[emn13]

I think framing matters a lot here. I'm sure the dutch were particularly pragmatic in this regard, but fundamentally, the EU/US corporate tax system is based on profits, unlike for individuals, where it's based on revenue (aka income). And unfortunately, profits are largely a bookkeeping exercise - intrinsically so, not just due to tax loopholes. After all, who is to say which part of a multinational "created" the value? Between legal entities profit shifting via IP licenses or loans is indistinguishable from... actual IP license costs or loans.

As long as there are tax differences between jurisdictions and means to shift profits (but e.g. within the EU those are a given as part of the single market), this problem isn't going away.

I think the problem is in the whole concept of taxing profit, rather than revenue.

[elmo2you]

The problem with taxing revenue instead of profit is that it allegedly would stifle reinvestment. Whether that's actually true or just convenient storytelling (like e.g. with trickle down and patents) is a whole different story.

What you described certainly plays a role too. But it is not what I was pointing at.

What I wrote is no doubt speculative and only meant as contextual background. Still, here we have a country that literally wrote the book on capitalism. Which "just so happens" to be a popular tax haven for big multinational corporations. When in addition to that, the country's IRS has (or at least used to have) a "discretionary authority" to make secret arrangements, I sincerely wonder how much faith it takes to hold on to the idea that their role as a tax haven is just an inherent consequence of how profit tax works (or how companies can be creative with their bookkeeping).

The Dutch generally have a good reputation, but a lot of that might have more to do with their wealth (for those who own it, because over 1/3 of the country's population actually balances around the poverty line), clever PR and keeping the doors to their kitchen firmly shut. Strictly in accordance with their laws, of course.

[emn13]

The wikipedia page on the infamous double irish with a dutch sandwich has a considerable list of similar arrangements, and most of those do not involve the dutch tax authority - in fact, Ireland moved to make the tax avoidance possible without a dutch intermediary in 2007, which is, well... brazen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement

And there are quite a few other analysis of tax havens, including specifically an analysis by zucman in 2018 (which is specifically interesting because it looks not at qualitative interpretations or total corporate profit, but at BEPS specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#Tax_haven_lists or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Zucman#Zucman-T%C3%B8r...

To summarize wikipedia here; it's convenient to distinguish between conduit OFCs (i.e. countries that make it relatively easy to pass profits through) and sink OFCs (i.e. countries where the profits end up in with low or no taxes). And his interpretation (in 2018) according to wikipedia: "Research published by Zucman, Tørsløv and Wier in June 2018, showed that Ireland is the largest corporate tax haven in the world, even larger than the entire Caribbean corporate tax haven system.[4][5][6] This research also showed that tax disputes between high–tax jurisdictions and corporate tax havens are extremely rare, and that tax disputes really only occur between high–tax jurisdictions.[16]"

However, it's notable that the conduits are fairly large: "Ireland, Singapore, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom"; whereas the sinks are a little more unusual: "British Virgin Islands, Luxemburg, Hong Kong, Jersey, Bermuda".

Much of this research is a little old however, and political will does seem to exist to change things; e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilateral_Convention_to_Imp... has entered into force in most places except greece and hungary where it will in july 2021 (and the United States isn't a party, oddly enough, but then again this would have been a Trump era decision, so perhaps that's not unexpected).

Whatever the current status; it surely can't harm to keep up the pressure on the Netherlands, Ireland and Luxembourg given their status as EU members. Given the significant role of British oversees territories, ironically I suspect that Brexit will help reduce tax-avoidance - after all, without the UK protecting their interests, it's unlikely jurisdictions like Jersey or the British Virgin Islands will be able to escape the current restrictions as they had been before.

Nevertheless, I think it's worth remembering that much of this focuses on outright tax avoidance, yet which tax rates are considered "low" is itself a choice - and here too the Irish rate is quite low: https://taxfoundation.org/2021-corporate-tax-rates-in-europe..., so even without outright BEPS, it's still a kind of tax haven within the EU. Frankly, the existance of differing corporate tax rates in a single market sounds problematic to me, but hey...