000			01617nab a2200229 c 4500
999			_c149378 _d149378
003			ES-MaIEF
005			20240516104935.0
007			ta
008			240516t2023 ne |||||o|||| 00| 0|eng d
040			_aES-MaIEF _bspa _cES-MaIEF
100			_951128 _aPeters, Cees
245		4	_aThe legitimacy of the OECD's work on Pillar two _helectrónico _ban analysis of the overconfidence in a "devilish logic" _c Cees Peters
500			_aResumen.
520			_aThe objective of this article is to analyse the legitimacy of the OECD’s work on Pillar Two. The starting point is that the effectiveness of the new global minimum tax is clearly based on its so-called ‘devilish logic’. As such the project relies heavily on expert knowledge that is supposed to guarantee output legitimacy. At the same time, the consensus reached in the Inclusive Framework (IF) is supposed to bless the global minimum tax with a form of input legitimacy. Nevertheless, the article concludes that the legitimacy of the OECD’s work on Pillar Two is falling short. The central point is that the governance process of the OECD should meet burdensome standards of ‘good’ governance including accountability (i.e., throughput legitimacy).
650		4	_aSEGUNDO PILAR (OCDE) _967772
650		4	_aIMPUESTO DE SOCIEDADES _945680
650		4	_aTIPO MÍNIMO GLOBAL _967681
650		4	_aORGANIZACION DE COOPERACION Y DESARROLLO ECONOMICO _947856
650		4	_aDERECHO A UNA BUENA ADMINISTRACIÓN _969827
773	0		_9171639 _oOP 2141/2023/8/9 _tIntertax _w(IEF)55619 _x 0165-2826 _g v. 51 n. 8/9, August/September 2024, p. 554-571
942			_cRE