Arm's Length Principle vs. Formulary Apportionment in BEPS Action 13: Stakeholders’ Perspectives

References

• Allen, A., & Ramanna, K. (2013). Towards an understanding of the role of standard setters in standard setting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 55(1), 66–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2012.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avi-Yonah, R. S. (2009). Between formulary apportionment and the OECD guidelines: A proposal for reconciliation http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=law_econ_archive.
   Google Scholar
• Beuselinck, C., Cascino, S., Deloof, M., & Vanstraelen, A. (2019). Earnings management within multinational corporations. The Accounting Review, 94(4), 45–76. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-52274
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, S., Chen, X., Cheng, Q., & Shevlin, T. (2010). Are family firms more tax aggressive than non-family firms? Journal of Financial Economics, 95(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2009.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clausing, K. Z. (2017). Lessons for international tax reform from the US state experience under formulary apportionment. In S. Picciotto (Ed.), Taxing multinational enterprises as unitary firms (pp. 89–99). ICTD and Norad Publication.
   Google Scholar
• Cockfield, A. J. (2004). Formulary taxation versus the arm’s length principle: The battle among doubting Thomases, Purists, and Pragmatists. Canadian Tax Journal, 52(1), 114–123.
   Google Scholar
• Dean, S. A. (2005). Attractive complexity: Tax deregulation, the check-the-box election, and the future of tax simplification. Hofstra Law Review, 34(2), 405–467.
   Google Scholar
• De Simone, L., & Olbert, M. (2019). “Real effects of private country-by country disclosure.” Working paper. Stanford University and University of Mannheim.
   Google Scholar
• Durst, M. C. (2017). A practical approach to a transition to formulary apportionment. In S. Picciotto (Ed.), Taxing multinational enterprises as unitary firms (pp. 44–67). ICTD and Norad Publication.
   Google Scholar
• Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking rights seriously. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eden, L. (1998). Taxing multinationals. University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elschner, C., & Hardeck, I. (2021). Assessing the influence of different interest groups on international tax policy: Evidence from the BEPS project. Contemporary Accounting Research, 39(1), 304–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12722
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrar, J., Donnelly, M. E., & Dhaliwal, S. B. (2013). Procedural aspects of tax fairness: A content analysis of Canadian tax jurisprudence. The ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research, 11(2), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.2308/jltr-50552
   Google Scholar
• Foarta, D., & Morelli, M. (2022). The common determinants of legislative and regulatory complexity. BAFFI CAREFIN Centre Research Paper No, 2022-185.
   Google Scholar
• Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greil, S., Overesch, M., Rohlfing-Bastian, A., Schreiber, U., & Sureth-Sloane, C. (2022). Towards an amended arm’s length principle – tackling complexity and implementing destination rules in transfer pricing. TRR 266 Accounting for Transparency Working Paper Series No. 89, WU International Taxation Research Paper Series No, 2022-10.
   Google Scholar
• Gros, M., & Worret, D. (2016). Lobbying and audit regulation in the EU. Accounting in Europe, 13(3), 381–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2016.1255343
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, J. (2018). Foreign earnings management of US multinational companies: The role of decision rights. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(5), 552–574. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0143-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Chamber of Commerce. (1992). Proposed U.S. income tax regulations for intercompany transfer pricing and cost sharing under section 482 of the internal revenue code. Document No. 180/348 https://www.irs.gov/pub/int_practice_units/ISI9422_09_06.PDF.
   Google Scholar
• James, M. (2010). Humpty Dumpty’s guide to tax law: Rules, principles and certainty in taxation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21(7), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2010.03.007
   Google Scholar
• Jones, C. (2010). Archival data: Advantages and disadvantages for research in psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(11), 1008–1017. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00317.x
   Google Scholar
• Klein, M., & Fülbier, R. U. (2019). Inside the Black Box of IASB Standard Setting: Evidence from Board Meeting Audio Playbacks on the Amendment of IAS 19 (2011). Accounting in Europe, 16(1), 1–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kondracki, N. L., Wellman, N. S., & Amundson, D. R. (2002). Content analysis: Review of methods and their applications in nutrition education. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behaviour, 34(4), 224–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60097-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Larson, R. K., Myring, M., & Orens, R. (2022). Us comment letter writing to the IASB and evolving SEC views on the use of IFRS. Accounting in Europe, 19(2), 255–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2022.2046281
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohse, T., Riedel, N., & Spengel, C. (2012). The increasing importance of transfer pricing–a worldwide overview https://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Business_Taxation/Docs/WP1227.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• McLeay, M., Ordelheide, D., & Young, S. (2000). Constituent lobbying and its impact on the development of financial reporting regulations: evidence from Germany. Accounting, Organization and Society, 25(1), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(99)00028-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuendorf, K. A. (2016). The content analysis guidebook. Sage Publication.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (1979). International investment and multinational enterprises, review of the 1976 declaration and decisions. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2012). Report to the ‘Transparency in Financial Reporting’ Subgroup of the OECD informal task force on tax and development on central registration and public availability of statutory accounts in developing countries. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-global/2.%20Final_report_to_Sub_Group.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2013). Action plan on base erosion and profit shifting. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/action-plan-on-base-erosion-and-profit-shifting-9789264202719-en.htm.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2015). Addressing the Tax challenges of the digital economy. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264241046-en.pdf?expires=1678061550&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=F3CEF0988413AEB8876C3B3AB26C9DA4.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2016). BEPS - Frequently asked questions. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/ctp/beps-frequentlyaskedquestions.htm.
   Google Scholar
• O’Kane, J., & Hager, M. (2022). Inside Amazon’s strategy to shield its profits from Canadian taxes. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved July 15, 2022, from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-amazon-taxable-profits-canada/.
   Google Scholar
• Picciotto, S. (1992). International taxation and intrafirm pricing in transnational corporate groups. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(8), 759–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(92)90003-B
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Picciotto, S. (2017). Unitary alternatives and formulary apportionment. In S. Picciotto (Ed.), Taxing multinational enterprises as unitary firms (pp. 27–44). ICTD and Norad Publication.
   Google Scholar
• PwC. (2015). An insight into PwC’s 18th annual global CEO survey. Retrieved December 28, 2016, from http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/ceo-survey/index.jhtml?WT.ac=vt-ceosurvey.
   Google Scholar
• Ramanna, K. (2007). The implications of unverifiable fair-value accounting: evidence from the political economy of goodwill accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 45(2-3), 253–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2007.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossing, C. P. (2013). Tax strategy control: The case of transfer pricing tax risk management. Management Accounting Research, 24(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2013.04.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States Treasury & IRS. (1988). A study of intercompany pricing. Baton Rouge.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, P. (2020). Accounting and politics in Europe: Influencing the standard. Accounting in Europe, 17(3), 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2020.1714065
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinberg, S. L., & Abramowitz, S. K. (2008). Statistics using SPSS: An integrative approach. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. Cambridge University Press, Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yackee, J. W., and S. W. Yackee. 2006. A bias towards business? Assessing interest group influence on the US bureaucracy. Journal of Politics 68 (1): 128–39. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00375.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar