Re: "revamp tax rules to close the loopholes"
It's hard to define some of the loopholes, I think that's the issue. To steal (and butcher) someone else's analogy -
I own a banana shop, BananaCo Ltd. I make a profit buying bananas from country A and selling in high-ish tax country B, paying 20% of my profit in corp tax.
So I open BananaCo Holdings International (BHI) in low-tax country C and (on paper) have BananaCo Ltd buy all the bananas from there at a markup, keeping the profit in country C and paying less tax. There's still a profit in country B so each year BHI makes a charge to BananaCo Ltd for "brand services" and that swallows up the last of the profit and all tax liability.
Now, so far this has all been a game to avoid taxes and it's pretty obvious that's the case. But what if you have BananaCo GMBH in Germany and BananaCo SARL in France and BHI actually does do the sourcing for bananas from country A? And what if BHI does actually run (or at least finance) trans-national advertising campaigns and therefore does actually legitimately provide "Brand Services" to the various country-level companies?
Suddenly it gets very hard to draw the line as to exactly where the tax avoidance kicks in, what's a legitimate expense, what's just profit transfer and what exactly the taxman ought to be assessing.
It's clear that when the likes of Apple pay zero tax in the UK there is something wrong, but I don't get the impression this is very easy to fix. One way that's mooted is to try and have country C push up its tax rate to the same sorts of levels as country B. But why would they do that? They can have a tiny share of a huge amount, or they can have nothing (the companies wouldn't be there).