Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on the United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation - First Substantive Session 2025, 6th meeting

Good afternoon, everyone. So now we are starting back and resuming our discussion on the framework convention commitment number three, which is fair allocation of taxing rights. We heard different points of view at the morning session. And I think we're going to start from where we finished based on the comments we saw, we heard from you actually. And we will continue our discussion. So So we heard from some member states in the morning that some of them prefer the language that came in 78.2.30. Some others just see that paragraph 14 in the issue notes also works. But almost everyone agrees that the commitment needs to be kept at a high level. And I think we open, we start talking about the meanings of the words being used when we talked about the business activity and the economic activity and we get some comments from different member states on it. So we believe that in order to have everything in front of us, why not to go back and look at 78 to 30 and what has been there and mainly we will be looking at this, we will have it in the screen. I know maybe not everyone is prepared to have 78 to 30, but then we will go in two questions. Yes, here it is. The first one is, is this is the level of high level that we are referring to, similar to this and similar to paragraph 14, maybe 14 a little bit wider and having some principles. So this is the first question, if this is the level of details we are looking for. We are getting this out of the comments and what we heard in the morning. This will be the first question and second question after that will follow. Now, if we're comparing what we have in 78 to what we have in paragraph 14, we will find that we now standing in front of three concepts, business activity, economic activity and value creation. Actually, this statement include both of them, economic activity and the value creation. So then if we're drafting the commitments later on, should we include three of them, one of them, neither of them, which one? So we need to to discuss this with you so we know our direction while doing the drafting. So now the text is in the screen and I'm opening the floor for discussion. Okay, Patricia would like me to clarify again that it's not because we are drafting right now, so we are not reviewing the text right now, but because we need to get the direction where, where to go while we are doing the drafting, which is not now, that we are gonna do in the intercessional, uh, work from now till, uh, till Nairobi in November. So we, we need to, to, to hear your thoughts about, uh, about the different points of views that we had in this morning. Germany. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for sharing this proposal with us. So I might have missed it, but it can be that you have already explained it to us. To me, it seems like this is inspired by the FFD4 outcome document or the language. to which also Mexico was referring to previously, so I think it was paragraph 28, letter E, but there are some deviations to that language, which is only a couple of weeks old. And did you already explain or elaborate, or could you please, why there are those differences? Thank you.

If I understand your question right, Michael, you want me to justify why there is differences? Actually, I know about this. This is from 78 to 30. From the FDD4, there is some slight differences in the language, but I don't know what's the reason why it was drafted in different way, if this is the question. Back to Germany.

Yeah, that was the missing link. Thank you for repeating that. I will look it up in 78230. For the record, 78/230. Thank you very much. I had confused it with FFD4. But then again, FFD4 is -- it was highlighted by the distinguished delegate from Mexico, a language that was adopted by consensus and is newer too. Um, so, um, it was, it would be to me more intuitive to take this as a starting point, thank you.

So, So we are getting the text of the FFD4 as well, so we can compare and look, maybe we'll come up with something, good idea from comparing the two languages. Distinguished delegate of India, followed by Italy.

Thank you, Chair. While we will digest the entire text that is there on the screen right now, but at this moment we will just say this much that we would prefer that formulation which takes into account these factors which are there, which are economic activity, values created and where revenues are generated. So, I mean, eventually whatever the final text is, but we would like that these concepts are are present in the language that is used. And this, in fact, brings us back to the question that was raised by the chair. I mean, it was a very generic question as that are market jurisdictions getting their fair share of taxes. Now, I mean, if one were to attempt an answer to that question, the answer to that question would be like everything in taxes, it depends. It depends on what is the metric you use. whether you use, how do you measure whether what constitutes fair share. Just to give an example, I mean, suppose you were to say that the arms length price, determination of the arms length price is the final answer to the fair share, then a country like India would say that no, that is not the correct, that is not enough. So therefore, it to measure whether a country is getting or any jurisdiction is getting a fair share of taxes, it depends on what you use to measure. Now, these phrases, occurring of economic activity, value creation, revenues generated are what constitutes a measure of fair share of taxes. So that is one of the reasons why we are more comfortable that these phrases, these expressions are there in this commitment. Thank you.

Thank you. Distinguished delegate of Italy, followed by Kenya.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you, the Secretariat also for drafting some lines to be concentrated on. We are happy to have a draft to comment on. And in that respect, we think that perhaps the idea of value creation and of it disappeared anyway, value creation where the income is generated mostly depend on the model of business we have. Because in principle, I agree, we all agree that taxes has to be paid where the economic activities brings the value for the market. But the value creation is a concept that maybe would not bring all together in agreement because someone can say the value is created where the enterprise has developed intangibles, others may say that value is created where the user, the final user and consumers are. And maybe we can be in agreement much of what than we expected if we are able to make a distinction between among the different business model, maybe we could have a variation in that respect. Maybe the commitment could be even more general and just stop aware economic activity occurs and then elaborate more in the protocol or in the new first, perhaps in the new issue note. I have very good expectation for in the next intercessional work where we could make this new line of reasoning and try to end up in the zero draft for the next year. For the moment perhaps I understand what India said and honestly I agree with them but it depends on the business model we have because in some digital models model revenue can be generated in countries which are very different from those where the economic activities occur. So again, we would suggest to be cautious on that and consider how those three elements are applied depending on the model. In that respect, perhaps just stopping where economic activity occurs could be very high level but could give the flexibility that all of us this morning are, we're asking for. Thank you.

Okay, before moving in the floor, I will get back to Italy because I think Italy raised a good point that yes, so sometimes people say that it is where the IP stays or developed, the enterprise develops IP, this is where the value is created, as I was saying, now it's where the users, and what I see here is that both texts Actually value can be created in two location two places in the same time So it's not necessary that the whole value is created just in the in one country. Maybe it's shared between the values Like shared between different countries and none of these two tickets. I think give this meaning It's just saying as if maybe I'm wrong I'm just discussing with you me but it's saying that should pay taxes to governments of Yes, it's countries, not one country, where economic activity occurs, value is created as if it should be taxed in just one place, value created in one place. The same as the second one. So if anyone can discuss with us or give ideas about how the tickets can be more meaningful by giving There's a meaning that it's shared in the locations where value is created. So it's, it can be more than one place, one, more than one country. So the word countries in the first text, yes, it can give this meaning, but I don't, I believe it's still not that clear. The second digit of Kenya followed by Ghana.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for presenting the proposal for discussion. Just an initial reaction to the proposal, there are two issues we'd want to raise. Our preference would have been to, as we'd said, to leave the commitment as it was in 10A, but if there has to be an elaboration, then we would support the adoption of all the three factors. That would be economic activity, value creation, and revenue generation, and not to leave out any of them. Like for example, in FFD4, I think they have left out the concept of revenue generation. So if there has to be elaboration further than 10a, then it would need to take into account all the three factors. And second, we really feel that the words fair allocation of taxing rates has to actually be included in the commitment. And we don't see those words in the current proposal. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Stink of Ghana.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I wish to congratulate all of you for a good job done. Yes, my comment comes in support of what Kenya just said and also in support of what India just said. And just to make further point as you asked the question that whether or not these three elements actually answers the question or try to may not create anything. But I guess from the beginning when you posted this test, you said is we are not drafting yet. This is just to see whether or not All these three elements or other elements has to be included and of course, um, we say that yes, we should have all these three elements and I'm sure during the drafting stage, properly so-called, we would now distill how to draft it to reflect. so that we don't have, we will not create any confusion as to whether or not economic activity has taken place here or value has created here, because then that will come out during the drafting stage properly so-called. But in generality, I think that we have the opinion that this has to, all these elements has to be within the text. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. The Norwegian delegation.

