Third Session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on the United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation

Good morning, please can we get seated? Can we get seated please? Good morning, we are calling the meeting to order for us to begin deliberations for today. Yesterday we had a great time and did a great job we did to congratulate ourselves. Today we'll continue with the deliberations on the commitments. And as we mentioned yesterday, just a reminder that when we are speaking, We should measure our tone so that the translators can translate for us. The other thing too is that in our statements that we are making, or comments we are making, we can be as specific as possible so that it makes it easier for the screen to capture what we are saying so that we can reflect it in the document that we are working on. So We expect that with that we'll be able to make a lot more progress. So we'll continue from where we left off yesterday with States who have comments to make on the article. We'll put up the article in a minute and then we'll continue. Thank you. So if we can have the slide up. Yeah, okay. So we have Djibouti. Let's read the letter from Djibouti, please go ahead. seem to be there. Okay. Oh, was it pressed by mistake? It seems so. All right, so yes, any other country? Okay, India, please. India, please.

Thank you, Chair. India welcomes the overall drafting of this article addressing the issue of tax avoidance. and tax evasion by high net worth individuals and strengthening the exchange of information amongst state parties. We consider this as a significant step. However, given the significance and complexity of the exchange of information mechanisms, we suggest that the provisions related to exchange of information be mentioned in a separate dedicated article and a cross reference may be made here to that. Then with respect to para two, where requiring the disclosures by taxpayers, advisors and intermediaries is, we feel is a bit prescriptive in nature and may refrain from that at this stage. So we propose to limit the para two to the state parties agree to share information regarding structures and techniques used by HNIs to avoid and evade taxes. On the issue of effective taxation of high net worth individuals, India underscores its firm belief in progressive taxation as a constitutional, ethical and developmental obligation. Overall, India supports the objectives and the overall drafting of this article. Thank you.

Thank you, India. Zambia, please.

Good morning and thank you, Chair. Speaking on behalf of the Africa group, so we welcome the draft as it is and we only have one suggestion to make and that is in paragraph one. We suggest that the last text of paragraph one which says, "As such exchange becomes feasible," should be considered probably to be deleted as we believe that this is a commitment And in terms of the timings when different states will be ready to exchange such information, I think it's not an issue that should be covered in the commitments. And therefore it's our suggestion that the words "as such extent becomes feasible" should be deleted. Thank you.

Thank you, Zambia. Ireland, please.

Thank you very much, Chair. We would like to support a number of comments raised yesterday in relation to Article 5. First of all, we would like to agree with Poland, the UK and others who raised a number of concerns around the need to more clearly articulate what legal and other consequences of this article might be. Paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 appear to create obligations to exchange information and adopt coordinated approaches without clearly defining the rules around what must be delivered. Ireland fully supports the need for greater international cooperation in this work, but we believe that the article should set out the guiding principles on our approach with the precise details on the commitments themselves to be left to later protocols. We'd also like to support Japan and others who raise the existence of other information exchange mechanisms already in existence. We believe that the framework convention should attempt to leverage these frameworks to streamline the administration of this work for all and avoid unnecessary duplication. Thank you.

Thank you Ireland. Switzerland please.

Thank you, good morning colleagues. Regarding the provision concerning high net worth individuals we do not exclude that there may be a problem that can be addressed in an international coordinated action, but as it was raised yesterday by many speakers, we also believe that an agreement to adopt measures would be premature. So in a first step, we would also prefer to see what could be done and what could realistically be achieved. So the wording explore instead of adopt would be fine with us. And we also would like to add a statement in the lines of while guaranteeing national sovereignty. And that cautious approach applies in particular also to the exchange of information. So before agreeing on an exchange of information, we believe that the object should be described, the trigger of the obligation be automatic on request or spontaneous. The procedure should be described and many more parameters that are a very important aspect. And in this respect we also would like to recall that the current system of exchange of information is already quite elaborated and comprehensive. So every type of asset and income is covered by exchange of information on request, many structures are covered by, used to avoid taxes are covered by spontaneous exchange of information. Almost every type of financial asset is covered by automatic exchange of information with the big exception of real estate where there is the practical obstacle that in many countries including mine there is not a national register as we discovered in our August discussions in New York. So in short, Regarding the exchange of information, our preference would be to address these issues in the general article regarding exchange of information, Article 6 it is, I believe. And if this also must be accommodated under the provision for high net worth individuals, our suggestion would be to replace the wording expanding exchange of information to additional types of assets and so on to replace that by the language improving exchange of information. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Switzerland. Mexico, please.

Thank you, good morning. Only to mention that we agree with the principle of promoting international cooperation in this area. as high net worth individuals are more likely to engage in planning and to design structures, including the movement of assets across different countries to reduce their tax burden. However, it is advisable to avoid duplicating work already carried out in other forums, particularly regarding the issue of information exchange. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Go. Bangladesh, please.

Respected Chair and delegates, greetings to all. Article 5 mainly focuses on preventing tax avoidance evasion by high net worth individuals through in-person sharing and disclosure of offshore of complex wealth structures. In this regard, our view, that is Bangladesh's view is as Bangladesh strongly supports coordinated global action to detect offshore wealth and disclose foreign property and cross-border financial accounts held by high net worth individuals. Automatic exchange of information must include beneficial ownership registers, trust and foundation structure, keep to asset and real estate holdings. We emphasize capacity support for developing countries to use shared data effectively. Information without usability is symbolic, not practical. Advisors and intermediates who designs aggressive tax avoidance status must be included in disclosure obligations. Bangladesh proposes that non-compliance with disclosure be treated as a high-risk compliance category under domestic law. Our firm position is no agreement should weaken mandatory beneficial ownership transparency, voluntary disclosure that is not acceptable. Thank you.

Thank you, Bangladesh. We now have Sweden.

Thank you, Chair, and good morning, everyone. As many have said, there is absolutely a problem here, and we recognize that. We are still struggling with what to do with it and where to do it. We think that the discussion that we had yesterday and also so far today, but also in New York before, shows also that there are different things in people's mind of what to do. And we strongly believe that this kind of framework convention should should cover commitment at a high level, and we believe that this kind of commitment is not on such a level. We think that the discussions that we have had in the work streams also demonstrates that there are different ways forward. I mean, what can possibly be exchanged and what to countries domestically have to be able to exchange that information and so on. So we think that that kind of work should be done in the work streams and should end up in the protocol. We believe, as I think Switzerland just recently said, that there is already a provision of exchange of information. And I think that this kind of commitment should be in the or more elaborated commitment should be in the form of a protocol because we think that that could be something that would be much more helpful than trying to have a commitment like this that many of us don't consider to be high level because then we will find it very hard to commit to it because we don't think it belongs in this kind of framework convention. So we think it would be much more helpful and productive if we would instead link this to exchange of information, as I think we do with the protocol services that would be linked to allocation of taxing right or whatever we would call it, fair allocation, and also on dispute prevention and resolution where it will also be linked to some high level commitment in the in the framework convention, so we would really strongly advocate for instead moving in that direction because we don't think that we will have a broad consensus on the wording as it stands today. Thanks.

Thank you Sweden. Austria please.

Hello, good morning everyone. Thanks for having us here. Thanks to the co-lead and secretariat for preparing the documents for this session.

Unfortunately, I wasn't here yesterday, but I'm happy to be here today and comment on Article 5.

I think to begin with, I think we acknowledge that the taxation of high net worth individuals is an important topic of the hour. It's being explored on several levels already.

And I think that looking into improving the exchange of information can be in principle a good thing.

However, what paragraph two in the draft is a little bit too specific. and from our point of view does not really fit into a framework convention. I mean, we all agreed in, or at least it was decided by resolution that we are following a framework convention protocol approach here.

And.

Paragraph one would, in our opinion, be enough for the high level commitment we would need in a framework convention. and all the details about the exchange of information should go into a protocol where also the details, what exactly, what type of information exactly could be exchanged, could be explored and defined in more detail. As for paragraph three, I think we have to be very careful since it is, we've heard from a lot of delegations that it is a delicate issue. and a question of sovereignty, how to tax high net worth individuals eventually. And therefore, we would also support a more cautious wording in paragraph three as probably proposed by other delegations already.

