Third Session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on the United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation Agencies, Funds & Programmes Date: 10 November 2025 Language: English Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/en/asset/k1o/k1obozyvdf Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations. --- Chair [0:00]: I would like to ask everyone just to have a seat because we are going to start now. So now we start the meeting in an informal mode in which we are going to resume the floor. Just to remind everyone that we are discussing article 4, the draft text for the convention in the section of commitments, article 4 about the fair allocation of taxing rights. We started the discussion in the morning. We heard for many good feedbacks from many delegates and we still have a long list in front of us. So now we're going to resume the floor. Mr. Daniel will lead the discussion now. Please, Daniel. Co-Lead · Daniel [1:07]: Thank you, Chair, and welcome everybody from break. I know there are a lot of we're doing a lot of catching up, but we need to continue. We still have quite a long list of delegates who want to make interventions. So we'll jump immediately if we have the distinguished delegate from Israel available. Israel [1:38]: Thank you, Chair. This is the second session, but for me, it's the first time that I'm taking the floor. So I would want to start by thanking the co-lead, the participants of the working stream. Thank you for the draft, and thank the secretary for assisting, and a special thanks to Kenya for hosting this meeting. So thanks to all. I'll be brief mainly to align with some of the previous speakers to say that we would be seeking clarification of terms and definition for terms that were used in this article 4. We think that further elaboration about the meaning of the terms that were used would be very helpful. There seems to be different understanding from different parties about what these terms mean, for instance, business activity versus economic activity. What is meant by value creation, what is included, what's not included in the term? We also think that there's not sufficient balance regarding the resident-based taxation and the next that were not mentioned in this article. Another important point is the legal significance of this rule and the interaction of what we state here with the double taxation conventions and in particular incidents of double taxation. We take account of the co-leads' explanation that these important issues will be addressed and we hope to find further clarification to enable broad acceptance and making the article clear and self-explanatory. Thank you so much. Co-Lead · Daniel [3:59]: Thank you. China, please. China [4:06]: Thank you, Chair, for indulging me to have the floor for the second time. We acknowledge the great importance and necessity of paragraph 1 in article 4 here, which more from a perspective of sourcing states, highlighting several factors to determine the source of income. Among these factors, as I mentioned in this morning's section, economic activity occurrence is the most traditional and fundamental element to determine the source of income. So economic activity occurrence should be added back into the list as one of the factors. And we believe that economic activity occurrence together with the factor of value creation are high level and broad enough to encompass both the market location and revenue generation if later on the discussions of Protocol 1 can conclude that market has value and certain portion of revenue of all taxation should be accordingly diverted to such market states. This is my first addition for the commenting the article four. Secondly, as for the double taxation, some other colleagues have commented. We thank you very much. Our concern is by introducing some new and different sourcing rules in accordance with paragraph one, it may be creating the risks of double or multiple taxation in certain occasions, especially when the factors identified in paragraph one are not recited in one state. That means in this case there might be several sourcing states plus one resident state and this will be a very complicated situation where may give rise to the risks of unrelieved double taxation. So therefore as for the article four it is where most likely new sourcing rules will be discussed and formulated and it is where most likely the risks of double or multiple taxation may arise, so if such new rules are not designed carefully and fairly. So as for Article 4, it is where most relevant to include a second paragraph regarding the commitments of avoiding double taxation. This inclusion of paragraph 2, we believe, will not diminish the importance or necessity of paragraph 1. Instead, it will enhance the overall balance and inclusiveness of Article 4, enabling the outcome of Article 1 to be fairly and practically implemented. Thank you, Chair. Co-Lead · Daniel [7:09]: Thank you. St. Kitts and Nevis, please. Saint Kitts and Nevis [7:16]: Thank you, Chair. Many thanks to the government of Kenya for welcoming us and hosting us so graciously. Also congratulations to the Chair, co-leads and secretariat for the good work performed thus far. Saint Kitts and Nevis is of the view that Article 4, more so than any other article in the framework convention, should embody the principles of equity, inclusivity and fairness as agreed in the terms of reference adopted by the General Assembly. For small island developing states, equity in global tax governance is essential to ensuring that jurisdictions with limited administrative capacity and narrow economic basis can secure their fair share of global tax revenues. Accordingly, Saint Kitts and Nevis is persuaded by the alternative draft Article 4 language proposed by the Africa Group through Kenya, which we believe aligns with the spirit and intent of the TOR by focusing on fair allocation. The phrase business activities could unintentionally exclude innovative forms of value creation, which may become crucial for SIDS revenue bases. It is therefore recommended that the reference to business activities be removed to avoid inadvertently limiting taxing rights only to conventional commercial income. This would allow Article 4 to be future ready as recommended by Norway. Further, the language of article. Four should affirm that all jurisdictions where value is created, markets are located, all revenues are generated have an equitable right to tax the income derived therefrom consistent with the TOR's principles of fairness and inclusivity and subject to definitions and protocol details to be reasonably negotiated at another stage of this process. Thank you, Chair. Co-Lead · Daniel [9:04]: Thank you. Portugal, please. Portugal [9:09]: Thank you, Co-Leads, and let me start to join the long list of delegations that have already presented their compliments in respect of the logistics efforts to bring us here in Nairobi, and also for the work that has been done since the last formal session of the EMC, especially during the work streams, the result of which is in front of us in having the first draft for us to discuss, which is a great advance in our works, we believe. At present moment, we would like to signal that we are also one delegation, one of the delegations there is somehow concerned with the legal nature of what we have in front of us as proposed for Article 4. like other delegations, we have some perplexities and doubts, basically doubts that we have to clarify in respect of what will be the relation of this article with other international instruments. But if you allow me, we have also some doubts in respect of what are we doing with this article. If we are going to establish a proclamation which somehow would high level proclamation or if we are prescribing some sort of taxing right. This second option is for us a little bit problematic since we believe that in the absence of such article we already would have that jurisdictions have the right to tax income from business activities when they based on these very same elements if they wish so wish but that is a sequence that we already have so we are somehow puzzling trying to discover what will be the usefulness of having an article four but proclamatory in nature it would be probably better to understand but if it has some sort of prescriptive nature it puzzles us. For instance, if we have a situation where we in the future amend this article will it have impact of the original right to tax that jurisdictions already have? We don't know if we're establishing a very prescriptive article four we would not go down that road and we are not sure if we want to do it as a group. On the other hand, if we stay close to what is proclaimed as being the objective of this article and the object of it, the fairness on the allocation of taxing rights, we also follow the delegations that already underscored that probably we are in front of us we have a text that is somehow unbalanced and the reason for that is mainly the list of elements that we have in the drafting based on which we have a fair allocation occurring because these elements are somehow tilted to recognise the legitimacy of source states and that is in itself not a problem but Even for source states there are some elements that are not recognized in the text but the legitimacy of them is not being questioned here and we wonder why they are not also in this list. It gives, all in all, it gives the impression that we are somehow rushing to find a text where we can anchor our work towards the protocol one and we believe that is a legitimate objective to have but there is room to do both things in this article we believe. Thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [13:19]: Thank you. Co-Lead · Patricia [13:34]: Thank you, Chair and co-lead and. Hello, everybody. This is the first time I'm speaking, so thank you to Kenya for hosting us and the conference services for all they've done to make this a success. I just want to make sure that. Our notes are correct and I understand what you're saying, because I thought you said it was unbalanced. So I thought you were going to say, make the point about resident state taxation. But it seemed that you were saying that there are some source state factors that are left out. So could you just clarify that for us? Chair [14:26]: It's Mike to Portugal, please. Portugal [14:30]: OK. Sure, sure, sure, sure. I believe that you have heard everything I said with a precision hearing. In fact, I have not touched upon the residency imbalance because it was already touched upon by so many delegations this morning that I didn't have the necessity to do it. And I believe that the point that was in the shadows to be brought to our attention was the one that I made. Thank you. Chair [15:05]: So I think, Patricia, question. What additional source factors, if you can give us like an example for it so we can think about it with you. Mike to Portugal again please. Portugal [15:18]: I have two elements that we usually use. One was already mentioned this morning, I believe it's permanent establishments. They are traditional one that we are not referring here. We can get there indirectly but why not we have a direct reference to it that is something that's probably could think about. And the other one is, for instance, the real estate situation in respect of immovable property. Here you have two examples of nexus that we are usually using in favor of source states that we don't know. Based on this article, we are not sure if they still are a fair way of allocating taxing rights or not. Co-Lead · Daniel [16:07]: Okay, thank you. One other suggestion I'll make is as we make our points, if we have particular texts that we want to reflect, it would be good to come out with that text also so that it helps with the work we are doing. With that, Lesotho, please. Lesotho [16:31]: Thank you, Chair, for giving us the floor, and thanks to Kenya and to the organizers. We align fully with what was clearly elaborated on by Kenya in the morning, but we just want to reflect on a few things that have come up during the discussions. Maybe just to start with, we need We think we need this article because we are acknowledging, at least the majority of UN member states are acknowledging that so far the taxing rights have not been allocated fairly. So this is why we have this particular article which says let's redistribute the allocation rights, which is what for us it seems to be doing. When coming to the issue of fairness, which other member states are saying it should be explained, to us fairness here relates to the issue that some of us have not been able to tax what we should have been taxing in the first place. So it has not been fair not to tax. So that is why fairness comes about. So those allocation keys that we've talked about, that are now allowing member states to tax, that's what's bringing about fairness. So it's not about how to go about taxing or how much to tax. So that's not what the article is trying to achieve or tries to get