Monday, June 17, 2013

Links Jun 17

ICIJ Releases Offshore Leaks Database Revealing Names Behind Secret Companies, Trusts
Crackng open the impenetrable world of offshore tax havens, users can search  through more than 100,000 secret companies, trusts and funds created in offshore locales such as the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Cook Islands and Singapore. See the video here.
See also: How We Built The Offshore Leaks Database

Multinationals pay little tax in Africa, forum told Irish Times
See also: Give us access to information on tax havens and tax avoiders, African leaders tell David Cameron ahead of G8 Summit The Independent

India approaches tax havens on global black money expose Economic Times

Breakthrough commitment from UK to roll back corporate secrecy; the G8 and offshore havens should follow suit Global Witness

Without curbing corporate power the G8 have no chance of combating tax avoidance The Conversation
Prem Sikka notes, "One of the recurring themes in social sciences is the “capture” of the state by economic elites."

Tax havens agree to Cameron clampdown Guardian
"Prime minister claims success from talks ahead of G8 summit, but campaigners give only qualified support to new measures". See also: G8 deal on tax havens a long way off Guardian "Western leaders are unlikely to deliver anything comprehensive now – but the fact they are discussing the issue is progress" and The G8 could act radically to stop tax avoidance. Don't bet on it Guardian

US continues hunt for tax dodgers in Swiss banks swissinfo

New Report: Corporate Pirates of the Caribbean Institute for Policy Studies
See also: It’s Time Corporations Flew Old Glory Instead Of The Jolly Roger Financial Transparency Coalition Blog, and
'Fix The Debt' Companies Would Reap Up to $173 Billion From New Territorial Tax System, Report Finds Huffington Post

U.S: House Hearing on Tax Havens: Possible "Purple" Issue? Institute for Policy Studies

David Ricardo, “competitive” banking and the Finance Curse Treasure Islands

Dolce and Gabbana tax evasion verdict expected on Wednesday Telegraph

0 comments links to this post

Corporate taxation: are the OECD technocrats serious?

Guest blog by Prof. Sol Picciotto:
Pascal St-Amans, head of the OECD’s Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, has been travelling the world reporting on the progress of the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project. This is an OECD initiative responding to justified outrage around the world about the international tax system, which is unfit for the modern age and allows multinational corporations to take the benefits from societies in which they operate, then skip paying their share. The OECD, a club of rich countries which has dominated the design of the international tax system, bears the greatest responsibility for the current mess. Recently U.S. tax expert Lee Sheppard, for instance, described the OECD-designed tax treaty system as `a load of nonsense . . . to make life comfortable for multinationals’.

Last Tuesday 11th June St Amans was in London, giving evidence to the House of Lords Committee on Economic Affairs, which is considering whether a new approach is needed to corporate taxation. Thursday 13th he was in Washington, speaking to the tax-writing committee of the US Congress, the House Ways & Means Committee.

There’s a lot riding on the BEPS project. Politicians are under enormous pressure from their citizens, fed up with facing austerity, while hearing the many media revelations of avoidance of billions of dollars of taxes by the world’s largest and until now most respected companies: Amazon, Google, Ikea, Starbucks, Vodafone. So the G20 leaders ordered the OECD to come up with effective measures. The OECD’s interim response in February looked serious. It promised to think `outside the box’, and seek `holistic and comprehensive solutions’. TJN, along with 57 allies, greeted this with cautious optimism, and we subsequently gave detailed responses to questions sent to us by the OECD.

Now the OECD is working on the report which is supposed to lay out its proposed Action Plan for reform of the international tax system. This was due to be published later this month, but we now understand that it may not be ready until mid-July. Well, Rome was not built in a day, and we can understand if they are finding it hard with a few weeks’ work to agree on how to turn the juggernaut of the OECD consensus on tax onto a new course.
Pascal of course, like his colleagues, is a technocrat. This is not meant pejoratively - they are experts, specialists on the international tax system. They have an important job: to advise governments, and to produce reports which can help ensure that there is a well-informed public sphere for debate and decision-making on complex issues.  
But Pascal seems to have stepped outside this role. In his oral evidence to the House of Lords committee, he was asked about Unitary Taxation as a possible approach to taxation of transnational corporations (TNCs). His response was very negative, indeed dismissive. He argued that this `would require that all jurisdictions across the world - and we have 190-plus states, plus jurisdictions which are tax-sovereign - to agree on criteria and trust each other enough to rely on the information on the consolidated accounts which will be held in the headquarters of the group. I just don't see this happening any time soon.’
St Amans knows very well that is mistaken, and for several reasons. Agreement from every jurisdiction in the world is simply not necessary. The more co-operation, the better, of course: but there are several possible full, partial and even unilateral versions of unitary tax, and routes for a transition to such a system. International tax is a process of coordination, not a straight-jacket.

St Amans also knows that many international tax experts strongly believe that the only way effectively to reform the system of TNC taxation is precisely to move towards treating TNCs as what they are, unitary firms – rather than the current system that treats them as loose collections of separate entities all trading with each other as if in a competitive market.

For example, Prof. Ed Kleinbard, who also gave evidence at the same House Committee session as St. Amans, proposed that the US should adopt – on a unilateral basis – a worldwide approach to assessment of TNC profits, with a credit for foreign taxes paid.  
Others have made proposals for a transition towards a unitary taxation approach by extending current transfer pricing rules, especially the profit-split method (see my paper Towards Unitary Taxation for an explanation of this, Box 3.) This was put forward five years ago in a paper by Reuven Avi-Yonah, Kim Clausing and Michael Durst, who are also now part of a team of researchers working on the implications of unitary taxation for the International Centre on Tax and Development.  
St. Amans should know better, not least because the response to BEPS by TJN and its allies clearly put forward proposals for a transitional strategy. We hope that he and his colleagues are taking it seriously, despite his casual remarks to their Lordships.
What we are now looking for from the OECD is a serious report that lays out the possible options, so that a genuine public debate can take place. It is not the role of technocrats to foreclose that debate. They should accept that the proposals for moving towards a unitary approach for TNC taxation deserve a hearing. We believe, indeed, that many OECD experts – even Pascal – accept that a unitary approach is conceptually the best one. In that case, it is not for them to say what is or is not politically feasible. So why is he opposing it? 
Ways can be found to move towards a unitary approach in a gradual and pragmatic way. It clearly cannot be done overnight, but should be put on the table as an option now. Interim measures are also desirable and possible, which can and should be designed to move the system towards a unitary approach. But to dismiss such ideas as politically not feasible would be a breach of the responsibility that technocrats owe to the public.


0 comments links to this post

Tax wars: EU playing catch-up with US

Guest Blog by Markus Meinzer - reposted from the EUobserver Blog, with kind permission.

Last week, while showcasing draft EU laws on tax transparency, commissioner Algirdas Semeta told media in Brussels he is building "the most comprehensive information exchange system in the world."

He added: "The EU system will become even broader than the US system."

It is an astonishing claim.

The wide-reaching impact of the new US regime - the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (Fatca), which came into force on 1 January - has been demonstrated by a storm of angry reactions in worldwide financial centres.

Some of Semeta's proposals, notably his amendments to the EU Savings Tax Directive (EUSTD), do broaden the scope of information to be shared inside Europe and do go beyond Fatca.

But other elements of the US law are missing from the EU package.

Meanwhile, even if the European Commission now has the legal instruments to create a Fatca-plus system, there is no guarantee they will ever be used.

Semeta's laws must first be unanimously agreed by EU countries.

So long as Austria and Luxembourg, two EU financial centres, are allowed to delay and frustrate the EUSTD amendments, the entire project will remain what it has been for the past five years: a lovely idea on paper, nothing more.

Despite reports to the contrary, the last meeting of EU finance ministers in May did not mark a change of heart in this respect.

Austria and Luxembourg did not abandon their old tactic of saying "we will happily join if and when Switzerland joins as well."

Instead, EU countries agreed to make progress by the end of the year, a deadline which falls after elections in Austria and Germany.

Judging from the two countries' track record on tax transparency, it does not bode well.

In contrast, Fatca is already reality.

By directly targeting global financial institutions and by using US market power as leverage, Washington has taken a beautiful shortcut through potentially endless and fruitless diplomatic talks.

The EU also has to shape up on the geographical scope of its system.

Back in 2010, it was fashionable in the EU and in the Paris-based economic club, the OECD, to speak of coherence on tax and development policy. But in 2013 developing countries have been left out of the equation on EU automatic information exchange (AIE).

The new EUSTD - if it is ever adopted - does contain interesting extra-territorial clauses (see below).

But its reporting obligations and, importantly, the countries which are to benefit from the new information streams, are limited to EU member states and associated jurisdictions.

If the new EUSTD comes into force, it will create a system, albeit internally sound, of enriching EU countries' treasuries at the expense of everybody else, including some of the most vulnerable people on the planet.

At the same time, it will risk undermining the potential for a truly multilateral AIE regime.

It is true that Fatca's primary aim is also to enrich the US' Inland Revenue Service.

But Fatca is to be applied globally, wherever a financial institution offers significant cross-border bank services.

The US, under a series of bilateral treaties, currently offers limited reciprocity. But it has promised additional legislation to expand information sharing.

The OECD is currently drafting a multilateral AIE system based on Fatca.

It has the political support of 17 European nations as well as several BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China) and could form the nucleus of a regime that would benefit more than just Western exchequers.

Devil in the detail

In terms of technical nitty gritty, the Fatca model is attractive because it obliges banks to follow strict protocols on searching their whole database for reportable accounts.

Financial details of all high risk legal entities, including trusts, must be scrutinised for signs of reportable tax residents and bank staff who manage clients' accounts must be named.

If you add Washington's willingness to prosecute and jail people, no matter where they are, for helping to evade US taxes, Fatca is a peerless deterrent against tax fraud.

There is one glitch, however.

On high risk entities, the account holder has to file a form with US authorities.

The first draft of the paperwork has been published - if you tick the box saying the entity has no US owners, you get off the hook.

Anybody who is familiar with so called "discretionary legal structures" (typically, trusts and foundations) knows they are both widely used by the super-rich in Anglo-Saxon countries and that, by definition, they do not have identifiable owners.

The Fatca loophole might well see the bulk of global wealth - which, at the top holding level, resides in trusts and foundations - escape the net.

In other words, the US, or other Fatca-model adopters, could claim they are being tough on tax, while in fact protecting trust secrecy.

This is what happened in the Global Forum, a tax transparency club created 13 years ago, which now has 110 member countries.

It is also what happened with the EU's extant Savings Tax Directive eight years ago.

Semeta's ace

And so, Mr Semeta has a trump card.

The new EUSTD is the first law in history to pierce this secrecy.

Under the new EU system, people who run trusts, discretionary foundations or shell companies must declare the identities of settlors (individuals who donate money to create them) and beneficiaries even if the ultimate owner stays hidden.

This is "even broader" than Fatca, which targets a wide range of financial intermediaries, but not shell firms or trustees.

Before we get too excited, it is difficult to imagine how Semeta's reporting obligation can be enforced in current conditions, however.

In order to make it work, EU countries and their protectorates must also create reliable registries of all parties of discretionary structures.

The move is envisaged under a separate EU bill, its fourth revision of the EU anti-money-laundering directive.

But in order to make a global impact, EU leaders must seize the opportunity provided by Monday's (17 June) G8 summit in Lough Erne, Northern Ireland.

For his part, British Prime Minister David Cameron is making the right noises.

He told The Guardian newspaper on Saturday that: "The way to sweep away the secrecy and get to the bottom of tax avoidance and tax evasion and cracking down on corruption is to have a register of beneficial ownerships so the tax authorities can see who owns beneficially every company."

EU as tax haven

Semeta's role should be to unlock his new regime for adoption by non-EU nations.

If his new savings tax law stays limited to the EU27 jurisdictions, it might, effectively, turn Europe into a tax haven for the rest of the world.

It might harm the momentum for a single multilateral platform for automatic information exchange.

Semeta should also demand that Germany leans on Austria and Luxembourg to sign the amended EUSTD way before December.

At the least, he must make sure that EU countries create central and public registries.

If he delivers, then he can declare in Brussels the EU is leading the world in the multi-trillion-dollar war on tax crime.

0 comments links to this post

Saturday, June 15, 2013

New report into the UK's Overseas Territories and developing countries

Christian Aid and the IF campaign have a very important and topical new report available, entitled Invested interests: the UK's Overseas Territories' hidden role in developing countries.
Tortola, British Virgin Islands
It is becoming increasingly recognised that huge amounts of investment in and out of developing countries is being routed via tax havens. Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has remarked, accurately:
"When foreign investors make extensive use of offshore companies, shell companies and tax havens, they weaken disclosure standards and undermine the efforts of reformers in Africa to promote transparency. Such practices also facilitate tax evasion and, in some countries, corruption, draining Africa of resources that should be deployed against poverty and vulnerability’."
Many of the world's most important tax havens - between a third and a half, depending on how it is measured - are British Crown Dependencies or Overseas Territories, partly independent from Britain, but also closely linked to the UK via a web of constitutional links.
The crucial part to know here is that Britain has complete power to disallow the offshore secrecy (and other) legislation that these places put in place. In a very important section entitled The UK's role, it notes:
"In the most recent White Paper on the BOT [British Overseas Territories] it was confirmed that ‘[As] a matter of constitutional law the UK Parliament has unlimited power to legislate for the territories’.
The UK has hitherto chosen not to intervene, in almost every case - but there are isolated cases, not related to offshore secrecy, where the UK has forced the islands' hands.
So it is wonderful that influential organisations are now starting, for the first time (spurred in part by long-running work by TJN and by books such as Treasure Islands) to take a long hard look at Britain's role in development. The new report notes that it:
"attempts, for the first time, to quantify the role that tax havens to which the UK is constitutionally linked play in facilitating the flow of FDI into developing countries, dwarfing that of the BRICS nations."
Anything like this is, as we have noted in our own research, an exercise in night vision, so precision is hard to get. But this is a very useful piece of new research.  And it's topical too, as the report's author Joseph Stead notes:
"The UK as G8 chair has never been in a stronger position to end the grave injustices caused by tax havens – if the UK  succeeds in putting its own house in order first. The Prime Minister must do everything he can to get UK havens agreed on a tax deal before he arrives in Northern Ireland, so he can push the G8 to end the tax scandal."
Quite so.
There is an absolute ton of useful information in here. We will merely scratch the surface, and highlight a few fascinating details, such as this one:
Three of 14 British Overseas Territories, in particular the British Virgin Islands (BVI), Cayman Islands and Bermuda emerge as among the biggest global sources of FDI. Together with the Crown Dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, they were in 2011 the largest provider of FDI to the developing world
. . . and this remarkable fact is backed up by an equally remarkable table:

We've seen isolated information on this before -- such as in this French report, for instance -- which was surprising enough, but we've never seen the data collated like this.

In short, tax havens are conduits for a large share of foreign direct investment around the world - but the share is much bigger when just developing countries are considered. Nearly half the investment from the highly secretive British Virgin Islands, for instance, goes to developing countries, and outward FDI from the BVI was equivalent to over 860 times (NB, that's not 860 percent, but 860 times!) the BVI's GDP. (By comparison, the UK has a ratio of around 1:1 and the US around 0.2:1.) That is astonishing.

The report outlines a number of reasons why the tax havens may be so important, ranging from a desire for a more secure legal environment to the more nefarious round-tripping, tax dodging and corruption. Secrecy automatically facilitates and promotes these.

The report notes that the IMF and others have been woefully lax in collecting data on this; the report's authors had to go to individual countries to find out the totals. Shame on them. The OECD, it says, has the overwhelming role in designing international the corporate tax system - but this is highly problematic given that while the OECD is a club of rich countries, it is the poorer countries that are disproportionately the victims of this. Much more transparency is obviously needed too.

An extremely useful overall contribution to the literature.

0 comments links to this post

Friday, June 14, 2013

Do corporate taxes destroy growth? Here's some new evidence.

Many politicians and accountants and lobbyists and, occasionally, economists, assert that high taxes discourage savings and investment and kill growth.

But is this actually true? What does the evidence say?

It's fair to say that the evidence shows that high taxes don't kill growth. For instance, high-tax countries grow just as fast (or slowly) as low-tax ones in the long run - though it should be noted that the low-tax ones seem to suffer the penalties of higher inequality and greater risk of economic crisis, with no consequent growth benefit. See, for example, this post looking at evidence compiled by the Financial Times, which concluded:
"There is no relation between the share of government revenue and the rate of growth of real output per head. . . It is even quite surprising that such a spread [of the average tax ratio, from 29 percent of GDP in Japan to 55 percent in Sweden] seems to have no effect on economic performance."
Or take our blog in April looking at evidence from Prof. Chris William Sanchirico of Penn Law School and the Wharton School, which concluded that:  

"it would not be unreasonable to conclude, based on the best available theory and data, that the growth argument has no real basis."
Or see this, showing that higher-taxed U.S. states tended to outperform or match lower-taxed states and are better able to weather downturns; or this, on tax 'competition' between states, or this, showing that cutting top tax rates doesn't generate economic growth - although it does increase income inequality.

Now, via Citizens for Tax Justice in the United States, a graph from a report by the Economic Policy Institute authored by Thomas Hungerford (who also wrote a high profile official Congressional Research Service report showing income tax cuts create more inequality than jobs.) It looks at whether high corporate taxes hurt growth, and it speaks for itself:

(Click to enlarge.) This looked at statutory tax rates, then examined growth in the subsequent year. The graph slopes upwards, suggesting that high tax rates might even promote growth - although he notes that this is not statistically significant; another figure comparing growth with effective marginal tax rate on earnings from investment slopes (even more slightly) downwards and is also statistically insignificant. He concludes:
"There appears to be no relationship between capital income taxes and economic growth."
The result, it says, applies both to the statutory corporate tax rate, as well as to the effective rate. This study looks at the United States, whereas the FT study cited above looks at a range of countries. Together, these and others studies suggest strongly that while corporate taxes may be useful for tackling inequality and other ills, they aren't useful tools for promoting growth.

Which is hardly a surprise, if you think about it. Corporate taxes don't go up in smoke: they are a transfer from one sector to another, and they pay for some of the essential ingredients of growth such as the rule of law, or educated and healthy workforces. And see what candid corporate bosses really think about corporate taxes, here.

But the story doesn't end there. The new EPI study also asks what the corporate income tax is for. It cites three reasons:
  • It raises a lot of money ($242.3 billion for the U.S. in fiscal 2012, 10 percent of total federal revenues - down from about 30 percent in the high-growth 1950s.) 
  • It makes the tax system more progressive (that is, poorer people pay less as a share of their income.) The study notes that most studies find that the corporate tax burden falls overwhelmingly (75-82 percent) on capital, rather than on workers or others.
  • It serves as a backstop to the individual income tax - if it were not there, or if rates are far lower than top-rate income taxes, then wealthy rich people will simply turn their income into corporate income, so as to pay the lower rate. (And indeed as corporate taxes
(A bunch of other reasons why we should tax corporations is here. With further reasons here.)
Although this study focuses heavily on the United States, its implications, and those of the other studies we cite, are wide-ranging.

In country after country around the world, the corporation is under attack, both from lobbyists who argue based on flawed evidence that it's a good idea to cut taxes on corporations, and from the disastrous race-to-the bottom on corporate tax rates and corporate tax loopholes - which not only harms the world as a whole, but harms each player in the race who participates.

Read more about all that, here.

0 comments links to this post

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Tanzania examines its tax exemptions

From the Financial Times:
"The government in Dar es Salaam has set itself the goal of reducing the tax incentives it offered to companies to below 1 per cent of its national output. It is a big call, given in the past two years it doubled to 4.3 per cent of gross domestic product, or $1.1bn."
Should countries like Tanzania be giving tax exemptions? Well, the Tanzania Revenue Authority doesn't seem to think so. Still, from the FT article:
“Most countries including Tanzania [have] had little to show in exchange for the incentives offered,” the Tanzania Revenue Authority said in a presentation this year and it argued that tax exemptions do not top the list of reasons why companies invest in the country.

“When you look at the top 10 reasons given by investors as enabling factors you find they mention things like rule of law, human resources capacity, infrastructure and so many other issues that are all more influential and significant than just tax incentives,” says Alvin Mosioma, director of Tax Justice Network-Africa, who is pushing for the removal of tax exemptions for Tanzania’s gold mining sector.
It seems particularly silly to provide special incentives in the natural resources sector. Those resources are in the ground, and if investors want to extract them, they will be prepared to pay high tax rates. Some established oil producing countries levy effective marginal tax rates of 90 percent and more - and still find that the investors are scrambling to get a piece of the lucrative action. A post-tax return is, after all, still worth fighting for, even if a lot of tax has been paid.

The article also reports on some very interesting statements and work by Zitto Kabwe, Tanzania's dynamic shadow finance minister who chairs Tanzania’s parliamentary public accounts committee. We've written about him recently.

0 comments links to this post

Offshore race to bottom fosters shadow insurance industry, "may need bailout"

Posted from the Treasure Islands blog:

From the New York Times:
"Investigators found that life insurers in New York were seeking out states with looser regulations and setting up shell companies there for the deals. They then used those states’ tight secrecy laws to avoid scrutiny by the New York State regulators."
That is offshore business, and the race to the bottom - yet again. In fact, I wrote about this very issue - with a particular focus on Vermont (and Bermuda) a couple of years ago. This shabby story involves both U.S. states such as Missouri, Delaware, Iowa, South Carolina, Nebraska, and Vermont - and offshore tax havens such as the Cayman Islands.

So what exactly is this all about?

Well, essentially, insurers are using lax state and tax haven laws to cook their books, allowing them to appear safer than they really are, in a scam that lines executives' pockets but could lead to another taxpayer bailout. Insurers are supposed to set aside reserves against possible future claims, and to have adequate collateral  - but if they reinsure this business through special captives formed in lax jurisdictions, they can make those reserve and collateral requirements largely fall away.
"Benjamin M. Lawsky, New York’s superintendent of financial services, said that life insurers based in New York had alone burnished their books by $48 billion, using what he called “shadow insurance”
These tens of billions of dollars that Lawsky uncovered affect policies worth trillions of dollars and are, as Lawsky's official report entitled Shining a Light on Shadow Insurance puts it,
"likely to be just the tip of the iceberg nationwide. There are almost certainly tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars of additional shadow insurance on the books of insurance companies across the country."
And worldwide, we should add. Where is the European equivalent of this report? This is a gigantic problem. As the report continues:
"Insurance companies use shadow insurance to shift blocks of insurance policy claims to special entities — often in states outside where the companies are based, or else offshore (e.g., the Cayman Islands) — in order to take advantage of looser reserve and regulatory requirements."
What a surprise. A race to the bottom, secrecy, lax financial regulation - and tax havens. The NYT adds:
"The transactions are so opaque that Mr. Lawsky said it took his team of investigators nearly a year to follow the paper trail, even though they had the power to subpoena documents."
Bloomberg describes the arrogance of the insurance companies, via an email from Metlife:
"The contracts are a “cost-effective way of addressing overly conservative reserving requirements."
In other words, we don't like the democratically mandated constraints that enable us to double up on risks to pay executive compensation - so we'll go offshore to get around the rules!