Thank you.

Thank you, Austria. Can we have Nigeria, please?

Thanks, Chair, and thanks, colleagues, for the work done hitherto. And I also want to thank colleagues who had made intervention before and now. Firstly, Nigeria aligns itself with the position canvassed on behalf of the African group. and we believe that the provisions we have in Article 5 as it is, is workable. And of course, we also willing if there is any consensus for any change to go along with whatever we agree on the floor. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Nigeria. We have Peru, please.

Thank you, Chair. For Peru, it's important to be able to combat aggressive fiscal optimization that leads to some individuals, particularly high net worth individuals, to avoid taxes and evade taxes. Now, maybe more on this article specifically. If it's going to be part of a protocol, which is what we would support and understand from the logic of the article as it stands, we may have a couple of issues, more than issues, questions that arise and then we think that the article should probably give a better direction towards what the protocol would do and how it would entail it. So for us it would be important to provide a stronger signal on the type of information that would be exchanged and the mechanisms that it would entail whether it's this automatic exchange of information or the leveraging the already existing mechanisms of exchange of information and this echoes what some other delegations have already been mentioning. Peru also supports that the different elements related to exchanges of information all be included in the same article as they would entail then the development of the future protocol. We also would like to seek more clarity on what we will entail the coordinated approaches mentioned in para 3 of this article. And finally, for us, it's important that the elements that we're working on are also taking into account the work that is already being done in other fora as Mexico mentioned. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Peru, Lesotho, please.

Thank you, Chair, and good morning. We, first of all, align ourselves with the statement made by Zambia on behalf of the African group. And additionally, we want to emphasize that as far as we are concerned, the article for us is not one that is allocating taxing rights. And therefore, it cannot be argued or suggested that it touches on members' ability or sovereign powers to actually tax high net worth individuals. So in short, we see it as just an article that calls for us to collaborate as member state so that each one of us is able to actually effectively tax the high net worth individuals. So all that we see in the articles here, how then, how do we collaborate and make sure that whatever our national laws dictate, we are able to implement that. So for us, without Article 5 as it is, we will not be able to implement RTF in our national laws. So it's not about impact on each other's sovereign rights to tax high net wealth individuals. So I think that will be our main, our main take on this. And we also think that this particular article is a must in terms of what the terms of reference are saying. We are hearing other member states suggesting that the article might not be necessary, but I think it's one of those things that have to come out as dictated by the terms of reference. So with that, Chair, I think we are very supportive of this. and we also are supportive of the changes that have been suggested too at the end of paragraph one. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Lisu. To Sierra Leone, please.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everyone. First of all, I want to say Sierra Leone aligns itself with the statements made by Zambia on behalf of the African group and other statements made by colleagues from the African group. Having carefully looked into the various paragraphs under Article 5, I think we agree with all of these paragraphs, with the exception that we suggest an amendment to paragraph one, that is at the end, which says such exchange becomes feasible. I think that one should be deleted. Thank you.

Thank you, Sierra Leone. Cote d'Ivoire, please.

Thank you, Chair. I will speak in French.

First and foremost, we'd like to align ourselves with what was said by Zambia on behalf of the Africa Group. and also with what was said by Sierra Leone. To say that having examined this text in depth, we feel that this article is balanced. It's balanced and it should be maintained as it is related to the terms of reference, which did address the question of high net worth individuals. saying that this should be covered by the convention. So this is not something that we should skip over in this instrument. It's true that the commitment here particularly has to do with information sharing and the adoption of a coordinated approach to combat tax evasion that can be the result of the practices carried out by these individuals. So we'd like to propose that the we know that there's a proposal to have the information sharing in a separate provision but we need to understand that when it comes to this kind of taxpayer there are specific circumstances that need to be highlighted so we think that the article as it is worded now is perfectly appropriate and we also support the position expressed by the Africa group of removing the last line, the last word from paragraph one. As it doesn't. Contribute anything specific, there's no added value. Because all tax cooperation measures are included in the. Text they will be. Considered as soon as they are feasible. So we feel that. The word feasible doesn't have any added value here, and it could only lead to confusion. In conclusion, we fully support the position expressed by Zambia on behalf of the Africa group. Thank you.

Thank you, Cote d'Ivoire. Italy, please.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everybody. I hear that in some cases the terms of reference are mentioned again. And I think that this version of Article 5 is more aligned with these terms of reference as far as the first paragraph is concerned, because it actually makes a clear reference to avoiding an evasion, and it is something that clearly derives from the wording of the TOR. I doubt that the other two paragraphs can be rooted exactly in those languages. I can perfectly understand how this article is important and I feel personally sympathetic with that, but again we have to give clear signals and avoid too vague terms and confusion. For instance, Paragraph two makes reference to technique used by high net worth individual. Actually, it is not the high net worth individual in itself using the techniques, but perhaps they are intermediaries using techniques and structures. So again, it's something that can be explained and doesn't add so much clear direction in what we want to call it. Paragraph three, paragraph three is something that goes farther as the terms of reference are concerned, we didn't agree to adopt a coordinating approach, which, okay, I agree that it could be the only effective measure to counteract these issues. But again, perhaps it's premature, as others said. So changing adopt with explore can be a step towards a good direction, but indeed, I think it's too premature. If we really agree that we have to keep eye level, then it's better, like Austria said, perhaps to stop to the first paragraph, not because we do not want to go deeper into or three, but it's not the time, it's not what we agree in the terms of reference in our view. So again, I would reiterate the idea of having explanatory notes for this framework convention. because it would be easier for interpreters in 10, 20 years to have preparatory documents of this Convention in order to have a clear interpretation. If we could really have some commentary or explanatory notes for that, it would help, and in this explanatory note Also the idea of having more systematic rules drawing rooted in the standard that we already have because much has been done for exchange of information, but I agree with you that perhaps with the register information are not available. We said that for some country it is an issue, so it's strange to commit on something that we already know that it's impossible to give. So perhaps it's not to undermine the importance of this article, but it's to give a clear signal. And we think that with paragraph one, this is enough, postponing the idea of supplementing more effective rules in a protocol that could really operationalize them. Thank you.

Thank you, Italy. Bahamas, please.

Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak for a second time on this topic. The Bahamas just wants to align itself with the comments of Switzerland as well as the comments of Austria. We certainly believe that the second paragraph poses a whole host of difficulties with implementation and really doesn't belong in the framework convention. With respect to paragraph 1, we do believe, as Switzerland had described, that the words at the end of paragraph 1 are necessary. Much like Switzerland, the Bahamas also does not have a property registry. system to be able to have the exchange of that asset and we don't have also other types of registries that would be required to fulfill the obligations of an expanded exchange of information. So we think that the qualification as such exchange becomes feasible is entirely appropriate. With respect to paragraph 3, we have no further comments on paragraph 3. it seems just a cooperation and coordination provision and that would be fine to remain. But we do have objection to the entirety of paragraph 2 being included in article 5. Before I finish, the commentary about how this belongs because it determines the reference, I think my comments from yesterday would suffice on that in that Yes, high net worth individuals and the treatment and taxation of high net worth individuals are in the terms of reference. However, this seems to imply that the only basis of our agreement with respect to high net worth individuals has to do with the exchange of information. And there are a lot of other types of provisions, tax methods, and also disclosures that could be put in place that go beyond the exchange of information when it goes to the taxation of high net worth individuals. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you, Bahamas. Okay. I don't seem to have any more member states, so INESC, please take the floor.

Hi, it's me.

Sorry.

Good morning.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I will speak in Spanish.