Thank you, Chair. I think it's helpful to have some text suggestions to base our discussions on. These are only initial reflections of the two texts that you have provided here. We still believe that it's important to keep this at a high level. And it seems to us that what is in the resolution 78230 is broader than in the F54 document. The resolution refers to all taxpayers, especially multinational companies, but The F54 document talks only about companies, but at the same time, the text that is quoted from the GA resolution lacks a qualifier that is there in the resolution, but is also there in the F54 document, that it should pay tax to government in line with their national and international law and policy. I think it's a good starting point, but we should be mindful of the differences between the two. And we believe that we should go with the text that gives more high level drafting of the commitment, although we are not drafting yet, but we're using this for inspiration as I understand it. But we just wanted to point out that there are some quite significant differences and an omission from the text from the resolution that we should all keep in mind when we evaluate this text. Thank you.

Thank you. the next delegate of Chile followed by Canada.

Thank thank you very much chair a short comment um the the f f d a is actually more limited than our terms of reference the way that we see it and therefore we think that the inspiration is better focused on the GA resolution 78230, where the components are economic activity occurs, values created, and where revenues are generated. Those are good added value to the commitment. We do agree with Kenya as the last intervention I heard. that we should include fair allocation of profit, fair allocation of revenue as well. So I would agree with the esteemed colleague from Kenya on that. Thank you very much.

Thank you, distinguished delegate of Canada.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the secretariat for bringing these additional items to our attention. Looking back at the GA resolution, it actually forms part of a larger part of a preamble, I note, and we've only taken kind of the middle portion of that preamble. So I think it's also important to kind of remember the context in which that was included in the preamble when we were talking about eliminating tax evasion, base erosion and profit shifting, and also, I think it was already mentioned by the delegate from Norway, there was also reference to in accordance with national and international laws and policies. I think certainly open to consideration, further consideration of looking at the terms where economic activity occurs and where value is created. struggle a little bit in this formulation of the GA resolution 78-230 with revenues are generated because revenues are generated from what? And is it the revenues generated from that economic activity? If I look at the drafting in our issues note in paragraph 14, we're clearly talking about the income that's generated from such business activities. And here there seems to be no link to revenues generated. And so for me, there's a little bit lack of clarity in terms of what is meant by that third aspect, which I note was not included in the more recent FFD4 agreement or provision. I know we're not drafting, but it's unclear to me if we're also going to say in this commitment, fair allocation, and then does fair allocation mean something that equals this? Like, I just -- it's not clear to me how fair allocation would fully work with now these proposed terms. And lastly, I think it's important not to lose sight of that -- think it's very important If we start getting into more detail, I think that the second sentence that currently appears in paragraph 14, it's very important not to lose sight of the economic efficiency, tax neutrality, simplicity and administrability. whether that comes in the commitment or parts of it that aren't already there are included in principles. So I think if we get more detailed, we shouldn't lose focus on those important points that we heard a lot of support for as well this morning. Thank you.

Thank you. And I feel from your interventions that you are more towards 14 than 54, and And 78, like, and to large extent, I agree. I think paragraph 14 was very well written by the workstream, actually, and include a lot of aspects that everyone here is referring to. So I think, yes, 14 include a lot, maybe it's not final. I think it needs more enhancements and other things to be added, but I think it include big part of what we are talking about. Thank you. Distinguished delegate of China.

Thank you, Chair. And also many thanks for the new text. Of course, we need some time, some more time to digest. So I would just present my preliminary thought on this. To me, it seems the revenues generation Of course, we are talking about the revenues for test purposes rather than the accounting revenues. So in this sense, revenue generation may overlap with the concept or notions of economic activities and value creation because economic activities and value creation will result in revenues generation for test purposes if we're stream Two, we'll come up with some new rules to capture such revenues in accordance with the principle of economic activities and value creation, um, this, this my, my, my thoughts for this, for the time being, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Very much, Chair. Thank you for taking into consideration our proposal to take the compromise of the SEVIA language on 2080 on the screen. We do see that, of course, the GA resolution is specific to international tax cooperation, so it's only focused on that aspect. The compromise of Seville is more broad because it takes on the action areas of ADDIS. So of course, language wise, there's going to be divergences so that this could be adopted by consensus. But I just want to flag that if there's going to be a drafting exercise soon on whether or not on some of these aspects, then it would be advisable to have something in written form shared with member states before October because GA resolution 78 to 30 is going to be negotiated in its 80th session in October and therefore that language might change in the negotiation room here. So whether or not this committee or this bureau is going to share something with member states, this will probably inform the way that we are going to see this language evolve and therefore help when we come back to Nairobi and see this drafting again because we've seen in different cases that parallel processes tend to overlap with each other and then they tend to be creating different languages. So just for consistency sake, I think that whatever comes out of this exercise, if we base it off a merger between GA 28 to 30 and some of the issues in F54, or if we tie the fair allocation of taxing rights language to any of these ideas, then I think the sooner the better. and the more knowledge we have of it, then the more we can actually pursue this in the committee season and make sure that when we get to Nairobi, we're in a position to finalize whatever definition of this that we want to have for the Framework Convention. Thank you.

