Social Europe

politics, economy and employment & labour

  • Themes
    • European digital sphere
    • Recovery and resilience
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Dossiers
    • Occasional Papers
    • Research Essays
    • Brexit Paper Series
  • Podcast
  • Videos
  • Newsletter

OECD tax plans: failure is not an option

Dominik Bernhofer and Michael Langer 20th November 2020

The Covid-19 crisis is making progress in the fight for corporate tax justice more difficult, yet more essential.

OECD tax, minimum tax
Dominik Bernhofer

European Union countries will face tough decisions in 2022, as they clean up public finances heavily affected by the Covid-19 crisis and the deepest recession since World War II. They will need to avoid the mistake, following the global financial crisis, of self-defeating consolidation policies which were devastating for economic recovery and job growth. And there is a high road to closing the fiscal gap—via increasing revenues from multinational corporations.

A global crackdown on corporate tax dodging and avoidance would kill three birds with one stone. First, it would increase public revenues. Secondly, it would not disturb recovery, since higher tax would only be obligatory for a few multinationals, which could afford it without cutting jobs or investment. Thirdly, it would respond to the public demand for more tax justice and fairness.

OECD tax, minimum tax
Michael Langer

The good news is that plans to reform international corporate tax rules, developed under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, provide the perfect basis for that strategy. The bad news is that Covid-19 not only makes a political deal founded on the OECD tax plans more necessary but also more difficult.

This was reflected in the decision in mid-October by the OECD/G20 ‘Inclusive Framework’ of more than 135 countries to postpone the deadline for agreement to mid-2021. Nonetheless, failure is not an option, since there are no alternatives on the horizon.

Our job is keeping you informed!


Subscribe to our free newsletter and stay up to date with the latest Social Europe content.


We will never send you spam and you can unsubscribe anytime.

Thank you!

Please check your inbox and click on the link in the confirmation email to complete your newsletter subscription.

.

Two pillars

Deriving from concern about ‘base erosion and profit shifting’ by multinationals, the OECD plans are known by the acronym BEPS 2.0. They rest on two pillars.

Pillar one tackles digital-service companies and is intended to shift taxing rights to countries in which they have markets. Currently companies are taxed where they are physically present. In the future, according to the base-case scenario of the OECD, 20 per cent of residual profits would be taxed in markets where revenues are generated, irrespective of any physical presence.

This would apply to companies with an annual turnover of more than €750 million, if they offer automated digital services (such as online platforms and ‘social media’) or are consumer-facing (such as car manufacturers). This would mean, for example, that Google would have to pay taxes in European countries, while German car-makers would have to pay taxes in the United States and elsewhere. Ultimately, it is a question of reallocating the right to tax among countries. As expected, pillar one has triggered a very heated political debate, with the US particularly concerned about the tax payments required of ‘its’ digital companies.

Pillar two introduces a minimum tax rate, along the lines of US minimum taxes (the Base Erosion Anti-abuse Tax and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income). The OECD’s base-case scenario, a good indicator of the state of negotiations, assumes that all large corporations would have to pay at least an effective minimum tax rate of 12.5 per cent, irrespective of where they were located. There are small carve-outs but no real loopholes. The political prospects for pillar two are better because the US is on board.

Revenue projections

Even though pillar one entails a considerable amount of profits moving into exchequers where companies have markets, the budgetary consequences are low, since taxing rights would be reallocated but not augmented. According to OECD projections, global corporate-tax revenues would only rise by 0.2-0.5 per cent.


We need your support


Social Europe is an independent publisher and we believe in freely available content. For this model to be sustainable, however, we depend on the solidarity of our readers. Become a Social Europe member for less than 5 Euro per month and help us produce more articles, podcasts and videos. Thank you very much for your support!

Become a Social Europe Member

In contrast, pillar two would have a massive impact on the tax revenues of all countries. The base-case scenario indicates revenues would increase by $70 billion. Adding in pillar one and the minimum tax rates in the US would take that to $100 billion, a rise of about 4 per cent.

Breaking this down geographically, industrial countries would be the main beneficiaries in absolute terms. Nonetheless, developing and emerging economies would benefit most in relative gains in corporate-tax revenues.

The OECD does not foresee any negative effects on investment or employment. Higher capital costs and rising administration expenses for companies would be offset by better capital allocation (due to reduced tax competition) and greater legal certainty. If the base-case scenario were implemented, global gross domestic product would shrink by a negligible 0.1 per cent.

A no-deal scenario, on the other hand, would have devastating effects on investment and jobs, reducing global GDP by 1 per cent or more. The conflict between the US and France over the French digital-service tax provides a foretaste of the looming danger of widespread tax and trade wars.

Clear step

The proposals from the OECD are far from perfect. This applies, above all, to pillar one, which increases complexity and compliance costs tremendously and should be revised in the direction of unitary taxation of companies, with a formula apportionment of revenues by country. On the other hand, the base-case scenario is a clear step in the right direction, with few alternatives available.

Relocating the negotiations to the United Nations—as some non-governmental organisations have urged—would take enormous time and make agreement even more difficult. A no-deal scenario with national tax measures would have high costs for the economy, ultimately borne by workers and employees. Progressives should aim for the best possible solution based on the OECD tax plans—especially in calling for a higher minimum tax rate.

To proceed more quickly, a possible solution would be the decoupling of the two pillars. The minimum tax is less controversial and doubly effective. It militates against tax dodging by corporations and tax competition among countries. The OECD’s impact assessment shows not much interaction between the two pillars—nothing would be lost if they were introduced separately.

The minimum tax could be the quick win necessary to give governments the breathing space they need to refresh their attempts to reform taxing rights and digital taxation more fundamentally. The #makemultinationalspay campaign tries to bring the common goal of an effective minimum tax rate to the forefront and gives European trade unions a stronger voice in the fight for tax justice and fairness.

In any event, an agreement on BEPS 2.0 would not be the end of the fight for fair business tax rules—only the beginning.

See our series of articles on Corporate Taxation in a Globalised Era

Dominik Bernhofer and Michael Langer

Dominik Bernhofer is an economist and head of the tax department in the Chamber of Labour, a trade union think tank in Austria; Michael Langer is an economist and research assistant there.

Home ・ Economy ・ OECD tax plans: failure is not an option

Most Popular Posts

Ukraine,workers' rights,laws,labour,protection,liberalisation,zero hours Ukraine to pass laws wrecking workers’ rightsThomas Rowley and Serhiy Guz
airport chaos,chaos at airports,queues, security, key workers,essential workers Airport chaos: security guards and cleaners still keyMark Bergfeld
China,Ukraine China to the rescue?Branko Milanovic
Boris Johnson, Brexit, Conservative,conservatism Boris Johnson: blustering onPaul Mason
deglobalisation,deglobalization,Davos Getting deglobalisation rightJoseph Stiglitz

Most Recent Posts

labour law,ukraine,trade unions,social dialogue,ILO,International Labour Organization Ukraine could abandon key labour principleThomas Rowley and Serhiy Guz
cars,vehicles,transport,industry,jobs,skills,Europe,retraining Vehicles and just transition—turning the wheelSarah Mewes and Gloria Koepke
hybrid working,working from home,new normal Blurring of boundaries in work’s ‘new normal’Rolf Schmucker
ECB,European Central Bank,Draghi,whatever it takes,euro ‘Whatever it takes’, ten years onLászló Andor and David Rinaldi
pandemic preparedness,pandemic response,financial intermediary fund,FIF,Covid-19 Effective pandemic response must be truly globalMariana Mazzucato and Jayati Ghosh

Other Social Europe Publications

National recovery and resilience plans
The transatlantic relationship
Women and the coronavirus crisis
RE No. 12: Why No Economic Democracy in Sweden?
US election 2020

ETUI advertisement

Workers on the route

Discover the new issue of HesaMag, the health and safety magazine with a European view (aussi disponible en français), published twice a year by the ETUI, and take your seat for an exclusive journey through the day-to-day reality of transport workers across Europe, from Romanian drivers to Dutch dockers and French female flight attendants, just to name a few.


MORE INFORMATION HERE

Eurofound advertisement

Fifth round of the Living, working and Covid-19 e-survey: Living in a new era of uncertainty

The fifth round of Eurofound's e-survey, sampled between March 25th and May 2nd 2022, sheds light on the social and economic situation of people across Europe two years after Covid-19 was first detected on the European continent. It also explores the reality of living in a new era of uncertainty caused by the war in Ukraine, inflation and rising energy prices. The e-survey reveals the heavy toll of the pandemic, with respondents reporting lower trust in institutions than at the onset, poorer mental wellbeing, a rise in unmet healthcare need and an increase in households experiencing energy poverty.


AVAILABLE HERE

Foundation for European Progressive Studies Advertisement

Discover the summer issue of the Progressive Post!

The summer issue of the Progressive Post magazine from FEPS is out! It offers compelling analysis on: the energy-crisis challenge, Ukraine war, western Balkans, enlargement, housing crisis, rural areas, minimum wage and much more!

Almost five months into the war, and against the backdrop of soaring energy prices, rising inflation, a changing international order, rampant disinformation, the Ukrainian refugee emergency and all the other consequences triggered by the Russian war against Ukraine, the EU finds itself at a historic turning point. It must choose between sticking together, taking bold decisions, and acting accordingly—or, on the other side, allowing indecisiveness and divisions to gain the upper hand.


DOWNLOAD HERE

Hans Böckler Stiftung Advertisement

Towards a new Minimum Wage Policy in Germany and Europe: WSI minimum wage report 2022

The past year has seen a much higher political profile for the issue of minimum wages, not only in Germany, which has seen fresh initiatives to tackle low pay, but also in those many other countries in Europe that have embarked on substantial and sustained increases in statutory minimum wages. One key benchmark in determining what should count as an adequate minimum wage is the threshold of 60 per cent of the median wage, a ratio that has also played a role in the European Commission's proposals for an EU-level policy on minimum wages. This year's WSI Minimum Wage Report highlights the feasibility of achieving minimum wages that meet this criterion, given the political will. And with an increase to 12 euro per hour planned for autumn 2022, Germany might now find itself promoted from laggard to minimum-wage trailblazer.


FREE DOWNLOAD

About Social Europe

Our Mission

Article Submission

Membership

Advertisements

Legal Disclosure

Privacy Policy

Copyright

Social Europe ISSN 2628-7641

Social Europe Archives

Search Social Europe

Themes Archive

Politics Archive

Economy Archive

Society Archive

Ecology Archive

Follow us on social media

Follow us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

Follow us on LinkedIn

Follow us on YouTube