Offshore Havens Doing Their Best Despite Criticism!.

[M]ost offshore tax havens are doing their absolute best to comply with exchange of information requests for example, and they are doing so despite criticism still being levelled against them. It seems that some countries are desperate to try and deflect attention away from their own economic incompetence, and instead shine a spotlight on offshore jurisdictions such as Switzerland and Luxembourg

I wonder if the author graduated from a University I know where absence of evidence to support a claim made is considered quite OK?

 

Tax Justice Network: On “strong” assumptions and other nonsense.

John Christensen takes on Oxford.

Rightly so.

 

The best democracy money can buy | Prem Sikka | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk .

It is often claimed that Britain has the best democracy that money can buy. Evidently, the monied interests have already bought it. TheConservative and Labour parties are funded by corporations and wealthy individuals. Groups providing funds to political parties expect a return on their investment and the payoff is ideological shaping of politics, help in the legislative process, privileged access to the state machinery and help in securing contracts.

 

We hear about green shoots. I don’t believe they’re happening. Take three articles from today’s FT. Start with this:

ECB pumps €442bn into banking system

The European Central Bank on Wednesday pumped hundreds of billions of euros in one-year loans into the eurozone’s weakened banking system, making record amounts of emergency finance available in a bid to unlock credit markets and revive the region’s economies.

In other words, the drain on taxpayer funds has still not stopped but banks are still not delivering.

Then this:

Beware the off-balance sheet return

Reporters have tried for years to make accounting sound interesting. When it comes to off-balance-sheet accounting our job has been made easier, since we have been able to attach adjectives such as “shady”, “shadowy”, “opaque” or, best of all, “Enronesque”.

But no longer. Qualified special purpose entities are finally dead. These have been the vehicles of choice through which US banks have bundled vast pools of loans off their balance sheets and away from the eyes of investors and regulators.

Now hundreds of billions of dollars (choose your analyst estimate) will be plonked back on to banks’ books, beginning next year, in a victory for accounting transparency and the needs of investors.

Or is it?

To anyone with a passing knowledge of accounting and the Enron scandal, the rhetoric should ring alarm bells.

In other words, they’re still playing the rules and doing the abuse.

Or this:

Banks rush to rescue of credit card trusts

Record credit card losses are pushing big US banks to come to the rescue of off-balance sheet vehicles they use to transform hundreds of billions of dollars in consumer loans into securities sold to investors.

The support provided by Citigroup, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and American Express underscores how the deteriorating health of the US consumer is opening new fronts in the financial crisis.

Which say that the abuse has begun again before the problems of the past have even all emerged into the open, meaning that inevitably more tax payer support will be needed yet.

So what is happening?

It’s a brave person who hypothesises, but what is clear is that the massive boost in confidence ion the City, the return of the bonus culture, the big profits being made, are all indicative of one thing: that those who populate that place are quite sure they have found a new and limitless source of capital with which to play – our money.

The trillions that have been used to shore up the banks so that we continue to have money coming out of cash point machines (because they control that process – which is absurd – as I have pointed out time and again) have not been mislaid, or lost. But nor have they been put to good use. They’ve been used by the City to provide the liquidity they need to trade with each other – a zero sum game notionally undertaken on behalf of clients like pension funds which extracts benefit from our investments made for the future to provide the City with current income.

That’s a giant fraud. It’s why the City booms as our pensions fail: they are the cause of that failure, just as they are becoming the cause of the bankruptcy of our economy. They know that. They carry on just the same: their aim is to redistribute as much tangible wealth as possible in their direction before the next crash happens. And happen it will – because the current activity is just sign of more madness in the City undertaken in pursuit of this goal.

And still we are giving them more, and asking for nothing in return.

When will this madness end?

And do not doubt – behind this madness there is raw politics of power, and that’s a game they’re winning right now. That’s what worries me most.

 

FT.com / Europe – IMF sees drag on Irish growth until 2014.

Ireland faces a deeper recession than any advanced economy, while the collapse of the property market and related financial stress in the banking sector will continue to be a drag on growth until at least 2014, the International Monetary Fund says in its annual report on Ireland.

More evidence that low tax is no basis on which to build an economy.

 

I had dinner with, amongst others, a transfer pricing specialist from the Big 4 last night.

Over dinner he said “You know Richard, what you do would be so much better if you did not refer to tax avoidance".”

To which I replied along the lines of “Well, you would say that wouldn’t you? That’s what you sell”.

He had no problem with that. I explained I did. He challenged me about why that was so. I explained that in my opinion the Big 4 firms have two fundamental purposes in life when it comes to tax.

First they exist to undermine the tax revenues of governments.

Second they exist to redistribute the wealth of the world from those who are poorest in the communities in which they work to those who are the richest in the communities in which they work.

As a consequence it is reasonable to assume that they undermine democracy and work to increase the tensions in society. That I suggested was not a good basis for suggesting their perpetuation.

He was not amused, but rather then engage he just said “I won’t go there".”

Why not? Are Big 4 personnel incapable of defending themselves against arguments which rely on the undeniable evidence that tax avoidance does undermine the revenue of governments and that since the Big 4s clients are the wealthiest in the societies in which they work this benefit is not evenly distributed, hence my conclusions follow? 

Apparently so.

It’s time these guys learned to put up a case for what they do bar a pile of cash.

 

Earlier this week a team from Oxford University challenged the work I and others have done in seeking to estimate the tax loss to developing countries as a result of transfer mis-pricing and related issues. One issue in particular stood out:

A key shortcoming of many existing studies based on mispricing is that they only take into account overpriced imports into developing countries and underpriced exports of these countries. But the mispricing approach also identifies underpriced imports into developing countries and overpriced exports. Both shift income into developing countries. Estimates of tax revenue calculations have to take into account income shifting in both directions. If only one direction is taken into account, the results are highly misleading. In this case, tax revenue losses due to mispricing are overestimated drastically.

I have said they have got their analysis wrong, but had the chance to explore this yesterday when i was at a conference with a major figure in finance from a poor developing country (Chatham House rules prevent me from saying which). I asked if he had witnessed under pricing into his country and over pricing out and he confirmed he had. But then said that the over pricing out was to claim export subsidies in excess of any additional tax paid and the import under-pricing was to avoid import duties in excess of any additional tax paid. In other words, in both cases there was tax cost and not benefit to the developing country – quite contrary to the assumption made by the Oxford team.

I am afraid their wholly unsupported assumptions used to criticise our work are not just unsupported, they are wrong. All mis-pricing into and out of developing countries is designed to harm their tax receipts.

Jun 252009
 

HMRC tax compliance budget drops 3% – Accountancy Age.

HM Revenue & Customs’ budget for tax compliance and enforcement has dropped by 3% over the past 12 months despite the need to claw back the dramatic decline in tax receipts.

Now, how does that make sense when we have a massive budget deficit to close?

 

Finance Minister Hans-Rudolf Merz says new tax regime will not lead to a lot of money to flow to Germany. – swissinfo.

[The Swiss finance minister] speaking in an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, said his German colleague, Peer Steinbr?ºck, was “dreaming” if he expected “hundreds of millions of francs” in tax money to come pouring in.

Merz was responding to Steinbr?ºck’s comments earlier this year that German taxpayers have deposited €200-300 billion (SFr130–196 billion) in Swiss bank accounts, and that Berlin loses €1 billion annually through tax evasion.

The Swiss finance minister said last year, for example, SFr137 million in taxes was sent to Germany, a figure Steinbr?ºck called a “joke”.

“According to the latest figures, there is approximately SFr5.4 trillion in total assets invested in Switzerland,” Merz told the German newspaper. “Half of this is from institutional investors who have no grounds to evade taxes or commit fraud.”

As ever the Swiss tell less of the story than actually exists.

Half that institutional money is structured through companies, foundations and other arrangemnts precisely to remain out of view under the European Union Savings Tax Directive.

Sure, a DTA won’t uncover this. A smoking gun is still needed under a DTA. But then the European Union Savings Tax Directive is extended to privately controlled institutions, then watch the money come home.

© 2005 - 2011 Tax Research UK.
Some rights reserved. Creative Commons License
Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha