John Christensen has written his own blog for TJN on the Jersey responses to Monday's Panorama, in which he appeared. It's well worth reading.
But note four things in particular:
1) None of our critics will answer our questions as to why Jersey deliberately facilitates tax evasion, which it so obviously does by refusing to participate in full in the EU savings tax directive.
2) The vast majority of our critics refuse to put their names on public record. Is that how confident they are of their position?
3) Note that Jersey politicians will not engage with us, although they most certainly will snipe at its. It is interesting to note that when I was asked to appear on Jersey radio on Tuesday morning I was advised that Philip Ozouf, the finance minister, would debate with me. When it came to it Jersey Finance had to appear instead. He chickened out, as usual. Why is that?
4) Why does Jersey have such a deep paranoia about our criticism? We also criticise every major tax haven, including the UK and the USA. So why is Jersey so troubled?
As is normal with almost all those with whom we engage, whether from tax havens or from the political right, there is a refusal on the part of Jersey to engage with the issues that we raise and instead a blanket attempt has been made to try to discredit us. That will not work. Jersey should have a noticed that the world's press does seem to listen to us, for the good reason but we deliver credible evidence to support our case.
Telling us and that press that we do not know what we're talking about will not work when it is obvious that the media believe that we do know precisely what we are talking about. Only answers will refute our claims.
When are Jersey and all the others are going to supply them with the answers that prove their case and answer our allegations? Nothing else will do, and abuse will only lead to even more widespread belief that tax havens have something to hide.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
For the record, I have nothing to do with Planet Jersey and have been out of the picture since last October.
With regard to your comments on tax evasion, it is a non-starter, we simply do NOT facilitate this practice. You give us examples and then we will take action. As it has already been pointed out on here that you cannot even differentiate between evasion and avoidance anyhow, how can anybody in Power from Jersey get into debate with you? John Christensen may have worked in Jersey and been born in the Island (like me), but he certainly does not know what working on the Shop floor is like in 2009 and he proved that in his Panorama interview.
In any case, I will be kicking off my own BLOG soon and it will set the record straight.
I totally agree with what you say about the atitude here to ignore the basic truth – that tax avoidance is just not right! Take Peter Body’s recent article for example. I have just had an amusing debate with some who seem to think like Mr Body, that tax avoidance is perfectly okay. in fact its GOOD for economies: http://www.thisisjersey.com/2009/02/03/reputation-it-all-appears-to-be-a-matter-of-definition/#comment-18911
Tax Avoidance?
So are you saying that I should not be able to pay into a pension scheme for income tax relief or that people should not be alowed to use ISAa?
So we now have two Jamess commenting on this site! We will have to differentiate ourselves!
The line that paying into pension schemes and ISAs is on a par with complex avoidance schemes using secrecy jursdictions and requiring very careful planning is one that I have seen quite often. The average man in the street would probably have little difficulty in distinguishing between arrangements that are open, and provided for by legislation as against arrangements that may rely on secrecy, require consdiderable deviousnes and are intended to avoid the intention of parliament who draft our laws. Ok you can probably see where I am coming from!
However the argument is also made that in our legal system, if it is not actually permitted, it is OK. We need to be aware that legally OK and morally OK are not the same. The fact that these complex avoidance schemes are legally OK does not prevent people from arguing that maybe the laws in this country should be changed and campaigning to acheive thsi.
In other words, arguing that complex avoidance is legal is irrelevantwhen the discussion is about what the laws of this country should be.
Of course, for some, the moral imperative is that they should be “allowed to keep what is theirs”, by any legal means. Understandable, but of limited use when we are trying to work out how to keep the country from going down the toilet.
Getting back to the point, the fact that presently paying into a pension scheme and the complex avoidance scheme are both legal is beside the point. The question is what should the law be. Should the law be as easy ts it seems to be for large corporations to apy very little tax on their profits.
It is of course a fact of life that those whoc afford to do so will use whatever means are available (within the law) to minimise their tax. Should these options be available?
To Matt
Pension contributions and payments into ISAs are exempted from tax. There is no avoidance involved. Tax avoidance involves taking steps to exploit loopholes in tax law. The two are not the same. Parliaments provide exemptions to encourage certain behaviour, i.e. saving. People making use of ISAs are therefore doing exactly as Parliaments encourage. Tax avoidance, however, goes against Parliamentary will since it involves taking steps that Parliaments have not expressly allowed. This is why many of us regard tax avoidance – and particularly “aggressive” tax avoidance, as purposefully anti-democratic.
best wishes
John
Matt
Tax avoidance is different from tax compliance. This is from here:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/launder/haven/2007/2007taxjustice.pdf
I wrote it. The references to companies can be extended to people.
What you describe is tax compliant behaviour
1. Tax evasion is an illegal activity undertaken to reduce a company’s tax bill. It might be for example that the company:
a. Fails to declare all or part of its income;
b. Makes a claim to offset an expense against its taxable income which it did not incur or which is of a type not considered suitable for tax relief in the country in which the claim is made;
c. Makes a tax claim which looks legal but only because a relevant fact with regard to that claim has not been disclosed to the tax authorities, and if it were the tax claim would be denied.
2. Tax compliance is the other end of the spectrum from tax evasion. When a company seeks to be tax compliant it does the following:
a. Seeks to comply with tax law in all the countries in which it operates;
b. Makes full disclosure of all relevant information on all its tax claims;
c. Seeks to pay the right amount of tax required by law (but no more) at the right time and in the right place.
This activity attracts remarkably little attention, but some companies do practice it.
3. Tax avoidance. Tax avoidance is the grey area between tax compliance and tax evasion. When tax avoiding a company seeks to ensure that on of these happens:
a. less tax is paid than might be required by a reasonable interpretation of the law of a country, or
b. tax is paid on profits declared in a country which does not appear to be that in which they were earned, or
c. tax is paid somewhat later than the profits to which it relates were earned.
The difference between tax avoidance and tax compliance is that tax compliance seeks to ensure that tax is paid in accordance with a straightforward interpretation of the letter of the law whilst tax avoidance seeks to reduce tax paid by working between the letters of the law. Both can claim to be legal, but only tax compliance can justify that claim with certainty. Tax avoidance relies on the existence of doubt for its validity. The practices referred to in this report fall largely in the area of tax avoidance, and suggest ways in which companies seek to minimise their tax bills whilst working around the law of one or more countries.
Richard
Richard
So let’s get this right.
You’ve arbitarily re-written the rules and now they’re gospel for everyone to follow ?
I might try that. There’s a few laws that I’m not keen on. I’ll announce to the world that I’ve changed them.
Can’t see me getting very far with that approach. I suspect I’ll be told not to rely on my new laws until the appropriate government has chosen to adopt them.
Rupert
the above is not an arbitrary rewriting of the rules. It is good discourse.
But even if I were trying to rewrite the rules that is allowed in the democratic process. It is how we make progress.
Do you have a problem with people inputting into debate in that way? Its called politics – something you lot in Jersey aren’t too keen on, I’ve noticed.
Richard
Richard
I have no problem at all with you trying to rewrite the rules. As you say, its the democractic process.
But what I do resent is that so much of your stances on this blog seem to be based on the assumption that your proposals have actually been adopted. You have unilaterally created this distinction between tax avoidance and tax compliance and accuse those who are engaged in tax avoidance as acting unlawfully when they aren’t. No matter how highly you rate your unilateral definition of tax compliance, until that definition is adopted it simply doesn’t exist. In the meantime, the current law remains the law. Something is either tax evasion (illegal) or tax avoidance (legal). There is no third definition and you cannot maintain any credibility if you continually accuse people of breaking a law that simply doesn’t exist.
This interesting and it is a classic kind of approach. What Rupert is saying is that we are not allowed to talk about where the line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour lies. Such talk is, in his mind, meaningless. We are not allowed to say that we think that certain kinds of behaviour which are legal should perhaps not be. Is it, in fact the case, Rupert that the reason why you are attempting to close down the debate is because you know you cannot win? Because there are only a very few people who benefit from the kinds of tax avoidance which we are discussing and a very very large number of people who end up picking up the tab for it, by paying more taxes, being disadvantaged in the market and societal damage?
Rupert
The definition I offer has nothing to do with law
It is a means of understanding what is happening
And it is a guide as to how to tackle abuse
Of course I can offer a mechanism for understanding. If not you really are trying to suppress debate.
Is that your aim?
Ricjard
James and Richard
I am not trying to suppress debate at all. That’s not the issue and if you actually read my 2.29pm post you will see exactly what I mean.
To spell it out, I resent Richard taking the stance on virtually every thread on this blog that the moral issue has actually been debated, passed through parliament and is part of the legislation to which we all must adhere. That is wishful thinking, not debate.
To be accused of acting unlawfully through carrying out lawful tax avoidance, which Richard has unliterally decided isn’t lawful because it is not tax compliance (a term which no government to the best of my knowledge has ever adopted in anti-avoidance legislation), is where I draw the line. By all means have your debate, and by all means do what you wish to get the law changed, but until it does please do not accuse or infer that law-abiding citizens are actually breaking a law which actually doesn’t exist.
If you cannot see the point that I am making then so be it. I cannot spell it out any clearer.
Rupert
The term tax compliance is now widely used – including by HM Revenue & Customs.
It eliminates the need for the term aggressive tax avoidance.
That is one thing of course you facilitate
But let’s also be clear: I remain resolute in my charge that Jersey does (even if you do not) deliberately facilitate evasion.
So too of course do Guernsey and the Isle of Man. Please don’t feel picked on.
If you do not understand that wait until Obama presses the point home, I suggest. Maybe you will then.
Richard
Rupert is 100% correct here and I have mentioned this on another thread with regard t Richard and John’s wantonness to debate their views with a Jersey Senator. The basis of the TJN argument is that evasion and avoidance are both the same, yet the law says otherwise, so how could a Senator get into to debate with them?
Rupert is also correct in saying that Richard is behaving like a virtual law draftsman that has already had a personal view adopted into statue, and then uses his virtual definition as a reference to defend his arguments.
I hope many other readers start to see what is going on here and perhaps it is one of the reasons the TJN are not being taken so seriously. In fact from some of their view points, I wonder whether they have a religious connection?
Jason
The world over listens to us
Universities all over the world ask us to address high level lectures
Governments are accepting our arguments, and backing us
Eminent lawyers debate with us. Some use our definitions
And at no point have I ever said evasion and avoidance are the same – which is why I define them quite differently
We have sought to create a different perspective on tax and secrecy jurisdictions- and are succeeding in doing so – as any but the blind will note
No one is more surprised at our success in doing this than me. But like it or not, it suggests that everywhere but Jersey we’re taken seriously
What does that say about who is the odd one out here, and who is the one refusing to debate the real issues of the moment as they affect you?
No one but a fool refuses to debate issues of importance to them. That’s what we’re raising – very publicly. You can’t not take us seriosly – everyone else does
So step on up
As for the last point – our position is clear. we have no political affiliations. We are funded by some organisations with religious affiliation – including the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, Christian Aid, CAFOD, Secour Catholique, Misereor and maybe others I don’t instatntly recall. We also have secualr funding.
I happen to be a regular communicant Anglican. By no means all who work for the organisation are affiliated with any church. It is entirely a personal issue
So please keep tot he point.
Richard
Could someone answer from the TJN answer me a question, where does the TJN stand on the UK and it’s government actively encourages tax avoidance ?
John
We oppose it
I think it quite fair to say I was a prime mover in the campaign to get rid of the domicile rule
Please read my report The Missing Billions for the TUC
Just Google it and you’ll see just where we stand
No hypocrisy – and we do say London is the biggest tax haven too
Richard