Category Archives: Sovereignty

The Paradise Papers should lead us towards a new global tax system

Last week, I published an op-ed in Danish newspaper Politiken with my colleague Saila Stausholm. I reproduce it below, liberally translated, for those interested. Given the op-ed format, it naturally has certain limitations and a certain style that differs from my usual writings on this blog – so take that into account. Here we go:

The Paradise Papers should lead us towards a new global tax system

Last Sunday, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) lifted the dam that had been holding back a new giant offshore leak, the Paradise Papers.

While the stories of tax haven usage do not necessarily reveal any illegal activity, the reactions tell us that citizens and politicians are outraged by the implications in the leaks of leaders and elites in the world’s richest countries.

Exactly because much of this activity is legal, the leak highlights the massive chasm between what ordinary people see as reasonable, and what the global elite can do within the limits of the law.

The Paradise Papers thus clearly showcase the structural problems of a nationally anchored tax system that works globally for mobile capital.

It is outdated, and there is a need for not just outrage and political attention, but also new, concrete ideas and the courage to change the system radically.

Small “quick fixes” here and there are not enough. On the contrary, we need to change the tax system fundamentally in order for it to match the ongoing reconfiguration of the global economy.

As illustrated by the tax haven leaks of the past few years, the opportunities to use tax havens and the offshore world are a key symptom of a tax system where regulation has not kept pace with globalisation.

Before the Paradise Papers, we had the Panama Papers, which created outrage in 2016, implicating the Icelandic Prime Minister, the Saudi Arabian king, the Pakistani Prime Minister, football world star Lionel Messi, and actor Jackie Chan.

In Denmark, too, the Panama Papers had consequences: The Danish tax administration is continuing its investigations into the affairs of at least 500 Danes.

Before the Panama Papers, we had the LuxLeaks, which revealed that PwC had helped a string of global corporates attain hugely favourable tax terms in Luxembourg. This had happened while current European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker was Prime Minister in the Grand Duchy.

LuxLeaks also fostered significant political reactions, and became the starting point for Margrethe Vestager’s high-profile state aid cases against Luxembourg involving Amazon, Fiat, and McDonald’s.

And again before LuxLeaks, we had the Offshore Leaks in 2013. In addition, we have had the SwissLeaks and the Bahamas Leaks. These many leaks must be viewed in light of the increasing focus on tax havens and the issues created by the international tax system for both rich and poor countries.

Since the global financial crisis broke out in 2007-08, nation-states have increasingly identified the strengthening of national and international tax systems as a central part of the solution to the economic challenges we face today: debt crisis, public budgets under pressure, low growth and growing inequality.

As a consequence, both national governments and the international community has ramped up political initiatives against tax havens, against aggressive tax planning, against money laundering, and against tax evasion.

Today, we have much more transparency and better international exchange of tax information; we have closed some of the worst loopholes; and we have changed what is acceptable in terms of bank secrecy, shell companies, etc.

But the political reforms from the past decade have not really taken on the fundamental causes of the problems we are seeing today in tax havens and in the international tax system.

All the key components of the international tax system, established in the early 20th century, have not changed substantially.

Countries can still undermine each other by commercialising their sovereignty and offer favourable terms to foreign capital and thus reduce the economic and democratic capacity of their neighbours. And despite initiatives in the EU and the OECD, international cooperation is still relatively limited and, to a large extent, controlled by a small core of actors from the world’s richest nations.

Global corporations are still, essentially, taxed like they were 100 years ago, when they were small regional networks primarily trading physical goods.

This means that global capital – large corporations and rich individuals – are still able to structure tax liabilities with little friction across borders, while governments are largely bound by geographical and territorial borders.

If we want to address the fundamental challenges facing the international tax system today, we need a complete overhaul of the system. We need global innovation. Innovation is needed because old solutions will not do. And global scope is needed because solutions need to encompass all relevant countries and interests, if we harbour any ambition of finding sustainable and lasting answers.

First of all, we need innovation in terms of more and better inclusion of various interests in political decision-making processes. This is particularly relevant at the international level, where the group of decision-makers involved has historically been very narrow.

Our research has shown that a small group of actors play a disproportionate role in international tax policy-making. And that a core group of technical experts contribute to setting a course for regulatory initiatives that widely differs from the perceptions and goals of the general public and of politicians.

International tax policy is very important, and should have broad participation in all phases from the public, from civil society, from researchers, from interest organisations, and from politicians from all sides. This is not the case today. This would improve the quality of the democratic system and the political decision-making.

One model for such an expansion of participation is a World Tax Organisation. Today, taxation is just about the only major global political issue area where we do not have a global organisation with active participation from across the globe, where global challenges can be discussed, and common guidelines can be laid out.

We have a World Trade Organisation, a World Bank, a World Health Organisation, and so forth. But we do not have a World Tax Organisation.

This is not to say that these organisations are flawless, nor that a new organisation will solve all of our problems on its own. It is just one suggestion and just one part of the solution. What such an organisation does provide is a common global forum, where a broad range of issues can be raised and addressed, which simply does not exist in the area of taxation.

The “global” political discussions we have today largely take place in the OECD, the G20 and the EU; they play a key role in setting the agenda.

This makes it difficult for other countries and other stakeholders to join and influence discussions, despite the fact that many of the issues caused by the current international tax system hit emerging and developing countries disproportionately hard.

Without assuming the full design of a World Tax Organisation, we can at least imagine that it would function as a global forum that could take up key questions about international tax policy and tax havens, start political reform discussions, carry out global consultations, set out global guidelines, etc.

A more expansive idea of such an organisation could, like the World Trade Organisation, be entrusted with the power to assess and enforce whether any one country’s tax system would live up to globally agreed minimum standards, in order to ensure that it did not harm other countries with its policies or allow harmful discrimination of certain persons or companies.

In addition to creating a better forum for the negotiation of common ground rules, we also need to rethink how we tax cross-border activities in the global economy of today.

Today, global corporations and rich individuals have particularly large scope to lower their tax bills by manipulating mobile income across borders because our tax systems are still based around outdated ideas of how and where value is created in a global economy.

For instance, a substantial part of global corporate assets today are intellectual property: patents, copyrights, etc. In short: ideas.

In contrast to traditional assets such as factories, ideas and mobile and malleable. Where and when does an idea originate, and how does it create value?

Despite hundreds of pages of guidelines and regulation, multinational companies retain a great deal of flexibility in answering these questions and thus determining the location and size of their taxable incomes.

Large and complex global ownership networks equally allow corporations to move ideas, services and profit relatively friction-less across borders.

This is why taxation of corporations, and individuals, who effectively operate on a global scale, should also work effectively globally.

In the area of corporate taxation, one proposal in this vein is unitary taxation, where global corporations’ taxable income is consolidated at the global level, before it is distributed to each country of operation based on a predetermined formula.

In this way, it becomes far less important where corporations locate their profits, and thus harder to avoid tax liabilities as in today’s system.

In the area of personal taxation, a truly global tax regime might utilise multilateral tax assessments and audits for globally mobile individuals.

Again, these proposals are not silver bullet panaceas that will solve everything in a second. But they may be part of the solution, and they serve as important pointers towards a positive future for tax systems.

In order for these innovations to realistically happen, we also need a complete rethinking of attitudes to national sovereignty.

A key cause of today’s relatively limited international cooperation in tax matters, and of continued resistance towards a World Tax Organisation, is that governments across the world are terrified to surrender absolutely sovereignty over their tax systems.

However, as German philosopher Peter Dietsch has illustrated, international tax cooperation is not about surrendering sovereignty, it is about strengthening it.

Today, we have de facto lost sovereignty when tax havens induce limitations on our economic and political latitude. And yet we refuse to challenge their rights to do so.

Paradoxically, this insistence on the absolute sovereignty of others’ in tax matters thus weakens our own sovereignty.

If we are to achieve the needed global innovation in tax matters, we need to acknowledge that global cooperation provides a unique opportunity to regain lost sovereignty.

Another acknowledgement that is required for global tax innovation is that international tax politics is not a zero-sum game.

Today, many governments resist good ideas for change because they fear an absolute reduction in national tax revenue.

The Danish government, for instance, has expressed skepticism about a common European corporate tax system, proposed by the European Commission, which has the purpose of eliminating many of the most important current channels of tax avoidance used by large corporations in Europe. This skepticism is caused by a fear that Danish tax revenue would suffer due to our small market size.

There are many good reasons to be skeptical of the European Commission’s proposal, but tax revenue fears must be understood in the context of the long list of indirect benefits to the Danish public coffers, which are likely to outweigh any direct, absolute revenue losses. These include administrative cost savings and reduction in tax avoidance.

There are countless examples of hesitation around new political ideas because of this zero-sum mentality in tax matters.

But it is crucial that we view global innovation in tax policy as a unique opportunity to ensure a sustainable international tax system for the future.

Global tax innovation can be a critical way to future-proof our tax systems and thus our public finances. With a typical Treasury expression, the dynamic effects of global tax innovation are potentially enormous.

A World Tax Organisation and a global tax system will not solve all of our problems on their own, but they are a important steps in the right direction – and it is unlikely that we can effectively address our current challenges without effective organisational support and global policies.

However, global fora and global politics of this kind today are also plagued by large inequalities in resources, competencies and capacity between national representations. This will not be solved by establishing a new global organisation or new global policies.

This is why we also need to acknowledge the broader global political inequalities that lead to lack of cooperation, both in terms of a lack of will and in terms of lack of capacity.

For instance, a key reason that many small island states have historically pursued “tax haven strategies” is that they simply have not identified or been able to execute viable alternative strategies for economic development, and that they have been encouraged to do so, for instance by successive British governments.

Another challenge lies in the dominance that large Western states exercise in global politics. They tailor global tax rules to their advantage, while small tax havens and developing countries have almost no influence on international standards and regulation.

This gives substantial incentives to defect and to counteract global cooperation.

The USA, for instance, has played a key role in reducing bank secrecy in Switzerland, but in parallel it has strengthened its own secrecy industry at home, effecting what political scientists Lukas Hakelberg and Max Schaub have called “redistributive hypocrisy”.

We need to recognise and address these types of global political inequalities if the fight for global tax innovation is to succeed.

And there are good reasons for trying to do just that. The Paradise Papers and the increasing public attention to the challenges of tax havens and the international tax system underline the necessity of altering the current political course.

Small “quick fixes” of an outdated international tax system will not do.

We are hoping that the continuing stream of offshore leaks will not just lead to outrage but also to fundamental disruption of our whole approach to questions of global political inequality, globalisation, and, specifically, global taxation.

There is a need for broader and better participation in global political discussions of tax havens and tax systems. A World Tax Organisation would be a great place to start.

And there is a need to move towards tax systems that are truly anchored at the global level in order to deal with global economic activity.

There is also a need to rethink our approach to national sovereignty and to depart from the zero-sum mentality.

And finally, we need to address the global political inequalities that pose such a significant barrier to progress in the fight against tax havens.

If we can begin to move in this direction, just a bit, the future suddenly looks much brighter for the international tax system, for public finances, and for the modern global economy.

Technical politics, sovereignty and the prospects of tax multilateralism

International tax cooperation is hard. Especially when it challenges national sovereignty. Sovereignty is close to heart for politicians. Taxation remains a cornerstone of the nation-state and of the social contract. Governments are not liable to relinquish absolute authority on tax matters.

So, at least, the story goes. Indeed, the reality – and the associated perception – of taxation as the ultimate prerogative of sovereigns (alongside the use of force) has fundamentally shaped all kinds of analysis of international tax matters. In political science, for instance, the predominant approach to international taxation relies on realist models of inter-state power battles. When tax is the point of discussion, states are the relevant players and power is the game, with sovereignty at the core of the underlying dynamics.

That’s why, it is said, for instance, that the European Union has never been able to take control over direct tax regulation, although its powers span an otherwise extensive array of national legislative agendas.

Sovereignty is also cited as a key criticism of the European Commission’s recently re-launched proposal for a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB). The CCCTB, of course, is the Commission’s flagship initiative to harmonise calculation of companies’ taxable profits, ridding the private sector of having to deal with 28 (soon to be 27) different such rulebooks. The CCCTB would revolutionise the corporate income tax system in the EU, moving from one of tax base allocation based on the arm’s length and separate entity principles, towards one based on unitary taxation, with tax base allocation through formulary apportionment, i.e. divided between Member States according to local sales, labour costs and assets.

More importantly, the CCCTB would mean EU Member States surrendering national sovereignty on tax matters. Effectively, rules for deductions, incentives and so forth would come under the control of the EU system, with individual countries having to obey rules agreed at the supranational level, and going the multilateral EU route to any substantial changes.

Whereas the CCCTB has been lamented as largely ‘doomed’ because of the EU’s sovereignty-challenging, hard law, bargaining-based policy process, another major multilateral tax initiative, the OECD-led, voluntary, soft law, consensus-based Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, has been praised for its speedy and effective solution-building.

