TaxProf Weblog

One route requires sweeping multilateral reforms. Latest OECD proposals, accepted by greater than 135 jurisdictions as of October 2021, would create new taxing rights for market international locations with respect to “non-routine” income—a set of complicated and controversial adjustments referred to as Pillar One. One other route includes unilateral motion. Some market international locations have imposed digital companies taxes (DSTs) on the in-country gross income of the very digital economic system enterprises that Parsons finds most problematic. For some, DSTs are a monumental (and maybe justified) thumbing of the nostril on the concept of “system” within the worldwide tax system. For others, DSTs give tariff-like leverage. Commerce wars are neither good nor simple to win, however the credible menace of DSTs has formed and motivated the OECD reform course of, in addition to U.S. legislation (see the present controversy over Treasury’s closing international tax laws).

Parsons proposes a novel and significant third choice. For some digital economic system enterprises, customers “serve the same financial perform to a standard workforce” by producing information and creating content material that the enterprise subsequently monetizes. Writers of five-star critiques are like salespeople, content material creators are like publishers and tv studios, and everybody produces reams of information, whether or not deliberately or unintentionally. These user-provided companies, Parsons argues, yield important and identifiable income to those enterprises, regardless that the underlying labor is in some sense “free” (or undercompensated, or compensated so not directly as to vitiate any trade relationship). By characterizing these customers as “digital laborers” (or, collectively, as a digital “workforce”), Parsons establishes a possible authorized foundation for permitting market international locations to tax a portion of those enterprises’ revenue—and implementing this regime would require mere tweaks to the prevailing community of bilateral treaties, somewhat than wholesale adjustments.

By working inside the current construction of worldwide tax legislation, Parsons’s strategy provides doable benefits over extra invasive measures. For Parsons, the related axes are how a lot disruption a proposal causes and the way a lot coordination it requires, every with respect to present legislation. DSTs are extremely disruptive and deliberately uncoordinated—a shot throughout the bow by restive market international locations. Pillar One is reasonably disruptive and requires important coordination; intense multilateral talks over a few years are a trademark of the OECD course of. Against this, Parsons’s conception of a digital workforce disrupts current worldwide tax guidelines solely mildly—and maybe additionally is simple to coordinate with current tax devices. To the extent that these three choices deal with comparable issues and have comparable results (and there’s believable equivalence alongside these margins), Parsons sees justifiable benefits to her proposal.

The satan, in fact, is within the particulars. One may conceptualize the OECD course of as lot of high-level hand-grasping, adopted (and preceded) by years of toiling within the trenches (nonetheless ongoing) to assemble the precise nuts and bolts of reform. Parsons’s proposal is prone to comparable technical impediments, and far of her (and any) proposal’s normative upside is dependent upon how policymakers resolve these points. Attribution of revenue and expense already is tough, and Parsons’s concept of a definite digital workforce tends to unsettle the financial and authorized connections amongst members of multinational teams, which in any other case would possibly function an inexpensive place to begin for these kind of coordination guidelines. To some extent, Parsons depends on the switch pricing guidelines (and the much-derided arm’s size precept) to police allocations of revenue and expense throughout jurisdictions. The sensible inadequacy of those guardrails, nonetheless, is a serious impetus behind the OECD reform motion.

These technical workout routines implicate one other side of Parsons’s digital workforces, one that may free her proposal from the intricacies of worldwide coordination and switch pricing rules. Digital laborers current a second tax drawback for market international locations: these laborers themselves might have private revenue from the barter transactions during which they use their information and content material to, say, pay for Fb’s social media platform. Realistically, market international locations can not tax this revenue immediately. The political, administrative, and enforcement obstacles merely are too steep. (And, to the extent that information derives from human capital, one may add numerous conceptual concerns to this checklist.) Market international locations can, nonetheless, attain these laborers’ revenue not directly by taxing digital economic system enterprises—Fb as a surrogate or substitute taxpayer. From this attitude, digital workforces contribute to the home tax base, with tax collected by the multinational enterprise. This technique, which could sidestep each treaty concerns and the norms in opposition to double taxation, appears to be like extra like a DST. However the rationale is grounded in revenue tax rules and leverages Parsons’s insights into the “hybrid relationship” between customers and digital economic system enterprises.

General, Parsons’s article makes an important contribution to conversations about worldwide tax reform. The present consensus across the OECD proposals has cracks. Lawmakers in america have said their opposition to incorporating the OECD proposals into home legislation. Leaders in Europe, Asia, and Africa have questioned whether or not Pillar One goes far sufficient in augmenting the tax base of market international locations. An alternate, reminiscent of that proposed by Parsons, would possibly impress help within the face of collapse—or, extra cynically, divide international locations in a means that precludes any significant change. Parsons’s path is essential, and her evaluation is compelling and nuanced. Her article must be required studying for students, attorneys, and policymakers in worldwide taxation.