[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That being the case, why do they not simply instigate legal proceedings for tax evasion against the companies involved? Why is an enquiry needed?

Here's the Terms of Reference: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_...s_of_Reference

Spoiler:

Tax avoidance and aggressive minimisation by corporations registered in Australia and multinational corporations operating in Australia, with specific reference to:

1. the adequacy of Australia’s current laws;
2. any need for greater transparency to deter tax avoidance and provide assurance that all companies are complying fully with Australia’s tax laws;
3. the broader economic impacts of this behaviour, beyond the direct effect on government revenue;
4. the opportunities to collaborate internationally and/or act unilaterally to address the problem;
5. the performance and capability of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to investigate and launch litigation, in the wake of drastic budget cuts to staffing numbers;
6. the role and performance of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in working with corporations and supporting the ATO to protect public revenue;
7. any relevant recommendations or issues arising from the Government’s White Paper process on the ‘Reform of Australia’s Tax System’; and
8. any other related matters.

In short, the inquiry is establishing who is doing what (both national and multi national corporations) to avoid paying taxes and how many companies are involved. The way ahead will likely be changes to the Tax Act and other activities associated with scheme minimisation.

As to why these companies haven't had legal proceedings instituted against them, then point 'd' 'the opportunities to collaborate internationally and/or act unilaterally to address the problem' is one of the issues under reference.

The important point is that the Senate Inquiry is taking place and that multi national companies with a presence in Aus have been 'invited' to participate. The degree to which all the invited companies have (individually) schemed to avoid the payment of Aus taxes is one of the outcomes of the inquiry.

You don't think that Starbucks should have been made to pay UK taxes? (in link posted earlier: http://theconversation.com/multinati...rackdown-23421)

Despite the extra scrutiny facing US multinationals since 2012, when Starbucks
agreed to “voluntarily” pay company tax in the UK, tax avoidance activities appear not to have slowed.