NationStates Jolt Archive

This is just a quick rough draft of a really dull idea for a proposal.

Double taxation is a situation in which two or more taxes may need to be paid for the same asset, financial transaction and/or income and arises due to overlap between different countries' tax laws and jurisdictions.

E.g. a person or a company may be based/from one country, lets say Gwenstefani. But they work/have operations in Wyysteria. They pay tax in Wyysteria on their Wyysterian income. But then Gwenstefani turns round and says- hang on, you're a Gwenstefanian citizen, we're going to tax you on that income too.

Most countries nowadays have an agreement to avoid this situation, by allowing the individual or company to claim tax relief on the tax they have already paid on any foreign income. Therefore Gwenstefani would still tax all of that person's income but would then deduct the foreign tax they have already paid from their total liabilty.

I think I'll go for the Free Trade category as I suppose that this would encourage international business. Strength- probably mild or significant? It's quite simple but I suppose it could have major benefits/consequences.

Double Taxation Treaty
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant

AWARE that in an increasingly globalised world individuals are more globally mobile and corporations are often multinational in nature, and thus it is not unusual for business or individual who is resident in one country to make a taxable gain in another.

CONCERNED that this person or business may find that they are obliged by domestic laws to pay tax on that gain locally and pay again in the country in which the gain was made.

DEEMING this situation inequitable and therefore undesirable and a hindrance to international trade and business

HEREBY mandates that all UN nations make bilateral or multilateral Double taxation agreements with each other. Nations may determine the workings of each individual agreement independently. In some cases, this requires that tax be paid in the country of residence and be exempt in the country in which it arises. In the remaining cases, the country where the gain arises deducts taxation at source ("withholding tax") and the taxpayer receives a compensating tax credit in the country of residence to reflect the fact that tax has already been paid.

REQUIRES the international cooperation of taxation authorities of UN member nations to exchange information about such declarations, in order to investigate any anomalies that might indicate tax evasion

Just as a start, UN resolutions aren't treaties. It seems from the text you're requiring people to make treaties, but still, the title should probably be changed.

The idea seems reasonable enough in itself, so long as it's made clear that this doesn't prevent what might appear as 'double taxation' of fuel use, for example. Further what about the following scenario: the home nation has a tax rate of 20%, the foreign nation of 15%. The home nation places a small 'double tax' in order to recoup lost income; this would eliminate their ability to do so.

This also seems like a good opportunity to do something about tax avoidance through manipulation of the international tax system

(Additional thought: you will need to think about Representation in Taxation. I don't think this contradicts it, but might be worth making a case for why it doesn't.)

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Just as a start, UN resolutions aren't treaties. It seems from the text you're requiring people to make treaties, but still, the title should probably be changed.

Yeah I'll change that. I was referring more to the fact that the proposal asks that these treaties be established between UN members but I'll remove that from the title.


The idea seems reasonable enough in itself, so long as it's made clear that this doesn't prevent what might appear as 'double taxation' of fuel use, for example. Further what about the following scenario: the home nation has a tax rate of 20%, the foreign nation of 15%. The home nation places a small 'double tax' in order to recoup lost income; this would eliminate their ability to do so.

I'm not sure what you're referring to re fuel use. A quick wikipedia check shows that in the US double taxation refers to other situations other than foreign tax relief but outside the US that is not the case. I think the context is enough to show I'm referring solely to that situation.

As for differences in tax rates, I'll reword the document to explain that situation, but say Home nation's tax rate was 20% and Foreign nation's tax rate was 15%, Home citizen would get relief on the 15% tax he paid but would still be liable for the other 5%. However, if Home nation's tax rate was 15% and Foreign nation's was 20%, Home citizen would still only get 15% relief.

This also seems like a good opportunity to do something about tax avoidance through manipulation of the international tax system

Yes, and if you have any further ideas about this for inclusion, please let me kow.


(Additional thought: you will need to think about Representation in Taxation. I don't think this contradicts it, but might be worth making a case for why it doesn't.)

I don't follow. Is it a prior UN resolution? I have to admit I didn't even bother looking into past resolutions because I didn't think the issue had come up before. I'll go and check now.

Ok, I've had a look at Representation in Taxation. I don't think there should be any problem, I've deliberately left this proposal fairly vague, allowing individual nations to come to their own agreements with each other.

We have certain, uh, luxury items like apple spice tobacco, plum lightning whiskey, and umpty scrumptious candy which are quite expensive and unhealthful. Part of the strategy is to increase the cost of the item so it is used in a limited manner, increased taxation on certain luxury items only increases their cachet. High prices are desired for these items. It even adds to their exclusivity.

Regards,

Rex Smiley

We have certain, uh, luxury items like apple spice tobacco, plum lightning whiskey, and umpty scrumptious candy which are quite expensive and unhealthful. Part of the strategy is to increase the cost of the item so it is used in a limited manner, increased taxation on certain luxury items only increases their cachet. High prices are desired for these items. It even adds to their exclusivity.

Regards,

Rex Smiley

That's nice. But how is that relevant? We're talking about income tax, not VAT.

You're hitting capital-gains taxes, too, by my reading of the draft.

You're hitting capital-gains taxes, too, by my reading of the draft.

Hmm, well that's my fault for having it so vague at this stage. CGT inclusion or exclusion would be fine by me.

But what Commonalitarianism was talking about isn't CGT either.

Hmm, well that's my fault for having it so vague at this stage. CGT inclusion or exclusion would be fine by me.

But what Commonalitarianism was talking about isn't CGT either.

Oh, of course. Frankly, I'm with you. I'm not sure how VAT popped into this. I was merely pointing out that, as you've just acknowledged, the text is rather vague. In fact, the word "income" doesn't appear at all in the draft. You use the term "gain," which could apply to income, CG, inheritance, etc.

* ooc: a few points to consider...

Make the proposal explicitly concerned with taxation of income and not capital gains. Mandatory double tax treaties addressing, say, share activity aren't a good idea. There are numerous tax points in respect to share activity: at gain, vesting, exercise, disposal; I think the UN should steer clear of what is in RL a pretty nightmarish area of law.

I'd advise careful consideration of nations that are cashless, or zero-tax, or 100%-tax. It may not be practical for such nations to enter into double tax agreements. Perhaps this proposal should therefore urge rather than mandate.

Also, without wishing to get into too much detail, RL nations differ surprisingly widely in terms of determining how individuals are captured for taxation. The US, for example, is extremely aggressive in taxing its citizens; domicile, rather than residence, determines liability. This results in lopsided treaties where the US's power and influence enables it to garner preferential terms. The UK, for instance, is forced to give US citizens a credit - i.e. defer to the US for the claiming of tax - in situation where with other countries it would have primary taxing rights. Apply this principle to NS and you could end up clawing tax from poorer, weaker countries and handing it to richer, more powerful nations.

Finally, an accord is often difficult to reach. The UK still has no treaty with several nations, while with others is has limited agreements (e.g. with Brazil, where the treaty only covers shipping). Is it reasonable to demand that all nations go through with a DTT? Multinational companies usually offer comprehensive tax equalisation packages that ensure individuals aren't disadvantaged; do we want to get into preserving the tax rights of corporate entities?

Is anyone still awake? *

Zzzzzzz...

:p

We are a little concerned at the primary operative clause:

HEREBY mandates that all UN nations make bilateral or multilateral Double taxation agreements with each other. Nations may determine the workings of each individual agreement independently. In some cases, this requires that tax be paid in the country of residence and be exempt in the country in which it arises. In the remaining cases, the country where the gain arises deducts taxation at source ("withholding tax") and the taxpayer receives a compensating tax credit in the country of residence to reflect the fact that tax has already been paid.

The bolded amplificatory text would appear to be suggesting that nations can only reach agreements that involve one or other nation taking the whole of the tax and the other getting nothing, which contradicts the rest of the clause and, as we understand it, your intent that nations get to agree whatever they find mutually acceptable. We are uncertain as to whether more or less example is the cure to this potential confusion.

EDIT: Ah, no, we perceive that we are the confused one. The bolded text refers to the method of collection, not the contents of the agreement. We apologise for the distraction.

