OECD – INTERNATIONAL TAX PLANNING AND FIXED INVESTMENT ECONOMICS DEPARTMENTS WORKING PAPERS N. 1361. This paper assesses how international tax planning affects real business investment by multinationals. Earlier studies have shown that corporate taxes reduce business investment. This paper shows that tax planning multinationals are less sensitive to corporate taxes than other firms in their investment decisions. This is presumably because tax planning multinationals do not face the full tax burden associated with their investments, since they shift part of the resulting profits to lower-tax rate countries. On average across industries, a 5 percentage point corporate tax rate increase is found to reduce investment by 5% in the long term. In industries with a strong presence of multinationals with profit-shifting opportunities, this effect is halved. These results obtained with industry-level data are confirmed by a firm-level analysis. Consistently with these results, the investment of tax planning multinationals is found to be more sensitive to taxes when strong rules against tax planning are in place.
OECD Taxation Working Papers N. 34 – STATUTORY TAX RATES ON DIVIDENDS, INTEREST AND CAPITAL GAINS. THE DEBT EQUITY BIAS AT THE PERSONAL LEVEL
OECD Taxation Working Papers N. 34 – STATUTORY TAX RATES ON DIVIDENDS, INTEREST AND CAPITAL GAINS. THE DEBT EQUITY BIAS AT THE PERSONAL LEVEL. This paper presents statutory tax rates on several forms of capital income, including dividends, interest on bonds and bank accounts, and capital gains on shares and real property, including integration between the corporate and personal levels. It updates the rates from an earlier tax working paper (Harding, 2013) and extends the analysis to consider the debt-equity bias of the tax system when the personal level of taxation is considered. 1. In addition to labour and business income, many individuals also receive capital income, for example, from holding funds in deposit accounts or bonds, or from the ownership of shares or real property. The tax rules applied to these forms of income differ within and across countries according to the nature, timing and source of the revenue, and the income level and characteristics of the income-earner. 2. Taxation of Dividends, Interest and Capital Gain Income (Harding, 2013) provides an analytical framework and the statutory tax treatment of three simple types of capital income earned by resident individuals in a domestic setting: dividend income from ordinary shares; interest income from cash deposits; and capital gains realised on long-term real property and shares. The paper traced the impact of different tax treatments from pre-tax corporate income, through the relevant corporate and personal tax systems, to the post-tax income received by an illustrative top-rate taxpayer. The descriptions were supplemented with diagrammatic and algebraic presentations and illustrative examples for each OECD country as at 1 July 2012. 3. This paper draws on responses to a questionnaire distributed in February 2016 (Questionnaire for Tax and Debt Bias in Corporate Financing Analysis). It updates the information presented in Harding (2013) to 1 July 2016 and extends the analysis to two new types of capital income: interest income from corporate bonds, and capital gains on short-held shares. As in the previous paper, the tax rates represent the maximum possible burden on capital income under the relevant tax systems and are statutory, rather than effective, tax rates. Finally, the paper compares the tax treatment of the returns to debt and equity at both the corporate and individual levels to determine whether there is a tax-created bias toward debt when personal taxation is taken into account. Assumptions 4. The paper discusses five types of capital income from personal savings. For each, the most basic form of the income type has been considered, as the tax treatment of these sets the foundation from which the tax treatment of more complex forms of the same type of income may vary. The pre-tax nominal rate of return on corporate equity is assumed to be 4%, which affects the tax rates shown for Belgium, Italy and Turkey (for new equity only), the Netherlands, and Norway. The report considers taxes on the income from these assets but not taxes on the value of the investment (wealth taxes), which would increase the tax burden on these assets. 5. The paper makes a number of assumptions about the investor. First, it assumes that the investor is resident in the particular country; secondly, that they are not a substantive shareholder; and finally that the income is not related-party income. The investor considered is assumed to pay the top rate of any progressive rate scale applicable. Financial assets are assumed to be held outside tax-preferred accounts (such as pensions, retirement accounts or investment funds). As the importance of these accounts varies across countries, cross-country comparisons should be made with this in mind. The impact of inflation on the real amount of the post-tax return is described but not taken into account in the calculation of the combined rates. The impact of the holding period test on the combined rates is not considered. Capital gains on shares are assumed to derive entirely from retained profits, whereas capital gains on property are assumed to derive from property that is directly held by the investor. For federal countries, personal and corporate tax rates encompass both federal and state rates (the latter on a weighted or representative basis), as provided in the questionnaire responses. 6. The paper draws on responses to the questionnaire distributed in February 2016, supplemented by the IBFD Tax Database; consultations with member countries; reference to the previous working paper; and where necessary, country-specific data. 2. Dividend income 7. Dividends are typically taxed first as corporate income and then distributed to the shareholder where they may be taxed again as personal income. The integration between the amount of corporate tax paid and the tax paid at the individual level is thus a critical factor in determining the combined statutory tax rate on dividend income. Countries that replied to the questionnaire use a range of approaches to integrate corporate and personal tax systems. (Michelle Harding, Melanie Marten, 2018).
