Tax Research UK

It was good to be challenged about why we need much greater financial transparency to help developing countries by the IMF during an extended meeting with them on Friday.

The team from the Task Force on Financial Integrity and Economic Development  was able to address these issues, and clearly make the case. A number of explanations were offered.

First, greater transparency in developing countries will be of benefit in those places. Without data markets cannot operate effectively. If you do not know with whom you are dealing; if you do not know how they are using resources; if you cannot be sure entities can meet the claims made against them; if you cannot even be sure how you can register that claim, then quite clearly there is a significant risk premium within those markets that increases the cost of capital in those places. There is also substantial risk of the misallocation of resources, reducing the rate of return on capital, which has the same effective consequence. That means the cost of doing business in developing counties is significantly increased without full and open disclosure of what all entities other than natural persons are undertaking in these places.

Second, the maintenance of effective systems of regulation to prevent bribery and corruption, crime and the abuse of tax systems through transfer mispricing is not and cannot be claimed to be an internal matter which developing countries alone can tackle. When there are states around the world – the 60 or more secrecy jurisdictions that we know exist – offer facilities that are deliberately designed to undermine the effectiveness of the law enforcement agencies in these places then quite clearly they face an almost insurmountable issue in tackling the problems they face internally with the scarce resources that they have available to them. This means solving the problem of illicit financial flows cannot and never will be a matter for the developing counties of the world to tackle in isolation, and individually.

Third, this problem of secrecy jurisdictions is  not a problem the developing countries of the world created. It is one we in the developed world created, and from which they suffer, along with us. We created the limited liability corporation. It has been useful, and nothing will now make it go away. But we also allowed it to be debased, to became opaque to the point we know little or nothing about most of the world’s corporations - even to the extent of not knowing where some of them are incorporated, or if they even exist on registers anywhere. We allowed that to happen. We provided the space for that to happen. We do at present continue to tolerate that happening. This is a problem we must tackle or law enforcement in developing countries (and our own) will be continually undermined.

Fourth, we have allowed the secrecy space that the combination of multinational corporation group accounts and secrecy jurisdictions in combination provide and which between them enable the whole process of transfer mispricing to occur – to far too great a degree undetected.

Without a doubt there is a problem of law enforcement in some developing countries. It would be entirely wrong to deny it. But to say that this is their problem to solve alone and that we have no duty to reform the requirements of the international financial system to improve its efficiency as a mechanism for allocating resources, for enforcing property rights, for preventing bribery and corruption , for preventing crime and for preventing tax abuse is just wrong.

Richard Murphy Accountancy, Banking, Development, Secrecy jurisdictions, Task Force

A new report released today from Global Financial Integrity (GFI) on private, non-resident deposits in secrecy jurisdictions finds that the United States, United Kingdom, and the Cayman Islands are the most popular destinations for financial deposits by non-residents.   Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Hong Kong also make the top 10 list of destinations.

"This report looks at deposits held offshore by private entities on a country-by-country basis, achieving a level of specificity previously unavailable to the public," explained GFI director Raymond Baker.  "With overall deposits in secrecy jurisdictions currently approaching US$10 trillion, this report measures a sizable chunk of global wealth and helps us to better understand where individuals and corporations are putting their money."

Privately Held, Non-Resident Deposits in Secrecy Jurisdictions analyzes data from the Bank of International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund to measure total deposits by non-residents in areas considered secrecy jurisdictions under the definition established by the Tax Justice Network.

Notable report findings include:

• Total Current total deposits by non-residents in offshore centers and secrecy jurisdictions are just under US$10 trillion;
• The United States, the United Kingdom, and the Cayman Islands top the list of jurisdictions, with the United States out in front with more than US$2 trillion in non-resident, privately held deposits in the most recent quarter for which data are available (June 2009);
• Contrary to expectations of perceived favorability for deposits, Asia accounts for only 6 percent of worldwide offshore deposits, although Hong Kong is the tenth most popular secrecy jurisdiction by deposits in this report;
• The rate of growth of offshore deposits in secrecy jurisdictions has expanded at an average of 9 percent per annum since the early 1990s, significantly outpacing the rise of world wealth in the last decade. The gap between these two growth rates may be attributed to increases in illicit financial flows from developing countries and tax evasion by residents of developed countries.

