Should a Multinational Firm Place Part of its Supply Chain in a Tax Haven?: Strategies to Enable International Tax Arbitrage

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masha Shunko ◽  
Hung Do ◽  
Andy A. Tsay
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Multinational Firm ◽  
Tax Arbitrage ◽  
Tax Haven ◽  
International Tax

Supply Chain Strategies and International Tax Arbitrage

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masha Shunko ◽  
Hung T. Do ◽  
Andy A. Tsay
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Tax Arbitrage ◽  
International Tax

scholarly journals Erratum for Supply chain strategies and international tax arbitrage

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (11) ◽  
pp. 2091-2091
Author(s):  
Masha Shunko ◽  
Hung T. Do ◽  
Andy A. Tsay
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Tax Arbitrage ◽  
International Tax

The potential role of philanthropy in humanitarian supply chains delivery: the case of Thailand

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 284-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Banomyong ◽  
Puthipong Julagasigorn
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Supply Chains ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Multinational Firm ◽  
Supply Chain Collaboration ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Humanitarian Supply Chains ◽  
Strategic Philanthropy ◽  
Humanitarian Supply Chain

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework on how strategic philanthropy can be included in humanitarian supply chains delivery. This framework explains the modalities where strategic philanthropy can be successful when collaborating with key humanitarian supply chain actors. Design/methodology/approach A philanthropy delivery framework is developed based on the literature related to strategic philanthropy and humanitarian supply chains. The delivery framework is further validated with the real-life case study of a multinational firm during the 2011 Thai floods. Findings Procter and Gamble (P&G) was involved in the Thailand flood 2011 relief efforts in three phases: preparation, immediate response, and reconstruction phase. The company supported and distributed a water purifier through a non-governmental relief agency, the Princess Pa Foundation, under the Thai Red Cross Society, that enabled P&G to not only gain the trust of the targeted community during all the phases but in the continued usage of their water purifier after the event. Community leaders and P&G’s modern trade retailers played an important role in collaborating in this humanitarian supply chain to enable the successful delivery and usage of the donated water purifier. Research limitations/implications This proposed delivery framework is appropriate for in-kind products and services philanthropy. The case study describes how strategic philanthropy can be implemented in a specific case, i.e. flood disaster. Practical implications Academia, practitioners, and companies who are involved in humanitarian reliefs may adopt and adapt this framework in order to enable a win-win situation for all stakeholders in the humanitarian supply chain. Originality/value The delivery framework suggests that firms can develop successful strategic philanthropy through systematic humanitarian supply chain collaboration. It explains how a company can operate its philanthropic programs through collaboration with others as well as describes how these different actors can work together.

scholarly journals Tax Sovereignty and Investor Protection: Why the Proposed Global Minimum Tax Is not the Final Frontier for Corporate Tax Arbitrage

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-131
Author(s):  
Michael Motala ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Global Minimum ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Investor Protection ◽  
Tax Avoidance ◽  
International Taxation ◽  
Corporate Tax ◽  
Profit Shifting ◽  
Tax Arbitrage ◽  
International Tax

Over the past decade, international tax governance has evolved with bewildering speed in response to the challenges of digitalization and widespread corporate tax avoidance. Since the launch of the Group of 20 (G20)-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) initiative in 2012, 135 countries and 14 international organizations have joined the BEPS Inclusive Framework, committing to implement new global standards on corporate tax, which has already been lauded as a revolution in the architecture of international tax law and policy. Even further expanding the scope of the OECD’s work on international taxation in a landmark announcement in March 2021, the U.S. administration further proposed imposing a global minimum corporate tax at a rate of 21% to be implemented through an international agreement by mid-2021. If the new OECD initiative is agreed, will the plan to implement a minimum corporate tax be fully implemented by G20 members, and if so, will it do enough to address the tax challenges of digitalization embodied in corporate tax arbitrage? Although the evidence suggests legislative and public policy compliance is likely to be high among G20 members, this article argues the minimum tax initiative is unlikely to go far enough to address deficiencies in global tax dispute resolution, which are extremely germane to the success of the proposed minimum tax. As explained in this article, U.S. leaders and global policymakers must enhance the mutual agreement procedure (MAP), a cornerstone of tax dispute resolution, given a growing body of tax litigation in investment law that threatens the implementation of BEPS 2.0. To do so, global policymakers must also reconcile the conflict of norms between tax sovereignty and investor protection contained in the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime. Only by addressing the conflict between the principles of tax sovereignty and investor protection can they prevent a tidal wave of investor disputes that will challenge the implementation of the minimum tax through national tax laws.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document