to, and as far as we are concerned. The other issue that was mentioned is about ordering, or given sequence to the allocation keys or characteristics. So that in itself we think is problematic because it touches on the issue of sovereign right to tax because once you say I should place a certain factor first, then it impacts me on my ability to tax. So the ordering of prioritizing taxing rights or the criteria that you've talked about, for us, it's not going to work because it impacts on the very same things that we have agreed on to respect, in other words, sovereign right to tax. The other issue talked about was economic analysis, which we'll appreciate very much if we can get clarity as to what this economic analysis is all about because if you're saying we have not been given the right to tax and fail, I don't see what kind of economic analysis is necessary in that case. I'm not sure as to whether we are required to to come up with an analysis that would indicate that at the end of the day, after reallocating the taxing rights, then everybody is better off. But like I said, we are very much agreeable with the outline that, and the wording that was provided by Kenya. And St. Kitts and Nevis also highlighted the important fact that when double taxation comes about or multiple taxation comes about, that will be space or place for some other articles and insofar as to how then do you eliminate or minimize double taxation where we have reallocated the taxing rule. With that, thank you, Chair. Co-Lead · Daniel [20:39]: Thank you, Kenya. Followed by Mauritius. Kenya [20:48]: Thank you, Chair. Speaking in our national capacity, we fully align with the position that was submitted on behalf of the Africa Group. We believe that the factors that have been included in Article 4 and the additional factor as proposed by the Africa Group can be met in both the resident state and the source state. and in that sense we believe that this paragraph has addressed factors in a balanced way, but any reference to residence would then require a corresponding reference to source, but as far as we are concerned, I think since these factors can be met in both the residence state and the source state, then they represent a balance. We also don't agree that there should be a hierarchy of the factors and that they should be recognized where they are met. Any such hierarchy we believe would be in direct conflict with the object of this commitment because as it's worded, we're talking about every jurisdiction, emphasis on every having the right to tax income where those factors are met. So we believe that a hierarchy would recognize some rights or the rights of some countries over the rights of other countries and that would basically just perpetuate the imbalance that has led to these negotiations in the first place. In relation to the reference to the DTAs, we agree with an earlier comment that had been made that the focus of this commitment is on the basic taxing rates that our jurisdiction should have based on the factors that are going to be agreed upon in this commitment and on that basis the DTAs I believe would be covered in the proposed article 12 or how this commitment and this framework convention will relate to DTAs and other agreements is going to be included in article 12 because this commitment goes beyond the scope of DTAs a country enters into DTAs if it so wishes to probably provide a restriction to the taxing rates in the quest of enhancing economic cooperation with that other treaty partner but a commitment on fair allocation of taxing rates should not be tied to the DTAs. Thank you, Chair. Co-Lead · Daniel [23:14]: Thank you. Mauritius followed by India. Mauritius [23:20]: Thank you, Chair. Since I'm taking the floor first time, let me also join colleagues that have spoken before me in thanking Kenya for hosting us for this meeting. Chair, fairness and equity in the allocation of taxing rights is a very commendable objective that we need not only to achieve in terms of formulating the right provision in the convention, but which should also ensure is implementable and implemented eventually. Simplicity, clarity definitely helps in this endeavor. This is why I must say that we are in alignment with the proposals of the Africa Group. And obviously, we are in favor of substituting the indicated word and by all. That said, as a country, we believe that we should not neglect the issue of implementation. We will be speaking about dispute resolution in the course of our work, but more importantly about dispute prevention. Hence, in furthering our work, we should also focus our attention on how we proceed to ensure that what we are going to agree is well understood and effectively implemented. Appropriate definitions, commentaries, capacity building, interpretative notes are avenues that can be explored subsequently. But then for the time being, we are speaking about allocation of taxing rights, so I will leave it here. Thank you, Chair. Co-Lead · Daniel [25:01]: Thank you. India followed by Rwanda, please. India [25:06]: Thank you, Chair. The current international system anchored in the present principles of arm's length and PE test has not been quite successful in allocating the taxing rights fairly among jurisdictions. So in this regard, even when a taxable presence is sort of established, the allocation of profit has remained conceptually and practically imperfect. If we see the double tax treaties, some of them favors supply side functions and while others include demand side and market factors. So in this context, Article 4 actually established a principle that tax allocation must correct the existing asymmetries between the residence based taxation and the source based taxation. So fundamentally, if we see any FC commitment, the framework convention commitment sets out broadly three contours. The contours should be broad, fair and shows an intent to fix the larger problems with the current system. So in this regard, as I earlier mentioned also, the formulation of this article where the state parties agree that every jurisdiction where the economic activity occurs, value created, markets are located and revenue are generated may be better formulation for addressing the current asymmetries in the allocation of taxing rights. Thirdly, by this draft, we don't feel that any source-based or either residence-based are not addressed, both the issues have been addressed in this article and it may not be prudent to further elaborate or reduce it so that it will lose the focus on the issues that we are trying to address with the current article four. Thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [27:16]: Thank you, India. Now we have Rwanda followed by Morocco. Rwanda [27:24]: Thank you very much, Chair. Since I'm taking the floor for the first time, I want also to appreciate Kenya for hosting us and for the Secretariat to make this a success. I want also to echo the submission made by Africa Group as well as other submissions made in that line. especially in terms of how we should redraft article four. Um but also to underscore the fact that we we we we need only one paragraph in this regard. Um because I believe the the factors contained in that paragraph are more relevant in both situations of residence and and source taxation principles. So for me I feel for Rand I think we feel this is already um contained both for both principles of taxation and so we also suggest that uh the words taxpayer can be replaced by jurisdiction to make sure that we remove the confusion that has been raised by some participants earlier today um I also wish to emphasize that these factors mentioned already in article four should should carry the same weight and any jurisdiction that would meet any of those should be able to have the right to tax other than maybe meeting all of them cumulatively and therefore we wish to replace the word and with all and I also wanted to talk about the concerns already raised today regarding double taxation possibilities. Uh just to mention that countries can address this under their domestic laws. And this can be fairly be addressed by any resident country that would face this. But I also believe that under the work that we are doing under this convention. We should also be able to address this either under the protocols or in the other areas of the convention. And so I think we still don't really need to introduce any new paragraph on this article. I thank you so much, Chair. Co-Lead · Daniel [29:57]: Thank you. Now we have Morocco. Morocco [30:03]: Thank you so much. I will speak in Arabic. Thank you very much, Mr Chair, thanks to the Secretariat and thanks to all our colleagues. Initially, I'd like to join the statements that extended the thanks to the Government of Kenya for hosting this meeting. and to the Secretariat for the organization and the provision of the draft template. I'd like to support the representative of Kenya in her statement this morning on behalf of the African group. I believe that the proposal suffices. That is to say that the fair taxation, fair allocation of taxing rights is mainly the distribution or has to do with the fair allocation of taxing rights. Indeed, this means the imposition of tax on both, that is both source-based and residence-based. We believe that the text as it stands suffices. There's no need to refer to double taxation and to DTAs because these issues can be addressed in other articles and other provisions. Thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [31:27]: Thank you. Can we have Italy please? Italy [31:33]: Oh, thank you, Chair. We followed with a lot of interest all the discussion of this morning, and especially the one on the legal nature of this provision. We agree with those who said it can have the idea of putting a principle, a proclamation or whatever, leaving to the protocol the operational rules to handle it. Otherwise, it is very clear for technical people that all the factor has then to be declined in more precise nexus, because of course we can say that the source state has the right to tax where market are located, but market are located is a very vague expression, so perhaps we should find a more precise nexus to see where the factor constitute a nexus. Also, going back to what has been said this morning, perhaps we agree with those who said everyone of us ask for high level principle and it is what we want, of course, because otherwise agreement will fail. But maybe we should consider to have a sort of explanatory statement of those kind of rules and not only to decline then an operational rule in protocol. So if we think of the real business in the world, not just two countries are involved in operation. So in this case, guess a multinational having a source activity in many countries, it may happen that all the source country can rely on those factors to say that they have the taxing right and we have not statement to eliminate double taxation, perhaps we could end up in having some dispute resolution things or some prevention dispute. But again, we are technical people and we are much more inclined in defining more precisely which factor can be. We can be open to have the factor on the same value, But again, somewhere we would like to have an explanation that this is not something that could be implemented now and okay, but how to explain that the nexus should be more precisely defined in a way to be actually applied without hampering the real business of companies and well, of enterprises of business. So again, let's try to give more technical background on those factors and try to work more on nexus so that businesses are more certain where they have been, they will be taxed and not in such a vague mood. Thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [34:29]: Right, thank you. I think we've exhausted the list of Jamaica, please. Jamaica [34:42]: Thank you, Chair. Italy just mentioned explanatory notes and it triggered a question that we've been pondering. Is it the intent for the framework convention to have an accompanying set of commentaries in which there will be guidance on the common understanding of terms, common interpretation across the board because I think if we don't have that then we risk, as I said earlier today, the incidence, more incidence of disputes. Co-Lead · Daniel [35:40]: Okay, thank you, Jamaica. We've taken note of that. Okay, now we can move to the stakeholders and the African Union, please. AU [35:56]: Thank you, Chair, for giving us the floor. On behalf of the African Union, I want to join my colleagues from Kenya. and the good people of Kenya as well as Kenyan government to welcome you to Africa. We take delight on the effort put in place by the chair of INC, the co-lead, the bureau, and colleagues working on different work stream to bring us thus far. Chair, on Article 4, we want to align completely with the statement submitted by Kenya on behalf of the African group, and in so doing, we want to supply a few comments on our own. Chair, we should seek to understand that Article 4 cannot be read