The report also contains two case studies of Switzerland and Iceland, which show measurable fluctuations in financial deposits correlated to events in which financial secrecy or overall market solvency were threatened.

"This report shows that offshore deposits are on the rise, and the quantities of money being sent into these jurisdictions are massive," said Mr. Baker.  "The report also helps us to better understand where reporting may be improved to better differentiate between licit deposits and illicit deposits, which will ultimately enable better law enforcement in cases of tax evasion and other financial crimes."

Privately Held, Non-Resident Deposits in Secrecy Jurisdictions is the second report by GFI economist Ann Hollingshead.  Her earlier report, Implied Tax Revenue Loss from Trade Mispricing, was released last month.  Click here to download a copy of Privately Held, Non-Resident Deposits in Secrecy Jurisdictions, click here to download a copy of Implied Tax Revenue Loss from Trade Mispricing

Richard Murphy Banking, Secrecy jurisdictions, Task Force, Tax Havens

CS sees withholding tax on Germans’ accounts-paper | Reuters .

Reuters report that:

The chief of Credit Suisse’s  private bank is proposing a withholding tax on bank accounts held by Germans in Switzerland to help ease strained ties with Berlin, a newspaper reported on Monday.

I have already discussed the absurdity of this idea but the Swiss are clearly still hanging on to it.

But what’s really funny is the justification for it:

Such a withholding tax could mean outflows in the short term but would not greatly harm his bank’s fortunes, Walter Berchtold told Germany’s Handelsblatt.

“Long-term I’m very optimistic, because our business doesn’t rely on untaxed funds,” he said.

Well that must make it the only bank in Switzerland that doesn’t since even Swiss officials seem happy to accept that half all money in the place is illicit.

It really is time the Swiss accepted that those facilitating fraud don’t set agendas and that the whole Swiss economy is structured for just that purpose.

Richard Murphy Banking, Switzerland, Tax evasion

FT.com / UK - FSA on defensive over Lehman failings.

Good to know I got yesterday’s musings on Lehamn right.

As the FT reports:

UK financial regulators said they had no reason to question the so-called “accounting gimmick” used by Lehman Brothers to flatter its results because the investment bank’s UK subsidiary’s reports accurately reflected the transactions.

Why - because they were correctly reportted on balance sheet under UK GAAP here.

But as they also note:

In the UK, the bank was able to get a legal opinion certifying that the transactions qualified as sales . Lawyers not connected to the transactions said the UK’s definition of sale is slightly less restrictive than the relevant law in the US.

The legal opinion made no difference to the Lehman UK subsidiary’s accounts to the FSA because they were made under UK accounting rules, which require both repos and sales to be reported on the balance sheet, the FSA said. But when the UK accounts were consolidated back to the US, under US accounting standards, known as GAAP, the transactions disappeared off Lehman’s balance sheet, the Valukas report said.

“The balance sheet effect referred to in the Lehman report only occurred in the consolidated accounts which were prepared under US GAAP,” Mr Sants [of the FSA] said.

“This is a matter for US financial reporting standards, not . . . for UK supervision,” he said. “This is arbitrage between US accounting rules and UK law.”

This is exactly as I suggsted.

But Hector Sants is wrong because if accounts can be abused in this way of course it is an issue for UK regulators.

So this should be high on the FSA agenda when its continued existence is confirmed after the election.

Richard Murphy Accounting, Auditing, Banking, Regulation

One of the arguments some have used against Robin Hood Taxes is that they reduce liquidity. A leading critic has, for example has been the Lib Dem former City trader Giles Wilkes.

Liquidity is defined as the existence of a market of such size that no one transaction can influence price.

The idea that such markets are good is based on the extraordinarily flawed logic of perfect competition inherent in standard micro-economic theory – a theory that requires assumptions to made that mean it has no relationship of any sort with the real world. It follows in my opinion that the idea that liquidity per se is good is also, similarly flawed.

Last night Lord Turner of the UK’s Financial Services Authority made a speech on the future of banking. As is his now accustomed way it was controversial. As the Guardian has noted he appeared to suggest capital controls might be of benefit – something with which I agree. He explicitly suggested the costs of some form of bank borrowing should be increased by requiring that banks hold more capital in relation to their lending to some portfolios.

But he also, and I think wisely, returned to his theme of ‘socially useless’ activity by banks – admittedly clarifying on the way that he thought ‘socially’ in this case equated with ‘economically’ saying:

There are no easy answers … but some combination of new macro-prudential tools is likely to be required." He added: "A crucial starting point … is to recognise that different categories of credit perform different economic functions, and that the impact of credit restrictions on economic value added and social welfare will vary according to which category of credit is restricted.

As the Guardian also notes:

In his lecture, he asked whether the increased trading activity in the financial sector in the last 30 years had delivered economic value by reducing transaction costs and making markets more liquid. Admitting that he did not know, he said: "We certainly need to have the debate rather than accepting as given the dominant argument of the last 30 years, which has asserted that increased liquidity, supported by increased position-taking, is axiomatically beneficial."

This requires no interpretation. He is saying that it is not clear that liquidity per sae is beneficial.

Quite so.

It’s time those who claim such things prove their case. Rhetorical assertion based on flawed assumptions is not proof – it is flawed rhetoric.

And so far the evidence is that market growth to sustain liquidity has benefitted no one bar bankers – as I argued in Taxing Banks.

These people have to engage with the argument now if they want to prove their case. And that includes an assessment of the incidence of the costs their activities impose on society, an issue of much greater importance than that of the incidence of the taxes that we propose to curtail them – which I have argued falls on banks and bankers.

Richard Murphy Banking, Economics

The most astonishing document has been published by a body called Swiss Banking, who appear to represent the collective body of bankers in that country. Dated in December 2009 it’s only just come to my attention.

What is astonishing about it is the extraordinary arrogance of their proposals which will, they think, let them keep Swiss banking secrecy intact. To do so they are proposing a withholding tax in Switzerland on interest income, dividends, payments from funds, on capital gains and wealth. The object they say is:

to ensure that the assets deposited by foreign-domiciled clients with Swiss banks are compliant with the income tax laws of their relevant tax domicile. At the same time the purpose is to protect the privacy of these clients.

Switzerland offers to collect the flat rate tax on income paid on balances of foreign domiciled clients for countries that wish to avail themselves of the service. This tax is deducted by the paying agent (the bank) and credited to the tax authorities of the client’s tax domicile.

In return, Switzerland demands undiscriminated access to the financial markets of these countries under prevailing national law.

This needs some serious unpacking.

First: let’s be quite clear about the taxes that are proposed. They are flat taxes, about which the Swiss banks are eulogistic in their praise. Most of the rest of the world is not so enthusiastic, of course. The reality is that flat taxes are deeply regressive, and highly avoidable, as my own work on them has shown. As they say:

The model is generally also open to parties with progressive rates of tax, but on condition that a uniform rate is applied. A progressive taxation system would be technically virtually impossible to implement.

Second, let’s be clear that the Swiss determine the rate according to this model. They say it would coincide with the EU withholding rate – which will be 35% soon – but there’s no guarantee of that.

Third, they demand that:

The payment of the flat rate tax by the client is definitive, meaning that the client’s assets held with a bank in Switzerland have then been definitively assessed. The client no longer needs to declare the assets concerned in his/her/its annual tax return. The client receives (on request) an annual tax statement from the paying agent showing the tax amounts deducted.

There are massive further technical problems inherent in the proposals – which are naive on these technical issues to a degree that is quite extraordinary, but let’s stop at this point and realise what the Swiss bankers are demanding. It is this:

1. That the Swiss be allowed to set the prevailing current flat tax rate on all sorts of investment income for any state that enters into an arrangement of the proposed sort with Switzerland.
2. That progressive taxation on investment income be banned in those partner states as a consequence because they would be unenforceable. That would be because Switzerland could always undermine higher rates and there would be no penalty on anyone making use of Swiss banks rather than local banks and as such local banking would collapse if there were to be higher rate or progressive taxes in any state entering into such a deal with Switzerland.
3. That any state entering into such an agreement with Switzerland must forego its own right to set its own tax rates henceforth – not least because Switzerland wants to apply this tax rate to some forms of company and other entities as well.
4. That any state entering into such an agreement forego its right to demand tax returns that are full, complete and accurate from its residents.
5. That any state entering into such a deal forego the right to ask its taxpaying population about why they have funds in Switzerland – and whether the capital transferred there should have been taxable in the home jurisdiction or not – so foregoing all prospect of ever making investigation of tax evasion.

