International Tax Policy

Signs of hope in the Vatican

20.03.2025, Finance and tax policy

The Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences hosted a meeting on tax justice and solidarity. Yet what hovered above attendees was not the Holy Ghost, but Donald Trump.

Signs of hope in the Vatican

St Peter's Basilica, Vatican City. © Keystone/AFP/Tiziana Fabi

You may think what you will of monotheism in general and the Catholic Church in particular, but what is beyond dispute is that social justice is a leading concern for the first Pope from the Global South. Thus, three years ago, Pope Francis was already calling for a tax system that "must favour the redistribution of wealth, and one that protects the dignity of the poor and the lowliest, who are at constant risk of being trampled on by the powerful".

The "high-level dialogue" was jointly hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences and the Independent Commission for the Reform of Corporate Taxation (ICRICT, see below) on 13 February 2025. The meeting organisers and venue ensured a "high-ranking" group of participants, including Nobel laureates, professors, former Presidents (current ones like Lula and Pedro Sánchez sent video messages), and representatives of UN organisations and the EU Commission. Of course there were also the NGOs that launched the ICRICT.

 

The Independent Commission for the Reform of Corporate Taxation (ICRICT) was created ten years ago at the initiative of civil society organisations, including Alliance Sud. On the one hand, it provides expert support, and on the other, it serves as a megaphone. Besides the Co-Chairs Jayati Ghosh and Joseph Stiglitz, the Commission comprises a further 12 members from Africa, Asia, Latin America, Oceania and Europe, including Eva Joly, former European parliamentarian and expert on corruption and money laundering, José Antonio Ocampo, former Colombian Finance Minister, or Thomas Piketty, Professor of Economics, and author of the bestseller "Capital in the Twenty-First Century".

 

In her opening remarks, the President of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, Sister Helen Alford, said that Pope Francis (who was unfortunately taken seriously ill on that very day) had placed the Holy Jubilee Year 2025 under the motto "Signs of Hope". And signs of hope there were in the shadow of St Peter's Basilica, despite Trump – or precisely on account of him.

Former Prime Minister of Senegal Aminata Touré recalled that each year, Africa loses more money through tax evasion and other illicit financial flows than it receives through development assistance funding and foreign investments in the continent combined. In the light of the important UN meetings taking place this year, such as the Fourth Financing for Development Conference (FfD4) or the Second World Summit for Social Development, she hoped that common sense would prevail, "something we all long for at present".

The fact that under Brazil's presidency, the G20 last year expressed support in principle for higher taxation of the super-rich was seen by many as a sign of hope. French economics professor Gabriel Zucman, one of the fiercest defenders of this idea, explained that of all social groups, people with a fortune of USD 100 million are paying the least taxes. Or, to quote Abigail Disney, grandniece and heir of Walt Disney: "My effective tax rate is lower than that of my janitor." Alas, Zucman did not elaborate further on just what a billionaire tax might look like. Edmund Valpy Fitzgerald, Professor Emeritus of International Development Finance at Oxford, then drew attention chiefly to the problems entailed: the absolutely overwhelming number of billionaires are located in the North, and the cooperation of these countries is therefore needed. Large fortunes in the South must be treated differently from those in the North, and this calls for adapted rules. Then there is the unresolved question of how the tax proceeds could be used to benefit developing countries and who should receive how much. Yet – "the right structure could replace the ODA system through tax-funded transfers based on need and possibilities" – a sign of hope.

After this digression on the topic of individual taxation, the discussion soon returned to the issue that forms part of the name of the Commission: the reform of corporate taxation. There was agreement that the OECD minimum tax is not working and that the UN is the only appropriate forum for global tax matters. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Laureate in Economics, offered the following succinct opinion: "The good thing about bad times is – there is a lot of room for improvement". And he saw the most surprising sign of hope: Trump's withdrawal from the negotiations on a UN Tax Convention. "In the past, the USA always negotiated in the same manner. They drove a hard bargain, forced everyone to make concessions, they watered things down, only to end up neither signing nor ratifying the agreement." So, it's better if they are no longer present at all. He also drew on the pausing of the Corrupt Foreign Practices Act – the anti-corruption law – to put forward a concrete suggestion about a possible way of reacting to Trump. The pausing signals that bribery is again admissible, even "great for American business". Stiglitz said that because this invitation to corruption works just like subsidies, countries could deploy the countervailing measures allowed by the WTO in response to subsidies. Alternatively, they could tax US multinationals for climate financing purposes or in order to cushion the dismantling of USAID. "React creatively to a dysfunctional government in the USA!"

In his video message, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez was somewhat more realistic. He came out very clearly in favour of taxing the super-rich, called for an ambitious UN Tax Convention, and for observance of the principle whereby taxation takes place where profits are actually generated. "We must address a simple question: do we control global taxation or do we allow the system to control us?" Spain has a key role to play as it will be hosting FfD4 in Seville – its clear language is therefore a sign of hope.

Indian economist and Co-Chair of the ICRICT, Jayati Ghosh, went a step further: "Challenging times are an opportunity to reorganise, build new alliances and find allies in unexpected places. "If, against the backdrop of the berserker in Washington and as the prime mover in the global tax negotiations, European countries were to reach out to Africa, that would be more than just a sign of hope.

 

Global Logo

global

The Alliance Sud magazine analyses and comments on Switzerland's foreign and development policies. "global" is published four times a year (in german and french) and can be subscribed to free of charge.

UN tax convention

UN tax convention

The countries of the Global South are being severely disadvantaged by the international tax system. The comprehensive reforms of the past ten years in the OECD framework have made little difference. This is why the Global South is now counting on a UN tax convention, which is currently being negotiated.

What it is about >

Publikationstyp

What it is about

At initiative of the African States, a UN convention on international tax cooperation has been in preparation since 2022, under the auspices of the UN. The aim is to arrive at global tax rules that are suited to the current global economic structures and no longer penalise the countries in the South. The matters up for discussion include the taxation of multinational corporations and transnationally structured private assets, tax transparency, tackling illicit financial flows, environmental and climate taxation and tax policy as a means of enforcing human rights and gender equality.

Being a part of the Global Alliance for Tax Justice, Alliance Sud is engaged in the process, and is urging Switzerland, as host country to numerous multinational corporations and a global offshore financial centre, to mediate as a bridge-builder between North and South, instead of intransigently defending the privileges so far enjoyed under the international tax system at the expense of global society.

International Tax Policy

"The system is set up against us"

29.11.2024, Finance and tax policy

Everlyn Muendo is following the UN negotiations for a framework convention for international cooperation in tax matters on behalf of the Tax Justice Network Africa (TJNA). In this interview, she analyses the current developments in the process in New York and explains why there is no longer any alternative to the UN for the Global South when it comes to international tax policy. Interview: Dominik Gross

Dominik Gross
Dominik Gross

Expert on finance and tax policy

"The system is set up against us"

Tax revenue is flowing to the north, the cost of living is rising: Violent protests against unjust fiscal policy reforms have been shaking Kenya since June. © Keystone / AFP / Kabir Dhanji

 

Alliance Sud: Everlyn Muendo, you participated in the negotiation sessions for a UN framework on international tax cooperation in New York this year. What is your general impression of this process so far?

We experienced a very clear and sharp political divide in terms of the positions between the Global North and the Global South. Overall, through all the sessions, we could clearly see what the positions of the Global North and of the Global South were.

The transparency of the negotiations is already a big step forward compared to those in previous years at the OECD in Paris. Where do you see the major issues resulting in this divide between North and South?

I would summarize the positions of the Global North into the following issues. Firstly, they think that the UN framework convention should play a complementary role to the OECD and shouldn’t – as they call it – duplicate its work in the field of international tax cooperation. So obviously the work of the OECD in this field. Secondly, their goal seems to be to diminish the role of the UN only to capacity building, which means to offer support in terms of infrastructure and expert education for tax administrations in the Global South. This is the result of a profound misperception of the situation of the Global South: They seem to think that we don’t have adequate capacities. In their view this is the reason for the international tax system not being inclusive or effective. This is a disingenuous argument, because even during the inclusive framework process of the OECD some developing countries articulated substantive and significant concerns about the overall direction of the global minimum tax and the redistribution of taxing rights to market countries. But those concerns were constantly ignored.

 

In the UN framework convention process, the countries of the Global South are strongly pushing to address the systemic issues.

 

How were these concerns ignored?

For instance, developing countries were obviously not comfortable with setting the minimum tax rate to fifteen percent. We wanted a much higher rate. But we still ended up there. Some countries went as far as rejecting the so called Two Pillar Solution of the OECD back in 2021. These were Nigeria, Kenya, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. But still, nothing was substantially done to change the way these proposals were framed. That’s why I think it is very disingenuous to say it is a capacity issue. It is the substantive rule making that needs to be changed. As I said in my statement during the negotiations in April in New York, you can’t capacity build us out of imbalanced taxing rights. In the UN framework convention process, the countries of the Global South are strongly pushing to address those systemic issues.

So, countries of the Global North are trying to avoid the crucial issues in this process?

Yes, I think so. My impression is that they are not negotiating honestly. But in international negotiations it is a fundamental principle that both parties are supposed to negotiate in good faith. They are also obligated to implement the treaties and the obligations that they have agreed on in good faith. For instance, to say that we need more technical analyses, does not build confidence. We have the UN secretary general’s tax report on the status of international tax cooperation, which was particularly looking at how the lack of inclusiveness in international tax cooperation is making international tax cooperation ineffective. So, we have proof of our arguments, it’s all there.

How is the coordination between African countries working?

I think the Africa Group is doing its best with the limited resources that are available, both on the human and the technical level. I think we also have seen a lot of great leadership from the African Union commission and the Pan African bodies – the UNECA (UN Economic Commission for Africa) and the ATAF (African Tax Administration Forum) – in organizing and informing African countries of what is at stake at the UN.

 

Porträt von Everlyn Muendo.

Everlyn Muendo

Kenyan Everlyn Muendo is a lawyer at the Tax Justice Network Africa (TJNA). She works on the question of how international tax policy influences development financing in African countries.

 

How can we as a global civil society coalition best challenge the position of the EU or Switzerland speaking off “duplication” and “capacity building”?

First, it just needs to be acknowledged, that the OECD initiatives and processes such as the development of the automatic exchange of information or the one of the minimum tax for multinationals are not working for a significant group of people, particularly in countries of the Global South. That’s why they are seeking to create another forum for international tax cooperation which should be inclusive. This is clearly defined in the UN resolutions on which the process has been based since 2022. Secondly, there is no other universal initiative on global tax cooperation. Some may say we could regard most of the work which has been done at the OECD as regional level work. The question is then what would be the criteria for picking and leaving certain aspects of what has been done. For example, Pillar 1 of the OECD BEPS II project which is supposed to be about reallocation of taxing rights will probably never be completed. These aren’t issues which we can give more time to.

Countries agreed on the Terms of Reference of the convention with a 2/3 majority. What is at stake now?

Tax is such a critical issue when it comes to financing for development. It is not just about technical issues like profit allocation rules or the division of taxing rights. It is about building up decent education systems for all or about fighting the public health crisis in the Global South. The reason for the dramatic problems in both fields is a constant underfunding of public services in those countries. At the end it’s about human beings. Our inaction brings about victims and that’s why we really want to move forward with this process. It is also about generating resources to finance climate protection. Although we – compared to the Global North – contributed very little to the climate crisis, we are severely affected by it.

 

On the African continent you can’t speak about international taxation without speaking about taxation of natural resources, particularly those of the extractive sector.

 

What would be the key solutions for resource-rich countries in Africa?

On the African continent you can’t speak about international taxation without speaking about taxation of natural resources, particularly those of the extractive sector. Most multinational enterprises within the continent are part of the extractive industry. But their headquarters are obviously in developed countries. It’s actually a very complicated issue and goes way back into our colonial history. Before colonialists left, they made sure that even after independence our economies would be structured in a way that benefits them the most. So, instead of building up food security for instance, our economies have been structured in such a way that we would essentially continue to produce coffee, tea, crops and commodities that are of most value to developed countries. Essentially, we export all these raw materials, and the added value is made outside the continent. On the other side all the final products resulting from industrial production in the Global North based on our raw materials are then sold back to us. We don’t gain as much as we should from our own resources in comparison to countries who don’t have these commodities at all.

Can you give us an example?

Which country is known for good chocolate? It’s not Ghana.

Switzerland?

Exactly! This is a striking fact if you consider that over half of the cocoa beans imported into Switzerland comes from Ghana. Because of harmful tax practices and aggressive tax planning by multinationals hundreds of billions of dollars in profits are shifted away from African countries. Even with the economic activities which foreign companies are carrying out and the income they’re generating through our resources we don’t get our fair share of taxes. Instead, the tax revenues go primarily to the residence countries of the multinationals. The system is really set up against us.

It will take some time until new UN rules based on a future framework convention will bear fruit. Are there current opportunities for improvement outside this process?

We are also fighting for more bilateral double tax treaties based on the UN model rules which are much better than their counterparts at the OECD, but we haven’t been so successful with that. By nature, a single country from the Global North has a lot of power when it comes to negotiating a bilateral agreement. And some of those countries are bullies! The imbalance of economic power really plays out here. So even if African or developing countries in general do have a lot of capacity, they still end up giving away a lot of our taxing rights. That is happening because we feel the pressure that we still must attract foreign direct investment from a partner country to fuel economic development. I like to call that the FDI fallacy in Africa. 

 

Everlyn Muendo hält ein Mikrofon in der einen Hand und gestikuliert mit der anderen Hand während sie an einem Redner:innenpult steht. Hinter ihr ist eine Plakatwand mit dem Logo des Tax Justice Network Africa darauf.

Everlyn Muendo at a discussion of the Tax Justice Network Africa on tax and climate justice this November in Nairobi. © TJNA

 

The Kenyan society faces huge tensions because of a recent new finance bill issued by the national government. Can you explain what is happening there?

The June 2025 Finance Bill protests were bigger than the Finance Bill itself. They were an expression of the frustration of hardworking Kenyans with the increasing economic injustices. The Kenyan government is highly indebted and desperately needs to raise resources for debt servicing and development. But it is introducing taxes that have a heavy bearing on the cost of living. These include a proposed eco-levy, a motor vehicle tax, increased road maintenance levies and removing VAT exemptions on certain crucial items, amongst others. These taxes are highly regressive yet at the same time, we receive very little value for our money in terms of public services. The bulk of the revenue is spent on debt servicing, which can take up more than 50% of the revenue, and on corruption which crowds out critical public services.

What are the consequences?

There is a breakdown of public services such as health and education. For instance, there have been severe pay cuts for public servants such as medical interns whose salaries were reduced. Additionally, a new university funding model was introduced. This model skyrocketed university fees leading to a huge public outcry. Kenya has become a hub for experimentation on fiscal consolidation measures. Ordinary Kenyans are losing twice!

 

How can you – as Switzerland - talk about corruption in the African continent, while you are the biggest enabler of secrecy perpetrating illicit financial flows?

 

What do you say to the accusation, that more public revenue in African countries would disappear due to corruption anyway?

How can you – as Switzerland - talk about corruption in the African continent, while you are the biggest enabler of secrecy perpetrating illicit financial flows? Seriously, all I can say, it needs two to tango. On the one hand there is an African official who is corrupt, but who is giving him the bribe? A lot of corporations! We had Glencore from Switzerland. The corruption cases this corporation has been involved in are very telling. We also must recognize the role secrecy jurisdictions like Switzerland have played in this by being a haven for these corrupt individuals and officials in our countries. That’s why a lot of this wealth is held offshore. Nobody says, oh I am going to hide my money in Kenya. No! It’s Switzerland! You are infamous for a reason!

How is all this related to tax avoidance of multinationals?

Aggressive tax planning and corruption are the same. They are both immoral, they both have the same overall effect of bleeding out resources. But one is legal, one is not. And this is why you find a lot of African countries that prefer using the term illicit financial flows (IFFs), where we are grouping all these activities together and trying to produce a continental level strategy to address it – whether they are legitimated by law or not. Particularly the commission of the African Union is doing a lot in this regard with the support of the UN.

Let us get back to the UN. The next negotiations are due in February 2025. Could the positions of the Global North change?

Well, there are two interesting developments in this regard: Firstly, the EU states abstained in the vote on the key elements of the convention in August instead of voting no, as they did on the previous resolutions. This is a sign that the Global North's extraordinarily strong skepticism towards the process itself is easing. That could have a positive impact on the next rounds of negotiations. Secondly, Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential elections could lead to the USA completely blocking both OECD and UN processes. Up to now, the countries of the North have always said that decisions at the UN need to be made by consensus. However, I think that they will now have to adjust this position in view of the developments in the USA.
 

 

Going to the UN is our way of addressing fundamental challenges.

 

What would you like to change?

Wouldn't it be better to be satisfied with simple majority decisions, even if consensus is the ideal? Sometimes things just do not go according to your own ideal. Instead of being held back by a single country or a small group of countries, it would be more democratic to allow everyone else – whether from the Global North or the Global South – to move forward. However, if decisions are made by consensus, the USA, as the economically strongest country, has a virtual veto power. It would be much more democratic to give every country an equal vote in majority decisions.

Where do you see positive developments on the African continent?

In several African countries we see a political process today, in which people push for stronger accountability systems of our own leaders, politically and economically. Especially in West Africa, for example in Senegal. The uprisings we have recently experienced there showed to a certain extent also an extreme expression of the desire for self-determination in societies which we can still call postcolonial. No matter if you look from trade to debt to tax to whatever: we may have political sovereignty, we may be recognized states by international law, but we are far from economic sovereignty. Going to the UN is our way of addressing those fundamental challenges because tax sovereignty is a very crucial part of economic sovereignty overall.

 

Global Logo

global

The Alliance Sud magazine analyses and comments on Switzerland's foreign and development policies. "global" is published four times a year (in german and french) and can be subscribed to free of charge.

UN tax convention

The South on the offensive

13.06.2024, Finance and tax policy

Negotiations are now in progress at the UN on the future drafting of the Framework Convention on International Cooperation in Tax Matters. Our tax policy expert was on hand, and was impressed by the negotiating strength of the African countries.

Dominik Gross
Dominik Gross

Expert on finance and tax policy

The South on the offensive

Delegates at the UN Tax Convention meeting in New York in May 2024. The spearhead for more tax justice
through a shift from the OECD to the UN includes Nigeria. © UN Photo / Manuel Elías

The UN is not its own best PR agency, and certainly not when it comes to tax policy. Hence the failure of world public opinion to notice that at the end of April, something historic was occurring inside the UN headquarters on the East River in New York. For the first time in history, the governments of the 196 UN Member States assembled there to negotiate the future shape of the UN Framework Convention on Taxation, the drafting of which was decided by the General Assembly this past December. The main driver of the process is the group of African countries at the UN, known as the "Africa Group". The countries of the Global South (G77) have never made as much headway with their tax policy concerns at the UN as they have in the past six months.

The organisational and substantive structure of the tax convention is now to be hammered out by August of this year, i.e., the "Terms of reference" are to be negotiated. If the General Assembly approves them in September, the convention itself and the details of its content can then be drawn up. That would constitute the basis on which legally binding tax reforms could then be formulated, and which would have to be implemented by Member States thereafter. This therefore represents a one-off opportunity for the countries of the Global South and the global tax justice movement to end the OECD's dominance in international tax policy and make the UN the central player, thereby laying the organisational groundwork for a more just multilateral tax policy.

The dilemma of the North

The past 60 years have witnessed several such attempts to end the fiscal dominance of the rich countries of the North. Today, the outlook is brighter than ever, for two main reasons:

  1. The OECD has proved a disappointment as regards its reforms to multinational corporate taxation. When the BEPS 2.0 (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) negotiation process began in January 2019 – it ultimately produced the minimum tax in autumn 2022 – the aims were still to prevent tax avoidance by multinational corporations in cross-border trade, distribute profit tax revenues more fairly worldwide, and halt the international race to the bottom in corporate taxation. After five years of negotiations, the OECD has been unable to produce anything more than this version of the minimum tax, of which the additional proceeds are flowing, of all places, into existing low-tax jurisdictions for corporations in the North, rather than to places where the corresponding profits are being generated. There is great frustration in the Global South over this outcome. The aim is now to resolve the injustices of the present international tax system also beyond the confines of corporate taxation, and within the United Nations framework.
  2. Global political developments of recent years and the concomitant new experiences of marginalisation at the multilateral level have united African countries on tax policy matters. Those experiences include discrimination regarding access to vaccines during the Coronavirus pandemic, the refusal of creditor states in the North to effectively tackle the sovereign debt crisis in the Global South, or the international community's failure to act to counter the food crisis in many African countries triggered by the war in Ukraine, and the security crisis impacting cargo vessels on the high seas. This new African unity lends additional weight to the continent's tax policy interests at the UN, giving them a power long unseen in global economic policy.

Accordingly, the representatives of the Global South approached the negotiations in April with confidence, and formulated their demands in a consistent and well-founded manner. These encompass the following dimensions of international tax policy: various aspects of corporate taxation, combating unfair financial flows, taxing the digital economy, environmental and climate taxes, taxing large fortunes, information sharing and tax transparency matters, and also tax incentives. The first written draft of the terms of reference of the convention was published in early June. It addresses almost all aspects of G77 demands and forms the basis for the next round of negotiations, set for July and August in New York.

Switzerland drifts along with no ambition

The South's offensive places the OECD countries in something of a predicament. On the one hand, of the issues so far negotiated in the OECD and with its related forums, they want to transfer as few as possible to the UN, they themselves being beneficiaries of the reforms made hitherto. It is no secret that this also applies to Switzerland. Currently, the country is merely drifting along with OECD States in the UN process, with relatively little ambition. At the start of the process, the State Secretariat for International Finance (SIF) was still hoping not to have to participate at all in the negotiations, as the process was deemed a farce. This was clearly a miscalculation. If the OECD group attempts to hinder the UN process by holding fast to the OECD as the authoritative forum for global tax matters, it would further antagonise the countries of the South at the multilateral level. In the light of the current major geopolitical conflicts with Russia and China, "the West" can really no longer afford this. Ultimately, no-one has an interest in seeing Africa, the largest continent, move into the geopolitical camp of Russia and China.

In the UN tax negotiations, the OECD countries are therefore hiding behind what they consider the panacea: "capacity building". They assert their readiness to provide the tax authorities in the Global South with more expertise and money to enable them to catch their tax evaders. In conference room 3, Everlyn Muendo of the Tax Justice Network Africa (TJNA) had a fitting response to this: "We cannot capacity build our way out of the imbalance of taxing rights between developed and developing countries and out of unfair international tax systems." Unlike the OECD, the UN also allows civil society to attend and speak during the negotiations.

It is not a lack of expertise and technical capacity that is costing the Global South tax revenues, but the international tax system itself and the unfair apportionment of taxation rights between North and South that is inherent in that system. The Africa Group and its allies cannot be expected, any time soon, to content themselves with a negotiation outcome that does not offer the prospect of fundamental changes to the international tax system.

 

 

The contribution of Alliance Sud expert Dominik Gross to the negotiations in New York at the end of April:

Global Logo

global

The Alliance Sud magazine analyses and comments on Switzerland's foreign and development policies. "global" is published four times a year (in german and french) and can be subscribed to free of charge.

Reportage

Rooms with a view

06.12.2023, Finance and tax policy

In November, a large majority of UN member states agreed to a UN Framework Convention on Taxation. In the run-up, our tax policy expert toured the city of New York and the institution.

Dominik Gross
Dominik Gross

Expert on finance and tax policy

Rooms with a view

Intense Canadian forest fires envelop the George Washington Bridge in a haze that colours the sky a yellowish-grey.

© Seth Wenig / AP Photo / Keystone

I had picked up a pair of wellingtons at Zurich airport. A day before I landed in New York, the city was under water. A heavy autumn downpour had flooded large parts of the US metropolis on the Hudson. One airport had to be closed and subway tunnels had filled up. News reports around the world showed images of people sitting on traffic lights, staring down at swirling water, where restaurant furniture bobbed up and down and cars floated by. From a distance, one might have thought New York had been engulfed by the Flood.

The Global South in the northern metropolis

A day later, I sat with my colleagues from the Global Alliance for Tax Justice on the terrace of a Mexican restaurant in Midtown Manhattan, not far from the United Nations headquarters. We were in T-shirts – it was uncannily mild for early October. The next day we were to attend the deliberations of the Second Committee of the UN General Assembly, where representatives of 193 nations were discussing a new tax convention. There was not so much as a puddle to be seen in this part of the city. In an earlier email, our Indian colleague had put the globally covered, local weather event into perspective: "In my part of the world, we would call it a 'light monsoon shower'." Apparently, when transmitted via the web, the world sometimes looks even worse than it is in reality – at any rate when it comes to the weather.

But the fact is that New York's drainage systems are sometimes in such a poor state that they can no longer cope with even relatively small amounts of unusual rainfall. This is especially true of areas outside of Manhattan, the city's most developed and wealthiest section. My Indian colleague told me that she had spent the day in Midtown, rushing from one meeting to the next, completely undisturbed by the water. As such, rainfall in New York also shows up the inequities existing between the city's neighbourhoods.

Water poses a major problem for New York, especially in the long run, a subject that receives very little attention in global news coverage. Owing to climate change, the New York coastline has seen a sea-level rise of 30 centimetres since 1900. A further 1.5 metres rise is predicted by the end of the century. Heavy downpours will increase owing to rising temperatures over the Atlantic. The New York Times recently reported that the rising sea level will force 600,000 of the city's inhabitants out of their homes by the end of the century. Just imagine all of Zurich and Geneva disappearing into the sea.

