Browse by: "C"
Index
Title Index
Year Index
The Swedish economy is innovative and rich in intellectual property (IP), with nearly every industry either producing or using IP. Swedish innovative industries are also export-dependent and very deeply integrated in the global economy, through active participation in global value chains. At the same time, the threats of counterfeiting and piracy are growing – and Sweden is vulnerable. This report measures the direct economic effects of counterfeiting on Swedish industry, government and consumers. It examines both the impact of the imports of fake products to Sweden and – more importantly – the impact of the global trade in fake products that infringe on the IP rights of Swedish innovative companies.
The Swiss economy is innovative and knowledge-intensive. Consequently, it relies heavily on intellectual property rights. Swiss industries are also export-oriented and solidly integrated in the global economy. At the same time, the threats of counterfeiting and piracy are growing, and Swiss industries are vulnerable. This report measures the direct economic effects of counterfeiting on Swiss industry and the Swiss government. It estimates the impact of the global trade in fake products that pose as “Swiss made” in terms of lost jobs, forgone profits and lower tax revenues.
This report takes stock of approaches taken by public organisations to counter external fraud in social benefit programmes (SBP) and suggests areas for improvement. It provides insights on preventive and detective measures, and promotes a risk-based approach to addressing fraud and error in SBPs in line with the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity. It explores how public organisations can leverage data-driven approaches to improve fraud detection, and how strengthening evaluation activities can promote continuous improvement of anti-fraud measures.
Preferential regimes continue to be a key pressure area in international taxation. The OECD’s 2013 BEPS report recognises that these need to be dealt with more effectively and the work of the Forum on Harmful Tax Practices (FHTP) needs to be refocused with an emphasis on substance and transparency. This is an interim report that sets out the progress made to date.
Preferential regimes continue to be a key pressure area. Current concerns are primarily about preferential regimes which can be used for artificial profit shifting and about a lack of transparency in connection with certain rulings. The report sets out an agreed methodology to assess whether there is substantial activity. In the context of IP regimes such as patent boxes, agreement was reached on the “nexus approach” which uses expenditures as a proxy for substantial activity and ensures that taxpayers can only benefit from IP regimes where they engaged in research and development and incurred actual expenditures on such activities. The same principle can also be applied to other preferential regimes so that such regimes are found to require substantial activity where the taxpayer undertook the core income generating activities. In the area of transparency, a framework has been agreed for the compulsory spontaneous exchange of information on rulings that could give rise to BEPS concerns in the absence of such exchange. The results of the application of the existing factors applied by the FHTP, and the elaborated substantial activity and transparency factors, to a number of preferential regimes are included in this report.
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments face both old and new fraud risks, some at unprecedented levels, linked to spending on relief and recovery. Public grant programmes are a high-risk area, where any fraud ultimately diverts taxpayers’ money away from essential support for individuals and businesses. This report identifies how Spain’s General Comptroller of the State Administration (Intervención General de la Administración del Estado, IGAE) could better identify and control for grant fraud risks. It demonstrates how innovative machine learning techniques can support the IGAE in enhancing its assessment of fraud risks in grant data. It presents a working risk model, developed with datasets at the IGAE’s disposal, and maps datasets it could use in the future. The report also considers the preconditions for advanced analytics and risk assessments, including ways for the IGAE to improve its data governance and data management.
This report, linked with the Digital Education Outlook 2023, provides an overview of 29 countries’ (or jurisdictions') digital education ecosystem and governance. Each chapter covers the devolution of responsibilities within countries; how it affects digital education; what digital tools for management and teaching and learning are made publicly available to schools, teachers and students; how they are provided or procured; how countries ensure the security, privacy, equity and effectiveness of this digital ecosystem while keeping incentives for private education technology (EdTech) companies. The information and analysis are based on a survey on digital education infrastructure and governance, interviews with national and regional government officials as well as desk-based research.
Providing for the first time a holistic view of 29 countries’ and jurisdictions' digital education ecosystem and governance, this report will be of interest to policy makers, academics and education stakeholders interested in the digital transformation of education at home and internationally.
One of the many important lessons learnt about nuclear safety over the years has been that human aspects of nuclear safety are as important as any technical issue that may arise in the course of nuclear operations. The international nuclear community can work together to identify and address issues associated with components and systems and compare operational experiences, but identifying how human behaviour affects safety and the best approaches to examine this behaviour from country to country remains less common.
Practical experience has nevertheless shown that there are important differences in how people work together and communicate across borders. People’s behaviours, attitudes and values do not stop at the gate of a nuclear installation, and awareness of the systemic nature of culture and its deeper aspects, such as the dynamics of how values and assumptions influence behaviours, continues to evolve.
The NEA safety culture forum was created to gain a better understanding of how the national context affects safety culture in a given country and how operators and regulators perceive these effects in their day-to-day activities. The ultimate goal is to ensure safe nuclear operations. The first NEA safety culture forum – a collaborative effort between the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) and the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) – was held in Sweden in early 2018. This report outlines the process used to conduct the forum, reveals findings from the discussions and invites the nuclear community to further reflect and take action.
One of the many lessons learnt about nuclear safety over the years has been that human aspects of nuclear safety are as important as any technical issue that may arise. The international nuclear community regularly works together to identify, discuss and address technical issues, but examining how behaviour affects safety from country to country remains less common. Yet practical experience has shown that there are important differences across borders and even within borders in how people work together and communicate.
The Country-Specific Safety Culture Forum was created to gain a better understanding of how the national context affects safety culture in a given country and how operators and regulators perceive these effects in their day-to-day activities. The ultimate goal is to ensure safe nuclear operations. The third NEA safety culture forum – a collaborative effort between the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) – was held in Canada in September 2022. This report outlines the process used to conduct the forum, reveals its findings and encourages the nuclear community to further reflect and take relevant action.