* ooc: Another thought (look away if you're easily roused to slumber). I imagine that very many nations will be like the US, in that income is taxed on federal/national and state/local levels. There is no possibility of devising a satisfactory method of relieving state taxation; I advise careful wording so as not to imply that it is a nation's duty to overcome this obstacle.

None of you are listening, are you? I'm just talking to myself. Bastards. *

For us, this is an issue of sovereignty. We should be able to tax what goes on within our borders at both the state, local, and national level as we fit. We are willing to negotiate taxation on trade goods, and services that happen between nations, but if you are worried about changing the tax on locally produced milk for example that would never leave our nation, this bill would be inappropriate. The UN should not get directly involved in changing local ordinances, and ordinances that happen at the state and local level. Furthermore, dictating how we tax a foreigner who has chosen to live on our soil, is also an issue of sovereignty. Income earned in our land should be taxed by us, not sent to a foreign power. In fact, asking for tax dollars from income not earned in your country is highly unethical. Please reconsider this legislation carefully.

Regards,

Rex Smiley

Yes, and if you have any further ideas about this for inclusion, please let me kow.
The Tax Justice Network (http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/front_content.php?idcat=17) has some suggestions; however, I wouldn't want to hijack this proposal into a completely separate area. I was just mentioning the opportunity.

For us, this is an issue of sovereignty. We should be able to tax what goes on within our borders at both the state, local, and national level as we fit. We are willing to negotiate taxation on trade goods, and services that happen between nations, but if you are worried about changing the tax on locally produced milk for example that would never leave our nation, this bill would be inappropriate. The UN should not get directly involved in changing local ordinances, and ordinances that happen at the state and local level. Furthermore, dictating how we tax a foreigner who has chosen to live on our soil, is also an issue of sovereignty. Income earned in our land should be taxed by us, not sent to a foreign power. In fact, asking for tax dollars from income not earned in your country is highly unethical. Please reconsider this legislation carefully.

Regards,

Rex Smiley

I think you're misunderstanding a large part of the propsal. It has nothing to do with VAT on products. It is purely referring to income tax on individuals or business who earn money in more than one nation state.

And whether you think that it is unethical or not, it is common practice for non-resident/domiciled individuals and business to be taxed twice in both their country or residence and country of origin. Double taxation relief treaties are designed to mitigate this, for the individual or business' benefit.

I have a very clear understanding of the proposal. You are saying that a company or individual that operates in my country should hand part or all of their taxes over to another country. The country with the lowest taxation rate should be the one that receives the taxes. This is a situation where someone can work in my country without paying taxes for the services that they receive, we spend a lot on education, equal opportunity, and law enforcement. We are not a second world country that can be pushed around because we have a weak economy that is dependent on foreign input. This is no less than tribute to a foreign power.

With the greatest respect, Ambassador Smiley, it is clear that the principle thrust of this proposal has in fact eluded you. The proposal concerns companies or individuals who operate in your country and reside in another, let us suppose ours for the sake of argument. They utilise a goodly number of the services that your nation extracts taxation to supply, it is true; but they also use services that our nation supplies through their residence. Both of us have legitimate reason for desiring the tax income, but it is clearly unfair on the individual or company concerned for us both to extract our normal taxation on their activities.

You state your position that the country with the lowest tax rate should receive the whole income. This is a perfectly permissible position for you to take in negotiations with others to resolve this state of affairs, though we suspect you will not find it a fruitful one. It matters little; all that the proposal requires is that such double taxation agreements be put into place between member nations of the UN. The contents of those agreements are a matter for those doing the agreeing, though on reflection we find ourselves wondering whether it is reasonable to place limits thereupon.

Probably not, we admit. Our instinct would be to require that the total tax demanded of any individual or company be no greater than the larger of the two normal taxation levels, however we can see reasons why this might not be appropriate. Ultimately, we imagine, an agreement which taxed at unreasonable levels would lead to a diminishing of such cross-border trade and a consequent reduction in the overall tax income.

I have a very clear understanding of the proposal. You are saying that a company or individual that operates in my country should hand part or all of their taxes over to another country. The country with the lowest taxation rate should be the one that receives the taxes. This is a situation where someone can work in my country without paying taxes for the services that they receive, we spend a lot on education, equal opportunity, and law enforcement. We are not a second world country that can be pushed around because we have a weak economy that is dependent on foreign input. This is no less than tribute to a foreign power.


