Pleasantly surprised to read of this conclusion drawn in the soon to be released University of Toronto compilation of essays titled,Global Tax Governance What is Wrong with It and How to Fix It”.
Here’s an excerpt from the press release:
‘Tax specialists may think they have little to learn from a book on global tax governance, especially one that concludes that the best solution is to create a new International Tax Organization (ITO). They would be wrong. Anyone concerned with international taxation will benefit from this excellent collection of essays about the nature and possible resolutions of the conflicts within and between states about fiscal sovereignty, tax competition, and domestic and international equity that underlie the international tax discussion. The authors do not always agree with each other and few readers are likely to agree with all of them. But this book makes clear what is really at issue in this discussion and shows why even the recent prodigious efforts of the OECD-G20 BEPS group are most unlikely to produce any lasting solutions. For nation-states and economic globalization to coexist, something like an ITO may indeed prove necessary.’
Richard Bird, University of Toronto
As you know this was my view long before the G20 adopted the OECD’s, aggressive, seemingly all-encompassing agenda for International Tax Reform ( BEPS)
See blog posts here.
Of course, this is not to discount the work of the OECD’s Centre for Ta Policy Administration and its Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes.
Rather it it recognises the progress, successes, and the lessons learned in seeking to create a ‘level playing field’ for non-EU, non-G20, non-OECD members of the Forum who are largely excluded from OECD membership.
Despite the well-documented shortcomings of the Bretton Woods system of global governance, there is still great value that can be added to the International Tax dialogue; especially since tax is now firmly a part of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and not merely the exclusive concern of capital exporting countries.
Indeed, while the OECD may have a competitive advantage in managing the affairs of its 34 members; the UN system has the expertise in attending to the concerns of 194.