Monday, November 13, 2023
Miranda Stewart (Melbourne) presents The Future of Tax Jurisdiction at Boston College at 12:00 pm ET today as part of its Tax Policy Collaborative hosted by James Repetti and Diane Ring:
Tax jurisdiction is a legal concept, but is fundamentally dependent on state capacity, technology and politics. The jurisdictional boundaries of the tax state are in turn crucial in delimiting its taxing power. Governments can enhance tax capability by cooperating with each other and with global intermediaries and by adopting new technologies, but also take contradictory steps to abrogate tax jurisdiction. This article considers how tax jurisdictional concepts, in particular residence, source and the location of consumption, are changing as the capability of states to tax labour, capital and consumption changes in a global digital economy. The article illustrates the discussion with some examples of tax jurisdiction for individuals as residents, workers, investors or consumers; and for corporations, including recent global developments aimed at taxation of multinational enterprises. These changes are occurring through contestation in the borderlands of the tax state, between multiple states and non-state actors. The process could enhance states’ jurisdiction to tax in diverse ways, while denationalizing international tax law making in an evolving multilateral reality.
Goldburn P. Maynard, Jr. (Indiana-Kelley Business School; Google Scholar) presents Unfulfilled Promises of the FinTech Revolution, 111 Cal. L. Rev. ___ (2023) (with Lindsay Sain Jones (Georgia-Terry Business School; Google Scholar)) at Boston College at 5:00 PM ET today as part of its Boston College Tax Policy Collaborative hosted by James Repetti and Diane Ring:
Racial wealth inequality is complex. While not entirely to blame, lack of access to credit and financial services, lower rates of return, and discrimination have contributed to this persistent gap. Some are hopeful that financial technology (fintech) can address these underlying issues by broadening access to capital and providing fairer lending standards, better investment advice, and more secure transactions. Indeed, key players in the industry promote fintech as a primary means to advance financial inclusion for minorities.
Despite promises of financial inclusion from the fintech industry, however, underserved populations continue to experience unequal access to financial services and wealth. This Paper evaluates claims relating to key components of the so-called “fintech revolution” to determine whether they can address underlying causes of wealth inequality. While fintech developments may have the potential to expand financial inclusion, we have yet to see these technologies employed to significantly address underlying causes of the wealth gap. Further, in some instances, fintech may exacerbate existing inequalities. Given this lack of sufficient progress and potential exploitation vis-à-vis these innovations, this Paper explores oversight of fintech as well as other means to address the underlying causes of wealth inequality.