 As mentioned, I'm Paul Lakuma from Uganda, from the Economic Policy Research Centre. This is a study on global minimum corporate income tax and what challenges and prospects it presents for Uganda. Just also to mention, this is a work in progress. So we will take every comment positively to improve the quality of the paper going forward. So the paper has a long motivation because we have to justify why we are really doing it. So we'll have like four slides for that. So I'll start with Uganda charges a statutory rate of 30%. That's quite high. But the CIT collection, the corporate income tax collection has consistently been 1% of GDP or below. Some papers in the past have given suggestions why that has happened. A paper by Lakuma in 2019 suggests that the average effective tax rate is 4%. A paper by Kuivisto Musoke, Nachambali and Shimanski in 2021 suggests that multinational companies in Uganda deduct about 20% percentage point more than their large domestic counterparts. And those two papers suggest that there could be profit shifting. Therefore, that justifies why Uganda needs to reform the corporate income tax system. Coincidentally, this moves globally to reform the corporate income tax system. About 138 jurisdictions have accepted and signed on a proposal to have a global corporate minimum tax rate at 15% of the global income. However, there's little empirical work on such tax rate on MNCs, especially empirical work concerning the implication for developing countries given administrative capacities and other problems which could emerge. However, there are some papers, particularly by the AMF, which suggest that if incentives are eliminated, we could have what is consistent with today's theme, revving up revenue. We could see revenues increase. Others suggest that profit shifting could be eliminated and competition, and there could be positive spillovers for jurisdictions with high tax rate. In the opposite, low tax jurisdiction could also benefit, but they could face administrative issues. Generally, developing countries expect to lose. Why? The business environment is bad infrastructure, skills level are lower, technology is much lower. So even if you harmonize the tax rate, you could see more investment flowing to the developed countries. That's the fear. So we need to examine what could be the effects, mostly on tax collection. So for a country like Uganda, we expect the GMCTR or the global minimum corporate tax rate to increase the average effective tax rate. Obviously, this will happen. However, given the business environment and the other hidden costs which are nantechnical, you expect firms to hide their output. What is popularly known as tax evasion, which could, in the contrary, result into low tax collected. In the past, a number of papers which I'm not going to cite here have used elasticities to measure the marginal excess burden of tax. The methods we use, they're in the literature. We estimate the mechanical revenue gain of moving from the current effective tax rate to 15% for the firms which meet the threshold. The threshold is already established. We also review the international literature to collect some elasticities. Unfortunately, not many studies have been done on Africa which estimates the elasticities, apart from two studies from South Africa which estimate and one unpublished study by the World Bank on Uganda. We grouped these elasticities into percentile. The three percentiles is the 25th, the median and the 75th. But most of the results are interpreted on the basis of the median. That's what you would call the baseline. We use the estimate and the changes in the tax rate to estimate the likely reduction in the tax base. As a reaction to the global minimum corporate tax, what is reported is the difference between the two, the mechanical and the behavior. The behavior has the elasticity in it. The data we use is a URA firm panel which has been curated by URA and UNWIDER and documented in a study by McNab, Nachambode, Giuste and Kavuma in 2022. This is the distribution of that CIT panel by UNWIDER and URA. I won't go so much into it. From the distribution of the AETR, what do we find? We find that the AETR of multinational companies increased with the introduction of the GMC ATR, the global minimum corporate tax rate as predicted. However, also MNC respond by disproportionately hiding output. That is the behavioral. So the behavioral reduces the tax burden. Overall, both MNC and DC's response to GMC ATR is not far from the behavioral change. That's the black line down there. So we look at the overall response to the global minimum corporate tax rate. Overall, there's a revenue gain, regardless of the elasticity used. Remember, I gave you three elasticities earlier, the 75th, the median and the 25th percentile. The elasticity is proportional to the revenue gain. So the higher the elasticity, the higher the revenue gain. Those are the three lines you see there. Those up there, the yellow, the orange and the gray. So the highest percentile is the yellow line and the median is the gray line and the red line is the 25th. The gain in revenue is higher than the current collection. So the difference between the mechanical and the current collection is about 500 billion. The revenue gain is about 500 billion. That's the lowest. So in general, there's a higher revenue gain with a change in the tax rate. Because the current one produces a much lower gain. The moving from the current ATR to the 15% produces a higher gain. That's what that graph is showing. So we also do a sector response. We are looking at the revenue contribution of every sector. So we got four sectors which contribute the most revenue in Uganda's context. These are information and communication, manufacturing, and then the financial sectors. The other sectors were merged into one single sector, which is others. So you would expect that there would be agriculture here, but agriculture does not contribute much to CIT. So we find that information and communication and manufacturing sector has the highest gain. The second highest gain is by manufacturing. The third highest gain is by financial. The other sectors contribute the least. Asset class, we break firms into two asset classes. That is the firms with assets above $15 trillion and those with assets below. We find that there's much more revenue gain with firms with asset classes above $15 trillion. Then we also see the impact of the revenue between highly thinly capitalized firms and the ones which use less debt in financing their investments. Well, there's a higher revenue gain among the ones who use less debt, but that revenue is unstable. As you can see from the graph on your, that would be your right and my left. There's more stable revenue contribution by thinly capitalized firms, indicating that this reform could reduce base erosion and professor shifting. We also measure reported and real response. We are reported as the loss in revenue and the real is the decision to either invest or not invest. Here we find that the manufacturing sector contributes the most revenue. And also has the potential to continue investing even under the new regime. Conclusion, what do we conclude? That there are size variations regarding response to the reform. Large firms provide more revenue gain. There are sector variations, as you have seen, communication and information sector, provides the highest revenue gain, but also has the least AETR, evades most taxes, and the financial sector is sensitive to tax changes while the manufacturing sector invests the most. Thinly capitalized amenities provide the largest revenue gain, meaning the new tax reform could curtail base erosion and profit shifting. Policy recommendation, there's need for coordination and enhancing administrative capacity. We need to adopt some safer rules to simplify and prescribing expected returns for specific sectors. Some sectors are more sensitive than others and firm sizes. Some firm sizes are more sensitive to this reform than others. Then the last is limitation of mechanical deduction for potential base eroding payments for investors deduction. Thank you very much. Next steps is, of course, there were some errors with the calculations which we need to correct going forward. And also taking comments from you people and also to improve the quality of the paper going forward. Thank you.