(17th meeting) Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on the United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation - Fourth Session

Good morning everyone.

So now we are starting this session to continue the discussion for Work Stream three and our expectations that we're going to close by the morning session because I think we made a very good progress during the last two days with Work Stream 3. And we just have like just few questions to give it to the floor to get your feedback. So our expectations that we're going to close in the morning session, then we can give some time for shopping in the afternoon for everyone. So I think it's better just to start immediately.

The Coolids. If you're ready, we can go ahead, please.

Thank you. Chair. Good morning, colleagues.

All right, we're gonna. We had some stakeholders from yesterday, so we're gonna take them first and then we are going to go into what should be our final slide and discussion. And the first stakeholder is Children and Youth International. Please go ahead.

Hi everyone. Give me a minute to retrieve the notes that I prepared, please.

Okay. Hello. I speak today on behalf of Children and Youth International. We recognize the historic step of creating a. A legally binding framework convention.

However, we must be clear eyed. A binding foundation is only as strong as the instruments built upon it. Chair, please allow me to use the experience of my home country, Mexico, as an operational case study. Our context illustrates that the design of this convention is not a technical exercise. It is a prerequisite for maintaining institutional integrity and the rule of law.

For a decade, through AGORA and our drug policy reform program named synapsis within Children and Youth International, in partnership with more stakeholders like the major group for children and youth, we have advocated for the legal regulation of drug markets. We believe revenues from cannabis, psychedelics and more substances should belong to the state, not to criminal organizations. We have seen how prohibition has fueled the war on drugs that cost lives while enriching the informal sector. However, we have learned that the legal regulation of drugs cannot succeed in a vacuum. It requires a robust, mandatory international tax architecture to dismantle the financial power that criminal groups have built over decades.

In Mexico, these organizations function as a shadow government thriving on tax evasion and money laundering. When the international tax system is fragmented, criminals can hide wealth that should fund social services such as health care, housing, education. And to ensure that this convention moves from a legal symbol to an operational success, we have identified three strategic risks. Sorry. First, the risk of good advice.

We have jurisdictions that have called for high level and non binding language. This would transform a historic convention into mere aspirational suggestions. In Mexico, the absence of hard rules creates a financial scapegoat, allowing billions to flee our borders untraceably. This leaves the State hollowed out, unable to protect its citizens, while criminal groups outspend the law. For the Global south, rendering the protocols non binding is an abandonment.

Second, the paradox of optional protocols. While illicit financial flows are a binding pillar in Work Stream 1, the tools that combat them remain optional. If Mexico, for example, proposed a mandatory subsequent protocol to trace the owners of companies laundering criminal fortunes, but tax havens choose to opt out, then the scam remains intact. A system where justice is a voluntary choice for the powerful protects the shadow, not the state. Third, the legal mess of duplicity.

We seek synergy, not rivalry. However, the current risk of institutional duplicity creates a legal message that favors only those who thrive in the most of administrative confusion. In the midst of administrative confusion, developing countries do not have the administrative capacity to manage multiple competing global tax systems. Therefore, mechanisms like the fast track instrument must not be optional, but a mandatory bridge to restore the State's power and provide a single coherent path towards tax justice. In conclusion, Chair, a binding convention with optional instruments is a paper tiger to dismantle the illegal economies propitiated by a weak tax system.

We must come up with a convention that moves from voluntary options to a unified mandate. Thank you very much.

Thank you, C Cui for that very wide ranging intervention from illicit financial flows to cross border services. And just to ask other stakeholders, just to remind you that we're discussing Work Stream three, but we thank CYI for their intervention. I'm sure that the CO leads of Work Stream one and two were listening keenly. All right, our next stakeholder is agora.

Hello. Thank you again to the panel on Workstream 3. I speak on behalf of AGORA right now and we appreciate the technical ambition of the CO leads proposal. However, for the youth of the Global south, the legitimacy of this new architecture depends on its governance. We offer three realistic targeted refinements to ensure the proposed mechanisms are inclusive and fit for the future.

First, democratizing the Transfer Pricing Task Force. The current proposal for the Transfer Pricing Task Force limits participation to Member State officials. This creates a technical blind spot. What is our demand? We call for a formal mechanism to integrate civil society and youth experts, specifically young data scientists and tax researchers, into the Task Force's work.

The goal is to ensure that the UN database reflects the economic realities of the Global south, capturing data on agricultural cooperatives and the digital economy that commercial databases currently ignore. Number two, operationalizing Article 18 for generational equity. Under Article 18 of the Framework Convention, this body has the power to establish subsidiary bodies. We propose the formal creation of a subsidiary body on stakeholder engagement. Rather than an ad hoc arrangement, this body would provide a structured permanent venue for youth and civil society to monitor the Protocol's impact on development and human rights.

This ensures the Convention remains a living document responsive to the generation that will inherit its outcomes. Third, interdisciplinary expertise in conciliation.

The Concept Note proposes an anchoring provision for non binding expert advice and ad hoc conciliation commissions. We demand that the roster of experts for these commissions be interdisciplinary by design. When disputes involve environmental taxation or carbon accounting, for example, the the expert advice must include climate scientists and illicit financial flow specialists. Tax law doesn't exist in a vacuum. Its resolution must be informed by the scientific and social realities of our time.

Esteemed committee the UN support role mentioned in Protocol 2 must not be a closed door exercise. We do not ask for new out of scope institutions. We we ask that the task Force, the subsidiary bodies and the conciliation mechanisms you are currently designing be open to the expertise and oversight of civil society, specifically the youth. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Agora. We now go to Stakeholder two. That's Nova Tax Research Lab.