I'm speaking on behalf of Ines. It's a Brazilian organization, but I'm also speaking on behalf of the Network of Tax Justice of Latin America and the Caribbean, and on behalf of the Alliance for Tax Justice. And I would like to make two comments. The first is more general. It has to do with the document as a whole. We welcome the efforts made so far, but we consider that the current draft lacks ambition and substance, and it doesn't fulfill the mandate set out in the terms of reference. Thus, we urge Your Excellencies to have the courage of drafting a solid and effective convention that can be implemented through a conference of parties. My second observation specifically has to do with Article 5, which we're currently discussing. We understand that ensuring effective taxation of high net worth individuals plays a fundamental role when it comes to addressing inequality within and between countries, as well as strengthening social contact and equity of tax systems. And this element, taxation of high net worth individuals, is also fundamental to address the environmental gap that exists when it comes to high net worth individuals to progressively implement human rights to mobilize resources for sustainable development and to close the considerable climate financing gap negotiations on climate are on the global agenda as countries are currently meeting in Belem Brazil for the cop 30 this convention on taxation has the potential of defining how climate financing can be achieved with fair and effective means to mobilize public resources. As we've seen in the civil commitment and other global spaces, there is currently clear political convergence regarding the idea that taxing the very rich and large emitters must be part of the solution for sustainable financing. However, the current version of Article 5 does not include specific multilateral solutions to combat international tax abuses by the super wealthy. That is why we make the following recommendations to be included in this article. The creation of a global asset registry and the establishment of multilateral solution for automatic exchange of information. Two, commitment to apply taxes, increase progressively for the wealthy at the national and international level. Three, the creation of a global minimal tax for the super wealthy whose income has, the revenues from which will help to address human rights, climate action, sustainable development, and gender equality among other things. And when it comes to the fair use of taxation revenues to avoid tax fraud by high net worth individuals. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you. AMWA please.

Distinguished Chair, Excellencies and delegates, thank you for the opportunity to take the floor. I speak on behalf of Akinamama Africa and the African Civil Society Working Group on the UN Tax Convention. The extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a few individuals in the global north is one of the greatest injustices of our time. As the rich grow richer, billions of people in the global south are left behind. Public systems crumble and governments in the global south are forced to implement austerity measures that disproportionately harm women and other structurally marginalized communities. Taxing high net worth individuals is not only a matter of revenue, it is about reparative justice, restoring fairness, dignity and equity in our economies. It is anchored in the objective of Article 9C of the terms of reference on reducing inequalities and promoting inclusive and sustainable development. In accordance with Article 10B of the terms of reference, the convention must operationalize the commitment to ensure effective taxation of the identified high network individuals, including both approaches to be coordinated between member states as well as international components, including a global minimum tax. This component is vital for reducing inequalities within and between countries, strengthening the social contract and the fairness of tax systems, addressing the excessively large ecological footprint of high net worth individuals, and mobilizing revenue for sustainable development, particularly to advance gender equality. However, the draft text lacks specific multilateral solutions to combat international tax abuse by high net worth individuals. It is crucial to address the issue of taxation of high net worth individuals as a systemic issue and implement policies that impose direct taxes on the ultra wealthy while also aligning with international human rights law. High net worth individuals tax avoidance produces gendered inequality through wealth concentration and regressive fiscal incidents. Sophisticated wealth consumption structures such as offshore trusts, foundations, shell companies, nominee shareholdings across multiple jurisdictions enable predominant male elites to escape taxation, while middle income workers face effective taxation on wages through withholding. When the wealthy can opt out through opacity and loopholes, tax burdens concentrate on labor income and consumption. A minimum tax extended to high net worth individuals through coordinated approaches to wealth and capital income taxation would prevent the pattern where those most able to contribute face the lowest effective rates. This should include measures to ensure compliance and effectiveness, including exit taxes and minimum post-departure tax liabilities. For the world's wealthiest high-net-worth individuals, it should also be recognized that none of their existing wealth stocks originated solely from their country of residence, and the taxing rights to such wealth must include an international component anchored in the objective of reducing inequalities and promoting sustainable development. It also preserves revenue for care economy investment, including public childcare, enabling women's labor force participation, healthcare, water infrastructure, and social protection, providing income security, enabling women to escape poverty and domestic violence. In closing, we reiterate that the convention must deliver concrete mechanisms to ensure that those who have benefited most from this broken global system contribute fairly towards building just, sustainable, and gender just societies and economies. Thank you.

Thank you. BCAS, please.

Thank you, Chair. My first comment is, you know, as I said yesterday, maybe we can remove the word taxpayer and use the word HNI in para two. Now, you know, we need to be clear about the definition of HNI that's not spoken so far. you know, there's a huge difference between global north and south. A person who is HNI for country A may be treated as a poor in country B. So, you know, while we work on all this, it's necessary that the word HNI is correctly and adequately defined. Para one talks about measures to detect tax avoidance and evasion. It largely focuses on exchange of information. maybe, you know, a data bank or a booklet may be prepared compiling all the measures adopted by different countries to, you know, for this avoidance and evasion. And that may be shared with everyone, so that helps everyone to understand these are the measures which they have adopted and this is what the, what the, the intermediaries do, this is what the advisors do, so the data, you know, helps everyone. there's a reference to uh disclosure by advisors, intermediaries, et cetera. There's a BEPS action plan 12 dealt with this. We may want to study uh how was the outcome of this, how it was received and what was achieved by BEPS action plan 12. Now para three uh of article is little confusing and it leaves lot of things open. Uh while para one and two specifically talks about evasion and avoidance, Para C doesn't talk about evasion avoidance. It's, you know, it's standard on Para. It talks about effective taxation. Now, what is effective taxation? Are we, are we looking at, you know, minimum taxation as, you know, some of the, some of the speakers spoke before me. If that is the case, then are we looking at a coordinated approach for effective taxation or minimum taxation of HNI pillar two, I would say is sort of a coordinated approach for effective taxation of MNEs. Are we looking at a similar structure? Are we looking at, you know, UTPR kind of a provision for HNIs wherein the taxing rights will move from one country to another country if the country of residence does not adequately tax the HNI? So a lot of things, you know, needs to be thought through, especially in para three, and I'm sure the committee will look into it. Thank you.

Thank you. Can we have Israel, please? Mike for Israel, please.

No? Oh, no, thank you. Sorry that I pushed the phone late. Very fast. Yes, okay, sorry. So we support the coordination between the countries. with that we have we agree with what was said before by some delegates that we should avoid duplication so it depends what happens it's this I think this paragraph this article is should not have a paragraph two because I think that the exchange of information should be in the exchange of information article not here so it's it should not be in each article an exchange of information provision, I think. We also think that those maybe a specific provision should be maybe in the protocol, a specific protocol, this also can be like that and this is the yes and the the exchange of information should not be spread on each article and article I think it's because it's not it's a it's a high level treaty and not uh uh not uh exchange of information only so maybe we give the wrong uh impression thank you right thank you.

But they have some.

Thank you Israel. Okay, Etta please.

Thank you Chair and good morning colleagues. I think we'd like to recognize the importance of taxation of high net worth individuals, particularly this is something that was included by the General Assembly in the terms of reference. And so we see the importance of inclusion of this article. And as such, we align our comments with those made by Zambia on behalf of the Africa group. Additionally, Chair, we'd like to propose a slight amendment in the wording of paragraph one. Our proposal is that we remove the phrase as such exchange becomes feasible from paragraph one. Thank you.

Thank you, Ato. South Centre, please.

Thank you.

Good morning, delegates.

The South Centre supports the commitment to address tax evasion and avoidance by high net worth individuals and efforts to strengthen transparency. We support the current wording and we recognise that the mention of this article is critical here and it's in line with the terms of reference. And it has, it's widely recognized that taxation of high net worth individuals is not, it cannot be effective without.

International cooperation.

So we support the efforts to support exchange of information under this paragraph and specific protocol can provide further details.

Thank you.

Thank you. If we can have the African Union, please.

Thank you, Chair. We want to build on statements already made by ATAF and as well as the Zambia on behalf of the African group. We know that this article is important, more so because it's part of those articles that we included in the TOR as a must have in the convention. But the specific aspect we want to speak to is the proposal to remove as such action become visible. We are mindful of points raised by some colleagues to say they do not have certain mechanism as at the moment, but we all agree that commitment must raise obligation and obligation sometimes will entail parties taking steps to acquire new measures in satisfaction of that obligation. to that extent, Chair, we think that it's very important to remove that phrase because allowing it to stay weakens the commitment and almost makes the commitment unviable. We yield back, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. CFS, please.

Thank you very much.

