Analysis

Judicial authority, such as Alfred C Toepfer Inc v Edokpolor (1965) NCLR 89, establish that a creditor of a foreign judgment may bring an action at common law in Nigeria, by which action he/she, in effect, seeks recognition and/or “enforcement” of that foreign judgment. The common law action has not been abolished by statute or disapproved judicially but, sadly, it is not widely understood or used by practitioners/courts in Nigeria. This is unfortunate, especially where the statutory mechanism for the enforcement of foreign judgments is certainly limited but otherwise shrouded in confusion. This paper argues for a reawakening of the common law action.

Despite the increasing popularity of MSIs, it is clear that self-regulation through this governance model is not the answer to driving corporate accountability for matters of public concern such as human rights protection. In a report released in July 2020 by MSI Integrity, a non-profit originally dedicated to understanding the human rights impact and value of MSIs, it was found that MSIs are not effective tools for holding corporations accountable for abuses, protecting rights holders against human rights violations, or providing survivors and victims’ with access to remedy. The report showed that we need to rethink the role of MSIs and the presence of an MSI in an industry should not be a substitute for public regulation.

This article reviews the policy advancements on digital taxation, the individual initiatives that some developed countries have enacted, and considers some recommendations for developing countries to address future changes. It also contains a brief analysis of the Ecuadorian VAT reform for digital services and other possible options that need to be considered by the country.

Critique comes cheaply, one may retort, but the current state of affairs is not better. Rogue countries (ironically again, led by the purported leaders of the OECD, such as the United Kingdom and France) were able to capture a share of what they believe they “deserve” in the form of taxation of the large tech MNE in various forms of “new” taxes that are supposedly external to the international tax regime and therefore not viewed as its violation.

December 9, 2020

This blog reflects on an issue as current and complex as the control of the digital economy by the Tax Administrations (TAs). The topic is very important in Latin America and Caribbean because it is the most unequal region in the world with extreme poverty. The prevalence of informal economy in Latin America and Caribbean requires that controling the digital economy and combating tax evasion be a priority for the region.

Digital Economy and Taxation in Latin America

The aim of this contribution is to suggest some courses of action for Latin America and the Caribbean (hereinafter, LAC) in relation to the taxation of the digital economy. For this purpose, after a brief description of the international background on direct and indirect taxation, I refer to the state of play in the LAC region, making a few preliminary considerations and presenting some generalities on the measures that have been adopted. Finally, I will share some thoughts and recommendations.

Returning to a global vision of the analyzed matter, it should be noticed that in its long path to becoming an OECD member, Peru closely follows the discussion progress towards a global solution to tax challenges arising from digitalization. Nevertheless, Peru has not stablished yet unilateral tax measures to levy high digitalized services especially in the context of B2C services, but the intention is present according to a later comment.

On August 23, 2018, Sebastián Piñera, president of Chile, with the general support of all political actors, sent to the Congress a Bill proposing a new tax, on the supply of digital services rendered by digital platforms. This Bill was introduced with a general objective, included in its title, to “modernize the Chilean tax system, intending to incorporate the best practices observed at the international level, as well as taking care of the challenges and particularities that technological advances imply, such as the digital and collaborative economy”.

Most of DSTs significant propositions are based on several grounds, including the goal of having businesses and corporations, especially multinational corporations (MNCs) pay their due share on taxes, taxing profits derived from consumers activities in their territory, or adapting traditional regulations and systems of international taxation to guide and inform new forms of unsettling business models that can be conducted virtually. This is following the debate that digital firms are undertaxed.

Teaching taxation is not only a matter of mastering the tax codes and regulations, not anymore. Tax return filing apps, either provided by governments or companies, will provide for results that may not reflect the best interpretation of legal provisions. Working with tax policies for the digital economy has proved to be almost an ”impossible mission”: difficult to draft a proposal and even more difficult to reach a consensus.