(7th meeting) Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on the United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation - Fourth Session

Good morning, everyone. We are here today on the last day for discussing the framework convention. We still have some homework to finish today in the morning and afternoon session. We are left with two articles, the exchange of information, which will now our co-leader, Mr. Daniel, will start to discuss. It depends. When we finish it, we immediately will start on the capacity building. But still, I think we have good time to discuss both of them because we have this session and the next session. I don't like long introductions, so I will hand over to our co-lead. Daniel, please, you can start. Go ahead.

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to today's session. Chair has already indicated that we hope to complete the two items that we have outstanding for this particular session. And based on that, I'll start the session with Article 10, which And we started with yesterday, we've given ourselves a general idea of what had been done and what we expect from each other. I won't ask whether we did the homework or not, because I suspect we all did it, and since we are very studious people, and we will have a very interesting and lively discussion today. Now, As I mentioned yesterday, there were requests from member states that we should move all the, at least the paragraphs that are related to exchange information into one article. We've done that. We had some initial, an initial look at it during the work stream sessions and we'll put up what we've been able to put together. There were some comments during the working sessions that it seemed to be a little too long, then that we might have to add some other things there. And so we sort of put it together, left that question for us to answer, whether we want to maintain it as a standalone as it is right now, and what goes into it. or whether I want to put it under mutual administrative assistance and we'll have one or two paragraphs there on it. I mean, it's something that we'll need to address as we give our comments on the article. There are about six articles, so I won't read through them. I'm sure we've all read, we've had them long enough to have read them for ourselves, so each of them paragraphs that we have. We would so the question would I would like us to answer whether we think we should maintain the standalone and what should go into the our comments on the articles or whether we should put it under the mark the mutual administrative assistance and if so how we should treat it there. So basically those are the questions we need to answer and if we have any text to that would help the discussions, we are welcome also to present them. So, with that, I will open the floor for member comments. Right. Germany, please.

Thank you, Mr. Kholit. Good morning, distinguished delegates, dear colleagues. Germany acknowledges that the draft has been improved compared to the previous versions. However, we still have technical concerns regarding the current draft, some of which I would like to address. We note that the draft contains the words "maybe is foreseeably relevant" in brackets. We understand this as a questioning of the principle that information exchange is guided by the criteria of foreseeable relevance. The principle of foreseeable relevance performs a key rule of law function in exchange of information. It operationalizes fundamental rights protection by preventing fishing expeditions, thereby ensuring data minimization, confidentiality, and a clear threshold for state interference. At the same time, it deliberately avoids an excessive burden of proof that would undermine effective information exchange. In this way, it balances effective tax enforcement with the protection of individual rights. Overall, foreseeable relevance is an expression of the principle of proportionality which must not be undermined. While this is a well-established concept, the use of may be introduces significant uncertainties, particularly regarding the extent to which it intends to deviate from the current standard. We strongly encourage the room to refrain from tampering with that standard. At this stage, it is more generally not sufficiently clear to us what exactly would be expected from the member states to comply with the obligations in that article. This is linked, not least, to the unresolved question of the relationship with existing legal instruments and existing transparency standards. First and foremost, however, subparagraphs a, b, and c must be mentioned in this context. There is a lack of minimum level of clarity regarding what would specifically be covered by these subparagraphs. We are unable to oblige ourselves to exchange if the scope, purpose, and modalities are not known but are to be determined at a later date. In particular, we consider it problematic to link the exchange obligations to future protocols. This is, in our view, inconsistent with the principle that these protocols are intended to be optional. That being said, we question the overall appropriateness of the provision. The current draft comes with very specific binding obligations for the state parties, especially in paragraph one. In our view, the current provision is incompatible with the nature of the Convention as a framework instrument and constitutes a departure from the terms of reference. In the terms of reference, exchange of information is mentioned three times. First, as part of the commitment to mutual administrative assistance. Second, as a future protocol. And third, under other elements where it is stated in square brackets that it is meant for the implementation of the Framework Convention. I would also like to recall another source. The Secretary General's report, when describing the so-called option one, states, and I quote, "If," or excuse me, "it, the Convention, would then provide mandatory, preferably enforceable obligations that are deemed essential for appropriate domestic resource mobilization, including rules regarding the reporting and exchange of information for tax purposes. We are not operating under this option one here. In our view, the current draft constitutes a premature anticipation of the protocol and exchange of information yet to be developed. We also deem it unnecessary. If Article 9 referred to existing frameworks for mutual administrative assistance, which we strongly encourage, we would see no need for a provision like Article 10 as a whole. Yesterday, the co-lead asked whether to retain the standalone article or to add mechanisms to other commitments. To us, that sounds as a choice between a rock and a hard place. The current draft is both. It is too specific and too prescriptive to be a high-level commitment, yet is not concrete enough to serve as a final operational basis for a legally certain and efficient exchange of information. Besides, the Framework Convention is not the place, in our view, for provisions on an operational information exchange. We would therefore appreciate the deletion of the article altogether. Thank you, and apologies for being a bit long.

Thank you, Germany, and a little clarification. What I said yesterday was to give a history of how we had gotten to where we are. We had, especially if you look at paragraph one, we had the items in paragraph one in separate articles in this document. The suggestion was that we should move all those items by members to a single standalone article. It was a request by members. Now, and then we also move what was under mutual assistance also to that paragraph. So the question yesterday was that there were still questions as to what we should do. So should we keep the standalone Should we move it back under mutual administrative assistance or should we move it back into the paragraphs, the articles where they were originally? So it's a question that was posed to all of us because when we did the standalone during the intercessional sessions, there were these issues that it seemed to be too long. There were additions. Some members were even asking for additional things to be put in if we needed to do it that way. So, it's those questions that came up during the session where not all of us were there. Those were the questions that I posed to the House yesterday. So, it's not something that the co-lead came out with. It's something that member states have discussed, and the question is that what do we want to do as member states? Thank you. Saint Kitts and Nevis, please.

Thank you, colleague, for giving me the floor. At the outset, we must, at the outset, we thank the colleague and the secretariat for advancing text. Exchange of information is a critical tool to addressing non-compliance, protect domestic revenues, and combat tax avoidance and evasion. And therefore, Saint Kitts and Nevis supports its inclusion as a standalone article. However, we wish to raise a few concerns with the current drafting of Article 10. First, While we appreciate the specificity of the article, setting out core obligations, safeguards and guiding principles, while leaving more detailed operational rules to be developed in protocols. At the same time, we recognize that should the text be stripped too much, it may cause practical problems for the implication of protocol one on the taxation of services. In a digitized economy, key information needed to administer tax on any cross-border service may sit with offshore providers, platforms, and payment intermediaries. Exchange of information will be essential to make Protocol 1 workable in practice. Our concern, therefore, is to ensure that Article 10 strikes the appropriate balance, clearly framework level, but not so general that it becomes ineffective in practice. Turning to specific provisions of Article 10, we support the use of the words "foreseeable" and "relevant" in paragraph 1. It is a familiar standard that helps prevent fishing expeditions while still enabling effective cooperation. We are concerned, however, with the scope of Article 10, specifically the phrase "taxes of every kind and description". In a multilateral framework, this wording is overly broad and does not give sufficient certainty as to what is included. The only thing we know is that social security contributions are excluded. We would therefore support clearer scope of the taxes covered to ensure legal certainty. We're also concerned that the listing in paragraph one is highly prescriptive for a framework level instrument. and may be more appropriate for later protocol. However, as expressed before, some balancing exercise must be done to ensure that Article 10 provides enough substance to make Protocol 1 workable, especially if parties to Protocol 1 do not already have some agreement for exchange of information in place. Finally, we emphasize that the provision addressing the needs of developing countries should not appear as a closing caveat, as it does here in paragraph 6. It should be elevated and made more operational. In practice, the effectiveness of exchange of information depends on systems, staffing, secure data handling, and interagency cooperation, elements that require sustained investment. We therefore would support some link to Article 12.

Colleague.

St. Kitts and Nevis wishes to be clear, our aim is not to weaken cooperation, and we appreciate the specificity exhibited here in Article 10. However, we should not lose sight that this is a framework convention. If, however, Member States wish to retain a detailed Article 10, then our position is that it should at a minimum be clearer on scope and bring to the forefront the reality that effective exchange of information, particularly for developing states, depends on meaningful and operational connection to capacity building and technical assistance. Thank you, colleague.

Thank you, Saint Kitts. Canada, please.

