Tax, trade, and investment conundrum in Asia-Pacific regionalism

ABSTRACT

This article examines the interplay between taxation, trade, and investment in the context of new Asian regionalism. With the emergence of multilateral initiatives, tax rules have evolved with the potential to conflict with trade and investment treaties, resulting in tax-related disputes. This article argues that tax cooperation and harmonization between Asian nations are crucial for promoting tax certainty and maximizing the benefits of regional integration. To achieve this, it is necessary to align trade, investment, and tax policies in the region, which requires coordinated efforts between countries. One approach is to establish a regional tax framework that includes common rules and standards for taxation, as well as mechanisms for cooperation and coordination among member states. This article highlights the importance of a coherent and consistent international tax framework to prevent double taxation and erode the benefits of trade and investment. The increasing digitalization of the global economy has challenged traditional tax principles, leading to debates on the tax implications of digital transactions. This article proposes the implementation of a comprehensive approach that includes infrastructure development, human capital, and technology transfer to maximize the benefits of regional integration fully. Achieving this alignment ensures that trade and investment are not hindered by tax-related disputes, which can negatively impact economic growth and development. Thus, greater coordination and cooperation among Asian nations, along with the development of a shared vision and long-term strategy for regional integration, are necessary.

KEYWORDS:

• Digital services tax
• CPTPP
• RCEP
• BEPS
• BIT

Acknowledgements

I would like to convey my appreciation to the distinguished colleague authors who took part in the Symposium, such as Neha Mishra, Pasha L. Hsieh, Ana Maria Palacio Valencia, Prabhash Ranjan, Michelle Limenta, James Nedumpara, Xueji Su, Sherzod Shadikhodjaev, and Yueming Yan. Their insightful perspectives and constructive feedback have been instrumental in shaping the project since its inception in 2021. The paper significantly benefited from prior discussions during the SMU-APLR Workshop held on October 25, 2022. Moreover, I am thankful for the invaluable input provided by Irma Mosquera Valderrama, Divij Kumar, and Xueliang Ji, which helped enhance the project’s quality. I am also grateful for the dedicated research assistants, Akshat Kothari and Shruti Maheshwari whose significant contributions have been indispensable. Further, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the two anonymous peer reviewers, whose constructive and perceptive feedback was invaluable in refining the paper. Finally, I extend my gratitude to the editorial staff at the Asia Pacific Law Review and Taylor & Francis for their outstanding editing work.

Notes

1 See Julien Chaisse and Pasha L Hsieh, ‘Rethinking Asia-Pacific Regionalism and New Economic Agreements’, this special issue (Explaining that the concept of new Asian regionalism surpasses the narrow viewpoint of regional integration under WTO law. Instead, scholars of international relations have proposed a different approach that includes both regionalization and regionalism. Regionalization comprises informal bottom-up efforts, whereas regionalism is a state-led, top-down process that is premised on institution-building).

2 The idea that ‘Asia’ refers to a specific physical region has, without a shadow of a doubt, been the topic of a significant amount of discussion over the course of many years. There is not complete consensus among all people on the meanings of geographical names like the Asia-Pacific, East Asia, and the Indo-Pacific. In point of fact, almost every international organization has its own interpretation of what the word ‘Asia’ means. For the purposes of this Symposium and article, we focus on nations and projects that have energized substantial normative shifts, and we use words such as Asia and the Asia-Pacific interchangeably rather than exhausting definitions or demarcating the borders of Asia.

3 Elias Igwebuike Agbo and Sergius Nwannebuike Udeh, ‘Tax Policy and Planning: Lessons from Developed Countries’ (2021) Management Studies 251.

4 One of the key challenges of the Asia new regionalism perspective is tax uncertainty. While many people recognize the need for tax certainty, it remains a challenge to provide tax certainty for governments. The absence of a focus on tax certainty for governments in the plans has the net effect of leaving tax certainty for governments to the MNEs’ discretion. Michelle Andrea Markham, ‘Arbitration and Tax Treaty Disputes’ (2019) Arbitration International 473.

5 Jeffrey Owens and Jonathan Leigh Pemberton, Cooperative Compliance: A Multi-stakeholder and Sustainable Approach to Taxation (Kluwer Law International BV, 2021).

6 Satoru Araki and Shinichi Nakabayashi, ‘Tax and Development Challenges in Asia and the Pacific’ (2018) Asian Development Bank Institute <www.adb.org/publications/tax-and-development-challenges-in-asia-pacific>.

7 See eg Julien Chaisse and Irma Mosquera, ‘Public International Law, International Taxation and Tax Dispute Resolution’ (2022) Asia Pacific Law Review <https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2102585>; Luca Rubini, ‘Between Sovereignty and Complexity: The Settlement of Tax Disputes by the World Trade Organization’ (2023) 31(1) Asia Pacific Law Review <https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2102587>; Prabhash Ranjan, ‘Investor-state Dispute Settlement and Tax Matters: Limitations on State’s Sovereign Right to Tax’ (2022) Asia Pacific Law Review <https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2102588>. The interactions between tax, trade, and investment treaties remain however largely unexplored. The United Nations (UN) Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters is doing a thorough review of the relationship of tax, trade and investment agreements. See Co-Coordinators’ Report, Relationship of tax, trade and investment agreements, Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters, E/C.18/2022/CRP.18 (6 October 2022) <www.un.org/development/desa/financing/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.financing/files/2022-10/CRP%2018%20-%20Tax%20Trade%20and%20Investment%2025%20CITC.pdf>.

8 Andreas Oestreicher, ‘Valuation Issues in Transfer Pricing of Intangibles: Comments on the Scoping of an OECD Project’ (2011) 3 Intertax 39.

9 FAR Analysis is an exercise to determine and document significant economic activities performed by the enterprise and its associated enterprise (‘AEs’) in an International Transaction <www.wirc-icai.org/images/material/WIRC-FAR-Analysis-23092017.pdf>; Mariana Muzychuk and Olena Fomina, ‘Functions, Assets and Risk Analysis in the Preparation of Transfer Pricing Documentation’ (2021) Universal Journal of Accounting and Finance 935.

10 Julien Chaisse and Jamieson Kirkwood, ‘Taxing the Future: Digital Stateless Income, Business Organisation, and the Search for a New Regulatory Paradigm’ (2022) 22(2) Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 1.

11 Won Kidane, ‘Contemporary International Investment Law Trends and Africa’s Dilemmas in the Draft Pan-African Investment Code’ (2018) 50 George Washington International Law Review 535.

12 Viviane De Beaufort, ‘The European Union and the New Face(s) of International Trade’ (2015) International Business Law Journal 50.

13 The World Bank, ‘The African Continental Free Trade Area’ (2020) <www.worldbank.org/en/topic/trade/publication/the-african-continental-free-trade-area> accessed 15 March 2023.

14 Shusi He, ‘Market Views: How can RCEP Benefit Investments in Asia?’ Asian Investor (2022) <www.asianinvestor.net/article/market-views-how-can-rcep-benefit-investments-in-asia/474970> accessed 15 March 2023.

15 Christopher Findlay and others, ‘ASEAN +1 FTAS and Global Value Chains in East Asia’ (2011) ERIA Research Project Report 2010 <www.eria.org/publications/asean-1-ftas-and-global-value-chains-in-east-asia/> accessed 15 March 2023.

16 The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) <www.dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/in-force/cptpp/comprehensive-and-progressive-agreement-for-trans-pacific-partnership> accessed 15 March 2023.

17 Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ‘RCEP Agreement Enters into Force’ (2022) <https://asean.org/rcep-agreement-enters-into-force/> accessed 15 March 2023.

18 Laura Allison-Reumann and Philomena Murray, ‘What Does the ASEAN-EU Strategic Partnership Mean?’ The Diplomat (2021) <https://thediplomat.com/2021/01/what-does-the-asean-eu-strategic-partnership-mean/> accessed 15 March 2023.

19 P Hsieh, ‘New Investment Rulemaking in Asia: Between Regionalism and Domestication’ (2023) 22(1) World Trade Review 173. See also J Chaisse, ‘The Black Pit: Power and Pitfalls of Digital FDI and Cross-Border Data Flows’ (2023) 22(1) World Trade Review 73.

20 Pasha L Hsieh, New Asian Regionalism in International Economic Law (Cambridge University Press, 2022) 236.

21 Chaisse and Hsieh (n 1).

22 Clare Middlemas, ‘Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) & Workers in Asia Pacific’ (2020) 27(4) International Union Rights 6 <www.muse.jhu.edu/article/838168> accessed 15 March 2023.