However, both projects are indicative of increasing international tax cooperation. They have much more in common than usually discussed, and that tells us something about the general prospects for tax multilateralism. While national sovereignty and power politics are important barriers to tax cooperation, they have been overemphasised at the expense of alternative understandings of the lack of traction for the CCCTB and similar initiatives.

Here, I want to expand on this argument, drawing two key distinctions, namely between political and technical policy arenas, and between legal and effective sovereignty, in understanding the outlook for international tax cooperation.

Technical vs. political levels

Every policy decision, every policy process, develops at the intersection of two key policy arenas: the political arena and the technical arena.

At the political level, we see most clearly the distinctions described above. Hard law vs. soft law; sovereignty vs. cooperation; my country interests vs. your country interests; etc. The primary actors are states, embedded in distributional conflict.

The technical level, however, is different. I have written elsewhere on the topic so I shall keep it short. Suffice to note that the protagonists here are primarily experts and professionals, bureaucrats and advisers, working to build credible technical solutions, with country interests and high politics in the background.

Each level is important in a policy process, although one may weigh more heavily at certain points and in certain settings. But the relation is key. The technical level shapes the political level, and vice versa. Experts influence what can and cannot be proposed and discussed and accepted as policy issues and solutions; politicians influence the framework in and speed of which certain policy topics are taken up, and so forth.

At the same time, the ‘technical’/’political’ distinction should not be overemphasised. What is technical is political: a minor, seemingly technical addition to a policy recommendation may have enormous distributional consequences. And what is political is technical: politicians’ ability to promote technically authoritative arguments in proposing issue solutions is central to policy success.

While popular explanations typically highlight dynamics at the political level – country interests, national sovereignty and distributional politics – as the preeminent cause of policy success or failure, the technical level remains underappreciated.

The success of the BEPS project, for instance, has not merely been down to goodwill from the G20 and OECD nations, but, to a great extent, it is a consequence of dynamics at the technical level, as I have written elsewhere. Consensus around key technical BEPS provisions throughout a significant international community of professionals has played a central role in effective policy uptake. The delivery of technically strong, agreeable solutions from the technical level to the political level, while still needing to be ratified, was essential in inclining political decisions and a major contributor to widespread implementation.

Similarly, while the CCCTB’s difficulty is usually ascribed to power politics, I would argue that it may have as much to do with technical opposition. The Commission’s proposal faces a number of key technical-level barriers. Several specific provisions have received negative scrutiny, in particular the R&D superdeduction. More generally, the CCCTB is an attempt at wholesale replacement of 28 distinct corporate tax systems, each with vested technical stakeholders, along with the complete overhaul of the international tax system and demolition of entrenched, well-established and well-supported legal and economic principles. It is safe to say there is extensive technical-level resistance to the proposal.

Thus, technical-level entrenchment may provide a barrier just as significant as power politics to the CCCTB and EU tax multilateralism in general – even if the interplay of high politics and technocracy is decisively different in OECD and EU. Power politics may play a more significant role during policy formulation and decision-making in the EU compared to the OECD. But there are also important overlaps. For instance, there is significant similarities in the nature and make-up of the community of professionals involved in the technical levels in the EU and the OECD. Differences are, in my view, not so substantial that they undermine the importance of the technical arena in the EU.

Legal vs. effective sovereignty

Another underappreciated distinction in analyses of tax multilateralism is that between effective and legal sovereignty. Many analyses of international tax cooperation have highlighted governments’ aversion to surrendering (legal) sovereignty on tax, their desire to retain the full right to design policy, in explaining lack of traction for tax multilateralism. However, this argument unduly evades the fact that tax multilateralism may, and indeed does, effectively challenge national sovereignty even if it does not do so strictly as a matter of law.

Going back to the BEPS and CCCTB, from a sovereignty perspective, these projects again seem entirely different on the surface. CCCTB is hard law, requires formal pooling of sovereignty, is embedded in the complexities and frictions of the EU system, and has immediate and highly visible inter-nation distributional consequences. BEPS is soft law, based on consensus cooperation, born out of a flexible, technicised OECD process, and has fewer obvious ‘cui bono’ implications.

But although BEPS is seemingly of a softer nature, indications are that it actually behaves similarly to legally binding projects. Countries around the world are implementing key BEPS provisions in a way remarkably close to recommendations. As a matter of law, there was no imperative to do so, but as a matter of practice, there is. The technical-level consensus and dissemination of policy discourse plays a central role here, alongside national political commitments to the OECD and its tax policy processes. Indeed, OECD tax outputs have been known to take on legal ‘hardness’ (cf. 1, 2, 3). Formally, the BEPS recommendations retain ‘soft’ qualities – they can be unilaterally changed at political will – but in practice, there is a strong normative allegiance. As a matter of law, it is non-binding, but effectively… well, if not outright ‘binding’, then certainly something closer to binding than non-binding.

