Travers hits out at damaging UK “dithering” | Cayman News Service.
The Cayman’s were due to have a budget today.
They aren’t.
The UK has not agreed their loan request. And rightly so. Cayman has not proven its ability to pay.
Time to tax is the message Cayman.
Time you heard it loud and clear.
Mr Travers in particular.
The Other TaxPayers’ Alliance | Why councils must ban the Daily Mail.
Just read it. Too good to summarise.
Investment down 21.8% ¬´ Duncan’s Economic Blog.
A timely reminder on the state of investment in the UK comes from the ONS this morning.
“Business investment for the second quarter of 2009 is estimated to be 10.2 per cent lower than the previous quarter and 21.8 per cent lower than the same period last year.”
I continue to be amazed that collapse in investment is not being debated whilst the size of the deficit is. The real threat to Britain’s economic future is a lack of investment, not increased public debt.
Notts County football club has been acquired by an offshore syndicate, part of which is suffering significant legal problems in Jersey right now.
Former England manager Sven-Goran Eriksson has said of the cash that can have been the only attraction of the lowly rated club to him:
I don’t know where the money comes from and I think that’s the job of the chairman to find out. I’m not interested in that. The important thing is that the money comes.
You’re wrong Sven. You’re very, very wrong. Illicit cash isn’t something you want to stand near. It stinks, and leaves a stain on those who go near it.
It’s possible the Notts Country cash is not illicit. Bt who knows? And how can you know without asking?
No one can afford Sven’s blind eye. Not now.
From the TJN blog on Microsoft’s tax ( a favourite theme of mine):
Although the majority of [Microsoft’s] software development is performed in Washington State, Microsoft records its estimated $18 billion in licensing revenue per year through a corporate office in Reno, Nevada where there is no licensing tax.
If the Washington State Legislature hadn’t bowed to industry lobbyists and cut the tax rate by more than 2/3, Microsoft would owe $2.08 billion.
So Microsoft does not like paying tax. That’s not news.
But it’s going to be. That tax and corporate responsibility debate hasn’t even started yet. But as TJN says, tax and CSR is the elephant in the room.
Just wait.
The British Bankers Association are trying out there one and only negotiating tactic again. Speaking yesterday, and reported in the Guardian, their spokesperson Angela Knight said:
If we continue to demonise our own banking industry, there is no shortage of other jurisdictions which will leap at the chance of taking the business if we chose to discard it in this way, as we have done with many of our great industries in the past.
Yes, that’s it – ye again they say “we’ll go unless you’re nice to us”.
To which the answer is simple – “The door is over there. Please shut it after you.”
Why do I say that? Because she continued, clearly aiming at Lord Myners and Lord Turner:
Those who have the opportunity for public platforms also have a duty to use that opportunity advisedly. If the price of gaining headlines and column inches in the short term is the cost of jobs and our country’s economic prospects in the long term then the price is simply too high.
Public criticism by "our authorities" had damaged Britain’s negotiations over international principles on pay and regulation, being discussed by Brussels and the G20 leaders meeting in Pittsburgh.
The future of the global financial system is being decided and these very significant changes that will result will cover the UK. Whilst many of the points that are being made may be correct … the manner of the criticism is not helping our negotiating position
Now what is it you don’t understand Angela? The UK negotiating position – the negotiating position of all at the G20, with variations, I know – is that your activities are anti-social, impose too great a cost on society, are harmful to well-being and need to be much better regulated.So where are you heading for when you quit?
No Switzerland, for sure. no any UK territory – they’re all going bust. certainly not within the EU. Singapore? Easy to blockade – sorry. Panama? I don’t think so. Japan – not a place for bankers, I think.
So China is left? Are you serious Angela? Is that it? We’ll all up-sticks for Shanghai? Forget it. I don’t believe you.
So we’ll carry on ignoring you – because the truth is out and cannot be put back in the lamp. What you do is anti-social, and really not that government friendly (you may have noticed). Which means they neither owe you favours or need to heed your hollow threats.
Accountancy Age notes that following the issue of demands for information on offshore bank accounts and offshore bank transfers issued to 308 banks in the UK in August:
One leading tax lawyer said 95% of his clients had been looking at issuing protective appeals to keep HMRC at bay.
However the only legitimate ground of appeal is that it would be “unduly onerous” for the bank in terms of collating the information to comply with the notice.
Hard to see how making an enquiry about which, as a combination of anti-money laundering and basic accounting requirements all the banks in question must have full records is onerous, but never let that get in the way of a lawyer:
The banks could quite rightly feel hard done by, he added. They were not given any advance notice of HMRC’s plans to proceed against them, and they also had no opportunity to approach the tax tribunal before the application was made by the taxman.
Oh, come on. This was trailed for a about a year. To claim no notice was given is to suggest that bankers can’t read the financial press. Everyone knew this was going to happen. And HMRC held extensive talks before the notices were issued to work out how to do this.
In the circumstance the excuse is feeble and yet further indication of the only people to whom banks seem to have true loyalty: their tax evading clients.
A protocol signed Wednesday by the United States and Switzerland amending the U.S.-Swiss Tax Treaty falls short of ensuring effective information-exchange between the U.S. and Swiss financial institutions, said Global Financial Integrity (GFI) Thursday.
“The protocol signed Wednesday is an improvement on the existing US-Swiss Income Tax Treaty,” said GFI director Raymond Baker. “It establishes a stronger framework for and commitment to cooperation in mutual tax assistance matters, but there is still a ways to go before we have something in place that will enable the U.S. to effectively pursue tax evaders that hide assets in Switzerland.”
The amendment contains new language which stipulates that Switzerland may no longer rely on national laws to refuse a request for information. Thus, under the new protocol Switzerland may not reference its own bank secrecy laws to deny a request for information. GFI applauds this laudable win for U.S. negotiators and recommends that this new language be a standard part of all future treaty negotiations with other countries. GFI also recommends this provision be included within the current OECD model, on which the majority of international Tax Information Exchange Agreements are modeled.
But, GFI notes, the new agreement maintains the paradigm of information-on-request, as opposed to adopting an automatic exchange framework. Also, requests for information under the new agreement are required to be highly specific which can be an impediment in investigating tax evasion and fraud cases.
“Automatic exchange of information is the only practical way to ensure that countries are provided all relevant information with respect to their own citizen taxpayers who have accounts abroad,” said Mr. Baker. “Under the protocol signed yesterday, a request for information basically must include the name, rank, and serial number of suspected tax evaders, when in fact the end-game of many tax investigations is to discover the identity of tax evaders.”
The amended tax treaty will now go to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for consideration, after which the Senate must approve it by a 2/3 vote before it may enter into force.
“The U.S.-Swiss agreement is a step forward,” said Mr. Baker. “But the protocol that will go to Congress for consideration falls far short of what is needed to improve U.S. access to information with respect to citizens with accounts in Switzerland.”
G-20 Near Deal on Economy – WSJ.com.
According to the Wall Street Journal:
The summit is also gearing up to announce a tough approach to dealing with tax havens, according to a draft of the communiqu?© the group will present Friday
These things can change.
I hope not.
| © 2005 - 2011 Tax Research UK. Some rights reserved.  |
Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha |
