Advertisement

A Comparative Study of Business-to-Government Information Sharing Arrangements for Tax Reporting

  • Rizky Amalia Kurnia
  • Dhata PradityaEmail author
  • Marijn Janssen
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 558)

Abstract

Having tax transparency is getting more important and enforced by more and more countries around the world. To deal with tax evasion, OECD has developed an Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI) standard. The implementation of this standard differs among countries. In this study, we explore factors explaining the differences between two information sharing arrangements in implementing the AEOI standard. In both cases, the information sharing architecture and the accompanying governance arrangement are investigated. The findings of the exploratory study show that the differences are influenced by available IT capabilities, interoperability, trust among information sharing partners, power difference, inter-organizational relationship, and perceived benefits of implementing such arrangements. Ten propositions are derived explaining the differences which can be tested in further research.

Keywords

Information sharing Inter-organizational information sharing Standardization AEOI Tax report Business-to-government E-government 

References

  1. 1.
    Cate, F.H., Dempsey, J.X., Rubinstein, I.S.: Systematic Government Access to Private-Sector Data. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    HJI Panayi, C.: Current trends on automatic exchange of information. Singapore Manag. Univ. School Accountancy Res. Paper 2016, 43 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cobham, A., Janský, P.: Global distribution of revenue loss from corporate tax avoidance: re-estimation and country results. J. Int. Dev. 30(2), 206–232 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    OECD: Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters, 2nd (edn.). OECD, Cedex (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knobel, A.: Findings of the 2nd TJN Survey on Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI) (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fedorowicz, J., Gogan, J.L., Ray, A.W.: The ecology of interorganizational information sharing. J. Int. Inf. Manag. 13(2), 1 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yang, T.-M., Maxwell, T.A.: Information-sharing in public organizations: a literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors. Gov. Inf. Q. 28(2), 164–175 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Luna-Reyes, L.F., Gil-Garcia, J.R., Cruz, C.B.: Collaborative digital government in Mexico: some lessons from federal web-based interorganizational information integration initiatives. Gov. Inf. Q. 24(4), 808–826 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gil-García, J.R., Chengalur-Smith, I.N., Duchessi, P.: Collaborative e-Government: impediments and benefits of information-sharing projects in the public sector. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 16(2), 121–133 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van den Broek, T., van Veenstra, A.F.: Modes of governance in inter-organizational data collaborations. In: European Conference on Information Systems. Munster, Germany (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    OECD: Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Information in Tax Matters - Implementation Handbook, 2nd (edn.). OECD, Paris (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Filipova-Slancheva, A.: Bulgarian experience in curbing tax evasion - automatic exchange of financial information: status and expectations. In: Problem of Development Modern Science: Theory and Practice, pp. 11–14 (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Filipova-Slancheva, A.: Automatic exchange of tax information: Initiation, implementation and guidelines in Bulgarian context (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tavares, D.P., Santos, J.P.: Tax transparency - Portugal: report. In: European Association of Tax Law Professors, Switzerland, Zurich (2018)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Akhtar, J.: Exchange of Information: Indian Experience, Developing Country Implications. Tax Cooperation Policy Brief, p. 4 (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meyer-Nandi, S.: Swiss Policy Coherence in International Taxation: Global Trends in AEOI and BEPS in Development Assistance and a Swiss Way Forward. The University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland (2018)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meinzer, M.: Policy paper on automatic tax information exchange between northern and southern countries. In: Tax Justice Briefing. Tax Justice Network (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moss, M.: Panama papers highlight the urgency: from FATCA to the OECD CRS. J. Secur. Oper. Custody 8(3), 248–258 (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Winkleman, T.J.: Automatic information exchange as a multilateral solution to tax havens. Indiana Int. Comp. Law Rev. 22, 193 (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hakelberg, L.: The power politics of international tax co-operation: Luxembourg, Austria and the automatic exchange of information. J. Eur. Public Policy 22(3), 409–428 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Highfield, R.: Adopting the New International Tax Rules and Standards. Asian Development Bank (2017)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Knobel, A., Meinzer, M.: Automatic exchange of information: an opportunity for developing countries to tackle tax evasion and corruption. Tax Justice Network (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sadiq, K., Sawyer, A.: Developing countries and the automatic exchange of information standard-a one-size-fits-all solution. Aust. Tax Forum 31, 99 (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Urinov, V.: Developing country perspectives on automatic exchange of tax information. Law, Soc. Justice Global Dev. J. 1(19), 1–28 (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Andrés-Aucejo, E.: Towards an International Code for administrative cooperation in tax matter and international tax governance. Revista Derecho del Estado 40, 45–85 (2018)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Casi, E., Spengel, C., Stage, B.: Cross-border tax evasion after the common reporting standard: game over? ZEW-Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 36 (2018)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Knobel, A., Cobham, A.: Country-by-Country reporting: How restricted access exacerbates global inequalities in taxing rights. Tax Justice Network (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Knobel, A., Meinzer, M.: ‘The End of Bank Secrecy’? Bridging the Gap to Effective Automatic Information Exchange. Tax Justice Network (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Noked, N.: FATCA, CRS, and the wrong choice of who to regulate. Florida Tax Rev. 22(1), 77–119 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Scarfone, J., Kerr, M.: Paved paradise: analysis of the common reporting standard to combat tax avoidance. Liberated Arts: A J. Undergraduate Res. 4(1), 4 (2018)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Noked, N.: Tax evasion and incomplete tax transparency. Laws 7(3), 31 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fischer, M., Rohner, T.F.: Discretionary trusts—last exit before AEOI? Swiss View. Trusts Trustees 22(4), 393–400 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gadžo, S., Klemenčić, I.: Effective international information exchange as a key element of modern tax systems: promises and pitfalls of the OECD’s common reporting standard. Public Sector Econ. 41(2), 207–226 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nicolescu, I.: The relationship between offshore evasion and ‘Aggressive’Tax avoidance arrangements: the HSBC case. Financ. Regul. Int. (Informa Law) 19(02), 1–22 (2016)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cockfield, A.J.: Protecting taxpayer privacy rights under enhanced cross-border information exchange: toward a multilateral taxpayer bill of rights. UBCL Rev. 42, 419 (2009)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Noseda, F.: CRS and beneficial ownership registers—what serious newspapers and tabloids have in common: the improbable story of a private client lawyer turned human rights activist. Trusts Trustees 23(6), 601–609 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McGill, R.K., Haye, C.A., Lipo, S.: GATCA: A Practical Guide to Global Anti-Tax Evasion Frameworks. Springer, Heidelberg (2017)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Barrett, S., Konsynski, B.: Inter-organization information sharing systems. MIS Q. 06, 93–105 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Johnston, H.R., Vitale, M.R.: Creating competitive advantage with interorganizational information systems. MIS Q. 12(2), 153–165 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Klievink, B., Bharosa, N., Tan, Y.-H.: The collaborative realization of public values and business goals: governance and infrastructure of public–private information platforms. Gov. Inf. Q. 33(1), 67–79 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Praditya, D., Janssen, M., Sulastri, R.: Determinants of business-to-government information sharing arrangements. Electron. J. E-Gov. 15(1), 44–55 (2017)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yang, T.-M., Pardo, T., Wu, Y.-J.: How is information shared across the boundaries of government agencies? An e-government case study. Gov. Inf. Q. 31, 637–652 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    de Corbière, F., Rowe, F.: Understanding the diversity of interconnections between IS: towards a new typology of IOS. In: European Conference on Information Systems, Pretoria, South Africa (2010)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Choudhury, V.: Strategic choices in the development of interorganizational information systems. Inf. Syst. Res. 8(1), 1–24 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bekkers, V.: The governance of back-office integration: organizing co-operation between information domains. Public Manag. Rev. 9(3), 377–400 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wimmer, M.A., Boneva, R., di Giacomo, D.: Interoperability governance: a definition and insights from case studies in Europe. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age. ACM (2018)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cumming, G.S.: Heterarchies: reconciling networks and hierarchies. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31(8), 622–632 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gil-Garcia, J.R., Sayogo, D.S.: Government inter-organizational information sharing initiatives: understanding the main determinants of success. Gov. Inf. Q. 33, 572–582 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Praditya, D., Janssen, M.: Assessment of factors influencing information sharing arrangements using the best-worst method. In: Kar, A.K., et al. (eds.) I3E 2017. LNCS, vol. 10595, pp. 94–106. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68557-1_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Singerling, T., et al.: Exploring factors that influence information sharing choices of organizations in networks. In: AMCIS 2015: Americas Conference on Information Systems, Puerto Rico, 13–15 August 2015 (2015)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Arendsen, R., et al.: Does e-government reduce the administrative burden of businesses? An assessment of business-to-government systems usage in the Netherlands. Gov. Inf. Q. 31(1), 160–169 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yang, T.-M., Wu, Y.-J.: Exploring the determinants of cross-boundary information sharing in the public sector: an e-Government case study in Taiwan. J. Inf. Sci. 40(5), 649–668 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol. 5, 4th edn. SAGE, Newbury Park (2009)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Daymon, C., Holloway, I.: Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations and Marketing Communications. Routledge, London (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bharadwaj, A.S.: A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation. MIS Q. 24(1), 169–196 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kamal, M., Themistocleous, M.: A conceptual model for EAI adoption in an e-government environment (2006)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K.: The role of interorganizational and organizational factors on the decision mode for adoption of interorganizational systems. Decis. Sci. 26(3), 303–336 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Broadbent, M., Weill, P., Neo, B.-S.: Strategic context and patterns of IT infrastructure capability. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 8(2), 157–187 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mikalef, P., et al.: Big Data analytics capability: antecedents and business value. In: PACIS (2017)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hart, P., Saunders, C.: Power and trust: critical factors in the adoption and use of electronic data interchange. Organ. Sci. 8(1), 23–42 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Romochkina, I., Van Baalen, P.J., Zuidwijk, R.A.: A Tug-of-War: shaping the landscape of inter-organizational information systems. Available at SSRN 2754040 (2016)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Pappas, I.O., et al.: Big data and business analytics ecosystems: paving the way towards digital transformation and sustainable societies. Inf. Syst. e-Bus. Manag. 16(3), 479–491 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Cheng, J.-H.: Inter-organizational relationships and information sharing in supply chains. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 31(4), 374–384 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Choudrie, J., Dwivedi, Y.K.: Investigating the research approaches for examining technology adoption issues. J. Res. Pract. 1(1), 1–9 (2005). Article D1Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Technology, Policy, and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations