(3rd meeting) - Fifth Session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on the UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation (INC Tax) - 3 to 13 August 2026

Good morning, colleagues.

Good morning.

Yes.

Good morning, ma'am.

Nothing else.

Shall we go?

Yes.

We're very good.

Yes.

Because sometimes, you know, when there's a break, sometimes even during the day you keep it open.

Okay, that's good to know.

Thank you so much.

Was the event busy?

No, it was very informal.

Good morning, everyone. Okay, so today we are still on Workstream 1. Informal meetings to continue our discussions for the first zero draft for the text of, of the convention. Yesterday we successfully already discussed the first, uh, the Article 5 actually, yet we didn't finish Article 5, but yesterday by the afternoon session we get all the interventions from the member states, and now we are left with multi-stakeholders interventions for Article 5. Then after that, we are gonna move to the next article, uh, to the next articles in order as it's planned in the program of work. So now I'm gonna hand over to the co-lead Daniel to resume the discussion on Article 5 for the multi-stakeholders. Daniel, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair, and good morning to everybody. Welcome to today's session. Thank you all for yesterday's inputs. I believe they were very helpful and it helps move the work along. We, as we mentioned, would move to stakeholders today and want to start with the African Union can take the floor. Microphone time, please.

Thank you, Chair, co-facilitator. Good morning. The African Union is taking the floor on Article 5 to fully support the proposal of the African Group. Very well expressed by the eminent representative of Zambia and submitted in writing to this committee at its 4th substantive session. For Africa, Article 5 is not just one provision among many. It is a promise, the promise at the heart of this convention, an assurance that all countries where wealth is genuinely generated will fairly enjoy the right to tax that wealth. It is that promise that has led us here to New York, and it is in light of that process that our peoples will judge our capacity to address this fundamental question. We say this with regard to what was proposed, and the draft reflects the essential idea of this. The right to tax must be linked to genuine, real economic contribution, but an idea in and of itself cannot be relevant unless it generates tax revenue. In its current version, the article describes what should be fair allocation without actually guaranteeing the right to ensure it, and the article limits itself to asking member states to explore ways to achieve this. Africa, as you know, has already seen decades of exploration, and what we're seeking now is actual commitments. The text of the African Group expresses that commitment in clear terms. It recognizes that the place where the value is created, where it is located, where the markets are and consumers are located, is where revenues are generated. There is where the right to tax exists. And from that point of view, it guarantees that no country is deprived of its taxed revenue just because a business is benefiting from its population without establishing a presence there, a situation that more generally reflects the arrangements that we're describing today. It commits us all to take concrete measures in this regard, in particular with the development of sufficiently simple and clear rules that would allow to— that could be applied by all tax administrations and would allow for the end of former practices that we wish to do away with. From that point of view, we would like to reiterate our support for the proposal of the African Group and invite this committee to adopt the text of the African Group that was proposed during the 4th session. Thank you very much.

Thank you. ATAF, please.

Thank you, Chair, for giving us the floor, and good morning, colleagues. Chair, ATAF aligns itself fully with the position of the African Group on Article 5 as presented by the distinguished delegation of Zambia and submitted in writing in March following the 4th session of the INC. Our support, Chair, rests on technical diagnosis of the article itself and the need to protect the integrity of the article, Protocol Number 1, which rests on the article, and future protocols which may find its rooting and foundation upon this article. A fair allocation of taxing right provision, Chair, must do 3 trends. One, state the triggers that grant a jurisdiction's right to tax. Supply the guide rail, that's number 2, which is the standard by which those triggers are applied. And 3, give guidance for implementation. The current rendition does only a part of the second item. Paragraph 1 articulates a standard, which is real economic contribution, but confers and safeguards no taxing right to which that standard attaches. Paragraph 2 is procedural and arbitrary. An undertaking to explore and pursue is not a rule a tax administration can apply, nor one which a treaty partner must respect. The African Group's 3-paragraph alternative closes each gap in turn. Paragraph 1 applies the missing recognition value creation, market revenues, user data, and economic activity. While paragraph 2 supplies a guardrail, allocation of taxing rights which must reflect real economic contribution, fortified by a non-derogatory rule that states that no state party may be denied the right to tax solely because the taxpayer lacks physical presence. This rule is necessary corollary of Article 1 and Paragraph 2 of the principal article. Paragraph 3, as we noted yesterday, supply implementation guidelines pointing at domestic measures, protocols, simplifying nexus and allocation rules, coordination against both overtaxation and non-taxation. And most importantly, recognition of the need to renegotiate certain tax treaties. Chair, without renegotiating of the existing tax treaties, we do not see how this fair allocation will pan out in practice. And we make a point that while this has been acknowledged in paragraph 21, there may be need to restore this very important aspect of fair allocation of taxing rights to commitment segment And we so move. From the tax administration seat who we represent, we underline that paragraph 3C, simplifying exit and allocation rules, are what capacity-constrained tax administration can actually apply and what gives taxpayers certainty. ATAP therefore joins the call for the adoption of the African group as supplied by the relevant delegation supported by other member states and then this morning the African Union. Thank you.

CCFD, please.

Thank you, Mr. Khalid. Distinguished delegates, good morning, everyone. I'm speaking on behalf of CCFD-Terre Solidaire and the Global Alliance for Tax Justice. As we move towards drafting a text that we believe must lay the foundations for a simpler, fairer, more effective tax International tax system. We—you won't be surprised that civil society calls to remain faithful to the mandate given to the negotiating committee by the General Assembly. Paragraph 10a of the terms of reference explicitly calls for the fair allocation of taxing rights, including the equitable taxation of multinational enterprises. We therefore have a very concrete proposal of an additional Article 5bis on this. We believe that this article should constitute a clear mandate to the COP. To address equitable taxation of MNEs in several ways. Among the key ways to do this should be that the COP should provide an international system for taxing multinational enterprises on the basis of their global consolidated profits, with taxing rights being allocated fairly between states on the basis of an agreed formula. The COP can provide further operational details on this, and we already have specific proposed text on this and are ready to present this to the INC, as we have in the past through our catalog of proposed articles. The omission of this article on equitable taxation of multinational enterprises must urgently be corrected to enable states to regain control over multinational companies whose abusive practices have for too long been eroding tax sovereignty and public finances of most states represented here. Civil society has worked tirelessly to demonstrate with supporting evidence that unitary taxation is by no means a pipe dream but a necessary paradigm shift, the effects and above all the benefits of which we can now reliably assess. Public Services International and the Tax Justice Network have just published a comprehensive study a few days ago with very clear findings. Nearly all countries in the world would see their corporate tax revenues rise dramatically. Low-income and high-income countries alike across every continent. To give you a few figures, Brazil's tax revenues from multinationals would increase by 62%, France's by 77%, India's by 194%, Kenya's by 406%, and Nigeria's by 641%. These are not just fictitious figures, but the hundreds of billions urgently needed to fund everywhere public services, social protection, the fight against climate change, development, health, and education. G77 countries would collectively collect more in a single year than the total amount they owe to the IMF in outstanding loans. EU countries would collect enough to quadruple spending on climate adaptation in agriculture, energy, and transport. For the first time in tax history, we would have more winners than losers. And this needed commitment will only be effective if we once and for all put an end to the arm's-length principle and the transfer pricing and make multinationals pay where they play and not earn any more where they stay, with a system of unitary taxation with formulaic apportionment, which would finally treat multinational enterprises as single entities. Thank you.

Thank you. GATJ, please.

Co-lead, distinguished delegates, I speak on behalf of the Global Alliance for Tax Justice and the African Civil Society Group on the UN Tax Convention. We welcome the progress reflected in the current draft text, particularly the stronger recognition of the importance of a fair allocation of taxing rights. This is an important step towards fulfilling the mandate established in the terms of reference. Paragraph 10 identifies fair allocation of taxing rights, including equitable taxation of multinational enterprises, as a core area for the Convention, while paragraph 9 calls for an international tax system that contributes to sustainable development by ensuring fairness in the allocation of taxing rights. While the draft has evolved, important issues remain. We remain concerned that by the inclusion of value creation among the parameters for determining a fair allocation of taxing rights. We are concerned that the concept is too vague and subjective to be relied upon to adequately protect source country taxing rights. This concept that has mainly been explored within the context of the implementation of the arm's length principle has not been adequately reliable. While the intention is to ensure that profit allocation aligns with substance, in many instances, due to the subjective nature of functional analysis, has instead facilitated profit shifting by allowing profits to be allocated to low-tax jurisdictions such as preferential IP regimes and has not effectively reflected where genuine economic activity exists. We therefore encourage member states to reconsider the inclusion of value creation as a guiding parameter for this article. We believe that reference to where real economic activity is is adequate in protecting source country jurisdiction, and therefore we offer our support for this text. Finally, we encourage member states to strengthen the implementation of this article. Rather than merely committing parties to explore and pursue cooperative approaches to support the fair allocation of taxing rights, the convention should expressly mandate the Conference of the Parties to periodically review the implementation and the effectiveness of this article and recommend further measures to advance a genuinely fair allocation of taxing rights. We are happy to provide proposed text that reflects our position on this so far. Thank you.

All right, thank you. We now have Stakeholder 1, that's 6F LEC.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I speak on behalf of the Climate Change Finance Group for Latin America and the Caribbean. Extractive industries from natural resources commodities represent a large share of revenues for Global South countries. Special characteristics of this industry make a special case to be addressed separately. That's why we want to echo specific text proposals already submitted by fellow CSO networks, for inclusion in the Convention. In Africa, illicit financial flows amount to at least $40 billion were linked to extractive commodities according to the 2020 UNCTAD study in Africa. This reveals the sector-specific vulnerabilities towards IFFS, which is critical to be addressed. Extractive industries do not pay for the damage they leave behind. This includes damage from forest deforestation, land degradation, water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and impacts to affect communities and to indigenous peoples. Damages that countries later have to pay. This means these multinational enterprises not only don't pay a fair share of taxes to the countries in which they extract resources, but they are not made accountable for the expenditure Global South countries have to engage to cover the damages. This is a double loss. Additionally, tax systems should not incentivize activities that generate environmental harm. Evidence from the Sustainable Finance Index in Latin America and the Caribbean shows that carbon-intensive sectors, primarily extractive industries, receive preferential treatment that, as a consequence, generate revenues approximately 19 times greater than those associated with sustainable activities. This creates negative incentives that are inconsistent with the objective of aligning financial flows under Article 2.1 of the Paris Agreement. This missing article will be critical to ensure that the Conference of State Parties is provided with the mandate to address this, which includes specific valuation methods that reflect the long-term costs of permanent losses of non-renewable natural resources, as well as the environmental and social impacts of extraction. These valuation methods should serve as the basis for determining fair share measures for extractive industries. That's why we call for a specific article that will ensure effective taxation of extractive industries in source countries, including by ensuring a fair allocation of taxation right, as well as combating sector-specific illicit financial flows and harmful tax practices, including harmful tax practices. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. CFS, please.

Mr. Kohlitz, and good morning to everyone. Yesterday, some concerns were raised around the use of the phrase real economic contribution and what it means. Suggestions were made for the word real to be dropped and for the phrase real economic contribution to be substituted with economic activity. I think Article 5 should now be seen from 2 perspectives. The first perspective is that of physical presence, so that fair allocation of taxing rights based on economic activity is legally sound. The second perspective is that of enterprises with no physical presence at all. And this is really what this article should be looking into. Now, if we look at the market today, digital platforms are earning profits from my country. They're selling adverts to the Kenyan market, for example, collecting and using the data of our users. And all of this is being done with no office in place, no staff, and no equipment on our soil. If I ask where its economic activity is, then under the traditional understanding, the answer is, of course, not in my country. And no activity then means no taxing right, even though the earnings from our market are real and they are continuing. So that is the gap that the words real economic contribution are there to close. The market contributes, the users contribute, the data contributes, So the 2 terms are not competing with each other. When we speak about economic activity, it speaks to the first situation, but real economic contribution, it speaks to the second. So if we drop the word real or replace the phrase with economic activity, we are not clarifying the second situation at all. We are removing it from the article. My last observation as well on Article 5 is on value. Creation. Article 5 gives us the criterion for fair allocation, which is the real economic contribution of each jurisdiction. It then illustrates that criteria with the list where value is created, markets are located, revenues are generated, and users or data are located. And if we look at that list very closely, markets, revenue, users, and data, all these are facts, we can point to them. Where value is created is not a fact. It is a legal conclusion. And a legal conclusion cannot be drawn without a legal test in itself. To say value is created here or value is not created somewhere else, an interpreter then must first know what value creation actually means, what it includes, as well as what it excludes. So that test can only come from a definition, and this Convention must now provide a definition on value creation. So, CFS, we've tried to attempt to draft a possible definition of value creation, which we shall try and finalize and submit before the end of the deadline. Thank you, Mr. Khalid.

Thank you.

Thank you, Co-Lord, for the opportunity. I have some comments which are— some of them are drafting in nature and there are some of them are substantive. When we compared this new article with the previous version of February 26th version, this is substantial dilution and very disappointing in that sense. If I can say, Para 1 is giving a high-level meaning or giving qualities of what constitutes fair allocation, and Para 2, you know, separately defines what is to be done. So comments on Para 1. In Para 1, the words in generation of income after the words economic contribution of each level jurisdiction should be added. So effectively, this will read economic contribution of each relevant jurisdiction in generation of income. So that's the one suggestion. The word including in Para 1 is suggesting that this is an inclusive kind of a definition. So the list of jurisdictions which is given is not complete, you know, depending on how the business models evolve further. There's a window kept open, so there's an inclusive definition. And from that perspective, The word and which is appearing in the definition which was debated yesterday may be deleted. Also for the reason that the word and is appearing at one more location, one more place after in the same sentence. The words taking into account may be replaced by the word takes into consideration, which is a minor English correction. Well, a concern was raised about how to allocate taxing rights based on activities listed in Para 1, is there a hierarchy, etc.? Now, one approach to achieve an absolute certainty could be to put weightages on each activity listed in Para 1 and dividing taxing rights based on that activity. Depending on when or where the activity is conducted, there will be a proportion which will be created, and effectively that results in a formula. Now, my comments on Para 2, the words with a view to reducing the risk of double taxation or non-taxation needs to be deleted. These words significantly dilute Article 5 and probably makes it futile. The fair allocation is not only for the purpose of avoiding double taxation or double non-taxation. Fair allocation in itself is the main objective. You know, when you use the word with the objective of double— reducing double non-taxation, there's a significant dilution. Let's say in current tax treaty network, the source country does not get any taxing right, you know, for cross-border services. There is no double non-taxation. The residence country is still taxing it. So are we saying that it results in a fair allocation? That explains why the words should be deleted. There's a suggestion. I'm suggesting one more paragraph, Para 3, should be added. in this article, and that para may say that the state parties shall give higher taxing rights to the countries with lower per capita GDP. And let me explain what it means. For example, if a developing country is a source country, it may be given 15% taxing rights as a source country. But if a developed country is a source country, the one which is with a higher per capita GDP, GDP, then it should be given a 10% tax rate. So this positive discrimination, you know, effectively results in achieving the objective of fair allocation, achieving, you know, protection of human rights, and achieving sustainable human developments. Thank you.

Thank you. PSI, please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Kolig. I'm speaking on behalf of Global Labour. Public Services International brings together 700 trade unions. We represent the voice of 300 million— of 30 million workers, and we work closely on this matter with the International Trade Union Confederation, also in this room, bringing together workers from all economic sectors and all parts of the world. My key message today is that the negotiations are not simply, or should not simply be, negotiations between tax authorities of the world. Your decision and your non-decisions will have a direct and significant impact on workers at their workplace. The taxation of corporate income profits shape many business decisions on where they can book their profits, and the whole structure of a business group. In particular, the abuse of intra-group transactions has an impact on job levels, on wages, and in general on the unfair share of value between labor and capital. For this reason, labor very much supports a strong Article 5 that over time in an appropriate protocol will pave the way for a fair allocation of taxing rights through unitary taxation. However, we note with concern that there is no reference to labor as one of the key factors of value creation. This is even more surprising as other factors seem somehow overlapping with, for example, a heavy insistence on market and on revenues. Without humans, there is no economic creation, there is no profit, there is no value. We therefore ask delegates to add a reference to labor in Article 5. In due course, further discussions can be held on the relative weighting and design of each of the relevant factors. Thank you.

Thank you. ILO, please.

Thank you, Mr. Kohli, and good morning to our colleagues. At the outset, I wish to recognize the presence of our social partners, some of whom have made statements before me. We have heard discussions yesterday and this morning about the importance of this article being the heart of the convention, and in that regard, we would want to encourage member states to ensure that this article also addresses the position of fair taxation in relation to cross-border workers, including remote workers and digital nomads, who may work in a jurisdiction different from that of their employer, clients, or nationality, and in many cases these workers face uncertainty regarding taxation, social security affiliation, and the payment of contributions. Existing bilateral and multilateral social security agreements provide important solutions to this, but coverage remains uneven and has not kept up pace with new forms of cross-border work. Some jurisdictions require digital nomads to join a social security system, while others offer tax and contribution exemptions that may leave workers without adequate protection. We therefore invite member states to consider the inclusion of a provision in this article on the fair allocation of taxing rights aimed at ensuring that all workers and employers contribute to social security in line with national legislation, social security agreements, UN human rights instruments, and the ILO international labour standards. This is not a marginal concern. Social security contributions represented 7.1% of GDP in 2024 against 19.2% of GDP from general taxation. Given the scale of revenue at stake, any framework governing the fair allocation of taxing rights must also safeguard the base from which social security is financed. As highlighted in paragraph 27 of the Compromiso de Sevilla, international labor standards are identified as key to design social protection systems and mobilize domestic resources for its financing. Article 5 could also recognize the International Social Security Association database, which obviously aligns with our statement here, on international social security agreements as a practical source of information on existing bilateral and multilateral arrangements and as a tool to support the negotiation, implementation, and coordination of future agreements. Thank you.

Thank you. We now have the DMUN Foundation.

Thank you, Koli. I have the honor to deliver this intervention on behalf of the DMUN Foundation as the Assistant Observer and the Financing for Development Children and Youth constituency of Major Group for Children and Youth on Article V. We welcome the recognition that a fair allocation of taxing rights should reflect the real economic contribution of each relevant jurisdiction, including jurisdictions where value is created, markets are located, revenues are generated, and users or data are located. This approach is particularly relevant as digitalization and remote business models increasingly allow enterprises to maintain significant economic participation in a jurisdiction without a traditional physical presence. To support consistent implementation, we encourage further technical clarification of the factors listed in paragraph 1. This could include guidance on how value creation, market participation, participation, revenue generation, user engagement, and data-related activities should be identified, measured, and weighed. Clear standards will be necessary to reduce inconsistent interpretation, excessive compliance burdens, and disputes between jurisdictions. The convention should also clarify how these allocation factors interact with existing concepts such as residence, source, permanent establishment, transfer pricing, and beneficial ownership. Any allocation approach should be based on verifiable economic indicators. As economic indicate— as economic paradigms evolve, broader assessments of the convention's outcomes could also consider relevant well-being indicators consistent with ongoing work beyond DGP and aligned with the Pact for the Future and the Declaration on Future Generations. We also support the forward-looking language concerning the evolution of business models. Periodic technical reviews could assess whether new technologies, intangible assets, automated services, digital platforms, or other forms of remote economic participation require updated allocation criteria. Such reviews should follow transparent procedures and consider the administrative capacities of countries. Regarding paragraph 2, cooperative approaches should address both tax— double taxation and non-taxation. These approaches could include coordinated allocation rules, consistent documentation requirements, advance pricing or certainty mechanisms, joint audits, and timely mutual agreement procedures. Effective dispute prevention should be prioritized so that differences between jurisdictions do not result in prolonged uncertainty for governments or present and future taxpayers. Capacity building will also be necessary to ensure that all states can identify, value, and tax relevant cross-border economic activity. Support may include access to reliable data, comparable information, technical enterprise, and secure information exchange systems. Fair allocation of taxing rights can strengthen domestic resource mobilization and expand the physical space available for education, healthcare, digital infrastructure, employment, and other investment affecting young people. The DMUN Foundation and the Major Group for Children and Youth therefore encourage an approach that is technically coherent, administratively workable, adaptable to emerging business models, and intergenerationally equitable across jurisdictions. We thank you.

Thank you. NYU, please.

Thank you for the opportunity, and to the Secretariat and parties for your work on the Convention. In relation to Article 5, as has been stated, it is at the heart of the Convention. As stated by the delegate of Brazil, it is also a statement of principle. It is binding, but as a matter of principle. States Parties will be bound to work cooperatively to implement the principles in good faith and comity in future. An advantage of the principles-based framework is that it can accommodate state sovereignty and bilateral treaty diversity as already exists without generating uncertainty. Article 21 is, of course, relevant. States Parties may in future seek to define multilaterally detailed rules on a topic related to Article 5, perhaps a protocol. As we know, States Parties may also, or alternatively, explore domestic or bilateral solutions. On the terms in Article 5.1, we do propose to put in a written submission. The phrases value creation, where markets are located, where users or data are located, are not new phrases. These terms have been widely used in international tax discourse for more than a decade, including by these states in the room in many other forums on tax challenges of the global digital economy. They define the problem and are generally well understood by states in this room. Still, it's possible a definition of value creation or real economic contribution could be useful on specific I expect that users and data will remain relevant for many years to come. The phrases do not need a weighting or a hierarchy, which has been suggested by some. They are a list of relevant nexus factors where there is no physical presence. The article is about nexus for taxing business. Clarity could possibly be assisted if this was expressly stated. We are not talking about personal nexus or residence, for example. I agree with the Kenya delegate that the phrase economic activities may still remain useful, and for completeness, physical presence could even be included. This would help to make clear that the other nexus factors are crucial whether or not there is a physical presence. A phrase taking into account factors such as, as has been suggested by On Article 5.2, this could have a strengthened requirement of a specified aim to prevent both double taxation and non-taxation of business in accordance with the definition of a fair allocation of taxing rights of more than one jurisdiction in Article 5.1. Thank you.

Thank you. We now have the ICC, please.

Business community. However, we do remain concerned that the provision establishes only a general commitment to pursue cooperative approaches without providing effective mechanisms to ensure that double taxation is actually prevented or resolved where competing taxing claims may arise. More fundamentally, in Article 5, it adopts an exceptionally broad approach to the allocation of taxing rights. The allocate— the reference to markets, revenues, users, and data, including where activities occur without any physical presence, also contains no definition of any value-add exploitation or analysis of that value creation, if it exists. And this marks a significant departure from the traditional nexus principles that underpin the current international tax system. ICC believes that the taxing right should continue to be grounded in a genuine economic connection with the jurisdiction concerned, including specifically meaningful local activities, personnel, assets, or operations. Allowing taxation based solely on factors such as market location, users, or data without requiring substantive income presence risk creating overlapping claims to taxation and increasing uncertainty for both taxpayers and tax administrations. This concern is compounded, compounded by that open-ended reference to other factors that may become relevant as business models evolve, which could further reduce predictability regarding future taxing rates. Those concepts such as value creation, markets, etc., are not accompanied by sufficiently clear hierarchy methodology or legal test, making it difficult to determine how those principles could or should be applied in practice and how existing tax agreements should be assessed against them. ICC therefore emphasized that any expansion of taxing rights should be accompanied by binding, practical, and timely mechanisms for the elimination of double taxation and the resolution of disputes. Reliance solely on domestic domestic law remedies is unlikely to provide consistent or effective protection across jurisdictions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Ayata, please.

Thank you, Mr.— thank you, Mr. Collier. The International Air Transport Association, representing more than 370 airlines and approximately 85% of the Global Air Traffic, very much appreciates the opportunity to contribute to these discussions. As this is our first intervention, we would also like to thank you, the co-leads, and all delegations for their work on the draft Framework Convention. IATA supports the objectives of the Convention, and particularly the objective reflected in Article 5 of achieving a fair allocation of taxing rights among jurisdictions. From our perspective, Article 5 rightly recognizes that the allocation of taxing rights rights should take account of the economic and operational realities of different activities and business models. It is in that context that we would like to offer the experience of international aviation. International aviation is one of the very few sectors for which States have developed a long-standing and internationally recognised framework governing the allocation of taxing rights. A single journey may involve several jurisdictions at the same time. A ticket may be sold in one state, the passenger may depart from another, transit through a third, arrive in a fourth, while the airline itself is resident on a fifth. In response to these characteristics, states have, over many decades, developed a specific framework for allocating taxing rights in international air transport. This framework demonstrates how internationally coordinated rules can provide legal certainty and predictability while minimizing overlapping taxing claims and double taxation, even in a sector where a single commercial operation may involve multiple jurisdictions. That massive undertaking has been done under the auspices of the International Civil Organization, the United Nations specialized agency for aviation. ICAO's policies on taxation in the field of international air transport, Document 86232, recognize that international air transport should be protected protected from multiple taxation because such taxation would impede the orderly development of international civil aviation. Document A632 is not simply an ICAO Secretariat publication. It reflects the policy adopted by ICAO's 193 member states through the ICAO Council. The vast majority of bilateral air services agreements incorporate tax provisions reflecting ICAO policies and preserving the agreed allocation of taxing rights for international air transport. We believe that the experience of international aviation provides a useful practical example for the discussion of Article 5. States have already worked collectively to address the allocation of taxation rights in a sector characterized by inherently international operations, developing arrangements specifically adapted to its unique characteristics. Those arrangements have provided a fair and workable allocation of taxing rights while promoting legal certainty and minimizing overlapping taxing claims. In our view, they demonstrate how international coordination rules can successfully reflect the operational realities of a highly integrated global sector. Very few sectors have been subject to such a longstanding and internationally recognized allocation framework. We are not suggesting that international aviation frameworks should necessarily be replicated in other sectors. Rather, we submit that it illustrates the value of clear, internationally coordinated allocation rules for activities that inherently span multiple jurisdictions. Where states have already developed, through international consensus, sector-specific arrangements that provide legal certainty, avoid overlapping taxing rights, and reflect the operational characteristics of a particular sector, those arrangements represent a practical expression, in our view, of the principles reflected in Article V. We therefore invite Member States, in their consideration of Article V, to recognize that, for a very small number of sectors, such arrangements already exist and should be allowed to continue operating consistently with the objectives of the Framework Convention. We respectfully suggest that the Framework Convention should preserve sufficient space for those international arrangements to continue operating consistently with its objectives. Thank you, Mr. Kolito.

Thank you. Now, Stakeholder 2, that's the UN Independent Expert on Foreign Debt.

Thank you very much for the floor, and good morning, everybody. I would like to reflect on 6 things as regards Article 5, and I'm looking at this particular from the approach of inequality, which is the center focus of the treaty. Currently, as we speak, there is a treaty being negotiated at the International Seabed Authority. There is also negotiations on biomedical research as regards the high seas. And if we move into airspace and into outer space, which is something I have mentioned previously, then issues around research and materials are starting to appear, and the reason I raise this is because of the conversation around evolution of business models. It is extremely critical that we maintain a futuristic approach in this particular article while we look at the current challenges that we are faced in tax issues. And so when we look at economic activity, the language of real economic contribution will be unclear, not not only for legal professionals but also, I believe, for accounting professionals, and I think it was reflected by those working in dispute resolution as well. There may be a need, as a result, to have clarity on the phrase but also a definition of it. And again, in the context of the high seas which I have referred to, the question then becomes on not just about ending double taxation but how to actually end non-taxation. Areas of the high seas are often referred to informally as the Wild Wild West, and it is because there are no regulations governing it. So it is extremely critical that we put in guidelines around it. The International Seabed Authority, as we speak, is developing the formula on the sharing of resources, and I hazard to say that this particular article is a reflection of what this formula is that we want to approach or look at. And so having a liaison point with the team at the International Seabed Authority, but also the ones working on bio— on medical research elements as well as biological research in the high seas, becomes extremely critical. The 4th point that I have seen reflected across the room is actually the issue around fairness. And it may be a case to be made to define fairness and what we mean by fairness, because if we continue to use the language that says reduction of the risks of double taxation and non-taxation, then reduction means what would be the fair part of it, what would be the inequality that we will be addressing, and at what point will we say that the inequality has been resolved. And so having a clarity in that would be quite important. Important. And so the question then arises for me is, is there a role in this particular article for the Conference of Parties? And I believe the issue of evolution of business models is something that should stay in, not only because they are evolving at an incredible pace, but also because this could be a task allocated to the Conference of Parties. I also think it is worth reflecting, and it will be in my submission, later in the month, that we have referred specifically in other places to countries under special circumstances, but I think the one type of country that does start to feature when I talk about the high seas is actually landlocked countries. And so I think we do need to talk about countries under special circumstances, and this may vary depending on the type of inequality we are trying to resolve. I thank you for your time.

Thank you. CEDD, please.

Merci, collègues. Thank you, collègues. I speak on behalf of the Cabinet for Studies and Advisory Services on the Environment. We thank delegations who have raised questions regarding Article 5th physical presence and the wording of paragraph 1. These are legitimate questions asked in good faith, and they deserve a concrete response. On physical presence, first of all, taxation without physical presence is not a novelty that this convention would introduce. It is an established practice in many members of this committee. Many European countries apply taxes on digital services of 2 to 5% from the revenue generated by their users, even if businesses may have no presence on their territory. These are real tax revenues, and many countries have announced that they'll do the same next year. The EU VAT rules tax electronic services at the location of the consumer since 2015 without any physical presence required. In 2018, in the Wayfair case, the Supreme Court ruled that economic presence is enough. The UN Model Conventions since 2021 contain an article on automated digital services without the requirement of a permanent establishment. Uh, there is also tax withholding on cross-border payments, including in conventional European practice. Revenue is taxed at the source without physical presence. We are therefore not asking our friends to accept an idea that is foreign to them. We're asking that they share at the multilateral level an idea that is already working in their countries. More than 130 jurisdictions, including all of those who have taken the floor, have in 2021 endorsed the principle of allocation of taxing rights market jurisdictions without physical presence. Article 15 only takes this shared experience and puts it into this convention. Precise definitions belong in the protocols, and that is where they will be written. On the proposal to replace and by or in paragraph 1, we would offer a friendly observation. The list Is introduced by the work, including, and there is also each relevant jurisdiction. No jurisdiction is expected or required to meet all of these factors. The paragraph recognizes that a number of categories of jurisdictions together, altogether contribute. Our reservation regarding or is of a practical nature. Thank you. It's a matter of legal certainty for us, or would make these factors— would present these factors as alternatives. And alternatives bring the questions which— alternative options bring the question of which one of them is the primary one, which prevails. We don't want to introduce this ambiguity into the foundation of this convention. If colleagues read the current text as a cumulative one, there is a simple remedy that could satisfy and reassure everyone. The paragraph could say, uh, including jurisdictions where one or more of the following elements are present: value is created, markets are located, revenues are generated, or users and data are located. Each factor alone is sufficient. None of them excludes the others. Our friends will have their or in the article, and the article will remain balanced. We make this language available to the committee as well as a short phrase that clarifies it and links Article 5 to Protocol Article 20, and we offer this to all delegations for their consideration. Thank you.

Thank you for those interventions. The suggestions are duly taken note of, and we will note all of them. Since we've finished with what we plan to do Thank you. Thank you very much. That concludes what we have to do in terms of listening to stakeholders. We will take a quick 5 to 10 minute break, then we'll move to the next article, which will be Article 6. So we'll take a 5 to 10 minute break, then we come back to Article 6. Thank you. Hello everyone.

So, thank you for your contributions and participation in the discussion of Article 5. Now we are done with the multi-stakeholders interventions. Thank you. So now we are moving to Article 6, which is high net worth individuals. So I pass the floor to my colleague Daniel to start the discussion. The floor is yours. Thank you, Chair,

and welcome back everybody from the break. Now, we have provided some text again based on our discussions for Article 6. We've merged a few of the things. We've dropped some parts of what we had initially, and we've provided for some general information. Again, the question is whether the current draft strikes the kind of balance that we are looking for between cooperation and then the issue of sovereignty and all the other things we've. Discussed. And so with that, I would like to open the floor for discussion on Article 6. Yes, on Article 6. So here we have— and

as we mentioned earlier, as we go through the various articles, we have put where we expect written comments on them, so we can send our comments on them, put our comments together so that we can offer them. The idea is to, as we mentioned earlier, is to have these discussions on the earlier ones that we've done, speed up on those ones, and then those that we just did over the intersession between March and June, which we haven't discussed in plenary. We can spend a lot more time on that. So the suggestion again is that let's be succinct. Let's just bring out the things which are not there, which we want to come out with, and which we need to address. Thank you. I see Switzerland, Article 6, because we have exhausted Article 5. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kohlied.

I just wanted to add one more thing to Article 5, as I think it is really a fundamental article. Article 5, Article 21 are the key foundation, I think, of our Framework Convention. We had very interesting discussion yesterday and this morning. I think it's really important that we can find as broad a consensus as possible for these 2 articles. It's crucial to the future or the buy-in to this Framework Convention. And in that light, in view of all the interesting proposals that were made yesterday, If we remember, in February we had 3 extra proposals: India, Sweden, and African group, if I believe. I was hoping we'd merge these this spring, which we never got to do, and it seems now that we're going to have even more proposals than that compared to February. So all this to say that if we do have some extra time, I think it would be very valuable to organize an informal informal to discuss Article 5. I know that our time— it's not in the agenda, and I understand that there are time constraints, but it seems to me in February we had very productive discussion when we spent time speaking on this issue and others in our informal informals. So I would suggest in that light that if we do have more time, We try to have an informal and formal on Article 5 to try to narrow down the different options, maybe out of a pure efficiency point of view, because if we end up after the written comments with 6 proposals when we had 3 in the month of February, it seems like, yeah, it's maybe not the progress that we were hoping for. Thanks, Susan Lentz. Your

request is noted. This will depend on the time, so hopefully we're gonna finish early, then we can start organizing informal informals. Depends on the time, but we took note of your request. Thank you. Okay, thank you. India, please. Thank you, co-lead, and before

we move to our comments on Article 6, I would like to lend support to the proposal made by Switzerland, and the distinguished delegate of Switzerland was absolutely right that it is time to start synthesizing the proposals that we have rather than trying to, I mean, have a multiple number of proposals. Because that will probably only complicate our work. Now, turning to Article 6, which is high net worth individuals, this has been an article that has had a lot of attention from all of us. It's an important piece of this Framework Convention and a key goal that we have chosen for ourselves Now, I would preface my comments with what I mentioned yesterday in the context of Article 5, or any article for that matter, that the article, while it has to strike the balance between specificity and being high level, it must set out what it wishes to do and indicate how it wishes to do it. So the first thing that we would like to flag in terms of the article related to high net worth individuals is that at some point we will need a definition of high net worth individuals. Now, it is a matter to be decided by this committee as to whether that definition should be in this Article 6 or it should be in Article 3. Article 3 will require some more consideration because I think a A lot of definitions are being generated by the various articles that we have gone through so far, including Article 5, because if we would have to define real economic contribution, we will have to define what we mean by economic activity and so on and so forth. So similarly, we will have to define what do we mean by high net worth individuals. That is the first point. Now coming to the text of Article 6 as it stands today. If we compare the text that was there the last time we met and the text that we have today, if you look at paragraph 1, paragraph 1 now reads, state parties shall cooperate to enhance measures to detect, deter, and prevent tax avoidance and evasion by HNIs. It used to read earlier, state parties shall develop and implement measures to detect. So now the question that is that have we lost our proactive nature by replacing develop and implement with cooperate to enhance? So does it mean that are we going to just pick up on what we have so far and work on that and we will do nothing new? So that is a point that we need to consider, that was develop and implement better than cooperate to enhance, because by By this change, have we lost the proactive nature of what we seek to do? The second paragraph now reads, the state parties shall share general information. Now, general is the addition to this paragraph. So does it again mean that we have lost our specificity? Because in the discussions that we've had so far, I think exchange of information, if my understanding is correct, exchange of information was one very key tool that we had identified in our work related to combating avoidance and evasion by high net worth individuals. So by adding the word general, that qualification of general before information, before the word information, have we lost our specificity? Have we lost that key tool that we had found out for ourselves to combat avoidance and evasion by HNIs? I think that that is what has happened. So we don't really believe that we have added worth by addition of the word general. Similarly, when we go to paragraph 3, Paragraph 3 now reads, the State Parties shall explore coordinated approaches to ensure effective taxation of HNIs while respecting each State Party's sovereignty to determine design, structure, and level of taxation. Earlier, this sentence ended at high net worth individuals. It simply said that the State Parties shall explore coordinated approaches to ensuring effective taxation of high net worth individuals. My point is that there is a difference of focus when we use the term effective taxation and when we introduce the concept of level of taxation. At least India, over the— in these discussions, we have always spoken out against setting a minimum level of taxation. We've always found that effective taxation is a better phrase than minimum level of taxation wherever it was used in the past. Now, by using both of these terms in this paragraph, have we created— are we running into each other? Is the language running into itself? Because we use effective taxation in the first half and then we seem to have a kind of a level of taxation in our mind. So I think we have created a kind of a contradiction within this language, within the language of this paragraph itself. So we believe that the language as it read earlier, that the state parties shall explore coordinated approaches to ensuring effective taxation of high net worth individuals, was very clear. I can understand that there are concerns about sovereignty of design, etc., that is understood, but in that effort, by introducing the concept of level of taxation, In our opinion, we have created a contradiction in this, in the language of this paragraph. So I think these are some of the points that we would encourage the committee to consider, and we are open to discussing suggestions on text because I think that is the way that we should now start moving forward. Thank you. Thank you, and maybe if I can add

a little something to The issue of the informal informals. What we can also do is that we can start discussing some of the texts bilaterally so that we can do that. So just in case we are not able to have time to do the informals, the countries or the state parties that have such suggestions can discuss among themselves, come to some agreement. as we go along. As I said, just in case we can have it so that at least there can be some merging and some meeting of minds. Thank you. Belgium, please. Thank you. Thank you, co-lead. I just wanted

to echo basically what India just said on this article, and first I want to come back that we also support the Swiss proposal to have informal informals, which was also reaffirmed by the Indian distinguished delegate. So we agree on Article 6 that the definition is something that has to come in Article 3 normally, and that that's still an issue that is open. What is a high net worth individual? Also, the general on— at the information is a bit strange to put it there. And then another issue for Belgium is the fact that here, although it's an over— it should be an overarching principle to protect national sovereignty, now here we are going to say it specifically only in Article 6 that the state party sovereign right has to be respected. It is a bit strange. And that is again why Belgium still believes there should be a separate article on the protection of sovereignty. Like we see in other UN conventions, and it should not be only here repeated in Article 6 because it's a principle that counts for every article. So it should be deleted in paragraph 3 of Article 6 because it's an overarching principle. Yeah, just— and I also want to say that it's always good to stay up very late because of the jet lag, The Assistant Secretary-General also said in her speech, one of her messages was that we should ensure that the international tax system respects the national sovereignty. So I would say if that is her— one of her 3 main messages, then we can devote an article to this specific message that she gave us. Thank you. Thank you. Cecilia, please. Thank you, Mr. Cowie,

for giving me the floor. First,

let me support the proposal for having informal informals. We think that given the timing of the negotiations, it is time to start discussing text and wording of individual provisions in a more focused manner, and Article 5 would be an ideal place to start with this practice. Regarding Article 6 in general, we would like to say that we understand that a discussion about the definition of high net worth individuals has already taken place. However, we think that the Framework Convention should say in its legal text how this term will be defined, or ideally define it in the Framework Convention, as the distinguished delegate of India suggested. Otherwise, we could say that the definition will be defined in a protocol or based on applicable domestic law. This might also apply to other terms that are not defined in the Framework Convention, In relation to paragraph 2, we would like to suggest changing the text from shall share to shall cooperate to share. We believe that this change would allow a greater participation of member states in the Framework Convention. Regarding paragraph 3, we would like to support the intervention of the distinguished delegate from Belgium. Last, we have a minor drafting point. The word high net worth individuals is written in various ways in the Framework Convention. Hence, we think that this should be solved. aligned. Thank you. Thank you. Brazil, please. Thank you, Khalid. Yes, I would

like to echo the intervention

from our colleague from India. The text, as it reads right now, it's way more proactive— it's way less proactive than it used to be before. So even though we welcome the maintenance of this provision dedicated on high net worth individuals, since it reflects the importance of addressing one of the key challenges facing international tax cooperation today. And also the article as we read right now emphasizes cooperation to detect and prevent tax avoidance and evasion, but it no longer contains sufficient substantive commitments. So for paragraph 1, we suggest changing shall cooperate to enhance to a more precise language, and then we would— we should read shall develop and implement measures to detect, and so on. We also agree with the proposal made by our, our Indian colleague to that the word general in paragraph 2, it's not adding much to its objectivity, so we should delete this word. And we also have concerns regarding the repeated reference to national sovereignty in paragraph 3. The sovereign right of states to determine their tax policies is already explicitly recognized as one of the guiding principles of the Convention in Article 2. So repeating this principle in individual substantive articles, it's unnecessary and may unintentionally weaken the operational commitments contained in these provisions. We therefore support removing the specific reference to sovereignty in Article 6. So the article should read, the state parties shall adopt coordinated approaches to ensure tax progressivity and effective taxation of high net worth individuals. We believe that adopting coordinated approaches is essential to combating tax avoidance and evasion, which are inherently cross-border challenges. And that cannot be adequately addressed through isolated national action alone. So to conclude, a stronger collective commitment in this regard would only reinforce both the effectiveness of this convention and its overarching objective of fostering a fair and more coherent international tax system. I'll stop here. Thank you. Thank you. Germany, please. Thank you, Mr. Tulliet. First, I would

like to agree with the idea

that providing a dedicated space for further discussions on Article 5 in an informal informal would be beneficial and much appreciated. With respect to Article 6, We welcome the greater emphasis that is being placed on cooperation compared to the previous version of the text. In our view, existing international information exchange mechanisms should remain the primary instrument of that cooperation in the area. We also welcome that the article recognizes national tax sovereignty. The inclusion of that statement is appropriate. At the same time, it is very peculiar that this aspect is highlighted exclusively in this article, and in our view, similar or kind of exactly as was said by the distinguished delegate from Belgium, it is a— the concept of sovereignty is a fundamental concern and should rather be enshrined in the dedicated article and a dedicated separated provision and apply to all commitments across, across the convention. Thank you. Thank you. Jamaica, please. Thank you, Chair. We also support the

suggestion by Switzerland

on having the space to have further discussions, particularly on Article 5. And we would also like to align ourselves with the suggestions by India in terms of the language to Article 6. Now, on Article— and we'll be sending written input as well— on Article 6, Chair, I believe that this article is really aimed at addressing the issue of inequality in a tax system where high net worth individuals have the resources to arrange their affairs in such a manner that allows them to avoid taxes. Our concern is that as far as tax avoidance is, is viewed, usually it is viewed as legal in certain circumstances. And so Paragraph 1 seems to suggest that we are equating avoidance with evasion, which is an intentional act on the part of the individual to evade the legal structure, tax structure of the country. So we think we ought to have a look again at whether or not we ought to have some qualifying words around avoidance and evasion. I think we can accept that that should not be permitted. In terms of the arrangement, um, following on, on what I've just said, I think the paragraphs should probably start with— Article 6 should really start with paragraph 3. Because I think that that is the main intent of Article 6, to explore coordinated approaches to— and whatever the language turns out to be. But I think paragraph 3 is aimed at us having cooperation to ensure that the high net worth individuals are taxed in a manner that is fair within the national tax system. and then be followed by paragraph 2 and then paragraph 1. That will be in our written input, but those are our comments. Thank you. Spain, please. I'll be very brief in my intervention. What we want to

say is that Spain

supports this article on high net worth individuals in the Framework Convention. And we'd like to mention with regard to paragraph 3, as we have stated in various opportunities, there's a need for taxation of these high net worth individuals. In addition to being effective, it should be progressive. Therefore, we suggest in paragraph 3 of Article 6 that we add the word progressive. Thank you. Thank you. Estonia, please. Thank you. First, I would like to support the

proposal made by Switzerland

regarding the informal, informal meetings to discuss Article 5. Then going to this article, we also think that we should give some indication or define who is a high net worth individual in order to avoid any later clashes between the States Parties when one thinks that a particular person should be subject to this article and the other State believes that this is not a high net worth individual. Also, we support the proposal of Belgium to have a horizontal article on the sovereignty. Now, going to paragraph 2 and sharing of general information, I believe that we already have a horizontal provision for that kind of activity, namely paragraph 1 of Article 11. In conjunction of subparagraph A or even without it, because the second sentence of Article— paragraph 1 of Article 11 reads that in particular information shall be exchanged that would be helpful to a state party in preventing avoidance or evasion of such taxes, and I believe that what we say What we say here in paragraph 2 is already covered there. So in order to avoid any confusion whether paragraph 2 of Article 6 is in any way different from second sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 11, then perhaps we should consider deleting paragraph 2. Thank you. Thank you. Norway, please. Thank you, Mr. Kolied. We appreciate that some of our

proposals for paragraphs

1 and 3 from the last session have been taken into account. We agree that exchange of information is a fundamental approach to prevent tax avoidance and tax evasion by high net worth individuals and tax avoidance and tax evasion in general. In our view, the level of operational detail in paragraph 2 goes beyond the operational level— well, it goes beyond what is appropriate here in this article, which should remain high level. It's unclear to us if paragraph 2 gives a self-standing basis for exchange of information outside established EOI frameworks, as also pointed to by Germany and I think also Estonia. We would encourage a more flexible approach and formulation based on our proposal from the previous session, which read, such measures may include, as appropriate, exchange of information, experiences, and best practices regarding structures and techniques. Used by net worth individuals to avoid and evade taxes. This formulation leaves it up to further consideration on how it should be operationalized. We believe that this approach achieves the same objective while providing states with greater flexibility in implementing measures and also while also retaining necessary safeguards. Well, in that spirit, we maintain our proposal of wording for paragraph 2 from the last session. As a last point, we think the proposal by Belgium on exploring a separate article on tax sovereignty is a good one, and that we should give this consideration going forward. Thank you very much. I would like to support having informal informals on Articles 5 and 21. We think that bilateral discussions and informal informals can go on at the same time and they would both be very useful at this stage of the process. Thank you. Thank you. Azerbaijan, please. Thank you very much, Mr. Kolid, for giving the floor.

With regard to Article 6, Azerbaijan

supports stronger international cooperation to address tax avoidance and tax evasion by high net worth individuals. In our view, such cooperation should not be limited to the general exchange of information on tax avoidance and evasion techniques. It should also provide developing countries with practical access to financial account information and the necessary capacity capacity to use that information effectively. We suggest that conventions should establish dedicated UN mechanisms for the exchange and analysis of relevant financial information or support effective participation of developing countries in existing mechanisms, such as Common Reporting Standards, CRS. If the creation of separate UN exchange mechanism is not practical, Convention should provide clear mandate for technical assistance, technology transfer, and capacity building to help developing countries make effective use of existing tools. Thank you very much. Thank you. Austria, please. Thank you, Kornelit. Firstly, Austria would like to echo the statement

by Switzerland on the possibility

of an informal and formal to progress the work on Article 5. We also echo India and Czechia on their statements that it is time to start working on the text more concretely to move forward. We also echo Belgium on their proposal for an additional article on sovereignty. We think that that discussion would be worthwhile. On Article 6, we recognize the positive progress made in the drafting Especially relating to paragraphs 1 and 3. However, we still think that paragraph 2 of Article 6 should be deleted in its entirety as it goes beyond the objective of a framework convention as previously highlighted. Its contents, in our view, would be better suited for a protocol. Thank you. Thank you. Zambia, please. Thank you, colleagues, and good morning. Speaking on behalf of Zambia and also the

Africa Group, let me start

by first echoing the interventions made by the delegate from India and the delegate from Brazil. Colleagues, when we look at presented at COSAC, we see that it's kind of been watered down compared to the last draft we had of January 22nd, and therefore the Africa Group, we echo and support that paragraph 1 should be more proactive, and therefore we suggest that the words cooperate to enhance should be deleted. We replace that with the state parties shall develop and implement, then it continues, which is in line with what the delegates from Brazil and India also submitted. As regards paragraph 2, we take note of some of the issues raised by other member states on exchange of information, but our understanding of this article that there was specific need to make a commitment for state parties to exchange specific information relating to high net worth individuals, and therefore there was need to provide this commitment notwithstanding any provisions under the exchange of information, and therefore we support that paragraph 2 should be there. However, the inclusion of the word general in our view seems to kind of limit this information to either basic information, and therefore we propose that the word general should be deleted. As regards paragraph 3, we take note that for us to achieve effective taxation in this regard, there is need for member states to coordinate in terms of approaches of ensuring effective taxation. And therefore, we support that this paragraph should still be maintained. However, we propose that the word explore should be deleted and replaced with the word adopt. Furthermore, the extension of paragraph 3, which relates to tax sovereignty, it is our view that the ACHCON principles ably and sufficiently covers the aspect of tax sovereignty, and therefore those principles guide how the Framework Convention should be implemented, that member states still maintain their tax sovereignty, and therefore it is our view that since this matter is sufficiently covered under the principles, it should be deleted from paragraph 3, and with that With that said, Chair, I submit. Thank you. France, please. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Good morning to everyone. As an introduction, we'd like to express our

support for the Swiss proposal

to have informal informals. Now, to get to our Article 6, we want to recall our commitment to strengthening international tax cooperation to allow effective taxation of high net worth individuals. And on this point, we think that it's extremely important to agree on the definition of these individuals or at minimum minimally have a collective discussion on how to do this. We think it's important to have a an analytical note, detailed analytical note detailing various options that could be agreed on as well as what should not be included in this definition, that this should be conveyed before the next session so that we can have an informed discussion among all the participants in this session. We also take advantage of this opportunity to say that this working method would be very useful for all of the terms That must be defined within this convention, and which we will probably comment on further today later on today. Lastly, as Belgium and other European colleagues before us, we believe that the issue of sovereignty of states is a cross-cutting issue and not limited to certain provisions and certain parts of the convention. We are in favor of a horizontal approach with a with a separate article. Right, thank you. Singapore, please. Thank you, co-lead. I would like to make 2 points regarding Article 6. First, on paragraph 2 of Article 6, we propose

including a reference

to applicable tax agreements after general information. Existing international frameworks already provide for exchange of information upon request, without restrictions on the type of information exchanged, where that information is foreseeably relevant to the administration or enforcement of domestic tax laws. This builds on well-established processes, including the peer review mechanism under the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Taxpayers. Purposes, which ensures both effective implementation and adherence to confidentiality safeguards. Regarding the substantial resources that Member States have already committed to implementing these EOI arrangements, we should seek synergies with existing frameworks where possible. Second, we wonder if there is a critical need to define high net worth individuals in the Framework Convention. We recall past discussions where many member states have raised concerns, noting difficulties such as the term is context-specific and member states use different combinations of income, wealth, complexity, and cross-border risk to identify this taxpayer segment. More importantly, Article 6 uses high net worth individuals as a policy policy category for interstate cooperation. It does not presently delineate the scope of a tax, a taxing right, or a direct tax level obligation. We should therefore preserve domestic flexibility. If a future protocol creates an operational obligation that turns on high net worth individual status, the necessary definition can be provided in that instrument. Thank you. Thank you. Indonesia, please. Thank you, Chair. Indonesia supports Article 6 since we believe state parties should develop and implement measures

to detect, deter, and prevent

tax avoidance and evasion by high net worth individuals. Understanding the high mobility of high net worth individuals, Domestic measures alone may not be sufficient to address these issues and therefore encourage strengthened international tax cooperation in combating tax avoidance and evasion by high net worth individuals. Accordingly, it is important that state parties shall share information regarding structure and technique used by high net worth individuals to avoid and evade taxes and shall explore coordinated approaches to ensure their effective taxation in order to ensure that these measures effectively achieve their intended objective. However, we see that Article 6 needs more work since without a clear and internationally agreed definition, states may adopt inconsistent approaches. How will high net worth individuals be defined? For the purpose of this convention? Will the definition be based on wealth, income, asset, or other objective criteria? Enhanced cooperation sharing should be accompanied by robust safeguards as well to protect taxpayer confidentiality and ensure that exchange information is used for legitimate tax administration purposes only. We also support India in deleting the word general before the word information in Para 2, since it will lose its specificity and tone down the meaning of this paragraph. We also support drafting suggestion by Belgium in regards to Para 3, not to have overarching principle only in Para 3, since it will cover the whole convention. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Switzerland, please. Thank you, Mr. Kohlheide. I'll be brief. I believe there's been some good steps taken in the latest amendments

to this article. We welcome the new language in

paragraph 1 of cooperate to enhance as opposed to develop and implement, and I think we thank Norway for that suggestion. I think they're the ones who made it. Regarding paragraph 2, we echo the comments made by Norway and Singapore on the importance to make a reference to the exist existing international standards regarding exchange of information. I think this is really a clear case that illustrates our discussion on principles where here we can build on something that works, that most people agree with, and it— when we're talking about efficient tax cooperation, then it would be efficient to build on what already exists in this domain. And then finally, in paragraph 3, I strongly support the addition to the— we strongly support the addition to the sovereignty, the state's sovereignty, the last sentence of paragraph 3, and I think it's very important here. And we also support exploring a horizontal article regarding sovereignty of states. dates as proposed yesterday by Belgium. Thank you. UAE, please. Thank you, Chair. So, first of all, we would support the suggestion by Switzerland on informals and formals. We also echo the other interventions

that we need a clear definition

of what is meant by a high net worth individual. As we've indicated in our written comments, the UAE considers that this article will be most effective if it focuses on the exchange of knowledge, best practices, and the strengthening of existing exchange of information mechanisms. And we also support the suggestion by Belgium into looking into an article on sovereignty. Thank you. Thank you. Israel, please. Thank you, Chair. We first— we echo the Swiss suggestion regarding the informal informal for paragraph 5, Article 5. Regarding paragraph 2 of Article 6, we

agree with Estonia where

we think there is a specific article, Article 11, And we think that— we believe that all provisions should— regarding exchange of information should be at the same place because if not, if it is fragmented along the convention, the protocols, it will make ambiguity and lack of clarity even. We also agree with previous speakers. I agree with the previous delegates regarding the international standards that we should keep regarding the exchange of information. Regarding paragraph 3, we agree— we echo Belgium and the Czech Republic and other speakers that state sovereignty should be recognized throughout the convention. Thank you. Thank you. Japan, please. Thank you, co-lead. Firstly, I would like to echo Switzerland's suggestion to have an informal informal. And regarding Article 6, Japan welcomes that the current