And here's another real surprise, from the NYT:
"Mr. Lawsky said that because the transactions made companies look richer than they otherwise would, some were diverting reserves to other uses, like executive compensation or stockholder dividends."
This ugly story will ring true with any reader of Treasure Islands. Lawsky's report adds, ominously:
"Shadow insurance also could potentially put the stability of the broader financial system at greater risk. Indeed, in a number of ways, shadow insurance is reminiscent of certain practices used in the run up to the financial crisis, such as issuing securities backed by subprime mortgages through structured investment vehicles (“SIVs”) and writing credit default swaps on higher-risk mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”). Those practices were used to water down capital buffers, as well as temporarily boost quarterly profits and stock prices at numerous financial institutions. Ultimately, these risky practices left those very same companies on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars in losses from risks hidden in the shadows, and led to a multi-trillion dollar taxpayer bailout.

Similarly, shadow insurance could leave insurance companies on the hook for losses at their more weakly capitalized shell companies."
One more for the Economic Crisis + Offshore permanent webpage.

0 comments links to this post

The Fair Tax Mark – launched today in the UK

From the Financial Times, reporting on a project co-funded by TJN:
"Campaigners have ratcheted up pressure on big companies by ranking retailers according to their corporation tax payments and “transparency”, in the latest effort to make corporate tax a reputational issue.

The Fair Tax Campaign, a spin-off from the Tax Justice Network pressure group, issued a report on Thursday that awarded marks according to a company’s tax disclosures, whether they paid an “acceptable” rate of tax on profits and whether they used havens."
From the Tax Research blog of Richard Murphy, who has been co-working on this for six months:
Over the last six months I’ve been working with Meesha Nehru on the Fair Tax Mark, which we launched this morning. It’s got its own website here.

The first Fair Tax Mark report ranks 25 UK retailers on their tax and transparency – the latter being more important than the rate paid. As the ranking shows, one company – Greggs – got full marks whilst Majestic Wines came close. Others missed the mark by a long way, so it’s important to note what we rank on, which, as the Mirror notes this morning, is three separate measures:
  • Do companies publish enough information so we can tell how much activity they have in the UK, what profit they make here and how much tax they pay in this country?
  • Does the company pay an acceptable rate of tax on its profits, and does it look likely that a fair part of that profit is declared in the UK?
  • Does the company use tax havens, indicating whether or not it is likely to be involved in tax avoidance.
There are five points available for each measure and firms getting 12 or more out of 15 are awarded a Fair Tax Mark.

As we found, there are widely varying results:
  • 9 of the 25 companies scored 0 for their country-by-country reporting – meaning we could not get sufficient data on their UK activities to assess whether they paid fair tax.
  • 6 companies scored 0 for their tax rate – meaning they paid low rates of tax on average over six years and we could not tell whether they paid it on appropriate UK profits.
  • Only two companies scored 0 for tax haven use – meaning they did not provide enough information to tell whether they used them or not.
  • Only 3 companies scored a maximum 5 points on tax haven usage – meaning they did not use tax havens (Greggs, Majestic Wine and Asos – the online fashion retailer).
What was also interesting was interpreting the results:
  • As the size of a company increased its Fair Tax Mark fell, on average
  • As companies got bigger their use of tax havens increased, on average
  • As companies got bigger their tax rates fell on average, suggesting that bigger companies are working the tax system to their advantage
  • Country-by-country reporting data got worse as companies got bigger.
As my colleague, Meesha Nehru, told the press:
People are increasingly expecting companies to pay the tax that society demands of them or to at least explain why not.

They’re not paying, and they’re not explaining and neither are acceptable – and that’s the message of this report and the Fair Tax Campaign which believes that fair tax is at the heart of a good society.

We haven’t got that society right now, and that’s why people want Fair Taxes back.
This Mark is intended to help people assess who is, and is not, telling us what we need to know to assess whether there’s a fair tax system in place – and that, we think, is an important step in taking this debate forward.



0 comments links to this post

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Jersey: "90% of our business is discretionary trusts"

We've just come across a remarkable statistic from a Jersey trust practitioner. Here it is, via the Expat Channel. Our emphasis added.
"Despite the different types of trusts that have developed over the last half a century, the most enduring remains the discretionary trust. “Something like 90% of Jersey trusts we draft are fully discretionary ones as they give the maximum flexibility,” explains Giles Corbin, Partner with Jersey-based law firm Mourant."
We had heard even higher numbers than this 90 percent figure cited before in the general context of offshore trusts, but never seen anyone in the industry say as much in public.

The discretionary trust has particular potential for abuse. If you're not up to speed on trusts, take a look at our short primer In Trusts we Trust.   As our analysis of the Swiss-UK tax deal explains, the discretionary trust is a way to put assets into a legal limbo so that they are, in effect, 'ownerless' and can escape all those pesky transparency requirements to identify beneficial owners. We explained it like this:
The innnovation in a discretionary trust is that the beneficiaries are not fixed. Instead the question of who is to benefit from the assets is left to the 'discretion' of the trustees. So you might have several potential beneficiaries - some could even be children who have not been born yet - and at least for now, nobody is entitled to the assets or their benefits untl the trustee uses his or her 'discretion' (another highly slippery concept, especially when wielded by an offshore trustee) and shells out to that particular person at some point in the future. Behind these arrangements, undisclosed to anyone but the trustees, there will be a set of instructions about how to manage the assets, sometimes called a 'letter of wishes' or 'bylaws' that only the person who established the structure, and their trustee, will know about.

So until the payout happens - which may be decades in the future - you cannot know that any given individual is entitled to that benefit: so you cannot say who the beneficiary is. There actually isn't one: it's all up in the air since the trustee's discretion has not yet been fully exercised."
That Expat Channel article sums it all up:
"Alan Binnington, Private Client Director for RBC Trust Company says that a prime reason for the popularity of discretionary trusts’ is that once the assets have been transferred to the trustees the settlor ceases to own them, which may have advantages from a taxation point of view or for asset protection purposes. This transference of ownership also means that assets can be passed to future generations without the complication of having to obtain grants of probate."
It sounds great - until you unpack terms such as "may have advantages from a taxation point of view, or for asset protection purposes."  Protection from whom? Well, in many cases it is the tax or criminal authorities. Not only that, but Jersey foundations are designed to achieve basically the same trick.

This is a jurisdiction that likes to say how clean it is. Not on this evidence.

It will be very interesting to see if all the efforts to tackle tax evasion at the G8 look seriously at these slippery structures.

In case the link changes, here's the original.




0 comments links to this post

New study of top 50 Euro companies: Deutsche Bank's 768 tax haven subsidiaries, Barclays 345, RBS 320

The French non-governmental organisation CCFD-Terre Solidaire and the revue-projet.com today launched a new study looking at the 50 biggest European companies, updating figures from earlier research in 2010.

Entitled Aux paradis des impôts perdus, it is an important report - only in French at the moment, unfortunately - whose main findings are:
  • On average, the 50 biggest European companies have 117 entities in secrecy jurisdictions, or 29% of their foreign subsidiaries. The total amount of offshore subsidiaries is 5848.
  • Only 60% of the companies publish a free and available online full list of entities consolidated in their financial accounts.
  • The winners are Deutsche Bank (768), Barclays (345), Royal Bank of Scotland (320), Allianz (290) and Metro (228)
  • There are twice as many subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands as in India
  • The report provides a world map of favourite tax havens, indicating the main gainers and losers among them in the last 3 years.
As usual, the biggest tax haven users are the banks. See also here.


