- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
Purpose — This chapter examines the ethics and business diplomacy of legal tax avoidance by multinational enterprises (MNEs). Design/methodology/approach — The methodology assembles the relevant literature and examines alternative interpretations of corporate tax strategy. Key topics include business ethics and responsibility, business sustainability, economic patriotism and corporate inversions, tax havens, and possible solutions. Findings — The debate concerns whether legal tax avoidance is unethical and/or poor business diplomacy. There are three possible strategies for MNEs. One strategy is intentional tax avoidance. Another strategy is businessgovernment negotiation concerning tax liability. Another strategy is business diplomacy aimed at maximizing the social legitimacy of the firm across multiple national tax jurisdictions. Social implications — The chapter assesses four possible solutions for corporate tax avoidance. One solution is voluntary tax payments beyond legal obligations whether out of a sense of ethics or a strategy of business diplomacy. A second solution is international tax cooperation and tax harmonization in ways that minimize opportunities for tax avoidance. A third solution is increased stakeholder pressure emphasizing business diplomacy and tax cooperation and harmonization. The fourth solution is negotiated tax liabilities between each business and each jurisdiction. Originality/value — The chapter provides an original systematic survey of the key aspects of corporate international tax avoidance in an approach in which business ethics and business diplomacy are better integrated. The value of the chapter is that it provides information and assembles relevant literature concerning corporate international tax avoidance, and addresses possible solutions for this problem.
Conclusion: The Broader Context of Public Policy Avoidance
There are four corporate approaches to managing businessgovernment relations along a continuum from strongly ethical to strongly unethical: (1) strict compliance with public policy; (2) legal lobbying to change public policy; (3) public policy avoidance by shifting in some way; and (3) illegal corruption to change public policy. Compliance is strongly ethical. Legal lobbying and public policy avoidance are ethically neutral. Illegal corruption typically bribes and improper donations is strongly unethical.
As CTR is one dimension of CSR, so tax avoidance is one dimension of an expanded notion of public policy avoidance (Leitzel, 19961997). The broadest scope of this chapter becomes the question of public policy avoidance (in any form) by MNEs having the ability to move legal jurisdiction or shift activities. The essential question concerns whether and if so why virtuous behavior, good citizenship, and justice theory reach a limit when applied to legal tax and regulatory avoidance. A general conception of public policy avoidance includes instances such as corporate inversion, other tax avoidance, and regulatory haven decisions. These instances are legally permissible choices, but subject to moral and political criticism intended to promote voluntary self-regulation and changes in public policy strengthening regulatory controls. Economic patriotism and CSR arguments call for voluntary self-regulation by companies in advance of public policy changes.