OECD SECRETARY-GENERAL REPORT TO G20 LEADERS. This report contains two parts. Part I reports on the activities and achievements in the OECD’s international tax agenda. Part II reports on the activities and achievements of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes
OECD SECRETARY-GENERAL REPORT TO G20 LEADERS. This report contains two parts. Part I reports on the activities and achievements in the OECD’s international tax agenda. Part II reports on the activities and achievements of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes. Since 2008, the G20 has made the fight against international tax fraud and avoidance a priority. Thanks to the support of Leaders and Finance Ministers, major progress has been achieved, demonstrating that international co-operation in a multilateral framework can support and strengthen national sovereignty. In my last report to you, at your meeting in Hamburg in 2017, I told you that we were about to bring to fruition the G20 mandate for the automatic exchange of financial account information (AEOI) with first exchanges to start in September 2017. It is estimated that by June 2018, jurisdictions around the globe have identified EUR 93 billion in additional revenue (tax, interest, penalties) as a result of voluntary compliance mechanisms and other offshore investigations put in place since 2009. AEOI is now happening in 83 jurisdictions that committed to exchange by 2018. Moreover, details on hundreds of billions of euros of accounts have been exchanged in 2017, the first year of operation of the OECD’s Common Reporting Standard. I reported on the outcome of your request to establish objective criteria to identify jurisdictions that were not implementing the tax transparency standards and the significant impact that this process had on encouraging jurisdictions to make changes. The OECD has now delivered strengthened criteria to be applied at the time of next year’s Summit and can report today that 15 jurisdictions are at risk of being identified. We are working with these jurisdictions and I will report to you at your Summit in 2019 on the progress made, along with a list of any jurisdictions that have not made enough progress. After the delivery of the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Package of 15 Actions, the key issue for the international tax community in 2018 remains how to address the tax challenges arising from digitalisation. In March, I delivered an Interim Report to Finance Ministers, providing an economic analysis of the features of the highly digitalised business models. It was agreed that, in spite of divergences on the consequences to draw, countries would seek a consensus based solution in a context where a number of governments feel urged to move to short term interim measures. Since March, the 124 members of the Inclusive Framework for BEPS Implementation, steered by G20 countries, have made significant progress to bridge the gaps in their position. Following the US tax reform, the United States has in particular agreed to engage in the search of a global solution which would address further challenges. Equally, France and Germany have now proposed to explore the feasibility of a global anti-base erosion mechanism. The United Kingdom made a proposal focussed on a reallocation of taxing rights based on active user contribution in some business models. Many other countries are now involved actively in this discussion. The G20 has an opportunity to seize the moment by maintaining the political focus on reaching a global, consensus-based solution. The Task Force will meet in December and the Inclusive Framework then meets in January to take these proposals further. A strong showing of unity and commitment to work together at the highest political level will be a key ingredient in finding the common ground that we are seeking. The Inclusive Framework will hold a second meeting in 2019 just before your next Leaders’ Summit. My hope is that at that Summit you will be able to celebrate an agreement on the what and how of a long-term solution to be delivered in 2020. These discussions are taking place against the back-drop of wide-spread implantation of the BEPS Package. In July last year the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS was up and running and the peer reviews of the minimum standards had begun. The first results from the peer reviews of the OECD/G20 BEPS Project are in and show strong implementation by the members of the BEPS Inclusive Framework. While the BEPS Project addresses double non-taxation, ensuring that international trade and investment does not face double taxation remains a priority. The OECD, in collaboration with the IMF, had produced a first report on tax certainty. In July we delivered an update on that report and look forward to taking this work forward with renewed emphasis. Our work on building capacity in developing countries is on-going, including support for the G20 Compact with Africa and our work through the Platform for Collaboration on Tax. We have continued to deliver a strong program of work in supporting capacity building in developing countries, particularly through the Platform for Collaboration (PCT) on Tax. Buenos Aires, Argentina. December 2018.
This is the first comprehensive guide to fighting tax crimes. It sets out ten global principles, covering the legal, strategic, administrative and operational aspects of addressing tax crimes. The guide has been prepared by the OECD Task Force on Tax Crimes and Other Crimes (TFTC). It draws on the experience of the members of the TFTC as well as additional survey data provided by 31 jurisdictions: Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. The guide shows that the fight against tax crime is being actively pursued by governments around the world. Jurisdictions have comprehensive laws that criminalise tax offences, and the ability to apply strong penalties, including lengthy prison sentences, substantial fines, asset forfeiture and a range of alternative sanctions. Jurisdictions generally have a wide range of investigative and enforcement powers as well as access to relevant data and intelligence. Suspects’ rights are nearly universally understood in the same way and enshrined in law. Increasingly, jurisdictions are taking a strategic approach to addressing tax offences, which includes targeting key risks and leveraging the tools for co-operation with other law enforcement agencies, both domestically and internationally. At the same time, tax crime investigations increasingly need to be undertaken with greater efficiency and fewer resources. However, data shows that the investment is worthwhile, with some jurisdictions being able to calculate the return on investment from the criminal tax investigation teams and reporting recovery of funds well in excess of the expenditure, ranging from 150% to 1500% return on investment. The role played by criminal tax investigators thus contributes significantly to jurisdiction’s overall tax compliance efforts. The implementation of the 10 global principles around the world is critical in addressing the tax gap and supporting domestic resource mobilisation. Recommendations: This guide recommends that jurisdictions benchmark themselves against each of the ten global principles. This includes identifying areas where changes in law or operational aspects are needed, such as increasing the type of investigative or enforcement powers, expanding access to other government-held data, devising or updating the strategy for addressing tax offences, and taking greater efforts to measure the impact of the work they do. In particular, developing jurisdictions are encouraged to use the guide as a diagnostic tool to identify principles which may not yet be in place. Jurisdictions which have made commitments to capacity building for developing jurisdictions in tax matters (such as the Addis Tax Initiative or the G7 Bari Declaration) are recommended to consider how they can work with developing jurisdictions to enhance tax crime investigation based on this guide, including through providing support for the OECD International Academy for Tax Crime Investigation and other regional initiatives. The TFTC will continue its work in facilitating international co-operation on fighting tax crime, particularly on issues where multilateral action is required to address common challenges. This could also include collaborating to create an agreed strategy for addressing tax crimes that have cross-border elements. Such a strategy could include identifying the risks of such tax crimes, defining the additional data and other mechanisms that are needed to more effectively combat such tax crimes and working towards ensuring that data and mechanisms are available and efficient in practice. (2017)
OECD/ Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes – AUTOMATIC EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION IMPLEMENTATION REPORT 2018
In 2014, the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes (the Global Forum) adopted the Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters (the AEOI Standard), developed by the OECD working with G20 countries. To deliver a level playing field, the Global Forum launched a commitment process under which 100 jurisdictions committed to implement the AEOI Standard in time to commence exchanges in 2017 or 2018. Exchanges accordingly commenced in September 2017 and a total of 86 jurisdictions are already exchanging financial account information automatically, marking a major shift in international tax transparency and the ability of jurisdictions to ensure tax compliance. This represents the vast majority of the jurisdictions that committed to implement the AEOI Standard. It also includes two developing countries that were not asked to commit to implement the AEOI Standard but which spontaneously committed commence exchanges under the AEOI Standard by 2018. So far in 2018, these 86 jurisdictions have completed around 4,500 bilateral exchanges. Each exchange contains detailed information on the financial accounts held in the sending jurisdiction by tax residents of their partner jurisdictions. This milestone represents a major success, with even more jurisdictions expected to