alone. Driving from what Brazil have said in the morning, we believe that the articles, just like any other article in the convention, have both internal and external interdependencies. To that extent, we believe that article, the fair allocation of taxing rights should be reflected in the principle of the convention itself. We also believe that the contention as to how this article will impact on existing instrument, including double taxation agreement, are issues which will be addressed properly in the context of another article of the convention, the very article that deals with the relationship between the convention and other instruments as well as domestic law. Actually, we further want to emphasize that the suggestion that we should have a second paragraph on relief of double taxation is not suited to belong together with the existing language. as we must seek to match like with like in accordance with the principle of this work that we pursue simplicity. We also note, however, the comment made by China as to how the existing language makes a bit double taxation. And in this regard, it is important to highlight that the article by ESF is not definitive or absolute in allocation of tax and right, instead it is a high level language which seeks to provide a foundation or basis for parties to develop a more detailed substantive rules in allocation of taxing right. And it is our hope and understanding that in so doing parties to such detailed and substantive rule, we factor in the need to ensure that there is no double taxation using detailed nexus and profit attribution rules as parties may ascribe to in that very instrument. And when we say this, one of the external dependencies of this very article will be the protocol which we are seeking to develop under work stream one, and taxation of income from cross border services. It is in the context of development of such protocol that we can put in the safety net and also the detailed rule to govern what we mean by fair allocation of taxing right. It is in that sense that you may put articles to ensure that in instances where there's double taxation, the appropriate reliefs are taken cognizance of. But in the context of this framework, we believe that such detailed analysis and detailed provision should not be put in the face of the convention. Finally, Chair, we see no need for the inclusion of any resident, any specific resident focus factor, hence the resident states as mentioned by Kenya and a few other colleagues, each can already meet the triggers for taxing right enumerated in this language, and we also emphasize that the resident states as it will have an offer taxing right and it is not for us in this context to try to put definition to such right to tax the resident as they so desire. We yield back Mr. Chair. Thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [40:17]: Thank you. Um now we have the ILO and ILO I know you've had your hand up for a very long time and thank you for your patience. Please you have the floor. ILO [40:28]: Excellencies, esteemed guests, the International Labour Organization is pleased to contribute to this session of negotiation and would like to thank the DESA Secretariat, the Chair and the colleagues, and of course, the Government of Kenya for hosting us. Asante sana from the ILO Kenya. The ILO proposal for Article 4 of the UN Tax Convention aims to address the importance of ensuring the payment of social security contributions by all workers and employers, including those engaged in cross-border remote work, such as digital nomads. But the question is, who are workers engaged in cross-border remote work? For example, digital nomads. These are workers that perform their work remotely, working across border for an extended period of time. and may work in countries different from their country of nationality or from the location of their employer or clients. In certain countries, these workers face challenges in affiliating to social security and paying income taxes. As work becomes increasingly globalized, some countries have started to introduce legal provisions aimed at regulating taxation and payment of social security contributions for digital nomads. Within the European Union and in other countries, there are some jurisdictions that require digital nomads to be affiliated with a social security system in order to obtain a visa. By contrast, some others attract digital nomads by offering reduced or no income taxes and no obligatory affiliation to social security. In this regard, the ILO hopes that the negotiation on the convention will consider the inclusion of a provision in Article 4 on the fair allocation of taxing rights aimed at ensuring that all workers and employers contribute to social security in line with UN human rights instruments and ILO international labor standards. As highlighted in paragraph 27i of the FFD4 outcome document, the known Compromiso de Sevilla, ILO standards are identified as key to design social protection systems. For. Example, the ILO Social Security Minimum Standard Convention 102 of 1952, it is an international treaty agreed by member states, employer organizations and worker organization that sets minimum standards for nine branches of social security, including for example medical care, old age and maternity. The convention has 68 ratification with the latest ratifications being Angola which ratified in June 2025. If the participants are interested to know more, Chair, please let me add that tomorrow we have a parallel event on financing social protection which will take place in conference room one from 1 to 3 p.m. A light lunch will be provided at the beginning of the event. I thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [43:41]: Thank you, ILO. IATA, please. IATA [43:45]: Thank you, Mr. Chair, distinguished delegates. I'm speaking on behalf of the International Air Transport Association, representing 340 airlines and 83% of the global air traffic. We appreciate the work of the draft convention and would like to offer constructive observations on Article 4. We understand the policy objective behind this provision, but the language in Article 4, as it's drafted, create significant practical challenges for international air transport. Let me explain why. International air transport inherently operates across multiple jurisdictions. When a passenger purchases an international ticket, that single transaction involves several countries. The ticket may be sold in one country, the flight departs from a second, arrives in a third, and the airline is resident in a fourth. Under the current language of Article 4, all four jurisdictions could claim taxing rights on the same transaction. This creates a fundamental problem. Airlines operate on the fragile margins. approximately $1 per passenger. We cannot practically separate income by jurisdiction when flights cross multiple airspaces, when revenue flows through code share arrangements spanning dozens of countries, and when most operational costs such as aircraft ownership, maintenance and crew training are incurred centrally but support global operations. There is another critical point to consider. The UN system already has an established framework for aviation taxation. ICAO, the United Nations specialized agency for civil aviation, has developed a policy framework representing the residence-based taxation and has the consensus of 193 member states on taxation in international air transport. This framework provides for residence-based taxation, recognizing the unique cross-border nature for aviation operations. This principle has been implemented globally through double taxation agreements and bilateral air services agreements, where many states have already established residence-based taxation for airline income. These agreements reflect decades of international practice and mutual recognition that this approach is the only workable solution for civil aviation. Our concern is straightforward. Article four as currently drafted would conflict with the established UN framework on aviation taxation without acknowledging its existence or assessing the consequences. Airlines would face unsustainable compliance costs across multiple jurisdictions, routes with marginal profitability, would be discontinued resulting in a decline in aviation connectivity. Mr. Chair, we're not asking for any special treatment. We're simply requesting that the convention recognizes that where sector-specific international frameworks exist, created through UN agencies and reflected consensus among member states, those frameworks should be respected. We are committed and ready to collaborate with all member states to develop language that promotes fair taxation principles without conflicting with existing international agreements and principles related to functional aviation operations. We believe that both of these objectives support the development goals that this convention aims to advance. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Co-Lead · Daniel [47:35]: Thank you. Um, please. Speaker 39 [47:40]: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We'd like to extend our warm gratitude to the government of Kenya for hosting us, and we'd like to thank the Secretariat for the excellent work done. Further, Chair, we'd like to. Align our comments with those made by Kenya on behalf of the Africa Group, the African Union, and many others. We propose, Chair, the removal of the words business activities as we see that. Direct reference to value creation, market location and revenue generation are sufficient for the purposes of this article. Further, Chair, we'd like to caution against the inclusion of a second paragraph, particularly when it speaks to double taxation and relief. We fundamentally believe that there is opportunity to negotiate the intricacies of that in later articles. And lastly, we believe that we should be thinking of the future and ensuring that this article is future proof to develop future protocols. Thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [49:00]: Thank you. BCAS, please. BCAS [49:06]: Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity. If the mandate of the terms of reference is to include fair allocation of taxing rights as a commitment, I would say this article, the text of this article does not comply with that mandate. It's only the title of the article uses the word fair allocation. The text of the article does not use fairness, doesn't talk anything about fairness or talk about allocation. maybe we can retitle the article as recognition of taxing rights that may be the correct title for the article now if you have to you know honor what is there in the terms of reference maybe article maybe a simple sentence and I'll read the sentence countries agree to Endeavor to ensure fair allocation of taxing rights in the tax cities or other instruments I mean this is in a simple agreement or a simple commitment to adhere to fairness in allocation. Some other comments, you know, which were discussed, there was a reference to the term taxpayer. I would believe the taxpayer includes individual as well as corporates, enterprises, everyone. But I would suggest we do not use the word taxpayer. Taxpayer is someone who is paying a tax. If you are targeting someone who has never paid a tax, can we call that person a taxpayer? Maybe a better approach could be to simply use the word person and person would, you know, include everyone. Uh, you know, there was a discussion on the word business activity versus economic activity and, and we may want to think through whether we are including this commitment only with a view to digital economies, which is predominantly business, or we want fair allocation for other sources of income, like salaries, capital gains, et cetera, as well. If that is objective, then we may want to reward it differently. Similarly, should there be fair allocation of wealth, taxing rate on wealth, because UN is already working on wealth tax. There's a discussion on, you know, these three terms, value creation, markets are located, and revenues generated. Now to my mind, these words are preceded by the word including. So these are just enumeration of the business activities. Technically, and or or probably doesn't make a difference to interpretation. However, if we remove the word business activities altogether, it would significantly narrow down the scope of this commitment, if I if that's a commitment, because business activity or economic activity may take several form conduct value creation market location of market or revenue generation could be sub element or some forms of business activities so business activities or economic activities may have you know hundred of the forms so I would suggest that exclusion of the word business activities or economic activities should not be done thank you very much. Co-Lead · Daniel [52:24]: Thank you T Y F please European Economic Forum, EU Forum. Yes. EU Forum [52:41]: Yes, thank you, Chair. I will be speaking French. So with all of civil society, we understand the historic scope of this moment. And we welcome the desire of the Member States of the United Nations to elaborate a framework convention on tax cooperation at an international level. The clear and bold mandate given by the General Assembly commits all of us. However, the text is not in keeping with this objective. Its central goal hasn't been fulfilled, to wit, to build an international tax system which is inclusive, equitable, transparent, effective, in favour of sustainable development. If this convention is to be successful, it must consolidate these guiding principles. And this is the way the text in its Article 2 worked. Intergenerational justice is an essential pillar of any budgetary policy, whether it's about expenditure or income. Now, to illustrate the weakness of the text, I look at paragraph 9f, which refers to sustainable development, its contribution to sustainable development, for something for the future of mankind and a future which mobilizes the youth of the world. Such a timid form of wording is insufficient. Two principles need to be explicitly included in this convention, namely, The principle of polluter pays, not to include this would be to waste a historic opportunity. This principle is solidly established in international law, in the Rio Declaration, as well as in regional frameworks such as the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Environmental responsibility is not optional, it's a duty, legal and moral. During the 21st century, this must lie at the very heart of the international taxation architecture. Finally, the issue of common but differentiated responsibilities, another pillar of international law, the environment. Our countries don't have the same responsibilities, not the same means. Nothing justifies its absence in the text. But broadly speaking, all of the principles need to be clarified to ensure that this project resumes its cohesiveness, which you yourself set out in New York as a goal. civil society and youth, awaits of this committee to meet the challenges of this mandate and to turn this pillar into fair tax policy, one which is in keeping with the ambitions of the century. Thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [55:29]: Thank you. AIDC, please. AIDC · Ida Jean Manipon [55:33]: Thank you, Chair. I'm Ida Jean Manipon from the delegation of the Alternative Information Development Center, or AIDC, the Global Alliance for Tax Justice, and the Asian People's Movement on Debt and Development. Recent developments across the world, especially in Asia, such as the social discontent triggered by widening inequalities and climate impacts, clearly demonstrate the great and urgent need for an international tax system that effectively contributes to sustainable development. In this context, we remind ourselves how much money is at stake here, how much is lost to global tax abuse, and how much can be gained in public revenues for financing health, education, social protection, urgent climate action through effective international tax cooperation. Indeed, one of the objectives of the future UN tax convention is to establish a fair, transparent, efficient, equitable and effective international tax system for sustainable development. In this regard, I wish to briefly make three points. Firstly, we note with great concern that the current draft convention text suffers a general lack of multilateral solutions, including in relation to the allocation of taxing rights, and a number of key overall elements are missing. The convention text should include specific approaches and mechanisms to ensure delivery of commitments to achieve the convention's objectives. But the current text is still missing important elements mentioned in paragraph 10 of the TOR on equitable taxation of multinational enterprises in para 10A, on effective taxation of high net worth individuals in para 10B, on international tax approaches that will contribute to sustainable development in para 10C, on transparency mechanisms and effective and equitable exchange of information, including This should include automatic information exchange, as mentioned in para 10 on solutions that can address illicit financial flows, including tax evasion and avoidance and harmful tax practices, as mentioned in para 10 and on effective prevention of international tax disputes. That's also in para 10. Secondly, we expect that the future convention will contribute to addressing inequalities, including gender inequality, with explicit references to approaches in making taxation gender responsive in Article 9, which also expands paragraph 10 on the link between tax and sustainable development. As we all know, the achievement of gender equality is one of the sustainable development goals that have been most difficult to achieve in all our countries. The Seville outcome document articulates a clear commitment to advance discussions on gender responsive taxation and points to the need to identify and address gender biases within tax systems. Finally, excellencies, in line with paragraph 18 of the TOR, it is now essential to ensure a process which is member state led, allowing each Member State to submit specific proposals for texts that should go into the Convention with the aim of delivering on the TOR. Rather than a summary text, the next negotiating text should provide a compilation of such proposals by Member States with the aim of allowing them to consider, negotiate and find common solutions on the basis of their own suggestions. Thank you, Your Excellencies. Co-Lead · Daniel [59:53]: Sorry, thank you. Now we have SID. SID · African Civil Society Working Group · Jane Narunga [1:00:00]: Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to take the floor. My name is Jane Narunga from Siatini, Uganda, speaking on behalf of the Society for International Development. and African civil society working group on the UN tax convention. Chair, allow me to make some overall comments regarding work stream one and the framework convention. We acknowledge the historic significance of this moment. for the first time, negotiations on international taxation are taking place on African soil. This is a powerful statement that global tax cooperation must be inclusive, fair, and truly universal. Indeed, the UN General Assembly resolution 78 stroke 2030 and the terms of reference mandates the establishment of a fully inclusive and effective framework for international tax cooperation both in substance and process. Holding the negotiations in Kenya allows voices especially from developing countries that we are previously excluded often due to travel and visa restrictions to participate in shaping the future of global tax governance. In the same spirit Para 21 of the terms of difference explicitly provides for the effective participation of other stakeholders, including civil society. Para 10 of the mandating resolution of intergovernmental negotiating committee also reaffirms this inclusive principle. It's therefore with deep concern that we observe the current limitation placed on the participation of civil society to preliminary sessions only. Excellencies, neither the mandating resolution nor the modalities of the intergovernmental negotiating committee explicitly restrict the participation of civil society solely to preliminary sessions. For this process to truly embody the principles of inclusivity and universality that underpin its mandate, civil society must be enabled to contribute fully, including through participation in inter-session discussions. Such multi-stakeholder engagement enriches negotiations by bringing to the table technical expertise, strategic insights and grounded perspectives that strengthen both the legitimacy and the effectiveness of the outcomes. Distinguished delegates, We therefore urge you to uphold the spirit and intent of the mandating resolution to ensure the full and meaningful participation of non-member state stakeholders in both the plenary sessions and in the intercessional activities. excellencies allow me to reaffirm our unwavering conviction that the UN tax convention represents our best opportunity to establish a truly fair, inclusive and effective international tax system, one that serves both people and planet. We, the representatives of civil society, remain deeply committed to supporting this process and contributing constructively to this success. I thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [1:03:54]: Thank you. We now invite TGNA. TJNA · African Civil Society Working Group [1:04:02]: Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to speak. I speak on behalf of Tax Justice Network Africa, as well as the African Civil Society Working Group on the UN Tax Convention. Distinguished delegates, as civil society, our goal is not only to ensure that the commitment in Article 4 on the fair allocation of taxing rights remains ambitious, but also actionable. Rather than trying to develop a one-size-fits-all solution to fair allocation of taxing rights, we believe that this issue should be integrated as a cross-cutting element, including in Article 5 on high-net-worth individuals. And so we propose that we should have a new separate Article bis on equitable taxation of multinational enterprises. Historically, The residence source principle and the arm's length principle have been utilized to systematically erode the taxing rights of global south countries. We believe that the mechanism envisioned for Article 4 should therefore not further prop these principles. We believe that unitary taxation and formula apportionment as a new Article 4 base on equitable taxation of multinational enterprises can adequately mechanize the fair allocation of taxing rights. This system, which actually predates the arm's length principle, provides a better chance of ensuring that taxation takes place where economic activity is carried out. Since this is also the week where we discuss the institutional arrangements of the Framework Convention, we believe that while the Convention should contain the overall decision, mandate and timeline on unitary taxation and formula apportionment, the specific rules of operationalizing this decision can be developed by the future Conference of Parties. While there are arguments that this should be a function that should be further elaborated by the protocols, we caution strongly against this approach. For instance, while there have been discussions on unitary taxation and formula apportionment under workstream two on the protocol on cross-border services, we run the risk of reinventing this approach to a particular sector or a particular economic activity, yet this change is required across the board. We understand there have previously been iterations of unitary taxation in other fora, but those discussions were not universal and they did not take into consideration the different capacities and needs of particularly global south countries. And instead, they actually resulted in profit allocation rules that severely shortchanged global south countries. Article four has the potential to deliver on a much better deal and the potential to offer far more revenue for global south countries rather than gross based taxes, which is what global south countries have been relying on. Gross based taxes, after all, have been severely curtailed by double taxation agreements. And so once again, distinguished delegates, as a Kenyan, allow me to welcome you. And allow me to also urge a high level of ambition as we have these discussions on African soil for the very first time in history. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak. Co-Lead · Daniel [1:07:39]: Thank you. We now have TYFM. TYFM · African Civil Society Working Group · Magdalena Giese [1:07:45]: Thank you, Chair. Distinguished delegates, my name is Magdalena Giese. I represent the Tanzania Young Feminist Movement and I speak on behalf of African Civil Society Working Group on UN Tax Convention. I thank you for allowing us to bring global south voices in this historical negotiations. As we discussed Article 4 on the fair allocation of taxing right, our position as CSO is clear and unified. Taxing right must be allocated fairly and equitably based on significant economy presence. This means prioritizing source-based taxation. We are concerned that the current factor allocation of taxing right, particularly value creation, do not prioritize the source-based taxation. The manner in which concept of value creation has been utilized in the past under OECD and G20 has not favored the value that is created by source country through the exploitation of our cheap labor, national resources extraction, and the unpaid and underpaid contribution of communities, especially women. For far too long, global tax rules have favored resident-based taxation, a system that is rooted in colonial legacy. This has shaped an unfair reality as developed economies, where most multinational corporations are headquartered and continue to grow at the expense of the source countries, many of which are in the global south. This severely undermines the ability of source states to uphold their human rights obligation to invest in gender responsive public services such as equality and equitable healthcare, education, care infrastructure, and climate resilience. From a feminist perspective, this is not simply an economic issue. It's a question of justice and power. When countries loses revenue, it is women and girls who pay the price. They end up subsidising the state through unpaid care work, through sacrificing their education and opportunities, and through absorbing the hidden cost of austerity and underfunded public services. Reclaiming tax rights for the source country is therefore an act of both economic and gender justice. We therefore call for deletion of value creation from Article 4. The mechanism for the fair allocation of taxing rights must not only acknowledge the contribution of the global South, including the extraction of natural resources and exploitation of our labour, including unpaid and underpaid care work, but it must also expand the physical space for governments to build strong public systems, recognise and support care work, provide social protection and create equal opportunities. We call member states today to embed feminist value and the principle of justice, equit and inclusivity at the heart of this convention because fair taxation is a feminist taxation. It is a redistributive tool that shifts power and ensure dignity and justice. We argue member states to be bold. Let this UN tax convention be the turning point where African and all source countries finally retain the wealth created within their borders. And once again, I want to thank our neighbors Kenya for hosting us. Thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [1:10:57]: Thank you. And we have Geledes, G-E-L-E-D-E-S. hope I pronounced it correctly. GELEDES · Civil Society Mechanism · Gabriel Dantas [1:11:07]: No, you pronounced it correctly. Thank you very much. My name is Gabriel Dantas and I speak on behalf of Galadaz Black. Women Institute from Brazil and for the civil society mechanism for the UN tax convention. The terms of reference make clear that this convention must build an inclusive, fair, and equitable international tax systems aligned with the state's human rights obligations and with sustainable development. Fairness in allocating taxing rights cannot be reduced to a technical split between residents and source countries or to rules only for multinational enterprises. It is a cross-cutting principle that asks whether international tax cooperation truly enables governments, especially in the global south, to mobilize the maximum available. Resources to realize rights, especially in the economic, social, and environmental dimension. That means rules that expand fiscal space, promote transparency and participation, and guarantee equity and nondiscrimination in both outcomes and process. Chair, distinguished delegates and colleagues, because we met here on African soil, let me recall this year African Union focus on justice and reparation for Africans and people of African descent. Fairness must therefore confront historical and structural inequalities embedded in the global fiscal order, including partners that reproduce racism, racial and gender disparities. A just convention should help correct these legacies by strengthening domestic resource mobilization, protecting civic oversight, and ensure that tax policies do not shift burdens on those less able to burden. Reparations are not symbolic. They are public policies grounded in rights with meaningful participations of women, youth, and affected communities in design, implementation, and. Review. If we take the terms of reference seriously, this convention can move us from a nominal fairness to liberty equality. And this must be reflected not only in the language of the article four, but also in the whole text. I thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [1:13:32]: Thank you. We now have the ICC. ICC [1:13:38]: Thank you, Chair. And thank you very much to the government of Kenya for hosting us. We are very grateful for the warm hospitality. And so thank you very much. A big thank you also to Secretariat and to Daniel leading this work. We appreciated the fact that the documentation was shared in advance, that we're going to have the possibility to submit written input after the session in order to take stock of the discussion that we had today that we indeed find very, very interesting and important to have. I'm not going to make a formal statement. I think we are still in informal session, but allow me to share some observation based on the discussion today. Some of them might be kind of repetitive because some other delegates have already raised it in the course of the day as well as other stakeholders. But I'll just repeat a few of them to share with you what we think could be suggestions to be considered. So one of the first question that emerged, um, talking with our members, um, was, uh, the combination of the article itself, like the text and the title, so the title, and we understand also from the commitments in the TOR. was about the allocation of taxing rights when we read the um the text of the article um we wonder if we're still talking about the allocation or the right to tax um and in in that case I think more it was already mentioned by one of the other stakeholder I think it would be valuable to have a bit more um alignment coordination with previous uh text whether it's like the resolution adopting the tor um but also other un commitments such as the commit the severe commitment from ffd4 um I think alignment across like different documents, it's always welcome to have clarity and good understanding among the different parties. The other questions that emerged when we discussed this with our members was indeed in relation to double multiple taxation. If we read the article as it stands now, there might be, as another delegate said earlier today, multiple source jurisdictions. So there is a question of how there will be multiple or double taxation now that will be solved. We did take note of the discussion today. We understand that double taxation might be discussed in another article. We welcome that it could be discussed and that will be discussed. We would welcome more clarity on where it will be discussed, if it's in the same article where double tax treaties will also be addressed or another article per se. But indeed, we would appreciate consideration of this problem because as of now, the question is still there. And we understand there was a second paragraph that we haven't seen, even though permanent observer, we don't get to participate today in the session or in the session meetings. So I think our idea would be to provide some constructive feedback in the written input. So eventually also some language that could be considered. But in order to do so, we would welcome the possibility to have access to the second paragraph text in order to make sure that we are not presenting you anything that was already considered and dismissed. And maybe also an explanation of why it was dismissed would be indeed helpful to submit something useful for the discussion. In relation to double taxation relationship, we do have questions, but we understand it's going to be addressed in another article, so I will not elaborate further on this. And also many delegates have already raised the clarity of the factors. We do agree with more clarity being needed, but we also understand delegates that have said that this is supposed to be an eye level commitment. We do though have questions on the work commitment at this point because we heard very different understanding of the work commitment from different delegates. And so we wonder if maybe you might want to consider a shop pool trying to understand of a common understanding what a commitment is. It's just a suggestion to make sure that we can move forward with a good understanding of the different terms and the different the different things we are looking at really in a constructive and positive way. And with that said, I know it's a long intervention, but I really wanted to make sure I've been addressing all the points that have been raised today. Of course, there were many and we remain, of course, committed to constructively engage and provide feedback as some written input. Co-Lead · Daniel [1:18:09]: Thank you, ICC. The comments are noted. Now, please, And the translators have indicated that we should speak a bit slower so that they can translate because sometimes if you go very fast, it's difficult for them to keep pace with us. So let's please note that. South Centre, please. South Centre [1:18:35]: Excellencies, the South Center, an intergovernmental organization of developing countries with 55 member states across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. We commend the bureau, the colleagues, all the member states and delegations for the continued progress towards establishing a UN framework convention on international tax cooperation. We reaffirm our strong support for this member state led process, which represents a historic opportunity to establish an inclusive, fair, transparent, efficient, equitable and effective international tax system for sustainable development as envisioned in the terms of reference. The terms of reference should continue providing the foundation and mandate for this work of intergovernmental negotiating committee and must therefore remain the central reference point for all deliberations. For far too long, international tax rules have been shaped in settings that excluded many developing nations and did not adequately reflect their realities or priorities. So this framework convention offers an opportunity to correct those imbalances and create system that is inclusive, equitable and transparent. So the convention should therefore not be constrained in any way by existing systems that are not fully inclusive. The South Centre welcomes the progress made in this work stream that has helped organize the work. And as that session focuses on the commitments, it's important that the commitments remain broad, comprehensive, principle-based, and consistent with the terms of reference. and detailed technical provisions can be developed later through the protocols. This approach ensures the framework convention remains inclusive, flexible and responsive to future development. In regards to Article 4, the South Centre supports the fair allocation of taxing rights. However, it supports the suggestions by a number of member states that the word and after located should be replaced with the word or so that they all have equal weight and then we also support the language of the commitments in the framework convention to use commonly accepted terms and in this regard we support replacing the word business activity with the broader term economic activity as already suggested by the floor which is broader and covers more activities. We reiterated our support for our member states and the developing countries at large and in the continuing negotiation. And thank you very much for this opportunity. Co-Lead · Daniel [1:21:45]: Thank you. We'll have the IBFD. IBFD · Aisha Issa [1:21:51]: Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to share our comments. I'm Aisha Issa from the International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation. Just to, I would also like to thank the workstream for the draft that we have here and to also thank Kenya for hosting this meeting. Just to share some comments and observations on some of the discussions we've had to have today. I would like to make a comment on the understanding of the text that we have up there. If it is agreed widely that the understanding is that it's to reflect considerations or factors that need to be considered when fairly allocating taxing rights, then the language has to be redrafted to clearly. Show that it is just mentioning factors that should be considered and for completeness sake then there should be reference to residence or place of residence in that text also um we agree with a lot of the comments previous comments that have been made on the replacement of and with or and. Also that each factor should be considered and interpreted as having or carrying equal weight. Also, it is important that the concept of fairness is widely interpreted so that it has more impact in that Yes, we are talking about fair allocation of taxing rights, but fairness also in taxation and has always been in taxation, also fairness towards taxpayers. And this should mean the protection of taxpayers in that whatever rules come up, they would safeguard or they would They would protect against creating economic distortions. They would also allow for the, um, and recognize. The taxpayers ability to pay and not put them in disadvantageous positions. So with those quick points, I think we should be able to have a more balanced document once we are able to balance fairness, not just for revenue generation, but. Also for taxation purposes. Thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [1:24:37]: Thank you. Can we have CFS please? CFS · Dr. Parita Shah [1:24:42]: Thank you very much. I, Dr. Parita Shah, represent the Committee on Fiscal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Nairobi. Our aim is to strengthen the Convention's effectiveness whilst respecting state sovereignty. Article 4 should explicitly address digital economy taxation, by clarifying that business activities include digital commerce and that physical presence is not required for source country taxing rights. The language should be explicit enough for digital economy to be captured, even though this will be addressed as part of Protocol One. It is critical for this principle to be established in the convention itself. Without explicit language, there is a risk of narrow interpretation that business activities contemplate only traditional physical commerce. perpetuating the current situation where digital platforms extract value from African markets without paying source country taxes. Either an insertion to Article 4 to read as follows, the state parties agree that every jurisdiction where a taxpayer conducts business activities, including Jurisdictions where value is created, markets are located and revenues are generated have a right to tax the income generated from such business activities. For purposes of this article, business activities include the provision of goods or services through digital means and physical presence in a jurisdiction is not required for that jurisdiction to exercise taxing rights where users or customers are located, data is collected or utilized, or other value is derived from that jurisdiction's market. Or in the definitions, Article 3, to define business activities as, business activities includes the conduct of any commercial, industrial, financial or professional activities, including the provision of goods or services through digital means, whether or not such activities involve physical presence in a jurisdiction. This clarification aims to achieve three objectives. without prejudging Protocol 1 negotiations on digital economy taxation. First, it explicitly confirms that Article 4. Applies to digital business models, preventing arguments that business activities contemplate only traditional physical commerce. Secondly, it establishes that physical presence requirements did not override source countries taxing rights where value is created or markets are located directly addressing the loophole enabling digital platforms to avoid source country taxation third it identifies multiple bases for Nexus users customers data collection, utilization, market value without prescribing which basis protocol one must adapt, preserving negotiating flexibility whilst establishing principle. Thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [1:29:11]: Thank you. Just a minute. Thank you. So we'll take a 10 minutes break and then come back please. Thank you. Chair [1:45:40]: Hello everyone, please have a seat. We are starting. We have just 45 minutes and everyone will go home. Please, hello. So thank you everyone for coming back on time. I think now we are done, we don't have any more requests for the floor for Article 4 taxing rights. So we are moving now to the second, first, What? Okay, waiting for Okay, so before moving to the next article, we have the honor to invite the representative of the Commissioner General of Kenya to give a word. Please, the floor is yours. Kenya · Geoffrey Ng'okona [1:47:53]: Thank you and good evening everyone. This is Geoffrey Ng'okona from Kenya. representing Kenya Revenue Authority and ah I'm here to pass a message of greetings from our commissioner general who could not be able to join you because of other work related issues but ah this is to welcome you all the delegates to our country Kenya and ah much appreciation to everyone and more so to the UN General Assembly for accepting to bring the meeting to Kenya. I know there are the number is big and we welcome all of you and I know there has been a call by developing countries to bring the meeting closer to where they come from and these are very welcome move. As Kenya, we are very happy and we welcome you all. And we appreciate you and we know we participate in the discussions and we'll continue supporting the cause and we are ready to partner with everyone. And we know given the meeting has a weekend in between, we do wish to encourage all of us to visit our national parks and also visit our sandy beaches in Mombasa. We have, we are the only country that have a national park in the city. Where we have the big five. And ah it will be a good experience for all of us. And ah we will be more than happy to hear that ah you visited and had a good time there. Also our coastline is just an hour away through JKIA where you most of you pass through and you'll be able to enjoy those coastal beaches, Sunday beaches and ah I know you love the experience. So with that, I would wish to pause there and I wish everyone a great time. Thank you. Chair [1:50:24]: Thanks to the representative of the commissioner of Kenya and we would like to thank Kenya and everyone for this generous hospitality. And just I'm going to give my first impression. This is first time for me in Kenya and it looks like amazing country. Still I promise I will visit the national parks in the weekend, but like my first impression about the country and the people, it's something amazing. Thank you. So now moving to the next, as we are done with the first article or like another meeting, meaning like I mean we don't have any further requests for the floor on the first article, article four about the taxing rights. So now we are moving to discuss the high net worth individuals, article five consists of three paragraphs. So we'll start now the discussions and as the time permit and of course we're going to continue tomorrow if we're not done. today, which is expected because we are left with 45 minutes. So now I will hand over to my colleague and friend, Daniel, to start the discussions. Thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [1:51:36]: Thank you, Chair, and welcome back from your break. I think I'll repeat just before what I said just before we closed, that the translators say we should speak a little slower so that they can be able to translate for us. So let's just take note of that. And I think I also mentioned that where we have comments, if we have some wording in mind, we should also provide that wording so that it helps the work as we go along. So then we are moving to Article 5, which is high net worth individuals. And it comprises, as we mentioned, three paragraphs. Based on our discussions, we've made changes, we've trimmed some of them. And so let's see what we have. Paragraph one says, in order to prevent high net worth individuals from avoiding or evading taxes, the state parties agree to adopt measures to detect and thwart such, including through exchange of information to additional types of assets and instruments as such exchanges become feasible. Two, the state parties agreed to share information regarding structures and techniques used by high net worth individuals to avoid and evade taxes and to require appropriate disclosures of such structures and techniques by taxpayers, advisors, and intermediaries involved in developing them. Then the third paragraph, the state parties agreed to adopt coordinated approaches to ensuring effective taxation of high net worth individuals. So these are the three paragraphs that we have now and we welcome comments by Member States and stakeholders. I don't see any hands, should I take it that we are all happy with it? Okay, Bahamas. Bahamas [1:53:46]: Thank you. Thank you very much. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak and I certainly appreciate being here in Kenya. On reading Article 5, it would appear that it is more focused around automatic exchange of information than really the treatment of high net worth individuals. And the focus on the automatic exchange of information is a bit troublesome. for me as, you know, we've had the common reporting standard in place now for over a decade with exchanges under the common reporting standard for about eight years now. And that's about over 85 million accounts a year and there are 126 countries that are signatories to the common reporting standard. A cost benefit of the implementation of the common reporting standard is not clear. The costs related to financial institutions and countries alone on implementation is a challenge and has been a challenge with respect to that. There's no uniformity in the application of the common reporting standard. We see FATCA being a separate regime for the United States than the CRS, which all of us have to live under, which creates a mechanism of tax arbitrage. that exist globally today. The expansion of what is in the common reporting standard, which is the automatic exchange of financial information to what is found in Article 5, which are appropriate disclosures of structures and techniques by taxpayers, provides its own level of difficulty on how It's unclear how this is going to be proposed to implement. It's also unclear who is going to make the determination whether these structures are designed for the avoidance or evasion of taxes. And it is also unclear how a country is going to understand how a particular structure in its country is being used under domestic tax laws in the client's home jurisdiction. And those are practical challenges that countries and financial institutions in those respective countries may not be able to overcome. We also have practical challenges of high net worth individuals, ultra high net worth individuals, in that many of them are global citizens. What are going to be the criteria for determining the proper tax residence of a particular individual, especially if that individual has multiple tax residences. We also have in the United Nations, ECOSOC having undertaken a comprehensive program on the taxation of high net worth individuals and particularly a wealth tax. And it's a bit concerning that we haven't at least looked at what they have done and taken that as lessons learned. and taken out particular recommendations. They have frameworks or proposed frameworks for a wealth tax, an inheritance tax, a global capital gains tax, a number of different types of taxes that would provide more equity on the taxation of high net worth individuals rather than what appears in this article as an expansion of information exchange and transparency. So I think with respect to this framework, we should I think look a little bit more in depth on what we could propose. If we are advocating solely for enhanced transparency and automatic exchange of information, maybe we should rename the article to reflect that rather than merely high net worth individuals. Thank you for the opportunity to give that input. Co-Lead · Daniel [1:57:50]: Thank you, Bahamas. Brazil, please. Brazil [1:58:02]: Thank you, Chair, for giving me the opportunity to speak. Well, Brazil welcomes this approach proposed under Article 5 that focuses on the aspects of evasion and avoidance by high net worth individuals, and we do think that addressing this issue would be a crucial step to achieve the objectives of this Framework Convention. To react a little bit on the problem of this article being focused on both aspects of evasion and avoidance, but also on the exchange of information, and of course referring to some interventions that members brought during the intersessional meetings, we do think that a possible solution could be having a specific article on the exchange of information in this framework convention. We can discuss this a little bit further since we are now focused on the high net worth individuals for now, but this is a suggestion that could help to avoid repetitions of this topic on the exchange of information throughout various articles of this convention. So coming back on the issue of high net worth individuals, we believe that almost all tax systems provide that citizens should contribute to tax collection according to their capacities. So if the characteristics of the global economy and international tax architecture allow high net worth individuals to use mechanisms and structures to avoid taxation, this is actually preventing countries to implement a fair distribution of the tax burden. So in this regard, this international cooperation that we are doing here today, it's very crucial to ensure this effective taxation of high net worth individuals. So some forms of coordination should be envisaged in the article as it is right now. So also, When it comes to the definition of a high net worth individual, as we understand that this convention will have a section that will be dedicated for definitions, we suggest that Secretariat to have a broad definition and not define any specific thresholds in order to accommodate members' different capacities and economic circumstances. Well, we also believe that may be important to develop the concept