0 comments links to this post

Links Jun 12

EU vote marks birth of global transparency standard – G8 to pick up the challenge Global Witness
Landmark legislation a major defeat for Big Oil and boosts UK’s G8 push for extractive industries transparency. The law is a major victory for Global Witness and the Publish What You Pay coalition after more than a decade of campaigning for this measure.

G8 deal on tax can feed millions This is Money

David Cameron may be forced to water down key G8 aim over public disclosure of shell companies to stop tax evasion The Independent

Obama Urged to Back Plan to List Owners of Shell Firms NY Times

Canada: Tell Harper: Don't be a Spoiler on G8 Action to Stop Tax Havens Canadians for Tax Fairness
See also: The Problem With Tax Havens - Canada Should Embrace Global Movement towards Tax Transparency Huffington Post

Activists Press G8 Leaders on Beneficial Ownership The Wall Street Journal
See also reports in El País and Clarín

To combat tax avoidance, tough talk is not enough The Guardian

Swiss Committee Recommends Rejection of U.S. Tax Bill  Bloomberg

The high-security, high-concept vault where Deutsche Bank will store $9 billion of gold Quartz
"The irony of the Singapore FreePort is that it was designed by Swiss architects and security experts but competes directly with Switzerland for off-shore accounts."

North Korean Regime Could Have Wealth in Tax Havens DailyPressdotcom

How digital currencies democratize tax evasion Quartz
See also: Bitcoin among virtual currencies targeted in US crackdown on tax evasion The Telegraph

Jersey: Battling the tax haven label BBC

The Netherlands is not a tax haven, says minister DutchNews.nl

Delaware state turns defensive as tax debate steps up Financial Times (subscription)

Domestic Russian tax haven idea on back burner RT

Vodafone Defends International Tax Practices Tax-News

Transfer Pricing Assessment Shocks Danish Company Tax-News

Tax reduction jargon explained Financial Times (Subscription)

Multinational Profits: Here, There, or Nowhere? Huffington Post

Camp Announces Hearing on Tax Reform: Tax Havens, Base Erosion and Profit-Shifting U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means
Hearing to take place June 13

Secret files reveal more Canadians using offshore tax havens CBC
See also: Revenue Canada rejected secret tax haven files CBC

How the Big Internet, Software, and Computer Companies Are Ripping off America's Young People for Ill-Gotten Profit Truth-Out

Obama Axes Bank-Harrassing Gary Gensler at CFTC, Plans to Install Lightweight Ex-Goldmanite naked capitalism

G8: It's Time For Action On Money Laundering Transparency International

0 comments links to this post

Does big business flee if taxes get too high?

It's often said that you shouldn't raise taxes because big business will flee if you do. Well, Eric Schmidt of Google - yes, him of the aggressive corporate tax avoidance, and possibly beyond even that - doesn't seem to agree:
"Google will continue to invest in the UK no matter what you guys do because the UK is just too important for us."
Another one for our quotations page. Which also contains the opinion of another well known U.S. corporate boss, Paul O'Neill (ex chairman of Alcoa and former US Treasury Secretary:)
"I never made an investment decision based on the tax code. . . If you are giving money away I will take it. If you want to give me inducements for something I am going to do anyway, I will take it. But good business people do not do things because of inducements."
Or try this one, from Warren Buffett:
"I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain."
Which is all fairly obvious, really. If there's a decent post-tax return to be had, the investors will come, whether or not the effective tax rate is 2 percent or 20 percent.

Yet the politicians in Britain, as in many other countries, continue to run terrified from these companies' threats to run away if they dare to stop their relentless programmes of tax cutting and loophole-creating.

Read more about all this here.

0 comments links to this post

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

An informal early history of Tax Justice, via the Uncut movement

Update: this article has been updated to amend a few details, notably about the phone call from Jean Andersson.

This Bloomberg article by Jesse Drucker tells a fascinating story about the astonishing rise of tax justice activism.

It's about UK Uncut. Perhaps the most interesting factoid:
"A February poll commissioned by Christian Aid, a church-based nonprofit relief agency in the U.K. and Ireland, found that 66 percent of Britons believe tax avoidance to be “morally wrong” -- up 10 percentage points from when people were asked the question six months earlier."
That's quite a shift. The article continues:
"UK Uncut started in October 2010, predating Occupy Wall Street by about a year."
Indeed, and all credit to them. We love them (and the related Occupy movement) to bits: just last Saturday, on a walking tour of the City of London that we co-organised, Tom Pursey of UK Uncut stood outside Goldman Sachs' offices in London and talked about their tax arrangements.  And just this weekend, TJN's director John Christensen received a rather impressive pack of poker cards from the "London School of Financial Activism," as a (belated) present to celebrate TJN's 10th birthday.

Do read the rest of Jesse Drucker's story about UK Uncut. But what about the movement's roots?

The rest of the blog, underneath the poker cards, explores this question in some detail, with a particular focus (of course) on TJN.

We love it.

The roots of UK Uncut.

The answer, of course, is that UK Uncut has many roots. Not least in its indefatigable people, who have done things that some of us at TJN have never done: stand up in public places, often in very awkward situations, sometimes risking arrest, on occasion glueing themselves to shop windows - and physically shout and protest at the gross injustices that are being perpetrated in their democracies. That's a really hard, and huge admirable, thing to do. We wish there were more of this kind of thing in modern public life.

Next, and very importantly, UK Uncut were spurred by the work of Richard Brooks and the investigative British satirical magazine Private Eye, which has been exposing specific cases of tax abuses for many, many years. It is without peer in this respect, despite some excellent reporting on this topic by various other UK newspapers, particularly in the last two years or so since this topic really started to take off.

But TJN and its associates, of whom there are many hundreds around the world, can claim a whole bunch of credit for something slightly different: a major role in the creation of a coherent intellectual framework for understanding tax and tax havens. It is an intellectual framework that is currently -- at last -- sweeping the globe.

And here we feel it is time to tell a story which may be of interest to those who want to know more about TJN and where it came from. The following comes substantially from Christensen, and thus is an informal account that substantially reflects his perspective. We may amend this blog as and when others comment on it, and in the meantime we have located many other historical documents on our permanent Offshore History page - to which we will add today's blog.

The earliest players inside today's TJN, who started working in this area long before TJN came into existence, include Jack Blum - the veteran U.S. lawyer who was instrumental in breaking the Lockheed Martin scandal in the 1970s, in investigating General Noriega's drug trafficking, and in bringing down the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI,) one of the most outrageously corrupt banks in modern history. Blum has long been aware of the importance of the tax haven issues, but struggled to get anyone (other than people like the former Manhattan District Attorney, Robert Morgenthau,) interested. Another early thinker was James Henry, a former Mckinseys Chief Economist who began investigating the looting of developing countries via western banks and tax havens, way back in the 1970s. (See his exhaustively researched book The Blood Bankers, for more on the real blood and guts of private banking.)

Still, the kind of information needed to understand the fast-growing offshore world was largely absent even through to the 1990s. Christensen was involved in investigating tax haven-related corruption in Malaysia when working there in 1985, and resolved at the time to explore the issue more fully. This is described in Treasure Islands:
He went to Britain, where he spent a couple of months combing libraries and seeing all the economists and capital markets experts he could find to try and understand where the money went and how the offshore system worked. Nobody knew anything. "I don't think anyone had understood how malevolent this thing had become," he said. "There was no useful information anywhere."
Christensen cites Sol Picciotto's 1992 seminal book International Business Taxation, available as a free download since a few days ago, as being "the book that crystallised a lot of my thinking," notably on the all-important issue of tax havens and corporate tax avoidance - the staple fodder of UK Uncut. There was, however, an accounting expert at Essex University, Prem Sikka, who was also publicly speaking out on these issues, and in 1998 he launched the Association for Accountancy and Business Affairs (AABA,) and its seminal publication Auditors: Holding the Public to Ransom.  

