G7 rich nations back deal with tax multinationals. The G7 advanced economic group has reached a "historical" deal to tax multinationals. A meeting of finance ministers in London has agreed to combat tax evasion through measures that force businesses to pay in the countries where they do business. They also agreed, in principle, to a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% to avoid countries weakening each other.
Tech giants like Amazon and Google may be among those affected
The move could see billions of dollars flowing into governments to pay off debts created during the Covid crisis. Negotiations with the US, UK, France, Germany, Canada, Italy and Japan will put pressure on other countries to follow suit, including at the G20 meeting next month. British Prime Minister Exchequer Rishi Sunak said the agreement was designed to create a level playing field for global companies. "After years of discussion, the G7 finance ministers have reached a historic agreement to reform the global tax system for the global digital age," he said.
Why would you want to change the rules? Governments have long grappled with the problem of taxing global companies that operate in multiple countries. This challenge has grown with the boom of tech giants like Amazon and Facebook. Currently, businesses can set up offices in countries with relatively low corporate tax rates and declare revenue. This means you only pay local tax rates, even if your profits come primarily from sales that originate elsewhere. This is legal and is usually done.
The deal aims to prevent this from happening in two ways. First, the G7 wants the lowest global tax rate to avoid a "sub-race" where countries could undermine each other with lower tax rates. Second, the rule aims to make businesses pay more tax in countries where they sell products or services, rather than where they declare revenue. What is the contract? The rule that requires multinational corporations to pay taxes where they do business (referred to as "pillar 1" of the contract) applies to global corporations with at least a 10% profit margin.
According to the G7 communiqué, 20% of revenue above that is reallocated and taxed in the country in which it does business. The second "pillar" of the agreement promises states a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% to prevent countries from weakening each other.
Fbi Sought Info on Who Read Usa Today News Article for Case
Fbi sought info on who read usa today news article for case. As part of its investigation, the FBI sought information about readers of articles online. The agency has asked the USA Today newspaper to hand over a record of anyone reading an article about the killings of two FBI agents. The owner of the newspaper rejected the request and asked a judge to handle the request.
It says the FBI's call is a "clear violation" of protections for free speech.The FBI issued a subpoena to USA Today owner Garnett, requesting information about who clicked on an article published in February about the fatal shootings of two Pentagon agents in Florida. The subpoena found an IP address and phone number from which to read the article for 35 minutes. The IP address can be used to find the location and owner of a computer. "The information sought through this subpoena relates to a federal criminal investigation conducted by the FBI."
'Clear violation', Garnett violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects free speech from government interference, and is asking the court to rescind the subpoena. Maribel Perez Wadsworth, publisher of USA Today, said, "Forcing the government to notify anyone who has read anything on our website is a clear violation of the first amendment." "The FBI's subpoena demands personal information about our journalism readers." Wadsworth said the FBI's order violated the Justice Department's guidelines on "narrow circumstances" under which governments could subpoena reporters.
Garnett's lawyers tried to contact the FBI, but the agency did not provide an explanation for the subpoena, he added. Gannett's lawyers called the order "unconstitutional," citing the Supreme Court ruling, saying it violated the rights of both news organizations and readers. do. It is actually the beginning of media surveillance. " The Justice Department has already been criticized after it was revealed that former President Donald Trump had secretly obtained phone records from a Washington Post reporter.
Media outlets and freedom of speech activists said such tactics could limit reporters' ability to gather information about the government. In 2013, federal investigators secretly confiscated two months' worth of phone records from an Associated Press reporter, which sparked criticism of Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama.
No comments