Lack of money in the fight against water

Due to jetlag, I was already up at six o'clock during the first few days in New York, wandering around the city for a few hours before beginning our meetings with the UN representatives of various countries. I walked through old subway stations and along Brooklyn's semi-abandoned docks. Being so close to the sea, the neighbourhoods in the south of the city are the ones most exposed to flooding. The New York Times has reported, for example, that in Far Rockaway, a neighbourhood in the borough of Queens and home mostly to working and lower middle-class people, residents are already moving out to make way for the water. Away from the smooth and glittering facades in Midtown or the Financial District, infrastructure is in decline everywhere. In New York's public spaces, things are corroding and crumbling. It is hard to imagine the required adaptations to the rapidly changing climate being done in good time here, even though the city has an adaptation plan (AdaptNYC) and a sustainability plan (Plan NYC2030 – A Greener Greater New York).

Former police officer and now Democrat Mayor Eric Adams has just requested funds from Washington to assist migrants from Central and South America who are now arriving in New York in much greater numbers than in years past. The city lacks the funds needed to provide enough decent accommodation even for these people alone. Climate adaptation and migration spending are therefore two of the biggest challenges facing New York in the decades ahead. The "migration crisis" is also being blamed on irresponsible Republican governors in the southern United States. Some are sending new arrivals from Mexico directly to New York. Texas handed out New York-bound bus tickets to 42,000 immigrants, of whom 15,300 are thought to have already arrived. For current spending alone, the city faces a $8.3 billion shortfall for the rest of the year. In reality, this is absurd, as it is the world's richest city,  and home to 340,000 millionaires, 724 people who own more than 100 million, and 58 billionaires. At the same time, poverty is also high: in 2021, almost a fifth of New Yorkers were living in poverty and a third were struggling to cover essential costs such as housing, food, education for their children, or health insurance.

While riding the cable car one morning from Roosevelt Island back to Midtown, I struck up a conversation with a young Wall Street computer scientist. Every morning, he, his wife and their young daughter take the cable car across the East River to Manhattan on their way to work and kindergarten. He must have been thinking of these social conditions when he told me that – having come from modest circumstances in Queens – they now live in a flat on the quiet, well-kept island. A privileged life. "But I'm still a long way from those over there", he said, pointing to the tops of the Midtown skyscrapers gleaming in the morning sun, "a very long way."

Extreme social inequality, significant climate risks but not enough funds for climate adaptation and adequate infrastructure for immigrants: in essence, this city is a society like those we know from emerging countries. The Global South also manifests itself in the North's most glitzy metropolis. To alleviate inequality and hardship among the poor and promote climate adaptation and mitigation, the city urgently needs more tax revenue. Higher taxes on large fortunes, corporations and capital gains could make a difference: 28 trillion dollars were traded on Wall Street in 2022. However, the smart spenders from the Office of Management and Budget hold sway in the city government, as reported by Politico.

EU orchids

My colleagues from the Global Alliance for Tax Justice and I had come to New York to do our part in helping to achieve success for a UN framework convention on tax policy, which could signal the demise the OECD as the dominant multilateral organisation for international tax policy. In a ten-year reform cycle, the club of rich Western countries has not managed to distribute corporate tax revenue more fairly, despite formally including some Southern countries in the process. The UN could change the dynamics entirely in this regard. I therefore spent a week going from country mission to country mission together with my Danish and New Zealand colleagues. Most of the missions are located in a semi-circle around the UN headquarters on the East River. We want to convince as many OECD Member States as possible to support calls from African countries for a framework convention to be drawn up. Our colleagues from Ethiopia and India are in dialogue with these latter countries.

However, not much could be achieved at the EU mission, whose office windows offer a view, over potted orchids on the ledges, all the way down Third Avenue to the "One World Trade Centre". One of their French representatives argued that there was "duplication" of OECD tax processes and a lack of tax policy expertise and resources at the UN. We were really not pleased to hear that because, first, a UN tax convention would be something completely different from the OECD's "Inclusive Framework", especially from the viewpoint of countries in the Global South that are producers for multinational corporations. Although the OECD now allows them to sit at the table, the rich Northern countries are still dominant. In the UN, however, the balance of power between North and South is more equitable. The matter of resources depends on the political will of the rich countries to endow the UN accordingly. Such "arguments" are therefore no more than rhetorical window dressing. Yet they are being wielded by most OECD countries. It is a way of disguising their material interests. The fact is that under a new UN tax system which fairly distributes tax revenue from the profits of multinational corporations around the world, the old corporate headquarters in the North would inevitably lose out. Global transparency in the offshore system for private assets would also complicate the business dealings of the traditional financial centres of the North. This is especially true of Switzerland, which, it is said in New York, would like nothing better than to drown that entire UN process in the East River. But there are also exceptions among the OECD countries. For high-tax countries such as Denmark or Norway, UN backing could also mean additional revenue. Accordingly, the conversation with the Danish representative at the impressive sushi restaurant was rather "hygge" – the Danish concept denoting a feeling of cosiness and contentment.