commence exchanges in the coming months. This widespread move to the automatic exchange of information is particularly remarkable when it is considered that all the jurisdictions exchanging information had to (i) introduce detailed domestic rules requiring their financial institutions to collect and report the data to be exchanged, (ii) put in place international agreements with each of their partners to deliver the widespread networks necessary for automatic exchange, and (iii) put in place the technical solutions to link into the Common Transmission System (CTS) that was put in place by the OECD’s Forum on Tax Administration and which is being managed by the Global Forum. While the vast majority of the 100 jurisdictions committed to commence exchanges in 2017 or 2018 delivered on their commitments, an effective AEOI Standard based on a level playing field requires full delivery by all. As set out in this report, the remaining gaps are mostly due to delays in some jurisdictions putting in place the domestic legislative framework for the collection of the information or the international legal agreements required for the exchanges. The Global Forum is therefore working with the remaining jurisdictions to maintain the focus on the implementation and to complete the delivery of the commitments. In addition to timeliness, the quality of implementation is also important. The Global Forum is therefore reviewing in detail each jurisdiction’s domestic legislative frameworks to ensure their compliance with the AEOI Standard, as well monitoring the international legal frameworks being put in place to ensure the delivery of the commitments made. The Global Forum is also developing a peer review process to ensure the effective operation of the AEOI Standard in practice. This is the second detailed annual report to be published by the Global Forum on the implementation status of those jurisdictions committed to implement the AEOI Standard. Its contents reflect the situation as at 22 November 2018. The latest developments can be found on each jurisdiction’s website and/or on the AEOI Portal.
Declaración de Punta del Este. UN LLAMADO A REFORZAR LAS MEDIDAS CONTRA LA EVASIÓN FISCAL Y LA CORRUPCIÓN
Considerando que es importante consolidar la política fiscal y la administración tributaria para movilizar mejor los recursos nacionales en beneficio de nuestros ciudadanos, proporcionando a los gobiernos los recursos e instrumentos necesarios para alcanzar nuestros respectivos objetivos de desarrollo y el mantenimiento del crecimiento económico a fin de lograr los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible; Considerando que los países de América Latina se enfrentan a importantes desafíos con respecto a la recaudación fiscal, ya que muchos países poseen una proporción de impuestos en el PIB significativamente inferior a la media de la OCDE del 34,3 %; con una proporción media en América Latina y el Caribe del 22,7 %, inferior en más de diez puntos; Considerando que la Agenda de Acción de Addis Abeba de las Naciones Unidas afirmó la necesidad de redoblar los esfuerzos para reducir sustancialmente los flujos financieros ilícitos para 2030, con el objetivo de eliminarlos eventualmente, incluyendo la lucha contra la evasión fiscal y la corrupción a través de una regulación nacional reforzada y una mayor cooperación internacional; Considerando que los esfuerzos para afrontar los flujos financieros ilícitos pueden mejorarse adoptando una perspectiva del gobierno en su conjunto, como se refleja en el Diálogo de Oslo de la OCDE y se describe más detalladamente en las publicaciones Fighting Tax Crime: the 10 Global Principles («Lucha contra la delincuencia fiscal: los diez principios globales»); Effective Inter-Agency Co-Operation in Fighting Tax Crimes and Other Financial Crimes («La cooperación interinstitucional efectiva en la lucha contra los delitos fiscales y otros delitos financieros») y Improving Co-operation between Tax Authorities and Anti-Corruption Authorities in Combating Tax Crime and Corruption («Mejora de la cooperación entre las autoridades fiscales y las autoridades anticorrupción en la lucha contra la delincuencia y la corrupción»); Considerando que el hecho de afrontar la evasión fiscal, la corrupción y otros delitos financieros es de vital importancia para mejorar la confianza pública en las instituciones estatales, asegurar una distribución justa y equitativa de la carga financiera asociada con el suministro de bienes y la prestación de servicios públicos y lograr una recaudación fiscal sostenible; Considerando que la comunidad internacional ha identificado pasos importantes que pueden mitigar la evasión fiscal, la corrupción y otros delitos financieros; Considerando que se ha logrado un progreso sin precedentes en la promoción de una mayor transparencia fiscal y el intercambio de información en la última década con el apoyo del Foro Global y otras plataformas internacionales; (…)