23 Hsieh, New Asian Regionalism (n 20) 237.

24 OECD, ‘BEPS Actions’ <www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-actions.html> accessed 15 March 2023.

25 Ibid, Action 15.

26 For instance, India is the only country in the region that has implemented a DST-type tax. India’s 6% equalization levy applies to specified services, including online advertisements, the provision for digital advertising space or any other facility or service for the purpose of online advertising (CA Karan Batra, ‘Equalisation Levy @ 6% on Digital Ads from 1st June 2016’ Chartered Club <www.charteredclub.com/equalisation-levy/> accessed 15 March 2023). In April 2019, Indonesia expanded its definition of a PE to include a computer, electronic agent or automatic equipment owned, rented or used by a foreign taxpayer to perform business activity through the internet (Daljit Kaur and David Watkins, ‘Asia-Pacific’s Response to the Proposed OECD Reforms’ (2020) 31 International Tax Review 83 <www.internationaltaxreview.com/article/b1l9lmjgt33bpf/asia-pacifics-response-to-the-proposed-oecd-reforms> accessed 15 March 2023). Vietnam has also introduced a tax administration law that requires foreign suppliers engaged in ‘e-commerce business activities’ without a PE to file and pay Vietnamese taxes (Kaur and Watkins (n 26)).

27 OECD, ‘Statement by the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS on the Two-Pillar Approach to Address the Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy – January 2020’ (OECD, 2020) OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS <www.oecd.org/tax/beps/statement-by-the-oecd-g20-inclusive-framework-on-beps-january-2020.pdf>.

28 OECD, ‘Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy – Commentary to the Global Anti Base Erosion Model Rules (Pillar Two)’ (OECD) <www.oecd.org/tax/beps/tax-challenges-arising-from-thedigitalisation-of-the-economy-global-anti-base-erosion-model-rules-pillar-two-commentary.pdf>.

29 The Guardian, ‘Pandora Papers: Biggest ever Leak of Offshore Data Exposes Financial Secrets of Rich and Powerful’ (2021) <www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/03/pandora-papers-biggest-ever-leak-of-offshore-data-exposes-financial-secrets-of-rich-and-powerful> accessed 15 March 2023.

30 European Commission, ‘Fair Taxation: Commission Proposes to End the Misuse of Shell Entities for Tax Purposes Within the EU’ (2021) <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_7027> accessed 15 March 2023.

31 Julien Chaisse and Flavia Marisi, ‘Another Conflict of Norms: How BEPS and International Taxation Relate to Investment Treaties’ Investment Treaty News (IISD 2017) <www.iisd.org/itn/en/2017/06/12/another-conflict-norms-how-beps-international-taxation-relate-investment-treaties-julien-chaisse-flavia-marisi/> accessed 15 March 2023.

32 OECD, ‘Tax Challenges Arising from Digitalisation – Report on Pillar One Blueprint: Inclusive Framework on BEPS’ (2020) <www.oecd.org/tax/beps/tax-challenges-arising-from-digitalisation-report-on-pillar-one-blueprint-beba0634-en.html> accessed 15 March 2023. See also Chaisse and Kirkwood (n 10).

33 Charlotte Kiès, ‘European Union: Agreement on Pillar One and Pillar Two Global Tax Reform’ Mondaq (13 October 2021) <www.mondaq.com/withholding-tax/1120498/agreement-on-pillar-one-and-pillar-two-global-tax-reform> accessed 15 March 2023.

34 Ajay K Sanganeria and Dean Rolfe, ‘BEPS 2.0 Consultation on Pillar One Draft Rules for Nexus and Revenge Sourcing’ (2022) Tax Alert Issue 3 (KPMG).

35 Kaur and Watkins (n 26).

36 Ibid.

37 See OECD/G20, BEPS Project Public Consultation Document – Addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digitalisation of the Economy, 13 February 2019–6 March 2019 (OECD, 2019).

38 OECD, Tax Challenges Arising from Digitalisation – Report on Pillar Two Blueprint: Inclusive Framework on BEPS (OECD, 2020) OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project <https://doi.org/10.1787/abb4c3d1-en>.

39 The Australian Taxation Office even came out with a clarification law comparison ruling which effectively conveys the parallels in which the OECD hybrid mismatch rules operate in comparison to those under targeted integrity rule (ie ‘The hybrid mismatch rules, including the targeted integrity rule, apply to pre-existing arrangements in the same way as they apply to arrangements entered into after the application date of Division 832’). Kaur and Watkins (n 26).

40 Jeff Vander Wolk, ‘A Whole New Ballgame: The Global Tax Policy Negotiations on Pillars One and Two’ Bloomberg (13 May 2021) <https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-taxreport-international/a-whole-new-ballgame-the-global-tax-policy-negotiations-on-pillars-one-andtwo>.