Thank you, colleague. Regarding questions G and H, we would like to recap that MAP should be established as a mandatory core mechanism under the Protocol 2. Once the state chooses to adhere the Protocol 2, the axis of a minimum common standard, at least regarding MAP would improve coordination among states, stretching legal certainty and reinforce the overall effectiveness and credibility of the system. At the same time, we strongly encourage States to consider adopt arbitration as an optical mechanisms when MAP does not lead to a resolution within a reasonable time frame. We fully recognize that arbitration remains a sensitive matter and that not all states, including some signators to the mli, have embraced each.

We are also mindful of the administrative and constitutional constraints faced by certain jurisdictions. Nevertheless, we when used as a complementary and subsidiary tool, arbitration offer advantage, procedural discipline, technically ground outcomes, timely resolution disputes.

Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Novotax Research Lab.

We now move to Stakeholder one, independent expert on foreign debt.

Thank you very much for the floor. I have three points that I'd like the Committee to consider. My first is the human rights obligations that all Member States have signed onto. Specifically the right to access information. The right to access information is a critical part of the Human Rights treaty framework that all Member States across the world have signed.

And as a result, when discussing issues around confidentiality, one must balance that with the fact that taxpayers in individual countries have the right to access information on the taxes that their Governments are collecting. And so it will be really important to reflect back again on Article 15 in the main Framework Convention as regards how dispute resolution is going to take place and what types of parameters we will put in the different dispute resolution mechanisms that are engaged with. The second point I think is quite important is the discussion on APAs that took place yesterday. My concern is and continues to remain climate threatened countries as well as the ldc. And one of the conversations I keep having is what happens when you have some kind of climate catastrophe that wipes out sometimes 70% of the GDP of a country?

And how does the APA then continue in force? So timelines on APA's limitations on it, delineating how we ensure that the core principle of the frame of Convention continues to be maintained in the protocols, which of course is sustainable development and equality. And so if I come into then the further problems around it, how do we then measure, using these different dispute resolution mechanisms and prevention methodologies that we're looking at, how do we ensure that sustainable development is in fact taking place amongst these most vulnerable countries in the world? And the third and final point I'd like to make is as regards the question about an anchoring provision to allow for the United nations to support the resolution mechanism, I spoke at quite a bit of length on this in Nairobi, and so I will not repeat that, but I would like to encourage Member States to please have a look again at my verbal comments in that session. But I would like to point out that should we look at a UN anchored mechanism, which would certainly be interesting, then there are certain challenges that the current arbitration mechanisms, as well as other dispute resolution bodies within the UN are having.

And this is as regards veto voting processes and the blocking of actual appointment of members of these dispute resolution tribunals sometimes. And so it would be important that if one does look into the process of anchoring, that we ensure that we guide very carefully how appointments are taking place and how they are then not blocked in the future if there are any political challenges across the world. I thank you very much for the time.

Thank you very much for that intervention and for the insights that we need to be mindful of. All right, we now have stakeholder six, which is Latin data.

Thank you, Khalid, for giving me the floor. I will speak in Spanish.

I speak on behalf of the Tax Justice Network for Latin America and the Caribbean and a civil society. We want to be very clear, according to the Convention, dispute prevention must be rooted in the commitments of the Framework Convention itself. And we note with concern that the concept Note for Protocol 2 presents Arbitration as an optional mechanism, and we firmly oppose this position even when it is presented as optional. Arbitration generates political and economic pressure on some countries to force them to accept such mechanisms. Many countries, especially those in the Global south, have systematically expressed their opposition to arbitration on the basis of negative experiences in the settlement of disputes between investors and state, constitutional restrictions and profound asymmetries of power.

We are aware that the arbitration mechanism that is being proposed in the Protocol is not the isds, but rather a binding mandatory arbitration that forces arbitration between states. And some of the challenges that we faced in ISDs are the same ones largely that we would probably face with the arbitration that's proposed here. For example, this mechanism hands over decisions on fundamental tax matters from state or public institutions arbitrators whose reasoning may not be aligned with national policy, democratic accountability or the development priorities. While it has been suggested that the arbitrators might be selected by both parties involved in the dispute, careful selection by the parties would not prevent states taking unexpected decisions that are not governed by precedent. And the expensive nature of the process means that it is inaccessible to many parties.

More fundamentally, there is the risk of generating disputes without addressing the fundamental causes. A key issue in international tax dispute is the current dependency on full jurisdiction and transfer pricing. There is no common legal basis around these issues, especially around transfer pricing. Even the members do not support this totally. A universal mechanism can only operate if it is based on a common legal framework, a common legal foundation.

This should be found in the Convention itself with fair assignment of tax obligations. Until this consensus is fully developed, the dispute resolution mechanisms would have to be very moderate and very, very carefully.

Well, thank you. Thank you very much. And we now have Stakeholder three, which is the last stakeholder asking for the floor committee on School Studies.

Thank you so much, Madam K. Today being the last day, I'd like to start by appreciating you all, the member states and also the stakeholders in the room for really getting us in an engaging session, sharing insights and also pointing the way forward. And it's definitely not lost to me that indeed history is being made in this room. So my response now is with respect to the question I. And the direct response that I have for that is yes, the protocol must include an anchoring provision and the first order priority for a United nations support should actually be the establishment of a publicly accessible, multilaterally governed transfer pricing database. And I'll explain why this is relevant because every mechanism in this protocol beat map arbitration, mediation, apas as well as joint audits it actually depends on the ability of tax administrations to access reliable, comparable data.

So transfer pricing in itself is an exercise of comparison. Now, if an administration cannot identify or even verify what independent parties would charge in comparable circumstances, it is not able to audit effectively, it cannot even prepare a map case, it cannot evaluate an APA proposal as well, and it cannot engage in equal terms in any resolution process. So for the majority of developing country administrations, this actually is the present day reality. Commercial databases are prohibitively expensive, geographically skewed towards OECD economies, and they often and often of limited relevance to the transactions and economic structures that prevail in our market. So the October 2025 draft, the concept Note, it acknowledged this directly, so I'm just responding to that.

And the database therefore is not ancillary to the protocol. It is a structural condition for its equitable functioning. I also want to draw the Committee's attention to the connection of this particular question I with Protocol one. So Workstream two is engaged in a fundamental reconsideration of how cross border services are taxed, including potential new source state taxing rights, especially over the digital services. Now, the disputes that arise from those new taxing rights will engage the mechanisms that are established under this particular protocol and the transfer pricing questions that generate how to, for example, benchmark the intercompany pricing of data transfers, algorithmic licensing and also platform mediation.

And it's all going to be very new. So existing comparable data will therefore be inadequate for these types of new transactions we will be seeing. And if we build dispute resolution mechanisms without the information infrastructure that those mechanisms require, we're going to be building a system that works for countries that already have the data and fails those that do not. So the Framework Convention, it commits parties, parties to effective administrative cooperation and capacity building. The database gives those commitments operational substance.

I would then, you know, gently urge Work Stream 1 to tighten the Convention's language, to explicitly reference shared information infrastructure as a component of administrative cooperation, and to recognize that capacity is not solely a matter of training. It is also a matter of access to data without which trained personnel cannot perform their functions. Finally, Khalid, the anchoring provision, it must be drafted in mandatory rather than permissive terms. Language that merely allows the United nations to provide support will not generate the institutional momentum that is actually required. The provision should establish a clear mandate for the un, acting through the Conference of the Parties, to develop and maintain such a database with specified governance arrangements and also importantly a financing pathway.

So no other institution other than this, the United Nation itself, has both the legitimacy and the universal membership to govern a resource of this nature on behalf of all Member States. Thank you so much, Khalid.

Thank you very much. Cfs. Okay.

Good morning, distinguished delegates, colleagues, friends.

We have exhausted the list of speakers asking for the floor on the asking for the floor to comment on the question that we are seeing on the screen right now. We have just heard some stakeholders commenting, for example on the Task Force and Access to Information, for example agora, but also the Committee on Fiscal Studies. We can take this as a warm up for our now upcoming discussion. We move move on to our next and last subject on the agenda, which is about the access to information.

Thank you. Yeah. In our discussion so far, particularly in the context of discussing the mechanisms to resolve tax disputes, it has been reaffirmed that there is room for the United nations and for the Member States to strengthen technical assistance and capacity building to assist Member States in processing cases subject to text dispute prevention and resolution. And this includes also a assessing relevant information. But in order to assess relevant information, Member States need to get access to those information in the first place.

It was already during the scoping phase that deficiencies were identified in that regard. They were identified as being a cross cutting issue that is particularly pertinent to transfer pricing cases, but which is an issue when it comes to prevention as well as the resolution of those cases. Member States in that context have outlined existing asymmetries, asymmetries between tax administration and taxpayers, but also among tax administration that are involved in specific cases. Concerns were raised as regards the comprehensiveness of existing databases as well as the quality of the information. And eventually it was seen that particularly developing countries would have a disadvantage under those circumstances.

Member States have proposed some ideas to overcome those shortcomings and we have been entertaining some ideas, e.g. first and UN managed transfer pricing Database in that regard. However, concerns were raised regarding the funding, the governance of such an institutionally run database, the technical complexity of such a database, the feasibility. But we have also heard concerns regarding for example, confidentiality of the information that would need to that would have to populate such a database. Another idea that was brought up is or was or was and is a pooled purchasing or coordinated arrangements that would help reducing costs, particularly for developing countries.

And lastly, as a kind of a third pillar, we discussed enhanced transparency databases with aggregated data on APA and MAP cases, statistical information as well as high level case summaries and the compilation, for example of tax Administration, relevant tax Administration's guidelines as well as court decisions.

It is fair to say that so far there are very diverse views, but what they all have in common is that the complexity of the issue as well as the relevance is seen generally. It is therefore why we co leads are proposing to establish, or we are intending to establish a task force following this session that will be dedicated to explore practical options to address the issue. It is meant to be a dedicated working space operating in parallel with our discussions here in the INC as well as in the intersessional periods. And it is envisaged to be composed in a way that allows all Member States to designate officials who have specific expertise in transfer pricing. So people who are experts in their fields and dealing with the design and application of transfer pricing cases.

Okay, not the design of trans transfer pricing cases, but I guess you know what I'm.

There was no further records practitioners to have them involved and to have a closer look on what can be done in that regard. The Task Force is supposed to be vested with a mandate that we are seeing on the screen right now and we invite the inc, the Member States and stakeholders to provide the input on that mandate.

Okay. By now you will have read it yourself. So the mandate of the Task Force is to map the specific information needs of Member States, including regional gaps in existing databases, as well as factors affecting the availability of underlying comparables for underrepresented regions and particular challenges faced by developing countries. Second, to review and assess existing international, regional and commercial tools and initiatives and assess the usability and affordability for countries with different levels of capacity. Third, to examine possible approaches to improving access, including options to help expand and improve the underlying information available for comparability analysis, as well as the potential development of complementary tools such as anonymized or aggregated information, high level case summaries, compilations of treaty interpretation practice, relevant court decisions, and lastly identify options for funding and confidentiality safeguards that could underpin any future arrangements.

So it's hard to read on my screen. I think generally this mandate is very broad and it is meant to allow for a holistic approach to the situation without ruling anything out specifically and to give the Task Force room to be creative and not to be limited by too many boundaries. Again, we appreciate your guidance and with that I open the floor.

One can always count on Brazil. Brazil is willing to break the ice. Thank you very much. Go ahead.

Usually I keep it for my to present my words among the final interventions.

Well, in short, it seems a good idea. We have to solve the problems and identify what the root causes are, whether it's a problem of funding, whether it's a problem of confidentiality, whether it's a problem of market that it has not been generated in some areas. So maybe the solutions will be proposed by the current providers of such systems and databases, which doesn't even incentive to expand their their databases to some specific markets. Since if there is a solid expectation that more transfer pricing, more countries will buy transfer pricing databases, they will start providing those solutions that what has happened in Brazil.

That's all. It's not much to say. It seems a good idea. We have to find solutions and identify the causes. Thank you.

And it was a great idea. Well, thank you. I appreciate you. And also thanking for pointing out one point. We discussed it in Nairobi that something that we can possibly expect is kind of a feedback loop.

Once some of the mechanisms are going to be implemented more broadly, like for example the application of APAs or maps, it can be expected that the demand for those information will raise as well as the information that can be used to populate those databases. We have Norway next. Norway, please.

Thank you, Mr. Kholid. And since this is our first intervention in this work stream, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you and your fellow colleague for all the work done in this work stream. Really think that the note is very comprehensive and gives a very good base for our work forward. So thank you to you and the Secretariat for this.

The idea of a task force is of course something that we can support.

We are a little bit unsure of whether this should be anchored here or if it's more relevant in relation to the commitment on capacity building and technical assistance. The mandate is very broad. Recognize that it encompasses many of the things we have discussed in the work stream. And in Nairobi we remain a little bit skeptical about the idea of databases compiling different types of information, such as anonymized or aggregated information. It's not put into context.

We had read it as maybe covering also the databases of specific taxpayer information. And I think we would like to reiterate that this should be approached with caution and with the appropriate safeguards in place. Of course that will be part of the analysis for this task force. Also keeping in mind that for smaller jurisdictions, even aggregated information would not be sufficient to not identify taxpayer specific information.

Coming back to the broad mandate and the point in your slide that this task force should primarily be composed by transfer pricing experts. We think there are things in here that probably needs experience and expertise. Beyond that, for example, evaluating affordability for countries and the different needs they have, the need for confidentiality safeguards and so on, probably needs kind of different expertise than transport pricing experts have, simply because they are usually very, very specialized. And of course, they would be necessary in evaluating databases and the use of databases, of course, because that's their primary experience there. But I think I also wanted to point to the fact that data availability for transfer pricing purposes is not a new area in the UN context.

There's a lot of work that's been done on the issue, for example, in relation to the platform for tax collaboration and also in the transfer pricing subcommittee of the UN tax experts that have specifically looked into this and I think for the work stream and this task force would be very good if they could leverage the work already done. Thank you.

Thank you, Noe. Everything is duly noted. I think it is important to stress that the intention of the mandate is not to prejudge anything, not to prescribe, you know, any deliverables in any of those regards mentioned in the mandate.

Our next speaker is India. India, please.

Thank you, Khaleed. And yes, we welcome the idea of setting up this task force because we believe that database information and these sort of, this sort of information and data is actually very, very crucial for any program that, whether it, whether it is MAP or APA or any sort of program that we want to operationalize under the, under this protocol. So this, this is a, this is a welcome step we have.

We are most willing to, I mean, to contribute to this in any way that the group may feel fit. Yes, I think at this stage we can just, whenever we set up this task force, it can examine all the possibilities, the kinds of databases that are available, what are the various features in that databases, and how is it that we can kind of use what exists and if there is anything else that can be done to, to develop another database. The task force can look at all those options and decide on a path that is best and most suitable for the task that we have. So I think this is a step in the right direction and we are fully willing to contribute to this in whatever way we feel fit. Thank you.

Thank you, India. We certainly keep your, your willingness to contribute in mind. Portugal, please.

Thank you.

First, we would like to echo Norway. And also I have a doubt after reading para. 49 and 50 and hearing that it's whether this task force will be limited to its contribution to the drafting of the protocol or it will extend beyond that function, or it is for us to decide that probably it will be the answer. But for now, it seems that the task force should be tasked with contributing to the negotiation of the protocol for which there isn't much time. So it's advisable that the mandate of this structure focus on the.

On the most essential points. This is my contribution. Thank you.

Thank you. No way. Apologies. Portugal. Portugal.

We have just heard. Portugal. So the purpose of this task was to inform the work of the work stream, which is supposed to be conducted in parallel to the inc's work here.

It is not meant to expire at a certain point in time, but it is to assist the work. Primarily it is to assist the work of the re extreme and to provide options and alternatives. Cameroon, please.

Thank you, Khalid, for the floor. I will speak in French.

Cameroon would like to welcome this initiative, a very timely one to begin reflecting on the issue of access and quality of data and information on transfer pricing. This is an idea that we have championed since last year because we believe that better access to transfer pricing comparables, and particularly access to quality comparables for transfer pricing, would optimize tools for prevention and resolution of any disputes, while also, of course, improving the quality of tax oversight. So we welcome this initiative and we believe that the definitions provided here and the tasks given to the Task force are clearly outlined, clearly defined. We would perhaps only suggest that at a point in time when we've moved forward sufficiently in our reflections, we also incorporate businesses that currently provide these databases in our thinking as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Cameron. Russian Federation, please.

Thank you very much for giving me the floor. We fully support this initiative. We believe it is a useful one. We agree with India in that the initial tasks of this task force could be compiling an inventory of existing database as well as identifying needs that Member States have when it comes to access to data on transfer pricing.

On the issue of confidentiality, I wouldn't over exaggerate that issue here because when we use external comparables, That data is always public data, accessible to everyone, and it is an analysis of publicly available data for transfer prices that is the key goal of the Task Force. It would seem to me, once again, we reiterate our support for this and are prepared to take part in this initiative. Thank you.

Thank you, Rasha.

It is true that normally we operate or we use information that are publicly available, but it is part of the question whether those information are sufficient enough in terms of quality and relevance. And therefore we deem it appropriate for the Task Force to investigate whether there is more that can be done in that regard. But thanks for sharing well for making the point that the information that is widely used so far is publicly available, or at least not confidential in the strict sense. Senegal, please.

Merci. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon. Good morning everyone. I'm speaking in my national capacity.

We support the existence of a database that would allow to prevent certain possible disputes that would could be born from the applying the arm's lengths principle. However, we would like to avoid establishing a task force to work on this database.

We need an approach where data that is collected would be aligned with various geographic areas. If we take the example of existing databases, there is very little information, for example, coming from Africa. There are certain contracts that are used, for example. But once we use that in Africa, we have to make certain adjustments to whatever data we have, such as risk data per country. So it would be important that data that is derived from African markets is something that is truly useful so that we end up with a very useful database in the end.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senegal. It is absolutely critical that we incorporate the perspective of all regional groups in the work of the task force. And in order to do so it is, as was said, it is open to all member states in principle.

Germany, please.

Thank you. Good morning colleagues. On access to information. Germany's intervention is as the establishment of a multilateral publicly accessible transfer pricing database as a free or significantly cheaper alternative to commercial databases could be interesting. Data from arbitration proceedings could also be fed into this.

Furthermore, a harmonization of documentation requirements, in particular with regard to the documentation process, would be helpful. An open source approach would be desirable. We support the mandate of a task force. Thank you.

Thank you, germany.

There are no more member states asking for the floor at this moment. Stakeholders are as always also invited to intervene.

But we will first take Mauritius. Mauritius, please.

Thank. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Since I am taking the first time this this week, I wish to congratulate everyone here in this room for the extensive work done so far and where we've reached and the progress made now on this very technical issue. I appreciate the challenges there myself being a lawyer on my feet doing transfer pricing cases.

Access to databases is extremely difficult. One of the issues is funding is how well expensive and financially challengable. That is for for developing countries and small island developing countries to actually get same. And it is extremely important therefore for this to be more easily available. Also with all the safeguards that is required for that purpose, such as what is suggested in Roman three anonymized information, but then with confidentiality safeguards for that to happen.

Question is probably whether such databases could later on be available from source of from the UN itself, which would be more accessible to member states. Thank you.

Thank you. Mauritius, Saudi Arabia, please.

Thank you. We welcome the proposed approach of the task force. A structured approach that considers confidentiality safeguards is a constructive and practical way forward. In taking this work forward, we believe that it will be important to consider the different capacities of Member States. Any further arrangements should remain flexible and should not impose mandatory contribution requirements on all member States, particularly where capacity or resource constraints may limit participation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Saudi Arabia. We now move to the stakeholders and we begin with the INESC in ESC, please. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kholid, for giving us the floor. I am Natalie Bega from Brazil.

I speak on behalf of inesc. In esc, it's INESC Latin Dad, Redejusisa Fiscalia America Latina y Caribbe and the Global alliance for Tax. Chester on comparables. We believe the difficulty is not access to information, but the limits of the arm length principle itself. Multinational corporations often engage in intra group transactions for which no genuine market comparables exist.

In that context, we are not convinced that creating a task force to improve access to transfer pricing information would address the issue of or be the best use of the time. Expanding database cannot fix a structural problem in our understanding. We believe greater transparency through public country by country reporting. We would more directly reduce information asymmetries and help prevent disputes. Distinguished delegates, since this is our last intervention, allow us to add a few words about the road ahead.

This process is extremely important to people around the world who depend on fair and progressive tax systems to fight inequality and fund public services, promote fulfillment of human rights and environmental protection. The decisions you make in this historic process will have consequences for all of us, for our future. We, civil society, have a lot to offer. For example, we have drafted a catalog of proposals that we believe should be included in the convention. And in fact, the terms of reference clearly state that civil society is encouraged to contribute to the work of this committee.

We are here and ready to respond to that invitation. We fear that this might be the last time we see you before August, when a first draft convention is scheduled to be tabled. But we stress that it is up to you, the Member States, to ensure that we are given a real opportunity to prove informed and timely inputs. The terms of reference also makes it clear that this process must be inclusive and Member State led. If the negotiations continue on closed zoom meetings, we fear that we might not be the only ones struggling to understand what is going on and participate effectively in the process.

