1
The country has not moved on the ranking, meaning its contribution to global corporate tax abuse relative to other countries remains the same.
2
The country has not moved on the ranking, meaning its contribution to global corporate tax abuse relative to other countries remains the same.
3
The country has not moved on the ranking, meaning its contribution to global corporate tax abuse relative to other countries remains the same.
4
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
5
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
6
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
7
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
8
The country has not moved on the ranking, meaning its contribution to global corporate tax abuse relative to other countries remains the same.
9
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
10
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
11
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
12
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
13
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
14
The country has not moved on the ranking, meaning its contribution to global corporate tax abuse relative to other countries remains the same.
15
The country has not moved on the ranking, meaning its contribution to global corporate tax abuse relative to other countries remains the same.
16
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
17
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
18
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
19
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
20
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
21
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
22
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
23
The country has not moved on the ranking, meaning its contribution to global corporate tax abuse relative to other countries remains the same.
24
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
25
The country has not moved on the ranking, meaning its contribution to global corporate tax abuse relative to other countries remains the same.
26
The country has not moved on the ranking, meaning its contribution to global corporate tax abuse relative to other countries remains the same.
27
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
28
The country has not moved on the ranking, meaning its contribution to global corporate tax abuse relative to other countries remains the same.
29
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
30
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
31
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
32
The country has not moved on the ranking, meaning its contribution to global corporate tax abuse relative to other countries remains the same.
33
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
34
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
35
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
36
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
37
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
38
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
39
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
40
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
41
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
42
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
43
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
44
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
45
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
46
The country has not moved on the ranking, meaning its contribution to global corporate tax abuse relative to other countries remains the same.
47
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
48
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
49
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
50
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
51
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
52
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
53
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
54
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
55
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
56
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
57
The country has not moved on the ranking, meaning its contribution to global corporate tax abuse relative to other countries remains the same.
58
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
59
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
60
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
61
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
62
The country has not moved on the ranking, meaning its contribution to global corporate tax abuse relative to other countries remains the same.
63
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
64
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
65
The country has not moved on the ranking, meaning its contribution to global corporate tax abuse relative to other countries remains the same.
66
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
67
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
68
The country has not moved on the ranking, meaning its contribution to global corporate tax abuse relative to other countries remains the same.
69
The country has moved up the ranking, meaning it now plays a bigger role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
70
The country has moved down the ranking, meaning it now plays a smaller role in enabling corporate tax abuse risks relative to other countries.
