Talk:Transfer mispricing

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taxation (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles

Proposed deletion

This article tries to create a term where there is none. I propose that the article be deleted. The primary citation (from a lobbying group) does not support the statements in the article. The Al Jazera piece is anecdotal, and written like an editorial. The other citations are inflamatory pieces by lobbying organizations. The pattern of use of several phrases (e.g., "illicit flow of funds") indicates this may be part of a concerted lobbying attempt, similar to ones mounted before. Wikipedia is not a place to promote such lobbying (campaigning, in UK English). I propose the article be deleted.Oldtaxguy (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving all of this to Transfer pricing, since this is just the same concept negated, and also since the ideas here add valuable real-world perspective to the other article. After the move, we can tone down the language. Heyzeuss (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the move, and entitled the section Fraud, since we should just call it what it is without using somebody's made-up terminology. I'm not sure if the sources are strong. One of them comes from the opinion section of a newspaper, though it might well be an expert opinion. Both sources toss about broad figures of dubious rigour. Somebody should check into those sometime. Heyzeuss (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to vigorously renew the call to delete this page. This isn't really a term; it's a misleading but frustratingly-common portmanteau of two unrelated terms: transfer pricing and trade misinvoicing. Unfortunately, I've seen some organizations that should know better make this mistake.

But don't take my word for it. From no less an authority than Global Financial Integrity:

"Because they often both involve mispricing, many aggressive tax avoidance schemes by multinational corporations can easily be confused with trade misinvoicing. However, they should be regarded as separate policy problems with separate solutions.

"That said, multinational corporations can and do engage in trade misinvoicing. This activity, however, involves the deliberate misreporting of the value of a customs transactions, and is thus illegal tax evasion, not legal tax avoidance."

http://www.gfintegrity.org/issue/trade-misinvoicing/

Ryanmsfinley (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Ryanmsfinley (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable topic

This was previously a separate section in the Transfer pricing article as a section called fraud. A proposition in that article called for a separate article as the general, broader article was not tax avoidance per se, while the more specific issue of fraud in transfer pricing is a notable enough topic. The response only complained about the sources of the content, not if the topic is noteworthy. Better sources can be found without having to removing the article. Nicehumor (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]