41 OECD, ‘International Collaboration to End Tax Avoidance’ <www.oecd.org/tax/beps/> accessed 25 May 2022.

42 Elke Asen and Daniel Bunn, ‘What’s in the New Global Tax Agreement’ Tax Foundation (2021) <https://taxfoundation.org/digital-tax-europe-2020/> accessed 25 May 2022.

43 This is true for both the World Trade Organization (WTO) and Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). Both WTO rules and FTAs establish guidelines and standards for how countries can tax international trade and investment. However, they do not regulate taxation per se or attempt to harmonize tax policies across countries. Rather, they seek to ensure that taxation policies are applied in a fair and non-discriminatory manner, and that they do not undermine the benefits of free trade and investment. Thus, both WTO rules and FTAs allow individual countries to determine their own tax policies, subject to the provisions of the relevant agreement.

44 For example, trade agreements may require that countries apply tariffs and other taxes in a non-discriminatory manner, meaning that they cannot be used to unfairly advantage domestic producers over foreign ones. Additionally, trade agreements may establish rules for how countries can use other forms of taxation, such as value-added taxes or excise duties, on imported goods. See eg Rubini (n 7) 204.

45 See eg Rubini (n 7).

46 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Art III, Apr 15, 1994, 867 UNTS 187, 33 ILM 1153 (1994).

47 Ibid, Art XXI.

48 Ibid, Art III, para 2.

49 Rubini (n 7). See also Rosendo Lopez-Mata, ‘Income Taxation, International Competitiveness and the World Trade Organization’s Rules on Subsidies: Lessons to the U.S. and to the World from the FSC Dispute’ (2001) 54(3) The Tax Lawyer 600.

50 GATT, ‘Report of the Working Party on Border Tax Adjustments (1970) Adopted on 2 December’ (L/3464) <www.wto.org/gatt_docs/English/SULPDF/90840088.pdf> accessed 28 May 2022.

51 World Trade Organization DS453: Argentina – Measures Relating to Trade in Goods and Services.

52 Clint Peinhardt and Rachel L Wellhausen, ‘Withdrawing from Investment Treaties but Protecting Investment’ (2016) 7(4) Global Policy 571; J Chaisse and S Jusoh, The ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement: The Regionalisation of Laws and Policy on Foreign Investment (Elgar, 2016).

53 R Wellhausen, ‘Recent Trends in Investor–State Dispute Settlement’ (2016) 7(1) Journal of International Dispute Settlement 117.

54 See Saluka Invs BV v Czech Republic, Permanent Court of Arbitration Partial Award (17 March 2006).

55 Paul HM Simonis, ‘BITs and Taxes’ (2014) 42 INTERTAX 234. For example, see Occidental Exploration & Prod Co v Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No UN 3467 Award (1 July 2004) 110.

56 Ricardo García Antón and Toni Marzal, ‘Proportionality and the Fight Against International Tax Abuse: Comparative Analysis of Judicial Review in EU, International Investment and WTO Law’ (2022) Asia Pacific Law Review <https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2102592>. See also Suranjali Tandon, ‘Issues and Challenges with Applying Investment Agreements to Tax Matters in the Context of India’s Experience’ (2022) Asia Pacific Law Review <https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2102590>; Ranjan (n 7).

57 Vodafone International Holdings BV v Government of India [I], PCA Case No 2016-35.

58 PCA Case No 2016-35: Vodafone International Holdings BV (The Netherlands) v India Award, at page 121 <https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2020-09/c2062072-6807-4c92-8979-f16b440e70fe/VODAFONE_PCA_Decision.pdf> (accessed 15 March 2023).

59 Trishna Menon, ‘UNCITRAL Tribunal Finds India in Breach of India–UK BIT in Proceedings Brought by Cairn Entities’ Investment Treaty News (2021) <www.iisd.org/itn/en/2021/03/23/uncitral-tribunal-finds-india-in-breach-of-india-uk-bit-in-proceedings-brought-by-cairn-entities/> (accessed 15 March 2023).

60 Aftab Ahmed and Manoj Kumar, ‘India to Scrap Retrospective Tax Law in Olive Branch to Global Firms’ Reuters (2021) <www.reuters.com/world/india/india-proposes-refunds-retrospective-tax-disputes-2021-08-05/> accessed 15 March 2023.

61 Vaughan Lowe, ‘Regulation or Expropriation’ (2002) 55 Current Legal Problems 452.

62 Christoph Schreuer, ‘The Concept of Expropriation under the ETC and Other Investment Protection Treaties’ (2005) 3 <www.univie.ac.at/intlaw/pdf/csunpublpaper_3.pdf> accessed 15 March 2023.

63 Jo-Ann Crawford and Barbara Kotschwar, Investment Provisions in Preferential Trade Agreements: Evolution and Current Trends (Economic and Research and Statistics Division, World Trade Organization, 2018).

64 Ibid.

65 Todd Allee, Manfred Elsig, and Andrew Lugg, ‘Is the European Union Trade Deal with Canada New or Recycled? A Text-as-data Approach’ (2017) 8(2) Global Policy 246 <https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12420>.

66 Michael Akehurst, ‘Jurisdiction in International Law’ (1972–1973) 46 British Yearbook of International Law 147.

67 OECD, ‘Foreign Direct Investment for Development: Maximising Benefits, Minimising Costs’ (2002) 7 <www.oecd.org/investment/investmentfordevelopment/1959815.pdf> accessed 15 March 2023.

68 Åsa Johansson and others, ‘Tax Planning by Multinational Firms: Firm-level Evidence from a Cross-country Database’ (2016) Economics Departments Working Papers No 1355, 6 <www.oecd.org/economy/public-finance/Tax-planning-by-multinational-firms-firm-level-evidence-from-a-cross-country-database.pdf> accessed 25 May 2022.

69 Pascal Saint-Amans, ‘A Historic Reform of the International Tax System’ (2022) The Global Governance Project <www.globalgovernanceproject.org/a-historic-reform-of-the-international-tax-system/> accessed 25 May 2022.

70 Jennifer Bird-Pollan, ‘The Sovereign Right to Tax: How Bilateral Investment Treaties Threaten Sovereignty’ (2018) 32 Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy 119, SSRN <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3281741> accessed 25 May 2022.

71 See Link-Trading Stock Co v Dep’t for Customs Control of the Republic of Moldova, Final Award, ITA Inv Treaty Cases (2002).

72 Occidental Exploration and Production Company v The Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No UN3467, para 191.

73 Elke Asen and Daniel Bunn, ‘What European OECD Countries Are Doing About Digital Services Taxes’ Tax Foundation (2021) <https://taxfoundation.org/digital-tax-europe-2020/> accessed 25 May 2022. See also Chaisse and Mosquera (n 7).

74 OECD, ‘BEPS Actions, Action 5’ <www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-actions/action5/> accessed 25 May 2022.

75 OECD, ‘Harmful Tax Practices – 2017 Progress Report on Preferential Regimes: Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 5, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project’ (OECD, 2017) <https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264283954-en>.

76 OECD, ‘BEPS Actions, Action 5’ (n 74).

77 OECD, ‘Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalization of the Economy – Global Anti-Base Erosion Model Rules (Pillar Two): Inclusive Framework on BEPS’ (OECD, 2021) <www.oecd.org/tax/beps/tax-challenges-arising-from-the-digitalisation-of-theeconomy-global-anti-base-erosion-model-rules-pillar-two.html> accessed 25 May 2022.

78 Chaisse and Mosquera (n 7).

79 OECD, ‘BEPS Actions, Action 1’ <www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-actions/action1/> accessed 25 May 2022.

80 OECD, ‘Two-Pillar Solution to Address the Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy’ (2021) <www.oecd.org/tax/beps/brochure-two-pillar-solution-to-address-the-tax-challenges-arising-from-the-digitalisation-of-the-economy-october-2021.pdf> accessed 25 May 2022.

81 Ibid, 4.

82 Asen and Bunn, ‘What European OECD Countries Are Doing’ (n 73).

83 Simon Bowers, ‘US Tech Firms Make Eleventh-hour Attempt to Halt Tax Avoidance Reforms’ The Guardian (2014) <www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/19/tech-firms-attempt-halt-tax-avoidance-reforms> accessed 15 March 2023.

84 Andrew D Mitchell, Tania Voon, and Jarrod Hepburn, ‘Taxing Tech: Risks of an Australian Digital Services Tax under International Economic Law’ (2019) Melbourne Journal of International Law <https://ssrn.com/abstract=3347655> or <https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3347655> accessed 15 March 2023. See also Julien Chaisse, ‘Toward a Big Bang for the Taxation of the Digitalized Economy: a Business Retrospective, Perspective, and Prospective’ 41(3) Virginia Tax Review (2023).

85 UN, ‘Editorial Changes to Article 12B and Commentary’ <www.un.org/development/desa/financing/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.financing/files/2021-09/Article%2012B%20and%20Commentary%20after%2022nd%20Session%20Meetings%2029%20April%202021.pdf> accessed 25 May 2022.

