These are my links for January 29th through January 30th:
- Cover story: 'Rise of the red Tories' by Phillip Blond | Prospect Magazine February 2009 issue 155 - Superficially appealing
Actually, really quite nasty underneath it all
- We need more than sticking plasters, warns leading Labour backbencher - - John Cruddas urged Mr Brown to launch "two crusades". One would be on "tax justice", including minimum tax rates throughout the incomes scale so that the rich paid their fair share and joining President Obama's crackdown on offshore tax havens.
The second would be a state-funded programme to build 100,000 houses a year, which would provide homes for those who need them and create 50,000 jobs in the construction industry. "That is the language people will understand – not mechanistic but emotionally in tune with people who are suffering."
What can I say?
Go for it!
- Guernsey deal extends taxman's reach - Accountancy Age - Sorry - but as I say in the piece - the evidence is TIEAs are not enough
Jersey has supplied 4 pieces of data to the USA in 6 years
I do not call that meaningful exchange
- Offshore Asset Protection - Another Roundup of the Usual Suspects - Bob clearly thinks we exist to supply him with cause for invective
I've got news for Bob....
Those governments aren't letting us use their name in vain
- Letter from the City: UK plans amnesty program for offshore bank accounts - Quite funny really: the banks say they aren't involved in offshore tax avoidance but Stephen Timms seems to be saying they are most certainly assisting offshore tax evasion. Why else is an amnesty needed?
- ‘We’ve nothing to hide’ » News » This Is Guernsey - Yes you have
If you haven't you wouldn't have created the massive veil of secrecy that surrounds all corporate activity in Guernsey
I wonder if he realises how daft he sounds?
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:
Richard
You really do make an ar*e of yourself. The “corporate veil of secrecy” in Guernsey is not materially different from the corporate regimes in all onshore countries. You make it sound like Guernsey specifically created it. The regime dates back to before people even thought of tax havens !
Now, remind me. What exactly do I find in the UK or Germany or the US when I do a company search ? Names of beneficial owners ? No. Published financial statements ? Sometimes, but in very limited form, but of no use if you don’t know who beneficially owns the company. Don’t mislead people into thinking that its the offshore finance centres who have specifically created the situation where beneficial ownership of private companies is not available to the public as that is clearly untrue and you know it.
On what basis do you make your snide comment about Jersey only making 4 disclosure reports to the US in 6 years ? Just how much US business do you think is done in Jersey ? Just how many US banks do you think are there ? There are TWO (Citibank and JP Morgan) who are global private banks and have huge non-US client bases in their worldwide banking operations. How many trust companies in Jersey do you know are even remotely prepared to consider taking on US-related work ? They don’t want it…its too complicated and expensive to deal with ! US tax evaders go to places with much more robust secrecy laws where people ask no questions. They ain’t going to go to Jersey in their droves, that’s for sure. So is it a surprise that the number of reports to the US is so low ? Of course not – work it out ! If there’s next to no US-related business there, then just how many reports would you be expect to be filed ?
David
Your comments are so absurd, and so wrong, I agree, further debate is pointless
Richard
Richard, have you ever looked into the role of the intelligence services in offshore tax havens? I seem to remember reading something about MI6 in Bermuda years ago. While the taxman can’t get at those accounts, I’d be surprised if the spooks weren’t all over them for other reasons.
Slightly off-topic, I know, but a subject of interest for me.
Richard
Really ? Absurd and wrong ? I don’t think so. I find it remarkable that you only decline further debate when you know you don’t have anything to back up your bizarre claims. You cannot expect to be taken remotely seriously if you are going to make such provocative and extreme statements without being prepared to back them up when people question them.
So what’s incorrect about my statement about public beneficial ownership disclosure ? And just how much US business do you think there is in Jersey which should have been reported ?
David
a) Guernsey in effect requires no corporate disclosure. How can that be as good as the UK?
b) Read the Senate report on the Isle of Man. Us banks have even less to do there. The abuse ran into tens if not hundreds of millions.