Thank you. So I see no more requests for the floor from member states, so if any of the multi-stakeholders would like to take the floor before I wrap up on this topic. The senior representative of Oxfam, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to speak. We are in agreement as civil society that we think that the wording on fair allocation of taxing rights is absolutely important and it should be within the commitment. With regard to all taxpayers and especially multinational companies and transnational corporations, our submission as civil society is that we should also include high net worth individuals because so as to make the work of the future Conference of Parties much easier because the scope will not be limited to just corporations, especially when we talk about other commitments that were mentioned within the terms of reference, including taxation of high net worth individuals. Now, with regard to value is created, as expressed previously, we do have some concerns about value creation and it being used as an element. We believe that it can be subjective and previously it has been used essentially to continue perpetuating aggressive tax avoidance, especially in relation to intangibles. So we think that we may need to review the wording or Member States may need to review the wording or reconsider the risks that are presented by the wording value is created. Thank you, Chair.

Do I need to rub it or is it enough? to talk about the fair allocation. It needs to be my. Distinguished delegate of Zambia.

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. And thank you for providing the wording. It's really helpful and just brings the arguments into context. So we just wanted to mention that I think we shouldn't look at the wordings in isolation. We do know that the FFD wording is obviously from the Addis Ababa Action Agenda of 2015, and therefore it's a very high level. So, and they did obviously have in mind that we'll be having this conversation later on with regard to this and looking at the commitments that we'll be looking at in the framework. So I think in this case there would be no harm in making sure that all three elements are brought out and therefore adopting the wording in the resolution would be okay with us. Thank you.

Thank you. Delegate of Kenya.

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor a second time. I think from the comment that has just come from civil society, I think it would then be important to use the word including as it is in the terms of reference instead of especially so that we don't have to go into listing all the other entities that should be covered. So I think including would be better than especially. And then on the issue of principle, since it came up, I just wanted to comment on the fact that there was a proposal earlier to add tax certainty to, um, the commitment, and this is where we see the risk of, again, having to elaborate on all the principles within this particular commitment, because the, in the TORs, we have about nine principles, so how do we pick and choose which ones to include? in the commitment. And that's why our proposal was to let the principles be in the principles section and cover, um, all the documents that would be, uh, covered by the framework convention as opposed to elaborating only specific principles within the commitment. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Distinguished delegate of Cameroon, followed by Switzerland.

Thank you for giving me the floor, Chair. Perhaps to make a few quick comments on this draft wording that we have on the screen and share with you the positions shared by Kenya and Ghana. We also feel that the first wording, the one from resolution 78 to 30, in terms of substance, covers the relevant criteria that would ensure this fair allocation in terms of taxation. The presence of an economic activity on one's territory creates value added and generates revenue, and we think that that is relevant to recognise the right to taxation for the fiscal authorities of that country. And we don't think that there is any problem between these various criteria, some felt that the generation of revenue might interfere with the criterion of economic presence, for example. That doesn't necessarily have to be the case because you might be in a situation where there is no economic activity in terms of physical presence, but economic revenue could still be generated within that country. So it's important, I think, to keep the three criteria in. Now, when it comes to the actual wording, it's true that we have been discussing now the substantive issues of this wording, but I think that the first proposal that stresses the commitment to work together is not sufficiently strong to get the goals that we are going for here, whereas in the second wording, the FFD4 wording, we see that stress is placed on the results. We'll work together to ensure that companies pay their taxes in the various territories. countries. So I think we need a strong commitment, not just to work together, but to ensure that we arrive at results in terms of recognizing the right of the fiscal authorities to impose tax. Thank you.

Thank you. Switzerland, followed by Nigeria.

Thank you, Chairman, for giving me the floor. And many thanks to you and the Secretariat for providing this language. what helps a lot. I have a spontaneous reaction, of course I would need some more time to think about it, but as a spontaneous reaction I would like to share with you my following thoughts. The first is from a procedural point of view my understanding is that the Compromiso de Sevilla, the FFD4 language, is up to now There's a consensus on that while, uh, the general assembly resolution 78 230, uh, vote was held there, the resolution found, uh, um, um, still a majority, but it's far from consensus, so from that point of view, the FFD four language seems to me more promising. Second remark is that I would agree with what was asked for by the distinguished delegate from Kenya that it would help that if it could also be stated that this is aimed at defining fairness, so to establish that link. And then as a third remark regarding the major difference between those two texts, which is the criteria of the origin of the revenues. We have some concerns there. We are discussing this under the angle of fairness and for fairness in our view there should be a bit more of a closer nexus to a country than just than just the mere source of the revenue. Regarding economic activity and the criteria of value creation, with that we are fine and we think this is fair. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Zegerato of Nigeria.

Thank you very much, Chair. I think in this discussion, one must take particular note of the chair's comment that we are not doing drafting. And of course, I don't know how easy it's going to be to draft in a crowd of about a hundred or more people, by my little experience, drafting is not done in a crowd. And so my comment therefore is just general. First of all, again, not being sure of the objective of what we are trying to achieve with these two statements. However, if it is to shape our mind as to what we're going to be coming up with in terms of draft, certainly the, neither of the two statements in my understanding is a consensus. I mean, it's just a direct response to the delegate from Switzerland. The FFD4 statement is also not a consensus. But then, what are we driving at? Are we driving at being able to have a statement in the framework convention? If it is, then The statement of the General Assembly's resolution 78230 speaks directly to the work of this committee compared to the general statement of the FFD4, which in my understanding is not targeted at the work of this committee and therefore may not be superior to the statement of the General Assembly resolution. Number two, is that looking at the context and the contents of the two statements, it is clear that the one of the resolution captures, in my understanding, the elements of what we want to look forward to, not necessarily the exact wordings, but it captures the essence of what we may be driving at. And then coming back to looking at that statement itself, it doesn't appear to me to be a commitment statement, it is an agreement statement. And so if we are aiming at getting a commitment statement, then of course we need to then rework this. if at all that is what we intend to do. Let me also state that the resolution language, in my view, is not a substitute for a commitment for fair allocation of taxing rights. They are miles apart from each other. This is talking about bringing taxpayers to pay taxes, whereas commitment as to fair allocation of taxing rights is about the rules that we agree among nations as to how each jurisdiction is able to tax within its own jurisdiction. I think finally, Chair, let me also state that Nigeria will support what Kenya had said on the issue of the use of especially. If you look at the beginning of the statement, in the resolution says state parties agreed to work together to ensure that all taxpayers, if we use the word especially there, then we are becoming discriminatory because then it appears that the statement is targeting multinational companies and what is their offense. So if we are looking at taxpayers, then it's everyone, including individuals. And therefore, changing the word especially to including, in my view, is more apt to be able to achieve the goal of bringing all taxpayers, which also includes multinational entities. Thank you very much, Chair, for listening to me.

Thank you. Thank you, Algeria, followed by Mexico.

Thank you, Chair. I'd like first of all to endorse what Kenya, India, Chile, and Nigeria have said, as well as Cameroon, with regard to the proposal that was made for language relating to the criteria of fairness in taxation. We think that the challenge that we have in the framework convention is to respond to all of the challenges in the new economic situation. Everything is very digital and not so tangible, and we have to try to ensure that there is fair taxation and just taxation. With regard to the current economic models, I think that the three criteria that we have in resolution 78230 do better respond to the requirements of the framework convention, and that's what we are looking for in terms of equity and coverage of transactions and operations, service provision that we we see in the relations between states and so i think that resolution seventy eight two hundred and thirty is the most appropriate with regard to these commitments as quoted thank you.

Thank you.

The Senate Delegate of Mexico, followed by Jamaica.

Thank you, Chair, and apologies for taking the floor again. Just wanted to come back and just, I understand that we're not here to do a drafting session. I know that we're just having discussion, but I would be remiss if I don't share that. I think it would be best for this committee and for the Bureau if we at least move towards a direction in which we can already know where the language that we're going to have in this framework convention can land. And I think that if that means that we spend a little bit more time on some of the issues that are contained in the language on the GA resolution or on FFD4, then I think it's worth it just because we want to get this right. I think from the beginning we said that we wanted this convention to work, And I think that we all understand that some delegations might see vagueness as an option to interpret whatever is going to be in the convention framework and join. And if we're going too specific, then some delegations might feel that they won't have the necessary political support back home to even ratify this convention. So I think it is worth the time, considering that we have two weeks, to dive into the elements of these two languages to see what we can do. If we want to take the language from the GA resolution, that's perfectly fine. I think that it was endorsed by the GA. Yes, there was a vote, but it was adopted. F54 was consensus, 192 countries adopted it by consensus in July. So I think both work, both have the same roots, let's say, to just add as 2015. And I think that if you want to play with the language, I think if you want to add the allocation of fair taxing rights into any of these languages and make it a commitment, then there's something we can do. I don't think that they're mutually exclusive. And I think that the best option for us is to at least work into trying to generate the best option that you can then take to the bureau and just craft, fine tune, so that we don't have to come back to this because then we're going to go into the protocols and then we're going to have a similar issue when we start to define the actions that we're going to take to make sure that the protocols respond to the framework. So humble suggestion to see if we can, you can designate a team here to work on drafting some ideas or you want to go and see and we can start asking why some delegations feel uncomfortable with the revenue aspect in the GA resolution 78 to 30 or how do we better incorporate language on taxing rights in the FFD four language. We're very more than happy to support this exercise because we do see merits in getting the framework right because this would set the tone for how we are going to engage in the protocols. And to my delegate of Nigeria, I wish you would have been there in Seville where everybody adopted this by consensus, real consensus, and it's the most recent consensus text that we have in this organization. So I would just say that there is merit in looking at this and the roots of this, as I mentioned, Addis. Again, this is going to be an issue touched in second committee and then again when we go to Nairobi. So the sooner we get this out of the way and get some sense of where we can land on taxing rights and getting a big definition here that we can all support, the better. Thank you.

Thank you. Distinguished delegate of Jamaica.

Thank you, Chair. Chair, I'm supportive of Mexico's intervention on this. I think that it could be -- it might be useful to have a drafting group that can look at some of the elements of what we consider fairness. I think what we're trying to do is to -- it is acknowledged that fairness is subjective. And to remove that subjectivity, we are seeking guidance from 78230 and FFD4. I think the wording in the GA resolution points us in the right direction. I think the language could be refined, and I think we could use that as an inspiration. But the other element of the fairness share is that it should also include equitable taxation of, it really says multinational enterprises, but I think we could extend that to all taxpayers. So fairness not only redounds to the benefit of the state, but also the taxpayers themselves. That is what will result in an overall fair system. So I think that in discussing the issue and in refining the draft, we should take both those elements into consideration. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. So no request from member states, so we go for the non-stakeholders. Distinguished representative of major group for children and youth.

Thank you, Chair. My name is Caleb Lee from March for Our Planet North America, and I'm speaking on behalf of March for Our Planet International and the FFD children and youth constituency of the major group for children and youth. Chair, we believe that multinational corporations and high net worth individuals must be taxed in countries where economic activities take place. Corporations currently benefit off the land and natural resources of source countries, significantly increasing fossil fuel productions and bringing source countries further from the 2030 SDGs. SDG 13 urges for the urgent reduction of greenhouse gases. However, such is impossible with the active exploitation of low and middle income countries by top corporations. In the writing of this new tax deal, it is necessary to uphold and reiterate a commitment to a sustainable future, as sustainability sectors are some of the first cuts when adopting more cost-effective methods. Youth hold a unique role in ensuring such sustainability standards. We urge the committee to encourage the partnership between youth and the private sector in enforcing and ensuring sustainability. You should stand at the forefront of a sustainable collaboration between the profit and public sector, leading the way for innovative solutions to the global climate crisis. We also call for the active involvement of youth in the development and production of clean energy, promoting information and transparency across all sectors. Chair, we must ensure that during this process in which we eliminate the evasive strategies of multinational corporations, we ensure the safety and the environment. As we approach 2030, we must ensure a future for the youth and such cannot be done with the active exploitation and poisoning of the environment. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Distinguished representative of ATAF.

Thank you, Chair, for giving us the floor again. I want to quickly, on behalf of myself and my organization, to align with the comments made by Nigeria in this respect. We know that we're not yet drafting the language for the commitment here, but looking at the import of the text that has been supplied, both the FFD4 text and the resolution 78230 text, we have observed that it has fallen short of encapsulated the whole essence of fair allocation of taxing rights. Each of them a bit speaks about some sort of taxing right, but you can't speak of fair allocation of taxing rights without also contemplating quantum of taxes to be collected by individual sovereigns in respect of their allocation itself. And practically, we believe that this cannot substitute for such language, such as language found in paragraph 10A of the TOR. And we encourage members as we look at these other different languages, we should also look at them side by side with paragraph 10A of the TOR, which have laid a veritable foundation for us to arrive at acceptable language for commitment. This is very important because if you look at the FFD language again, and you could begin to see it subjecting it to existing international laws. International tax laws which exist, we know are not sufficient in fair allocation of taxing rights. You can talk of nexus, which we may need to create that don't currently exist. So why are we subjecting such rules again to the existing rules? So these are the considerations we want to bring out for members and then also encourage us to move a bit quickly so we can get to the substance of the matter. Thank you, Chair.

