Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on the United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation - Second Substantive Session 2025, 9th meeting

Welcome in our last day in this first substantive session today is we're going to continue our discussion for work stream three for dispute prevention and resolution, co leaded by Marlene from Jamaica and Michael from Germany. We're going to just resume what we started yesterday. And today I think Marlene and Michael are coming with good slides with some good questions that will trigger the discussion in the room. I will stop here and hand over to Marlene. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much, Rami and good morning. Good morning, colleagues. First, I want to just thank you so much for the very constructive and engaging discussions that we had yesterday. We feel that the work stream will be enriched by many of the points that you raise and we look forward to discussing these as we head to Nairobi in November. We thought that we would use the time this morning to address some of the issues that are in the issues note but that were not discussed yesterday.

But we really would love your input on these issues and for your ease of reference. There are three issues that we're going to be looking at. The fact finding tools, which really has to do with the issue of information asymmetry, because that is part of the issue that leads to disputes. Sometimes it is the taxpayer who has all the information relating to his transaction. Sometimes it's another tax authority that has all the information.

And particularly for developing countries that may not have that access, that can also lead to disputes. And so we wanted to address that this morning. And you will see there on this slide a question that we're asking you to address your minds to for your ease of reference. You will find in the issues note, paragraph 7 and 16, which addresses this issue of the fact finding tools and information asymmetry. So what we want your thoughts on are what fact finding tools or procedures do your authorities find most effective?

Are there differences in availability or use between different legal systems, e.g. common law and civil law, that should be considered. And in your jurisdiction, are you able to take depositions of witnesses, for example, and affidavits. So we are opening the floor for comments inputs on this particular issue.

Have you mentioned that everything that has been discussed yesterday can also be.

And just to also mention that you are not precluded from raising issues that were discussed yesterday as well.

It.

Russian federation.

Good morning. Thank you for giving me the floor.

In terms of the procedure, I would like to share our practice with the main sources of information that are used, that is the profitability of companies, both Russian and foreign companies, and the value of commodities. And here it's very important for the tax administration to have access to publicly accessible information about prices, about the different categories that are used within the transfers, so that it has access to commercial bases that taxpayers use. So, so I don't need to name them, they are fairly well known in terms of transfers. So it's very important that they have access to commercial bases that have data about the profitability of foreign countries, that there is the comparative analysis conducted with. So this is a minimal collection of data that ensures the effectiveness of the procedure within transit pricing.

And it's very important for each administration to have access to that database of information. It's not always easy if these sources are foreign and if there are foreign commercial databases, taxpayers of course, are usually very well aware of what they're engaged in.

The Tax Administration doesn't necessarily have the time to really get into the various different aspects of service provision. But in a way the tax payer is running ahead of us because it's their business, it's their business at stakeholders. So it would be good if we could ensure that there is good behaviour of all taxpaying countries so that the businesses do provide the appropriate information in a timely fashion to the tax authorities if there are disputes and exchange of information between the Tax Administration as part of the EPA is helpful because it's important that each foreign tax body has an understanding of how the other works.

So we need benchmarks of profitability and raw materials and that is our practice in Russia and I hope that that has been helpful. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Rosha. Indeed it has, Michael.

It.

Good morning, dear colleagues, distinguished delegates. Thank you very much, Russia for the intervention. We have a couple of questions in our sleeves for today's morning, as Marlene said at the beginning, so we wanted to take them one by one. However, given Russia's interventions, we would like to pick up on something that was mentioned and it is, I think related to comparable databases. So, Katie, if you could, I would kindly ask you to move to the next slide.

Yes, so of course we cannot present two slides in parallel. So I don't know, technically, maybe, maybe. Let's, let's have a look also on kind of the next question because it is probably. It is very related and this could prompt more interventions or more considerations coming from the floor. So it is about comparable databases and this is also a topic that had been addressed in the issues Note in paragraph 11.

Thank you, Marlene. It is quite frequently was said that Member States Tax Administration struggle with the access to databases on comparables which are particularly relevant when it comes to transfer pricing cases. So we have listened to Voices saying that those databases do not contain relevant transactions because they are, for example, not relevant in a particular region, or they are outdated or they are simply not comparable. And then there is more general issue that had been mentioned is simply the mere fact that those databases are often only accessible when one subscribes to it and it is very costly and comes with fees. So I.

Well, I do not have to read out the slide. I am pretty sure you can read yourself. So I was trying to reflect on what is actually why I had business discussed as an issue. But the question we have put here on the slide is what challenges does your jurisdiction face in accessing and using transfer pricing comparable databases? I've just mentioned some of those challenges that you might encounter.

And if a shared or cooperative database were considered under the protocol, what safeguards would be essential to ensure taxpayer confidentiality? Well, yesterday I said that let's focus on identifying issues for the time being because we will move on following today's session to the stage of identifying solutions and ideas how to address those issues. We cannot distinguish both phenomena or both categories. So clearly.

It would definitely be helpful for us to get a better understanding of where the issues are. And maybe you can consider this in parallel with the previous slide on fact finding tools. So it is about gathering information or getting access to information. Something that is maybe not specifically addressed in both slides is eventually those information also need to be assessed. So it is maybe getting access to information, but also having efficient means to process information and evaluating that the data.

I stop here. The floor is open.

The floor is open for Mauricius Mauricios, please.

Thank you. Chair. Good morning to everybody. I think this is an extremely relevant, pertinent and practical issue there. Being myself a lawyer, a senior counsel that has appeared before courts and arbitral tribunals either in transfer pricing cases or international arbitration.

As a lawyer, I can understand the challenges that can practically arise from a technical legal standpoint.

One of the former slides there on the left, which is about the differences from civil and common law systems, which I will call clash of legal systems. Mauritius is one of those few countries in the world that has a hybrid legal system which has both a legal system which is civil and common law, and it's been there for centuries also because of our historical colonial past. And therefore, I mean clearly issues like admissibility of evidence before a court of law is not the same whether we are before a common law court or a civil law court. So this is definitely an important point because what might be admissible before a continental civil Legal system could be an issue of multiple hearsay before a English Anglo Saxon system and therefore be inadmissible in law. So how do we overcome that sort of technical barrier in the issue admissibility of evidence?

Because if evidence is not admissible, well, you do not move forward before a judge. So this is something which I think is extremely relevant for.

Us to look into.

The other thing is besides the clash of systems is one I would call the clash of languages as well

being also part of mutual assistance treaties so many of them. One of the things is going through note veer Ball and through the Ministry of Foreign affairs with another layer which therefore delays exchange of information. Sensitive information for multinationals would even include getting that information using institutions like financial intelligence units, whether investigative or administrative. I think that also is something which is very practical there.

And as a lawyer practicing in that field, I can see the difficulties that arise now when it comes to the database. This is extremely interesting because I think put a number of questions further today. Who gathers such information as we speak, where are these data banks kept? I would like to name companies, law firms or accounting firms. So how do we onboard these to get these details?

And of course as the co chair, co leaders pointed out, there is a subscription and having conducted transfer pricing cases myself, it's extremely difficult to actually access those from a developing country perspective. And the thing is multinationals are extremely powerful, are very financially strong and the question is this asymmetry we've been referring to is that they have access to it and the authority has more difficulties in getting access to that information. So where and how to get that information from and how to onboard those actors that hold such information? So these are my thoughts on this from a very practical standpoint because this is what we're talking about this morning. Thank you.

Thank you very much Mauricios, for flagging those I think important issues. And indeed we already mentioned yesterday then speaking about asymmetry, it is not merely the asymmetry between administrations, tax administrations, but also the asymmetry between the taxpayer on the one side and the administration or administrations on the other side. Thanks for sharing your insight with us. The floor goes now to Austria. Is it Austria?

Australia? Austria. Austria, please. Sorry.

Thank you. Kohlita. Yeah, usual request I, I get frequently. But speaking, speaking from my perspective, I cannot comment on the first slide. I'm, I'm not a tax audit specialist.

But if you would like to take these questions further, I think we can get more input and then also deliver it during the upcoming work streams meetings. So open to provide more information there when it comes to the question of comparables database here. I do have experience already and this is actually this lack of comparables in certain regions across the globe for the, for the purpose of conducting transfer pricing studies.

This is of course not a new issue. So this has come up a couple of years already and I think we have been doing quite substantial work in that area in a different forum outside of the un. Nevertheless, I think extremely valid and constructive work that was carried out with a lot of input from African countries. Also I'm talking about the work on amount B in the inclusive framework and I think we were listening very closely, especially ATAV has been a very, very good negotiating partner there where we, we did take on board the concerns and problems from, from African countries. So.

And I think it was supported across the board from participating member states because we all think it was a very good idea to do that and to work on that problem. What I want to underscore here is that this is a good idea and we can work with this. Let's say the pilot project that we have already carried out at the same time, this pilot project, MMP of course only is applicable to a certain set of transfer pricing transactions, intercompany transactions, but it was also, in my opinion, always a starting point to see if it flies. And I think currently coming, coming from a developed, developed country, we're a little bit surprised to see that hardly any developing countries are picking it up.

So I think here we could also do some more investigation as to why it is because it was mainly a solution for developing countries and yeah, happy to work further on this. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Austria. The floor goes now to China.

Thank you, Chair. Regarding the comparable database, we'd like to share some thoughts from us, our experience from us. So in China, in terms of transfer pricing issues, no matter upon advanced pricing arrangement or on my cases, we always use commercial database. So we don't have too many difficulties for the access to the database. However, the problem is always how to confirm what comparables are the most suitable ones.

As we know that there are no companies which are totally the same or totally comparable. Right. So.

But before, before we do talk about this issue, we think that one of the most important problem before this is that we need to discuss on the basis of the same platform, on the basis of the same database, upon the settlement of BAPA or MAP cases. That's more important. Without the same platform, we cannot communicate or we cannot negotiate upon the settlement of the cases. That's what we want to share first. Thank you.

Distinguished delegate from China. Do you allow me a follow up question?

So what pardon, What is lacking is a fora in which a common understanding of communication can take place. Or is it the technical means? So maybe I just didn't get it for sure. Thank you.

Okay, I can clarify it further.

I mean that maybe to be specific, we need to discuss or communicate on the basis of the SIM database, not a platform.

Okay, thank you. Thanks you. Understood. So the floor goes now to Algeria Algebra, please.

It's okay. Thank you colleague and good morning. Dear colleagues.

Maybe I'll be stating the obvious here, but the main problem, maybe here is that we are having, we're having the taxpayer who is declaring and we're having the fiscal administration, the tax administration that has the charge to prove and improving. Here comes the vital role of information. If you don't have information and if you don't have access to databases or if you don't have enough information, you couldn't make your point. So as for developing countries that we are. The problem is access to this information.

So

we are between the lack of information we are having and the very.

Long time of getting responses when we are trying to get get information and the heavy cost of accessing to commercial databases. That's why as a developing country it's vital to have these shared databases public. That could allow us have. Have more information in the disposal of the tax administration so that they can be more effective in that of course, in this shared databases. One of the questions you've put is the way to safeguard the taxpayer confidentiality.

This is a point that should be thought about and discussed, but it doesn't need to or it doesn't have to prevent us from developing a public database. Thank you.

Thank you, Aljira. The floor is now open for Sweden. Sweden, please.

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I guess this is a crucial question. To be able to tax transfer pricing transactions to have access to the data. And it's a very tricky question as well. I'm not sure if if the suggestion is that the UN should develop a database by itself or whether the UN should use in one way or another the databases that are already out there, which are commercial and which are of course very expensive.

And I would also underscore that it's having been also involved in the. In the work that the distinguished delegate from Austria referred to earlier. I mean it's not an easy task, I mean to build up, I guess such a database is not even. It's a very complicated task as well to use databases already there and to take information from there. So I think that, I mean, we really need a really thorough discussion on things like, I mean, to get the data and the databases that can be used, I mean, they are databases in developing developed countries already.

So in the project on the Mount B that was accepted to use those data also in developing countries. But also I also wonder why that project sort of haven't moved further on the Mount B in developing countries, because that was supposed to be the aim. So I guess that would be at least my first question whether what you really mean by building up a database, what the time perspective of that would be, how on earth would you get the data?

Yeah. And so on. And if so, is it okay to use the databases already out there with data from developed countries in developing countries and to know that I guess that most delegates here can't answer that. I guess you have to go back to your administration and ask, I mean, taking into account the experience from what was done on the amount B. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Sweden. So the question, it is a hypothetical one. So no decision has been taken yet, of course, in any regard that whoever is going to work definitely, definitively towards such a cooperative database, it is to prompt the consideration that would have to be taken into account when one would want to pursue that avenue.

I give the floor now to Cameron. Come on, please.

Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for giving me the floor on this important matter.

I'd like to at the outset, welcome the fact that the proposal that we have before us, which we formulated yesterday as we were discussing preventive measures for disposal dispute, which could arise from the application interpretation of the Framework Convention or its protocol, which is linked to the issue of transfer pricing. We think, and were thinking yesterday that it's important to start our reflections about the establishment of a comparable database for transfer pricing and intergovernmental database. Why is that? Well, Algeria spoke to this earlier. As developing countries access to comparable databases for transfer pricing, this is a genuine challenge we have because of extremely high costs.

We think that this information is data which is available and which needs to be within reach of tax administration. So we think that within the context of these discussions, we might seek to strengthen such cooperation between tax administrations. Therefore, we should think about the ways and means by which we could establish an intergovernmental database. Each jurisdiction would then be able to collect locally their data and contribute to a database which could then be shared across all jurisdictions, allowing us to better address the issue of transfer pricing and limiting the risk of disputes. Thank you.

So I'm trying to understand the issue better. So is it in your experience or perception that access to information, relevant information is lacking altogether, or is it that for a subset of, for example, cooperation data are not available? So is that you would say, well, when it comes to the very large entities, data are fairly updated and available, while it is rather for the. Maybe the smaller medium sized entities for which information are missing? Or is it like, can you say across the board here we have deficiencies.

So maybe keep that in mind. So that is kind of an additional question you can consider when answering those questions. So Brazil, Brazil, please.

Thank you, chair. Well, a few points. So I think the question raised by Austrian, if understood it correctly, why amount B is not has not been picked up. I think it is because the solution in the end was not that attractive. So it's always the details, but the idea seems to be good.

But as it turns out, apparently the margins that were put there, they're not very attractive. That's what I know and I don't know much about it. I might be wrong.

Second point is the idea of we designing or the UN designing a database. I am not sure. Sure. Well, we could transform it into a public good, but I a bit skeptical that it can be done with efficiency and the precision that we might need.

Different approach could be to work with the companies to see what they want if we can, if the governments can supply more information to improve the database and even that. I think there would be several difficulties in sharing information with companies.

In relation to the cost of the databases. One approach could be countries together to buy them or to negotiate the database together, try to make a pool and again try to address it through coordination, regional coordination. And finally, I think the most important intervention is. This is an extremely technical topic and I would strongly advise to interact with the group of experts in transfer pricing at the UN and even maybe other FORA to get their feedback. They probably have much more to say about it than us.

It's just. I understand that it's just a first step, first round of discussions, but we do need to coordinate with them. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Brazil. Also for flagging the necessity to cooperate with other experts fora. So that has been mentioned now several times and all our work will be conducted based on the terms of reference in which paragraph 22 encourages us to seek out or seek the input from other fora and not to like reinvent the wheel.

Nigeria, please. Nigeria.

Thanks Kucha. And good morning colleagues.

Regarding the comparable database, it is true that we have commercial databases and from there you could obtain information. And the issue of cost is an important factor that has limited many African or developing countries from having access to the database. So that is one issue as already highlighted by speakers who are taking the floor before me. There is also the challenge of the databases that I know of that we have do not have information, do I say sufficient information from our own region. So if you finish your or you are doing your transfer pricing analysis, you look for comparable data sets and you are getting from other regions where your economic indices are not exactly the same.

That leads to another problem of you need now to make comparable adjustments, you know, and based on transfer pricing rules, the more adjustment you are making, the more far away you are going from the reality and more disputes could emerge. So these are other issues that causes disputes and most of them could even be a domestic issue really. Because if you have two set of comparable and you are dealing just with domestic transactions that is not with a treaty jurisdiction, now you could find a way to resolve that. But if you are dealing with a company or a multinational from a treaty partner, then you know the end of his way in. And there could be another challenge.

I am using for example comparable data set based on subscription to company A and they are using that of company B. You do not have any rule that says you must, everybody must UA or or you must use B. So from experience the set of data in this commercial databases are not exactly the same. So there's also variation there. That's, that's the point I'm trying to, to.

To make. So somebody uses A and somebody uses B. You now want to try and match it. So it leads you to another level of dispute. So if you now look at the proposal UN what they considering the possibility of developing a database that could, it could solve that problem.

So it could bring about a kind of uniformity in that. So if we are using the same set of data then it limits the issues of dispute because we are speaking like to like now then then what I would then how would that then address the issue of cost? We must also consider it is it, is it going to be cheaper than what you have that many traditions are not able to to subscribe to or is it going to be absolutely free? That's another consideration. Then the issue of the.

The data therein. Will it be possible we must develop something if that is the route we want to go develop something that data from all the regions are contained therein. So that solves the problem of make having to make comparability adjustments on the question around confidentiality, how do you preserve that? I am not foreseen any serious challenge therein because the current versions of databases that we have in the public domain were done by businesses and if they could summon that challenge because with what I know the information contained in those data databases are publicly available information. So if that, if that is the case then it shouldn't be a problem with the United nations having that kind of database for members on Amon B. I think Brazil has hit the nail on the head.

It is not attractive to many African countries. For us in Nigeria what we have done is to have conducted our own impact assessment and we, we believe that we are better off without MMB than if we signed on to mmb. Thank you.

Thank you very much Nigeria. So I think that the current databases that are populated from a mix of public data, semi public but also stemming from commercial sources and with a view to the fact of like conflicting data that also must have like root causes for that. So I think the databases can eventually only be as good as the sources that are being used to populate the database databases. Next is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia.

Thank you Chair and co Chair and good morning.

I think if I start with the first issue about the procedural matters when it comes to dispute resolution, I think one of the challenge maybe as we also highlighted yesterday, which is the timely response of the competent authorities and the taxpayers to request for information. I think this matter is important because delay in providing the information would definitely delay the dispute resolution process and would be more costly to tax administrations and also the taxpayers. And I think the second point also is to share complete set of information as requested. This is also another challenge that when you make a request for a specific information you got incomplete set of information

that doesn't help in moving on with the dispute resolution process. So I think these two are procedural elements that should be considered going forward then when it comes to the the issue of the database. I think this is a very very

well known issues of lack of local comparables. And I think as we all know these comparables lack location specific advantages. You know, markets are different, cost of the wing business are different. And that's not reflected in these comparables that are available.

I'm not sure whether the UN should develop its own database or rather encourage the development of regional database in different regions because as we know the majority of databases available today are commercial databases.

And also maybe another thing to be considered is maybe market specific agenda adjustments for these foreign comparables to make sure it reflects the reality and profitability of these markets where there are no comparables. Thank you.

Thank you, Saudi Arabia. The floor goes now to Estonia.

Thank you again. First, a disclaimer that it's not really my area of expertise here, but I thought I would share some sentiments that we usually have in Estonia, where the issue of centralized databases comes up, we would in general try to avoid such technical solutions because pooling huge quantities of data to one place raises significant issues of the governance and also the cybersecurity issues. And there need to be or there have to be very good safeguards in place to guarantee the credibility of such exercise. So I would now extend what I have said also to the calls for having a Global Assets Registry or the Global Beneficial Ownership Database first. It's technically extremely complicated exercise and like Michael said, the data quality is only as good as its source.

And now if we imagine that UN was to have such a transfer pricing comparables database than when we began the work by pulling the data from different sources, then somebody would need to ensure that this data is actually comparable. And we are already struggling with more simplified data exchanges to make the data from different sources match. And within the European Union, which is quite a small region and with a lot of experience in state exchange and highly standardized formats. So the idea sounds attractive, but because of legal and technical challenges, again, at the first glance, I would be very hesitant. And also there is a reason why the commercial databases are that expensive, because a huge amount of work goes into it and this work will be no less in the un.

So somebody at some point would still need to be paying for that. And also the maintenance of such a database, it's very challenging and very costly. Exactly. That's what I wanted to say. Thank you.

So thank you, Estonia. I'm not comfortable referring to this as an idea. Not yet. Well, okay. It was meant to take it as a gedanken experiment, like a thought experiment, to kind of strike, stress that there is a balance one wants to strike between having meaningful comprehensive data on the one hand, but at the same time have to cater for data safeguards.

It has been mentioned, we have heard previously that those data are often like publicly available, so therefore shouldn't be any concerns when it comes to secrecy and any safeguards to that end. But at the same time we are also hearing that, well, the data is maybe not is either not comprehensive, it's not very telling, is not that meaningful. Also there are deficiencies seen in terms of quality of the data and like rising the quality or the comprehensiveness of the data can get in conflict. Conflict with the possibility to have them publicly available. So with that, let me allow.

Give me the floor now to Marlene because she wants to add something.

No, just to agree with Michael on the issue of.

Of what we are trying to achieve. So the issue of public databases, assets, registry and so on, those are issues that have been around for a long time. And so the intent here is to explore whether these are viable. And we have gotten input to suggest that they may not, but also so that we can try to get ideas that will bridge the gap in terms of the data asymmetry, which exists, I think, as long as, and I'm speaking now from the standpoint of a developing country, as long as there is that gap.

And the gap could be the result of the cost of having the best databases available. It could also be a capacity issue as well, in that you do get the information through other means, whether it's from exchange of information agreements or third party information, but your auditors just don't know how to use that information.

And the result is that there is a dispute. And so the issue that we are trying to grapple with is how do you bridge that gap? So I'm saying all of this to say that we are just throwing these questions out just to get your feedback because of the long standing problem that has existed.

Kenya, please.

Good morning, Chair, colleagues, plenary, distinguished members.

I would start by saying that the fact that we are so many participants, it can send you to forget what you are about to say. And actually you also run the risk of repeating what others have said. However, I would start by recognizing my senior from Mauritius. I think he articulated very well on the first slide that had been put there and is my senior in all aspects. But we can still go back and just have a review of the discussion that he had put across, which he actually explained it clearly from the Kenyan perspective.

Our legal system, as much as we gravitate towards common law, we are a hybrid as it is, and there is a mix in between. And so when we talk of fact finding tools, I don't know if the Secretariat can take us back to the.

To that particular. Yes. Slide. Yeah, thank you.

I just wanted us to look at a few fact finding tools that we'd be talking about within this legal system.

One of them would be maybe use of documents that are reviewed and analyzed at this particular point. The other one would be maybe the witness. Now the deposition of witness statements that you're talking about, or we can refer to them as interviews and statements, and then we'll also have expert opinions and reports. Then there will be the aspect of evidence collection and preservation, then the kind of techniques, investigation techniques that would be used within that particular issue, and then the research and data analysis. So there's a point that was put across that at one particular legal system you'll realize that what would be considered evidence in another, the other side would be hearsay or maybe might be admitted as a persuasive item.

So we would say it might take quite a lot of fact finding in terms of trying to bring these two together so that because of the variation of legal systems within countries, to be able to apply this kind of model that we are suggesting.

Then on the second issue, we'd be talking about the commercial basis, commercial databases that we are looking at.

There are two specific issues that I would like to address. One is the cost, and then the other is the quality of data that is held within the databases. The cost has been articulated very well by my colleague from Nigeria and it is a reality in most of the countries. So if you look at the quality of data that we find in these commercial databases, you'll start realizing that you cannot address or look at the data without using statistical tools, which in itself is usually an issue. It's been queried by the courts, measures of central tendencies, the mid median mode, and you really have to go in and try and explain yourself for you to be understood.

So as much as we might have an issue with the quality of data, also the statistical elements that you have to marry with the quality of data becomes an issue. While at it, we'll also have to address the issue of the data. Where has it been picked from, what type of economies has it, the geographical location of the particular companies, for instance, most of the time we usually rely on data from Eastern Europe, but the same has also been questioned as to whether they are comparable to that effect. So

we welcome the development of data by the un, but with a pinch of salt because of the issues that have been raised by a number of countries in terms of whether we'll be able to get the correct data that would address the issues that we are facing with precision and then also the element of cost to that effect. Then on the other issue of amount B, that is baseline, marketing and distribution, it is something that is still under discussion and currently we are doing an impact assessment. But the question has always been there are services that we can look at them as baseline, but depending on how they are performed, they have the ability to actually create intangibles in themselves within a particular territory. So that has always been an issue. However, it's something that we are still looking at and we, we will be doing it and getting a report from the SEM and then take a position from there.

Thank you very much,

Sweden, please.

Thank you for letting me take the floor a second time. I asked a few comments on what has been been said here earlier. I mean if you in the long run is looking for something that will be stable and also accepted by the courts. I think you can't dismiss the idea of having databases for sure. Databases.

I mean the experience from what the project we did was that of course it's not perfect. Of course we had a lot of issues with the data but at the end of the day you have to ask yourself what is the better option. You can say that yeah, we can find local comparables, we can have secret comparables, but we have to think about something that will be accepted by the two states or more states actually involved in a transaction or in the transaction where I still believe that databases

is really a very good starting point. Even if it's not sort of involves for example my jurisdiction. I would still think you can take the data from there because I think that it's. So I just wanted to say that.

I mean not believing. Saying that this is not perfect, then we shouldn't use it. I think that is something that I guess most transfer pricing specialists would not agree on. I think that to have the data would be extremely helpful, I think for developing country, I think or for many at least. The question is how do you get there?

And I also thought it was very interesting. I mean what the delegate from Kenya said about also how they view. Because the issue, I mean if you don't believe that the margins that you have or what was done in mlp if they don't believe that where you really everyone could be involved, you could scrutinize all the data, etc. Etc. If you don't believe that that could be used, that wasn't a services, it was of course on distribution activities.

I mean then it's a problem because they were really based on the existing databases.

And I think building up something from the start would be ideal, of course. But

I don't know. I don't see this solution in front of me really. Although I think that it's really something you need that would sort of hold also in between states, not to prevent disputes and also to hold in court, as somebody mentioned, because if you go to courts with something based on some secret comparable or local comparable, I think that might also be difficult. And even if succeed, it should also be accepted by the other state. So there has to be some kind of, I mean, common approach here, whatever that would be.

Building up a database for the UN would probably take too much time, but I think what the delegate from Brazil suggested that. I mean, I think most of us are not sitting with the information here. I think it's a great idea to take a picture back to our. To the people who know more about that in practice than most of us do here in this room and then sort of see where that can take us. Because I still believe that even if the data that we, for example, use in my country, based on other databases of totally different countries, it's not perfect, is still for us the best that we can get and something that the police would sort of hold in courts and hold in disputes with other countries concerned.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Sweden. And now on to Senegal.

Merci. Thank you, Madam Chair of Working Group 3. And good morning, dear colleagues. I think that when we put questions regarding access to comparable data as part of this protocol, we are really talking about prevention, because prevention enables us to prevent disputes cropping up from differences in application. And so I think it would be good for us to be able to bank on this in our discussions now on access to comparative data.

I do think that there are two issues here. There's an issue of access, but also there's an access of an issue of coverage of database. The databases, when they were set up, were set up not for the aim of transfers, but rather for financial profitable reasons. And so if we want to use them for transfer pricing, we would have to make some adjustments that would be necessary. And incidentally, that explains the weakness of the comparability of some of these databases.

You're going to realize that many databases, well, as a developing country, you're going to have to use several different databases because there are different sources, the information is different. There might be databases that look at different prices, others that look at transactions, others that look at patents. So this is one of the difficulties. There are totally different databases, and how are we going to use all of these different ones for transfer pricing within one country? One of the complexities here as well is that there are different approaches.

In the OECD guide on transfer pricing and in the UN Guide as well. There's not a detailed approach that has been implemented on the selection and adjustment of these comparative databases. So often there is a degree of flexibility that states have that potentially could create disputes in terms of options alternatives. I think it would be Important for states to start thinking about evolving in how they establish databases, primary sources to ensure that all declarations generated there, all financial data, for example, that's going to involve internal transactions, but also cross border transactions can all be agreed upon and can develop within a database that might be useful for the future.

Internal domestic comparables are extremely useful too. It would also be a good idea to make progress in developing or promoting databases on transfer pricing, especially if there's not much added value. This would.

For example, if we're looking just at transfer pricing, this would enable us to have good data, there would be a comparable procedure and you would have enough time

if there is a prior agreement on transfer pricing and you could even use administrative assistance. So these are some ideas that might be interesting for the future.

Centralizing these databases at the UN level might be interesting if we were to respect some issues that have been raised by Austria into alia. So we wouldn't want to use different databases. We would want to take into consideration criteria pertaining to costs and to updating these databases. Now for option B, that is Streamlining and simplifying the arm's length in terms of distribution. That was a good start.

That was based on existing databases with of course some adjustments that would be necessary. But it's important for countries to be able to test first and foremost to see if that might be profitable for them and then move on to other things. I think that B just affects commercialization and distribution. There are other activities that are not included in B for which there would be necessary adjustments if we would have a comparison. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Senegal, India Please.

Thank you. Kohlid we acknowledge that information symmetry across jurisdictions poses a significant challenge for tax administrations. And in this context, building a global database of comparables is not only critical, but also a foundational step that this forum may give serious consideration to.

We realize that comparables present multiple layers of complexity, both in terms of regional differences and in the nature of transactions, particularly in the case of unique or evolving digital business models. At present there is heavy reliance on information submitted by taxpayers such as transfer pricing documentation or TP study reports.

This dependence persists even during the APA process where the taxpayer's own disclosures form the primary evidence base. Confidentiality is frequently invoked as a ground for withholding supporting details, leaving tax administrations with limited means to independently cross verify the information. From our experience, transfer pricing adjustments are often constrained by the non availability of uniform data field across jurisdictions.

The absence of standardized formats requires additional calibration and this must be addressed if we are to move towards an effective global database. Further, such a database must go beyond numerical values to capture the contextual realities. For example, in the case of intangible or royalty transactions, the rate alone cannot be a sufficient basis for comparability analysis.

The underlying agreement is essential to assess the true nature, scope, and applicability of the transaction. Furthermore, certain taxpayer data fields, such as those involving intangibles, payment structures or other commercially sensitive elements, raise legitimate confidentiality concerns. Any framework for a common global database must carefully balance the goal of transparency with the need to safeguard sensitive commercial information, which may be viable potentially through secure access protocols or tiered data sharing arrangements.

While building a global database of comparables may be a costly affair, it is important to recognize that countries are already incurring significant costs individually to maintain and access their own data sets. In many cases, these expenditures are recurring and fragmented, with each administration paying for access to commercial databases that may not be fully aligned with their specific policy or enforcement needs. A cumulative pooled approach could potentially optimize these costs even if the aggregate expense turns out to be higher.

The value proposition of having a database specifically designed to serve the requirements of tax administrations, rather than being shaped by the commercial priorities of M and E focused providers, would likely outweigh the additional cost. And such a database would also promote uniformity, improve comparability across jurisdictions, and reduce reliance on taxpayer supplied information that is

often shielded under confidentiality claims. Ultimately, the investment has the potential to strengthen global tax administration capacity and the level playing field, particularly for countries that face resource constraints when challenging well resourced MNEs, thank you.

Thank you very much India Zambia,

thank you very much for giving me the floor and good morning to all distinguished delegates. So just to answer, the first slide on a general note for Zambia's legal framework is that we are a common law jurisdiction and we do take into account witness statements as well as the affidavities in court cases depending on the nature of the case and the affidavit evidence usually used for non contentious and factual matters. While the witness statements are mostly used in contentious matters and under the common law systems in rendering judgments or dispute resolution rely on the law and case precedence of similar matters that could have been decided before. Which brings me to our second issue on comparables and why we think a database is very important.

From experience, the issue with some of the database we've been able to pay for the costs are already high and when we do the analysis you will find that it does not reflect the economic climate of the country. We discovered that you find Most of the MNEs that are used are from the north and therefore very few from the south. So already that is a disparity. Therefore having one that would reflect the maybe common economic positions in certain regions would be important. And when I think of a database and looking that we would obviously maybe look at the precedence in similar matters.

If we have one MNE from a particular jurisdiction operating in a certain region, and they are definitely recording different operating margins from the same region, and if that information is shared or accessed, it could definitely help because then it would build a case for the other jurisdiction in that sense, in our case, because then it would be a precedence that the MNE is operating when it comes to transfer pricing, therefore a shared database would be cardinal. As with regards to amount B, we do appreciate and thank the work that has gone in the work. But as mentioned, I think from my earlier colleagues, there has been a field that it does not really reflect. However, in Zambia's case, we do adopt the OECD transfer pricing guidelines and amount B is an extension of that. Therefore, we do not, we do not inhibit any taxpayer from using amount B if they decide to use it.

We haven't had any taxpayers so far apply it, so. So it may be too soon to say that we have not implemented it. So it would be good to see maybe in the next few years, if we do have MNEs that are going to present that in their transfer pricing documentation that they're using amount B, then we could probably have a conversation in that essence. But I think it's a little bit too early, especially that it was recently concluded. But I do feel that it's important that we do have database, because as long as information asymmetry continues to exist, multinational enterprises are still going to use that as the weakest link and use.

And use that to their advantage. There is a question that the colleague did ask, saying, are we looking at large multinational enterprises in this case or not? With large multinational enterprises you would find that the data is publicly available, so that makes it easier, whereas with the medium ones to the small ones, the data might be had. And that's where the problem comes and that's where the gap, I think really lies. Because then even if you created a database and you don't have that information, it may not be helpful.

But if tax authorities work together because this M and E is operating in your jurisdiction and you're already receiving data about its operations on the other side, that could be a basis to stay, start and see and say if they're in the same line of Operation it's distributions. Why would there be reporting different margins in the same region? I think that could be a starting point. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Okay, I'm going to give the floor to Lesotho and then we'll come back to Brazil and the Russian Federation, since it's the first time that that Lesotho would be taking the floor. So, thanks, thank you and good morning. I think I just want to share experience that we have, which was basically is. Is basically building on what Brazil indicated earlier on, that perhaps if you do it on a regional basis, it might as well help. And if you engage people who actually very knowledgeable in this regard, it helps.

The experience we have is that we've been working with ataf, which has a very good technical assistance insofar as transfer pricing is concerned. So we're working on a number of cases whereby they were able to secure databases for us and it was good, I must admit, and we are able to see some results. After some time, the technical assistance ran out and we had to continue with our transfer pricing cases. Unfortunately, the price just went over the roof. In other words, we could not afford the very same database that we using for free when we're dealing or under rtf.

So that was one aspect, the price with regards to the other ones that we were using or the kind of databases that we see coming from taxpayers. A lot of those have been wanting in terms of what they were initially prepared for and the fact that.

We don't have, they are not necessarily prepared for transfer pricing cases, as Senegal and India indicated. So I think that is just one experience that we wanted to share, especially as it relates to how we can regionally cooperate and make sure that we have access to the reliable databases. One other thing that is a bit challenging for us is that ordinarily they will not come to you, like any other business, to sell their products. So in a way, you start first already having to compromise on some of your established procurement rules. So you have to be very smart in terms of making sure that you don't do anything untoward so that you're able to secure.

And when you do actually secure some of those, you might find them, even their tax compliance could be not so good. So these are some of the challenges that we have with regards to those that we actually go out and try to secure their services. But that is the experience that I wanted to share, the one that we had originally, which seemed to be working for most countries. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Lesotho and craving the indulgence of Brazil and Russia. Again, I'm going to give the floor to Colombia.

Thank you very much. Koh Lead Madam, in our experience of analyzing comparability, we'd like to share that in Colombia we've been able to access a very comprehensive database.

This has been the case for a number of years in the administration. We took the decision to enter into that contract to access that database on the grounds of a rigorous cost benefit analysis for the data, looking at the figures being audited at the time and noting that there was actually erosion in the tax base of our country. So the decision was on that basis that there was a need to have form of verifying the analysis for taxpayer data. And the cost of this database vis a vis the audits we were doing showed that it was worthwhile and worth the government's expenditure. As a number of delegates have already mentioned, in our experience, there is sometimes complexity in dictating local comparable data.

Data that in and of itself, though, isn't a problem linked to databases. It's more linked to issues which, in Colombia, at least, we've seen, because companies are not compelled to present public information reports in a comprehensive way. They can hand over financial information, but there's no public reporting of their activities, of their assets, and so on and so forth. We only have information about Colombian companies when they are paying taxes, and then on that basis we are able to demand of them public reports for all of their information. When we saw that, our decision was that we needed to have comparable data from other regions as well.

But we know that that may require adjustments. But in any case, we would opt for comparable data when possible when this is technically feasible.

In addition, when it comes to asymmetries which may exist in terms of information from taxpayers and comparable companies selected and information available to the tax authorities in the databases, in terms of actually holding this data, it's very simple to verify public reports submitted by these companies so that we can check any differences in the databases, which requires us to collect all public information across the world from these companies. There's no other way essentially of proceeding. We think it's therefore viable and desirable that the UN develop a. It may not be desirable for the UN to develop this database when others already exist. As some delegations have said, it will require updating and maintenance and possible adjustments.

So we would agree with Brazil about looking into the possibility of rather opting for strengthened cooperation between countries so that we're able to access databases. Finally, we think in our experience that strengthening and building capacities for transfer pricing is of the other utmost Importance. And Colombia has noticed the difference over recent years because of programs with international organizations which we've held, which has allowed us access and allowed us to genuinely verify and check the books for transfer pricing for comparable data.

The most important thing is to find out about transactions, the businesses, how the operations between operators interact. And on that basis we can have comparability analysis and then conduct any statistical adjustments. That's part and parcel of what we need to do to monitor and provide oversight for transfer pricing. Thank you. Thank you very much, Columbia.

All right, so we're running out of time. So we're going to take three more interventions from member states and then leave maybe about 10 minutes for the civil society if you want to make any interventions. So we'll take Switzerland and Brazil and then Russia and then give some time for civil society.

Thank you. For the stakeholders. So please go ahead, Switzerland.

Thank you, colleagues. I will start with the first question that was raised by you this morning, but I promise to be brief.

The question relates to fact finding tools we use and in our domestic procedures. There is a clear rule for the burden of proof and facts that increased taxes typically must be proven by the authorities, by the government, and facts that reduce taxes by the taxpayer. In an international dispute, such as a mutual agreement procedure, typically there is no such rule for the burden of proof. What has crystallized is a bit in our experience, that if you want to take a position that deviates from what is kind of a common experience or language or experience, or from a common experience that you share, then you factually have to prove that. And there also comes the issue of data in into play.

And I recognize the need to have data that an authority thinks that it is viable for its economy, for its geographic particularities. Regarding the development of a database, there I see considerable difficulties, technical difficulties. They have already been raised by our colleagues. First issue is you need at the end still a source for that data and governments are biased to some extent. And there I have some, I see some question marks.

And the other issue is that it was already raised by the distinguished colleague from Estonia Somal will ultimately have to pay for that. Another issue in an international dispute is the disparity of information between the parties being the both contracting states typically. And what is important there is that the competent authorities, they share information they receive from the concerned taxpayer with each other. I think this is a best practice under the BEP section 14, and we apply that and we think this is something that should be a common standard and it would be fair. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Very much. Switzerland, Brazil.

Thank you Chair for allowing me to intervene again. So I would summarize that the issue with transfer price is just not one issue. It's not only about information.

There is a long list of issues. Statistical issues, reliability on the data used, the possibility to confirm the information used in the database. And so to investigate how reliable they are. Even the data in the database, they are polluted or contaminated somehow for different reasons. So the companies could have a lot of intra group transactions that are still in the database, or the shareholding participation could affect the transactions.

Another issue in the database is that most of them they were viewed based on public data on aggregated level. So we don't have information on transactions. Most of the time we have some database to the extent that I know we have some database, for instance, for commodities, and then you can find transactions between unrelated parties. But then again the issue becomes what about the functions that other companies or trading companies could have and how to adjust those functions so they don't use directly the values of the database. So there is much too much more to the debate than just the database.

Even when we find the database, the reliability of data that are quite reliable between independent parties, for instance, for commodities there are so many adjustments and adjustments for functions or for quality, et cetera, and the databases, most of them. And for instance for royalties, there are some databases that take information from, I think from the U.S. from U.S. companies on royalties. And there are issues with these contracts as well because they're done between related parties. So they are not fully reliable.

But most of all for other transactions in general, the data, we don't find data for specific transactions. Then the only solution is to use the TNMM method. So we have other issues with the TNMM method. There are statistical issues, because very often the TNMM method leads to a huge range of profitability. So it would vary between 2% and 18%.

So in if the companies choose, if all the points have equally reliability, then we have other issues that any of the points are good enough. So if there is anything that we can move is probably through cooperation. And I would suggest that probably we have studies on the issues of information and definitely replacing the companies. I think it's too challenging. I don't think that it's feasible.

But maybe, as I suggested before, not only inviting the TP group of experts of the un, but also maybe inviting the companies themselves to explain their side of the problem and to help to find a compromise solution. Maybe states can provide some information, even for the VAT purposes of information. I Don't know data that are collected for VAT purposes in domestic transactions. So my point is there are many problems, not only with the data, even if get reliable data, it's how we interpret it. So in the long term, probably the role of this group, or we will have to have a targeted group to address many of those problems in the long term.

But for the moment, what we can do is to find ways to cooperate not only with companies, but other technical groups and even maybe the CET or the ATAF to get their feedback, because they have worked a lot on it. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil. I'm going to ask that the next three interventions, because we have to close at in the next 20 minutes that you try to keep your intervention to three minutes at most. So Russia, please.

We support the idea of establishing a database that we are discussing. We do understand compatibility and functional analysis issues, however, indeed, if there are issues that are much easier than they seem. These questions pertain to commodities. Commodities of course can be subject to changes in quality, etc. But there is sufficient viability of the databases that can be used there.

Furthermore, a clear set of corrections and adjustments can be used, for example, transport issues. So that would provide a good database. So the best quality data would be data that we directly get from countries, from governments. Of course, there's the issue of this data being supported and updated, however, regarding the technological impact of such databases. Well, these databases could serve as a good basis for pricing agreements, advanced pricing agreements, and so I think it would be very helpful to see how they would decide the costs if there were any disputes there.

So such a database would be very significant in terms of developing countries capacity, those countries that are just starting to work with transfer pricing. And we know that from our own experience and from those countries who are just starting to develop transfer pricing. So we do think it would be good to be involved in developing such a database. Thank you. Thank you very much, Russia.

And now for our stakeholders, I give the floor to agora.

Hello, distinguished delegates, colleagues and friends. I speak today on behalf of agora, an innovation lab promoting policies centered in peace, social justice and the Sustainable Development Goals. The success of this convention hinges on its ability to deliver tangible justice, equity and accountability for vulnerable communities. A truly transformative framework must address the specific challenges of implementation while ensuring principles of solidarity.

The challenge of accessing and using transfer pricing comparable databases is a significant barrier for many jurisdictions, particularly in the Global South. The high cost of commercial databases, combined with the lack of relevant data and the technical expertise required to use them, places Developing countries at a distinct disadvantage. To remedy this, we propose that the Convention mandates a dedicated provision for the development of an accessible non commercial transfer prices database under the guidance of the

UN to ensure its success. We urged the inclusion of a dedicated article to formalize partnerships with institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the WTO to provide the technical and financial assistance necessary to build, maintain and train member states on using the database and to build fact finding tools and more instruments for knowledge sharing. We also propose an advisory board with representation from civil society to oversee data security protocols and ensure the database is representative of global economic contexts. This would address concerns of taxpayer confidentiality while ensuring the tool is effective and fair. Finally, separate from the issue of transfer transfer pricing, we believe the Convention must enshrin a core principle of humanitarian solidarity.

We call for a new provision that explicitly provides a tax exemption for development assistance, humanitarian aid and official development assistance. Thank you very much. Thank you Agora. I now give the floor to the ICC and they'll be followed by the major group for youth and children and we will close out there. Thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair. So I'll try to be very, very brief and very look forward to us engage on these topics as the work of the work stream continue, also to provide more comprehensive information from our members. And I'll try to just briefly address both slides that were presented today so on fast and more general. Also in our written submission we really emphasize the importance to have an active role of taxpayers in relation to disputes. In fact, taxpayers knows exactly their business models and the transaction and everything that needs to be taken into account from a factual basis.

And so this is why we really emphasize the role of taxpayers also to be heard and so the right to be heard. I guess it's also probably raise a good point on why we need taxpayer rights in the Convention as well. So yeah, in terms of fact finding, we really believe there's going to be the necessity to include some space for the taxpayer to be able to contribute by providing facts and information that are useful to efficiently and effectively solve any dispute in my RIS on the comparables. So I will reserve to provide more information as needed. But I just like to reiterate some of the concerns that have been shared by some delegates on confidentiality in the case of a shared comparable database.

So indeed that's a concern that we also share both in terms of the data there will be forming this database, but also the governance of those and just wanted to reflect a little bit on the fact. But again I will reserve to some more information in detail. Some colleagues have referred to Mount B and Industry did some study on global databases in relation to Mount B in that case and found that actually the global databases were not so mismatching information as from regional and local databases. And another emphasis I like to put in relation to developing any new database would be that it would be central to have some discussion with taxpayers on the technicalities of that and the methodology of that. As some and many actually member countries have pointed out today, there are information that the business know that taxpayer knows and so it would be extremely important to have transparency in relation to the methodology that will be used.

Again, I know I haven't been able to give you more and more details, but we reserve as possible to send any written comments on these as well.

Thank you. ICC and I now give the floor to Major Group for Youth and Children. Thank you. Chair I take the floor on behalf of the FFD Children and Youth Council Constituency of the Major Group for Children and Youth as we have been informed that there might not be an afternoon segment. Chair, Please allow us to make MGCY's final statement here.

We first extend our appreciation to the Bureau co facilitators and the Secretariat's tireless work during the Committee. Children and Youth have delivered an unprecedented level of contributions during this segment of the inc, sending the highest number of young people to to participate in any UN led tax processes and forums. This intergenerational representation is only possible through the support from many distinguished colleagues in this room and we express our deepest appreciations for that. Children Youth looks forward to the next substantive segment held in Nairobi and expresses its willingness to continue its active participation in the process. Chair, we reaffirm the fundamental axiom that the voices of children and youth must continue to be adequately represented in this Committee.

We hope that by the next substantive session in Nairobi, colleagues from civil society and other stakeholders will not be pushed to the end of the speakers list, but rather interspersed with Member States. We also hope to see increased diversity within stakeholder participation in the INC and calls for the mandated inclusion of the 21 major groups and other stakeholders constituencies identified by the UNGA. We highlight our fundamental belief that in the creation of an equitable and sustainable convention, no one should be left behind in creating our shared vision for a more inclusive and fairer market economy. Distinguished colleagues, Mr. Chair, the preamble of the sacrosanct United Nations Charter states We the People, not We the Member States today, We the People, we the Children Youth of the United nations have determined that we will create a tax Convention that leaves no one behind.

We thank you. Thank you very much. Major group for youth or for children and youth.

So I think that concludes our interventions from the floor. And we didn't get a chance to discuss the third question that we had. But this has been a very rich discussion and we thank you all for your participation to.

Right for. And so to continue our discussions on the issue note and the input that we have received here, we encourage our participants in Work Stream 3 to attend the meetings that will be coming up where we will be discussing this and other exciting topics as it relates to dispute prevention and resolution. I now hand the chair over to Michael.

From my side. There's not much to add. I too would like to thank all of you for the numerous interventions. Those were very valuable both yesterday and today. Together with Marlene, we are very confident that with the collective knowledge, expertise and experience that is gathered here in the room and in the virtual rooms of the work stream, we will manage to make progress in the next weeks and months.

And we honestly looking forward to continuing our cooperation with you. Thank you. Now I hand over to the real chair.

Okay, so big thanks to the two co chairs for all their efforts and not only these two chairs and all the co chairs who was like. Who helped us a lot to shape these sessions and to come out in its good format and with these good discussions that took place. I think now we reach to the end of the discussion and the bilinary discussions for work stream three and also to the end of the informal discussions for this for the second session. So in these two weeks we concluded two sessions, the first session and this is the second session. And now we are going to close informal discussions and go for a break for 15 minutes just to set up the podium.

And we will convene again in a formal mood to close the second session. Thank you and see you in 15 minutes.

It's.

Ra.

It's it.

That.

It.

How the.

But I think that.

It.

It's.

Sam.

It's.

It's.

Here's.

It's.

There's.

It's.

It.

Distinguished delegates, dear colleagues, the second plenary meeting of the committee is called to order.

The committee will resume its consideration of Agenda Item 6, entitled Adoption of the Report. I invite the reporter to make a statement.

Thank you, Chair. It is an honour for me to provide you an update on the first and the second sessions of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on the United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation. As the committee is aware, a report on all of its substantive sessions will be prepared for adoption by the Committee at its final session in 2026.

A list of documents before the Committee was made available on the web page of the Committee at its plenary meeting of the first session on 1st of August 2025. Committee adopted without the vote, that is on a consensus basis, a draft decision submitted by the chair. Reference A AC 298, CRP 16, as amended by document A AC 298 CRP 18 on the participation of international organizations, civil society and other relevant stakeholders at the first meetings of the first and second sessions. The Committee also elected Mrs. Ms. Claudia Lucia Pimentel from Brazil and Ms. Marlene Nebhard Parker, Jamaica, as Vice Chairs following two resignations. The final report will be finalized in accordance with the practice of the United nations for adoption at the last session, as mentioned before in 2027, and reflect a list of the delegations that delivered statements under each agenda item, as well as the decisions taken by the Committee at its substantive sessions.

I would also like to remind delegations to submit the names of participants to the Secretariat via the Edelegate platform for inclusion in the list of participants. A list of participants in all substantial substantive sessions of the Committee will be released in due course. Thank you, Chair.

I thank you. The reporter The Committee has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 6.

I now give the floor to Mr. Lee under secretariat General for Economic and Social Affairs. The floor is yours.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Excellencies, distinguished Delegates. I'm honored to deliver these closing remarks at the conclusion of the first two sessions of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee.

As Chair directly described this process as ambitious and fast moving. In this inaugural sessions, you have proven that description is very accurate. You have laid valid groundwork in shaping a new era of the global tax cooperation, one that is fully inclusive, responsive to a changing world and advancing sustainable development for all Member States. During these past two weeks, your deliberations have been intensive, unsubstantive. You have shared diverse perspectives on the three topics discussed, the Framework Convention and the two early protocols.

The Framework Convention will provide the foundation for building new paradigm for global cooperation in tax. In particular, discussions of the fair allocation of taxing rights showed a lot of common ground, although the differences remained under hard work that is required to bridge different perspectives. Discussions of the Protocol on Services focused on issues that affect many Member States, in particular digital services. There was a significant agreement on one key point, that the current international tax rules do not deal adequately with the new business models. The difficult discussions which began this week are on forging new rules that will be future proof.

That means they are designed to cover the new types of services in the foreseeable future. The prevention and the resolution of the tax disputes was chosen as a subject of the second early protocol. This will pave the way for more effective and fair systems reducing costly and dancing tax disputes which benefits the taxpayers and tax administrations. This will allow the officials to utilize their precious resources more effectively. It is also encouraging to know that there is a shared understanding that protocols which are optional, should be designed to stand alone as treaties that can be signed individually.

The spirit of the partnership, built on respect, transparency and equality, has been palpable in the rooms. The active engagement of the hundreds of the delegates, both in the Plenary and in the technical work streams, has set a powerful precedent for our future work. Excellencies, dear colleagues, as the Chair noted at the outset, this is a pivotal moment. Yet it is just the beginning of our journey. Having completed the scoping phase, the work streams were shifted to developing concrete proposals to be presented at the Plenary in Nairobi in November and in New York in February.

As you embarked on this critical next stage, I wish to reaffirm that UN DESA stands ready to support you every step of this journey. On behalf of the UN desa, I extend our deepest gratitude to all Member States for your constructive engagement. I extend a special thanks to our chair, Mr. Ramin Youssef, for your exceptional leadership and the cold leads of their dedicated efforts. I also deeply appreciate the vital contributions from our partners in international organizations, civil society, academia and the private sector. Thank you.

I thank the Under Secretary General. Thank you. Now I'm going to give my closing remarks. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, dear colleagues, as we conclude the first and second sessions of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on the Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation, I want to express my heartfelt appreciation to each of you Member States and stakeholders for their dedication, thoughtfulness and cooperative spirit you have brought to the table over these past two weeks. From the outset, we understood the scale of our option to lay the foundation for a new era of global tax cooperation through this Framework Convention and its early protocols.

What we have achieved together in these sessions is is testament to the ambition transformed into action through technical dialogue. Through deep technical dialogue, constructive debate and a genuine willingness to find common ground, we have reaffirmed that inclusivity is not just a principle we aspire to, it is the reality of how we work. Every Member state has had the opportunity to shape the work streams and every voice from government, civil society, private sector and Academy has added depth and perspective to our shared understanding. Our discussions on the framework Convention Protocol 1 and Protocol 2 have been substantive, forward looking and grounded in a shared vision to build a fairer, more inclusive, more effective and future proof system of international tax corporations that truly leaves no one behind. As we look ahead to the third session in Nairobi, I want to remind you that the Committee's work stream will continue to meet.

These meetings remain open to all Member States and offer valuable opportunities to help shape the Framework Convention and its protocols. This intersessional period will be important to refine ideas and building consensus around the deliverables and preliminary proposals that will be presented to the Committee's Plenary in November. I encourage all delegations to stay engaged and to continue contributing to this work.

For stakeholders wishing to participate in the third session and in subsequent sessions, the accreditation window will be open from the 20th of August to 5th of September. You can find more information about the accreditation process on the website or contact secretariatnc-taxun.org before we adjourn, I want to extend my sincere thanks to our colleagues for their steady leadership and to all the delegation for their trueness contribution and to the UN Secretariat for their outstanding support, often behind the scenes and beyond regular hours. Your commitment has been an instrumental to the success of these sessions. Excellencies and the colleagues thank you once again for your hard work, your trust in this process and your commitment to our shared vision. I wish you all safe travels and look forward to continue this important work together in the months ahead.

We will reconvene in November for the third session of the the Committee in Nairobi and I very much looking forward to seeing you all there as we carry this momentum forward. Thank you all.

I declare close the second session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on the United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation.

The meeting is adjourned.