Thank you, Mr. Khalid. Let me first say we endorse all of the comments eloquently provided by Germany in their intervention. Canada fully supports exchange of information. It's a very important tool to combat cross-border tax evasion and avoidance, and Canada actively participates in all of the existing EOI frameworks developed under the global forum or dealt with under the global forum for transparency and exchange of information. In our view, and to answer your question, Mr. Kholid, we do not support a self-standing Article 10 in accordance and consistent with the views expressed by Germany. We think this is an explicit example of option one as set out in the Secretary General's report. A detailed exchange of information provision is more appropriately contained in a protocol. Your question was, should it be a detailed provision or should we include it in the other underlying articles? I think in one perspective, our answer is neither. It should be a protocol. However, we would not object to high level commitments and references to the way to address some of the issues is through enhanced transparency and exchange of information. And so I think it's only to that high level reference that we think it should be referenced in the framework convention itself. I think there is another issue. And as Germany said, our understanding that the heading for an exchange of information article as had been explained at earlier times, was to deal with necessary information exchange for the operation of the framework convention itself. And I'm not sure that that's addressed here or that we've had discussions in that respect. We think there needs to be acknowledgement of the significant exchange of information frameworks that already exist, acknowledgement of the work of the global forum, which itself has 172 members. We should be looking at how this interacts with that. We should be looking at what the current gaps and issues are that are being experienced with exchange of information and trying to understand how we can deal with those issues and gaps itself. I think as well, an understanding of how any such or any commitment in respect of exchange of information interacts with other existing agreements, again, referring back to the need to have a discussion under Article 15, I think is helpful. Now, I think when we look at this article to provide some technical comments, even in spite of our view that it should be a protocol drafted at a later stage, we think that it is critical that any article be consistent with the international standard that is commonly understood to include the need for foreseeable relevance and also the need to ensure that information exchange is subject to confidentiality and protection of taxpayer information. In respect of whether the language should be maybe or is foreseeably relevant, I think in our view, it clearly should be is foreseeably relevant. However, I think in looking at commentary to exchange of information articles, it is made clear that there should be no difference in interpretation, whether your language says maybe or says is foreseeably relevant. And so we are concerned that even suggesting that using different language would change the standard is extremely unhelpful with respect respect to existing understanding of that language and understanding of existing agreements that are in place. We also think that safeguards are important, as is the principle of reciprocity. And in this respect, it's unclear to us the intention of paragraph six and we think that that paragraph six itself should be deleted and capacity building should be dealt with in the capacity building article. It should not be used here to suggest that there is any difference in the application of the standard as it exists today. We also have Some concerns with respect to the explicit reference in paragraph one to different forms of exchange of information. It's unclear, but we assume what is intended here is the automatic exchange of information. However, automatic exchange of information cannot be operationalized within the convention. It needs significantly more detail, whether included in a protocol or at the level of a competent authority agreement. We also think there is more need for discussion on the types of information, and in particular, the value of exchanging certain information. And there, I point to paragraph B, where I don't think there has been a significant amount, if any, work done to determine how much of an issue that particular problem is in practice. The last thing I will mention, and I know, Mr. Kholid, apologize, you're not happy with questions in particular, but I did note in the first slide that you had up, you indicated that carve outs from some forms of exchange that were set out in the MAC. Yes, the second to last bullet there were the subject of common reservations in the MAC and kind of on a quick read, they weren't apparent to me, but any clarity you could provide in respect of what kinds of information exchange you have carved out from this potential article would be helpful. But just to summarize, our view is that this should be dealt with in a protocol. We should stay high level in the convention, and we think it is absolutely critical that the existing international standard on exchange of information is maintained and that we don't adopt any difference in this convention. Thank you.

Okay, so just a quick one and some clarification. Now, when we go to the terms of reference, we'll notice that the exchange of information is mentioned in Article 10 under commitments, and 10B. talks about a commitment on effective mutual administration assistance in tax matters, including with respect to transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes. Then we go to 13. 13 is where it puts it in brackets. It talks about exchange of information for implementation of the framework convention. So actually, it is there in two places. So it's not that is only in 13, is also there in 10, in other terms of reference. And that is why we had items relating to exchange of information in the commitments in various articles. And though I'm repeating myself, for those of us who were in Nairobi, The discussion came up and it seemed member states requested for a separate article. And during the inter-sessional discussions, when the separate article came up and the issue cropped out, it seemed to be too long. And the response was that, yes, that's what member states were asked for. So for all the things in one paragraph, one, They were already there under various commitments and they were moved there. And so, it's not that we sort of have done anything outside what the MESTIs asked for. That is what has been done. The question I raised, and I repeat myself, was because of comments made during the intercessional meeting, and that's why The question is, do we keep it here, do we put it back under the mutual administration and stand where it was initially, or put it back wherever we took it from? That's all, because of comments members had made on it.

Maybe I would like to add a point to make it clear for everyone. Actually, the co-leads or the chair or anyone, it's not true that we are not happy with questions, of course. Actually, we believe that questions are good. We encourage you to ask more questions. But what we mean is that questions, usually when it comes to the technical side, it's directed to other members, not to the co-leads or the chair or the secretariat themselves, because, for example, as our colleague just asked, I don't know what exactly type of information has been there. So we expect that maybe for other member states who believe that this article is important for them, they will come on and say, okay, we imagine that this should provide one, two, three, like this is the information that we expect. So the answer is coming from the floor. So the questions is, yes, we are welcome the question, but usually that's what we are trying to say, that the questions is addressed when it comes to the technical side is addressed to other members. So the answer and solutions should come from the floor itself. So it's not at all that like the co-leads or the chair are not happy with questions. No, of course, it's not like this. But just we usually try to say that the questions go to the floor more than being like for individual to answer it. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Austria, please.

Thank you, Coeli. Thank you, Chair, also for the explanations. I have a couple of reflections on Article 10. So first of all, when reading it, it becomes clear immediately that it differs quite a lot from other articles, other commitments that we have, in that it creates operational rules for the exchange of information. that go clearly beyond what is a high level commitment. And I think it's not only in that because it's very long and very detailed, but also can read it from the first line already where it states that competent authorities are supposed to do something, whereas in other articles we're always talking about states parties that are actually bound by the commitment eventually. So I think that this is not, and as Canada and Germany and also Saint Kitts and Nevis already stated, this is not in line with the nature of the Framework Convention. Now, the question what to do with this article, whether we should keep it or should move it back to other commitments, in our view, we think it should be deleted and also not go back into any other article because we think that, as Canada also explained, the exchange of information is too detailed here, and it is, at the end of the day, the means to achieve other commitments, but it's not really a commitment in itself. We think that the commitment along the lines of Article 9, a condensed paragraph 1 and 2 version as discussed yesterday, with the commitment to make mutual administrative assistance more efficient, would be sufficient. And also, and here I would agree with Germany, that the TOR also say that it is true, it is mentioned in three parts, but the TOR do not include a commitment per se on the exchange of information. Uh, now finally, we do, uh, appreciate and also we're listening closely to the inter, intersessional work where, uh, a lot of delegates indeed supported a separate article on, on exchange of information. So let me just quickly state, if it is decided to keep the article, which, like I said earlier, would be problematic from our perspective, but if it is kept, then it has to be in line with certain principles that we have to adhere to, including the foreseeable relevance standard, reciprocity, and also confidentiality standards, as has already been stated in a very sophisticated manner by Germany and Canada. Thank you.

Thank you, Austria. Italy, please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Khalid. Italy would like to reiterate the view that the framework convention should include high-level commitments and not operative provisions. And the current version of Article 10 is drafted as an operative provision. And therefore, we have substantial concern about the opportunity to include a provision like this in the framework convention. Moreover, it isn't clear how this provision would interact with similar provision in existing legal instrument. In general, and to address your specific question, we are not supportive of a self-standing provision. Some elements of the current formulation are particularly problematic for us. First, the possibility to depart from the concept of foreseeable relevance contemplated in the introductory part of paragraph 1 and the concept of "may be". The foreseeable relevance is a long-standing and crucial element underpinning the exchange of information. We are of the view that without this element, there is a clear risk of undermining fundamental principle of necessity of tax assistance, as Germany in particular, as mentioned. Second, the specification included in the enumerated list in paragraph one, later A to C, raise issues related to the scope of the information exchange. providing a specific, uh, legal basis for the exchange of information related to illicit financial flows, high net worth individuals, uh, harmful tax practices require in any case, a prior, uh, clarification of the definition of the, uh, internet, uh, illicit financial flow, high net worth individuals and harmful tax practices, and also the scope of the cooperation in this field. For this reason, we believe that either in Article 10 or in the relevant article relating to the illicit financial flow and networked individuals and harmful tax practices, only general and high-level commitment on exchange of information should be included. One final remark on the current drafting of the Article 10, paragraph 6. where it said that the needs and capacity of developing countries and countries in specific situations should be taken into consideration. This provision raises major difficulties since it can impact on the principle of reciprocity, proportionality, which in our view should always underpin the exchange of information. as well as on safeguard that in all cases may be required for legal or constitutional reasons or for confidentiality purposes in the exchange of information. Thank you.

Thank you, Italy. Zambia, please.

Good morning, colleagues. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Secretariat, and good morning, fellow delegates and your Excellencies. I speak on behalf of the Africa Group. The Africa Group supports the inclusion of the commitment on exchange of information as elaborated in the TORs. As the Africa Group, we look at exchange of information as a fundamental area. in curbing tax evasion and enhancing global tax compliance. And as we currently are living in a highly globalized world, which calls for greater coordination and international cooperation among tax administration as regards enhancing tax transparency. So we find the issues of exchange information as very key, not only in enhancing transparency, which is echoed in the principles in the TORs that taxpayers will be required to be transparent and accountable if you look at our principles and we believe that this is a fundamental issue that we need to have in the commitments. We also support that we should have a standalone article which will anchor the commitments in a broad sense. We appreciate the text that has been provided, but we find the text that it's too detailed. And therefore, a shorter text would suffice, but that text should not lose the broadness that we expect it to have. I think when we look at the TRAs, exchange of information is mentioned in the protocols, in the other elements as regards exchange information as relates to the convention itself, but it also comes out in the commitments. And therefore to us, it shows that exchange of information is a fundamental area. And if we have to enhance international tax cooperation among tax administrations and jurisdictions, Having this commitment is key, but like I said, we are open to have a less detailed text. We have not really provided a proposal in terms of how we can make it shorter, but still having that broadness. We note also that I think when we started the negotiations, there was an issue of having forms of exchange information covered in a number of articles, and I think that was one of the reasons that informed having probably a separate article, notwithstanding that even in the mutual administrative assistance, there's a component of exchange information, but I think having a broad commitment, which is not that prescriptive and detailed, is one thing that we would go for. The issue of concept of foreseeable relevance, whilst its intended objective is well understood, one of which is to avoid fishing expeditions, but some of our member states have had problems with it in terms of the concept, it becomes problematic in how other jurisdictions determine an issue has not been relevant, and so it's our view that that issue can be dealt with, the concept whilst appreciated, can be dealt with in an appropriate instrument or protocol Fellow delegates, for us, when we look at paragraph 6 as currently drafted, we believe that it needs to be redrafted. It appears to us to focus more on limitations, which is one-sided, but we think that having it redrafted to make it more of an implementing article, especially that we know that currently there are in different for us, there's already mechanisms for exchange of information. We know under the global forum, I think even from the Africa perspective, we have our own mutual administrative assistance, which is based on the model so that we have at regional levels, like from my country experience under the SADC region, So we are aware that there are these other mechanisms that are there, but that does not entail that then we should not have a commitment in this framework convention, because the reason we are here is to try to ensure that we have an all-inclusive framework, but which does not really ignore what is happening in other fora. I think that is very clear, and that's why we have Article 15, which at an appropriate time when we've drafted all these commitments, will then flesh out what will be in Article 15 in terms of how it interacts, how whatever work we do here will interact with other existing instruments, treaties that are there. And that is a fundamental issue, obviously, to look at the good things that are there and also to look at the weaknesses that might be there. But I don't think this is the time for us to do that gap analysis. The time now is to come up with the commitments that give us that foundation of the work that will come through and missing out that commitment here renders this issue ineffective. We note also that some of our member states are not part of other fora and therefore this is key. And therefore in terms of Article 6, paragraph 6 rather, we are proposing that the text should read as follows. It can also be refined, but our current proposal that it should read, in implementing this article, The State Parties shall take into account the needs and capacities of developing countries and countries in special situations, as well as such guidance or instruments as may be provided from time to time through guidance, protocols or other instruments by the Conference of the States Parties. We believe that the Conference of Parties should have this power in terms of implementation to give guidance which can be just written guidance through the secretariat or any instrument as maybe need on how the work of the exchange information or any issues that are elaborated will then be implemented. We note like in Article 6, Article 7, I think there are some elements of exchange information and obviously there would need for guidance to also be given on how those will be dealt with. So from the Africa group, our position is that we should have a separate article, but not that detailed. It should be shorter, but broad enough, but we should also have an implementing article noting that there's other forms of exchange information that will be needed to actualize or personalize some of the commitments we've made in the other articles. And also whilst we appreciate the concept of foreseeable relevance, but some issues we have, it can be dealt with at an appropriate stage. We also note that whatever standard that is there in any forum, I don't think it's a standard that is never reviewed or revised, I think we see a lot of things which standards which are always undergoing review and updates. And the reason they search is because we need to adapt or respond to the changing global landscape, changing transactions, new issues that are emerging. And therefore, there's nothing that is always perfect. It always has to be updated and reviewed regardless of whatever for our we are in. And therefore, having this implementing article, which provides a COP to come up with such guidance or instruments is very cardinal for us. And on that aspect, I submit on behalf of the Africa Group. Thank you.

Thank you, Zambia. United Kingdom, please.

Thank you, Mr. Kholid. To a large extent, the United Kingdom would like to echo what has already been said by colleagues from Germany, from Italy, from Canada, but there are two very specific points that we wanted to make. So look, the UK considers transparency and exchange of information to be cornerstones of effective international tax cooperation. And so we welcome their reflection in the framework convention. But we think that there is a difference between a principle and an operational commitment. And it's not really a question of whether we have an article or not on exchange of information, but it is about the way in which that is represented within the text. And it's absolutely pivotal that as we are representing it, we are taking into account the enormous amount of work that has already been done to deliver transparency in this space. I mean, for example, notably the common reporting standard, which brought an end to financial secrecy. And I'm sure it's not in anybody's interests to be creating duplication of these efforts which have been so pivotal to the international tax system. The second point that we would also like to make and has again been made by other colleagues but we wanted to emphasize is the concerns surrounding foreseeable relevance and the importance of the wider safeguards here. You know the reason these are important and this is something that was said very clearly by our colleague from Germany is they are about the operationalization of fundamental rights and so it's absolutely It is absolutely important that we recognise that in whatever text that we have. The current text that is on the table is very challenging from that perspective. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We now have Senegal, please.

Very good morning, co-leads and dear colleagues. Senegal would first of all like to express its support for the African position as set out by the distinguished delegate of Zambia and we'd also like to make a few comments in our national capacity. So on this article 10, paragraph 1 focuses on prevention and of avoidance and evasion Whereas exchange of information actually has two functions, both preventive and dissuasive, a deterrent. If we focus on the end goal of exchange of information, the two of these things need to be highlighted in paragraph one. In 3A. We should also set out a clear framework for limitations which could undermine the effectivity of exchange of information. With that in mind, we need to define indeed very clearly and very clearly so the situations where exchange of information would not be compatible with the legislation or administrative practice of a State Party. On 3, this provision as we see it is quite ambiguous and problematic. Information that is not allowed to be shared by the law is usually covered by areas taken into account by 3C, which covers professional secret or trade processes or commercial secrets or public policy. So therefore, we would propose a deletion of 3B for reasons of clarity, consistency and appropriate implementation of the exchange of information for tax purposes. On paragraphs 4 and 5, which focus on cases where paragraph 3 is not possible, we believe that cases or examples are quite limiting because they would not be able to exchange information and if they cannot do so, they could use paragraph 3 as it currently is worded to avoid inappropriate interpretations. Paragraph 3 should be as clear and stable as possible in how it is drafted. Thanks very much.

Thank you. Senegal, Spain, please.

Thank you very much, co-lead. We wish to first say that we entirely endorse what's been said by Germany and Canada in particular. They have very eloquently explained their thinking. I'm not going to speak at excessive length, but I did want to underscore that we can't forget that we are drafting a framework convention, not a tax convention in and of itself. As such, we have to stick to drafting high-level commitments. The article, in our view, contains manifold operational details and obligations which stray from that remit, and perhaps the commitment could appear in Article 9. Article 9 already refers to exchange of information. The delegate of Austria said that perhaps that could stand as a high-level commitment without the need for anything further. We believe that this detail needs to be is something that's discussed when you discuss a protocol paragraph 17 of the terms of reference refer to a protocol for the exchange of information so it's perhaps there that we need to go into detail on this matter as the delegate of Canada said we agree to that we do need to recognize the gains made by the global Forum and that brings me to the issue of duplication and the relationship between this and other agreements and instruments. And here we have to insist on giving priority to, in our drafting, drafting Article 15 when we discuss the articles. Thank you.

Thank you, Sabine. Laurie, please.

Thank you, Mr. Kollade. We also appreciate that the provisions of exchange of information have been gathered in one paragraph. However, like others, we believe that there is a fundamental discussion we need to have on the appropriate level of detail in this commitment. We would agree with Germany and Canada on the framing of the commitment. and the question from you on how the EOI could or should be reflected in the framework convention. We would also agree with Austria that article 9 on mutual administrative assistance in principle also covers EOI, so there is a question whether that is the necessary level of the commitment in this protocol. We think that we could reference transparency on a high level where necessary in other commitments, but we will certainly reflect on the comments made by the AG on the framing of this commitment as we move these discussions forward. So from Norway's point of view, it is essential to harmonize this provision of EOI so that it is compatible with existing standards and builds upon the existing infrastructure and regulations that we currently have. It is key that the provision reflects the standards in practical and legal terms and ensures fundamental safeguards relating to use of data, confidentiality and data protection. This is important, therefore it is important that we build upon and utilize the comprehensive frameworks that already exist. And I think our views here would be consistent with those expressed by Germany and Canada and others with what the standard must reflect if it is to be included here as a self-standing provision or in a later protocol. We do agree that all countries should benefit from mutual administrative assistance and that is fundamental in international tax cooperation. And we recognize that the benefits in practice are uneven today. But reflecting on our discussions on Article 9 yesterday, we think it would be very helpful that those that find the existing frameworks ineffective illustrate by examples how the framework does not deliver and clarify if the insufficiencies relate to legal or practical constraints or perhaps both. We think that getting clarity on this will help us move the discussions forward and get to a sufficient level of detail here and give us a common understanding of what could or should be improved. We have some specific comments on the provisions here, and they are consistent with comments already made. In paragraph 1, we support using the term "foreseeably relevant", and here we refer to the comments made by St. Kitts and Nevis, Germany and Canada. We would question the exclusion of the social security contributions, and we do not recall that this has been discussed in detail in our discussions in the work stream. Further, we suggest that the last sentence of paragraph one and the list is deleted. It is unclear if this part is compatible with the first sentence of paragraph one, and if it is to be included, the level of detail needs to go beyond what is in there now to be operationalized. We believe that paragraph 2 should reflect the current standard. When it comes to paragraph 6, we appreciate the need to take into account the different needs and capacities of developing countries and countries in special situations. However, this raises some concerns about the practicality and efficiency of the provision itself. We will reflect on the proposal by the African group, but perhaps an immediate reaction would be that this particular paragraph is better placed in Article 12 or when reflecting on the proposal for this provision by the African group. the provisions on the COP would probably cover the full mandate of the COP and would include any mandates on this provision as well. So to conclude, we believe that the commitment on EOI should be high level in nature and needs to ensure fundamental safeguards and should be operationalized in future protocols. Thank you.

Thank you, Norway. France, please.

Thank you very much, Chair. Good morning, colleagues. I won't speak at great length because we do share a lot of the positions that have already been eloquently set out by Germany, Canada and others. Simply, we would just like to draw attention to the fact that From our point of view, commitments on exchange of information is already covered by article 9 on administrative cooperation and this article 10 that's been put forward goes beyond that. It's the operational implementation. It goes beyond that. It could be seen as a legal basis allowing for the exchange of information, which as we see it, isn't appropriate for a framework convention. Therefore, we think that this article should be deleted. Thank you.

Thank you, France. Russian Federation, please.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to take the floor. Good morning, colleagues. We'd like to support the delegates from Zambia and the African group and say the following briefly. We support having a separate article for exchange of information, which aims to reaffirm the obligation to carry out effective exchange of information, including automatically, in order to implement the provisions of the framework convention. We don't see any problem in having this obligation when compared with existing architecture for exchange as part of other legal instruments and platforms. However, at the same time, we believe it is necessary to underscore the readiness and possibility to improve the exchange of information for the framework convention. The elements of this could be regulate on a protocol level at a later state as people wish. Thank you.

Thank you, Russia. Peru, please.

Thank you, co-lead, for giving me the floor. As regards this paragraph 10, article 10, we believe that the language used in this article is technical. This situation goes beyond what was stated in the terms of reference. The terms of reference says that the protocol is an instrument for the implementation of the framework convention. This convention has to stick with high level language, not technical language. Therefore, we recommend withdrawing this article and turning it into a protocol. Or if that option is not viable, we suggest modifying the wording and its style, turning it into more political language, because in our view, this article is still bracketed and has yet to be amended. Bearing in mind that article 9 refers to this article on exchange of information as a type of administrative, mutual administrative assistance, we suggest deleting the reference that is made in article 9 to that, because the specific feature or the operationality of this article should appear in a protocol. Thank you.

Thank you. Israel, please.

Thank you, Chair. We agree with the comments of Germany, the German delegation regarding Article 10, as well as those of Canada and others. We think that exchange of information is an important tool for the tax authorities. We are also members of the MAC and the Global Forum of Transparency. I want to echo my statement from yesterday regarding Article 9. We have existing instruments for exchange of information and we do need Article 15 for understanding the commitment that the covered Convention will have. We agree with previous delegates regarding the text of Article 10. that it doesn't include all exchange of information provisions. There are provisions that are missing, like provisions for reservations, like the provision of secrecy. It is important that all provisions dealing with the implementation of exchange of information, as opposed to high level, because this article does not seem to be high level, should be at the same place for transparency's sake, for the tax authority and also for the public. Thank you.

Thank you. Berjan, please.

Thank you, Chair, and thanks for the work done on Article 10. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I will, because the framework convention should have the high level commitments, and this is our, uh, paragraphs that are just operationalizing what is a commitment. so or what could be in a commitment. And so it is out of place to put it here in a long article as this. Belgium would like to fully align with Canada, Germany, Italy, Austria, UK, Spain, Norway, and fully echo what France said, because it is clear, we have an exchange of information commitment already in Article 9 now. And if we follow what is in the TOR, we can clearly say that under the commitments, It is said, "effective mutual administrative assistance in tax matters, including with respect to information for tax purposes." And then in paragraph 17, there is a specific reference under the 17B, exchange of information for tax purposes, that could be a protocol. So it is clear that there is a possibility for a protocol, and the way this article is drafted is what is supposed to be in a protocol. Again, on the text that is here foreseen, we fully want that foreseeable relevance is there. That is an important standard that goes back to protect taxpayer rights, fundamental rights, and we cannot lower what has been gained for many years to protect our individuals and taxpayers. Thank you.

Thank you, Belgium. United Arab Emirates, please.

Thank you, Kholil. The UAE believes that effective exchange of information remains a key pillar of international tax cooperation. Therefore, the UAE does not object to the inclusion of an exchange of information as a standalone article, as long as the commitment remains high level, and we also could support the idea put forward by Canada of having EOI referenced to support the operational aspects of the framework convention. That said, we would like to raise several substantive points regarding the current drafting of Article 10. First, With respect to paragraph 2, we have concerns regarding the provision allowing information to be disclosed in public court proceedings or judicial decisions. From our perspective, such disclosure should not be automatic. We believe this sentence should be qualified to ensure that disclosure is permitted only where the explicit consent of the relevant state party has been obtained. Second, we note that the current drafting is detailed and prescriptive than other provisions of the Convention. In our view, many of these operational elements and specific obligations would be more appropriately addressed in a protocol in more detail rather than in the Convention text. At this stage, a high-level commitment to improving exchange of information, together with a mandate for member states to explore and address existing gaps would be sufficient. Third, we support retaining the standard of foreseeable relevant. This concept is well established in existing international instruments and plays an important role in ensuring legal certainty, avoiding fishing expeditions, and also for reasons of alignment and avoiding unnecessary duplication. While we are not suggesting that the standard cannot be further improved over time, we caution against creating an entirely new standard or duplicating efforts where effective and well-functioning frameworks already exist. Fourth, we emphasize the importance of strong data protection and confidentiality safeguards on all sides. These guarantees should be clearly articulated, including how they will be enforced and monitored in practice, as confidence in exchange mechanisms depends fundamentally on the secure handling of sensitive information. Finally, we wish to reiterate a broader point previously raised in relation to Article 15. it is important to clearly understand the interaction between this framework convention, any future protocols, and existing international instruments. This interaction should be structured in a manner that ensures coherence with existing exchange of information frameworks while being mindful of potential duplication, complexity, and costs. Thank you.

Thank you, UAE. Indonesia, please.

Thank you, Khalid, for giving me the floor. As mentioned by the African group, we do view the.

Importance of having separate articles for the exchange of information in the framework convention.

However, we view that it should reflect the high level nature of the framework convention. And as for the scope, details and procedures, which is more operational basis, it should be further developed in the implementation protocols and it would provide greater legal certainty and flexibility.

And we could also work together and discuss further.

To define type of information to be exchanged, exchange mechanisms and whether the exchange of information will be mandatory.

For all state parties or to be committed on basis of separate agreement. And as I mentioned this also yesterday, this commitment of exchange of information should be designed to complement.

And fill the implementation gap of existing multilateral instrument and not to be conflicted with each other, as such conflict will create uncertainty, confusion, and resistance that will undermine the objective of this very article.

Thank you.

Thank you, Indonesia. Nigeria, please.

Thanks for giving the floor to Nigeria. I know we address you as co-lead, but I look around the table, it appears you are the only lead for this session. And I must appreciate you because of the good work that you have been doing. Nigeria aligns with the statement that has been well crafted and delivered by Zambia on behalf of the African group. listening to discussions in the room, I think a change of information has been seen by all delegates who spoke ahead of me as necessary. And, Co-Chair, you have also referred us to the commitment and the protocol, and that we find in order. So, based on what the African group has presented, we think it should be high level. need this article because information is critical, is essential for the effective implementation of the convention itself. I know that some jurisdictions have raised concerns around what is already existing and part of our justification and part of what we need to look at is that it is not all jurisdictions that are able to sign on onto that existing arrangement. In engineering, they will say to you that you are as strong as your weakest link. If we are all in the room and we are not able to plug on to the existing instrument, it therefore means that our information exchange cannot be absolute or total, because we can only exchange effectively when everyone in the room find it seamless to do so. the the the protocol we we make this one to be we made the article to be separate and we make it to be high level here when we get to the protocol then we can begin to expand it and elaborate on it and of course we also have to look at what challenges that traditions are having and they are not able to be part of the existing framework uh so that we are not importing the problems with the current framework into what we are developing. But when you are trying to make improvement, let's look at what the challenges were, bring it on board and rectify it with the solution that we are trying to propose. Chairman, thank you for having us.

Thank you, Nigeria. Singapore, please.

Thank you, colleague, for the opportunity to speak. Singapore recognises that the exchange of information is an important aspect of international tax cooperation. We will focus our comments on para 1. As eloquently expressed by Germany, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Canada, Norway, Belgium and many others, the term "is foreseeably relevant" is preferred to build on already recognised international standards for EOI. We also note that the term "taxes of every kind and description" is extremely broad and could lead to downstream disputes on the obligations placed on states. It may therefore be necessary to provide for states to lodge reservations on the scope to secure broad support and provide clarity. Finally, on paragraphs 1a to 1c, as several members have also expressed, we think this elaboration may not be necessary since states would already commit to exchange of information that's foreseeably relevant. On the remaining paragraphs, we, like other states, also think that the scope that is covered is too operational in nature for RFC. And lastly, on whether to have a standalone EOI article or mentions across the framework convention, we are open to consider both, but we know that the former approach would be a cleaner way of presenting the EOI commitments requested of states. Thank you.

Thank you, Singapore. Japan, please.

Thank you, co-lead, for giving me the floor. Japan, fully aligned with the statements made by Germany, Canada, Austria, Italy, and UK, and others, we believe that the specific content to be exchanged and their operational methods requires further and careful discussion, and therefore the wording should not be overly detailed as in the current draft. To maintain consistency with other articles and other international standards and facilitate consensus building, it should be kept to high-level principles only, with details to be determined in the protocol. On that basis, regarding the bracketed text in paragraph 1, we agree with many colleagues that "foreseeably" should be used instead of "maybe". Using "maybe" raises concerns that the scope of information subject to exchange could become unnecessarily broad.

Thank you.

Thank you, Japan. Republic of Korea, please.

Thank you, Mr. Colet, for giving me the floor.

Good morning, everyone. In general, Korea aligns with the points made by Germany, Canada, and many others. First, Korea recognizes the importance of exchange of information as a key element of effective international tax cooperation. At the same time, we believe that the framework convention should remain high level in nature, rather than becoming highly detailed or operational. More specific and technical provisions could instead be addressed in future protocols. In addition, Korea believe that it is important to ensure that framework convention does not duplicate or create inconsistencies with agreements and standards developed in existing international fora. Avoiding unnecessary duplication will help maintain coherence in the international tax architecture and facilitate broader participation by member states. With regard to paragraph 1, Korea considers that the requirement of foreseeable relevant constitutes a fundamental principle of exchange of information and should therefore be explicitly preserved. And moreover, Korea would like to highlight the importance of strengthening procedural safeguards, including purpose limitation, confidentiality, and the protection of personal data. In parallel with discussions on exchanging information itself, Korea believes that it is essential to establish adequate procedural protections to ensure that exchange information is used appropriately and in accordance with internationally accepted standards.

Thank you.

Thank you, Korea. Denmark, please.

Thank you, co-lead, for giving me the floor. Coming in late, my intervention will be rather.

Short, and I will just express that we do believe exchange of information is of key importance. However, we have the same sentiments that have been expressed by Germany and Canada and many others during today. So we are aligning ourselves with them.

Thank you.

Thank you, Denmark. Switzerland, please.

Thank you, Mr. Cowley, for the opportunity to speak. I can keep our intervention rather short as well. Most of our issues have already been addressed better than I could. Regarding the article as a whole and the overall concept, we would join the voices of, for example, Germany or Canada to retain some of the early interventions or recently also from the United Arab Emirates. A commitment to exchange of information in the framework convention makes sense, but the direct obligations to exchange and also all the further details that are necessary, they should better be elaborated in a protocol to the framework convention. For the case that this provision should be maintained, I nevertheless have to address some rather technical issues. One relates to the scope of the covered taxes. We welcome that the provision reproduces in large parts already known language, such as the OECD model convention or the UN model convention, or also the multilateral convention for administrative assistance. However, we believe that The scope of taxes of every kind of description seems is too large for in a, for a multilateral setting, and we ask to, uh, again, to foresee the possibility of, uh, reservations for certain types of taxes as also Singapore, uh, requested, I believe. Regarding the scope of the information to be exchanged according sub-paragraph C of paragraph 1, we have to repeat our content regarding the possibility to extend the scope through other instruments than optional protocols. For the reason of legal certainty, the framework convention should define predictable conditions and procedures for an extension of the scope. A delegation of this competence to the Conference of the Parties would in addition raise concerns regarding constitutionality and sovereignty. So optional protocols to the framework convention are therefore, from our point of view, the appropriate form for an agreement regarding the expansion of the exchange of information and the reference to other instruments should be deleted. Finally, Regarding paragraph two, we welcome that this paragraph copies the provision of the multilateral convention for administrative assistance regarding personal data and safeguards. Missing is, however, the last sentence of that provision that reads, "Notwithstanding the foregoing, information received by a contracting state may be used for other purposes when such information may be used for such other purposes under the laws of both states and the competent authority of the supplying state authorizes such use." This wording is essential for the principle of speciality and would also help to reduce the risk of competing standards, considering that the multilateral convention for administrative assistance is applied by more than 150 states. We also noted that your proposal, Mr. Kholodov, 5 January of this year, that was only discussed in the virtual workstream meetings, included this language. and we therefore ask you to reintroduce this sentence into paragraph one. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Switzerland. Hungary, please.

Thank you, Mr. Kholid. As others already pointed out, based on the terms of reference, exchange of information is subject to be considered for a future protocol. Among others, We would like to especially echo Belgium, Germany, Canada, Italy, Spain, Norway, and France on the points already made and elaborated more eloquently than I could do. Generally, we believe that the framework convention should in nature remain a framework convention. We also echo those who pointed out that having information exchange elements in many parts of the framework convention is problematic. We would also like to emphasize that there are multiple exchange of information instruments developed under other international fora with extensive information exchange framework already established. We consider it important to maintain the coherence with other international frameworks and avoid duplicity. Thank you.

Thank you, Hungary. China, please.

Thank you, Mr. Khalid. A great honor to have the floor. We appreciate the Secretary's effort in drafting this article and explanation, as well as the preceding speaking delegates. China has constantly attached great importance to the exchange of information and maintains a longstanding commitment to international operation in this area. After reviewing this article, we thought this article, if necessary, appears to be too detailed And at the same time, this article again underscores the critical importance of Article 15. Thank you.

Thank you, China. India, please. Oh, sorry. Saudi Arabia, please. Sorry. Saudi Arabia before India.

Thank you, Khalid. Before focusing on the breadth of formulation, We think it would be helpful to have a shared understanding of what type and scope of exchange of information under this convention is relevant and would benefit each article. We believe that the effectiveness of exchange of information is not only the act of exchanging information itself, but what follows it and how we use it. This includes the ability of tax administration to process safeguards and use the information and practice while taking into account the capacity and implementation readiness. And on this note, I want to comment on paragraph 2. We believe that it is essential that the confidentiality and data protection safeguards that is in paragraph 2 applies consistently to all the Convention, not only Article 9. And also, paragraph two would also require further clarity on the confidentiality aspects, being that that information would be reciprocated, and hence it should be governed, for example, through a process or a peer review process that ensures the necessary safeguards for security and data protection while it's being aligned with domestic law.

Thank you.

Thank you, Saudi Arabia. India, please.

Thank you, Chair. India thanks the co-lead and the secretariat for the draft presented. We recognize that exchange of information is critical for the effective execution and implementation of several other articles proposed under the Convention. In this context, the inclusion of a dedicated provision on exchange of information is significant. It is a fundamental pillar for enhancing transparency and for enabling the objectives intended to be achieved through the Framework Convention. With respect to the question of whether exchange of information should be placed as a separate article or subsumed under Article 9 on mutual administrative assistance, We believe this is closely linked to the overall structure and research for the Convention. Given its strong linkages with other articles, particularly articles 6, 7 and 8, placing exchange of information solely under article 9 may not fully serve its intended purpose. Accordingly, we consider that it is better suited as a standalone article, and we appreciate the efforts of the Co-Lead and Secretariat in this direction. That said, we believe the article in its present form requires further redrafting, particularly with respect to its content. As presented by the fellow delegates, under the current draft, the article is highly detailed, prescriptive and operational in nature, and does not align well with the overall flow and the level of abstraction of the draft convention. Consistent with other proposed article, This provision should be framed at a high level, clearly expressing the intent to include exchange of information while laying down the key principles and anchors. The detailed scope, processes, modalities and safeguards could then be developed subsequently through protocols or other appropriate instruments. We are mindful of the apprehensions expressed regarding the existence of current instruments in this area. In our view, these concerns would be better addressed in the context of discussions under Article 15. At the same time, we reiterate that the existing instruments need to adequately respond to the concerns faced by certain member jurisdictions, particularly with regard to removing barriers to effective exchange of information and enhanced transparency, so as to make the process more effective for tax administrations. We also agree on the concept of foreseeably relevant, which is critical for minimizing fishing expeditions and ensuring the optimal use of national resources. However, this concept should not become an operational barrier to the exchange of information. We therefore propose that the article maintain a careful balance between safeguarding against misuse and ensuring effectiveness. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Brazil, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. From our perspective, and in line with what was proposed by the African Group and India, The best solution is to have a standalone article with high-level language and substantive commitment to an exchange of information system that will work for all with the usual confidentiality in standards and principles of reciprocity and foreseeable relevance of the information. Uh, the broad language could also include mention to beneficial ownership registry to enhance the efficiency of, uh, the exchange of information, particularly, uh, relating to high net worth individuals. Some developing countries mentioned that there are some standards or practices that need to be changed. With a broad commitment, we'll be able in the future to evaluate better this through the Conference of the Parties and decide if we will need a protocol or other instruments. Thank you, Khalid.

Thank you, Brazil. Egypt, please.

Thank you chair we support what was said by the African group the position set forth either article 10 on exchange of information should be a standalone article with a broad scope at its current stage we could perhaps bridge it and then expand it later via instruments or protocols that would come later. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Egypt. Portugal, please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Coe-Lit, for giving me the floor. Intervening so late in the discussion helps me to save some time for everyone, given that for the most technical approach to this article, the draft of this Article 10, I believe that all the points that I would like to share with you were already covered by the interventions of Germany, Canada, Norway, Italy, among so many others. So it leaves me with some general observations and I will start for number one precisely. When one approach this paragraph one and reads that the competent authorities of the states parties shall exchange such information. We no longer have a commitment. It's not possible to understand this as a commitment. It is a direct order that is directed to the competent authorities of who will be the states parties of the Framework Convention. And for this, I believe that article, first time I read it, I was not sure if I was still on the section of commitments of the Framework Convention of we were already dealing with other section of the document. And for that reason, I believe that if it is to be a self-standing obligation, then I would much prefer not have this article in the framework convention. The reasons were already said. It is not comprehensive of all the issues that it has to solve in this matter. And if it is a commitment, well, it is not draft. It as a commitment should be in nature, as we believe it should be. Then, given this, I understand the question that you have posed us yesterday in the afternoon in relation to the necessity of having or not having this article in the Framework Convention. The possibility that I see for us to still having an Article 10, it would have to be drafted as a real commitment and this gives reason for me to have one other question. Is not exchange of information already covered in the commitment that we will have under Article 9? Is not exchange of information already a mutual administrative assistance modality? I tend to believe that it is. And given this, if we want to have a standalone article dedicated to access of information, we will then have to be somehow clear on the justification why we have this apart from Article 9. And I'm still hoping to see this more clearly so that I can evaluate if we need or if we have or not have to maintain Article 10 as a commitment, high-level commitment. Thank you.

Right, thank you, Portugal. And in Article 9, we referred to Article 10 when we're talking about exchange of information. So that is why we have just one line there, because, so maybe that helps a bit. Colombia, please.

Gracias, co-facilitador.

Thank you, colleague. On Article 10, on exchange of information, we notice in the document there are different references to this issue. in this circumstances, as Colombia sees it, it would be good to have an article on this issue and this issue alone to develop it as much as possible, as is currently the case in the draft that we have. The need to consolidate existing mechanisms for the exchange of information, the need to improve the effectiveness of systems to exchange information, all of this for us is very important. That's why we'd be in favour of including an article purely simply on the exchange of information. It's a useful tool, as we see it, to strengthen international cooperation, ensure transparency and at the same time of uh fight tax evasion thank you.

Right thank you Colombia Morocco please.

Thank you chair for giving me the floor when I read this article I was a bit slightly confused I thought that the article was going to apply to the exchange of information regarding the implementation of the Convention. But when you said that this was going to actually be included in a separate article that we were going to consider. So on this article we need to put these questions, include them in a standalone article on exchange of information that we will consider. Therefore, I think we should have a standalone article for this. We do agree, for the time being, it would be best to remain on a more general framework without going into too much detail because we are going to consider these measures in the protocol that will be added. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Morocco. Uganda, please.

Thank you, Co-Lead, for the opportunity to speak.

Uganda aligns with the position of the Africa Group as presented by Zambia and wishes to submit the following general comments in national capacity, which will need to be considered in improving the provision for this topic. One, in line with the expectation under the terms of reference.

The draft text should provide for a high level explicit commitment for state parties to cooperate in exchanging information in order to attain effective mutual administrative assistance in tax matters.

Two, the revisions should include a commitment for state parties to exchange information to implement the framework convention.

And three.

For this framework convention to be effective in achieving the intended objectives, we propose that further revisions should be drafted in a manner which allows for improvements to the current framework for exchanging information for tax purposes.

I submit.

Thank you, Uganda. Please, let's take a quick 10 minute break and come back, please. Thank you.

There's someone sitting Play from the Khan Ride Destination Weekend Dhamaka.

Play from the Khan Ride Destination Weekend Dhamaka. Play all songs of the Kapil Sharma Show.

Play from the Kapil Sharma Show.

Let's set it down, please, so we can continue. So, we will give the microphone to the senior delegate from the Philippines. Do we have Philippines? Okay, we'll come back to Philippines then. Kenya, please. Microphone to Kenya, please. We'll come back to Philippines.

Thank you, Chair. We align with the submission made by Zambia on behalf of the Africa Group. We are also open to the proposals to redraft this article to be more broadly worded and for the operational provisions to be included in the protocol, guidance and other instruments to be developed by Member States. On the current draft, we do find some relevance in paragraph 6, but as redrafted by the Africa Group, to ensure that this article and this particular commitment will take into account the different needs and capacities of all countries, especially developing countries. Paragraph 22 of the terms of reference has made it clear that throughout the work of this committee, this committee should take into consideration the work of other relevant forums. I believe this committee is properly guided on that matter. We are, however, not bound to retain, complement or uphold the existing standards, but to take them into account. One of the concerns regarding the existing exchange of information mechanism, especially in relation to developing countries, has been the high cost of implementation and participation of the standards, which is not just in terms of acquiring the costly infrastructure, but also the annual fees for subscription and access to the systems that are needed to implement these standards, among others. Had these standards been developed under the UN platform, more discussions would have gone into developing affordable and accessible globally effective mechanisms, and this would have had a positive effect on the fight against illicit financial flows, especially by developing countries. We therefore remain guided by the mandate that has been given to this committee, which is to establish fully inclusive and effective international tax cooperation in terms of substance and process, because no such cooperation or system or standards currently exist. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Kenya. Philippines, please. I think Philippines, back to Philippines.

Thank you, Mr. Kholid. Exchange of information is an important provision to have in the framework convention and has been a proven effective tool for tax cooperation. The provision should be high level and should not be too detailed. The operational details can be provided in a separate protocol. We agree with Germany and other delegates in that the phrase foreseeably relevant be retained as this is already a technical term under current standards. Changing the terms might lead to confusion in its interpretation. The provision at the very least should have the key elements for effective exchange and use of information, especially ensuring the data's confidentiality and security. We agree, like India and Brazil, that it should be a standalone provision that should generally apply to the provisions that require it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Philippines. Poland, please.

Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. Poland recognizes a big importance of the exchange of information for tax purposes, importance and significance for the effective application of international tax treaties, combating tax avoidance and evasion. However, having said that, we would like to support remarks by Germany, Canada, Switzerland and other countries to the existing and proposed draft of this Article 10. We believe that proposal does not create a commitment, but a direct obligation to exchange of information and sets up direct rules. And as far as I understand in the resolution and the terms of reference, we rather decided to create a commitment in the framework convention and to devote protocols to have more detailed rules how we would like to fulfill these commitments. As far as the specific issues are concerned, Poland would prefer to keep reference to the well-established standards of exchange of information, namely the foreseeable relevance. It is very important notion of exchange of information and it is well established in the international practice and it can, it is very important factor to avoid fishing expeditions, which is like the crucial issue in exchange of information, not only for the competent authorities and for the member states, but also for the taxpayers. So I think that I stop with all this, with these remarks here, repeating that you would like to subscribe to the remarks of Germany, Canada, Switzerland and other countries. Thank you.

Thank you, Poland. Algeria, please.

