I wrote yesterday about the farce of the tax information exchange agreements that have been signed by many tax havens / secrecy jurisdictions in response to OECD demands in 2012.
These tax information exchange agreements are the foundation for the claim many of these places, like the Isle of Man, make to now be open and transparent. It's a shame that's just not true. The reality was exposed in the Tynwald, the Isle of Man's parliament, last month. For the record, I reproduce the report here:
So, the Isle of Man is committed to openness and transparency as long as it is done in secret.
What a farce.
Until these places agree to full, automatic, information exchange then they will remain the base for tax abuse.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Hang on a minute.
The basis of an agreement is that two parties agree.
The other parties (and there are some significant countries in the list – not just tax havens) have agreed that the information will be confidential.
If the USA, China, Japan had wanted this information to be in the public domain wouldn’t they have insisted that there was disclosure of this information.
They could have publicly embarrassed the Isle of Man if they refused to sign without the confidentiality clause, if they thought that it was in their best interests not to have such a clause.
When you say “…Until these places agree…then they will remain the base for tax abuse” then you must mean USA, China and Japan – it can’t be the Isle of Man dictating the agenda here can it?
So it’s time it was changed
That’s what I said
But perhaps a more balanced and complete statement might be.
So, the USA, China, Japan,UK, Germany, France, Canada and the Netherlands are committed to openness and transparency as long as it is done in secret.
Have these countries listed disclosed the number of IE requests?
You don’t know that
The UK has disclosed IE requests – recently
That clause is in place to protect taxpayers in all countries. Information can only be provided to authorised officials in each country. Clearly this is to protect individuals from having their personal details disclosed to all and sundry. There’s nothing in there to suggest that the IOM is doing anything that any other country wouldn’t do. As long as it exchanges the required information, then what’s the problem? If it refuses to do so, thn presumably the OECD would become involved.
UK and other countries disclose number of requests
That has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting an individual – impossible to draw that conclusion
Numbers are not names – as the Swiss realised long ago
Exchanging info is a dterent – of course we need to know it is actually exchanged for the deterrent to work
…and where is the much vaunted Freedom of Information Act we island residents have been promised? Bit like the Freedom to Flourish slogan our Government continue to promote (provided you belong to the Club). Keep up the good work Richard.