So I think we don't have any more requests for the floor. So now I think as we are approaching the end of the session, we would like to convert to another light topic and get your feedback on it. Uh, it has been discussed in the work stream, but I think it, it was to be discussed here because I think it's cross cutting all the work streams, which is, uh, exchange of information and the ability, availability of information, uh, for developing country in a specific, but also I think it's the same issue for some developed countries, uh, in, in, in having, uh, the information. So, uh, the question would be that, uh, it, it would be good to hear, uh, the experience of different countries, in the field of exchange of information and what is the barriers they believe that currently exist or what is the issues, what is the problems that they face while carrying out the exchange of information activities and what prevent them from receiving the information. So I think if we go through this topic here in the wider scale than what we have in the work stream, that will enhance our understanding of this issue, which I think we need to work on it a lot to make sure that it is supporting all the work streams, whether the current protocols or even for the future protocols. So the floor is opened to discuss exchange of information topic and what is the barriers and issues and problems or even areas of development That can be, uh, proposed, thank you.

Yeah.

So, uh, we're gonna have two minutes break, uh, as we are having some slides that can, uh, trigger the discussion, so we're going for two minutes break, then we'll be back.

It was very.

A lot of people were not.

There would express better.

Go home.

That's just.

It doesn't say nothing about.

Then you express the ways of which by themselves are.

And so this is the, we went through six weeks. of not talking about parallelization in North Stream. Every time we talk to them, we actually had, and that's how we got all that extra. So the problem is, the problem.

That we want to address is what else we can do with parallelization.

There are a few authors that have.

Described what was, you know, what was the author's view on the summary of the book. That's what we wanted to ask.

That's what we wanted to ask.

That's what we wanted.

Yeah.

That's what we know that there are different approaches to.

Let's start with that one, and then we can go back to our contacts and high network. Yeah, let's start with that one.

Thank you.

Play all songs of the Great Indian Dysfunctional Family.

Chair.

Yeah.

The first.

I think

or maybe delete this?

Thank you.

So, I'm just not.

Yeah.

Welcome back everyone. Are we ready to start? Here we go. Okay. So now we're going to talk and discuss about, discuss the exchange of information topic and I'm going to hand over the floor to Daniel, the coordinator for extreme one. The floor is yours.

Good afternoon, everyone. Since we've sort of had these initial discussions and we seem to have gone a little faster than we planned, We want to continue with some of the other commitments which at the work stream level, we have had initial discussions already, but then we didn't prepare issue notes on them. But there are some questions that came up which we think we can start looking at now as a plenary and get some more ideas on them. So we've looked at fair allocation of taxing rights. effective prevention and resolution of tax disputes. We've looked at sustainable development. There's one discussion that item that kept cropping up and actually is in the issues note, you will realize on exchange of information and that falls under the commitment and the effective mutual administrative assistance. So when we look at the commitment, and uh for we will see that it talks about some of those items so want to have start a discussion on that and look at the questions we raised in the work stream and get some more uh inputs on them which I we believe will allow us to also finalize those issues and then it will help us actually move a bit faster than we can go to especially we know there are some concerns about paragraph what the items in paragraph 13 so it will allow us to also move there so with that would put up the issues we discussed when it came to H we'll look at other aspects of mutual assistance later on but we want to start with um those ones on information and the questions that we asked so the What we tried to elicit from ourselves was that what were the most significant barriers we faced as countries in receiving tax information, which was relevant for the enforcement of our domestic laws. One of the questions was whether it was lack of legal instruments providing for information exchange, whether there was ambiguity in the wording of provisions, on information exchange that results in information exchange being denied us, whether it was denial of country by country reporting, or what were some of these, so these were some of the questions that came up. I'm sure there are other things. So we would like to open that discussion on what are the barriers we see to first, look receiving information well the second part looks at the barriers we face in providing information but the first one will be to look at the barriers we have faced in receiving information which will help us to give some um flesh to the commitment as we look at it thank you yeah so that's the so do that first and then We'll look at the second one later, which is the barriers that we face in providing test information. Yes.

Thank you, Daniel. So thank you, Daniel. Now the floor is opened. Thank you, delegate of Bahamas.

Thank you. Just to give a little context in this, because I think certainly the questions raised pose a subjective response by country, and that subjective response really depends on a number of factors, one which includes the type of tax regime that you might have. And I know this has been brought up in some of the workstream discussions. An example like the Bahamas dealing with the issues on receiving tax information that's doing to enforce our domestic laws. We don't have an income tax. We have effectively a gross revenue tax, an import tax, tariffs, as well as value added tax. But without a income tax, many of the other countries of which we have relationships with and even treaties with, refuse to provide information that's relevant for our tax collection. So I'll give an example. We've reached out certainly our number one trading partners, the United States, being so close to them, and we have an issue with certainly customs fraud and tariff fraud and under-declared values and the like. And we've reached out to the US Customs Department and the US State Department to try to get information to help support our import tariff enforcement. And their position is, like many other states would be, that's really not within the tax regime of exchange of information, and therefore we can't give you that information, which inhibits our ability to really enforce our domestic tax regime because we have a tax regime that might be different from, in this instance, that of the United States. And so our experience is, That's a significant barrier for us receiving information from other states to be able to enforce our domestic tax rules and laws. So I think wherever we land on this issue has to take into consideration that there are different tax regimes in different countries that require different types of information in order to enforce your domestic tax regimes. The second point you've asked on barriers of providing tax information. You know, certainly as I reiterated, a no income tax jurisdiction, we're subject to a lot of tax information exchange agreements and common reporting standard under OECD and FATCA, in which we are obligated to both on request and automatically exchange tax information. Certainly those that are automatic exchange of information, that being the CRS and FATCA, are pretty routine. Where we have challenges are the information upon request, usually under tax information exchange agreements. What we see is that a lot of the bilateral countries that we have these agreements with either don't provide a comprehensive request according to the parameters of the tax information exchange agreement. they deem requests or we deem some of the requests as fishing expeditions which go beyond the scope of the actual treaty. And then when we question it, then there's a kind of bilateral process that causes it to be extended over a number of years at times. And then we're looked at as being non-cooperative because it takes so long to actually exchange that information. So I think if we had a better parameter of the type of requests that are made, and how to fill those on providing the information. We're willing participants. We just need to make sure that any requests that come in are according to the parameters that are set out in any kind of tax information exchange agreement or other treaty. So those are some practical experiences that we've had in the Bahamas, both on receiving tax information and providing tax information. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. Any decision that we take for the possible implementation is only possible if there is free access to information about taxes paid in each country. the countries where they have the revenue shouldn't lose their right share of the taxes just because they think that they don't want to have double taxation. Exchanging information is a mandatory instrument for establishing international cooperation and to combat tax breaks that are unlawful, in our opinion, an insufficient development of automatic exchange of information on taxes paid or retained, a lack of that information is a problem, or a lack of a unified database on such information. Therefore, when I spoke last time on this topic, we put forward the idea then of setting up a forum within the UN for this exchange of information and we reiterate that now thank you.

Thank you. The distinguished delegate of Jamaica followed by Germany.

Thank you Chair. In respect of providing tax information I think whilst This is a new regime to us in Jamaica, and we haven't fully explored the impact that it will have. The issue of data privacy laws, we are still exploring to what extent those laws -- we have a data privacy, data protection act, which was recently implemented, and so we are still exploring the impact that that may have on our ability to provide tax information to other countries. Our larger problem, I think, is with receiving tax information, but I gather that we are now discussing just the provision of tax information at this point. That was my understanding.

Okay, so let's do the first one, we'll come to the second one later. We just want to do them in order. Thank you.

Thank you. The distinguished delegate of Germany.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I welcome the flexibility of the co-lead chair and the secretariat. to -- and their efforts to make efficient use of the time we have in this session. And I totally agree with the observation that the issue of information exchange is a recurring one across the board. Transparency is highlighted in each issue note, either as a prerequisite or as a challenge. And I also share the view that it is very necessary and paramount to explore this topic in greater depth and to examine it also from a holistic perspective. Having said that, I'm of the view that this is also a topic that is particularly suitable to apply paragraph 22 of the terms of reference The terms of reference encourages the INC, this committee, to take into consideration the work of other fora. And the Global Forum in particular has been monitoring or reviewing and assisting in the implementation and application of transparency standards for years. This discussion That is what I encourage the committee to, this discussion should at least be supplemented by the expertise of that forum. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Distinguished delegate of Nigeria.

Thank you very much, Chair. Before I speak on the issue of exchange of information, I seek the indulgence of the Chair to take a step back to our last discussion. on the issue of fair allocation of taxing rights and within the light of the statements that were put on the board for us to discuss. I observe that it appears to me that we did not have a landing probably the head table is able to figure that out. But just to be very clear from the African group's perspective, we believe that what we have in the current issue notes as to the commitment to fair allocation of taxing rights, coming from the terms of reference, we believe that that should suffice for the purposes of taking this work forward. I just want to put that on record, Chair. Now on the issue of exchange of information. Exchange of information is a cross-cutting issue in taxation. If we discuss the issue of fair allocation of taxing rights, for example, it has an application for exchange of information because where a tax administration is denied access to relevant information is as good as taking away the right of that administration from administering taxes or the jurisdiction from imposing taxes. because where information is not available taxation is almost impossible to do. So as such, issue of exchange of information in my view and I do support the comment from the delegate from Russia that it is an issue that must be adequately addressed in the framework convention and under this program. Now, as to the questions that are posed there, I'm sure that if every country has to state the challenges under the current regime that we operate in and that goes to the comment from the distinguished delegate from Germany and I do agree with his comments that a lot of work has been done by the global forum in respect of exchange of information. Howbeit, there are also a lot of challenges, particularly for developing countries affecting their ability to have access to relevant tax information from treaty partners and there are quite a number of reasons for that. Beginning from number one issues of the instrument under which information is exchanged, tax information is exchanged. It is clear and we know from statistics that many African countries and developing countries do not have as many tax treaties as will enable them to be able to effectively have exchange of information. Beyond issue of treaties, also the standards required under the global forum for countries to be able to have access to exchange of information as such that many small countries are not able to afford to put those things there. Then the third issue is the issue of the peer reviews where standards are set. The standards that are set do not look at the capacity and capabilities of jurisdictions. So you expect a small country whose whole tax administration is not up to 1,000 persons to have the same kind of standard with another jurisdiction who has over 50,000 Um, tax officials, um, and, and all of that, so, um, there are actually a lot of structural issues, um, that, that prevent, um, many countries, particularly developing countries, from having access to, uh, tax information. and also being able to receive or to exchange. The cost of establishing the relevant structure, the infrastructure, the communication infrastructure and all of that, training officials are very prohibitive and such that many countries were not even there to start knowing that Um, the, the costs, um, are, are, are, are very prohibitive for them to, to, to, to, to incur. So quite a lot of issues, um, Chair, and, and I believe that, um, the Framework Convention, um, will be able to provide adequate leeway, not necessarily discarding what has been done under the global forum, but then being able to see how whatever system is going to operate globally is able to accommodate the different capacities of different jurisdictions. Thank you for your patience with me.

Thank you. Thank you, Dikgetso Lesolo.

Thank you, Chair. I feel like I shouldn't talk after what Nigeria has just indicated in terms of the practical aspects of us receiving information. If I may just talk to some of the issues that is indicated. I have just gone through a detailed assessment for automatic exchange of information. And in terms of the assessment that we think it's going to take us three more years to actually comply to the recommendations that will come out of that detailed assessment. So that is one aspect whereby the standards that we have to uphold to small jurisdictions could be quite burdensome. and it might take a very long time to actually make sure that you meet the standards. So in terms of the structural issues that is talked about, that's very much the case with us, especially developing countries. On the practical aspects, we also have issues of existing legal instruments that are quite much open to interpretation. For example, one of the big issues that we have is on the issue of foreseeable relevance. Most of the time, ordinarily we'll go and request for information because we would have started an audit of some sort. And you would not necessarily expect the other tax administration to start raising issues on the foreseeable relevance of the information that you are seeking, but That is the fact of what we are facing on the ground. So the fact that within a treaty, each of the contracting states, it's free to actually interpret and apply the treaty. That's where some of the practical aspects of the exchange of information and receiving the information comes from. I would stop here, but largely, Chair, is what the Nigerian colleague has indicated and also as earlier laid out by the Russian distinguished delegate. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. It's of India.

Thank you, Chair. And I thank the colleagues from my distinguished delegates of Russia, Germany, and Nigeria, and Lesotho for their comments. We do admit and say that the issue of exchange of information is an extremely important issue. It has cross-cutting ramifications. And there are several things, many things in the international tax system that needs fixing, but there are some things that are working. And India can speak from its own experience that we've been members of the global forum and we must say that the standards that have evolved over years are now very robust. Now, I can understand that there have been issues of interpretation of this standard as to whether a domestic law of a certain country reaches up to the standard or it does not. And these are matters that have consumed a lot of discussions in the various peer review group meetings, et cetera. There are other instruments also like the MAC under which information can be exchanged. Now, I completely understand that there are capacity issues. I mean, that is even for India, where we also have issues where we have to build capacities within our offices. and it takes an effort. But that, I would say, is not so much a comment on the adequacy or the robustness of the standards, but on the mechanics of the member countries when they have to apply these standards in their domestic laws. So when we consider this issue, I think we must look at it from the point of view of building capacities within member states. so that they can adhere to the existing standards and are able to effectively exchange information. So I think the focus of the issue related to exchange of information should be more on building capacities, on being able to ensure that interpretational issues do not limit our ability to effectively exchange information. Thank you.

Thank you. Distinguished delegate of Saudi Arabia.

Thank you, Chair. On this issue, I think as we have said at the beginning in our general statement that capacity building should be something that embedded in all work streams and all issues we are facing, including exchange information. because of the issues that we just heard the distinguished members and delegates highlighting. So I think this is something that we really need to invest on going forward to address multiple of the issues that we are having. Also, when we come in providing information and what challenges we are facing, and I'm here talking maybe in providing information based on the double tax treaties. I think one of the issue is the issue of confidentiality and data protections. I think all of us maybe stand at different level of maturity when it comes to confidentiality and especially when it comes to personal data protections. Different jurisdiction, including Saudi Arabia, legislated new laws and regulations to govern that. And I think one of the issue is that it's very hard to exchange information with country that stand at a different level of maturity than the country that is sending the information. And this is also coming from our domestic laws and regulation that you must make sure that the receiving country have robust policies and procedures for data protections before the information to be shared. So that's something also that we need to take into consideration for whatever we are developing when it comes to the exchange of information. Thank you.

Okay, it seems there's no other intervention on this one. So we can switch to, oh, sorry, Chair, Kenya, just.

Thank you, Chair. On the issues we're discussing, I think we had really elaborated on the issues we face. in exchange of information both last year when we were justifying the commitment on effective mutual administrative assistance and also in both work stream one and work stream three. But in a nutshell, the main challenges that we have faced is not in meeting, we have no issues when it comes with the legislation or the standards that are currently set in order for information to be exchanged. So we have the legislation, for example, on data protection. We meet the standards that are required, for example, on foreseeable relevance, but information is still not being exchanged. So for us, this is not an issue that would be solved through capacity building. We have the laws in place, we meet the standards, but for one reason or another, information is still not being exchanged. So in our view, or at least in our case, capacity building would not be able to solve such an issue. And then the other main issue we have had is in terms of the, it has been extremely expensive for us to put in the infrastructure required for this information to be exchanged. And for us to have such a burden as maybe one of the bigger economies in our continent, then it is much more of a challenge for other smaller economies. So it's been very expensive, but also where standards are met, information is not actually exchanged. So those are the challenges that we've been facing in exchange of information. In terms of, in context, to put this in context, since we are discussing the commitments, and here we are discussing the commitment on effective mutual administrative assistance, we do believe that the commitment should be adopted as it is in the terms of reference. And also just to echo what the delegate from Nigeria has said, if we are to take the same sentiments back to the discussion on fair allocation of taxing rates, Our initial comment was that we would prefer to have the commitment to be left as it is in the terms of reference in 10a. And from the discussions that we have had, the wide discussions, we know that they have just become more complicated the more we have tried to elaborate it. So we do believe that that commitment should be left as it is in 10a. And when we're looking at this commitment on mutual administrative assistance, we do believe that the terms of reference have already guided us. on the wording that we should adopt. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I do agree with the sentiments that have been mentioned by the member states that have spoken earlier. And just recently, Kenya, as Zambia, we joined the Global Forum last year and obviously under a three induction program. But as mentioned, with all the requirements that we have to meet in this short period of time, capacity obviously, as mentioned, is one big thing. But apart from that, there are also the standards that are obviously at the same level with other countries that have already been members and have been able to implement some of the standards earlier. So it therefore poses a challenge, unlike Kenya, obviously, that has their legislation in place. and infrastructure, we still have to always look at the costs that are associated with infrastructure. We did have our information security assessment done, and like Lesotho, we have about three years to meet those standards. But then with fair allocation of taxing rights, like Nigeria has mentioned, how do we then ensure that we have the information to ensure that the multinationals are taxed correctly, because then we still can't make those exchanges. I know with additional information and request, our network is very small. We only have 23 double taxation agreements in force. And so we obviously need to sign the MAC and that's something that we are exploring. But as like other countries and other developing countries, capacity is small. We are lucky we have government goodwill and therefore hoping that the ratification process of the MAC is going to be an easier thing. But it's not all countries that have that commitment from their governments to ensure that the legislative process is in place. So our experience as Zambia is that, as India has mentioned, the standards are okay, but the mechanisms of how developing countries will meet those standards is something I think that could be considered. I thank you.

Thank you. Senator of Honduras.

Thank you very much for giving me the floor, Chair. It's the first time I'm taking the floor and I'd like to express Honduras's firm support to the creation of this convention and We are glad that it's happening in the United Nations. With regard to this issue of exchange, it's not a very frequent practice for us. We don't have very many bilateral and multilateral conventions, and we find that we have problems of operability. We have limited capacity, for example. Other countries have mentioned this as well, and therefore we hope that this convention, in addition to working on what the global forum has been doing, will also provide resources, training and mechanisms that will enable the majority of participating countries to have this kind of exchange. We also have serious limitations when it comes to language. This is something that very many Latin American countries have referred to. The majority of documents are not in our official language, Spanish, and And so we have to get that information, uh, translated and that, uh, is an added complication and there may be a lack of clarity about the various concepts being dealt with when that has to occur. We also have problems with accessing language assistance. A lot of that assistance is not in our language, and so it prevents people getting technical assistance. So I would support what has been said by previous colleagues. In our case, We certainly need technical training, it should exist and at the same time there need to be resources allocated so that we can access both documentation, technological infrastructure and other resources that are necessary and required by developing countries. Thank you.

Okay, now we can move to the second part of the slide, which is what do we, the barriers we face in providing information if we have to. Is it the same issue of legal instruments? Is there resources to process the claims? Is there judicial restrictions on the exchange of information? I think Saudi Arabia mentioned something similar in terms of where the information is going to, or concerns about confidentiality. what really prevents some of us from giving out information? Again, just to help in the discussion on how to frame their commitment. Thank you. So, the floor is open, please. And I think, Barbara's given an example of the inhibitions in terms of coming, they don't have an income tax, so sometimes giving information becomes also a challenge. I mean, it's a very unique challenge that I realize. I'm sure some of us have such unique challenges. So let's bring all of them out. Anyone, I think Jamaica wanted to say something, or Malina, are you okay? Jamaica wanted to say something.

Distinguished delegate of Jamaica.