Thank you, co-lead. We endorse what was said by Zambia on behalf of the African Group. We support strengthening the exchange of information in tax matters. We believe this is an essential tool to combat tax evasion, tax fraud, and illicit financial flows. In this regard, we support the integration of language on information exchange, and at this stage, high-level elements would be sufficient. Elsewhere, we note the importance of retaining clear and recognised criteria for truly foreseeably relevant information that shouldn't hinder proceedings but should guarantee legal certainty and prevent overly stringent requests. We have doubts and a question regarding the scope of the article. Here we see that it is proposed that it cover tax of all nature, of all the nature that are foreseen to benefit governments or multinationals. This but not including social security contributions, this could produce operational difficulties for the competent authorities, given the number of taxes, some of which aren't even administered by the tax authority. Having this provision in the text would generate human administrative and administrative burdens, which would make tax monitoring more difficult. Thank you.

Thank you, Oire. Ireland, please.

Thank you, Mr. Coyleed, for giving me the floor and thank you for the work done on drafting this article. Like many others who have spoken already, I would like to align my comments with that of Germany, Canada, Portugal and others. After listening to colleagues here today, particularly the delegates for France and Spain, we think the way forward is to include this commitment as a high-level commitment under Article 9. But if we are going to keep it as a standalone article, it will need to be redrafted on a more high level basis and harmonized so that it is compatible with existing standards. I would also echo the delegates for Germany, St. Kitts and Nevis and others regarding the importance of the foreseeably relevant principle.

And just on some specific comments on this draft of the article.

We're concerned that the bullets under paragraph one in particular 1B are way too specific and would be better.

Suited to a protocol.

Looking at the wording throughout the article, it does appear that the intention is to largely align with existing standards, and in this case, we think it might just be easier to just refer to those existing standards.

Thank you, Mr. Kholid.

Thank you, Ireland. Tanzania, please.

Thank you, Kholid. Tanzania aligns on the statement made by Zambia on behalf of the Africa Group. We also support many other countries such as Nigeria, Senegal, Egypt, Uganda, Morocco, Kenya, Algeria, India, Russia and Brazil in support of having a standalone article. We should recall that exchange of information is a core pillar of effective international tax cooperation because it operationalize the ability of tax administration to detect and deter offshore evasion and aggressive avoidance and to address tax related illicit financial flows. Without a credible and accessible exchange of information framework, many developing countries remain structurally unable to enforce their tax laws in cross-border transactions, regardless of how well their domestic rules are drafted. For these reasons, exchange of information should receive adequate weight in the convention and be retained as a self-standing article with clear implementable obligations. We also emphasize that existing arrangements have not saved all restrictions equitably. Many current standards and instruments were designed and negotiated without adequate representation of developing countries at the time of drafting, and they do not sufficiently reflect the different administrative capabilities and data needs across countries. In practical In practice, barriers to access and even reciprocity, expectations and limited responsiveness to developing countries needs are constrained in the ability of many nations to benefit from exchange of information on fair terms. Co-led India delegates, fair and equitable international tax cooperation cannot be achieved without a clear and credible commitment to exchange of information. I thank you.

Thank you, Tanzania. I think we finish with member states so we can go to other stakeholders. ATOC, please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Co-Lead, for giving us the floor. We would like to align our statement and commentary with that of the Africa group as delivered by Zambia. Further, Mr. Kholi, we'd like to say that we spent sufficient time debating the merits of this article and it is important that it is a standalone article for the points, for the reasons expressed by members of the Africa Group. Additionally, we feel that exchange of information is an important tool for combating illicit financial flows and ensuring domestic resource mobilization. On the issue around the high levelness of the article, we believe that we should work together to ensure that we make this a high level commitment as enshrined in the terms of reference. And we further call on members to work together in delivering the value of this article. Thank you.

Thank you, Itaf. CYI, please.

Thank you so much, dear moderator, chair, excellencies, and fellow advocates. My name is Alan Creed Adel, and I am from the United States. I represent the major group for children and youth here at the United Nations. In my professional work as a product design leader, I've built AI-powered compliance technology to help companies navigate complex global data and information from which I've known firsthand that while data is the new currency of the global economy, its value is only realized when it's used to foster transparency, accountability, and inclusion. And so this article 10 on the exchange of information is truly the heartbeat of this convention. We strongly support the exchange of foreseeably relevant information to prevent tax avoidance and evasion. For children and youth worldwide, these measures are essential to safeguard regarding domestic resource mobilization and ensuring that the data and creativity of young people contribute to the societies that sustain global commerce. So to ensure Article 10 delivers intergenerational equity and digital dignity, we advocate for the following five key recommendations. One, let's embed privacy by design for intergenerational trust. In an age where privacy is a fundamental right, we must ensure that information exchange is purely policy analysis and not exploitative. We propose that Article 10 explicitly includes privacy by design principles, ensuring that data collection and exchange are secure and private following the highest standards of domestic and international safeguards. We also advocate the principle for privacy is not secrecy be applied as well, because while we must safeguard the personal data of individuals, we must also be clear that the corporate data of multinational enterprises must be transparent to ensure they contribute their share of taxes fairly to the societies that sustain them. Two, let's standardize automated reporting for digital inclusion. We call for technical assistance to help all member states establish automatic information reporting systems to track cross-border payments. Modernizing rules to match the reality of the digital economy ensures that youth majority jurisdictions benefit from the substantial revenue generated within their borders. Three, let's enable proactive detection of digital assets and illicit flows. Information exchange must move at the speed of innovation. We strongly welcome the inclusion of information regarding types of assets and instruments that may circumvent current mechanisms. By matching transaction information for exports and imports, we can better detect and prevent the tax-related illicit financial flows that disproportionately burden younger generations. Four, let's design inclusive user experiences for tax assistance. We urge that task assistance resources be personalized to accommodate varying literacy levels and age specific user experiences. Implementing tailored language vocabularies and talking styles ensures that tax systems are accessible to all. Furthermore, we must prioritize language accessibility for multilingual taxpayers through offline first inclusive digital platforms to ensure that no one is left behind due to a language barrier. And lastly, five, let's institutionalize youth-centered data literacy. We recommend that technical assistance be leveraged to empower youth-led organizations to participate in the monitoring and analysis of how exchange data is used to fund the sustainable development goals. So, excellencies, our leadership today can truly turn data into dignity for billions of people worldwide. And when we center youth and design for belonging through fair information exchange, we do more than serve people. We build a future worthy for them. So thank you so much for including this article, Tenon, considering our recommendations.

Thank you, CYI. GPI, please.

Thank you, Kholit, for this opportunity to speak and also for the discussion on this important topic. I would like to raise one concern on behalf of Greenpeace International and the Global Alliance for Tax Justice, which we hope can be addressed. We believe this article is crucial for all the preceding commitments we've been discussing in the past days, but in particular, Article 6 on high net worth individuals and Article 7 on illicit financial flows, which we understand are implicitly referred to in paragraph 1. We all know that, for example, high net worth individuals structure their wealth in complex and evolving ways. So we must recognize that these structures and techniques used today may change tomorrow in ways that we cannot foresee. This brings us a fundamental challenge that has in the past complicated the effective taxation of high net worth individuals. Even if our countries agree to exchange information, if tax administrations do not know what exists, they cannot know what to request. In practice, exchange of information on request requires the requesting authority to already possess identifying details of the relevant account or asset. For this reason, we are concerned that if we rely primarily on exchange of information on request, we will struggle to meet the convention's objectives of effectively taxing high net worth individuals and combating tax related illicit financial flows. We therefore recommend that the article provide a clear mandate for automatic exchange of information. It should in that sense give a clear direction towards the development of a system for the identification of assets and beneficial ownership, what is commonly described as a global asset register, supported by automatic exchange of information, agreeing on common data standards and secure exchange mechanisms that can, for example, be agreed on in paragraph 2. The Conference of the Parties should periodically evaluate the effectiveness of such systems. Of course, it is important to be aware of capacity as laid out in paragraph six. We therefore recommend that the paragraph include commitments to technology transfer and it recognizes the need for temporary non-reciprocal automatic exchange so that developing countries can fully benefit. In practice, some countries may initially be receivers of information before becoming full providers, and this should be seen as a feature of an inclusive system, not a weakness, and we hope that all delegations can consider this. Article 10 should not only lay out the ways of exchange of information, but provide direction on the mechanisms required to make transparency effective, equitable, and future-proof. Without such direction, we risk perpetuating the very information asymmetries this convention seeks to address. Thanks so much for your attention.

Thank you, GPI. Stakeholder 1, Task Justice Network.

