Reflections on the EU objectives in addressing aggressive tax planning and harmful tax practices Final Report. CEPS Report November 2019

This Report analyses the EU’s instruments to tackle aggressive tax planning and harmful tax practices. Based on desk research, interviews with stakeholders and expert assessments, it considers the coherence, relevance, and added value of the EU’s approach. The instruments under analysis are found to be internally coherent and consistent with other EU policies and with the international tax agenda, in particular with the OECD/G20 BEPS framework. The Report also confirms the continued relevance of most of the original needs and problems addressed by the EU’s initiatives in the field of tax avoidance. There is also EU added value in having common EU instruments in the field to bolster coordination and harmonise the implementation of tax measures. One cross-cutting issue identified is the impact of digitalisation on corporate taxation. Against this background, the Report outlines potential improvements to the EU tax strategy such as: making EU tax systems fit for the digital era; leading the international debate on tax avoidance; enabling capacity building in Member States and developing countries; strengthening tax good governance in third countries; ensuring a consistent approach at home and abroad; achieving a level playing field for all companies; and increasing tax certainty and legal certainty

Towards an Intellectual Property Rights Strategy for Innovation in Europe

On October 13, 2009 the Science and Technology Options Assessment Panel (STOA) together with Knowledge4Innovation/The Lisbon Forum, supported by Technopolis Consulting Group and TNO, organised a half-day workshop entitled ‘Towards an Intellectual Property Rights Strategy for Innovation in Europe’. This workshop was part of the 1st European Innovation Summit at the European Parliament which took place on 13 October and 14 October 2009. It addressed the topics of the evolution and current issues concerning the European Patent System as well as International Protection and Enforcement of IPR (with special consideration of issues pertaining to IP enforcement in the Digital Environment). Conclusions drawn point to the benefits of a comprehensive European IPR strategy, covering a broad range of IP instruments and topics

Consumer protection in the Kenyan financial sector: A case for a Twin Peaks model of financial regulation

Magister Legum - LLMThe dynamic character of the financial services industry necessitates frequent appraisal of the regulation of the sector. The main objectives for regulation of the financial sector include financial stability, promotion of competition and protection of the consumers. In ensuring consumer protection, there is need to balance this with all the other objectives to ensure optimal protection in the entire financial sector. This can be difficult as it is mostly dependent on the regulatory framework in the financial sector for the basic reason that most of the failures are associated with regulation. Key to the challenges is that consumer protection is served by measures that ensure proper conduct on the part of the service providers. Interests of the providers of the financial services may thus not be sufficiently aligned with those of the consumers of the products. There are three common models of financial regulation. They are the sectoral model, unified or integrated model and the Twin Peaks model. The financial sector in Kenya follows a sectoral model. It is a hodgepodge of institutional and functional regulation. There are five (5) government agencies that regulate specific segments of the financial sector with each of the regulators being established to operate independently within the permits of an Act of Parliament. This is without mentioning the many other segments that have no specific regulators

Why Civil and Criminal Procedure Are So Different: A Forgotten History

Much has been written about the origins of civil procedure. Yet little is known about the origins of criminal procedure, even though it governs how millions of cases in federal and state courts are litigated each year. This Article’s examination of criminal procedure’s origin story questions the prevailing notion that civil and criminal procedure require different treatment. The Article’s starting point is the first draft of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure—confidential in 1941 and since forgotten. The draft reveals that reformers of criminal procedure turned to the new rules of civil procedure for guidance. The contents of this draft shed light on an extraordinary moment: reformers initially proposed that all litigation in the United States, civil and criminal, be governed by a unified procedural code. The implementation of this original vision of a unified code would have had dramatic implications for how criminal law is practiced and perceived today. The advisory committee’s final product in 1944, however, set criminal litigation on a very different course. Transcripts of the committee’s initial meetings reveal that the final code of criminal procedure emerged from the clash of ideas presented by two committee members, James Robinson and Alexander Holtzoff. Holtzoff’s traditional views would ultimately persuade other members, cleaving criminal procedure from civil procedure. Since then, differences in civil and criminal litigation have become entrenched and normalized. Yet, at the time the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were drafted, a unified code was not just a plausible alternative but the only proposal. The draft’s challenge to the prevailing notion that civil and criminal wrongs inherently require different procedural treatment is a critical contribution to the growing debate over whether the absence of discovery in criminal procedure is justified in light of discovery tools afforded by civil procedure. The first draft of criminal procedure, which called for uniform rules to govern proceedings in all civil and criminal courtrooms, suggests the possibility that current resistance to unification is, to a significant degree, historically contingent

Where do electronic markets come from? Regulation and the transformation of financial exchanges

The practices of high-frequency trading (HFT) are dependent on automated financial markets, especially those produced by securities exchanges electronically interconnected with competing exchanges. How did this infrastructural and organizational state of affairs come to be? Employing the conceptual distinction between fixed-role and switch-role markets, we analyse the discourse surrounding the design and eventual approval of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation of Exchanges and Alternative Trading Systems (Reg ATS). We find that the disruption of the exchange industry at the hands of automated markets was produced through an interweaving of both technological and political change. This processual redefinition of the ‘exchange’, in addition, may provide a suggestive precedent for understanding contemporary regulatory crises generated by other digital marketplace platforms

Technological Spaces: An Initial Appraisal

In this paper, we propose a high level view of technological spaces (TS) and relations among these spaces. A technological space is a working context with a set of associated concepts, body of knowledge, tools, required skills, and possibilities. It is often associated to a given user community with shared know-how, educational support, common literature and even workshop and conference regular meetings. Although it is difficult to give a precise definition, some TSs can be easily identified, e.g. the XML TS, the DBMS TS, the abstract syntax TS, the meta-model (OMG/MDA) TS, etc. The purpose of our work is not to define an abstract theory of technological spaces, but to figure out how to work more efficiently by using the best possibilities of each technology. To do so, we need a basic understanding of the similarities and differences between various TSs, and also of the possible operational bridges that will allow transferring the results obtained in one TS to other TS. We hope that the presented industrial vision may help us putting forward the idea that there could be more cooperation than competition among alternative technologies. Furthermore, as the spectrum of such available technologies is rapidly broadening, the necessity to offer clear guidelines when choosing practical solutions to engineering problems is becoming a must, not only for teachers but for project leaders as well