maximum available resources to the realization of economic, social and cultural rights.” (para. 60) Measures to tackle tax abuse should, arguably, be part of steps towards the fulfillment of rights that states are required to report. They may include legislative measures such as provisions making different forms of tax evasion illegal and judicial remedies to ensure appropriate prosecution and reparation for violators. Government diplomatic action seeking cooperation with other states towards, for instance, individual country reporting of profits by foreign companies or the acquisition of information necessary for monitoring of tax payments, would be potential measures to consider. “Tax abuse is thus not a victimless practice; it limits resources that could be spent on reducing poverty and realizing human rights, and perpetuates vast income inequality.”(para. 59) “Levels of tax evasion are extremely high in many countries; globally, approximately $3 trillion of government revenue is lost to tax evasion every year. While high-income countries are the biggest losers in absolute terms, low- and middle-income countries are particularly affected by the losses, and also face particular constraints when tackling tax abuse. In 2011, developing countries lost $946.7 billion owing to illicit financial flows (a substantial portion of which relates to tax abuse…” (para. 58) While tax evasion is a universal phenomenon, developing countries face proportionally greater challenges stopping it. Illicit financial flows, in particular, represent amounts lost to tax evasion by companies or individuals operating across borders. Thus, it requires a cooperative response and engages not just the responsibility of the country where the resources are lost, but also that of countries that could have contributed to the realization of losses with their actions or omissions.7 Questions for reflection • Are there tax measures suitable to the state’s particular circumstances that it neglected to implement and could have yielded more resources for meeting human rights? • Does the state have room to increase taxes in a way compatible with human rights and, if so, is it making efforts to gradually do so? (for instance, what is its tax-to-GDP ratio and how does it compare to other countries in the region, or the world?) • Does the state grant tax incentives to companies? If so, does it abide by a human rights-based framework to present and evaluate their benefits against revenue losses on a transparent, participatory and periodic basis? What about any of the incentives emanating from treaties or tax stabilization agreements with companies? • Are the financial and natural resources sector paying a fair share of taxes? • In situations of financial crisis, has the state explored all possible sources of revenue including raising taxes, before resorting to spending cuts that retrogress over existing levels of enjoyment of rights? • What steps is the state taking or planning to take to tackle tax evasion? Do they include seeking international cooperation, where needed, to tackle cross-border tax evasion? www.rightingfinance.org Endnotes 1 A/HRC /26/28, May 22 2014 (available at http:// www.rightingfinance. org/?p=1195). 2 Oxfam 2011. Towards fair tax policies. 3 IMF 2011. Revenue Mobilization in Developing Countries. See also first advocacy tool in this series: “Equality and nondiscrimination in tax policy.” 4 5 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 2007. Statement on Maximum Available Resources, 8(d) and (e). UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Principle 9. 6 7 See also fourth advocacy tool in this series: “Tax policy and international cooperation and assistance for the achievement of human rights.” 8 Africa Progress Panel 2013. Africa Progress Report, p. 63-64. 9 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 2013. African Economic Outlook, p. 157.