Syndicate content

Add new comment

Submitted by Fairfood on
Could you explain to me why to a certain extent this article gives the impression that evading taxes to get the 'bribing losses' back is ok? Especially the following sentence implies this: "Using firm-level data for over 25,000 firms in 57 countries, we investigate whether firms are victims, who pay more in bribes than they gain by underreporting revenues to tax authorities, or perpetrators, who gain more by avoiding taxes than they lose in paying bribes." From this sentence I get the impression that as long as a company pays more in bribes than it evades taxes, it’s a victim. Isn’t evading taxes always wrong? And is there then a break even point, where you pay as much bribes as you evade taxes, therefore you are neither a victim nor a perpetrator? Kind regards.