Don’t be naive.
I have all the evidence. You have none. That’s why I’m blocking your further posts until you have an argument and evidence to support it.
Richard
The old if you don’t agree with me you’re blocked routine, didn’t think you were that childish.
“The abuse ran into tens if not hundreds of millions. I have all the evidence. You have none”
If that is the case then get reporting to your AMLO.
Also as David works in a “tax haven”, if has no evidence of wrong doing as you state, is that not a clear indication of the offshore industry being clean??
Creg
David posted countless times
And he got to the point of saying Guernsey is as transparent for all practical purposes as the UK
At that point I gave up with arguing with a person who is quite clearly blind to the truth
The UK is far from perfect
Guernsey is for all practical purposes utterly opaque
If he can’t see that I stopped the discussion because it was not worth pursuing
Childish? No, not at all. A practical decision in the face of the multiple demands on my time. Of course.
As for reporting the issue – you might have noticed – I do – and the world is noticing
Watch Panorama on Monday
Note what Obama is doing
Read the Guardian in the enxt fortnight
See what the TUC has just done
Who is winning this argument?
Not Guernsey
Now when you have a counter argument please let me know. Until then, don’t bother
Richard
I can’t help but agree with Creg. I started reading this blog recently and from reading recent blog threads it struck me as being very one-sided. For it to be really worthwhile I would suggest that you need people like Creg and David to be able to “argue for the defence”. I don’t think you should be discouraging them from countering what are some extremely one-sided views from you even though its evident which mast your colours are nailed to.
Backing away from their challenges to your claims actually weakens your stance because it looks like you don’t want to engage with anybody who might actually be prepared to question what you are telling us. If that’s the case then surely others on this blog will start questioning whether your claims about tax havens are actually valid and accurate. Surely your claims will gain more credibility if you can debate with them and prove that you are right, rather than walking away from the debate like a playground bully who has met somebody who is finally prepared to stand up to him.
Richard,
Any insight into the series of upcoming Guardian “expos?©” articles regarding the use of legal methods to reduce tax exposure?
Will the series of upcoming Guardian “expos?©” articles address the Guardian’s very own use of the very same legal methods to reduce their own tax exposure?
Georges
Rupert
I have engaged, endlessly
I am a busy man with a lot to do. Creg and David no doubt know that. Engaging with them will never change the world. Doing the other things I could spend my time on might.
But that’s not the real reason for disengaging (although it’s a perfectly good one). The real reason is that they have no argument. When I present an argument they say things like philosophy has no place in law.
That is absurd.
When I point out the facts (and I have done so again, in the last few minutes, here,http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2009/01/31/jersey-does-support-tax-evasion-and-so-do-guernsey-and-the-isle-of-man/ ) they say I don’t know what I’m talking about but offer no evidence.
My point is this. I do argue. I do use facts. They don’t. They make rhetorical claims., That’s not the same thing at all.
So I can’t argue with them. They don’t appear to know how to argue.
I’ve made it cl;ear, when they can argue I will respond. Until then they are wasting my time. I have the right to decide I have better things to do with my time.
Richard
Richard
I can see that you are very busy just by the sheer volume and intensity of your blog. But that still leaves rather an unsatisfactory aspect to your blogs. You are prepared to bombard your site with “facts”, but I have been working for long enough with the Channel Islands and have enough senior contacts there to know that its simply impossible for you or anybody else on the islands to “know” what you purport to know.
My contacts would also support David’s comment to you that the amount of US-related work in the Channel Islands these days is negligible. Nobody wants it. A friend of mine who is a very prominent private client lawyer in New York recently tried to set up a trust structure in Guernsey for a US client of his who was moving to the UK. He tells me that he couldn’t find a single trust company in Guernsey who was prepared to take on the business and he gave up in Jersey after contacting four trust companies there who told him the same thing. So what David was telling you would appear to be accurate.
I do agree with you that the mere opting for withholding tax rather than information exchange should almost certainly be regarded as “suspicious”. Surely what the Channel Islands (and the Isle of Man) should consider doing is re-negotiating their stance under the EUSD and replacing that option with automatic information exchange. In theory that should either eradicate any undeclared funds, which merely by those accounts moving elsewhere should trigger suspicious transaction reports, or it should destroy your allegation about the “facts”. Do you agree ?
I have read your article about TIEAs and whilst I see your point, I find it hard to agree with them. The countries who have signed up to the TIEAs with offshore territories know perfectly well that the exchange of information is not automatic, and that information is only available on request, and so of course the jurisdictions concerned will abide by that. They are not (yet) being asked to do any more, and to offer up more information than they are obliged to give must surely expose them to all kinds of litigation to people who would have a strong case for suing them for breach of their legal rights to confidentiality. You may well have solid moral grounds for arguing that its not enough, but its all that they are being asked to do. Very hard to criticise them for that.
But if the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man were to opt for automatic exchange of information under the EUSD, and perhaps for automatic exchange of information with the US, then isn’t that effectively the problem solved for the islands ? Would they really suffer economically if the alleged large number of offshore bank accounts holding undeclared funds were to disappear ? How much money do the islands’ governments actually make from those accounts ? I cannot imagine that its very much at all.
I really must agree with David’s point though re. your attack on the (lack of) corporate transparency in the islands. I just did an online company search in the UK and I am no nearer to knowing who beneficially owns the UK company in question than I would be if it were a Guernsey company. The abridged short-form unaudited accounts of the UK company tell me nothing of menaingful value, and the names of its directors and secretary tell me no more or no less about the beneficial ownership than I would glean from Guernsey (the UK company in question is administered by a UK law firm who seem to provide their own directors and secretary to the company as well as providing nominee shareholders). So I’m with David on this point and I think he has a very valid point.
That’s why the comments from the likes of David and Creg do have to be answered properly by you if you want your claims to carry weight, rather than refusing them the right to counter what you say.
Georges
The Guardian had its tax bill reduced in its last accounts because, quite absurdly, Gordon Brown decreed that certain capital gains made by companies were, in effect, not taxable. It could not pay tax that the government would not charge. That’s the absurdity of this one. But don’t blame them for a situation they could not avoid.
Richard
Rupert
I note all you say. But, I also note Citigroup has 21 subsidiaries in Jersey according to the GAO. Why is that? http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09157.pdf . And let’s stop pretending as a result that there is no reason for information exchange, because you’ll see plenty of others are there too. I’d suggest your argument does not stack and to the extent it does it’s not for any of the reasons you state. Professional indemnity risk too high: that is the reason.
As for the STD, Jersey can opt in to information exchange whenever it likes.
It could also require that full details of the real owners and directors of all companies registered in the jurisdiction to be out on public record and require that their full accounts be filed to.
Yes I know the UK is not perfect in this respect. But I criticise them too, I assure you.
Do full information exchange (especially as the EU will define it soon) and put data on record and I assure you: I’m stymied.
Mind you, so will Jersey be as well. Its financial services industry will be dead. But I’d also support the bail out package as well.
Richard
Richard,
Assuming what is stated in comment # 12 is true, could the Guardian have not made a voluntary contribution to the HMRC for an equal amount? Wouldn’t that have been the fair thing for the Guardian to do?
Georges
Georges
No – there is no such option
Richard
Richard,
😆
Georges
Richard
I haven’t understood your point re information exchange. What do you mean by “and plenty of others are there too” ? And I think the risk of being sued for breach of confidentiality is a very real one. Only if it was mandatory under the law to disclose information would the financial institutions be protected.
I think its totally unrealistic for any jurisdiction offshore to be expected to publicly list beneficial ownership and have full accounts on public record until and unless it applies onshore as well. That seems most unlikely !
