Abstract

Seven years have passed since the BEPS Action Plan was launched by the OECD, and Action 1 identified the tax challenges derived from the digitalization of the economy as a relevant area to be addressed. However, no concrete recommendations were delivered and, in an increasingly digitized economy, countries started acting unilaterally. Against this situation, as from January 2019, the stream of work at the OECD has changed and, apparently, a novel era - “BEPS 2.0” - has begun under the slogan of working on a “without prejudice” Almost eight years have passed since the BEPS Action Plan was launched by the OECD and Action 1 identified corporate income tax challenges derived from the digitalization of the economy as a relevant area to be addressed. As from January 2019, the stream of work at the OECD has changed. Apparently, a novel era - “BEPS 2.0” - has begun under the slogan of working on a “without prejudice” basis and a two-pillar approach with the aim of reaching an agreement on a global solution. Though the author recognizes the need to find a coordinated answer, she believes that in the construction of said solution, attention should be given to specific features and policy preferences evidenced by developing countries. Under this scenario, this contribution focuses on the so-called “Pillar Two” and assesses its “Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) proposal” from said perspective. After her analysis, the author concludes that this rushed political-driven proposal not only has been designed in the benefit of major and more advanced economies, but it goes far more beyond “BEPS”. In this vein, the author advocates for concentrating the efforts and resources on a transparent discussion that directly addresses efficient and fairer nexus and profit allocation rules – main concern for developing countries and, in the autor´s view, the base problem to be solved.

Highlights

  • The OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS is currently working on addressing corporate income tax challenges that are deriving from the digitalization of the economy under a two-pillar approach

  • Instead of undertaking a true revision – which does not necessarily mean the abandon but an update - of existing international standards, the BEPS Project introduced a wide diversity of complex antiavoidance measures, sometimes even replicating national approaches of develop countries, and hoping23 that these would contribute to solving the more structural tax challenges around nexus and profit allocation rules posed by the digitalization of the economy

  • The author concludes that Pillar Two is a rushed politicaldriven proposal that fails to delineate its underlying policy rationale

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS (hereinafter, IF) is currently working on addressing corporate income tax challenges that are deriving from the digitalization of the economy under a two-pillar approach. Instead of undertaking a true revision – which does not necessarily mean the abandon but an update - of existing international standards, the BEPS Project introduced a wide diversity of complex antiavoidance measures, sometimes even replicating national approaches of develop countries, and hoping that these would contribute to solving the more structural tax challenges around nexus and profit allocation rules posed by the digitalization of the economy.24 While it may have been clear from the beginning that, in order to be truly effective, the BEPS action plan, and the so-called “minimum standard”, needed to be implemented by as many countries as possible, it was not until mid-2016, i.e. after issuing the above-mentioned recommendations, that the IF was established and opened to interested countries in order to work together “on an equal footing” “on implementing [as mentioned, already designed] BEPS package consistently on a global basis, and to develop further standards to address remaining BEPS issues”, the author’s emphasis (OECD 2017a, 5).. The author wonders whether developing countries should not start thinking of reviewing their tax treaty network and practices

Concluding remarks
Findings
Notes on contributor
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.