This study examines de jure tax harmonization across seven main-pillar African Regional Economic Communities (RECs) and three subcommunities based on selected tax features of thirty-three countries with overlapping memberships. It offers a three-tiered methodological framework: (1) feature-based identification of the current state of tax harmonization through comparative legal analysis; (2) quantification of these findings through a leximetric approach that adapts the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI); and (3) complementary text based analysis using natural language processing (NLP) to assess whether textual similarity patterns correspond to leximetric results. This approach provides a normative and scalable framework for analysing tax harmonization in multi-country samples. Comparative legal analysis indicates strong structural similarities across Africa in tax rates, anti-avoidance rules, and property and wealth taxes, while harmonization remains limited in residence criteria, tax incentives, and excisable products. The analysis also identifies several intra-community outlier countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Madagascar, Mauritius, and Nigeria. The leximetric analysis shows that the degree of harmonization is highest in the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) (0.72), while it is lowest in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) (0.53). By tax type, convergence is strongest in value-added taxes and property and wealth taxes and weakest in excise taxes. These findings point to at least a moderate level of harmonization in each regional community. They also show that supranational instruments whose depth varies across African regional communities contribute to harmonization but do not constitute the sole driver. The text based analysis is broadly consistent with the leximetric ranking, yet it systematically overestimates the degree of harmonization. This indicates that text based methods can complement but not replace feature-based comparative legal analysis.
The rise of blockchain technology and crypto-assets presents both conceptual and practical challenges for the EU VAT system. This article critically examines whether the current EU VAT Directive is sufficiently equipped to handle transactions involving cryptocurrencies. Contrary to claims that the new technology demands radical legislative reform, the authors argue that the VAT Directive’s core structure is surprisingly resilient. However, its implementation – particularly through the VAT Implementing Regulation – requires targeted updates to ensure legal certainty, enforceability, and neutrality across Member States. Drawing on doctrinal analyses, Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case law, and practical examples, the authors assess key issues such as taxable person status, exemptions for financial services, valuation in token-based transactions, and the right to deduct input VAT. In addition, the authors conclude by proposing a novel approach of treating utility tokens as VAT vouchers which could offer a more coherent and administrable framework for token-based business models.
Cross-border homeworking has become a lasting feature of modern employment. This development has renewed attention in the interpretation of Article 5(1) of the OECD Model Convention (MC) and the circumstances in which a home office may constitute a permanent establishment (PE). The ‘fixed place of business’ test was traditionally closely linked to physical presence and disposal, and home offices were rarely treated as creating a PE, particularly when work was performed out of personal convenience. The OECD amended the Commentary to Article 5(1) in November 2025 when it introduced a 50% time indicator and a ‘commercial reasons’ criterion that was intended to clarify when cross-border homeworking may create a taxable presence. This article assesses this Commentary update. It is argued that the 2025 update shifts the analysis from a control-based disposal test to a more functional assessment based on economic justification even though the Model text remains unchanged. Introducing a time threshold and a ‘commercial reasons’ filter reshape the fixed-place analysis and its interaction with Article 5(4). This enhances administrability, however, several questions remain open, and determining a PE remains a fact-intensive assessment grounded in the treaty and bilateral context.
