Health Care for Undocumented Migrants: European Approaches

European countries have smaller shares of undocumented migrants than does the United States, but these individuals have substantial needs for medical care and present difficult policy challenges even in countries with universal health insurance systems. Recent European studies show that policies in most countries provide for no more than emergency services for undocumented migrants. Smaller numbers of countries provide more services or allow undocumented migrants who meet certain requirements access to the same range of services as nationals. These experiences show it is possible to improve access to care for undocumented migrants. Strategies vary along three dimensions: 1) focusing on segments of the population, like children or pregnant women; 2) focusing on types of services, like preventive services or treatment of infectious diseases; or 3) using specific funding policies, like allowing undocumented migrants to purchase insurance

Fraudulent Contracting of Work: Sham Companies (Austria, Estonia and Italy)

[Excerpt] Among the fraudulent contracting of work practices, one of the most difficult to identify is the creation of sham companies (usually, in another country). Sham companies are essentially new entities created to disguise the real employer. Creating a company, even abroad, is – of course – legal and may well be institutionally and economically advisable. However, when the only purpose of its creation is to benefit from more favourable regulations relating to labour and tax (and not to develop an activity in the country), then questions should be asked about the ‘genuine’ nature of the company. The Eurofound study Exploring the fraudulent contracting of work in the European Union emphasises that the term ‘sham contracting’ or ‘sham companies’ embraces a diversity of fraudulent practices, embedded in different institutional contexts (Eurofound, 2016a).1 Fraudulent practices are perpetrated for different purposes, the most important of which are to avoid paying, or to save, employment-related taxes and social security contributions, and to evade employers’ liability towards employees. Beyond some recent analysis of ‘letter-box’ companies,2 there is not much research into sham contracting or sham companies. In addition, EU legislation has not played any role in this respect. Sham companies share the common goal of disguising the real employer. This can be achieved through different mechanisms such as: the creation of companies without assets, generally within subcontracting chains commercial or civil law contracts between companies where employees are misrepresented as contractors or company owners workers’ cooperatives, where workers lack actual control over the organisation’s decisions

Accounting Standards, Information Flow, and Firm Investment Behavior

We present a description of two different accounting regimes that govern reporting practice in most developed countries. 'One-book' countries, e.g. Germany, use their tax books as the basis for financial reporting and 'two-book' countries, e.g. the United States, keep the books largely separate. We derive a structural model and formalize a testable implication of our discussion: firms in one-book countries may be reluctant to claim some tax benefits if reductions in taxable income may be misinterpreted by financial market participants as signals of lower profitability. Econometric estimates suggest that accounting regime differences play an important role in describing domestic investment patterns both within and across countries.

Fraudulent Contracting of Work: Sham Companies (Austria, Estonia and Italy)

[Excerpt] Among the fraudulent contracting of work practices, one of the most difficult to identify is the creation of sham companies (usually, in another country). Sham companies are essentially new entities created to disguise the real employer. Creating a company, even abroad, is – of course – legal and may well be institutionally and economically advisable. However, when the only purpose of its creation is to benefit from more favourable regulations relating to labour and tax (and not to develop an activity in the country), then questions should be asked about the ‘genuine’ nature of the company. The Eurofound study Exploring the fraudulent contracting of work in the European Union emphasises that the term ‘sham contracting’ or ‘sham companies’ embraces a diversity of fraudulent practices, embedded in different institutional contexts (Eurofound, 2016a).1 Fraudulent practices are perpetrated for different purposes, the most important of which are to avoid paying, or to save, employment-related taxes and social security contributions, and to evade employers’ liability towards employees. Beyond some recent analysis of ‘letter-box’ companies,2 there is not much research into sham contracting or sham companies. In addition, EU legislation has not played any role in this respect. Sham companies share the common goal of disguising the real employer. This can be achieved through different mechanisms such as: the creation of companies without assets, generally within subcontracting chains commercial or civil law contracts between companies where employees are misrepresented as contractors or company owners workers’ cooperatives, where workers lack actual control over the organisation’s decisions

Guide to the Amity Vineyards Collection

This collection is comprised of documents and artifacts covering Amity Vineyards and winery information. This includes vineyard and harvest records, business documentation, representative material from various wine-affiliated organizations, published books, newspapers, magazine articles, and research papers. The collection provides researchers with a wide representation of the Oregon wine industry in addition to documentation and published works regarding wineries and vineyard owners from around the world