of effective taxation of high net worth individuals that is contained in the terms of reference. The taxation, it is effective if it's possible to guarantee the fairness inherent in different national tax systems. So most countries establish a progressive tax system in which tax collection is based on citizens' capacities to pay. There are challenges, however, in assessing the effective progressivity of tax system in the sense the effective taxation of high net worth individuals should be assessed considering the overall progressivity of tax system and based on the effective tax rates across income distribution. So in addition, we think that the first paragraph could add as you read in the first line, in order to guarantee progressive taxation and prevent high net worth individuals and so and so on. So we think maybe to achieve the objective of ensuring that the taxation of high net worth will be effective in all the countries, maybe the element of progressivity could be reflected in this article. This will be my remarks for now. Thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [2:02:02]: Thank you, Brazil. We now have Poland. Poland [2:02:09]: Thank you very much, Chair. I have one general remark and maybe one technical. Frankly speaking, it was already said by previous speakers. The general remark is that I see that this draft, these provisions of this article are not really kind of political commitments. Again, we have a similar problem as in Article 4 where we see that this is what when we cannot like precisely see what is the legal nature of this provision, what would be the legal consequences of this provision, especially I'm referring to paragraph two where the contracting states parties agree to share information regarding structures and techniques. So it is the direct provision which create obligation for the contracting states to exchange information without any specific details, without without saying anything how, what we want to exchange precisely, when. So in my opinion, this especially this second paragraph does not create any commitment. It just creates a direct obligation for the countries to exchange information regarding structures and technique used by high net worth individuals. That's why I would prefer if we have here commitments. So when we create the provision on commitments, we should first recognise what is a problem. So I believe that we should say that contracting states or states parties recognise that the effective taxation of the high net worth individuals is a problem and we should take some measures. to avoid situations that they are not taxed at all because they use some avoidance scheme. And these measures are also exchange of information or some other measures which we can mention. And this kind of provision would be the commitment to do something. And this provision creates obligation on the contracting states. So generally I I'm not questioning the exchange of information here on these issues is not a good solution, it is probably, but in this provision we need a commitment and as far as I understood we believe that the next protocols can be can be on the taxation of high net worth individuals and can touch upon this issue. Also, as far as the administrative cooperation is concerned on this issue, here we have to talk only about our commitments. So this provision makes the situation that we are in the halfway. It's not a commitment, but it is not precise enough to create the precise obligation for the member states. So this is that one general remark and the second one is more technical. I mean we need, if we are referred to high net worth individuals, we need a definition. I mean we need something concrete which we refer to, at least if we want to be more specific, because if it is commitment maybe We don't need a definition, but it is very high level commitment. But in such a situation, we should be precise. We do not know what is the scope of this article, what the high net worth individual means. So this, we have, I have these two remarks, and thank you very much for giving me a floor. Thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [2:06:21]: Thank you, Poland. We have Cote d'Ivoire now. Côte d’Ivoire [2:06:32]: Thank you, Chair. I will speak in French. From my point of view, the issue of the taxation of high net worth individuals is essentially a domestic issue, one of domestic law. There is no definition, no universal, or international definition of what a high net worth individual is. Furthermore, we're not sure that in all countries, in all states represented here today within the International Negotiations Committee, the issue of the taxation of high net worth individuals is one of the primary ones. the taxation of high net worth individuals has an international taxation cooperation tier and it refers to information exchange information exchange regarding the structures and techniques used to avoid and evade taxes by these individuals and the taxation or the taxing rather of their offshore assets so essentially it's just an exchange of information of intelligence from this point of view We are not sure that the principles, rules or commitments which govern the exchange of information regarding high net worth individuals is any different from that of the exchange of information on other tax related issues. So, truth be told, regarding this topic, our commitment here is to strengthen the exchange of information between states parties and to adopt common, harmonized, coordinated approaches when it comes to taxing the aforementioned individuals. Now, based on all of these things, we harbor doubts regarding the need for this provision, including regarding its relevance in terms of commitments. Now, if we want commitments to emerge, these commitments have to yield added value, but they shouldn't simply repeat existing commitments in terms of information exchange, existing commitments which could be found on other topics related to the Framework Convention. Thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [2:09:13]: Thank you. We have Hungary. Hungary [2:09:17]: Thank you, Chair. First of all, we appreciate the work that has been done regarding this article. However, we have very similar remarks that Poland just made. As we understand it, the purpose of the Framework Convention is to set out high level political commitments, while the more detailed obligations would be addressed in the protocol. In the light of that, we are wondering whether the current language in Article 5 might go beyond what is appropriate for a framework convention. We are also wondering whether a formulation closer to the original terms of reference would help preserve the nature of the framework convention. In my experience, legal systems and administrations are very different in every country and therefore saying that all countries agree to adopt something may be a strong binding obligation for a country due to the diversity of legal and tax systems. Thus, we are wondering whether we have any room for clarifying that the mentioned approaches are voluntary and respect sovereignty. Reintroducing qualifiers such as irrelevant member states could help maintain consistency with the original text of the terms of references. Furthermore, we would be grateful if we could get some clarity about the group of taxpayers before developing such a strong language about obligations. Therefore, to develop clear text regarding this commitment, we prefer to work on the definition first. Thank you very much. Co-Lead · Daniel [2:11:10]: Thank you, Hungary. We now have China. China [2:11:17]: Thank you, Chair. First, I would like to thank the remarks from our Kenya colleagues. Thanks for the hospitality and thanks for everything, actually. Such a nice place, such nice weather, and nice test topics to discuss and elaborate on. Regarding the Article 5, I have two comments. The first one will be a more general one, very similar to the previous interventions by some other colleagues. The tax system, I think, is a very fundamental economic system of a country and should be formulated and adjusted according to the country's development stage and administrative capacity and to better serve its economy and social development. So this is more domestic tax issue. and we should pay full respect of tax sovereignty here and the variations of the relevant states for different countries. We do acknowledge the challenge and feasibility to achieve a kind of coordinated approach to ensure effective taxation for high net worth individuals. So in this context, the languages like agree to adopt in paragraph one and three, seems too strong, not feasible for many countries for the time being. The second comment for paragraph one and two regarding languages about the information sharing, it seems to me overlapping to some extent. We do understand the importance of sharing information to combat this issue, but not necessary to stipulate information sharing in every paragraph. So we do suggest combining relevant languages regarding the information sharing in paragraph one and two. Thank you, Chair. Co-Lead · Daniel [2:13:19]: Thank you. We have the Russian Federation. Russian Federation [2:13:25]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like echo to the intervention made by our colleague from China. that in the article we have two references to the exchange of information. It's a general observation when we look at the old draft of the framework convention, we will find another references to the exchange of information. For instance, in the article six, in the in the Article 7 and others. So it's just an observation and proposal for the consideration. Then instead of writing about the exchange of information in many different provisions, just to make a separate article on exchange of information, which can be merged with the Article 15, exchange of information for implementation of the Convention and then to have references in mentioned articles to that special article on exchange of information. Thank you very much. Co-Lead · Daniel [2:14:52]: Thank you, Russia. So what you're saying is that we should merge any reference to information here With that in Article 15, we're talking about exchange in relation to the Framework Convention itself. Okay, you're next. All right, you're next, please. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [2:15:17]: Thank you, Chair. We support the emerging consensus that commitments to the Framework Convention are kept at a high level, as reiterated by many members today. There was some discussion in August about what high level means. Our interpretation is that the commitment should set out guiding principles, but without setting out how those principles should be operationalised. This would instead be a matter for detailed protocols or other instruments for interested parties without setting out how those principles should be operationalised, which would instead be a matter for detailed protocols or other instruments. It is right and fair that everyone pays the correct tax. wherever in the world they or their assets are based. The UK has historically supported international cooperation to combat tax non-compliance. The UK has championed tax transparency and exchange of information, including as an early adopter of the Common Reporting Standard and the Crypto Asset Reporting Framework. As a general principle, we support exchange of information as a mechanism for countries to be able to tax income and assets in line with their own domestic law. We would welcome further clarification on what is contemplated in the provision to share information regarding structures and techniques used by high net worth individuals to avoid and evade taxes. It will be important that any exchange of information respects jurisdictions, domestic law and procedures. And it is also important that we avoid duplicating existing initiatives in this space, such as the mandatory disclosure rules for CRS avoidance and opaque offshore structures. Given the high level nature of the policy proposal here, it is important that the other language in this article reflects this. That's why we'd like to end by requesting that the amended wording in paragraph three of adopt reverts to explore. We can't commit to adopt approaches that haven't been further defined. Thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [2:17:35]: Thank you. Jamaica, please. Jamaica [2:17:39]: Thank you, Chair. Just want to add our voice to colleagues from the Bahamas and I think Cote d'Ivoire and maybe others. I was out of the room for a bit. in their interventions which suggest that this is a domestic tax issue primarily where we are seeking to get international cooperation, administrative cooperation across borders to assist with. I think that there is some merit in getting that kind of cooperation by means of exchange of information. Just from my previous work on the UN tax committee, we did introduce guidance on wealth taxes, but I remember the concern there being that wealth taxes generally seem not to be very effective in addressing