I also don’t think for one moment that full disclosure would finish Jersey. Let’s assume the UK high street banks halved their operations in Jersey (not that I think it would come to that). That would probably be the maximum effect of your bugbear re STRs (if you happened to be correct which I don’t think you are). Big deal. There would still be a very substantial industry of legitimate offshore business there. I’m not talking about the type of business that you think morally should be illegal, I’m talking about business which is actually illegal as per the law. Maybe that’s a loss of a maximum of 10pc to 20pc of the industry, maybe the loss of 750 jobs. That would probably set back the industry to where it was 2 years ago. Hardly the end for Jersey I would suggest. Yes the extension of the EUSD would also have an impact later this year but not a massive one. A huge amount of business is from the Gulf, the Far East and Southern Africa and wouldn’t be affected. From my interpretation of the proposed new EUSD provisions I just don’t see too much of an impact on the island’s industry.
All in all I dont see anything like the level of impact to which you refer and the situation wouldn’t be much different in Guernsey or the Isle of Man.
Rupert
Plenty of other US banks
But let’s deal with your real point – which is that transparency in Europe won’t kill Jersey because it makes most of its money fleecing developing countries of their cash
A point we have made time and again that tax havens literally kill children in developing countries
Thanks for confirming it
And how sad that you agree you are acting illegally and will carry on doing so come what may
Doesn’t that rather prove my point?
Isn’t the debate over?
Richard
“But don’t blame them for a situation they could not avoid.”
Umm, their use of offshore structures to avoid (not evade, avoid) Stamp Duty was a situation they could avoid.
“No – there is no such option”
Yes there is. Send a cheque to “The Accountant”, 1 Horse Guards Rd. SW1. They will happily cash such and even send you a letter thanking you. Last time I checked the numbers 5 people had done so in that tax year and four of those were dead.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/thunderer/article650265.ece
Richard
No, the debate is not over (or are you trying to repeat your childish tactic with Creg and David ?).
I’m sure that the GCC countries and Hong Kong and Singapore will take great exception to you calling them “developing countries”. They are light years ahead of the UK as developed countries. Have you been there ? South Africa I would concede is more marginal.
What other US banks are in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man then ? I can only see Citibank and JP Morgan in Jersey and Northern Trust in Guernsey. Any others must be extremely discreet as they aren’t even listed ! And I didn’t say there was no reason for information exchange. I said there should be no fear of open information exchange with the US because there was next to no US business in the islands !
And I never said that we were acting illegally. Exactly what is “illegal” about wealthy Arabs, who have no personal taxes or exchange controls and no anti-avoidance rules to worry about, holding wealth offshore and investing into UK and global real estate ? And what is wrong with wealthy Hong Kong Chinese and Singaporeans holding assets abroad when their domestic tax system is territorially based and expressly does not tax foreign income or gains which is not remitted to Hong Kong or Singapore ? And what is wrong with Taiwanese nationals now living in Hong Kong and owning 49% of Chinese manufacturing companies through offshore companies ? The Taiwanese allow it, the Hong Kong government allows it and the Chinese government allow it, with no anti-avoidance provisions in place to allow it ? What about wealthy Indians who have left the country and now reside in Dubai but who hold their assets outside of the Gulf out of fear of an anti-Hindu uprising ? They are no longer subject to Indian tax law and Dubai levies no personal taxes.
Do you actually know anything about international tax laws ? Lots of people in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man do. That’s why they can run legitimate offshore structures which do not cause illegal tax leakage in those parts of the world, and which is why people there get so irked and feel forced to counter your false allegations when you wrongly accuse them of acting illegally.
Ruper
try reading the list. It’s not hard, and not that long.
As for your claim that all money from Singapore and Hong Kong originates in these places – you don’t do your know your client forms very well, do you?
Bluntly: this claim is absurd.
And yes I do know international law: well. That’s how I know how to suggest reforms to stop your abuse of it.
And stop them we will – because abuse is rife – and your irritation is at being rumbled, and nothing else
Richard
Richard
I see why others on this blog attack your sheer arrogance. Do you get punched often ?