We urge you to become more inclusive. Lastly, the terms of reference make it clear that the UN Tax Convention must have Ambition, substance and strong and concrete commitments. It must be the game changer that delivers an international tax system for sustainable development. You, as the Member State representatives, have the honor, privilege and responsibility to deliver an outcome that matches that mandate. As we go forward, we urge you to be bold, be ambitious, be ready to deliver the change we so urgently need.

Thank you.

Thank you. I speak under the control of the Chair of course, but I believe that we will still still have the opportunity for general remarks following our workstream three discussions. Next is Stakeholder seven, Bombay Chartered Accountant Society.

Thank you, Kholid. TP database is certainly kind of a welcome development. I would suggest that the database should be accessible to the MNEs as well so that everyone works with the same numbers. My another comment is on item number I on the previous slide. What I'm suggesting is that yes, UN certainly can have a supporting role, but it may also be a good idea to create another database of map cases.

Of course we have to give due respect to the confidentiality of the matters, but. But if those databases are created, that becomes a good reference point for the future disputes. Thank you.

Thank you awa. Next and for the moment, last speaker will be ibdt.

Thank you Chair for granting me the floor. I am Gustavo Vettori from Brazil and I speak on behalf of ibdt. We think the mandate is a terrific idea, but there are some relevant issues that we think should be taken into consideration. First, one, maybe we should be sensible to the possibility of using the current market of databases to reach countries that are not currently reached and not reinvent the wheel. So it seems that the most efficient application of resources would be to work with what we already have and try to come up with means for the current market for databases to reach what they are not reaching right now and not maybe come up with something completely new and different.

And second, we also think that we should be careful on allowing MNEs to have the same access that tax authorities would in order to avoid creating a different information asymmetry which would not allow taxpayers to use the same database and for it to become the official database and others to be considered not adequate for adjustments which may lead to trouble. And finally, I think the most important thing is some countries might not have enough data and the adequate country risk adjustments should be what we need to look at priority because general counter risk adjustments that are currently being made right now might not be reaching a very good result and maybe if we could focus on that, we could produce better information for transit pricing adjustments. Thank you.

Thank you ibdt. Next is Ghana.

Good morning and thank you very much colleagues for the wonderful work done to this point and I think it's a very good work.

We just, in the capacity of Ghana, we're just asking ourselves a couple of questions or concerns with regards to the this task force considering the resource constraint in terms of human resource or the expertise that, let's say Ghana, for example, with regards to people that we have to nominate into this task force at the same time the intersectional work that is going on, we just want to understand how the task force will coexist with the intersectional work activities because we see that it's going to be another resource constraint to nominate people which of course the same people are the same people who will be in the intersectional work stream. And we believe that like this activity should have been the mandate within the should have been carried out within the work stream or intersectional discussions. And additionally the other concern has to do with who are these task force going to report to. So we just want some further clarifications on this work task force so that we can make an informed decision as to whether or not we have to be, you know, supportive or not. Thank you.

Thank you Ghana. Those are very good questions. So the idea behind the task force is to bring together specific expertise but also to ease the workload of the current work stream. And the expectation is not that it's going to be necessarily the same same people who are attending the work stream meetings, who are also then the ones participating actively in the task force, but rather to have experts in the particular field. And by outsourcing and kind of detaching the task force from the work of the work stream, we hope to lessen a lot, little bit the burden and also to allow the task force to operate within the mandate but to organize it's more or less themselves but eventually to report to the work stream.

So all the, you know, the deliverables, the output of the task force is meant to flow into the work of Workstream 3. I hope that is helpful for Uganda and for others.

Liberia, please.

Yeah, I mean I was just alluding to my colleague from Ghana. Liberia has the same concern in terms of the role and we feel that it will be duplicating, copycat, almost the same issues, the same people in the same topic. So we feel that having the task force is the repeating the current work that is happening at the intersectional aspect of the viewer wear screen. So your explanation is good but we still need to dive into it Kenya to see whether it cannot be overbredding in terms of the working activities because the very people that are operating on the VIVA waste screen, I assume they will also be the same people that will be operating at the level of the task force. So they need more clarity to that and to see how best we can have and if effective discussion, not to burden the experts in this discussion.

Thank you. Thank you. Liberia.

Yeah. Thank you very much, Labiba, for sharing your concerns. Indeed. Well, if it's, if it's really the same people who are meant to participate in the work stream as well as the task force, of course it needs to be taken into account and it has to be organized in a manner that prevents like a duplicative burden, but also that avoids a duplication of discussions in, in terms of substance. So that we have to ensure, so we, we co.

Leads together with the ones who are going to lead the work of the task force, and I will come to that in a second, that we do not have repetitive or duplicative discussions speaking about leadership of the task force. According to the guidelines for interstitial work such as task force is supposed to. To be co. Led by two co facilitators, one from a developing country and one from a developed country. And the participation in the task force is voluntary.

Nevertheless, as I said at the beginning, of course, it needs to be taken into account that we cannot duplicate the people and that they cannot be in like, I don't know, same meeting in parallel or two meetings in parallel.

Let's see. Botswana followed by Brazil. Botswana, please.

Thank you, Mr. Kit, for affording us the opportunity to speak. Just one or two questions regarding the task force. Number one, do we have enough time, do we have enough time to set up another structure within the work stream structure that we already have, which means that there has to be another mandate that has to be developed for the, for the task force. Already we know that member states had to dig in deep for resources to capacitate the work streams.

Now if we're going to come up with another structure of task force, we believe that the mandate can still be achieved through the work of the work streams and work streams should be capacitated to deliver on the, on the mandate. We don't think we have enough time. Thank you, Mr. Kholid.

Thank you. Botswana, Brazil, please.

Yep. Thank you, Khalid, for granting us the word again.

I, I would like to hear from you the expectation on the size of the text wars. I think you don't have a number about it, but I believe that we don't need to have the delegates from every country. My expectation on the work of the Task force is a report, likely a lengthy one, dealing with legal limitations, probably practices in some countries regarding registries, whether company data are available through the registries on specific countries. And above all, I would like to hear from you whether it's in the plan of the Task force also to engage with regional organizations of regional organizations of tax administrations, because they have a lot ataf. I think they have dealt with different countries and they know how to contribute with it.

See it probably as well. I think probably they have another association like that in Asia, so we could learn from them. And also whether the Task Force will look into other documents that have been prepared on databases and so on, so that the countries don't have to be specifically concerned that the issues will be not analyzed in detail. So in short, my question is we expect to have a report, a detailed one, and whether we engage with companies, regional association of tax administrations, and whether you also double check the reports that we have already on databases in general. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Brazil, and thank you, Botswana, for sharing the concerns.

That's right. How we can address them? First, the Secretary was sitting behind me for a second only to ensure me that at least you do not have to have concerns regarding the support of the Secretariat. And we do so it is. We expect the Secretariat to facilitate the work of the Task Force in a similar way as it is doing with the work stream meetings.

Then, as for the participation, it is on a voluntary basis. Member states are invited to participate in the Task Force. Well, of course, in order for such a task force to be effective and efficient, probably like a smaller group is more desirable. But at the same time we cannot exclude anyone. So it has to be open and everyone who wants to contribute is invited to do so.

We are not there yet, so at this point in time we cannot say it's going to be, I don't know, five people or 50 people. That is hard to tell. That is hard to predict. In any case, and as I said earlier, it would of course be important to have views from all regions and representing all stages of development. So would be no use in having only representatives there from developed countries or for a certain region.

We do not intend to micromanage this task force. That is the very purpose of having two co facilitators and to give them the freedom to decide on the methods and alter the organization and how they approach and how they.

Deliver according to the mandate by themselves. But to me, it is definitely, definitely reasonable to take into consideration what is already there and to reach out also to regional organizations and to build upon what for example Norway previously shared with us that work has been done in the past in that regard also here in the UN environment.

And that is why we hope that the task force will be able to deliver according to the mandate. Whether it's going to be a report, we don't know yet. In any case the idea is to have the task force reporting to the work stream to Workstream three. Thank you Ghana.

Please thank you Kolis for the floor once again and thank you for the.

The explanations that you give. I think that's quite helpful. But we still not too clear with respect to the work of the intercession and also the considering the fact that we are time constrained in terms of wanting to finish this work by next year and also considering the fact that resource are quite scarce and if I heard you correctly you made mention that the secretary to still provide support and I know for a fact that the secretariat currently are overstretched even with this current work going on and again going to have this task force. So are we of the view that possibly if we can have this suspended for us to have a federal think and see because we see that to a large extent it actually a duplication because the. The intercessional works or the streams can actually undertake this project without necessarily having to set up another task force with co leads and like you said voluntary membership it can go up to 100.

And the last point that I will make here also has to do with how are you going to fund this work of the task force who's going to fund it? So which means that for example if we have a member state which is already overstretched with resources to finance people to come and participate or do participate in the work stream meetings and other stuff and then also have to fund another expert assuming that they are not the same people doing the same work, you know, taking away man work. So we as a company country we believe that possibly it's a good idea but I think at this time we don't. I. We think that it's not really a must have, you know.

You know. Yeah. To carry this work forward. I thank you.

Thank you Ghana. We will, we will take your concerns into account on board and reflect on them the constraints we have in terms of time frame. This is kind of exactly the reason why we came up with the idea of having a task force in the first place in order to allow progress to be made in Workstream 3 while at the same time investigating further what can be done in terms of access to information. Information. We consider this task force to be something that is part of the intercessional work, the same way the work streams are.

It is provided for by the guidelines for the intercessional work. And therefore, in terms of, you know, funding, for example, it's the same. But as I said, we will take into account what was shared with us. And in any case, the way forward will be communicated to all of you also in writing to allow Member states to come forward and to indicate their willingness to participate in the task force. Thank you, Morocco.

Please.

Thank you very much, Kholid, for giving me the floor. I think it's a very important topic and it's a very interesting idea to have other specialized experts on board to contribute to the work. That said, I think we can. I could see the concerns expressed by many countries on the pressure that this creating a new task force would put on some countries, given the time, the resource challenges. So I would suggest if this could materialize in a simplified way.

For example, instead of having a lot of meetings in parallel with other meetings, and the pressure that could exert on limited capacity administrations, if that could be materialized in, for example, surveys with comfortable deadlines, or just to have the contribution of specialized people without just putting a lot of pressure on the administration, administrations, or maybe questions and answers. So just this idea, just to take into consideration the constraints of some countries. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Morocco. Thank you for the proposals, as duly noted. And we will give our best to mitigate the burden. Thank you.

It looks like we have reached the end of our discussion. The discussion on the current subject, the access of information. But this also marks the end of our discussion on WorkStream 3.

At the end, I would just like to thank all of you for your engagement, for your participation, and for all interventions. And I hand over to my colleague, Marlene. Okay, thank you. Thank you everyone for the inputs. I think we had a very rich discussions.

We were furiously taking notes, as I'm sure the Secretariat was, and we take the inputs into consideration as we progress to August. And so what are the next steps for Work Stream three? Well, between now and the next session, drafting will move forward based on the direction we received here today and over the past couple of days. And so clarity that we have received will reduce reopening issues later. The objectives, the objective is to have a first draft that reflects the input and feedback to be presented at the fifth session in August and refined for the sixth session in Nairobi and for 2027.

Discussions should focus on solving the remaining political issues and finalizing the text for consideration by the General Assembly. And so with. With this, we bring our presentation to a close. We thank you. We look forward to the plenary guidance so that the drafting can start on a solid ground.

We just want to also, again thank the Secretariat. Thanks to Rami, to Eduardo, and on a personal note, just to thank my colleague Michael, who I believe to be the heart and soul of this work and for his the collegial way in which we have been able to work. And so I now hand over to you, Rami.

Thank you, Marlene. Thank you, Michael, for all the work being done. And also thanks to Lisa for Work Stream two and for Daniel for Work Stream one and all these discussions that took place in these two weeks and for all the hard work that had been done by the colleagues and Secretariat and for your participation, interventions and your contributions to the work. I think, as usual now we came to the end of this two weeks happy that we concluded this great work. Sorry that we will have again sometime till we see you all again in August.

But I think now we came to the end and we continue convened for these two weeks in an informal mood, as usual, to allow flexibility and the freedom in the discussion. And as we now reach to the end, so we are going to convey, we are going to convert to formal mood again just to close the session and give the closing remarks. So now I announced that the informal meeting is closed and we will start a formal meeting. So the second plenary meeting of the Committee is called to order.

I now give the floor to Ms. Sherry Spiegel, Director of the Finance for Sustainable Development Office of the Department for Economic and Social affairs, to give her closing remarks. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, I'm honored to deliver these closing remarks at the conclusion of this fourth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on the United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation. Over the past two weeks, the work has advanced significantly. The scoping exercise for the two protocols has been completed, and important elements reflecting the range of visions and positions on the articles of the Framework Convention have been articulated, providing a solid basis for the forthcoming drafting phase.

What stands out from the session is not only the volume of interventions, but the quality. Delegations move beyond restating positions and engage seriously on technical questions, often putting forward practical suggestions and alternative approaches. This confirms an important lesson. When the conversation is anchored in technical substance, the process moves forward. It becomes easier to clarify differences, to see where convergence is possible, and to translate issues into workable.

Solutions. This has taken place alongside strong and diverse participation. A total of 137 member states took part in the discussions. This breadth of engagement reflects the wide interest in shaping a framework that responds to the realities and priorities of all, in particular of developing countries. As we close this session, the work now shifts to the preparation of the zero drafts of the three legal instruments during the intercessional period.

The seriousness and depth of engagement shown here this past two weeks gives confidence that the drafting stage can build on a solid base. UN DESA will continue to support Member States closely. Excuse me. In cooperation with the Chair and the CO Leads. On behalf of you and desa, I'd like to thank all delegations for their commitment and constructive spirit.

I also extend our appreciation to you, to the chair, Mr. Rami Yousef, as well as to the co leads and to our partners from international organizations, civil society, academia and the private sector for their for their valuable contributions. And a special thank you to the staff of FSDO for their tireless work and the very small Secretariat doing an over a bigger job than it would seem, as well as to our colleagues in DGACM who have been supporting this process as well. And with that, I pass the Chair the floor back to Rami. Thank you.

I now deliver closing remarks.

Excellencies, distinguished delegates, dear colleagues, as we bring this fourth session to a close, allow me to begin by expressing my sincere appreciation for the constructive inputs offered throughout our discussions. In the opening of this session, we emphasized the need for disciplined, text, focused engagement. And over these past two weeks, you have risen to that challenge. Your interventions, precise substance and grounded in drafting elements, have not only equaled the expectations set out at the start, but have allowed us to make tangible progress despite particularly condensed period between November and February. This has been an exceptionally packed session, but we have managed to make significant progress together.

The volume and the quality of the feedback we received on the Framework Convention and on Protocol 1 and 2 reflect the commitment that each delegation continues to bring to this process. I want to thank you for sustaining the momentum and for engaging so constructively in what is now a drafting centralized phase of our work excellences. Looking ahead, we have approximately six months before we reconvene in August for the fifth session. That may seem like a generous window, but we should not allow the calendar to give us a false sense of comfort. This period must serve as a continuation of the focused technical work that has characterized our engagement so far.

The drafts will not mature on their own. They will require sustained attention, additional language proposals, careful refinement, of elements and parameters, coordination within and across regional groups, and consistent engagement with the colleagues and SKETAIT in this regard. I wish to remind delegations that the deadline for written inputs is 27 February for the protocols and 6 March for the framework convention. For work stream one, submissions should focus on the template draft, as this is the thickest currently under revision. For work stream 2 and 3, inputs should address the drafting of the two protocols rather than the notes presented during this session, as the notes themselves will not be revised.

Before closing, let me once again thank the colleagues for their steady leadership, the Secretariat for their tireless support, all delegations for the spirit of inclusivity, respect and partnership that continues to define this process, and stakeholders for their valuable contributions. I would also like to express my gratitude to the interpreters for facilitating our deliberation. I wish you all a safe return and a productive intercessional period. I look forward to reconvening in August with drafts that reflect the same commitment, diligence and collective ownership that have marked our work here in New York. Again, I wish you all safe flights and thank you all.

As it is a time for closing, I declare closed the fourth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on the United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Corporation. The meeting is adjourned.