Ronen Palan, author of books such as the 1998 publication "Trying to Have Your Cake and Eating It: How and Why the State System Has Created Offshore," was another early influence. All the above (along with Richard Murphy, who has been hugely influential but joins us a little later in this story) are Senior Advisers to TJN today.

Outside of TJN, one might also point to the work of Mark Hampton and particularly his 1996 book The Offshore Interface, as being influential in this area, at a time when there was almost no intellectual framework - anywhere in the world - for understanding tax havens and what they really meant. In the United States, Citizens for Tax Justice and their indefatigable leader Bob McIntyre played a crucial role in addressing tax justice issues inside the United States, and although their occasional forays into the difficult world of international tax havens only went so far, their influence in the U.S. has been enormous. As one of the seminal works on Ronald Reagan's great tax reform of 1986 remarked:
"In the tax debates ahead, Bob McIntyre's one-man report would turn out to be more influential than all the firepower the corporate lobbyists could muster."
Elsewhere, with a more international outlook, work by Unctad, and the OECD in the late 1990s with their ill-fated Harmful Tax Competition project, was complemented by the work of the UN economist Vito Tanzi, who in 2001 aptly referred to tax havens as "fiscal termites". Tanzi played an important role in the UN Financing For Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico in 2002 and the resulting "Monterrey Consensus" that emerged was ahead of its time in that it called - at a time when almost nobody else was doing so - for developing countries to shift their focus away from aid and borrowing, and looking more to mobilising domestic resources - that is, tax -- to finance their development.

Despite the Monterrey Consensus being widely reported on, there was still no decisive shift in the global zeitgeist. Tax was still generally to be avoided and was 'bad for growth' (still reflected in the World Bank's 'Doing Business' country reports), the consensus held that tax havens were either exotic, somewhat irrelevant sideshows to the global economy, or 'efficient' neutral platforms for whooshing large quantities of money around the world. An attitude of see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil prevailed in Washington, Brussels, Paris and London.

In 1996 Prem Sikka went to Jersey to research a particular legislative process (involving a Limited Liability Partnership law, which he later would describe in Chapter 6 of his 2002 monograph No Accounting for Tax Havens, and is also described in the "Ratchet" chapter of Treasure Islands.) That's a fascinating story, and both publications have contributed significantly to making the arguments available to non-specialist audiences. But the key point for the purposes of today's blog is that during his research in St Helier, Jersey, he met Christensen for the first time. Straight away, the intellectual sparks began to fly. This was another seminal moment in TJN pre-history. Christensen remembers:
"After just a few hours of discussion, clandestinely in a bar in Saint Helier, he had convinced me that the time was ripe to move on and start to campaign against tax havens."
Christensen quit his job (and Jersey) in July 1998 and went to work in the private sector in London, while nurturing plans to set something up. In 1999 he advised the charity Oxfam on their seminal June 2000 report, Tax Havens: Releasing the hidden billions for poverty eradication, which stimulated some interest at the time, but not nearly enough: many non-governmental organisations in those days were overwhelmingly focused on how to increase aid levels, rather than on the tougher but more important question of how developing countries could mobilise their own revenues. The latter question just wasn't on the radar screens.

In September 2002, however, Christensen received a call from a Jerseywoman he had never heard of, Pat Lucas. She said she had heard him and Hampton speak in Jersey and wanted to visit him to discuss various issues. He invited her to his house in Chesham, and she flew over with two friends - Jean Andersson and Frank Norman. Over tea and cakes the three Jerseyfolk pleaded with Christensen to "rescue our island" from the offshore industry that had grown up all around them, causing great local harm (see more on what that's all about, here.) Andersson recalls:
As we sat in John's office he asked us "What do you want to do?"  And if I remember rightly Pat answered; "Get rid of the Tax Haven!"
John Christensen continues:
"They were talking about liberating the island. I said that if you want to do that, you have to take on the entire issue of tax havens and the global economy. They grasped that pretty fast, and asked: 'if that is what it takes, how do we set about doing that?' I said that we will have to create a mammoth global campaign to raise public awareness. It was clear to me by the time they left, three hours later, that this was the call to arms. I knew instantly that this was what I had been wanting to do."
The three visitors to Chesham invited Christensen to a meeting in Jersey entitled Tax Havens and Globalisation, on October 12th, 2002, organised by the Attac Jersey, a local organisation linked to Attac in St. Malo, France. Attac Jersey had been one of the only ones to have protested against the tax haven industry in Jersey. Christensen immediately called Sikka, who said "count me in" - but also advised that he had come across an accountant whom John had never heard of, called Richard Murphy. They invited him to join. This conference, still before TJN's formation, was another seminal moment in TJN pre-history. For the record, the programme was as follows (click to enlarge):


Christensen recounts:
"This was the first time I met Richard and, bizarrely, within minutes of meeting we were discussing the need for country level disclosure of transnational company accounts: the idea of Country-by-Country (CbC) Reporting - the term came from Richard - was born in Jersey, of all places."
Murphy developed and wrote the first CbC accounting standard and has led the charge on country-by-country reporting in the ten years since then. It is an unarguable concept that is now sweeping the world.

That conference, via an activist called Matti Kohonen, led to an invitation to another conference at University College, London, which culminated in an invitation from the NGO War on Want and Stamp Out Poverty to take a delegation to the European Social Forum in Florence in November. A delegation of Christensen, Hampton and War on Want's Pete Coleman went, and joined with Bruno Gurtner of Switzerland, then time senior economist of the Swiss Coalition of Development Organisations; and Sven Giegold of Attac in Germany (now a highly influential European MEP.) This was the nucleus of the TJN founder's group, and it was at that meeting, on 9th November 2002, that the name Tax Justice Network was chosen, TJN was officially formed, and the bare bones of an eventual Tax Justice Declaration were sketched out. A full list of TJN's founders is available here.

TJN was officially launched in the British Houses of Parliament in March 2003: the crucial trio of Pat Lucas, Jean Andersson and Frank Norman were all there. Click to enlarge this wonderful archive photo.


At first, it was hard going. Clearly the new network would need a secretariat, but such was the apparent obscurity of the tax haven issue in those days that none of the founding organisations was able to put up a sizeable contribution to fund it.

Then good old Jersey intervened again. The Attac network there set to work organising boot fairs, local events and more to cobble together enough many thousands of pounds to get things started. We still don't know just how they did it - but they did. And at that point, things began to get a little easier.

The Tax Justice Network formally launched its International Secretariat in September 2004, garnering its first major international newspaper headline, in The Guardian: Havens that have become a tax on the world's poor, with some useful supportive commentary from UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Yet it was still hard to get people interested. Christensen and the highly energetic, effective, berserking Sony Kapoor (now head of the think tank Re-Define) visited innumerable international conferences and events, while Sikka, Murphy and others beavered away with research. All talked to anyone who would listen - which, in those days, wasn't that many. Christensen recalls what it was like:
"Our approach was to use beserker tactics, turning up at conferences and asking awkward questions. I remember one really embarrassing conference, where the chief executive of one  leading development NGOs came up to me and said ‘I really don’t understand what tax has to do with development.’

In fairness, she changed her position fairly soon. But this gives an idea of the steep wall we faced. Development NGOs aligned largely with corporates and governments: I have no problems with that, but their focus was on acting as aid delivery agencies, rather than on tackling systemic poverty. TJN is all about 'how do we move beyond aid, so governments can deliver public services without debt -- particularly external debt -- and external aid?"
He also recalls one particularly difficult meeting at an international meeting on Corporate Responsibility at Chatham House in 2004, where he stood up to talk about the need to inject the dreaded word 'tax' into the  corporate responsibility debate.
"We’d been ploughing through their Corporate Responsibilty statements, pressed the search button for “tax” and it didn't come up. I said 'I love the statements on best practice – but there is no mention of tax. None of you take acount of what we regard as primary CSR: how you contribute financially to societies in which you operate?' I referred to it as the ghost at the feast: we we regard tax as the first responsibility of a socially responsible statement.'
They looked me as if I’d left a dog turd in the middle of the table. When I sat down it felt like there was a 30 second silence. My knees were trembling, my blood was pounding, and I could see that the chairman was utterly hostile."
From around 2004 onwards, bit by bit, the issue slowly began to get traction, notably with non-governmental organisations, but increasingly with unions and then professional bodies. Still, even natural allies took quite some persuading: Sikka remembers visiting one trade union body in 2003-4, and finding that "they were simply not interested, because it was a little bit outside the box of traditional trade union interest."

One of the great strengths of TJN, beyond the fact that it is and has been proven absolutely right about the issues, is that has striven to appeal across the political spectrum. The problem of tax havens is, after all, a story about the corruption of global markets - and who is to say that the fight against corruption is the exclusive preserve of left or right?

The story of the years that followed these beginnings become increasingly complex, as more and more organisations join the tax justice movement, as TJN grows in strength and number, and as it takes on a broader range of issues. The Tax Justice blog has been instrumental in helping lay out the broad outlines of what we call the Tax Justice Consensus, which TJN has found to be a powerful and internally coherent framework for understanding the world, which ranges far beyond the somewhat technical world of international tax cooperation treaties. (The Finance Curse is just the latest element to be added to this ever-expanding body of work.)

The work has pushed forwards with numerous other publications and blogs such our flagship newsletter Tax Justice Focus, Richard Murphy's prolific Tax Research UK blog -- a veritable volcano of ideas related to tax justice and various other issues -- and reports such as the Price of Offshore (March 2005, updated in July 2012) and 'Tax Us If You Can' (September 2005, updated in July 2012.)  We now have the Global Alliance for Tax Justice, and tax justice chapters around the world - not to mention world leaders this year, at last, calling loudly for some serious action on tax havens.

But the fight remains a David v Goliath one, as can be seen from our miniscule headquarters in Chesham, England.



As mentioned, we're very happy to receive comments about this blog. If anyone feels they or someone else has been unfairly or erroneously treated, or just want to add an interesting detail, please let us know. And, as mentioned, we'll be storing this permanently, here.







0 comments links to this post

Dutch tax treaties lead to huge revenue losses in developing countries

We recently reported a powerful speech (and accompanying article) by Lee Sheppard, among other things slamming the OECD's role in creating a model for bilateral tax treaties that
"protect multinationals primarily. That’s all they were ever for: to make life comfortable for multinationals". . . The international consensus is "basically a load of nonsense that protects multinationals."
Now, backing this up, the excellent Somo in the Netherlands has produced a report (our emphasis added):
Dutch double taxation treaties lead to huge revenue losses in developing countries.
The Netherlands serves as a conduit country for international tax dodging. A central element of this fiscal policy is the country’s extensive tax treaty network. Double taxation treaties or agreements (DTAs) often lower corporate tax rates and help companies to shift profits from operating countries to tax havens. The new SOMO report ‘Should the Netherlands sign tax treaties with developing countries?’ shows that Dutch DTAs lead to huge revenue losses in developing countries because they reduce taxation on passive income. This is in contradiction to the Dutch government’s policy coherence for development.

“The research report commissioned by the lobby association Holland Financial Centre that is launched this week defends the country’s tax regime that is used by global tax dodgers with the argument that this regime attracts ‘real businesses’ to the Netherlands. Even if this were true, the question is whether the comparatively small financial gains the Netherlands enjoys from this system justify the massive revenue losses poor countries endure”, says SOMO researcher Katrin McGauran.

More than € 771 million loss
SOMO research shows that 28 countries together lose € 771 million on dividend and interest tax income alone every year. Yet the total revenue loss resulting from Dutch DTAs will be much higher. This is because tax avoidance through profit shifting with the use of royalties and capital gains are not included in the calculations. These findings underscore the importance of a comprehensive DTA impact assessment of the entire DTA network from a development coherence perspective. The results of a government assessment of a number of treaties are expected in June.

Seriously negative impact on poor countries
“The Dutch government’s claim that treaties are beneficial for developing countries is simply not true. This report shows that Dutch tax treaties have a seriously negative impact on poor countries’ revenue and that there is no evidence that these tax losses are compensated with an increase in investment as a result of having DTAs”, says SOMO researcher Katrin McGauran. “They are even no longer necessary to avoid double taxation or ensure information exchange in tax matters”. 

One of the outcomes of the research, which has not been highlighted in recent media reports, is the fact that Eastern European non-EU countries have very disadvantageous treaty provisions. Serbia, Ukraine and Croatia, for example, suffer high revenue losses compared to their Gross Domestic Product.

Confirmed by other studies
SOMO’s research findings are confirmed by similar impact assessments and case studies published this month in other countries. The non-profit group Swedwatch finds that Swedish investments in Zambia are routed through the Netherlands for, among other reasons, tax reduction purposes. An impact assessment soon to be published by the civil society network Latindadd shows that between 2009 and 2011, Ecuador lost USD 290 million as a result of its DTA network.

Predatory state at the North Sea?
Mongolia and Argentina have taken the drastic measure of cancelling treaties with a number of tax conduit countries, including the Dutch-Mongolian treaty. If Dutch DTAs are not revised to stop treaty abuse and related revenue losses, more cancellations are likely to follow. The Dutch government should take action: The Dutch writer Multatuli referred to the Netherlands as ‘a predatory state at the North Sea‘, referring to the colonial robbery in the Dutch East Indies. Does the current government really want to go down in history as having defended a modernised fiscal version of this economic injustice 150 years later?”, says McGauran.

Recommendations
The report concludes with a number of recommendations to protect the revenue bases of Dutch tax treaty partners, and - in line with Dutch development coherence policy - poor countries in particular. Amongst others, the Netherlands should end its domestic harmful tax regime and allow capital-importing states to set high withholding tax rates on passive income in treaties. It should also conduct a comprehensive and public DTA impact assessment before entering negotiations.

0 comments links to this post

Citizens for Tax Justice: Why we need a corporation tax

From Citizens for Tax Justice in the United States.

We're going to paste this word for word from their latest fact sheet. It complements work we and others have done on this subject, such as this or this or, from a more economic perspective, this or this.
CTJ Fact Sheet: Why We Need the Corporate Income Tax

Some observers have asked why we need a corporate income tax in addition to a personal income tax. The argument often made is that corporate profits eventually make their way into the hands of individuals (in the form of stock dividends and capital gains on sales of stock) where they are subject to the personal income tax, so there is no reason to also subject these profits to the corporate income tax. Some even suggest that the $4.8 trillion[1] that the corporate income tax is projected to raise over the next decade could be replaced by simply raising personal income tax rates or enacting some other tax. This is a deceptively simple argument that ignores the massive windfalls that wealthy individuals would receive if there was no corporate income tax.

Here are three of the biggest problems with repealing the corporate income tax:

First, a business that is structured as a corporation can hold onto its profits for years before paying them out to its shareholders, who only then (if ever) will pay personal income tax on the income. With no corporate income tax, high-income people could create shell corporations to indefinitely defer paying individual income taxes on much of their income.

Second, even when corporate profits are paid out (as stock dividends), only a fraction are paid to individuals rather than to tax-exempt entities not subject to the personal income tax.

Third, the corporate income tax is ultimately borne by shareholders and therefore is a very progressive tax, which means any attempt to replace it with another tax would likely result in a less progressive tax system.

1. Without a Corporate Income Tax, Retained Profits Would Not Be Taxed. As a Result, High-Income People Could Defer Paying Personal Income Taxes on Much of Their Income Indefinitely.

The first problem is that corporations can retain their profits and reinvest them rather than paying out dividends. If a corporation does this for years before paying out dividends, then, without a corporate income tax, the business’s profits would not be taxed at all over that period. (In contrast, the interest that accrues on an ordinary savings account owned by a typical middle-income person is taxed each year, which reduces the rate at which the savings grow.)

If Congress simply repealed the corporate income tax and did nothing else, this would create an enormous personal income tax loophole. High-income individuals would no longer want to be employed directly by businesses or make their investments directly. Instead they would set up shell corporations that sell the individuals’ services or make investments for them. The result would be that income could go untaxed indefinitely, until it is taken out of the shell companies to be spent. Even extremely complex rules and heavy enforcement by the IRS might be unable to prevent this type of tax avoidance. Thus, without a corporate income tax, the individual income tax on high-income people could be undermined.

2. Two-Thirds of Corporate Profits Are Never Subject to the Personal Income Tax.

Some people may believe that Congress can repeal the corporate income tax and address the retained profits problem described above by requiring corporations to follow the rules for “pass-through” businesses, which, under the existing rules, cannot avoid taxes by retaining profits. (“Pass-through” businesses are the companies that are not subject to the corporate income tax, and their profits are allowed to “pass through” to the individuals who own them, meaning the profits are subject to only the personal income tax.) Some people may believe that if all businesses were pass-through businesses, then everything would be fine because corporate profits would eventually be subject to the personal income tax.

But this is wrong. Two-thirds of the profits that corporations pay out today (as stock dividends) go to tax-exempt entities like retirement plans and university endowments.[2] In other words, if the personal income tax was the only tax applied to the profits of large, currently taxable corporations, then two-thirds of those profits would never be taxed.[3]

3. The Corporate Income Tax Is Borne by Shareholders and Thus Very Progressive.

Taken as a whole, America’s tax system is just barely progressive.[4] It would be considerably less progressive if the corporate income tax was repealed. Most, if not all, of the corporate income tax is borne by shareholders in the form of reduced stock dividends, and high-income Americans receive the lion’s share of these dividends. Corporate leaders sometimes assert that corporate income taxes are really borne by workers or consumers. But virtually all tax experts, including those at the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service and the Treasury Department, have concluded that the owners of stock and other capital ultimately pay most corporate taxes.[5] Further, corporate leaders would not lobby Congress to lower these taxes if they did not believe their shareholders (the owners of corporations) ultimately paid them. (In contrast, corporations do not lobby for lower payroll taxes, which are borne by workers).

Notes:
[1] Congressional Budget Office, “Updated Budget Projections: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023,” May 14, 2013. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44172

[2] According to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and our calculations, $1.9 trillion in corporate stock dividends were paid, excluding inter-corporate dividend payments, over the 2004-2008 period (and excluding dividends from non-taxable, “pass-through” S corporations). But the IRS reports that only $0.6 trillion in such corporate stock dividends were reported on individual tax returns (as “qualified” dividends). The remaining corporate stock dividends were not subject to personal income tax, because they were paid to individuals’ accounts with tax-exempt pension plans, other retirement plans, and certain life insurance arrangements. That means that two-thirds of personal dividends from corporate stock are not subject to personal income tax. (See BEA National Income and Product Account Tables 1.16 and 7.10 and the related (albeit somewhat confusing) table accompanying BEA FAQ #318, all at www.bea.gov. See also annual data on Individual Income Tax Returns for 2004–08 from the Internal Revenue Service at www.irs.gov.)

[3] Contributions to retirement funds (pensions, 401k’s, etc.) are not taxable as earnings when the contributions are made, thus avoiding both income and payroll taxes. Distributions during retirement are taxable. But, assuming a constant tax rate, this is the mathematical equivalent of taxing the contributions when made and exempting the distributions from tax. (This is why analysts treat tax-deductible IRA contributions as the equivalent of “Roth IRAs,” where the contributions are not deductible, but the distributions are tax-exempt.) In fact, since tax rates on retirement distributions from pensions, 401k’s, etc. are likely to be taxed at a lower tax rate than the tax rate avoided by the tax exemption for contributions, the actual tax rate on retirement income is likely to be negative.

[4] Citizens for Tax Justice, “Who Pays Taxes in America in 2013?” April 1, 2013, http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2013/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america_in_2013.php

[5] Jennifer C. Gravelle, “Corporate Tax Incidence: Review of General Equilibrium Estimates and Analysis,” Congressional Budget Office, May 2010, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11519/05-2010-Working_Paper-Corp_Tax_Incidence-Review_of_Gen_Eq_Estimates.pdf; Gravelle, Jane G. and Kent A. Smetters. 2006. “Does the Open Economy Assumption Really Mean That Labor Bears the Burden of a Capital Income Tax.” Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy vol. 6:1.

0 comments links to this post

U.S. Business leaders unite against corporate tax avoidance

From the American Sustainable Business Council, a letter that is very hard to argue with.
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20005

June 7, 2013


Dear Mr. President:

As business leaders, we are writing to urge you to support the efforts of Prime Minister David Cameron and other world leaders to develop shared strategies for ending offshore tax abuse and addressing corporate tax avoidance through aggressive profit shifting when you represent the United States at the upcoming G8 meetings.

When companies play one country’s tax laws against another, and have developed a system in which their international subsidiaries hold billions of dollars of profits untaxed in any nation, this is a problem for all nations. It is also a problem for our country’s small and mid-size businesses.
America’s businesses, especially small and medium sized companies, understand that the current corporate tax system is badly broken. It provides powerful incentives to shift investment and jobs offshore. The biggest crisis small business owners face is the lack of spending power in this country.

It is easy to make the connection that unemployed and underemployed people can’t be our customers, and their lost income can’t circulate and enliven the economies of our communities.

American small businesses are angry that they are subsidizing large multinational corporations who have lobbied for, won and use tax loopholes that in many cases allow them to avoid paying any federal income taxes despite reporting billions of dollars of profits to shareholders. These very same companies are now using their political clout to argue for failed policies like a territorial tax system that would only accelerate current problems.
(Continued . . . )
Read the rest of the letter here.

0 comments links to this post

Links Jun 11

Our $1 trillion chance Avaaz
Sign the petition, to leaders of G8 governments

Corruption hunters calls on the G8 to tackle shell companies and money laundering Global Witness
See also: G8 Summit Urged To Seek Beneficial Ownership Reforms Tax-News

Dutch double taxation treaties lead to huge revenue losses in developing countries SOMO

Transfer Pricing: Challenges for Developing Countries
Discussion organised jointly by UNDP and UN-DESA

Offshore Leaks: Beyond Journalism, a collaborative adventure Le Soir (In French)
Opportunity to ask questions of ICIJ's Gerard Ryle

Mechanisms of Global Tax Injustice CNCD-11.11.11 (In French)
See summary in English by Eurodad here.

Cayman Islands government signs up for disclosure Cayman News Service
Cayman commits to the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters

Pictet Warns Of Major Swiss Financial Center Challenges Tax-News

Occupy Wall Street Stylists Pursue U.K. Tax Dodgers Bloomberg
Great article on UK Uncut. See also comment from Richard Murphy Is it invidious of me to point out that UK Uncut’s critic is sponsored by big business?

Tax outcry spurs shift in top companies’ attitudes Financial Times (subscription)
And - "Wealthy individuals are also reassessing their tax planning to shield themselves from reputational damage".

UK: Four in ten might join consumer boycott over tax avoidance Guardian

The Basel AML Index country risk ranking International Centre for Asset Recovery (ICAR)
A country risk ranking to measure the risk of money laundering / terrorist financing and other relevant aspects, such as financial standards and public transparency.

Belgian Royals Face First Tax Bills Tax-News

0 comments links to this post