Modelo de las Naciones Unidas, sus méritos y cómo esto puede ser beneficioso para todos los países, especialmente los en desarrollo.
Global Minimum Corporate Tax: Interaction of Income Inclusion Rule with Controlled Foreign Corporation and Tax-sparing Provisions
By Kuldeep Sharma, ADIT (CIOT,UK), FTI (Australia), Insolvency Professional (IBBI)
The OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS (the Inclusive Framework) agreed on 8 October 2021 to the Statement on the Two-Pillar Solution to Address the Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy. The Two-Pillar Solution will ensure that MNEs will be subject to a minimum tax rate of 15%, and will re-allocate profit of the largest and most profitable MNEs to countries worldwide. Under these recommendations, inter alia, Pillar Two consists of two interlocking domestic rules (together the Global Anti-Base Erosion Rules (GloBE)), which includes an Income Inclusion Rule (IIR) to impose a top-up tax on a parent entity in respect of the low taxed income of a constituent entity. The IIR shall be incorporated in domestic laws of opting jurisdictions, and seems to have profound interaction with the Controlled Foreign Corporation (CFC) and tax-sparing provisions. The IIR operates in a way that is closely comparable to a CFC rule and raises the same treaty questions as raised by CFC rules, although there are a number of differences between the IIR and the CFC rules. In the context of IIR, there may be a case when the Ultimate Parent Entity (UPE) is taxed on the Constituent Entities’ (CEs) income and the spared tax is not considered as covered taxes for calculating the Effective Tax Rate (ETR) of the CE. This generates a situation for developing countries in which they have to shore up their ETR by overhauling their tax incentive regimes and retooling domestic legal framework for more effective taxation of MNEs to avoid losing a significant portion of their tax right/base to a developed country. Adoption of IIR (which is an extension of CFC rules) under Pillar Two is therefore going to create conflict with the tax-sparing rules. From the perspective of developing countries, the adoption of GloBE implies losing tax incentives as a tax policy instrument to attract foreign direct investment. This is why every country involved, but especially developing countries, should undertake a thorough examination to determine whether such measures are convenient for their interests in the long run.
Un albatros autour du cou des pays en développement – Clause NPF dans les conventions fiscales
Par Deepak Kapoor, IRS
L’inclusion dans les conventions en matière de double imposition d’une clause de la nation la plus favorisée (« NPF ») est une incarnation du principe fondamental de la non-discrimination et vise à permettre aux pays signataires de tirer également parti des perspectives en matière de commerce et d’investissement. L’objectif de dispositions telles que les clauses NPF et de non-discrimination dans les conventions fiscales est de favoriser l’équité entre les différents pays signataires. Dans les conventions fiscales conclues entre pays développés et pays en développement, les clauses NPF servent également d’outils de négociation pour obtenir de meilleurs taux d’imposition.
Cependant ces clauses ont aujourd’hui des effets négatifs pour les pays de source des revenus, qui sont pour la plupart des pays en développement. Lorsqu’elles sont appliquées entre deux pays également développés, les clauses NPF ne constituent pas, généralement, une source de danger potentielle, mais lorsque la convention est conclue entre un pays développé et un pays en développement, où l’un des pays reçoit plus d’investissements de l’autre qu’il n’en réalise, le danger est réel. De fait, des difficultés sont apparues récemment en raison d’interprétations divergentes de ces clauses par les tribunaux, qui ont contraint les pays source à appliquer, sur la base des termes contenus dans la clause NPF, un taux d’imposition plus avantageux que celui prévu dans la convention fiscale et à modifier son champ d’application, remettant en cause l’objectif et l’utilité même des clauses NPF.
Il ressort des procédures judiciaires intentées en Afrique du Sud et en Inde que les clauses NPF peuvent aboutir à une réduction de la fiscalité et entrainer une érosion involontaire de la base d’imposition des pays de source des revenus. Le problème réside également dans la rédaction et la formulation ambiguë des clauses NPF, qui entrainent des répercussions négatives inattendues pour les pays ayant pris des engagements dans le cadre de ces conventions. Il est aujourd’hui urgent pour les pays source de procéder à un examen approfondi des clauses NPF figurant dans les conventions fiscales existantes, de la manière dont elles s’articulent entre elles et des retombées négatives qu’elles pourraient avoir sur d’autres conventions.
