Jersey confirms that Son of FATCA is on its way
"Jersey will have little choice but to hand over information to the UK tax man about UK residents who have bank accounts here, says the Island’s leading adviser on international affairs."
Why tax havens cause poverty
"Jersey will have little choice but to hand over information to the UK tax man about UK residents who have bank accounts here, says the Island’s leading adviser on international affairs."
"step up its game" and "aggressively deal with those companies that are deliberately exporting profits from the UK to low-tax jurisdictions."
"Power concedes nothing without a demand."Cited in an article on tax havens in Al Jazeera on the global elite who pull the strings on tax havens.
There is an argument that low rates of corporation tax are one enticement a business friendly government can use to attract economic activity from other jurisdictions, and that such tax competition is beneficial. I am not sure this argument is very strong – the outcome is a beggar-my-neighbour process in which the winning country’s gain is necessarily smaller than its rival’s loss.He then looks at the case of U.S. states which successfully implement what he calls 'profit apportionment' - a much nicer and more instructive term than the tax profession's term 'formulary apportionment - noting how lobbying by British multinationals in particular helped constrain the use of unitary taxation.
"Instead of attempting to estimate what fraction of a company’s total profit was earned in California and what amount in Wyoming, apportionment states taxed corporations on a share of their aggregate US profits corresponding to the share of their total US activity that took place in the state."And his brief conclusion:
"Well conceived apportionment is the best – perhaps only – answer to the problem presented by multiple company tax jurisdictions."Quite so.
Credit Suisse does not intend to allow tax evaders to remain on as clients, he stressed. If potential clients refuse to report their assets to the tax authorities in their countries, "the bank will clearly tell them that it does not want their business," Rohner said, adding that the bank would also ask existing clients to leave if they did not declare their assets.It sounds good, but consider the first problem. What happens when the "client" is, say, a Liechtenstein foundation or a (more Anglo-Saxon-style) discretionary trust? Under Swiss rules, there is literally no beneficial owner at all for these structures. Germans who stash money in these things -- which are bread and butter structures for the tax evasion industry -- place themselves firmly outside the scope of legislation that is supposed to relate to Germans. These assets are not, from the Swiss banks' perspective, "German." They are, to be precise, legally "ownerless", even if ultimately some Germans have the power to enjoy the income. (For a further explanation of the slippery nature of these structures, see Section 3.1 here). So if this money has no owner, who is going to declare it to their tax authority? Nobody: ownerless money doesn't have a home tax authority. That is, of course, the whole point.
"Not all banks go so far. Especially smaller private banks are balking at a self-declaration, and they are supported by the Swiss Bankers Association. According to the trade association, this system [self declaration] does not exist anywhere else in the world. It also offers no guarantee against new black money. If someone is prepared to deceive their own tax offices, then it will not be hard for them to lie to the bank. The banks have to take the information provided by their customers at face value: they cannot, may not and should not check the declarations."That bit in bold is key. And this brings us to the following wonderful piece of logic.
All in all, it was a very grubby tale of greed and as blatant a piece of criminal law-breaking as you could expect. In one scene, a corporate services provider proposed that he would invite a local bank officer to come to a meeting in his offices to meet the purported launderer, and complete the banking formalities. Easier than going to the bank, was how he put it.And then some colourful but apt further commentary:
What made it all so acutely depressing was that there was no evidence that HMRC had ever prosecuted any of the corporate services providers under their supervision, for any breaches of the Money laundering Regulations, or indeed for straight-forward money laundering itself.
The real problem in all of this is that the Money Laundering Regulations have never been properly policed, and never effectively enforced. That is where the answer to money laundering interdiction lies, in the enforcement of the Regs, but why will no-one, absolutely fucking no-one, step up and take the lead on this?Bosworth-Davies, a former detective with many years' experience fighting financial crimes, notes that the UK's Financial Services Authority (FSA)
"have consistently refused to accept their Parliamentary responsibilities to enforce the Money Laundering law within the financial sector. HMRC cover another sector, and other agencies have input, but absolutely nothing gets done, and eventually the industry realises that there is no point bothering with a compliance regime because no-one enforces it.For anyone who has even just dipped into Treasure Islands, they will see how true this is. This is the business model.
I have been forced to come to the conclusion that Government does not really want the AML [Anti Money Laundering] laws to be enforced - they cannot do so, because they spend such little time and effort insisting on enforcement. . . . in practice, just keeping their noses out of the issue, for fear that too much regulation and compliance with international laws might mean putting off some of the slew of dirty money that is constantly flowing around the world looking for a safe haven, from coming to the UK."