OECD – Guidance for the development of synthesised texts. Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Measures to Prevent. BEPS BEPS ACTION 15
OECD – Guidance for the development of synthesised texts. Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Measures to Prevent. BEPS BEPS ACTION 15. The OECD Secretariat has prepared this Guidance for the development of synthesised texts to facilitate the interpretation and application of tax agreements modified by the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (hereafter the “MLI”). The Secretariat is grateful to several jurisdictions for their input to the guidance. This Guidance has been prepared to provide suggestions to Parties to the MLI for the development of documents they could produce to help users of the MLI to understand its effects on tax agreements it covers and modifies (the “Covered Tax Agreements”). The objective is to present in a single document and for each covered tax agreement: the text of a Covered Tax Agreement, including the text of relevant amending instruments; the elements of the MLI that have an effect on the Covered Tax Agreement as a result of the interaction of the MLI positions of its Contracting Jurisdictions; and information on the dates on which the provisions of the MLI have effect in each Contracting Jurisdiction for the Covered Tax Agreement. Such documents would be referred to as “synthesised texts”. To ensure clarity and transparency for the application of the MLI, Parties that intend to develop documents setting out the impact of the MLI on their Covered Tax Agreements should be as consistent as possible. This Guidance sets out a suggested approach for the development of synthesised texts. The Guidance also suggests sample language that could be included in the synthesised texts. At this stage, the sample language includes: a sample general disclaimer on the synthesised texts; a sample disclaimer on the entry into effect of the provisions of the MLI; for each MLI Article, “sample boxes” of the provisions of the MLI that could modify the covered tax agreements; and sample footnote texts on the entry into effect of the provisions of the MLI. This Guidance exists as a tool for members of the ad hoc Group of the MLI and they may use this tool to develop their own approach taking account of legal constraints and existing practices. It is also expected that third parties, including publishers and advisors, will also develop synthesised texts. To ensure clarity on the application of the MLI and to maximise consistency in the development of tools to ease the understandings of the MLI, it would be helpful for third parties to follow the approach set out in this Guidance. The OECD Secretariat therefore intends to make the Guidance available to a wider audience in 2018. The Guidance may be updated in future years on the basis of real-life experiences with developing synthesised texts. (November 2018).
OECD – Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting: Entry into effect under Article 35(1)(a)
OECD – Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting: Entry into effect under Article 35(1)(a). Note by the OECD Secretariat. 1. This note, prepared with the assistance of the OECD Directorate for Legal Affairs, seeks to clarify the interpretation and application of Article 35 of the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (the MLI) on the entry into effect of the provisions of the MLI. 2. The question which has arisen on Article 35(1)(a) is this: when will the MLI have effect for taxes withheld at source where the latest of the dates of entry into force of the MLI for a pair of Contracting Jurisdictions is on 1 January of a given calendar year?(…)
1. The International Compliance Assurance Programme (ICAP) is a programme for a multilateral cooperative risk assessment and assurance process. It is designed to be a swift and coordinated approach to providing multinational groups (MNE groups) willing to engage actively, openly and in a fully transparent manner with increased tax certainty with respect to certain of their activities and transactions, while identifying areas requiring further attention. ICAP does not provide an MNE group with legal certainty as may be achieved, for example, through an advance pricing agreement, but gives assurance where tax administrations participating in the programme consider a risk to be low. 2. This handbook contains information on a pilot for ICAP, which commences in January 2018 including tax administrations from eight jurisdictions (the participating tax administrations): Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States. The information contained in this handbook will be revised based on experiences gained in the pilot, and will be used as the basis for an ICAP Operating Manual, which will describe in detail the process to be applied beyond the pilot. 3. The process of the pilot can be summarised as follows. • In advance of the pilot launch, a number of MNE groups have been identified, which have headquarters in the jurisdictions of one of the eight participating tax administrations. It has been agreed with the MNE group which jurisdictions of participating tax administrations will be covered by its ICAP risk assessment (i.e. these will be the covered tax administrations). All MNE groups and participating tax administrations will be invited to participate in a Participant Orientation Event, to be held in Washington DC in January 2018, hosted by the IRS. • Following the Participant Orientation Event, MNE groups participating in the pilot will be invited to provide a package of documentation, the content of which is set out in this handbook. Depending on the approach agreed between the MNE group and the tax administration in its headquarter jurisdiction (the lead tax administration), this package may be delivered by the MNE group (i) to each covered tax administration directly, or (ii) to the lead tax administration, which shares the package with other covered tax administrations through existing tax information exchange agreements. Approximately six weeks after the documentation package is provided, a kick-off meeting will be held between the MNE group and all covered tax administrations, to discuss the documentation package and ensure a common understanding of its content and the process to be followed. • The covered tax administrations then conduct an assessment of the transfer pricing risks and permanent establishment risks (the covered risks) posed by the MNE group, based on the information contained in the documentation package and other information held by the covered tax administrations. This will begin with a high level initial risk assessment (a Level 1 risk assessment) but may be extended to more in-depth risk assessment (a Level 2 risk assessment) if required. The covered tax administrations will seek to gain assurance that the MNE group poses no or low risk for each of the covered risks, within the timeframes described in this handbook. At the end of the risk assessment process, and subject to domestic requirements and processes, each covered tax administration will issue an outcome letter to the MNE group, which will set out each of the covered risks where the tax administration has been able to gain assurance, and any identified tax risks that remain. • The ICAP process and the pilot is based on a collaborative working relationship between the MNE group and covered tax administrations, built on transparency, cooperation and trust. Throughout this process, the lead tax administration will engage in regular and timely communication with the MNE group to ensure it is kept abreast of the status of its risk assessment and any issues as they arise. (2018).
OECD Taxation Working Papers N. 39. SIMPLIFIED REGISTRATION AND COLLECTION MECHANISMS FOR TAXPAYERS THAT ARE NOT LOCATED IN THE JURISDICTION OF TAXATION. A REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT
OECD Taxation Working Papers N. 39. SIMPLIFIED REGISTRATION AND COLLECTION MECHANISMS FOR TAXPAYERS THAT ARE NOT LOCATED IN THE JURISDICTION OF TAXATION. A REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT. This paper reviews and evaluates the efficacy of simplified tax registration and collection mechanisms for securing compliance of taxpayers over which the jurisdiction with taxing rights has limited or no authority to effectively enforce a tax collection or other compliance obligation. Although the experience of jurisdictions in addressing this problem has involved primarily consumption taxes, that experience, and the lessons that can be learned from it, are applicable as well to other tax regimes that confront the same problem. Many jurisdictions have implemented (and are in the process of implementing) simplified registration and collection regimes in the business-to-consumer (B2C) context for taxpayers that are not located in the jurisdiction of taxation. Although the evidence regarding the performance of the simplified regimes adopted by jurisdictions is still quite limited, the best available evidence at present (in the European Union) indicates that simplified regimes can work well in practice and a high level of compliance can be achieved since there is a concentration of the overwhelming proportion of the revenues at stake in a relatively small proportion of large businesses and since the compliance burden has been reduced as far as possible. It also indicates that the adoption of thresholds may be an appropriate solution to avoid imposing a disproportionate administrative burden with respect to the collection of tax from small and micro-businesses in light of the relatively modest amount of revenues at stake and that a good communications strategy is essential to the success of a simplified regime (including appropriate lead time for implementation). In sum, simplified registration and collection regimes represent an effective approach to securing tax compliance when the jurisdiction has limited or no authority effectively to enforce a tax collection or other compliance obligation upon a taxpayer.