I have to assume that those proposing this arrangement are aware of what it means. It would be patronising to thin otherwise. But in that case there are three things to say.

First, it’s hard to take their technical competence seriously. They clearly do not understand the complexity of the issues they are addressing – which the EU has been tackling for many years with regard to the European Union Savings Tax Directive and which the Swiss seem to just brush aside.

Second, the staggering implicit assault on the tax sovereignty of other states within these proposals is breathtakingly naive and politically brazen at the same time.

Third, it is astonishing that in all this the obvious intention is to dismiss the issue of banking secrecy as a simple one of non-taxation of income arising in Switzerland. The key issue of how the funds get there in the first place is completely swept aside – it is demanded that states ignore this issue.

I have said time and again that secrecy jurisdictions are profoundly political constructs. This is inherent in my definition of them, which is:

Secrecy jurisdictions are places that intentionally create regulation for the primary benefit and use of those not resident in their geographical domain. That regulation is designed to undermine the legislation or regulation of another jurisdiction. To facilitate its use secrecy jurisdictions also create a deliberate, legally backed veil of secrecy that ensures that those from outside the jurisdiction making use of its regulation cannot be identified to be doing so.

This is an almost perfect example of that definition being seen in practice.

We could just dismiss it. The reality is though that these people are serious: they really think this should be done.

That’s why they’re a threat to democracy itself. When bankers use the abusive legislation of a state they have captured to seek to undermine the right of people in other states to set their own tax rates, determine their own fortunes and determine their own criminal justice systems we can more readily appreciate the scale of their assault on society as whole, which is why we have to fight back.

And don’t think these are fringe organisations. The members of the organisation promoting this include UBS, Credit Suisse, Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and RBS.

Be worried. Be very worried.  These people really do want to rule the world – and that’s no joke.

Richard Murphy Banking, Corruption, Ethics, Switzerland, Tax evasion

re: The Auditors » Blog Archive » Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité: Big Lehman Brothers Troubles For Ernst & Young.

Francine McKenna’s take on Lehman and E & Y

A must read.

Richard Murphy Auditing, Banking, Ernst & Young

FT Alphaville » Moody’s warns on US finances.

Credit rating agency, Moody’s Investor Service, will fire a warning shot at the US on Monday, saying that unless the country gets public finances into better shape than the Obama administration projects there would be “downward pressure” on its triple A credit rating.

I still find the absurd confidence of the rating agencies in the light iof their own abject failures quite extraordinary.

Surely, the fact that they say that an adminsitration has got soemthing wrong should give us clear indictaion of the exact opposite. Isn’t that what any rational person would think?

Richard Murphy Banking

FT.com / Companies / Banks - Lehman report blames top executives.

A one-year probe into the collapse of Lehman Brothers found “credible evidence” that top executives, including the former chief Dick Fuld, approved misleading financial statements and used an “accounting gimmick” to flatter results.

The long-awaited report by the court-appointed examiner Anton Valukas also said that there was enough evidence to claim that Ernst & Young, Lehman’s auditors, failed to “question and challenge improper or inadequate disclosures” in the firm’s results.

Now why aren’t I surprised?

Did anyone really think people did not know what they were doing? And that they turned a blind eye whilst their own coffers over-flowed.

This was grand corruption.

It wasn’t just in Lehman either.

Let’s say it.

And let’s say that restoring the system will perpetuate that corruption. Because it will.

Richard Murphy Auditing, Banking, Corruption

FT.com / Capital Markets - CFTC urges end to derivatives secrecy.

This morning the EU wants to ban the use of credit default swaps on sovereign debt.

Now from the US:

A leading US financial regulator on Tuesday called for the prices of derivatives trades to be disclosed in the same way as stock prices, saying only large Wall Street banks benefited from the current lack of transparency.

Gary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), said standard credit default swaps and other privately traded over-the-counter derivatives needed drastic reform, reflecting their role in the financial crisis.

Fantastic.

And an overdue recognition that banks profit by exploiting their market position to secure super-normal profits at the expense of others.

The right and bankers will of course argue tooth and nail against this. They love free markets - but only to the extent that they can exploit and abuse them, as they have been to date.

Is it possible things might really be changing?

Richard Murphy Banking