"we might as well fill our coffers with the profits from the drug trade and other people's tax evasion, and as long as we pay lip-service to the FATF guidelines, and make sure that we don't get put on some nasty blacklist (which we won't because we make sure we are well-represented at FATF meetings), and as long as we keep pointing the finger of non-compliance at Iran or Pakistan or wherever, we will get away with it."So very unpleasantly true. And there is much more in there, well worth reading.
“We often encounter pressure from some sections of the industry that ‘If you don’t do X . . . then we will go somewhere else and Hong Kong will suffer’,” he said. “We always, always take that with a very heavy pinch of salt.”Who is this Socialist firebrand? None other than Ashley Alder, lead market regulator in the tax haven of Hong Kong. Every now and then, the offshore world can surprise you.
George Osborne, the UK chancellor of the exchequer, and his German counterpart Wolfgang Schäuble have said they will engage with the OECD to tackle the problems in international tax.How serious is this? Well, thanks to The Telegraph, we have more details:
"George Osborne, Wolfgang Schaeuble, the German finance minister, and Pierre Moscovici, the French finance minister, have written to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development (OECD) with a pledge to provide €150,000 (£120,000) each to help stamp out “profit shifting” and ensure major companies pay their fair share of tax."£360,000 to solve this gigantic, corrupting faultline in global capitalism. That should do it!
The existence of an extraordinary global network of sham company directors, most of them British, can be revealed.BBC Panorama tonight will show an undercover investigator asking James Turner, of Turner Little in York, to help him hide money stashed in a Swiss bank, and he offers nominee directors in Belize and says:
"They won't even know that they were a director, they just get paid."That bit in bold is extraordinary, and it seems it's not uncommon either: another company representative explained "that many of its nominees are not even aware of how their names are being used." The investigation finds 21,500 companies through just nominee directors. They find the British Virgin Islands (BVI) particularly troubling - something that TJN has been shouting about for a long time: while Cayman is the first Caribbean jurisdiction most people think of in the context of tax havens, the BVI has not got nearly enough attention. This needs to change, dramatically. The UK appears to have some plans to clean up, but as we've noted, while this appears to be significant we don't have a lot of confidence in its potential for real change.
"This Caribbean territory, which is ultimately controlled by the UK, has sold more than a million anonymously-owned offshore entities since launching itself in 1984 as a tax haven."We are also delighted to read that a worldwide research effort has been launched this year by the ICIJ. It aims to identify, country by country, thousands of the true owners.
"We are applying specialist software to crunch through literally hundreds of thousands of offshore entities to look for patterns. We are marrying our findings with old-fashioned shoe leather and interviews from key insiders who can provide further context on this little known and loosely regulated world."An official from one of the companies approached, in Hertfordshire in the UK, said:
"if we were approached by the Indian tax authorities and they say we believe you are acting for this client and he is doing money laundering, we would give the information. If they said we were acting for this client and they are doing tax evasion, we wouldn't give a monkey's."And the subsequent conversation made matters somewhat worse. Another official is described:
"(he) offers his customers "anonymity of the ultimate owners". He tells them: "The prime advantage … is to place the 'management and control' issue firmly outside a high tax jurisdiction." This allows the owners to claim the company is being run from an overseas tax haven, rather than from where they live."Now read on. This is what the Fourth Estate is for. Gradually, bit by bit, fragments of Britain's "second empire" are being dragged out into the light of day. Why has Britain not reformed this swamp?
"The UK government refuses to step in and make reforms. One reason was candidly spelled out by Michael Foot, a former Bank of England official and Financial Services Authority managing director. He reported to the then Labour chancellor, Alistair Darling, in a Treasury paper published in 2009, saying that to abolish the BVI's secrecy regime "would be likely to result in a loss of business".It really is as sordid as that. There are of course many other aspects of this we'd like to see covered, for instance:
A leaked government document seen by International Tax Review reveals that the UK is planning to impose its own version of the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) on its Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories. The move will deal an almost-fatal blow to tax evasion through the UK’s tax havens.
Responding to an International Development Committee report earlier this week, the government publicly rejected the need for a UK version of FATCA the need for a UK version of FATCA, which would require tax authorities to automatically exchange information relating to UK citizens or corporations.
