Tax Justice Focus - The Inequality Edition. Guest edited by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett
1 comments

Why tax havens cause poverty
". . . exposed the United States to Mexican drug money, suspicious travelers cheques, bearer share corporations, and rogue jurisdictions. The bank’s federal bank regulator, the OCC, tolerated HSBC’s weak AML [anti money laundering] system for years. If an international bank won’t police its own affiliates to stop illicit money, the regulatory agencies should consider whether to revoke the charter of the U.S. bank being used to aid and abet that illicit money.”
“HSBC’s compliance culture has been pervasively polluted for a long time. Its recent change in leadership says it’s committed to cleaning house. That commitment is welcome surely, but it will take more than words for the bank to change course. Just as certain is the need for tough regulation by the OCC.”The Thatcher revolution of the 1980s led the world into the brave new era of corporate deregulation. With the state "off their backs" British businesses could thrive and the glory days of pre-Keynesianism would be revived. Thirty years on a different picture emerges. Former stars like BP have wrecked their reputations through corner cutting on environmental protection. Others like Debenhams and the Rover Group had their guts extracted by asset strippers. But the worst impact of deregulation can be seen in the City of London which stands exposed as almost irredeemably corrupt.
"We will not be making any corporate income tax exemption claim with respect to any activity concerning our involvement with the London Olympic and Paralympic Games."Three cheers for that. If there is substance behind this statement - which there may well be - then this is fantastic news. We should note, however, that this climb-down occured in the face of adverse publicity from our friends at Ethical Consumer magazine supported by 38 Degrees' nimble campaign which secured 100,000 signatures in a matter of days. Well done both. (You, dear reader, can sign the 38 Degrees petition here.)
"The development narrative no longer solely focuses on reducing extreme income poverty, to be addressed primarily by financial flows from rich countries to poor ones."Absolutely. It is time for a re-think. Cobham identifies four main changes in the way that people in the international development community are thinking about poverty. As he says:
First, the location of poverty has shifted: rather than ‘poor people in poor countries’, the majority of people in extreme income poverty now live in countries designated by the World Bank as middle income. (Do we count this poverty as the same, better or worse, than that in low income countries?)A most useful addition to the blogosphere, from an old ally of ours.
Second, the underlying understanding of poverty has shifted: while extreme income poverty continues to be used as a form of shorthand, and reflects the major data effort, poverty is now widely understood as multi-dimensional, covering many aspects of people’s power to enjoy a good life, and to determine their own future. (When will data catch up, to be able to count in these multiple dimensions?)
Third, there is increasing recognition of the centrality of national level policy decisions and of underlying structures in delivering development. Whether we look at corruption, tax dodging and the massive (uncounted) illicit financial outflows they create, or broader questions of a lack of transparency and political accountability, or the central importance of economic activity through trade and investment (á la David Cameron’s golden thread), or the challenges of financial regulation, it is clear that while aid is vital it is far from the whole puzzle.
Fourth, the urgency of sustainability has become uncontroversial. In these austere times the political emphasis on the constraints posed by planetary boundaries may not feel as powerful, but no-one seriously disputes their importance any more (although our ability to measure them all remains less than perfect)."
"Step forward Ian Barlow, who has built a career on tax scheming every bit as contrived as comedian Jimmy Carr's dodge - but far more costly to the UK.Following the series of scandals that have dogged HMRC chief Dave Hartnett, it is shocking that the UK should see fit to continue in the same vein. The Eye describes a number of schemes Barlow has been involved in, including one where internal KPMG papers admitted that
Barlow was head of tax at accountancy firm KPMG from 1993 till 2001 and then became senior partner in London until 2008. Over this period he was directly responsible for selling some of the most aggressive tax avoidance schemes on the market."
"in our view HM Customs & Excise will regard these planning arrangements as 'unacceptable tax avoidance." (it did, and so did the courts)It then notes that Barlow arrives to chair HMRC in the middle of a conflict of interest, amid a dispute between HMRC and a firm where his is a non-executive director, over an offshore scheme. Barlow has said in the past:
"There is no meaningful distinction to be drawn between acceptable tax planning and unacceptable tax avoidance."The Eye concludes in its own inimitable style.
"What next? Bob Diamond [TJN: the disgraced boss of the UK's Barclays Bank] for the Bank of England, no doubt."In the HMRC press release, it notes that Barlow will have responsibility for, among other things,
"ensuring HMRC delivers its performance and customer service objectives."What are those customer service objectives? Well, Treasure Islands notes:
"HMRC used to assign a ‘case director’ to investigate multinationals; this is now a ‘customer relationship manager’ charged with building a happy connection. After a review in 2006, promising better ‘customer service’ and ‘greater mutual respect and trust’, average times spent on international investigations fell from thirty-seven to eighteen months.All in all, it does not look good for the ordinary people of Britain - and of developing countries either.
‘We used to have a priority to collect tax,’ my informant said, ‘now we have a priority to have a good relationship. We have got into a situation of persuading ourselves that it is a win-win to have businesses pay their taxes voluntarily, rather than have us take them to litigation.’
"The purchase of a tax disc with data on approximately 1,000 customers of the Zurich branch of the private bank Coutts, North Rhine-Westphalia by tax authorities will probably have political consequences. Because after this business, it has become even more unlikely that the tax treaty between Germany and Switzerland as planned on 1 January 2013 to take effect."For very good reason TJN will welcome any development that scuppers this unprincipled deal between Germany and Switzerland. It is hard to see any upside to the deal apart from the protection of the crooks who continue to use offshore secrecy to persist with tax evasion, and it is difficult for us to avoid the conclusion that the deal has largely been driven by their political lobbying in Berlin (and London, where the UK has already concluded an equally shabby deal).
"Shady CD purchases are not a permanent rule of law principle."With all due respect, Minister, law enforcement officials have relied on paid informants for centuries, and crooked Swiss-diving (British in the case of HSBC and Coutts) banks are no exception to this rule. With revelations of banking corruption and criminality breaking weekly, whistleblowers have a crucial role to play in cleaning up what has clearly become a rotten industry.