More "hygge" for the world

On the last day of my UN visit, I sat on a wide, soft armchair in a chilly foyer at the headquarters and wrote UN postcards from the 1980s. Qatar had set up shop there: the walls were lined with display cases containing golden oasis models. A floor-to-ceiling window façade offered a view of the East River and the ever-burgeoning skyscrapers on a Brooklyn waterfront. The ornate fitted carpet absorbed all sounds, and negotiators dozed in armchairs next to me. "The world is gripped by disasters and wars, yet here at the UN, international tax policy, at any rate, could soon become a little fairer," I wrote on a postcard. Perhaps the power brokers in the North will, after all, recognise the signs of the times overcome their love of the status quo and start sharing power and tax revenue more fairly. The world could indeed use a little more "hygge".

 

 

Article

The UN makes history

22.11.2023, Finance and tax policy

In New York, a vast majority of UN Member States has voted in favour of a UN framework convention on tax. That is a major success for the Global South and, for the world community, an opportunity to create truly globally applicable rules for the first time in the history of international tax policy.

Dominik Gross
Dominik Gross

Expert on finance and tax policy

The UN makes history

© Dominik Gross

In New York today, 125 UN Member States backed the creation of a UN framework convention on taxation. The countries of the Global South voted almost unanimously in favour. Surprisingly, some OECD members abstained. These were Norway, Iceland, Turkey, Mexico, Costa Rica and candidate country Peru. Colombia and Chile actually supported the resolution. Switzerland, along with all other OECD countries, including the US, the UK and the EU, rejected it en bloc. The decision is historic: such a convention had already been mooted in 2015 at the Third Conference on Financing for Development in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa, but was ultimately not included in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA) adopted at that time. For the first time in the century-long history of multilateral tax policy, the UN is witnessing the creation of a truly global forum with legally binding decision-making, where all countries can negotiate and vote as equals on the future rules of international tax policy. The principles and elements of the convention will be defined over the coming year: for example, tax transparency and the taxation of multinationals or offshore assets.

There are a number of reasons why what was utopian for the global tax justice movement ten years ago has now become possible. The first and most important is the failure of the OECD – the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Over the past 15 years, it has failed to introduce tax reforms that would have raised substantially more tax revenue for the countries of the Global South. To be sure, the OECD has recently tried to shed its image as an exclusive club for the richest countries (there are only 38 members). It has also sought to dispel the widespread impression that it is only concerned with securing (tax) privileges for its members. As a result, non-members have been able to take part in negotiations since 2016. However, the introduction of a minimum tax for global companies is of little benefit to the countries of the South that make up the G77 at the United Nations (a group that now has 134 members). Countries such as the US, Ireland and Switzerland, for example, have turned their recent corporate tax reform into a rewards programme for low-tax countries.

This is why the G77 countries have now turned to the UN. The OECD, for its part, may now see its relevance in international tax policy issues substantially diminished: leading countries such as the US, Canada, China and other Asian countries have in recent months raised doubts about their national implementation of the latest OECD reform. In Switzerland, the Swiss business federation Economiesuisse and other representatives of the business community have recently spoken out in parliament along these lines, calling for the introduction of the minimum tax in Switzerland to be postponed. All this is grist to the UN tax mill. If the countries of the North block progress there, the result could be a global corporate tax system in the form of a one-sided patchwork that serves neither the interests of companies nor those of countries. This is exactly what the OECD was trying to prevent during its last reform period, but it is failing precisely when it comes to implementation by individual countries and their willingness to push ahead with OECD reforms. The first pillar of the reform, the reallocation of some taxing rights over companies from home jurisdictions to market jurisdictions, is falling by the wayside in Paris.

The USA, EU and Switzerland must shift positions

In recent days, prominent economists and former politicians such as Joseph Stiglitz, Jayati Gosh, Thomas Piketty or Thabo Mbeki, have come out in favour of a UN tax convention. The Global Alliance for Tax Justice, of which Alliance Sud is a member, has been campaigning for this for decades. We urge Switzerland to play a constructive role in the forthcoming negotiations on the implementation of the convention. So far it has been most notable for its disregard for the project. In the context of its current Security Council mandate, Switzerland – still seen abroad (and rightly so) as an old-fashioned tax haven – now has a unique opportunity to act as a bridge-builder at the UN and as a stabilising force between the blocs in the field of economic policy. Such a stance would be consistent with its campaign slogan for the Security Council: "A Plus for Peace". Finally, a global tax policy that raises revenue for all countries is also a security policy, because sufficient tax revenue is the basis for a strong community with good education, public infrastructure and an efficient social and health sector. These are key components of poverty reduction, as for the promotion of democracy, migration management, and the prevention of terrorism. Last but not least, greater global tax fairness is essential in order to finance holistic and sustainable development around the world, which the international community hopes to achieve by 2030 through the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. The past 10 years have shown that in this regard, the OECD is incapable of delivering. Like all other "blockers" from the North, Switzerland too should change its position and contribute constructively to the drafting of the convention.

Greater economic policy cooperation in a divided world

The current developments in tax policy at the UN also have a geopolitical component: the first UN resolution on strengthening tax policy was unanimously adopted by the General Assembly a year ago. Given the geopolitical situation at the time, the Northern countries did not dare to further alienate the G77 countries after their anger over the global response to the pandemic (vaccination inequality), the largely unmitigated consequences of the war in Ukraine for the Global South (food crisis) and the climate and debt policies of the North (little understanding of the situation in the South). They were anxious not to drive the South further into the arms of Russia and China. Abandoning the willingness shown a year ago to engage in fiscal and hence economic cooperation would be highly risky for the West. A constructive approach, on the other hand, would create an opportunity to restore universalist perspectives, at least in tax matters, in a world where very strong centrifugal forces are currently at work.

 

Article, Global

New York instead of Paris!

18.06.2023, Finance and tax policy

In 2016, the OECD promised to reform the international tax system such that it would also serve the interests of the Global South. Seven years on, the OECD has clearly fallen short of its own ambitions. It may now be time for the UN to step in.

Dominik Gross
Dominik Gross

Expert on finance and tax policy

New York instead of Paris!

A main street in front of the United Nations building in New York on 24 March 2022.
© Ed JONES / AFP / Keystone

"Let’s keep the money in Switzerland". This is what could be seen on the posters of those supporting Switzerland's introduction of the OECD minimum tax. With this simple slogan, and the kind assistance of the centre-right parties, the business associations economiesuisse and SwissHoldings were able to win the vote on 18 June. As of 1 January 2024, the Federal Council can enact the minimum tax. Should it in fact generate substantial amounts of additional revenue in Switzerland, those funds will go towards promoting Switzerland as a business location. This would be tantamount to channelling the additional revenue back to the very corporations in Switzerland that extract more than USD 100 billion annually in taxable funds from other countries, thereby assuring Switzerland's low-tax cantons like Zug and Basel City of generous profit tax revenue. The mere possibility of implementing the minimum tax in such a way is evidence of the failure of efforts by the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) over the past decade to shape a more just worldwide tax system. That is hardly surprising. For although more than 140 countries took part in negotiating the minimum tax, including some emerging and developing countries, once again it was the interests of the rich countries in the Global North that prevailed in this framework.

Level playing field only at the UN

The history of the "inclusive framework" created in 2016 by the OECD is also a factor at play. What was promised at the time was a level playing field for all countries. But the condition for admission to this OECD framework is adopting the rules against "Base Erosion and Profit Sharing" (BEPS), which were worked out in the preceding years exclusively by the OECD's 39 Member States (mainly rich countries of the Global North). More than 100 developing countries were excluded from this process. As a result, these rules are tailored to suit the countries of the North, and the price of "inclusive framework" membership for developing countries is therefore high. The countries of the Global South, where the bulk of production is located in today's global economy, will see very little of the roughly 250 million in additional revenue being anticipated by the OECD as a result of introducing the minimum tax.

An alternative is now needed, and it is currently taking shape in New York. At the end of last year, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution put forward by the African group of countries and the G77 (comprising all developing countries), designed to launch the groundwork for a draft UN convention on tax cooperation. Like the UN Climate Convention, which has influenced the pace and direction of global climate policy since 1992, it would create a truly inclusive multilateral framework for international tax policy. This would pave the way for elaborating and negotiating global tax policy principles for the world, and which would redress the fundamental imbalance between North and South in today's global tax system. A UN tax convention would lay the groundwork for multilateral rules on a tax system that is grounded transnationally, and hence no longer based on bilateral treaties. Under the present system, a few multilateral treaties do in fact supplement rules that are enshrined in bilateral double taxation agreements (DTAs), which ultimately determine just how countries divide up the taxable revenue generated from cross-border financial flows in the world economy. This often takes place at the expense of developing countries which, given their economic weakness, often lose out in bilateral negotiations of DTAs with countries in the North.

Time for global taxation

A UN framework convention on tax policy would also be a condition for effectively working towards the global taxation of multinational corporations. The present tax system treats individual subsidiaries of multinationals in different countries like separate companies. Accordingly, corporations should be taxed in each country based on the profits they generate there. For decades now, profit-shifting has indeed been a major problem for countries with relatively high tax rates. Many countries are losing billions in tax revenue each year because multinational corporations do not declare their profits for tax purposes in the places where they actually create value, but instead where profit tax rates are the lowest. A global unitary taxation with formulary apportionment would render profit-shifting obsolete, as individual subsidiaries of multinational corporations would no longer be taxed by country, and corporations would therefore no longer have an incentive to book their profits in places with the lowest tax rates. Instead, all profits from all countries where a corporation is active would be added up and the profit tax base allocated to each country according to a formula that considers the number of workers per country, sales, and physical assets (such as factories). Countries would in turn tax these profits in keeping with their domestic tax regulations.

The Office of UN Secretary-General António Guterres is currently drafting a report on the creation of a tax convention, and this will be tabled in September in New York following consultations with UN Member States and stakeholders. The Global Alliance for Tax Justice (GATJ) and the European Network on Debt and Development (Eurodad), of which Alliance Sud is a member, are very actively involved in this process.

Switzerland opposes it

Switzerland did vote in favour of the resolution in the General Assembly. However, in replying to an interpellation from National Councillor Fabian Molina, the Federal Council stressed that while it supports "a review of the institutional framework for international cooperation in tax matters" at the United Nations, it is opposed to the creation of a UN tax convention. The Federal Council is obviously convinced that it knows better than the developing countries themselves what is good for them. Thus, writing very much in the old colonial and paternalistic style, it states: "On the other hand, the Federal Council deems the usefulness of a United Nations tax convention to the position of developing countries to be questionable."

Global Logo

global

The Alliance Sud magazine analyses and comments on Switzerland's foreign and development policies. "global" is published four times a year (in german and french) and can be subscribed to free of charge.