In the same way that international tax competition de facto undermines national sovereignty (effectively constraining national policy choices), while de jure leaving it untouched (nations formally retain the right to design policy), we might say that BEPS de facto is a pooling of sovereignty, although de jure it is not. National sovereignty has effectively been pooled or surrendered as a result of the BEPS process.

Of course, policy-makers may not perceive it as so. They may never articulate it. And they may rightfully hold that the distinction remains crucial. But the increasing trend towards tax multilateralism – indicated by both BEPS, CCCTB and a host of other international initiatives – may well be a result of increasing recognition that pooling of sovereignty is essential in order to improve the international tax system, whether that is effective or legal sovereignty-pooling. As German political scientists Thomas Rixen and Philipp Genschel have argued, countries can only curb tax competition by relaxing sovereignty or unilaterally engaging in double taxation:


Thus, the emphasis on governments clutching to legal national sovereignty is perhaps somewhat overemphasised in accounts of tax multilateralism.

The Prospects of Tax Multilateralism

So what does this mean for the prospects of tax multilateralism more broadly?

In my view, the lack of traction for the CCCTB, due to continued challenges at the political and technical levels, should not be seen to crumble the overall prospects of tax multilateralism in the EU or beyond.

On the contrary, it seems to me that the underlying dynamic of political-technical interplay in international tax provides fertile ground for tax multilateralism, as both BEPS and the attempt at CCCTB testifies to. The lesson, rather, is that tax multilateralism has to happen under the right circumstances.

The CCCTB may be a dead fish, but this may be less about absolute adversity towards pooling/surrendering tax sovereignty than it is about adversity towards the particular modality and scope of pooling/surrendering tax sovereignty in the CCCTB case. It is the specific characteristics of the CCCTB – the extensive scope of the overhaul, the distributional implications, etc. – that explains its inability to get off the ground, while BEPS has shot out of a cannon. The long list of technical issues associated with the CCCTB regime, alongside the political squabbles, is not a recipe for success. In that sense, the CCCTB may be more fraught than BEPS ever was, asking for a more expansive and apparently unappealing pooling of sovereignty, underpinned by slow and friction-filled decision-making processes, compared to the perceived speediness and efficiency and technical OECD discussions.

Thus, while existing initiatives international tax cooperation may fall flat, we should not take that as evidence that tax multilateralism is failing. We should take it as evidence that we have yet to hit the right approach in the interplay of technical politics and political politics.

The quiet BEPS revolution: Moving away from the separate entity principle

For the longest time, international law has treated multinational enterprises (MNEs) as consisting of separate, independent units, rooted in separate national jurisdictions. Apple’s US corporate headquarters is distinct from its Irish holding company, which is distinct from its local national subsidiaries – even though they are all part of the same multinational group. Their reporting compliance and tax liabilities are, to a large extent, manifested separately at the country-level.

This ‘separate entity’ principle resonates throughout international taxation. It is, in particular, the basis of the entrenched arm’s length standard (ALS), the notion that related-party trade should accord to market terms.

The OECD/G2o BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) project is, however, fundamentally challenging the separate entity principle. Stronger CFC (controlled foreign corporation) rules (Action 3) will manufacture formal links between group entities located in high-tax and low-tax jurisdictions. Tightened interest deduction rules (Action 4) will mandate group-wide formulas for thin capitalisation. Expanded use of the profit split method in transfer pricing (Actions 8-10) will put pressure on the ALS. And new transfer pricing documentation and country-by-country reporting (CBCR) obligations (Action 13) will provide tax authorities with more and better information on corporate group structures and value chains.

This trend is not a BEPS noveltyz Rather, the BEPS project underscores and accelerates a trend that has been emerging and increasing over the past 10-20 years in particular. There has been, and continues to be, a gradual move towards treating MNEs as unitary structures, rather than distinct fragments.

Interestingly, it is one of the more inauspicious regulatory innovations that provides the best illustration of the BEPS challenge to the separate entity principle: reporting mechanisms.