The draft text relies on weak phrases, like reasonable steps and explore coordinated approaches, allowing wealthy individuals to continue using sophisticated avoidance structures without meaningful consequences. I propose an insertion as follows. State parties will ensure effective taxation of high net worth individuals through enhanced transparency, comprehensive reporting, and coordinating enforcement measures. Each state party shall establish threshold criteria appropriate to its economic circumstances for identifying high net worth individuals and shall implement automatic exchange of information covering all relevant assets, income sources and beneficial ownership structures. State parties agree to prevent tax avoidance through enhanced substance requirements for intermediary entities and coordinated minimum taxation approaches that ensure high net worth individuals contribute appropriately to public finances in jurisdictions where they hold assets, generate income or maintain residence.

Thank you.

Thank you, CFS. Tanzania, please.

Thank you, Chair.

Chair, since this is the first time for Tanzania to take the floor, I wish to express our deep appreciation to the government of the Republic of Kenya for the warm hospitality and excellent arrangements in hosting this important round of negotiations. Tanzania aligns itself with the position of the African group and other states supporting Article 5 on on the high networks individuals to be drafted in a manner that ensures the convention delivers tangible results in addressing tax avoidance, tax evasion in illicit financial flows. On article five, Chair, Tanzania underscored the importance of adopting clear and implementable commitments to ensure effective taxation of high net worth individuals in line with the terms of reference. We therefore support the Article 5 subject to the deletion of the phrase, "as such exchange becomes feasible", since its inclusion would dilute the level of commitment and create room for indefinite postponement of implementation. Chair, on the issue of complementarity, this should not subordinate the convention to existing frameworks, But rather should ensure that the convention stands at the central inclusive and the intergovernmental platform for international tax cooperation under the United Nations. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Tanzania. Okay. Right. We don't see a request for any more comments. Before we move to Article 6, we want to take a few minutes break, 10 minutes break, and then we'll come back and continue. Thank you.

Yeah, they're going to go back to the hospital.

Thank you.

Hi everyone, if you could take a seat please.

We will continue with opening discussion on Article.

6 and I request that everybody return to their seats and stand ready to discuss this article. And by that, I will defer to the co-leader, Daniel.

The floor is yours.

Please, everybody, take your seats.

Okay, welcome back to the session. We now will now move to Article 6 on mutual assistance and we'll invite comments from member states and other stakeholders. Now, okay, let me quickly go through. Now, Article 6, as we have it, talks about the mutual administrative assistance. And I'll just quickly read through it and then we can go on. See, the State Parties recognize that domestic resource mobilization depends on the ability of all States to enforce their domestic tax laws. Accordingly, state parties shall afford one another the widest measure of mutual administrative assistance, including through exchange of information for tax purposes, to support the administration or enforcement of the domestic laws regarding taxes of every kind and description by another state party. Such administrative assistance will include the exchange of information regarding revenues, expenses, profits, taxes paid, tax planning strategies, tax structure and arrangements, the nature of activities, any other relevant information. Two, the state parties agree to cooperate to identify and eliminate administrative barriers that prevent effectual mutual administrative assistance, including with respect to transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes. Three, any information obtained by a state party under Articles 5 and 6 of this convention shall be treated as secret and protected in the same manner as information obtained under the domestic law of that State Party and to the extent needed to ensure the necessary level of protection of personal data in accordance with the safeguards which may be specified by the supplying party as required under its domestic law. Four, the State Parties agree to expand assistance and collection of to the extent possible, taking into account the needs and capacities of the State Parties as well as national constitutional restrictions. So basically these are the articles on mutual administrative assistance and we'll now invite the comments. Okay, Zambia please.

Thank you, Chair. So Chair, I speak on behalf of the Africa group. I wish by underscoring that this article that we are now considering, the mutual administrative assistance in tax matters, is a very key backbone of international cooperation. And we believe that having this article as part of the commitments will ensure that our aim of improving effective international tax cooperation is achieved. We believe that effective and dictable sharing of information and other elements of administrative assistance if properly and implemented such that we are able to fight tax evasion, aggressive tax avoidance, we at least achieve this and therefore from developing country perspective including from Africa we find this article central to enabling domestic resource mobilization and also achieving the sustainable development goals that are key for our countries. Chair, Article 6 as is currently drafted provides a solid foundation for that from the perspective of the African group. However, we still believe that certain refinements are needed to ensure that this article is not only extensive in scope but is also practical, it's fair and it's also responsive to the capacity realities. So Chair, with that said, we have a few proposals from the Africa group, which I'll highlight at a high level. So Chair, in paragraph 1, it is our view that the paragraph be split and the first sentence if you can indulge me, state parties shall afford one another the widest measure of mutual administrative assistance, then we include in tax matters and a full stop there. We believe that having this sentence as the first paragraph, as I've highlighted, provides the commitment in a simple and clear way. It is our suggestion that The words including through exchange of information for tax purposes to support the administration or enforcement of the domestic laws regarding taxes of every kind and descriptions by another state may be deleted. Having the inclusion of administrative assistance with the words in tax matters, the word in tax matters in our view is broad enough to cover every kind of tax, taxes that would want to be covered under the mutual administrative assistance. And every description of those taxes, I think the way that high level captures off because we are not specifying any tax, we're just saying assistance in tax matters and therefore it's part of our proposal that we make that deletion. The part of the paragraph one that starts with such administrative assistance will include, it's our proposal that can be moved to paragraph two and subsequent changes of the other paragraphs. But we also believe that so that we don't have any doubts in terms of the scope of the administrative assistance in tax matters that we envisage to be covered under this article in terms of the commitments, it is our proposal as the Africa group that we also make a refinement here and we make some inclusions. So it's our proposal that we have such administrative assistance, we include exchange of information of any kind and comma, Then we delete the description of those examples that had been given, that is revenues, expenses, profits, strategies, tax structuring and the nature of activities and any other relevant information that be deleted such that then we have A paragraph that more says such administrative assistance will include exchange of information of any kind, comma, then we propose now to include the elements of administrative assistance that should be under the scope, and that is assistance in tax collection, simultaneous tax examination, tax examinations abroad, service of documents, or any other form of mutual administrative assistance as the conference of parties may from time to time determine. Chair, it is our view that we shouldn't take it to chance that everyone, um, we are on the same page in terms of what we understand to be the scope of administrative assistance, and some for sometimes people think it's limited to exchange information, and therefore it's our view that at a high level we provide the scope, uh, of what we we propose to be included and therefore that's why we've elaborated the elements of administrative assistance that should be under this scope. We also take cognizance that there will be a conference of parties that also have an oversight and also rules and procedures on some of the issues under the framework conventions and its protocols and therefore we give room for flexibility noting that what we are developing now is not just for the current realities but it's also for the future reality so we offer some flexibility. Chair, we also support and agree that the state parties should cooperate to identify and eliminate administrative barriers that may prevent effective mutual administrative assistance. This is the very key in ensuring that we achieve the very essence of why we are developing this framework to ensure that we have an inclusive and effective international tax cooperation so this to us is a very key uh paragraph that we support its retention but we submit that we at the end of the words administrative assistance we include in tax matters so that there's some consistency with the inclusion we've pro we've proposed uh in paragraph one. Chair again when we move to the other paragraph that is dealing with secrecy in terms of how information is obtained. We know that providing provision of information and maintaining secrecy and confidentiality is very key especially on tax matters and we support this measure. However, Chair, we have two submissions. One is that whilst we agree that Information should be kept secret and states should abide by the confidentiality that is needed. It is our proposal that we should provide an exception and in that line we are proposing that we have an insertion of a text where we have any information obtained by a state party under articles five and six of this convention, we insert the words except as otherwise agreed by the conference of the parties shall, comma shall, be treated as secret. So member states, excellences, and colleagues, and also chair, the reason why we are proposing that we have this inclusion of an exception to the rule which should be made by the conference parties is that from the Africa group I think we have been on record that One of the key cornerstones that we require for effective exchange of information is to have public country by country reporting and we don't we believe that country by country reporting does not require confidentiality standards. Now we give with our proposal the Conference of Parties can as an example in public country by country reporting provide that exception to the rule in terms of confidentiality. And that's where we are coming from in terms of proposing this inclusion. Chair, we also propose that this paragraph just ends at, "be treated as secret and protected in the same manner as information obtained under the domestic laws of that State Party," without the other paragraph that is there, such that what is really governing the secrecy is the domestic laws of the state party. Chair, we also propose another refinement. We note that there's a paragraph talking of constitutional limitations and also with respect to tax dates. We are proposing that that be deleted. We've put assistance in tax collection in our paragraph two as a scope. We know that other Countries are on record of having given different resolutions on that, but we know here we are making a commitment which covers in a broad sense and at a high level the elements that we all want to be covered. And we know in some countries they have even simplified regimes even on how to collect taxes. But notwithstanding that, it's our submission that we also put in a commitment which allow me just to read. In implementation of this article, the States Parties shall take in cognizance the needs and capacities of developing countries and countries in special situations, as well as such limitations as the Conference of the Parties may from time to time determine. Again, we put in such limitations that the Conference of Parties may from time to time determine to offer that flexibility, the world is unknown, the world is evolving, the digital space is evolving, the tax rules and architecture is also evolving, and since we are having a document that is not only for now but for the future as well, we provide this part to the Conference of Parties to also provide guidance and also to help in terms of the capacity and the needs of the developing countries as we implement this article. This should be taken into cognizance. So Chair, from the Africa Group, We remain committed that we have fruitful deliberations and we hope that we can have convergence in how we refine and make this article clear, equitable and fair for all developing, developed countries and the least developed countries so that we all participate fully and benefit from the mutual administrative assistance such that this article is fit for all. to ensure that we have that inclusivity, we have the fairness, and we have the necessary capacity support, we have the necessary data security as needed so that we have a genuine cornerstone for international tax cooperation under this convention. Chair, on behalf of the Africa group, I've taken so much time. I thank you all.

Thank you, Zambia. Mexico, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The wording of the first sentence of paragraph one of article six expresses general issues rather than expressing specific agreements. We suggest mentioning this aspect so that the wording of the first paragraph does not only have the character of a preamble, We also believe that we should avoid duplicating the work already done in other international forums on this topic. In this case, there is the multilateral convention on mutual administrative assistance in tax matters, which was developed in 1988 and amended by a protocol in 2001. Thank you.

India, please.

Thank you, Chair. India welcomes the revisions that have been made to the September draft in context of Article 6. We feel though that the current version can be refined further. Firstly, Article 1, India is concerned that this article might lose its focus and also might not be scoped very properly currently. We propose that we include very specific and clarification language which states that, which states reiterates our commitment to mutual administrative assistance and to assistance in collection of taxes. We feel that the second-half of this paragraph which elaborates on what this administrative assistance will be can be covered in later articles of exchange of information. On paragraph two, while we acknowledge the importance of identification and elimination of administrative barriers, our domestic experience in mutual administrative assistance matters has reinforced our belief that this should not come at the cost of procedural safeguards. Therefore, we propose to include the phrase "without compromising procedural safeguards" in paragraph 2. Coming to paragraph 3 of the current draft, we feel that these confidentiality safeguards and measures are something which covers all sorts of exchange of information that will be covered under article 5, under article 6 and any other articles of this convention. Therefore, these confidentiality standards should probably be taken to another article which is a specific UI article we have been discussing in yesterday and today as well. On paragraph three, on paragraph four our proposal is since we propose to take the commitment to provide assistance in collection of taxes to paragraph one, We propose that in paragraph four we can talk about the capacity building that is needed for the differential capacities of member states. We propose that parties acknowledge and commit to support the specific needs of countries through targeted assistance and capacity building initiatives aimed at strengthening their tax administration capacities. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, India. Switzerland, please.

Um, thank you, um, the international cooperation regarding mutual adminis- administrative assistance has, uh, dramatically changed over the past 20 years, and, uh, it is a, a great success of the international community. And it is also one of the few success stories of multilateral international cooperation in tax matters. It led to the development of international standards that continue to be refined and expanded. So this progress is also the result of huge investments by the international community, and that should be taken into account as a base, of course, without excluding further work. in that the area of mutual administrative assistance. Furthermore, we ask whether the provision needs in paragraph one a reference to an agreed required level of cooperation since also the widest measure will have its limits. Our proposal is therefore to add after the widest measure the wording according to the international standard or according to an agreed standard. Further, as a detail, we believe that the first sentence of paragraph one is rather a preamble language and that it should be moved to the preamble once the preamble will be drafted. And finally, I would like to highlight that paragraph one provides for the necessary and appropriate level of data protection and confidentiality. And we welcome this very much, but on the other hand, it would also be difficult for us to negotiate a departure from that. So I would like to thank you.

Okay, thank you. Switzerland and Nigeria, please.

Thanks Chair for giving me an opportunity again to speak. Without doubt, information, assistance of one tax authority to another in different jurisdiction is very important in modern day tax administration. And we all can attest to its importance for those of us in jurisdictions where we have systems that are currently running. And so it is to this extent that Nigeria aligns itself with the position of the African group as canvassed by a colleague from Zambia. Um in in addition we also believe that the limitations suggested in paragraph three should not be there as the AG spokesperson had had iterated. Um I think on the issue of existing framework, this is in my view not a counter to whatever is in existence to which many jurisdictions have subscribed even including my country Nigeria but we believe that based on the terms of reference of this committee these committees to have a framework convention covering every aspect of taxation, which also includes mutual assistance in tax administration, which covers different areas of joint tax audit, assistance in tax collection, exchange of information and all the like. And so it's important that we have this article And of course, as to the language, as the AG had suggested and quite a number of colleagues have said, we can refine the language, but it's important that we have this as it's not in any way conflicting with any existing framework. Thank you.

Thank you, Nigeria. Ghana, please.

Thank you very much for giving me the floor. Ghana aligns this intervention with that of the Africa group and speaks at this moment in her national capacity. Let me also begin by emphasizing that mutual administrative assistance in tax matters forms the cornerstone of effective international tax cooperation. And without a fair and efficient information, our shared efforts to combat illicit financial flows, tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance would be akin to fetching water in a leaking basket. It would never get full. For Ghana, this principle is vital to strengthening domestic resource mobilization and advancing progress towards sustainable development. We believe that Article 6, as currently drafted, provides a good basis to begin discussions but from our perspective some amendments are required on widening the scope of mutual assistance we we support in article six the retention of the phrase the widest measure of mutual assistance and request the inclusion of and in brackets uh tax matters this would make the provision more comprehensive and consistent with evolving tax standards. We also support the deletion as proposed by the Africa group. On the range of information to be exchanged, we propose that the-- we support the proposal of the Africa group that the list of information such as revenues, expenses, profits, taxes paid, tax planning strategies, tax restructuring arrangements and the nature of activities be deleted. also request for the inclusion of the following, particularly in the first line of paragraph one, and we support the Africa group's position of including any kind in that paragraph. This ensures flexibility as new tax risk emerges, particularly those linked to digitization and complex global change. On administrative barriers and capacity constraints, we strongly welcome the paragraph on cooperation to identify and eliminate administrative barriers. However, just like the Africa group, we propose that the text mandate technical assistance, technology transfer and capacity building to developing countries to help them overcome such barriers. Mutual assistance cannot be effective if one side lacks the infrastructure or trained personnel to participate on equal footing. On confidentiality and data protection, we support the provision that information obtained under Articles 5 and 6 shall be treated as secret and protected per domestic law. However, developing countries would benefit from the additional safeguards that the conference of parties establish common minimum standards for data protection and confidentiality, ensuring consistency and building trust among all state parties. And lastly, on special considerations for developing countries and countries in special situations, We appreciate the inclusion of this very important clause. We propose strengthening it by requiring that the implementation of this article developing countries limited capacities be actively supported through phase implementation, flexible timelines and tailored assistance programs as many as may be determined by the conference of parties. I thank you.

Thank you, Ghana. United Kingdom, please.

Thank you, Chair. Ensuring that new initiatives are complementary to existing work is the most effective way to reap the rewards of their implementation and make the international tax system certain and credible for everyone. This process must bring in the respective expertise of all relevant international organizations and build on the progress made in other broad-based international fora. This coherence is how we avoid fragmentation and turn commitments into results. In August, we called for this committee to set out a plan for how to achieve this before the end of 2025. We repeat that call today. The UK agrees that mutual administrative assistance and transparency are important matters, but we request clarity on how the proposed article would interact with existing mechanisms. and what this article is trying to achieve. The Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, the MAAC, already has significant global reach and adoption with over 150 participating jurisdictions, including an increasing number of developing countries. This is complemented by the work of the 172 member Global Forum on Tax Transparency and Exchange of Information. At the most fundamental level, we therefore ask what value this article adds to the existing framework and suggest it may be simpler to directly reference the MAAC rather than trying to transpose these highly technical and detailed provisions. If the aim of this article is intended to endorse the MAAC, then that is an intention we can support, even though we think changes are needed to the wording of the article to deliver that intention. There are certain provisions where we are unsure of the intention and commitment we would be making. For example, we are unclear what jurisdictions are committing to in the provision to agree to expand administrative assistance in collection of tax debts to the extent possible. If the aim of this article is to go beyond the MAAC or facilitate exchange under a different instrument, then we'd like to understand how it is intended to go beyond the MAAC and why it is intending to go beyond it. The UK would be concerned about any such departure, especially any attempt to dilute the safeguards and principles set out in the MAAC. This includes confidentiality, reciprocity, taxpayer rights and safeguards, provisions governing the permitted use of the information, exhausting domestic means and foreseeable relevance. Thank you.

Thank you, UK. Peru, please.

Thank you, Chair. Let me start maybe by making reference to our comment on the previous article with regards to the fact that we see with good eyes that the exchange of information should all be addressed under the same article. As another general statement, we consider that in this article, much as it is the case in some other articles, there are elements like the first sentence of para one that would better fit in a preamble or section rather than in the article itself. And we believe that the framework convention should have articles that give a much clearer direction to the development of the necessary protocols. On para one, and this is a bit more precise wording, we would see with good eyes that the wording on tax planning strategies and tax structuring arrangements are better aligned with those of articles five and seven. On para three, Peru would see positively heading towards the direction of the development of a common standard for confidentiality in order to promote cooperation while ensuring the necessary trust within the system. And finally, we would suggest moving para 4 as the second para of this article. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Peru. China, please.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, colleagues. For Article 6, for the first paragraph, I think I agree with the previous intervention by some other delegates that the first sentence is more like languages should be placed in preamble rather than in article. So, and for the second sentence in paragraph one, the language is like the widest measure of how wide we will be. I think we should avoid applying such wording in the article, either deleting it or replacing with some other more appropriate wording. That's for the first paragraph. And secondly, I share the same sentiment as other colleagues that a general or overall paragraph for information, sharing information, should be in place somewhere in the framework convention. And if not in a separate article, then the article six will be a right place to put such paragraph or provisions. and at the same time making necessary references to Article 5, Article 7 or Article 8 where necessary. And we support the idea to simplify and refine the languages further, not necessary to incorporate many detailed matters now in the Framework Convention. These can be discussed and agreed on in future protocol. Finally, for the last paragraph, paragraph four, I think we support the current languages which has taken into consideration of the needs and capacities of the state parties as well as the constitutional restrictions. We just want a very simple addition that for the last part of this paragraph, as well as international and national constitutional restrictions. I'll stop here. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, China. Saudi Arabia, please.

Thank you, Daniel. A couple of comments. Let's start with the first paragraph. Maybe in the second line we are saying state party shall afford one another the widest measures of mutual administrative assistance. I think the word why these measures would need to be defined or rephrased because at the end when we want to ratify this agreement we will be asked this question, what does that mean and what does that entail and what consequences would be for the countries that are joining this convention. And then when you go to the second line, again I think the second line, sorry the second paragraph when we talk about that we agree to cooperate. I'm not sure this is a language maybe relevant for a framework convention, because it seems honestly like a general statement, so I'm not sure how it would help and what purpose it would serve practically when we want to implement it. And then when we move to three, we agree with the language there, but maybe the concern that we have is that it is only limited to five and six. This paragraph seems to be, should cover the whole Convention. Any information might be collected under other articles as well. And therefore, even thinking that we should have a specific article on confidentiality of information, and the language should be wide enough to cover all articles, not only five and six. And the last thing when it comes to four, I think as some of my colleagues have highlighted, collection of debts, I think this is a huge administrative thing that requires strong capacity to be able to collect this information and I think we should be mindful of developing country as well and their ability to fulfill asks that they're going to receive from other jurisdictions to collect taxes and also should take into consideration some jurisdiction including Saudi Arabia has made reservation on collection of taxes and other international agreement and I think the language we might need to delete for and we don't need that or we may leave it to mutual agreements between parties of this convention to agree on collection of taxes. But other than that, I think for us it would be difficult to accept collection and such convention. Thank you so much.

Thank you. France, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm going to speak in French.

For the principle of mutual administrative assistance. We are therefore in favour of this commitment. Nevertheless, we think, as for previous articles, that the paragraph is too detailed and too prescriptive. While it's not operative in itself, we then need instruments to implement this cooperation and it's those that from our point of view will specify these elements, for example a MAC, which is already talked about, So the article could be simplified with the commitments to mutual administrative assistance as featured in the first two sentences of the first paragraph. We think the third paragraph is inappropriate, not necessarily content, but we don't think it has its place here in this type of article. In addition, paragraph two does not necessarily seem necessary. We also have difficulties in seeing what practical barriers it's referring to. And we think we could simplify the article with a general first sentence on mutual administrative assistance with, in particular, exchange of information and assistance. And then second section showing that these need to have procedural guarantees and full protection of data because this is private data. fundamental rights and we can't deviate from that but we are open to seeing these essential elements featuring as noted by the previous speaker in a more general manner in the convention and not be limited to just articles five and six because these elements concern all the information which you need to exchange thank you

thank you for us Singapore please

thank you chair.

On paragraph one, we share the concerns of previous speakers that the scope of assistance is not defined. The words widest measure suggests that this is unconstrained and exchange of information is mentioned, but it's just an example and not exhaustive. So the practical question for state parties is what else will be covered? For example, would requested states be expected to raise assessments or perform audits on behalf of a requesting state? I recall that the previous iteration of this article had the words, to the extent possible under relevant laws, treaties, agreements, and arrangements of the requested state party. And we would suggest reinstating those words to set up the limits of assistance. so that state parties will know what they are signing up to. And I believe this approach will have a higher chance of garnering consensus. We agree with India that paragraph two, although we cooperate to identify and eliminate administrative barriers, that this should not be at the expense of safeguards. So some words to include safeguards would be useful. And we will also agree with previous speakers that building administrative capacity is very relevant and important for all countries. In this regard, we would suggest a general undertaking for state parties to work together to identify and address the practical challenges with existing exchange of information standards and to share best practices on resolving challenges in obtaining information, and how they have used the information obtained effectively. Lastly, on paragraph four, we appreciate the words relating to constitutional restrictions. This is important for Singapore. Thank you.

Thank you, Singapore. Bahamas, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Bahamas is concerned about the inclusion of the exchange of information as a concept throughout different provisions in this convention to the point where it seems to be a convention focused on the exchange of information rather than focused on the fundamental components of international tax regulatory reform where the UN resolution started out on. I agree with many of the prior contributors that references to exchange of information should be isolated to a single article and in fact we have article 15 that would seem to indicate that's where exchange of information provisions are properly placed. The Bahamas being a small island developing state has a concern that Domestic resource mobilization and mutual administration of assistance really should be focused on matters of capacity constraint. I think our colleague from Jamaica spoke to this extensively when we were in New York. Small island developing states due to international regulatory pressures are being forced, and force is the appropriate word, to implement new types of taxations throughout our systems. That would include recently the Bahamas enacting value added tax. That would also include now the imposition of corporate income tax under the DMTT and pillar two regimes of the OECD. and the challenge that lies is that small island states and developing countries, uh, really have a, um, sparse, uh, resources both on the compliance side as well as administrative capacity, uh, to not only understand, implement and, but also administer these, uh, tax regimes. We believe this Article 6 should have a predominant focus on the building of capacity, uh, for countries, especially countries, with special circumstances such as small island developing states and that really should be the focus of Article 6 and the mutual administrative assistance, especially when it has to do with domestic resource mobilization. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you. Sierra Leone, please.