What you are saying is completely stupid.

I'll explain.

Getting taxed twice is a bad thing that harms business, thereby harming your country. I'll simplify that even more for you: doubletax=bad.

Why should Company A, though based in Nation A, and operating in Nation B, be forced to pay Nation A's taxes in addition to Nation B's? What's fair about that?

Rang Erman
Advisor

Getting taxed twice is a bad thingSo is getting taxed once.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

My main objection is that it is focused on other countries taking tax out of the country where it is operating. We would prefer that the legislation give preference to the country where the person or company is located. That would make sense in practical terms on who gets the taxes. It should not be based on the different rates of taxation, but the services being used by the inidividual-- you are using the countries services where you are located. If you are here you pay taxes here, not to another country-- they should only be able to tax based on services received. This means fire, police, education, etc.

So is getting taxed once.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Dr. Leary FTW!

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

Can't the companies be run by the laws of the country they are from? I know there's a term of rthat but i can't think of it right now.

The Blue Eyed Man (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Blue_Eyed_Man)
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

It's indeed an important topic and we support it.

I can be wrong, but is the title ok? Can't it be misleading?
Also even if I understand it, the 1st operative clause was not easy to read for me.

I think it's great that this proposal deal with tax evasion. On this matter I would like to suggest 3 things that I was planning to introduce in a proposal. Feel free to include one or more of them if you want to.

What about:
-Prohibiting bank secrecy for UN citizens/companies (eventually members being still able to use bank secrecy for non-UN citizens/ companies)
-Allowing tax evasion for UN-citizens and companies resident in a nations with tax > 70%.
-Prohibiting members to tax lower UN-companies having no activity in their territories than usual companies.

About the 3rd point, many territories wanting to lure foreign companies set different tax levels for companies, one for operating in their territories and another one, lower, for those having no economic activity there.

So is getting taxed once.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Well, right, but I didn't think Ambassador Smiley would want to be bogged down with those kinds of details.

Rang Erman
Advisor

We are of opinion that the proposal is flawed and should be rejected. Taxation should remain an element of trading competition between nations not the subject of bilateral agreements. The proposer has to demonstrate that the institution setin place will be effective in obtaining the intended results.

My main objection is that it is focused on other countries taking tax out of the country where it is operating.
We regret to say that it is you, Ambassador Smiley, who are thus focused. The proposal focuses on bilateral or multilateral agreements on the subject. You may choose to go into negotiations over such agreements with the position that your nation should retain all of the tax from such cross-border businesses, but we suspect you will not get very far with that attitude.

We would prefer that the legislation give preference to the country where the person or company is located.
We are rather glad that the proposed legislation does no such thing, but lets the countries concerned come to the most appropriate agreement for their local factors.

We are of opinion that the proposal is flawed and should be rejected. Taxation should remain an element of trading competition between nations not the subject of bilateral agreements. The proposer has to demonstrate that the institution setin place will be effective in obtaining the intended results.
Having recently been educated to an extent on the nature of taxes, tariffs, and the economic consequences thereof, we can say with some confidence that you are entirely incorrect in this. Taxation is not an element of trading competition between nations; that would be tariffs. This proposal speaks solely to income taxation in cases where the sovereign right to raise such a tax from an individual is claimed by more than one party, making multilateral agreements (reached by the nations making the claims) entirely appropriate. That is what will achieve the intended results!

A response to this. Companies under double taxation treaties generally pay taxes to their country of origin. They are also often considered non-resident, meaning they don't have the right to partake of many of the government services offered in the country they are operating in. This is not stated here.

Here is a wonderful example of how this could go wrong. I am from Teotihuacan, a country with a very low rate of taxation -- 15%, and very limited government services. I am staying in Scandinoozia, a country with a taxation rate of 45% rate relatively high, but which offers free college education, medical care, business loans for startup, fixed rate business mortgages, chamber of commerce services. If I pay 15% for Teotihuacan taxes do I have a right to use the Scandinoozia services, or am I a non-resident with limited access?

A response to this. Companies under double taxation treaties generally pay taxes to their country of origin. They are also often considered non-resident, meaning they don't have the right to partake of many of the government services offered in the country they are operating in. This is not stated here.


That's because it isn't at stake. The Gobbanaean proposal is focused on clearing up these sorts of questions through multilateral accords, which would solve the problem you listed in your example.

Rang Erman
Advisor

Delighted as we would have been to have originated this proposal, and flattered though we are to have you think that we did, we must point out that this comes from the delegation of the Tragic Kingdom of Gwenstefani.

* ooc: Smiley, double-tax treaties tend to give preference to the host nation provided residence has been established (with the exception of of the US, to a degree, as stated earlier). So if a foreign national is based in Commonalitarianism fpr a significant period then it will most likely be Commonalitarianism that gets primary taxing rights. Restrictions can be placed - such as minimum and maximum claims on taxation of investment income - but this is something the treaty itself, rather than this proposal, will address.

And with regards to the ethics of taxation, well, that's your call. But a Hackian (?) working in Dashanzi will suffer withholding tax, whether The Most Glorious Hack likes it or not. Similarly, a Dashanzi- (whatever the appropriate Mandarin suffix is) will mostly likely escape income tax in TMGH, whether we like it or not. Unless of course there's a nasty, lop-sided treaty in force.*

Well, that's where these agreements come into play. TMGH has no interest in colllecting income taxes off of your citizens operating in TMGH, so they would probably just be negotiating to keep more of the money in Hack. You have interest in taxing the income of your citizens (as long as they are still citizens of Dashanzi), so you would negotiate from the point that the gov't of Hack doesn't want the tax so you should be able to take it. After negotiations, some middle ground will most likely be reached, where you get to tax the Dashanzian in Hack for maybe half what you normally would, and the rest of the money would stay in the pocket of your citizen. This is still beneficial to the individual, and both countries get a little something out of the deal. Dashanzi gets tax money off of foreign business, and Hack gets more money in its economy from a foreigner.

All this comes down to the actual negotiations. A question or two about those, and please bear with any ignorance I might display. I am not incredibly knowledgeable in these areas, but what I see seems to make sense so far.

Would it be possible for there to be some form of oversight for negotiations or agreements reached to prevent intimidation or extortion from lopsiding the deals?

Should it be mandatory for all UN nations to enter into these deals with all other UN nations, or could that be softened up such that these deals are required where there actually is potential for a double tax scenario?

I ask the seccond simply because there are so many UN nations that hammering out all of these deals will be rather time consuming. Not a major deal breaker, by any stretch, for me. We have a great many bureaucrats that would love something to do these days, since Kivisto has begun downsizing the government to allow for more private control of the economy.

Ooh....another thought that may be completely useless. Someone mentioned multinationals offering equalizing deals to handle the multiple tax laws and collecting nations. Would such a thing be possible or permissable under this, or is it even desirable?

Again, please forgive me my ignorance in these matters and thank you for your patience.

Still ooc:

Well, that's where these agreements come into play. TMGH has no interest in colllecting income taxes off of your citizens operating in TMGH, so they would probably just be negotiating to keep more of the money in Hack. You have interest in taxing the income of your citizens (as long as they are still citizens of Dashanzi), so you would negotiate from the point that the gov't of Hack doesn't want the tax so you should be able to take it. After negotiations, some middle ground will most likely be reached, where you get to tax the Dashanzian in Hack for maybe half what you normally would, and the rest of the money would stay in the pocket of your citizen. This is still beneficial to the individual, and both countries get a little something out of the deal. Dashanzi gets tax money off of foreign business, and Hack gets more money in its economy from a foreigner.
Kind of. I don't want to go much further into this because it'll only cause us pain, but you're in the right area.

Would it be possible for there to be some form of oversight for negotiations or agreements reached to prevent intimidation or extortion from lopsiding the deals?
This is something Dashanzi would strongly support.

Should it be mandatory for all UN nations to enter into these deals with all other UN nations, or could that be softened up such that these deals are required where there actually is potential for a double tax scenario?

I ask the seccond simply because there are so many UN nations that hammering out all of these deals will be rather time consuming. Not a major deal breaker, by any stretch, for me. We have a great many bureaucrats that would love something to do these days, since Kivisto has begun downsizing the government to allow for more private control of the economy.
Again, sensible.

Ooh....another thought that may be completely useless. Someone mentioned multinationals offering equalizing deals to handle the multiple tax laws and collecting nations. Would such a thing be possible or permissable under this, or is it even desirable?
It would still be possible and desirable. It's actually a completely internal affair for the company and isn't to the detriment of the host/home countries' ability to collect taxes. If my company wants me to work for a significant period (say two years) in Norway (high tax) and my colleague in Dubai (no tax), it'll most likely offer a tax equalisation package that ensures we're both no worse off in terms of tax for having gone on assignment. Norway still get their taxes. The UK, in my case, won't get any but they wouldn't have anyway.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to get a life.

Oh, alright. So the tax equalization thing is between employer and employee. Ah. I had misunderstood it to mean between company and nations. Thanks for the clarification.

Apologies for the continued threadjack...

For what it's worth, the Hack has worked out arrangements with nations regarding tax, especially with the other major Federation member, GMC Military Arms (which has a 100% tax rate).

Usually, citizens are taxed based on what country they are employed by, which is an important distinction, especially since many of the Oligarchy members actually live in GMC, even though they make up the government of the Hack. Their pay still comes from the Hack, so they get to keep it.

Also, some citizens (especially those with creative accountants, like me) are able to live and work in GMC while being governed by the Hack's tax rates, because they have been able to incorporate within the Hack. A friend of mine ran a restaurant in GMC for years until I helped her incorporate in the Hack and thus eliminate her tax burdon.

Granted, a lot of this is because of the somewhat uncommon relationship between the two nations, but there are other such arrangements (just usually not as benefitial). Still, we're more than willing to work things out for nations (including Dashanzi). This proposal seems like a good idea, as it protects the worker from getting screwed over by taxes, and saves arguments on a governmental level if dealing with two nations with 50%+ tax rates.

Hee. Just imagine two nations with 100% tax rates trying to both collect!


Yuri Shirow
Powerbroker
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Thanks for everyone's comments. I'll try and have a 2nd draft up soon which will incorporate some of your ideas.

The Tax Justice Network (http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/front_content.php?idcat=17) has some suggestions; however, I wouldn't want to hijack this proposal into a completely separate area. I was just mentioning the opportunity.

I had a look at that website and I've decided that I'm not going to include anything regarding tax avoidance (which is legal) in this proposal as it would end up making it mixed category. The methods referred to at taxjustice.net were all types of social justice.

However, I will try and incorpoarte some methods of curbing tax evasion (which is illegal) in the proposal, such as those suggest by Love & Esterel.

On second thoughts, time pressures have led me to believe that unless there are any glaring errors or oversights, I will submit the following:

Double Taxation Treaties
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant

AWARE that in an increasingly globalised world individuals are more globally mobile and corporations are often multinational in nature, and thus it is not unusual for business or individual who is domiciled or resident in one country to make a taxable profit or earnings in another.

CONCERNED that this person or business may find that they are obliged by domestic laws to pay tax on that income locally and pay again in the country in which the income was earned.

DEEMING this situation inequitable and therefore undesirable and a hindrance to international trade and business

HEREBY mandates that all UN nations make bilateral or multilateral double taxation agreements with each other. Nations may determine the workings of each individual agreement independently. In some cases, this requires that tax be paid in the country of residence and be exempt in the country in which it arises. In the remaining cases, the country where the gain arises deducts taxation at source ("withholding tax") and the taxpayer receives a compensating tax credit in the country of residence to reflect the fact that tax has already been paid.

URGES nations to come to a mutually beneficial, equitable, and agreeable arrangement, and prohibits the use of intimidation or extortion in such negotiations.

REQUIRES the international cooperation of taxation authorities of UN member nations to exchange information about such declarations, in order to investigate any anomalies that might indicate tax evasion

We are in support of this legislation as it addresses our concerns and improves free trade between nations.

Regards,

Rex Smiley