I've just posted David Cameron's letter to the G8.
I did so because there is a fundamental problem at the core of this letter. Much a I agree with its sentiments and goals, he says:
Dealing with tax evasion is not just about exchanging information. It is also about improving the quality and accuracy of that information. Put simply, that means we need to know who really owns and controls each and every company. This goes right to the heart of the ambition of Britain's G8 to knock down the walls of company secrecy.
He's right. But there's a massive problem. The UK ha not a clue about who owns UK registered companies, what they do, where they are, how they can be contacted, why hundreds of thousands of them do not comply with their obligation to file documents each year and why well under half (you read that right) file tax returns.
The question to Cameron is when is he going to put the UK's house in order? Because that's at least as big a question as the tax haven problem.
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:
The correct response from the recipients of Cameron’s letter should be “yes,we will put in place a company beneficial ownership registry at the same time that the UK introduces one.”
And the UK should absolutely insist thst Delaware and all other US states do exactly the same, along with all G7 and G20 countries.
No double standards. It must be a level playing field.
That’s the criminals defence
Prosecute me for tax crime when you prosecute everyone, or don’t prosecute anyone at all
Very kindly: we’;; talking crime as and when it is possible
Richard
Utter rubbish. No crime is committed by merely owning a company. 99% of people are not committing a crime when owning a company, whether onshore or offshore.
It is nothing other than hypocritical for anyone to demand higher standards of beneficial ownership disclosure for offshore jurisdictions than they are prepared to accept for themselves.
Simultaneously sort out the UK and the US, not to mention the rest of the G7 and G20 countries, and demand it for offshore juridictions from a position of moral high ground.
I agree the UK should have these standards because crime using companies is as common in the UK s in the CDs
But that’s not a reason for demanding action from the epicentres of tax abuse that are under UK control
But you equating “tax abuse” with “crime”, and the two are absolutely NOT the same.
Oh yes they are
They are drimes against humanity and democracy
But not criminal offences by the law of the land. So – wanting privacy through using a company to hold assets is a “crime against humanity and democracy”?
Thank goodness the law of the land is based on more solid foundations.
The abuse of limited liability is a crime of the land too
As you well know
Merely using a company? Please elaborate.
Company law certainly exists and those laws must of course be adhered to. But simply having a company is not abusing anything.
Unless some new laws have been passed without my noticing,…
I have a car which can go fast. I don’t use it to go fast, There are strict laws about driving fast. Am I committing a crime by owning a fast car which I could abuse by speeding if i was so minded? Of course not.
You seem to want to brand everyone who uses a company to hold personal wealth as a criminal. Guilty until proved innocent. Sorry – the civilised world just does not work like that.
But having a car and refusing to be accountable for it – having no number plates – is an offence
That’s what you want
Richard
Of course that’s an offence. Its a clear breach of a stated law.
But forming a company and doing everything required by the law in relation to it doesn’t result in an offence being committed. There is currently no law requiring public ownership disclosure. It is therefore currently not possible to be in breach of such a law.
And as is clearbthe demand for a change in the law is overwhelming
Richard
Not sure about “overwhelming”, but if and when the law changes, so be it.
As I’ve made clear, its hardly a problem if its just the agencies who need the info who have access to it. The issue is with prying busybodies who have no need whatsoever to know personal information having access to it. Tax authorities and law enforcement agencies? Not really an issue and actually hard to argue against, other than the lack of a level playing field by wilful boundless of G8 and G20 countries about their own back yard, which is sheer hypocrisy.
Corporations do not have personal information
They have corporate information
I am not asking for personal information. That can be private
Shall we talk facts here?
And to that you can add Delaware and Nevada.
Backed up by the latest in-depth report in Private Eye, which also cites your work http://taxjustice.blogspot.ch/2013/05/where-theres-muck-theres-brass-plates.html
Indeed!
Excellent read – and great investigative journalism
After his bollocking (sorry, lobbying) by the robber barons (sorry, captains of industry) yesterday, and their warnings about how big business will withdraw their support/money for the Tories (sorry, ‘unintended consequences’), I doubt you can count on that anytime soon, Richard. In any case, they must all know he’s a lame-duck, one term, PM, so all they have to do is stall him a bit until Gove or Johnson take over.
Surely a very real implication of yesterday’s outpouring from the barons/captains is that their support for remaining in the EU will be a reason for many people to support withdrawal from the EU – which I believe would be utter lunacy economically.
Here we go again “We bad”….and having “lit the match”….