Thank you, Chair. Sierra Leone aligns itself with the African group and supports vehemently the statements made by Zambia. Article six must be delivered, real and universal cooperation, not a system that benefits a few and excludes many. Without strong mutual assistance, even the best tax rules cannot be enforced, especially against multinational corporations and high net worth individuals. Current information sharing systems are unequal and hard for developing countries to access. Article 6 must guarantee equitable access, affordable participation, and built-in technical and capacity support. Now, going back to the various paragraphs in Article 6, in alignment with the African group, we have read carefully all the paragraph and we have reframed most of this paragraph and paragraph one has been reframed in accordance with the African group that the state parties shall afford one another the widest measure of mutual administrative assistance in tax matters. I think all the other aspect of it should be removed. then coming to paragraph two, such administrative assistance will include exchange of information of any kind, assistance in tax collections, simultaneous tax examination, tax examination abroad, service of documents, any other form of mutual administrative assistance as the conference of the parties may from time to time determine. then we also look carefully into paragraph three and reframe as follows. The state parties agree to cooperate to identify and eliminate administrative barriers that prevent effective mutual administrative assistance in tax matters. And then we elaborated on article and paragraph four in article six by saying any information obtained by a state party under article five and six of this convention except or otherwise agreed by the conference of the parties shall be treated as secret and protected in the same manner as information obtained under the domestic law of that state and we also propose the inclusion of paragraph five which reads an implementation of this article, the state parties shall take into cognizance the needs and capacities of developing countries and countries in special situations as well as limitations as the conference of the parties may from time to time determine. We believe inclusion of this will actually simplify this article and make it reasonable for all. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Sierra Leone. Russian Federation, please.

Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. Good morning, distinguished delegates. Good morning, colleagues. In general, we would support to have such an article in the draft of the framework conventions. is for the improvements we would like to propose to that article. Again, to repeat our proposal which was mentioned yesterday, all references to the exchange of information to include in one article and then to have references from that article to appropriate places in other articles. And some distinguished delegates supported this idea. As for the other improvements we would like to propose is that we would agree with the opinion that some of the provisions is not clear and for the framework conversion we need to consider another wording. For instance, at the point two of this article, we would propose, for instance, to consider the following wording. the refusal of administrative assistance can be only justified for the reasons related to the violation of the requirements for ensuring confidentiality and protection of information by the requesting party. In this case, we would avoid the wording which is not appropriate for the opinion of some of the delegates. which we have now and we would propose to consider such a new wording to that point. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Russia. Austria, please.

Thank you, Chair. So I'm looking at Article 6 and I'm still struggling about what the real intention of the article should be. On the one hand it reads as if it is supposed to make sure that existing mechanisms work. On the other hand it seems to aim at being a self-standing rule based on which we can afford each other administrative assistance. So if it is the first thing, and I would definitely agree with others who have proposed to make reference to the existing rules that we are trying to make work effectively, which is especially the multilateral convention on the administrative assistance in tax matters, including the global forum work. or as Switzerland suggested it to make at least a more general reference to existing international standards in that area. But if it is supposed to be a self-standing rule, in particular for countries who have probably not yet joined the MAC and the Global Forum.

Then I also think that we need to flesh it out much more because the Article 6 as such is on the one hand, like the UK said, France said, detailed but not really operative. And maybe this should be in a separate?

Article altogether or even better in a protocol because in other areas we are trying to focus on the more general rules here and flesh all the details out in protocols.

But in any case, what I think what Austria is also a bit concerned about is that we could dilute.

The safeguards that we already have in existing standards as listed by the UK with.

Reference to taxpayer rights, confidentiality and also.

The other elements of the existing standard. So we would have to be careful about that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Austria. Ghana.

Thank you very much for giving me the floor again. Taking the floor for the second time, just a quick response regarding comments having to do with the existing mechanisms on exchange of information. I wish to indicate that assertion that participation in the global forum somehow represents a universal or comprehensive standard may be misleading. In reality, we all know that over half of all sovereign states are not members of the global forum on transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes. This clearly demonstrates that the initiative does not enjoy universal adherence or endorsement. Moreover, among those jurisdictions that are members, only a fraction have implemented automatic exchange of information mechanisms in practice. This selective participation significantly undermines the claim that the global forum's frameworks constitute a globally, a truly global norm. Instead, it reflects an uneven and incomplete system where many countries, particularly developing countries, small states, remain outside its operational reach. Consequently, reliance on global forum membership or automatic exchange of information as a benchmark for international compliance or cooperation is neither equitable nor reflective of current global realities. Thank you.

Thank you, Ghana. Estonia, please.

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to keep my comments very general. I can agree with a lot of what my Austrian and UK colleagues have said, and Estonia does have the question that what would be the additional value of this article? Before my colleague from Ghana spoke, I had just Googled the number of the members of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information, and I found it to be 172, which is about 20 plus short of the UN membership. So we're dealing with a highly technical and complex subject here. And as a representative of a small country that has joined all the existing exchange of information instruments, we know how big of an investment it is. And the smaller the number of the people or the taxpayers in the country, the bigger the cost per capita of implementing such systems is. But instead of building a new system, perhaps we could concentrate on improving the existing one. again, recognizing the difficulties it may entail. And now I go back to the beginning of my intervention that we would also like to know what would be the added value of redoing the international exchange of information in this convention. And we also agree with our Swiss colleagues who said that the fact that we have so many members to the Global Forum and that we are all working on exchanging to tax information is one of the success stories of international taxation. Thank you.

Thank you, Estonia. Republic of Korea, please.

Thank you, Chair and colleague. Good morning, everybody. Regarding Article 6, mutual administrative assistance, Korea generally supports the objective of strengthening international cooperation in the area of tax administration. As a party of the MAMAC, Korea already participates in various forms of international cooperation, including exchange of information and assistance in tax collection between states. If non-MAC countries join this framework convention, we think that it could further expand international cooperation in tax administration under the UN framework convention, which Korea is considering positively. Having said that, if there is significant overlap between the parties to the MAC and those to the UN Framework Convention, questions may arise regarding the practical effectiveness of the new framework. In detail on Article 6, Korea would like to share some specific observations. With respect to paragraph one, we echo the views expressed by other delegates, including Switzerland, that paragraph one is more of the preamble rather than an article. Regarding paragraph three on confidentiality, the current provision only provides for obligations of secrecy, but does not include any rules on the conditions or limitations for the use of exchanged information. Therefore, we believe it would be necessary to include complementary provisions that clearly specify the purposes and restrictions for which such information may be used. In addition, since the confidentiality obligation is provided under the domestic law of the State Party, we are concerned that the level of protection may differ depending on each country's legal system in this context. To ensure mutual trust in administrative assistance, we believe it would be desirable to establish common minimum standards for confidentiality and protection of personal data. Lastly, with respect to paragraph four on assistance in tax collection, Korea is a bit concerned about the expansion of such cooperation could impose additional legal and financial burdens between states. Therefore, it is important to clearly define the scope of application and to establish appropriate safeguards, like some other delegates have already mentioned. In this regard, Korea suggests that the phrase agreed to expand assistance be revised to agree to explore the possibility of expanding assistance. Thank you.

Thank you, Korea. Japan, please.

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to echo what is said by UK, Austria, Estonia and other colleagues that we need further clarification on what this article seeks to address. While we agree on the importance and necessity of mutual administrative assistance, we are cautious about creating a new framework that goes beyond existing ones. Given that many options already exist, we believe it would be more beneficial to cooperate on how to effectively utilize or improve the existing framework. And for paragraph one, regarding exchange of information, we believe that foreseeable relevance is also important and we suggest adding it to the text. And also for paragraph three, we agree with what India and Saudi Arabia said that the scope of this important paragraph should not be limited to Article five and six, but include Article seven and eight, which also refer to information exchange.

Thank you.

Thank you, Japan. Kenya, please.

Thank you, Chair. I'll start by aligning with the position and proposal submitted on behalf of the Africa group by the delegate from Zambia. We also share the view that mutual administrative assistance is one of the crucial areas that needs inclusive and effective international tax cooperation. Referring to the existing mechanisms, I'd like to start by fully supporting the comments made by Ghana. Secondly, the terms of reference have guided that these negotiations should take into consideration the existing international forums. But the negotiations are in no way bound by the existing mechanisms. There are crucial forms of mutual administrative assistance that have been included in the existing mechanisms, but they are actually not being implemented due to wide adoption of reservations, especially in relation to assistance in collection. Also developing countries face significant challenges in attempting to implement these existing policies. Also membership to a forum does not represent effective participation or effective implementation of its mechanisms. So as much as developing countries may be members of these forums, Very few are actually implementing those provisions because of the challenges that we have continually been bringing up since the development of the terms of reference and even fewer are benefiting from them. So you could actually be trying to implement them but the benefits that you're getting from implementing them are very limited and restricted. In our view, if these existing mechanisms are not actually being effectively implemented globally, then it would be difficult to say that there is a risk of them being duplicated in this forum. We don't share the view that any of these existing mechanisms should be endorsed because they are neither inclusive nor effective. The terms of reference have prescribed a commitment for effective mutual administrative assistance and we therefore support the inclusion of all forms of mutual administrative assistance to fulfil this objective. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Kenya. Belgium, please.

Thank you. Belgium wants to align itself with previous comments made by the UK, Austria, Estonia, Korea and Japan. We find it very important that we don't want to dilute the existing safeguards in the already existing framework. We can understand that there are problems maybe with the existing framework, but then Instead of redoing everything, I think we need to focus on the existing problems that developing countries experience and flesh them out and make it more clear what can be improved in the existing framework. And concerning the comment made by Kenya previously to say that there were a lot of reservations made, we can ask ourselves if we redo it here in the at the UN will reservations not be possible for sovereign states to make because I would think in existing multilateral agreements a lot of reservations are made anyway or it's still a possibility for the states parties so this makes me wonder how we see the future of the one side, the framework convention and then the protocols, is it then the intention that we are not possible to make reservations? This is just something that came up in my mind when I heard the comment. So I think it is important that we find a way to improve the existing framework also because it seems like a very, an enormous task to redo everything. So And concerning paragraph two, in any case, we would also like to agree with changing the language to agree to explore the expanding and also adding the safeguards that have to be included really in the text. Otherwise, it will be very difficult for us as a sovereign state also and having always applied safeguards when it comes to exchange of information to let them be diluted in any way. Thank you.

Thank you, Belgium. Uganda, please.

Thank you very much, Chairperson. Chair, Uganda aligns itself with the statement of Zambia on behalf of the Africa group. But more specifically, our intervention relates to paragraph one. And some members have mentioned that paragraph one as currently drafted is a bit unclear. Our proposal is first to delete the first sentence, which is very generic and doesn't seem to serve any purpose. The next two sentences encapsulate two ideas and as articulated by Zambia, it would be clearer if they are broken into two separate paragraphs. One, which clearly states the commitment of the member states to afford each other mutual administrative assistance, and the second, which expounds on the concept of administrative assistance beyond exchange of information to include other forms. We also support the proposal to delete those additional elements of information which are to be exchanged, revenues and so on. I submit, Chair.

Thank you, Jamaica, please.

Thank you, Chair. Chair, I find myself agreeing with both sides on this issue of paragraph 1. What I hear colleagues saying is that, for example, from the UK, Estonia, Austria, and so on, and Jamaica would support that position, is that we do have an existing instrument, the MAC, and some of the language in paragraph one actually seems to be replicating some of what is in the MAC itself. But I also hear and I also agree that there are gaps. And so I think maybe what we ought to be doing is to focus on the gaps that there are in the current system so that we can have an improved system. And I believe that that is what UK and Estonia, I believe that that is what they were saying as well. So our position is that notwithstanding the fact that there is an instrument, let us look at the gaps that currently exist and see if we can improve on that so that it can be more effective in the framework convention. I also want to align myself with the Bahamas on the issue of small island developing states. And in relation to paragraph two, I think as the Bahamas said, our problem really is capacity. We don't have the resources as much as we would like to do data mining. and so our ability to exchange in the way that paragraph two is demanding would be very limited. And so I believe that is an area of capacity building, I think is where we would most benefit from in terms of mutual administrative assistance. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Israel, please.

Thank you. We wish to align with previous speakers, Austria, UK, Japan, Belgium, and others, to emphasize the need to retain safeguards, existing safeguards, and express concern that exceeding safeguards and reservations based on existing frameworks will be difficult to ratify. Thank you.

Thank you, Israel. Brazil, please.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak again, Chair. I think there is an asymmetry of information here. There are some problems and we see some complaints, but it's still vague for us what's going on and why it's not working. That's the, and I think we have to focus on a solution rather than focusing too much on the legal basis. I'll be more specific. So in the first paragraph, I agree with previous interventions that the first sentence, is of a more of a preambular nature, should be probably stated somewhere else. It's more of a recognition and I think that all states here recognize that domestic resource mobilization depends on administrative assistance, which by the way covers many forms of assistance between tax administrations. It could include even capacity building. under this article. In relation to the second paragraph, I don't see a need to repeat safeguards, et cetera, because they will be mentioned in other paragraphs. In relation to the third paragraph, I find very compelling the argument that what are we doing here is to establish a new legal basis for exchange of information? If that's so, it's not comprehensive enough. We cannot replace a whole convention with just one paragraph, the MAC convention with just one paragraph. Or are we saying that we have a commitment to keep exploring through protocols, new protocols and new initiatives that might not even be protocols, could be simply working force, focus groups and so on, interaction with other, with the Global Forum, for instance. So it is a bit ambiguous whether we are creating a new source, a legal source, sufficient and legal source for legal basis for the exchange of information. If that's so, I find that the position of the countries, they are a bit afraid of committing to it because it would be too much. at once and not detailed enough. So that might be problematic. In relation to, and I would like to recall, sorry for, I'm a bit not so linear in my thought, but the main idea of those paragraphs, if I understood it well, while we were discussing the Thor, is that those paragraphs, those commitments would be topics that would be designed and detailed into further protocols. So we would basically identify or single out, specify ideas, projects, values that we want to design even further. So it would not be by and in itself very prescriptive and self-sufficient provisions and somehow I think it's not well reflected here I think we have to say that we want to do the exchange of information that we value it and that we want to solve the outstanding problems uh but it will be done through further work either protocols or cooperation with other forums and so um and I believe that that could be somehow more reflected here. In relation to collection in paragraph four, we, Brazil, have absolutely no experience with it, but what we saw, what we found during the negotiations is that countries devise, I think it was Saudi Arabia that mentioned it, countries devise specific protocols to double taxation conventions. in which the memorandum of understanding, for instance, yeah, under the mutual agreement procedure, for instance, article in which they decide how to implement assistance in the collection of taxes so they could state certain limitations up to the extent that they are willing to proceed preferences in claiming foreign tax debt, even limitations that could not put at risk local companies and so on. So if we do some further work on this, probably it could be through devising models how those, how the assistance in the collection could be specified bilaterally or could be even a multilateral, but definitely a big concern in relation to the assistance in the collection is how to do it in practice, whether it could go too much or too, a tool that it's maybe too strong and that usually impedes the negotiation of that article in practice. So, and, but I think that the most important part of my comment is that we have to identify what's going on. And probably the main value of this article would be guiding countries to provide support through fin, maybe fin, probably financial means. So if it's too expensive for some countries to implement extended information, so we should have a fund for it. Uh, who should channel those funds? I don't know whether the UN, the, I don't know, or the organizations, but we have to identify why the Global Forum is not working for some countries. And I have the sense, I have the impression that the root cause is that the implementation of the exchange of information is too expensive for some countries. So the best way to solve it, to give full effect to it, would be to find a way to share those costs. And definitely the I don't see as feasible to create the whole structure of the Global Forum again. It was, as several countries have mentioned, a very expensive initiative. But definitely we can do something in addition to the Global Forum or cooperating with the Global Forum. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil.

And we'll break for lunch now and reconvene at three o'clock. Have a nice lunch, everyone.