Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the challenges faced by empirical researchers investigating a shift from taxing multinational entities using the arm’s length system to a formulary apportionment system. Theoretically, a shift should increase global tax collections as profits currently attributed to low or no tax jurisdictions are allocated to jurisdictions with true input or output factors and shift the allocation between these countries. Before any jurisdiction seriously contemplated a shift from an arm’s length allocation system to a formulary apportionment regime, however, it would want to estimate the revenue impact of such a change.

The paper systematically analyzes empirical papers that attempt to estimate the effects of formulary apportionment on country and global income revenue collected to determine the challenges faced by researchers.

The paper determines that there are both data and geo-political constraints that relate to (1) the method used to calculate the global profits of a multinational enterprise, (2) whether jurisdictions wish to adopt a global or regional formulary apportionment, (3) the weightings to be given to the factors used in the formulary apportionment, (4) the challenges of measuring sales at destination and the viability of surrogate measurements, (5) whether natural resources should be included in the measurement of the capital input factor, and (6) whether a redistribution objective should be included in the profit allocation formula.

Estimating the changes is challenging both in terms collecting the data needed for the calculations and the choice of design options to be tested. The paper provides synthesized knowledge in relation to the difficulties in estimating the effects of moving to a formulary apportionment model for taxing multinational entities.

While psychology, sociology and communications studies hypothesise a range of independent variables that might impact on individuals’ acceptance or rejection of rumours, almost all studies of the phenomenon have taken place in environments featuring notable, and sometimes very deep, partisan divisions, making it almost impossible to isolate the impact of partisan influences on views on different rumour subjects. This study aims to remove the possibility of partisan influences on readers of internet rumours by testing the impact of independent demographic variables in China, a one-party state with no overt partisan divisions. The study provides an opportunity to strip away the influence of ideology and see whether this factor may have coloured previous studies on susceptibility to believe rumours.

An empirical study was used to examine belief in false and true online rumours in a non-partisan environment. A large sample group was presented with rumours across four subject areas and respondents’ conclusions and demographic information was then subject to logistic regression analysis to identify relationships between factors and ability to identify the veracity of online rumours.

Unexpectedly, the regression analysis revealed no statistically significant nexus between many independent demographic variables and patterns of believing or disbelieving rumours. In other cases, a statistically significant relationship was revealed, but only to a limited degree. The results suggest that once the role of partisanship in explaining the proliferation of and belief in false rumours and the ability to identify true ones is removed from consideration, no other independent variables enjoy convincing links with rumour belief.

The study tests in China, a jurisdiction featuring a non-partisan environment, the impact of independent variables on media users’ belief in a wide range of rumours.

Tax policymakers are currently navigating a path through a delicate dialectic of macro- and micro-level policy responses to the economic dislocation of the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this paper is to examine initial tax measures that are aimed at helping taxpayers needing liquidity, solvency and income support.

This study undertakes a review of key tax policy responses of six jurisdictions across the globe that have similar tax regimes and virus mitigation strategies (albeit with different outcomes). Key initiatives implemented from February to April 2020 by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa and the UK are examined.

This study indicates that tax concessions are a crude and mostly ineffective way of assisting individuals and enterprises in difficulty. In the longer term, if the crisis prompts desirable reforms such as extending the recognition of tax losses, the income tax system will emerge fairer and more efficient.

An investigation of the short-term reforms announced relating to asset write-offs, tax deferral, tax losses and goods and services tax/value-added tax rates in light of the liquidity, income support and stimulus objectives shows that in some cases the policies may have been misguided. The findings can be used by policymakers as the basis for designing better targeted alternative non-tax responses.

Jurisdictional responses to tax policy reforms during a modern period of significant economic dislocation have yet to be documented in the literature. Specifically, this paper highlights the limitations of tax policy initiatives as a response to financial hardship.

During the four years of preliminary meetings that led to the 1977 Protocols Additional I and II governing internal armed conflict, the prohibitions against superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering – two concepts that gird the regulation and moderation of war and limit the use of certain means and methods of warfare – were invoked as a means of calling into account the actions of imperial states. These meetings took place in the context of the conflicts in Southeast Asia, following the wars of decolonization and national liberation in the 1950s and 1960s. The participants in these meetings were freedom fighters and liberation movements who used this forum, which was open to them for the first time, to push for a wider understanding of the concepts of superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering. Their intention was to hold imperialism and imperial states accountable for suffering and injury beyond that of physical death or wounding and to recognize the violence of colonization and the social and cultural devastation it brought. These interventions were a critical attempt to broaden and deepen the meaning of the laws of war, to make them responsive to more than established sovereign state violence, and to ensure that they reflected the experience of colonization/decolonization. This episode matters because the prohibitions against unnecessary suffering and superfluous injury are two elements that detail the general prohibition first codified in 1907 Hague Convention IV, Article 22, namely that the “the right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.” However, the history and formulation of these two concepts has yet to be fully explored, the meaning of each is debated, and taken together the two are among “the most unclear and controversial rules of warfare.”