I know that my Singaporean and Hong Kong clients were born there (in most cases). I know that they went to school there (and universities abroad). I know that they developed very successful textile/manufacturing businesses in Hong Kong and IT and shipping businesses in Singapore. I know my KYC forms inside out thank you very much. I have visited their factories including their factories in mainland China. I have seen what they make and what they export. I know where they get their wealth from. Who on earth do you think you are to state so boldly that I don’t and that my claim is absured ?
Precisely what abuse is going on then ? Please enlighten me. You might claim to know international law but you genuinely don’t seem to have clue about the reality of the offshore world. You are in grave danger of getting a lot of egg on your face with attitudes like that.
Rupert
And we know – and you prove you know – that you can comply with all the rules and wilfully abuse the spirit of the law all the same
Which is why we have to close down what you do instead
Richard
Richard
So please enlighten me what “abuse” is going on re. the Singapore and Hong Kong and the Middle East to which I referred ? What do you know about the spirit of their laws ? They deliberately havee a territorial tax system. They are happy with that and in works for them. They balance their budgets and have done for years without having to tax non-local source income and gains. You’ll be telling me next that Kuwait and Saudi are tax havens and that its immoral for them to not have any personal income taxes – obviously against the spirit of the laws which you personally think they should have !.
Richard
I have to say that you appear to be totally unwilling to accept any points that counter your often ill-informed arguments. As a senior employee of a trust company in Guernsey, I can assure you that we would not touch US business with a bargepole, and this is an attitude shared by every industry professional that I have discussed the issue with. I’m afraid I don’t have time to highlight other serious flaws in your arguments (as I’m too busy running structures that help people to legally avoid paying exhorbitant taxes) however it is clearly evident that you are not capable of intelligent debate, you obviously prefer to simply try to bully your opponents into submission, which clearly doesn’t work.
Phil
I’m willing to debate this with anyone – and do with those who can argue their case
So tell me this: why does Guernsey refuse to information exchange under the EU STD when if it was committed to getting rid of tax evaded funds it would? Please don’t answer saying ‘because it can’. We know that. Answer as to why of the options available that is the one it chose when inevitably tax evasion occurs in Guernsey as a result.
And as for the US – I’ve already said why you won’t do it – it’s because of professional indemnity insurance issues and nothing else. That’s why.
So now – let’s stop this nonsense that I won’t debate and don’t know what I’m talking about – and try coming out from behind your veil of secrecy and address the issues
Richard
Richard
Guernsey does not “refuse” to automatically exchange information under the EUSTD. It is not currently required to do so and does not in fact currently have the capacity to do so. It’s financial services businesses would be sued by individuals and corporations for breach of their data protection rights, having offered those individuals and corporations the exact choice which the EU offered to them. What’s so difficult for you to understand about that ? Are you suggesting that we should ignore Guernsey’s legal obligations under the EUSTD ?
Guernsey was one of multiple jurisdictions who chose this option, which remember the EU agreed to because certain countries WITHIN the EU also refused, and still refuse to this day, to information exchange. Whilst I for one do question (with hindsight) whether Guernsey took the right choice at the time, the decision was made on the basis that the islands should not be on anything other than a level playing field with EU jurisdictions such as Luxembourg, Austria and Belgium, not to mention other non-EU jurisdictions. Whether tax evasion occurs in Guernsey as a result is debatable, but I can see why you would hold that view. In hindsight, Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man in my view took the wrong option by aligning ourselves with certain other jurisdictions.
It is NOT just because of professional indemnity insurance issues that we don’t do US business. To be tax-compliant with the US system requires a very high level of ongoing technical US tax knowledge. The US tax system is very demanding and very complicated in relation to offshore structures (unless of course you are UBS). One must either be an expert in it or stay out of it altogether. To dabble in it is asking for trouble. Just about all CI organisations opt to stay out of it.
But the issue isn’t to ask “why” we don’t do US business – its merely for you to accept whether we actually do it or not. We don’t. That’s why you don’t see high volumes of information exchange. The US information doesn’t exist and its therefore not possible to exchange information that doesn’t exist.