Thank you, Mr. Colly. Thank you, Mr. Collin. My name is Florencia, and I am a researcher from the Tax Justice Network. As civil society, we welcome the inclusion of this new article on exchange. We are also pleased to see the broad scope of its coverage, which we consider to be important to ensure that the article is future-proof. We believe that the scope is arguably broader than that of the MAC, under which countries may, for instance, be unable to exchange information on certain taxes, that are critical for this convention due to the reservations that they have adopted. In this context, we urge caution against any proposals to allow reservations to this article, as they may create future obstacles for member states or result in unequal systems. We would also like to point out that normally UN framework conventions specified that no reservation may be made to this convention, which is quite different from the OECD, where the articles on reservations are commonly very long. At the UN, the approach is to negotiate, reach agreement, and then stick to the agreement without reservations. Several colleagues have highlighted the importance of temporary non-reciprocal exchange of information for developing countries. and also the importance of technology transfers, which we believe to be essential. I would like to make three specific points on the issues covered by this article. We heard developing countries raise concerns that the criterion of foreseeable relevance might be being misused to deny them timely access to information in response to their requests. We are also aware of a growing tendency towards litigation and legal arguments seeking to suspend automatic exchange of information on the grounds that the information exchange is not foreseeably relevant. From our perspective, it is evident that the automatic exchange of information on financial accounts, crypto assets, real estates and so on would qualify as foreseeably relevant. Nevertheless, we would encourage Member States to strengthen this article, potentially by adopting the stronger formulation of "may be". We understand also that this article consolidates text that previously appeared in other provisions and reflects certain priorities of Member States. However, as currently drafted, it appears limiting. We suggest that member states place more emphasis in paragraph one on the modes of exchange of information, explicitly including at minimum automatic exchange of information and exchange of information on request, as well as other forms of exchange deemed relevant. Specific priorities could then be addressed in an additional paragraph. Finally, we believe it is important to distinguish between the legal frameworks and the political institutional frameworks that implement and govern them. Many of the concerns raised by countries, including the unfairness of the peer reviews that failed to reflect concerns raised by some member states, are not a direct consequence of how the MAC was drafted, but rather of how it has been governed by the Global Forum. This is not to dismiss any of the shortcomings of the MAC itself, which exist. But you underscored that even the strongest legal language on exchange of information will be insufficient if it's not accompanied by clear and fair governance rules. Thank you so much, Mr. Kholid.

Thank you. I'll stick with that to ECHRIT.

Thank you, Chair, colleagues, member states. My name is Veronica Grondona, and I speak as senior advisor in international corporate taxation for ICRT, for the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation. I will focus on two particular issues in my intervention. The first one relates to the interaction of this article with the discussion on Article 7 on illicit financial flows. Illicit financial flows can include flows originating from illicit activities, illicit transactions to transfer funds that have a licit origin, and flows stemming from licit activities being used in an illicit way. For such reasons, enhancing transparency, exchange of information, and international administrative cooperation in tax matters is key and has indeed proven to have impressive effects on tax collection. It is important to remove the barriers that limits the reach of such cooperation in the case of low income countries. Therefore, this framework convention should serve the purpose of further enhancing the participation of developing countries in all types of tax cooperation, including automatic exchange of information. However, in order to address illicit financial flows, this is not enough. It is also important to advance on a wider use of information exchange for tax purposes. So information can be used not only for tax purposes, but also to address related financial crimes, such as for customs and money laundering. I come from Argentina, and before working for eCRIC, I was International Tax Audit Director at the Tax Administration. Let me tell you how the wider use works in my country. Once the tax investigation or determination has concluded and the tax auditor considers it is relevant to share such information with the customs area or that there are grounds for a suspicious transaction report on money laundering to be issued, there is a procedure that is executed. In case the underlying information has its origin in the international exchange of information, the competent authority sends a request to the sending country for information to be used for other purposes, using the relevant bilateral or multilateral instrument for such purposes. In this respect, the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, the MAACT, forces in Article 22.4 on secrecy, the use of information for other purposes, as long as the laws of the parties supplying the information allow for other uses and such party authorizes it. It is the general practice that if the other party forces in its national legislation, the use for other purposes of tax information, the use of this wider use is generally authorized when it is demanded from another jurisdiction. It is worth mentioning that the Directive on Administrative Cooperation of the European Union No. 8 enables such other uses as well in its Article 16. Considering that there is a commitment on illicit financial flows in the terms of reference and there will be an article on this in the text of this framework convention, care should be taken for the text in this article to enable a wider use of information exchange for tax purposes. The second issue that I wanted to address refers to sub-paragraph 3c. Even when this text is exactly the same as the one found on article 21 2 D of the MAC, the MAC is a convention which has 32 articles with several very detailed sections in it. And such detail is not is not necessary in this context and can be limiting in an article which should have as its governing objective to end information sharing asymmetries in relation to exchange of information for tax purposes, so that all countries can participate in an equal footing. Thank you.

Thank you, Eekrik Twem. Stakeholder 3, Committee on Fiscal Studies.

Thank you very much, Khalid, for giving us the opportunity to speak on article 10. Article 10 should remain in this particular convention, but only at the level of core legal obligations. The technical details should be pushed to a protocol. That seems to be agreeable. Right now, article 10 sits awkwardly in between. It is too detailed to function as a stable framework law, yet not detailed enough to operate as an implementation regime, and that seems to be the problem right now. Article 10 cannot be entirely moved to a protocol because exchange of information is not ancillary cooperation. It is constitutive of international tax law in itself. So without a convention level obligation on EOI, fair allocation of taxing rights cannot be enforced, harmful tax practices cannot be identified, IFFs cannot be traced, and cross-border services can also not be taxed coherently. Now say if Article 10 were relegated entirely to a protocol, or returned back to where it was inserted in the October 2025 draft, then two legal risks arise. First, the states could ratify the convention but then opt out of the protocol, therefore hollowing out the entire framework while remaining formally compliant. Then the second legal risk would be that the exchange of information would no longer be a universal baseline, but a club good for those with capacity and interest to join. So framework conventions work precisely because core obligations bind all parties, even if implementation happens to be staged. So, Article 10 must stay in the Convention. At the same time, that exchange must be framed as a legal duty owed between State parties. Second, it needs to define the scope of that obligation at a principle level, which includes having relevant standards, types of taxes covered, confidentiality and permitted use, and relationship to domestic law. And thirdly, the mandated operationalization through protocol or conference of parties decisions, specifically with timelines. Now, finally, I think there was a submission that was made to delete paragraph six. Now, paragraph 6 is the only recognition in Article 10 that exchange of information operates under conditions of structural inequality. Without it, the obligation becomes formally equal, but practically exclusionary. So, if the concern happens to be vagueness under paragraph 6, then the answer should be clarifying it, not deleting it. Removing paragraph 6 risks reproducing existing hierarchies, rather than building a genuinely inclusive and accountable cooperation framework. Thank you, Khaled.

Thank you. Still got a three, no, still got a four, UN independent expert on foreign debt and international financial obligations.

Good morning, well, good afternoon almost, and thank you for the floor. While While looking at this particular article, I kept asking myself, what is the problem that we are solving again? And I keep coming back to that because for me, that is what is the main guide. And the problem is the issue around inequality, inability to access information, in unequal treatment between member states on access of information, and in certain cases, secrecy. So if these are the problems, then where are the implications of it if we don't solve the problem? And the implications that I could already see was, of course, the inability of a member state to collect enough taxes, but also the inability of states to share equal or equitable taxes across states. But there are other deeper challenges. The inability of a member state to pay off its debt. And now almost every single country in the world is indebted. So that means that debt becomes an even heavier challenge. And moving further, of course, into illicit financial flow, which has been mentioned and I will not elaborate upon. But all of these also sit within a basket of credit rating and ranking systems that lead from the entire basket of accessing information. And if we go back to Article 4, which we were looking at on sustainable development, then this is the focus which hasn't existed before in any international forum. Now, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration states specifically that, amongst other issues, everyone has the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. And this is something that must sit squarely in Article 15 of this Convention, which has not yet been dealt with. But if we put this international obligation within context, then it is clear that we, at least from my perspective, that we are looking at exchange of information from the perspective of already pre-settled debates and discussions. But this is the first time a treaty of this nature is being debated at a global level. And so I think there is a necessity to also step back from the settled and the agreed and actually look to see where the challenges are and the inequities. Shrouding in secrecy has been the standard position for many member states. And this particular problem does need to be unpacked. Sustainable development, fairness, and equality principles will allow us to move away from these positions and move to something that is perhaps more rational and balanced. And secrecy, as a result, impedes the duty of the state to use the maximum of its available resources for sustainable development, and in addition, undermines the fiscal legitimacy of any state. So since there is no global commitment in place, only those of blocks, which are, of course, to be commended, these have not been inclusive. And this has been stated repeatedly. But I'm particularly struck by the absence of enough voices about LDCs or from members of LDCs. And this is something we really need to address, whether or not our countries belong to an LDC. Under Sustainable Development Goal number 16, ending poverty requires access to information and promotion of transparency, accountability, and participation. And that is why I will join those that are calling not only for this to be maintained as a separate article, but while being maintained as an article that is at a high level to ensure that there are adequate details in the protocols to make sure that across all protocols, we are able to engage on this issue.

I would like to-- If we can round up, we will lose Mike in a few seconds.

Yes, my concluding statement. is, I would also like to reiterate that the absence of enough databases and information means that the United Nations and of course the Secretariat is best placed to hold a lot of this information. I thank you for your time.

Right, thank you and with that it's one o'clock so we'll break for lunch and come back at three. Thank you.