Talk:Repatriation tax avoidance/GA2
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 16:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.
If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)
I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.
Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)
Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.
Links
[edit]Prose
[edit]Lede
[edit]General
[edit]Review meta comments
[edit]- I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: Hi! I just wanted to make sure that you still are down to do the review. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought I had. The article does seem to struggle a lot with being US-centric. The lede states this is something that happens all over the world (tax havens are a big deal in Europe), but this article only talks about the US. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's U.S.-centric because of the nature of the topic. The vast majority of countries have a territorial tax system, which doesn't tax income of companies based in that country that is earned abroad. Companies based in countries with a territorial system of taxation don't need to avoid repatriation taxes because there are no repatriation taxes in those countries—the Bahamas, Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and more or less the entire OCED are among these countries. To the best of my ability to search through relevant papers, the entire academic literature on repatriation tax avoidance is about the behavior of U.S.-based multinationals, owing to the whole process of avoiding repatriation taxes proceeding from weird quirks in the U.S. tax code. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- The lede says "Repatriation tax avoidance is the legal use of a tax regime within one country in order to repatriate income earned by foreign subsidiaries to a parent corporation while avoiding taxes ordinarily owed on the repatriation of foreign income," which suggests this article will cover more than just the US, but then doesn't. I don't have an issue with this being an article being just on the US, but it does need to be consistent. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'll make that change. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- The lede says "Repatriation tax avoidance is the legal use of a tax regime within one country in order to repatriate income earned by foreign subsidiaries to a parent corporation while avoiding taxes ordinarily owed on the repatriation of foreign income," which suggests this article will cover more than just the US, but then doesn't. I don't have an issue with this being an article being just on the US, but it does need to be consistent. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's U.S.-centric because of the nature of the topic. The vast majority of countries have a territorial tax system, which doesn't tax income of companies based in that country that is earned abroad. Companies based in countries with a territorial system of taxation don't need to avoid repatriation taxes because there are no repatriation taxes in those countries—the Bahamas, Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and more or less the entire OCED are among these countries. To the best of my ability to search through relevant papers, the entire academic literature on repatriation tax avoidance is about the behavior of U.S.-based multinationals, owing to the whole process of avoiding repatriation taxes proceeding from weird quirks in the U.S. tax code. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought I had. The article does seem to struggle a lot with being US-centric. The lede states this is something that happens all over the world (tax havens are a big deal in Europe), but this article only talks about the US. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: Hi! I just wanted to make sure that you still are down to do the review. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
, the body seems good. The lede needs a bit of an expansion, however. Lede's should provide a summary of the rest of the article, so it would be good if it covered some of the prose in the rest of the article.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: I've expanded the lead into two paragraphs. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. There's a few minor things, but nothing worth getting hung up on. Passing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)