Five questions answered on the crackdown on tax avoidance

G20 finance ministers make an announcement.

G20 finance ministers meeting in Moscow today announced a global crackdown on tax arbitrage by multinational companies. We answer five questions on the proposed crackdown.

Why has this crackdown been launched?

It’s been announced in a bid to tackle base erosion and profit sharing by multinational firms and hopes to address recent sustained criticism of the low tax paid by firms such as Google, Amazon and Starbucks.

It’s hoped it will push up tax rates for firms that specifically arrange their tax affairs so they only pay a small amount. 

What’s the plan?

An action plan has been drawn up by Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for the G20. It sets out more than a dozen ideas to block gaps between national tax systems and tackle practices that artificially separate taxable income from the activity that generates it.

It includes proposals to tackle abuses of tax and to prevent tax avoidance by shifting intangibles between group companies.

It also aims to neutralise the impact of “hybrid” structures used to reduce billions of dollars of tax.

Other countries that are outside the OECD, such as China and India, will be invited to take part in the programme.

What will the outcome be?

This will depend on the co-operation of governments over the next two years, but it is largely hoped that “the golden age of ‘we don’t pay taxes anywhere’ is over,” as said by Pascal Saint-Amans, the top tax official at the OECD.

But this may not happen if commitments of business and governments dwindle.

What have the experts said?

Will Morris, chair of the BIAC’s tax committee, speaking to The Financial Times, said: “In some areas, the international tax system has not kept pace with globalisation and changing business models, and it is appropriate to look again at those areas and consider, based on all the evidence, whether any changes are required.”

What have the critics said about this initiative? 

A campaign group that pushes for tax reform, The Tax Justice Network, also speaking to the FT said:  “piecemeal recommendations for states to apply patches to the increasingly leaky international tax system...would be like trying to plug the holes in a sieve.”

Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump is the Republican nominee. What now?

So a Clinton-Trump general election is assured – a historically unpopular match-up based on their current favourability ratings.

That’s it. Ted Cruz bowed out of the Republican presidential race last night, effectively handing the nomination to Donald Trump. “From the beginning I’ve said that I would continue on as long as there was a viable path to victory,” Cruz said. “Tonight, I’m sorry to say it appears that path has been foreclosed.”

What foreclosed his path was his sizeable loss to Trump in Indiana. Cruz had bet it all on the Hoosier State, hoping to repeat his previous Midwest victories in Iowa and Wisconsin. He formed a pact with John Kasich, whereby Kasich left the anti-Trump field clear for Cruz in Indiana in return for Cruz not campaigning in Oregon and New Mexico. He announced Carly Fiorina as his vice-presidential nominee last week, hoping the news would give him a late boost.

It didn’t work. Donald Trump won Indiana handily, with 53% of the vote to Cruz’s 37%. Trump won all of the state’s nine congressional districts, and so collected all 57 of the convention delegates on offer. He now has 1,014 delegates bound to him on the convention’s first ballot, plus 34 unbound delegates who’ve said they’ll vote for him (according to Daniel Nichanian’s count).

That leaves Trump needing just 189 more to hit the 1,237 required for the nomination – a number he was very likely to hit in the remaining contests before Cruz dropped out (it’s just 42% of the 445 available), and that he is now certain to achieve. No need to woo more unbound delegates. No contested convention. No scrambling for votes on the second ballot. 

Though Bernie Sanders narrowly won the Democratic primary in Indiana, he’s still 286 pledged delegates short of Hillary Clinton. He isn’t going to win the 65% of remaining delegates he’d need to catch up. Clinton now needs just 183 more delegates to reach the required 2,383. Like Trump, she is certain to reach that target on 7th June when a number of states vote, including the largest: California.

So a Clinton-Trump general election is assured – a historically unpopular match-up based on their current favourability ratings. But while Clinton is viewed favourably by 42% of voters and unfavourably by 55%, Trump is viewed favourably by just 35% and unfavourably by a whopping 61%. In head-to-head polling (which isn’t particularly predictive this far from election day), Clinton leads with 47% to Trump’s 40%. Betting markets make Clinton the heavy favourite, with a 70% chance of winning the presidency in November.

Still, a few questions that remain as we head into the final primaries and towards the party conventions in July: how many Republican officeholders will reluctantly endorse Trump, how many will actively distance themselves from him, and how many will try to remain silent? Will a conservative run as an independent candidate against Trump in the general election? Can Trump really “do presidential” for the next six months, as he boasted recently, and improve on his deep unpopularity?

And on the Democratic side: will Sanders concede gracefully and offer as full-throated an endorsement of Clinton as she did of Barack Obama eight years ago? It was on 7th June 2008 that she told her supporters: “The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next president of the United States.” Will we hear something similar from Sanders next month? 

Jonathan Jones writes for the New Statesman on American politics.