Under the Action 13 Minimum Standard of the OECD/G20 BEPS Project, jurisdictions have committed to foster tax transparency by requesting the largest multinational enterprise groups (MNE Groups) to provide the global allocation of their income, taxes and other indicators of the location of economic activity. This unprecedented information on MNE Groups’ operations across the world has boosted tax authorities’ risk assessment capabilities. The Action 13 Minimum Standard was translated into specific terms of reference and a methodology for the peer review process. The peer review of the Action 13 Minimum Standard has completed four annual reviews in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020. These cover the three key areas under review: the domestic legal and administrative framework, the exchange of information framework, and the confidentiality and appropriate use of Country-by-Country (CbC) reports. This 2021 annual peer review report reflects the outcome of the fourth review which considered all aspects of implementation. It contains the review of 132 member jurisdictions of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS which provided legislation or information pertaining to the implementation of CbC Reporting.
Under the Action 13 Minimum Standard, jurisdictions have committed to foster tax transparency by requesting the largest multinational enterprise groups (MNE Groups) to provide the global allocation of their income, taxes and other indicators of the location of economic activity. This unprecedented information on MNE Groups’ operations across the world has boosted tax authorities’ risk-assessment capabilities. The Action 13 Minimum Standard was translated into specific terms of reference and a methodology for the peer review process. The peer review of the Action 13 Minimum Standard has completed four annual reviews in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. These cover the three key areas under review: the domestic legal and administrative framework, the exchange of information framework, and the confidentiality and appropriate use of Country-by-Country (CbC) reports. This fifth annual peer review report reflects the outcome of the fifth review which considered all aspects of implementation. It contains the review of 134 jurisdictions which provided legislation or information pertaining to the implementation of CbC Reporting.
Under the Action 13 Minimum Standard, jurisdictions have committed to foster tax transparency by requesting the largest multinational enterprise groups (MNE Groups) to provide the global allocation of their income, taxes and other indicators of the location of economic activity. This unprecedented information on MNE Groups’ operations across the world has boosted tax authorities’ risk-assessment capabilities. The Action 13 Minimum Standard was translated into specific terms of reference and a methodology for the peer review process. The peer review of the Action 13 Minimum Standard has completed five annual reviews in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. These cover the three key areas under review: the domestic legal and administrative framework, the exchange of information framework, and the confidentiality and appropriate use of Country-by-Country (CbC) reports. This sixth annual peer review report reflects the outcome of the sixth review which considered all aspects of implementation. It contains the review of 136 jurisdictions which provided legislation or information pertaining to the implementation of CbC Reporting.
Under the Action 13 Minimum Standard, jurisdictions have committed to foster tax transparency by requesting the largest multinational enterprise groups (MNE Groups) to provide the global allocation of their income, taxes and other indicators of the location of economic activity. This unprecedented information on MNE Groups’ operations across the world will boost tax authorities’ risk-assessment capabilities. The Action 13 Minimum Standard has been translated into specific terms of reference and a methodology for the peer review process. The peer review of the Action 13 Minimum Standard is proceeding in stages with three annual reviews in 2017, 2018 and 2019. The phased review process follows the phased implementation of Country-by-Country (CbC) Reporting. Each annual peer review process will therefore focus on different aspects of the three key areas under review: the domestic legal and administrative framework, the exchange of information framework, and the confidentiality and appropriate use of CbC reports. This first annual peer review report reflects the outcome of the first review which focused on the domestic legal and administrative framework. It contains the review of 95 jurisdictions which provided legislation or information pertaining to the implementation of CbC Reporting.
Under the Action 13 Minimum Standard, jurisdictions have committed to foster tax transparency by requesting the largest multinational enterprise groups (MNE Groups) to provide the global allocation of their income, taxes and other indicators of the location of economic activity. This unprecedented information on MNE Groups’ operations across the world will boost tax authorities’ risk-assessment capabilities. The Action 13 Minimum Standard has been translated into specific terms of reference and a methodology for the peer review process.
The peer review of the Action 13 Minimum Standard is proceeding in stages with three annual reviews in 2017, 2018 and 2019. The phased review process follows the phased implementation of CbC Reporting. Each annual peer review process will therefore focus on different aspects of the three key areas under review: the domestic legal and administrative framework, the exchange of information framework, and the confidentiality and appropriate use of CbC reports. This second annual peer review report reflects the outcome of the second review which considered all aspects of implementation. It contains the review of 116 jurisdictions which provided legislation or information pertaining to the implementation of CbC Reporting.
Under the Action 13 Minimum Standard, jurisdictions have committed to foster tax transparency by requesting the largest multinational enterprise groups (MNE Groups) to provide the global allocation of their income, taxes and other indicators of the location of economic activity. This unprecedented information on MNE Groups’ operations across the world will boost tax authorities’ risk-assessment capabilities. The Action 13 Minimum Standard has been translated into specific terms of reference and a methodology for the peer review process.
The peer review of the Action 13 Minimum Standard is proceeding in stages with three annual reviews in 2017, 2018 and 2019. The phased review process follows the phased implementation of CbC Reporting. Each annual peer review process will therefore focus on different aspects of the three key areas under review: the domestic legal and administrative framework, the exchange of information framework, and the confidentiality and appropriate use of CbC reports. This third annual peer review report reflects the outcome of the third review which considered all aspects of implementation. It contains the review of 131 jurisdictions which provided legislation or information pertaining to the implementation of CbC Reporting.