In private, however, the government has already drafted FATCA legislation which it will impose on its Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories. These include some of the world’s most notorious tax havens such as the Cayman Islands, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
The draft agreement, seen by International Tax Review, will require the automatic exchange of information for each reportable account of each reporting financial institution. That will include full details of all beneficial owners of the account, including those whose identities might otherwise be hidden by trusts or companies
It will also require the account number, name and identifying number of the reporting financial institution as provided when registering with the IRS for FATCA purposes, and the account balance or value as of the end of the relevant calendar year or other appropriate reporting period or, if the account was closed during such year, immediately before closure.
The move will come as a huge blow to tax havens and companies and individuals hiding money in them. But it is a coup for the Tax Justice Network (TJN), which has long been arguing for automatic information exchange.
“This is a requirement for full, open disclosure,” said the TJN’s Richard Murphy. “It looks through trusts, companies, who owns the assets. It’s full automatic information exchange.”
(Continue reading to see the whole story.)If this goes ahead as flagged here, it does represent a very significant advance, not least for its embrace of the concept of automatic information exchange. We would add a couple of important, even major, caveats, however.
"That will include full details of all beneficial owners of the account, including those whose identities might otherwise be hidden by trusts or companies."That sounds good but trusts can be so very slippery - discretionary trusts are a particular case in point - that it is possible that billions or even trillions in assets would remain out of the scope of this. Britain's tax evasion and avoidance industry has made a living out of navigating these complex distinctions. Will this include foundations? (We recently noted, for instance, Guernsey introducing foundations, which "gave a multiplicity of control retention mechanisms over key decisions for the founder while offering a higher level of confidentiality than trusts.") We will remain skeptical for now, but would be delighted to be proved wrong.
We recommend that the Government introduce legislation similar to the relevant section of the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), requiring tax authorities automatically to exchange information relating to UK citizens or corporations. The Government should also use its influence (via the OECD Tax and Development Task Force, and similar avenues) to persuade other governments to follow suit. (Paragraph 41)It would seem, however, that the Department for International Development may have been misled on this one.
Disagree. The Government is fully committed to tackling tax evasion and sees transparency and information exchange as key tools but does not regard the introduction of FATCA in the UK as an appropriate means to achieve this. FATCA is unilateral and extraterritorial in its approach and has created significant difficulties for the US as well as affected countries in its implementation. The UK approach is to work in partnership with other governments, including those in developing countries, to increase tax transparency and exchange of information. The Government works closely with the G20, EU and OECD to deliver real progress in international tax transparency and substantially increase levels of information exchange.
Germany's upper house of parliament on Friday rejected a deal with Switzerland to tax assets stashed by German citizens in Swiss bank accounts.TJN writer Nicholas Shaxson, author of Treasure Islands, has a big article in The Guardian today anticipating this move and explaining how the spotlight now falls on Britain. it begins
. . .
The tax deal could still be salvaged in a mediation procedure that seeks to resolve differences between the Bundestag, the lower house of parliament, and the Bundesrat, but the chances of that happening are slim.
The world is seeing the first stirrings of an emerging new architecture of global transparency in taxation which could, if pushed forwards, help governments for the first time raise serious revenues from the estimated $21-32 trillion sitting offshore. Switzerland, in alliance with the tax havens of Luxembourg, Austria and Britain, is leading the charge to derail it.Swiss politicians are putting a brave face on this, and still holding out hope for a route through to a deal. Commentary on Shaxson's article is here.
Booksellers across the country are displaying “We Pay Our Taxes” posters in their shop windows in a reference to rival company Amazon’s appearance in front of the Public Accounts Committee last week (12th November).And the Booksellers' Association website says:
The Booksellers Association has created striking red point-of-sale materials for its IndieBound members to encourage their customers to choose to shop at their local bookshop as opposed to using rival online site Amazon.
The first of the two POS styles reads: “Your Money, Your Bookshop, Your Community", with a stack of pound coins followed by the message “We Pay Our Taxes”; the second features a Union Jack-patterned purse with the message “Can Pay Do Pay!”, followed by “We Pay Our Taxes.”
"As part of the BA's Keep Books on the High Street campaign, we are encouraging all our friends and partners in the book trade to take a step in favour of contemporary high street bookshops. We believe consumers deserve the choice of shopping with their local bookseller, whether on the high street or on their website. So we urge you to introduce the idea of bookshops to your website visitors."We would wholeheartedly support this. The use of national flags in campaigns can sometimes be dangerous, but in this instance it's absolutely apt: paying tax is one of the most patriotic things one can do.