this high net worth issue. But I do believe that there is some merit to the strengthening of the collaboration and maybe that could be built out some more. What I have a concern about though, it's the same paragraph two that seems to be a bit of an overreach. I'm not quite sure how the disclosure of structures, techniques by taxpayers, advisors and intermediaries involved in developing them. I am sure that that may come in conflict with the domestic laws of some of the jurisdictions here. So that I do have a concern about, but I do believe that there is some merit in strengthening the exchange of information capacity. Co-Lead · Daniel [2:19:57]: Thank you, Jamaica. Japan, please. Japan [2:20:04]: Thank you, Chair. Regarding information of exchange of information, I would like to reiterate other comments made by colleagues before. First, it should be incorporated into one exchange of information article. And other comments, I would like to echo what UK has commented earlier. Since much information is already exchangeable within the existing EOI framework, we cannot agree to expand beyond the existing EOI framework separately. I think it is difficult to agree when it is unclear what additional assets specifically referred to and what information would be exchanged under this article. And second question, what do you mean by coordinated approaches? As other countries mentioned earlier, how to tax high net worth individuals is a matter of national policy decision. And we believe it is difficult to agree to introduce measures which details are unknown. Thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [2:21:25]: Thank you, we have Singapore. Singapore [2:21:29]: Thank you, Chair. I would like to. Express our agreement with previous speakers that the taxation of individuals is a domestic and sovereign issue. And the issue we seem to be facing here is how to strengthen and improve existing mechanisms of information exchange so that countries can do so effectively based on their domestic laws. And in line with the high level approach for the framework convention, we would like to propose that the article can focus on a general or broad commitment to effective exchange of information. And in the same light, we'd like to echo China's view that the words agree to adopt in. Paragraphs one and three are too strong. And the word explore would be more appropriate, particularly for paragraph three. Thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [2:22:32]: Right, France. France [2:22:37]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to speak in French. In our opinion, this is one of the key commitments of this convention. It's an area in which international cooperation can and must progress. This is a position that we will defend throughout all existing institutions. Now, as for the article, we believe that the proposal made is not high level enough, it's perhaps too detailed. We think it would be more relevant to have a commitment from states to improve international cooperation in order to ensure effective taxation of high net worth individuals. There are many ways to do this. From the French point of view, we fully agree with the idea that strengthening exchange of information, and more specifically automatic exchange of information, to ensure a better capacity to apprehend or understand the revenue of high net worth individuals and to better effectively tax them is the key and that's the first necessary step. Nevertheless, we also need the strengthening of international cooperation, which at present needs to be improved and that's where we should really focus. Thank you very much. Co-Lead · Daniel [2:24:05]: Thank you. Belgium, please. Belgium [2:24:10]: Thank you. For Belgium, we don't have a definite stance on this article, but in the meantime, we also believe that this is a domestic and sovereign issue. We have taken note of this article, but we think further reflection is necessary on its potential implications and overall relevance. especially to put it here in such a detailed manner. Moreover, further clarity will have to be sought, according to us, regarding how the key terms are to be understood within the broader context of the Framework Convention. And so we also worry about the way things have to be seen here. And we think definition, for instance, on high net worth individuals is also necessary to agree upon before further or What do we exactly mean again here with the key terms used? Thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [2:25:09]: Noemi, please. Norway [2:25:13]: Thank you, colleague. I think we would agree with all those colleagues have said that this commitment should remain high level. We agree that international cooperation is key to ensure effective taxation of high net worth individuals in line with their domestic policy and national legislation. And we think that the best approach here is to confirm that principle and that any particular cooperation should be detailed in protocols or maybe also done through existing forces and mechanisms. It does seem that the provisions here are setting out obligations to share information by themselves, in particular when you look at Article 6 and paragraph 3 there, that seems to build on Article 5 being a separate basis for exchange of information. If that was the case, I would say that the details are simply not enough because they wouldn't really enable state parties to deliver on that commitment on the terms that are given here now. It says nothing about in what circumstances and to what detail such information exchange should happen. So generally we think that exchange of information is mentioned in several commitments. Probably it's better to address exchange of information in a separate article like Article 6. We would agree that It's too early in the discussions to agree to adopt particular measures now, like the wording is in paragraph one, and also agree to adopt coordinated approaches when we haven't really talked about what those approaches might be. Would be too not appropriate to use that wording now and would support amending it to explore if that type of language is going to be kept at all because that would leave the area of being high level, I think. So thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [2:28:02]: Okay, thank you, Norway. We have three countries here. We'll do those three and then adjourn till tomorrow. So we'll take Saudi Arabia, followed by the Republic of Korea, and then Islamic Republic of Iran in that order please. Saudi Arabia please. Saudi Arabia [2:28:28]: Thank you, Daniel. I think this issue has been discussed extensively before and I think we echo the majority of the comments highlighted here in the room around that this is a domestic matter and domestic issues and each country impose the taxation on its individual in the way it sees fit. And whatever we are going to agree here must be contained within exchange information and maybe sharing of practices for countries that have good experience in the taxation of high net worth individuals. And also echoing the comment mainly from China on three, we don't think three is relevant here because again it contradicts in a way or another with that principle that it is a domestic law issue. Also for one and two, I think both can be merged and the language can be also adjusted here, but I think we need to be mindful of the compliance burden that we are putting here, especially for developing country. We are already dealing with CRS and I think that is by itself is is require investments from countries to implement and creating here another layer might be costly for developing country and might also require capacity building for them. Therefore, I think we will need to be innovative here, maybe capitalizing on what's already there to avoid that situation. Thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [2:30:14]: Thank you. We now have the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran (Islamic Republic of) [2:30:19]: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. I wanted to just share some points about the article number five. Firstly, we think that the terms high net worth individual requires a precise definition. It is recommended that the convention include a definition paragraph. Secondly, establishing a clear threshold or reference standard is essential for effective implementation while the CBDR principles should be met to allow each country has flexibility to apply lower difference different threshold domestically or regionally in line with the national context. The phrase as such exchange become feasible in paragraph 1 could weaken the obligation and we can find some more practical with the actionable commitment and taking into account the national circumstances and priorities in this article. Another point is that paragraph 2 should explicitly extend the scope of disclosure to cover some implicit activities, for example, the digital assets. And finally, it would be useful to provide an institutional mechanism, for instance, a technical committee on high network tax cooperation or for whole of the convention to promote consistent implementation and technical assistance, especially for developing countries. Thank you. Co-Lead · Daniel [2:31:53]: Thank you. Republic of Korea, please. Republic of Korea [2:32:02]: Thank you, Chair, for giving me the chance to speak about the high net worth individuals. Before providing Korea's specific comment on high net worth individuals, I'd like to align with other delegates that support a high-level approach in framework convention. Korea believes that the framework convention should remain a principles-based and high-level instrument, rather than addressing detailed technical provisions, which could be developed later in separate implementing protocols. So when it comes to the high net worth individuals, Korea recognized the importance of discussing effective taxation of high net worth individuals from the perspective of fairness in income and wealth taxation. Having said that, We believe that determining the specific scope of taxpayers and the appropriate method of taxation requires further economic analysis and detailed discussions among member states. In addition, like other delegates have already mentioned that given the substantial progress already made in the global forum, Korea considers that UN Framework Convention should focus on strengthening complementary cooperation with existing international initiatives rather than duplicating them. In particular, automatic exchange of information on real estate assets is currently being discussed within the OECD. And it would be important to ensure that the scope of information exchange under the UN Framework Convention does not overlap with ongoing OECD work. Now, I'd like to share Korea's specific comments on each paragraph. With respect to paragraph one, Korea suggests that the reference to expanding exchange of information be softened to exploring expansion of exchange of information in order to reduce the binding burden on member states. And then it would also be important to clarify, define what additional asset types and instruments covered under such exchange. Furthermore, Korea think that an expansion of exchange of information should be based on a clear legal foundation and satisfy the principle of foreseeable relevance as in discriminate expansion could lead to legal uncertainty. Lastly, it's about the paragraph three. We would like to echo some delegates have mentioned including China. Korea suggested modifying the phrase agreed to adopt coordinated approaches to agree to explore coordinated approaches in order to allow for flexibility reflecting national circumstances and to promote constructive dialogue among member states. Let me stop here, thank you very much. Co-Lead · Daniel [2:35:15]: Thank you. I think we have a few more minutes, so we allow United Arab Emirates. United Arab Emirates [2:35:29]: Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I'll be quick. So we support colleagues on keeping the commitments at a high level. We also would like to have more clarity regarding paragraph three, for example, what we mean by coordinated approaches. We would also like to echo Singapore and others that the use of the phrase state parties agree in this article is a very strong phrase. Finally, we agree with many that this topic is a domestic and sovereignty issue. Thank you. Okay. Co-Lead · Daniel [2:36:05]: Thank you. UAE, and with that, we would break for today on this article, we will resume discussions on it tomorrow morning. And as we go along, as I mentioned, if we have specific texts that will help, we can also share that text. So I'll hand over to the chairman for the final statements before we close. Chair [2:36:47]: Thank you all for today discussions and your fruitful and insightful comments and looking forward to see you tomorrow in the same room at 10 a.m. And just remind you that we're gonna have some drinks today in Trademark Hotel on the roof or Uh, so looking forward to see you all there, thank you.