How can something so trivial be so crucial? Let’s take a step back first. Back in 2015, when the OECD, the G20 and a host of other stakeholders were discussing country-by-country reporting, one contested question was: How and where are companies going to submit their reports to tax authorities? Civil society groups wanted companies to file locally in all jurisdictions where they operate (e.g. to accommodate developing countries), while business lobbies advocated headquarter filing in the parent country of residence (to ensure more ‘trustworthy’ tax administrations would gatekeep the data). The eventual outcome was somewhat of a compromise. Parent-HQ filing was chosen as the primary filing mechanism, but the agreement also built in a secondary mechanism, a ‘safety valve’ of sorts. Thus, in the February 2015 recommendations on BEPS Action 13, the OECD introduced this:


And in the June 2015 Implementation Package, the secondary mechanism was detailed further. Here, we learnt that a subsidiary may be required to file the CBCR if:

a) the parent is not required to file in his home country, or
b) international information exchange or treaty sharing agreements are insufficient for the report to be exchanged from the parent company home country, or
c) there has been a “systemic failure” by the home country as regards the report.

In other words, if, for one of the stipulated reasons, a tax administration is not able to obtain the CBCR of an MNE with a subsidiary in its jurisdiction from another country’s tax administration, the tax administration in question can request the CBCR to be filed locally, by the subsidiary.

Make no mistake: This is groundbreaking. The UK HMRC and the Danish Skat can now force Apple’s local subsidiaries to obtain and provide extensive information on its global taxation and economic activity, in case they cannot procure that information from the US IRS due to a failure on the part of the US legislature, Apple, the IRS or the treaty system. And the same goes for developing country tax administrations.

But this is extraterritorial jurisdiction, surely? An espoused phenomenon in international law and international relations, a threat to the SOVEREIGNTY of nations. We are, after all, requiring purely local managers to provide information beyond the geographic boundaries of their authority, no? How would they even have access to that information?

Except, remember, we are moving towards treating MNEs as unified entities, not as disjointed networks. Therein consists the BEPS challenge to existing international law.

And this challenge is clearly on display. I want to highlight two ways in particular we can observe this:

Firstly, national law-makers are questioning whether it is even constitutional for them to enact or enforce this legislation. As EY note, in the context of the EU implementation of the BEPS agreement:

Certain Member States had expressed concerns that they may not be in position under their legal systems to require the full information of a given group from a subsidiary that cannot obtain or acquire all the information required for fulfilling the reporting requirement.

In the EU context, the proposed solution is to allow subsidiaries to file partial information (what they have available), while countries maintain the right to penalise non-compliance in such instances. But other countries have already implemented the BEPS regulation, which they may or may not be able to actually enforce, both practically and legally.

Secondly, and perhaps most blatantly, the secondary mechanism has led to panic among US multinationals. Why? While other countries have implemented the BEPS Action 13 requirements for financial years starting 1 Jan 2016, as agreed, the US has only required its companies to file for financial years starting 1 Jan 2017, to give an extended adjustment timeline. So there is a very real possibility that US multinationals, many of which have a lot of foreign subsidiaries, will be required to file locally for FY2016.

In response, the US has sought to allow voluntary filing of CBCR reports by US MNEs for FY2016. The proposed US regulations specify:

The Treasury Department and the IRS intend to allow ultimate parent entities of U.S. MNE groups and U.S. business entities designated by a U.S. territory ultimate parent entity to file CbCRs for reporting periods that begin on or after January 1, 2016, but before the applicability date of the final regulations, under a procedure to be provided in separate, forthcoming guidance.

The US is not alone, though. Recent OECD guidance on voluntary filing notes that also Japan and Singapore face similar issues.

The fact that OECD felt the need to issue guidance on such an otherwise trivial topic, and that American, Japanese and Singaporean MNEs are pushing for voluntary filing, underlines the dilemma created by secondary filing. There would be no push for voluntary filing if the secondary mechanism wasn’t seriously threatening existing standards within international law. Increased compliance burdens from expanded reporting requirements was the main criticism of multinationals in response to BEPS Action 13. So it should make us pause that they are now mobilising to voluntarily report to the IRS above and beyond their legal obligations.

But the secondary filing mechanism is just one or many streams pushing for a change in the perception and legal treatment of MNE groups. The ultimate push in this direction is, of course, unitary taxation, which would allocate tax based on the total consolidated worldwide income of MNEs.

What all these developments have in common is that they point in one direction: Increasingly, we will likely see legislation adjust to the new “reality”, that multinationals are not loosely connected collectives but rather more closely integrated enterprises.