scholarly journals Tax Evasion, Welfare Fraud, and 'the Broken Windows' Effect: An Experiment in Belgium, France and the Netherlands

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathieu Lefèbvre ◽  
Pierre Pestieau ◽  
Arno M. Riedl ◽  
Marie Claire Villeval
2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathieu Lefebvre ◽  
Pierre Pestieau ◽  
Arno M. Riedl ◽  
Marie Claire Villeval

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 401-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathieu Lefebvre ◽  
Pierre Pestieau ◽  
Arno Riedl ◽  
Marie Claire Villeval

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 276-286
Author(s):  
Fajar Malvinas ◽  
Mahdi Syahbandir ◽  
Syarifuddin Hasyim

Persetujuan Penghindaran Pajak Berganda Indonesia-Belanda dimaksudkan untuk membagi hak pemajakan atas penghasilan yang diperoleh penduduk Indonesia dan penduduk Belanda sehingga tidak terjadi pemajakan berganda (double taxation) dan atau pajak sama sekali tidak dikenakan (double non-taxation) yang juga berarti terjadinya penghindaran dan atau pengelakan pajak. Beneficial owner terdapat di dalam Tax Treaty tersebut, yang terdapat dalam Pasal 10 mengenai dividen, Pasal 11 mengenai bunga dan Pasal 12 mengenai royalti dalam Tax Treaty Indonesia-Belanda, serta dapat mengaplikasikan peran beneficial owner dalam dividen, bunga dan royalti yang ada di dalam Tax Treaty Indonesia-Belanda.The Agreement on Avoidance of Double Taxation between Indonesia and the Netherlands is intended to divide the right of taxation on income derived by the Indonesian population and the population of the Netherlands so that double taxation and / or double taxation shall be avoided which also means avoidance and or tax evasion. Beneficial owner is included in the Tax Treaty, contained in Article 10 concerning dividends, Article 11 concerning interest and Article 12 concerning royalties in Tax Treaty Indonesia-Netherland, and may apply the beneficial owner's role in dividends, interest and royalties in the Tax Treaty Indonesia-Netherlands.


2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 237-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Marriott

This study examines a recent legislative change in New Zealand social policy that provides for the partners of people engaging in welfare fraud to be prosecuted for the crime and to be jointly liable for the debt generated from the crime. This situation applies where the partner knew, or ought to have known, of the fraud. This approach may be contrasted with the treatment of the partners of those who engage in tax evasion, or other forms of financial crime, who are not liable for prosecution or any debt resulting from the offence.Discrimination of those on welfare is well-established. The article highlights the extent to which welfare beneficiaries are now targeted for greater punitive measures in New Zealand and the increasing criminalisation of welfare in the country. The practices outlined appear to contravene the New Zealand Human Rights Act. Moreover, these practices are not aligned with the basic provisions of criminal law: that a guilty mind and a positive act are present for a crime to be committed. The study draws attention to issues of equity, knowledge of crime, and the construction of crime and criminals in the New Zealand justice system.


2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 573-589
Author(s):  
Lisa Marriott ◽  
Dalice Sim

Purpose Individuals with fewer resources often receive more punitive treatment in the justice system than those who are more privileged. This situation is frequently justified with reference to societal preferences. To test the accuracy of this justification, the purpose of this study is to report on the extent to which the different treatments of tax evaders and welfare fraudsters in the Australian and New Zealand justice systems reflect the views of these societies. Design/methodology/approach Attitudes are captured in a survey with 3,000 respondents in Australia and New Zealand. Findings When asked directly, the majority of respondents (58 per cent) perceive no difference in people committing welfare fraud or tax evasion. However, responses to presented scenarios on tax evasion and welfare fraud show different tolerances for each crime. When provided with scenarios including crimes and criminals, results show that survey respondents see tax evasion as a less serious crime. However, when asked about their own propensity to commit the same offence, respondents indicate that they are more likely to engage in welfare fraud than tax evasion. The authors also report on factors that have an impact on individual’s attitudes towards tax evasion and welfare fraud. Social implications The survey results do not clearly show more punitive attitudes towards tax evasion or welfare fraud. Thus, the authors do not find support for the suggestion that the harsher treatment of welfare fraud can be justified with reference to society’s views. Originality/value The study reports on original survey research.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wouter Leenders ◽  
Arjan M. Lejour ◽  
Simon Rabaté ◽  
van 't Riet Maarten

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document