I'm sorry, Chair, sorry, Daniel, I was somewhere else one moment. The first point, receiving tax information. I'm going to raise this issue, but I'm not sure of the extent to which the Framework Convention can help with this, because it really is a regional issue. So Jamaica is a signatory to a regional double taxation agreement, which has several deficiencies, and that is recorded in fact. and is accepted by all signatories to that agreement. The problem with that agreement is that it does not have an appropriate exchange of information article, and it impacts our sovereign rights and it impacts our tax base as well. And so I was looking at the first bullet point you have there about lack of legal instruments providing for information exchange, and thinking that, yes, we do have -- well, whereas we have a legal instrument, there is a deficiency in that legal instrument that impacts our ability to exchange information. So because you were asking us to share our experiences, I just thought that I would share that that is one of our biggest problems in receiving information.

Thank you. Thank you, Zempia.

Okay, thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor again. So just to share some of the experience to some of the barriers that we face as a country when it comes to providing tax information to other countries. I did mention we currently exchange through our double tax conventions. And so far with the requests that we have received, they're not many, but we have had a number coming through. The biggest problem, I think, has been at a national level, which is the national ICT infrastructure and interfacing with other agencies as well, the stakeholders, where we are supposed to get that information from. As you know, not all the information is within the tax authority, for instance, and therefore we have to go to other organization or other stakeholders to get that information. And Uh, maybe it's a stress that needs to come from, um, a top level, but you'll find there would be mostly delays, uh, and not only delays from the other stakeholders, sometimes it's also within those other, um, stakeholders. from officers that say within their revenue authority because due to lack of capacity, they do not know the implications on why it is important for that information to be passed on and meet the standards. For example, we do have the thresholds on when we should send that information out to the other jurisdiction. But because of lack of capacity among the auditors as well, that is something that lacks and therefore they wouldn't understand the urgency of why we need to provide that information so it also takes longer. And on top of that, obviously, would be the legal framework to make that exchange for partners that are not treaty partners with us. So we'll be unable to provide information. So I just thought maybe I could share that experience from our end. Thank you.

So I think Patricia here would like to have to ask a question, I think this question to Russia. So the floor is yours, Patricia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, coming back to Russia's input or suggestion of a facility on exchange of information at the United Nations, just to clarify, Is that a matter of infrastructure to facilitate the exchange bilaterally? Or would you be envisioning some role for the secretariat, for example, that would have to be written into the framework convention itself?

Russian Federation.

In this case, thank you very much for your question. In this case, we are seeing that an exchange of information is carried out in a fragmented fashion in different fora, in particular, for example, in the organization. And not all countries are members of that global forum on exchange of information. So in the broadest terms, our idea would be to create a platform that would facilitate, not using the Secretariat, but of course using a more global, if you don't mind me saying it, forum, to ensure for the possibility of such an exchange. We do understand that this is a very difficult challenge, but as an idea, We're talking about an international convention in the area of international taxation, and so surely a mechanism and a platform for its implementation should be the same. It should be international, it should be global. Thank you.

So I don't have any more requests for the floor from member states. So multi stakeholders, if any of you would like to take the floor. Thank you. Delegate of Philippines.

Yes.

For the Philippines, similar to Zambia, a challenge in providing EOIR or AEOI data or information lies with the timeliness. There are instances where the custodian of the information cannot provide the information within the period that is given. Sometimes they do question the authority in terms of confidentiality, looking at confidentiality or data privacy rules. But in, in, with, with something that the framework could help on, could, could contribute to exchange of information, I think is to establish communication lines between members that are exchanging information. There are instances where clarifications are needed or information is incomplete when a request is made and the requesting competent authority do not reply on time. So maybe something in that aspect can be looked at. Thank you.

Thank you. Distinguished delegate of Jamaica.

Thanks for the indulgence, Chair. Something just came to my mind regarding this topic on exchange of information. And I'm raising it. It's not in the TOR or anything. But one of the the areas that I know the OECD is working on is exchange of information as it relates to crypto assets. I don't know if that is one of the areas that we would be contemplating here. And as I think about that, it raises another issue in my mind. And it is while we are talking about exchanging of information as a you know, administrative cooperation across borders issue, I think part of the problem, and we are seeing it in Jamaica, is that if you don't have the state-of-the-art technology to protect the data that you have, then it becomes problematic. And I think that, I don't know, you know, how we would be able to address that in -- but I think especially for developing countries, because protecting the data that you have, and if you are unable to do that, and you are unable to mitigate those risks, then it becomes problematic for you in exchanging information with your other, you know, contracting states. So I'm just raising it as an issue for consideration whether or not the NC would be open to looking at that as something that affects the exchange of information across borders. Thanks, Chair.

Okay, as I see no more interventions or requests for the floor, so okay, distinguished representative of major group for children and youth.

Thank you, Chair.

My name is Jae Won Choi from the Dimoon Foundation.

I am 16 years old and I serve as a semantic focal point for tax at the FFD.

Children and Youth Constituency of the Major Group for Children and Youth.

First, Mr. Chair, children and youth.

Believe that information sharing and transparency is necessary in the production of an equitable tax convention that allows.

All stakeholders and rights holders to be meaningfully involved and informed.

Member States already share and exchange information on various platforms in the UN system, including the NDC portal.

And transparency framework under the UNFCCC, the World Environmental Situation Room hosted by UNEP, the Environmental Emergencies Portal.

Hosted by OCHA and UNEP, in which Member States continuously share national reports to these. Second, we believe that change is incapable of existing in isolation.

And therefore, we urge the promotion of a concrete legal.

Framework which allows the exchanging of information without imposition in any country's sovereignty or individual rights.

Third, we believe that partnership with children and youth stakeholders and civil society at large for such.

Information can become a gateway to more equitable and sustainable tax convention that would ensure intergenerational information exchange. We call for safeguards in such information sharing systems that protect the rights of indigenous persons and human rights defenders.

The bedrock of this convention would be trust between various actors.

Finally, we urge the committee to ensure adequate resources for information sharing, allowing young people to actively participate in the construction of more sustainable and cost friendly systems for information exchange, which will aid states implementation of the convention. Distinguished Chair, fellow colleagues, in order to craft this document, transparency is necessary and fundamental.

And such should be done in a safe and well-regulated means to ensure the future and safety of all stakeholders.

We thank you.

Thank you. So I think we reached the end of this session and the committee has concluded. It's for program work for today. And thank you for all your inputs and interventions. And we're going to tomorrow, there is no plenary. And we're going to continue our discussions on Friday morning, 10 a.m., in the same room. And we will dive a little bit in paragraph 19 of the issue notes for work stream one, in which there is other commitments. Uh, that still some work need to be done on it, so we'll start the discussion on paragraph 19 on Friday morning, 10 AM, the same room, thank you all and see you and have a good evening, thank you.