86 Chaisse, ‘Toward a Big Bang for the Taxation’ (n 84). See also Chaisse and Mosquera (n 7).

87 OECD, ‘Statement on a Two-Pillar Solution to Address the Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy’ (2021) <www.oecd.org/tax/beps/statement-on-a-two-pillar-solution-to-address-the-tax-challenges-arising-from-the-digitalisation-of-the-economy-october-2021.pdf> accessed 25 May 2022.

88 Chaisse and Mosquera (n 7).

89 Mosquera Valderrama and others, ‘Tax and Development: The Link Between International Taxation, the Base Erosion Profit Shifting Project and the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda’ (2018) UNU-CRIS Working Paper Series 34 <https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8581110/file/8581111>.

90 Araki and Nakabayashi (n 6).

91 Howard Mann, ‘The Expanding Universe of International Tax Disputes: A Principled Analysis of the OECD International Tax Dispute Settlement Proposals’ (2022) Asia Pacific Law Review 1 <https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2102593>.

92 Andrew T Bulovsky, ‘The Over- and Under-enforcement of Anti-corruption Law in Investment Disputes and International Development’ (2020) Cambridge International Law Journal 264 <https://doi.org/10.4337/cilj.2020.02.08>.

93 Mann (n 91).

94 Christina Dimitropoulou, Sriram Govind, and Laura Turcan, ‘Applying Modern, Disruptive Technologies to Improve the Effectiveness of Tax Treaty Dispute Resolution: Part 1’ (2018) Intertax 46 <https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.kluwer/intrtax0046&div=112&id=&page=>.

95 OECD, ‘Signatories and Parties to the Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting’ (2022) <www.oecd.org/tax/treaties/beps-mli-signatories-and-parties.pdf> accessed 25 May 2022.

96 OECD, ‘Tax Challenges Arising from Digitalisation’ (n 32).

97 Heydon Wardell-Burrus, ‘A Pillar One Design Proposal: Leveraging Pillar Two’ (2022).

98 Nicolas de Boynes and others, ‘The OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework Reaches New Global Agreement on Profit Allocation and Minimum Tax’ (2022) 39(2) Journal of Taxation of Investments.

99 Sol Picciotto, ‘Problems of Transfer Pricing and Possibilities for Simplification’ (2018) International Centre for Tax and Development (ICTD) Working Paper 86 <https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/14117/ICTD_WP86.pdf?sequence=1>.

100 Fauzan Misra, Rahmat Kurniawan, and Efa Yonnedi, ‘Resolving Disputed Tax Issues through an Online Negotiation Platform: The Influence of Partner Negotiation Objectives and Communication Style on Negotiation Outcome’ (2022) Routledge Taxation in the Digital Economy 288 <https://api.taylorfrancis.com/content/chapters/oa-edit/download?identifierName=doi&identifierValue=10.4324/9781003196020-16&type=chapterpdf>.

101 Mann (n 91).

102 Joseph Bankman, Mitchell A Kane, and Alan O Sykes, ‘Collecting the Rent: The Global Battle to Capture MNE Profits’ (2018) Tax Law Review 197 <https://heinonline.org/HOL/hein.journals/taxlr72&div=12&id=&page=>.

103 Michael P Devereux and others, ‘The OECD Global Anti-Base Erosion Proposal’ (2020) PwC report, Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation.

104 Ruth Mason, ‘The Transformation of International Tax’ (2020) American Journal of International Law 353 <https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2020.33>.

105 J Brian Davis and Ronald J Baumgarten Jr, ‘New Frontiers of Dispute Settlement in a Pillar One World-Part One: We’re Witnessing an Increased Convergence of Tax and Trade in Corporate Risk Management’ (2022) Tax Executive 60 <https://heinonline.org/HOL/hein.journals/taxexe74&div=31&id=&page=>.

106 Yariv Brauner, ‘International Tax Treaty Dispute Resolution, the Mutual Agreement Procedure, and the Promise of Mandatory Arbitration for Developing Countries’ in Research Handbook on International Taxation (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020) 191.

107 Dejan Popovic and Svetislav V Kostic, ‘Legal Certainty and Taxation: The Problem of Retroactive Interpretation’ (2018) Annals of the Faculty of Law in Belgrade – Belgrade Law Review 38.

108 Hanns W Maull, ‘Multilateralism: Variants, Potential, Constraints and Conditions for Success’ (2020).