Automatic Exchange of Information Agreements (AEOIs)

May 14, 2020

By Vilasini Pollisetty

Abstract: This paper examines the structure and implementation of the Automatic Exchange of Information Agreement, popularly known as an AEOI. The OECD introduced the AEOI mechanism in 2014 to eliminate the practice of tax evasion. A comprehensive list of countries have already adopted this mechanism with their own implementation schemes. An example of a successfully implemented AEOI is the Switzerland-India AEOI. The paper weighs the benefits and costs of this mechanism. In the case of an AEOI, one of the good outcomes is the strengthening of the global economy.

Background to an Automatic Exchange of Information Agreement

An Automatic Exchange of Information Agreement (AEOI) provides for the exchange of non-resident financial account information with tax authorities in the account holder’s country of residence. The aim of the agreement is to reduce the possibility of tax evasion. Participating jurisdictions that implement an AEOI send and receive pre-agreed information each year, without having to send a specific request repeatedly. An AEOI enables governments to recover tax revenue lost to non-complaint taxpayers, and strengthens international efforts to increase transparency, co-operation and accountability among financial institutions and tax administrations. An AEOI generates a secondary benefit. It increases voluntary disclosures of concealed assets by encouraging taxpayers to repost all relevant information^[1].

Rationale Behind an AEOI

The entire process required for successful implementation of an AEOI between countries is intricate and demands compliance and confidentiality from countries involved. Nobel Laureate economist, Joseph Stiglitz in a video for the ‘World Economic Forum’, explains how tax avoidance damages society and what countries can do to stop this practice[2]. According to Stiglitz, most companies across the world avoid their most important social responsibility: payment of taxes.

Many multinational corporations artificially shift profits to countries with low tax rates, to avoid paying higher taxes in the country where the profits are generated. This tax shortfall costs governments around the world an estimated $240 billion every year. It makes sense to move to a standard global tax rate of a minimum percentage between 25%-30% tax on profits. For Stiglitz, it is especially important for tax havens to correct this questionable status. Developing countries lose more to tax havens than they gain in foreign aid. This fact is precisely the reason the OECD, in 2014, came up with the concept of the AEOI for exchange of financial information between countries[3].

The Global Forum agreed to monitor and review the implementation of the AEOI Standard[4] and in 2014, as a first step, launched a commitment process whereby all members, aside from developing countries that do not host a financial centre, were asked to commit to:

Implement the AEOI Standard.
Commence exchanges in 2017 or 2018.
Exchange information with all “Interested Appropriate Partners[5].”

[1] Official OECD portal for AEOI: http://www.oecd.org/tax/transparency/automaticexchangeofinformation.htm

[2] Speech by Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, World Economic Froum-https://m.facebook.com/worldeconomicforum/videos/nobel-laureate-economist-joseph-stiglitz-explains-how-companies-that-avoid-tax-d/482133225814031/

[3] “Here’s how companies can build a better economy”, by Joseph Stiglitz, World Economic Forum, February 2020-https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/davos-outcomes-economic-changes-progress

[4] Official OECD portal for online support for implementation of AEOIs: http://www.oecd.org/tax/automatic-exchange/

[5] An Interested Appropriate Partner is considered to be a jurisdiction that is interested in receiving information from another jurisdiction and that meets the requirements in relation to confidentiality and data safeguards prescribed by OECD.

Download complete article as PDF

Back to Journal Contents

About the Journal

Moral Cents: The Journal of Ethics in Finance (Winter/Spring 2020)
We are in the midst of a global pandemic. Consequently, most matters that used to seem important, dwarf in significance in comparison with this new virus currently infecting the world. Yet, we need to soldier on, as we “WFH” and socially distance. Streets fill with more cars and shops welcome a scattering of people venturing out, as governments gradually lift lockdowns across the world.
I have been listening to a variety of experts on webinars and zoom conferences about how capitalism will change after the pandemic. More than a few think economies will not be going back to business as usual because stakeholder capitalism will edge out shareholder capitalism. The Institute has argued since its inception, that self-interest and profit maximization ultimately lead to unethical outcomes in finance. As I wrote in the foreword to a book recently produced by the Transparency Task Force, Why We Must Rebuild Trustworthiness and Confidence in Financial Services; and How We Can Do It:
There is no over dramatization to propose that in order to make finance better, it is necessary to change the very philosophical foundations on which the discipline is based. Since the middle of the twentieth century, there has been a Friedmanite insistence in neo-liberal economics and its stepchild, finance, which, in its quantitative dimension only, is all the rage in business schools, on the primacy of profit maximization. A profit maximizing corporation simply has to operate within the law and not break the rules of the game. In all other instances, the corporation makes no normative judgments. This world view sees finance as independent of any particular ethical position. Instead, the market fully and effectively occupies the space of ethics judgements.
But we have observed time and again the existence of market failures – the Great Financial Crisis is an outstanding example. Ironically, the theory that claims to be ethics free is itself propelled by an ethic: profit maximization. Remarkably, the disciples of the theory are seemingly blind to the reality that at the heart of every financial crisis is an ethical lapse. To put ethics into its rightful place in finance, the first step is the clear and open enunciation of a purpose of finance.
Purpose, or telos according to Aristotle, is the final cause. The reason we do what we do. A noble purpose is more likely to engender good acts, although it does not guarantee every act is good. Aristotle gives a highly relevant example, especially in this Time of Pandemic, by stating the purpose of the medical profession is to help people be healthy. Regrettably, where finance has fallen over the past half century or so is its gradual abandonment of an acknowledged purpose that entails the notion of helping people. Making efficiency the goal of financial activity has led to the collective unconscious equating finance almost exclusively with money, neglecting the connecting link: people.
Since the Great Financial Crisis of 2008, the financial services industry has lost the trust and confidence of a public now weary with regular crises in the world, from stock market crashes to terrorist attacks, and now pandemics. People simply want their financial services to work for them, they want a finance that serves people, rather than exploits people. Let’s face it. In the Time of Pandemic, the healthcare services industry has shown that its practitioners serve people and put human lives first, even sometimes at great risk to themselves. Conversely, in the Time of (and after) the Great Financial Crisis, the financial services industry has shown it serves itself and puts profits first. The contrast cannot be more jarring. READ MORE...
The Institute will continue its work to enhance finance theory so that ethics becomes an integral part of the theory. To that end, the Institute will advocate for finance to have a purpose, one that serves people. This purpose must be commonly accepted and embedded into the collective unconscious, just as many of us have presently internalized the notion of profit maximization as the best goal of private enterprise.
The Institute also will continue to highlight and research on ethical concerns in finance. In this issue of Moral Cents, Georgette Fernandez Laris does a comprehensive and thought-provoking analysis of the Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) scandal in the UK. She examines the reasons for the ethical failure and suggests reforms that diminish the risk of future financial misconduct.
Nancy Cai evaluates the new SEC statement and rules regulating the provision of proxy advice. This arena of corporate governance is important because large asset managers, including mutual funds, such as Blackrock, Vanguard and State Street constitute the single largest shareholder of at least 40% of all US public companies and nearly 90% of the S&P 500. These asset managers have significant clout in influencing corporate elections, but their stewardship is questioned.
Vilasini Pollisetty examines the structure and operation of the Automatic Exchange of Information Agreement (AEOI). While some implementation problems exist, the AEOI is a good way for countries, especially developing ones, to counter tax avoidance, increase tax revenues, and thereby reduce income inequality.

Dr. Kara Tan Bhala
Editor-in-Chief

Moral Cents: The Journal of Ethics in Finance is published by
Seven Pillars Institute for Global Finance and Ethics
ISSN 2326-5663

Editor-in-Chief: Dr. Kara Tan Bhala
Editor: Eric Witmer

View all Journals

Download complete article as PDF

Contact