[W]henever a territory is accused of being a secrecy jurisdiction, the response is always outraged denial. Clearly it’s understood that being a secrecy jurisdiction is nothing to be proud of. No matter whether the accusation comes from the Tax Justice Network, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development or the President of the United States, denial is the default and automatic response.
So here’s a novel idea. How about the territories repeatedly fingered as secrecy jurisdictions come up with their own definition of what a secrecy jurisdiction is — and why they are not one.
But there’s a catch.
The definition has to allow for two things. Firstly, the jurisdiction in question has to be able to explain why it is not a secrecy jurisdiction, under its own definition. Secondly, the definition has to simultaneously be able to finger other territories as secrecy jurisdictions.
Read the rest. His logic is impeccable.
But will they rise to the challenge? Or to put it another way - is there someone with Paul's intellect out there willing to argue against him? I doubt it.
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:
