Governments should send a
clear message on their commitment
to the new framework by restricting to
the minimum investment coming from
jurisdictions which do not respect either
legally or factually the new transparency
standards. Companies using those types
of jurisdictions should be penalized to
the maximum in their options to enter
into public contracts with federal, state
and local governments.
Professionals of tax advising and
planning should take a more active role
in the building of the new framework.
They seem to have been on the
defensive more than playing an active
role in building the new framework.
This is understandable considering
that they are seen in many cases as the
facilitators of international tax avoidance.
It is time to consider international
common standards of tax advising and
planning that should be developed and
implemented by the bodies representing
these professionals. Maybe we need to
monitor these professionals (OECD dixit)
but we also need their loyal contribution
to the new framework.
A thorny issue that will have to be
confronted sooner or later from a
common perspective is the situation
of whistleblowers. Their information
has given a dramatic impulse to the
acceptance of the new standards.
Governments have used extensively the
data provided by them. However, there
are borders that cannot be trespassed
without violating certain rights. In the
future, a common standard on the
balance between those rights and
the right of civil society to protect itself
against those who do not pay their fair
share of taxes should be found. As a
general rule, as it happens with other
criminal offences, those providing
information on tax offenders should
be protected, not prosecuted.
Enabling a new framework of tax
transparency should also respect taxpayer
human rights. The implementation of that
framework should not forget the concern
about taxpayer privacy and procedural
guarantees. The international community
should be able to reach a common
standard also on this important issue. ■
23