drafting aims to strengthen

cooperation. However, as many other member states mentioned, we need to define high net worth individuals, but at the same time, we are concerned that defining high net worth individuals is difficult and that there are challenges in terms of implementation of coordinated approaches, such as how to account for differences in definitions and domestic tax systems. Systems among countries. We therefore support Norway and UAE's proposal, and we believe that given the objective of this provision, it would be more valuable to focus on sharing knowledge and best practices. Thank you. Thank you. Honduras, please. Thank you very much, Mr. Coley. Before turning to Article 6, Honduras would like to express support for the proposal to hold informal consultations on Article 5. We

believe the discussions will

provide a valuable opportunity to consolidate the various proposals, identify areas of convergence, and move through the negotiations forward in a more efficient and constructive manner. Turning to Article 6, Honduras strongly supports its inclusions in the Framework Convention. For developing countries, this provision is not a secondary issue. It is a fundamental element of a fair and effective international tax system. High net worth individuals often have access to sophisticated cross-border structures that are simply unavailable to ordinary taxpayers. When taxation can be avoided through offshore arrangements or aggressive tax planning, the burden shifts to those who have fewer resources, undermining equity, public confidence, and the ability of developing countries to mobilize domestic resources. For that reason, Honduras believes that Article VI should contain clear and meaningful commitments. We support language that requires states parties to develop and implement measures to detect, deter, and prevent tax avoidance and tax evasion by high net worth individuals. Likewise, effective exchange of information should remain a central pillar of this article without unnecessary limitations that could reduce its practical value. We also support the development of a common definition of high net worth individuals to provide legal certainty and ensure consistent implementation across jurisdictions. Finally, with respect to paragraph 3, Honduras considers that the reference to the sovereign right of states to determine the design, structure, and level of taxation is already adequately reflected in the guiding principles of the Framework Convention. Repeating the principle in this substantive provision is therefore unnecessary and may detract from the operational focus of the article. For that reason, we would support the deletion of paragraph 3. Thank you, Mr. Co-Lead. Thank you. Pakistan, please. Thank you, Co-Lead. This is the first time Pakistan is taking the floor during this session, so we'd like to begin by appreciating the Chair, Co-Leads, and the Secretariat

for their constructive work.

Article 6 is an important element of the Convention, We echo the remarks made by the distinguished delegates of Brazil, India, Zambia, and others seeking stronger and more action-oriented language in this article. In paragraph 1, we believe that the language has been substantially weakened. We would support stronger language that more clearly reflects commitments to develop and implement measures instead of cooperate to enhance. We also share the concern that the term general before information weakens the provision in paragraph 2. Exchange of information is a key tool in addressing cross-border tax avoidance and evasion, and the text should retain sufficient specificity in that regard. In paragraph 3, we echo that the aspect of sovereignty has been sufficiently covered under Article 2 of principles and does not need to be selectively repeated in certain articles. We support deletion of this aspect and ending the third paragraph at high net worth individuals. Thank you. Thank you, Papua New Guinea. Please. Thank you, co-lead. Similar to Jamaica and other distinguished delegates, we would like some clarity regarding the definition of high net worth. Being a small member

state, a high threshold in the definition

of high net worth individuals will be unworkable for PNG because it will be impossible to capture taxpayers in a high threshold instance and will be an open door to tax avoidance schemes to flourish in PNG to avoid the tax obligations in PNG for this specific taxpayer segment. We also support Jamaica's comments that paragraph 3 be moved to paragraph 1 because exploring coordinated approach to ensuring effective taxation of high net worth individuals is the primary concern which must be addressed in Article 6. Enhancing measures to detect, deter, and prevent tax avoidance and evasion and sharing of information in the current paragraphs 1 and 2 will be drawn from this primary objective to explore We also echo Zambia's and other distinguished delegates' proposal to delete the word general in the current paragraph 2. Its insertion here will result in restrictive application that will defeat the aim of ensuring effective taxation of high net worth individuals. I thank you. Thank you. China, please. Thank you, Colette, for giving me this floor. We appreciate the efforts of Secretariat in drafting these articles and paragraphs. We support the taxation on high net worth individuals.

Regarding paragraph 2,

the scope of exchange of information or sharing information should take into account the norms and regulations imposed by domestic and international laws. And regarding paragraph 3, a tax system is a fundamental economic institution of a country, and countries differ markedly in their stages of development levels and capacities in tax system design as well as tax collection and administration. Therefore, coordinated approach may not be appropriate, and later we will submit our written comments. Thank you. Thank you. Luxembourg, please. Thank you, Chair. First, we support Switzerland's proposal to hold an informal informal on Article 5. Also on Article 6, Luxembourg recalls that definition— sorry, decisions concerning

the level, the structure, and the

design of taxation fall within national sovereignty, so the proposition should not be interpreted as establishing a mandate to coordinate national tax policies that concern high net worth individuals. Also, we concur with remarks asking for more details on the definition of high net worth individuals, but also on the definition of structures and techniques, particularly in order to determine the scope of the commitments and of the exchange of information. And we would also like to highlight the fact that applicable exchange of information frameworks must also be applied in this case. Thank you. Thank you. And as the issue of definition continues to come up, I wish to to suggest that as we send out written comments or inclusions, if we believe there's a definition we can use, we include the indicative definition

to help all of us work on it. Thank you. Sorry, Republic of Korea, please. Thank you, Mr. Colliet, for giving me the floor. At the outset, Korea supports the proposal made by Switzerland to provide dedicated time for further discussions on Article 5 in an informal, informal setting. Regarding

Article 6 on high net worth individuals, Korea welcomes the revisions made to this article compared to the January draft. First, we appreciate the revision in paragraph 1 from develop and implement to cooperate to enhance, we believe, which places greater emphasis on cooperation among States Parties. Second, we welcome the inclusion in paragraph 3 of an explicit reference to respecting each state party's sovereign rights to determine the design, structure, and level of taxation within its national tax system. In this regard, we also share the views expressed by previous speakers, including Belgium, that tax sovereignty is a cross-cutting principle and should therefore be reflected consistently throughout the convention. And as many other delegations have already mentioned, we also believe that how the high net worth individuals is defined is critically important, so that we welcome greater clarity regarding how the terms high net worth individuals will be defined under this convention. Thank you. Thank you. Nigeria, please. No doubt Nigeria supports that high net worth individual is an issue that we must address if we must pursue progressivity in taxation. So as a country, we lend our support to the position that

has been presented by by the African

group, well encapsulated by Zambia, and all of the edits that he presented, we are in support of it. I want to particularly draw attention to the concluding paragraph, concluding sentence regarding sovereign rights that was presented in Paragraph 3, where I could hear that many of the distinguished delegates has also been commenting. Co-chair, our understanding is that the convention that we are developing is a treaty, and if we must go by the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, when you sign treaties, then you are more or less subjected a kind of override of your treaty, of your domestic law by that treaty. So in addition to the fact that Article 2 has captured the sovereignty, we must bear it at the back of our mind that where there are inconsistencies between this treaty and the provision of domestic law, then the suffering thing that we are clamoring for, we have indirectly surrendered it. I just say I should bring it to our attention so we support the deletion of this suffering thing clause that has been inserted in the 3rd paragraph. We believe that what we have in the 2nd paragraph is sufficient. We also wish to draw the attention of distinguished delegates to the provisions in the Convention Treaty. Thank you so much. Thank you. Kenya, please. Thank you, Chair. We align with the comments submitted by Zambia on behalf of the Africa Group, and we also echo the comments made by India, Brazil, Nigeria, and Pakistan. Under paragraph 1, we support reintroduction

of the words develop and

implement measures over simply stating cooperate to enhance measures, as this will ensure and promote implementation of this commitment. We also support deletion of the word general under paragraph 2, because this unduly qualifies and restricts the information that can be shared in the achievement of this commitment. Lastly, under paragraph 3, we support replacing the word explore with adopt, as well as deleting the second part of that sentence that makes reference to sovereignty. We align with the Africa Group's position that Article 2 sufficiently addresses the issue on sovereignty, and that this principle will apply across the entire Framework Convention, so it doesn't need to be replaced implicated here, neither does it need its own article, and we fully agree with what the delegate from Nigeria has just said on this issue. Thank you. Thank you. Mexico, please. Thank you very much, dear colleague, and good afternoon, colleagues. On this article, Mexico is happy to see that we are discussing high net worth individuals As you may recall, during the last couple sessions, we actually,

with other countries in

my region and others, pushed for this to be one of the protocols that was considered on the convention. So, now that we have it in the framework, we also believe that this needs to be strengthened further so that that can be the case, hopefully one day, if this product succeeds. We also are a bit surprised in the sense that we're focusing on addressing high net worth individuals solely on the basis of tax avoidance and evasion. It was our understanding that we were also having this discussion because we believed that high net worth individuals or ultra high net worth individuals should pay their fair share. So that also talks about reforming the tax architecture and the tax basis to reflect this so that vulnerable populations don't have to pay the brunt of these of the challenges they face with their taxes. But having said that, hearing other colleagues in the room, we also believe that we prefer the paragraph as it was drafted before. But as a compromise, perhaps we can just say that state parties shall cooperate to support the development, enhancement, and implementation of measures. This is a little bit pushing the middle, not to be be too forceful, but also just to reiterate and reinforce the aspect of cooperation and supporting the development of these rules. On the 2, we would also agree that, you know, sharing general information is not necessarily something that is quite specific. It could limit the scope of what we can share. We would be more of the— aspect of having the exchange of information and best practices. We also believe that this should be in general regarding what countries are doing to deter high net worth individuals doing tax avoidance and tax evasion, including perhaps what these high net worth individuals do to avoid them. So it should focus more on the national implementation side and not not on, you know, whistleblowing on what strategies these individuals are taking. At the end of the day, we want to deter these activities. So perhaps that should be something that could come before. And on the matter of the sovereignty, for us, I think if the general conversation is going to be whether or not this convention has a sovereignty clause or paragraph at the very beginning as an objective or as a principle, which is already reflected, And we can have the conversation of whether or not to have it here, but for the time being, we agree that this paragraph is important if we're not going to take it as an overarching aspect for the whole Convention. And then on the Belgian proposal on the informal-informal Article 5, we would be very happy to also support that and engage in that informal-informal. Thank you. Thank you. Philippines, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Philippines supports international cooperation under Article 6 to curb aggressive wealth structuring and offshore evasion schemes. However, our agreement to this provision is with the

understanding that global efforts

must respect national sovereignty, preserving our constitutional authority to set domestic tax rules and rates. On the specific provisions, similar to the position of my colleagues, the term high high-net-worth individuals should be defined in Article 3. It is important that all parties are aligned in how we define HNWIs to ensure that any action we do shall be effective and implementable. Like Jamaica and Papua New Guinea, Paragraph 3 should be the first provision, as this paragraph highlights what the article is, which is finding ways to effectively tax high-net-worth individuals. We agree that Paragraph 1 can be improved to truly reflect the intention to develop and implement measures to detect, deter, and prevent evasion by high-net-worth individuals. The wording suggested by Mexico can also be explored if we are to be considerate of the positions of the others. Thank you very much. Thank you. Sweden, please. Thank you for giving me the floor. Sweden appreciates the efforts from the co-lead and the Secretariat for updating this article. From our perspective, the article should be at high level. We do also believe that, as many others already

mentioned, that the term

high net worth individuals should be defined. In order to support the formulations included under the scope of high networked individuals. The article would have to focus more on the exchange of experiences and on best practices in this area. In this sense, we would like to express that paragraph 2 of this article could serve as basis for our discussions going forward. We do also support the inclusion of sovereignty in para 3, or as Belgium mentioned, that we can look at a separate overarching article on sovereignty. And finally, we would also like to support Switzerland's proposal to hold informal informals regarding Article 5. Thank you. Thank you. Poland, please. Thank you, Mr. Kowalczyk. I start with supporting Belgian and Swiss proposal for informal regarding Article 5. I think that further discussion on this article is needed. As far as Article 6 is concerned, we also would welcome definition

of high net worth individual

I think without this definition we do not give here enough legal certainty as far as the application of this article is concerned. We would like also to support the idea to have a separate article on national tax sovereignty in Applicable to the whole treaty, I think it's the background basis for the for for our work, and it should be it should be the biggest importance should be given to this to this principle. As far as paragraph three is concerned, I only wonder. In fact, what the ensuring effective taxation of high net worth individuals really mean here in this article, whether we are looking for the specific solutions based on the international law which would eliminate double non-taxation or just we are referring here to exchange information to ensure application of the national tax provisions and to allow and somehow facilitate the countries to apply own rules and on taxation. I think that maybe we should at least discuss and have a precise understanding of this expression here in paragraph 3. Thank you very much. Thank you. India, please. Thank you, Co-Lead, and thank you for giving me the chair— Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. President, for giving me the floor for the second time. I will limit my comments to paragraph 2 of Article VI. From the comments around the room, maybe we are

talking about 2 kinds of

information. One is information that involves structures, practices, the manner in which high net worth individuals operate. I think that is something that can be dealt with by kind of adjusting the language of paragraph 1. But the kind of information that paragraph 2 right now refers to, in our opinion, it is not the information that is referred to in Article 11 of this Framework Convention, because in any case, any article, any information that is used to combat tax evasion, it cannot be general. It is taxpayer-specific. It is foreseeably relevant, and it has several other kind of very specific conditions attached to it. And if, as the distinguished delegate of Mexico said, that if in the future this article has to be a pathway to a protocol that is specific to tackling the tax evasion by high net worth individuals, then this article has to be has to take this issue to a higher level, not this kind of baseline signalling that it is doing now. And both these kinds of information— information that is general in nature that will tell us more about the structures that HNIs would use, the practices, etc.— that, as also information that we will exchange to combat tax evasion, Both of these kinds of information have to be referred to in this article. So that is— I mean, that is our comment with regard to the issue of information that will have to be referred to in this article. Thank you. Thank you. Morocco, please. Thank you, Co-Chair. Morocco aligns with the statement made by Zambia by Zambia on behalf of the African Group, and we also would like to support the statements made by India, Zambia, Honduras, Pakistan, and others. More specifically, we need— we would

like to support changing

the wording in paragraph 1 because we think that we need an anchor for potential need to develop new rules instead of just building on existing measures or enhancing measures. So we support changing the wording to state parties shall develop and implement measures. Similarly and equally, paragraph 3, which we support changing the wording to state parties shall adopt coordinating approaches. As for this, the last portion of the sentence of paragraph 3, we We also think that the reference to sovereignty could be deleted because we think it's adequately and sufficiently addressed by the principles article. Lastly, for paragraph 2, I fully agree with the statement made eloquently by our colleague from India. So we think that the information, the exchange of information here is different from what is addressed by Article 11, so we think we should keep paragraph 2 as it is. Thank you. Thank you, South Africa. Thank you, colleague, and I think because South Africa is for the first time taking the floor, I would like to thank the chair. Chair, the Secretariat, and colleagues for the work that has been done. Basically, South Africa supports with respect. I think

let me just make two comments. One

is a general comment that was made by India earlier with respect to the fact that we must now start working on the wedding, and I think we fully support that. And then with respect to the article itself, the high net. With individuals, I think South Africa aligns itself with the statement that was made by Zambia on behalf of the Afrique Group, as well as some of the statements that have been made, I think, by my colleagues from Kenya, from Nigeria as well. But if I have to go on again to say, look, with respect to Article 1, we don't per se have any comment. I think the article— I mean, paragraph 2, I think that's where the issue is, and I think I think my colleague from India actually pointed it out correctly. I mean, as far as I recall during my audit times, you will not be able to get general information when you try to seek information for high net worth individuals there. So I think the term general should be deleted. And then the— on the 3rd paragraph, of course, paragraph 3, I also support my colleagues there to say we We must— I mean, paragraph 2B, if you look into 2B, actually applies to the entire convention, so there is no need to have sovereignty there. So I think that's all from our side. Thanks. Thank you. Ghana, please. Thank you, co-lead. Ghana would like to align its position with the Africa Group. As was presented by the distinguished delegate from Zambia and supported by Nigeria and Kenya, South Africa, as well as India, Brazil, and Pakistan. The current draft we have of Article

6 has essentially taken

away substantive commitments for state parties, as the use of the words cooperate to enhance doesn't exactly reflect binding commitments. It would therefore be prudent to go back to the paragraph before this session, which is to reflect that State Parties shall develop and implement in place of the words shall cooperate in the first paragraph. Additionally, we agree to deleting the word general before— in paragraph 2. We also wish to re-echo the point made by the distinguished delegates from Nigeria and Kenya and South Africa that the current Article 2 adequately upholds the issue of tax sovereignty as an underlying principle of the Framework Convention. Hence, no need to have it as a standalone article. To this end, we also agree with the calls to delete the reference to tax sovereignty in paragraph 3 of Article 6. Thank you. Thank you. Burkina Faso, please. Merci bien. Thank you. Thank you. I thank you for giving me the floor. Burkina Faso would like to align itself with the statement made by Zambia on behalf of the African Group. I agree with the position of certain countries such as Nigeria, Zambia, Morocco on the

text of Article 6, and we support also the

amendments. Paragraph 1 of Article 6, as amended by the African Group, we think that We should invite states to develop further and implement measures to detect, deter, and prevent tax avoidance and evasion rather than working on strengthening cooperation. So I think there must be an obligation to act for action. In paragraph 2, Burkina Faso is in agreement with the amendment of the African Group, as well as the states I just mentioned. And on this, we agree that the word general that was used is much more restrictive. Consequently, it should be eliminated. As for paragraph 3, it's not necessary to refer to Tax sovereignty, since in Article 2 of the draft already mentioned sovereignty. Thank you. Right, Ireland, please. Thank you, Ireland. Thank you, Mr. Co-Lead, for giving me the floor. On Article 5, we support the Swiss proposal for an informal informal, and on Article 6, thank you and the Secretary for providing this, this updated article. We think it's a significant improvement on the version of the

22nd of January, and we

support the proposal of the distinguished delegate for Belgium that text regarding the tax sovereignty of states should be included in a separate article. Thank you. Thank you, Ireland. And We would like to take an early break. We have the stakeholders, we have a number of them, and it's not likely we'll be able to finish before the break, so rather take an early break so that we take the stakeholders as soon as we come back from lunch. So thank you everybody for your contributions.

Let's meet again at 3 to continue. Please, everyone, we will start at 3 sharp. So we, we break early, but we will come back to start at 3 sharp. Thank you. Thank you.