English version tribute to Dr. Tulio Rosembuj

My thanks to the Faculty of Law of the University of Barcelona, my alma mater, Dra. Diví and Mrs. Planas, with whom we have collaborated for years at Professor Rosembuj’s initiative, and to his children, Flavia, Diego, and Alba, for allowing me to participate in this event.

Given Tulio Rosembuj’s great sense of humour and his pride in his Argentine roots, I will begin with a joke of him referring to Pope Francis shortly after his election by the College of Cardinals: “He must be exceptional when, despite being Argentine, everyone likes him.”

Saving the distances and the point of exaggeration, we can apply it to Tulio Rosembuj. My admiration for him and the opportunity to deal with each other, with different intensities, over 45 years and to honour me with his friendship was born in the 1979-1980 academic year. He was the professor we were fortunate enough to be assigned to the afternoon group on the subject of “Public Finance” of the then degree in Law that I was studying. I cannot resist remembering that, at that time, when neoliberal proposals were beginning to display an intellectual dominance that would last for several decades, the year in which Mrs Thatcher arrived in Downing Street, our professor dedicated half a class to Juan Antonio Suanzes, founder in 1941, and first president of the National Institute of Industry. Obviously, it was not because of ideological affinity with the general Franco regime. It was trying to make us think about the value and meaning of public intervention in the economy, about industrial policy, something that now, after years of crossing the desert, is back in the news; take a look at the Draghi report.

Those who have preceded me have referred to his teaching capacity, his ability to identify what is essential in the economic and social problems of the time in which he lived, and his ability to anticipate that time by posing questions and answers to issues that, over the years, would be, are! keys to articulate our coexistence on the long road of humanity in pursuit of Justice.

If you allow me another recollection, he was kind enough to invite me to participate as a speaker, with other professors, in various sessions dedicated to the financial crisis of 2008-2009. The first took place next door, in the main hall. My lack of previous publications on the subject guarantees that he was open to taking academic risks. The participants didn’t throw tomatoes at me, and it was an opportunity that allowed me to read much about that subject. Well, if you accept a recommendation, recover his 2011 book, “The Financial Crisis and International Tax Arbitration” subtitled “Hybrid Products and Entities”, dedicated to his children “for helping him survive oblivion” in reference to the situation of his beloved wife Celia. He was two years ahead of the OECD’s BEPS project, to tackle international practices of tax avoidance, if not tax evasion – as he would add. I still remember some of his phrases, such as “income without the State” or “no tax as another category of income”.

He was not critical for signifying himself, for occupying a market niche, as my marketing colleagues at Esade would say, but he intended to change the status quo that he considered unfair. I listened to him happily a few years ago when he thought that in the face of these unsupportive practices, he now had the US, the United Kingdom and the entire G20 on his side.

Few things are more intellectually satisfying than sharing authorship with a teacher of yours whom you admire. In 2022, I was fortunate to elaborate with him: “Gas Costs in Increasing Electricity Prices in Europe Is Only Half the Story. Taxing Windfall Profits Better Than Regulatory Changes in a Rush”. We intended to contribute to the ongoing debate on the energy market disruptions without further pretensions, which we did not manage to get published outside the Social Sciences Research Network (SSRN). He joked that it was the conspiracy of the single thought. But what is not a joke is what he recalled in his 2021 book “Fiscal Complexity and Resilience”. Subtitled “Systemic Risks – Systemic Taxes”: “Complexity is the name of the reality we inhabit. It is difficult to accept because it destroys any of the certainties we grew up in. This is useful for any reflection and fraction of truth to which we aspire. No simple answers will help us in the face of current problems.”

Analyzing the context in detail, with the aim of exhaustiveness, from which to propose measures is, of all the lessons he left us, the one that today, in remembering it, I allow myself to underline. Nowadays, this behaviour does not win elections. Still, if one thing did not matter to Tulio Rosembuj, it was to go in the intellectual fashion of the moment.

For not give a point those who in Catalan say that “quan li dones el micro a un profesor universitari, ja has begun oli”/ “when you offer a microphone to a university professor you have drunk olive oil”, especially if he says, ” I’m going to be brief”, I won’t say it. I conclude by inviting you to remember his smile, like that of a child who has done a little mischief and his striving hope for a more just future.

Prof. Enric Bartlett ESADE