Process of pragmatic inquiry & consensus building on corporate & govt. responsibilities in taxation needed for informed public debate, analyst says

Get RSS feed of these results

All components of this story

26 November 2013

A constructive proposal on tax

Author: Maya Forstater, on Hiya Maya

Conflating ordinary business practice with aggressive tax avoidance does not help us to understand...where the problems are or how best to respond to them. What we need is a...informed, non-partisan analysis of the issues and data...My constructive proposal is that we need a...process of principled, pragmatic, fact-based enquiry and consensus building on the matter of corporate and government responsibilities in taxation. The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute...has...creat[ed] a Task Force on Illicit Financial Flows, Poverty and Human Rights...Their first report is thoughtful, and was carried out in the spirit of the Ruggie mandate...But their analysis doesn’t get much beyond a balanced but inconclusive reporting of divergent opinions...They don’t...come up with a strong definition...of what is tax abuse...Part of the that the human rights lens is not in itself useful for untangling the tax debates...I would love to see a follow up to the IBARHI report which advisors, companies and tax campaigners, together with economists and human rights lawyers working find common ground of concepts and data which would enable a more informed public debate.[refers to Twitter, Starbucks, Amazon, Vodafone, Verizon, Barclays, HSBC]

🚫Read the full post here

24 January 2013

Tax avoidance - an introduction

Author: compiled by Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

Read the full post here