The taxman cometh | Comment is free | The Guardian .
In the 60s, the Isle of Man recast itself as an offshore tax haven. How will the Manx 'nation' react now that status is under threat?
The Guardian considers the issue. And draws no conclusions.
Apart, it seems, from the fact that the Tax Justice Network is unpopular in the Isle of Man.
Really?
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:
Quite a nice article, although a pity it repeats the usual racist jibes at the Manx. I wonder if the Guardian would get away with insulting the Irish or the Scots in this way. And mocking the Manx for dying fighting for Britain in the 2 World Wars is a pretty nasty piece of writing.
Richard, as for your comment about TJN being unpopular in IOM – I would dispute that – most people have never heard of you. And if they did, I’d say that most would have more than a tad of sympathy with some of your views.
Freeborn Man
It interests me that Richard and John C find it impossible to acknowledge that the governments in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man accept that they have built their economies to an extent using tax competition (quite the thing when each of them started as finance centres) but also accept that they must move to different places. The UK, OECD and EU seem perfectly happy that the CDs are being sincere and in all probability moving/evolving faster than many finance centres in the world.
It follows that a number of the comments that Richard and John make are congruent with the views of the governments in the CDs, but that the irritation that sometimes comes out is simply due to the one-sided and blinkered views that TJN expresses.
It may be that Thomas said that he wouldn’t accept Jesus’ resurrection until he could his hand in the spear hole; but the other apostles were content with what they were told.
Girrl
Girrl
Yes they’ve moved
They have gone a metre
But the journey is 1,000 km long
I have given credit where due
But there’s precious little to give
In the last decade – blatant abuse of EU Code of Conduct
Non-cooperation with European Union Savings Tax Directive
Flagrantly abusive trust laws
New foundation laws
No movement on transparency at all
Token gestures on information exchange
Remind me – what was I meant to be applauding?
Richard
Nice piece on The Politics Show NW 😉
“Don’t co-operate with the EU Savings Directive”?? Don’t they all operate the withholding option, and haven’t Isle of Man said they will go to exchange of info in 2011? I don’t like the withholding option either, but it is an option under the law, so how can you say they don’t co-operate? The problem lies with the fact that the EU allowed this option to be part of the directive, to get Luxembourg, Belgium and Austria to sign up. I suppose politicians need somewhere to hide their money too.
I also don’t see why anyone should be forced to publicly disclose their wealth or money they’ve put into trust etc. Surely it is enough that they tell the tax authorities of the trust’s existence – why should they let anyone else know? Sounds like some sort of nightmare big brother state.
Richard I’m sure you’re not short of a bob or two, and I bet you wouldn’t like the general public to know the intimate details of where you invest, how you’re saving for your children’s futures, what your retirement plans are etc…
[…] passing by the name of Jersey Girrl, who is, without doubt close to the Jersey establishment, has commented on this blog, saying: It interests me that Richard and John C find it impossible to acknowledge that the […]
The European Union Savings Tax Directive was designed to beat tax evasion. Taking a temporary option designed to facilitate evasion is clear non-cooperation and no one asked the IoM to do it
And I’m not asking for any personal data on public record
Get your facts right
Richard
[…] passing by the name of Jersey Girrl, who is, without doubt close to the Jersey establishment, has commented on this blog, saying: It interests me that Richard and John C find it impossible to acknowledge that the […]
Richard,
Taking a temporary option designed to facilitate evasion is clear non-cooperation and no one asked the IoM to do it
There are two equally appropriate options under the law, IoM chose one of the appropriate options under the law, nobody had to ask them or tell them, that is why it is called an “option”.
Sounds like TR-UKs problem is with Brussels not the IoM.
Georges
Richard:
“And I’m not asking for any personal data on public record”
So what are you proposing? You criticise places where there is no public register of trusts (including the UK). If you don’t want the names of the beneficiaries on some sort of public register, then how do you make them less “opaque”? The UK already has a very effective law that makes lawyers and accountants report clients they have assisted in creating overseas trusts, so what else is needed?
Georges
Nail on head. Following an EU Directive to the letter is “non-cooperation”. Welcome to world of Mr Murphy.
Girrl
Trusts are not personal data
Trusts are artificial constructs under law that alter property rights
That’s quite different
Use the law in that way and go on record
Do it personally and don’t
Easy distinction
Richard
Girrl
That’s your problem
You do the letter
The world wants the spirit
And that’s why you so massively disappoint so often
It almost seems like a form of autism that you just don’t get this
Richard
Sorry Richard, I don’t get your point about trusts. They have been around for hundreds of years and have a whole legal basis behind them, in every part of the world that has been under the influence of English law (and some countries that haven’t). Certainly not artificial constructs.
They are used for all sorts of purposes – pensions, wills, protecting the young and vulnerable etc. I have a trust – I save £100 a week into a bank account for each of my 2 kids. I don’t want them to get the money when they turn 18 unless they are sensible enough to use it wisely – and to ensure it is there for them quickly in case anything happens to my wife and I. I am not a rich man, tax dodger, and I don’t work in the trust industry. Just someone who is saving a bit sensibly for my kids’ future.
Are you saying that I should be forced to tell the general public my business? What purpose would that serve? Who is even interested?
I could say the same of many Ltd Cos
But they change property rights
So yes that is public business
Not least because – as anyone knows – they are also used to abuse
And since I can’t tell in advance who will and won’t abuse all must disclose
Simple
And entirely avoidable – no one asked you to have a trust
Richard, I despair at your narrow mindedness! I thought I’d read your blog to try and keep an open mind about TJN, but I’m beginning to think that those who dismiss you as a “bunch of loons” might be right. What you’ve basically said above is that ordinary working people should not be given the right to save in a pension, make a will, provide for their children’s future etc in private. It seems that you want to have the right to be rich yourself (as I am sure you are), whilst denying a little bit of aspiration to working people.
Everyone knows that trusts can be open to abuse, but that is no reason to witch hunt everyone. It is like saying that all cars should be banned because some people drive them recklessly.
You are top entertainment.
PS what do you think of the Government’s announcement re nuclear power plants, 2 of which are to be built near the Isle of Man? So you think someone in Government has thought that if we can’t tax them out existence, we can poison their coastline with toxic waste (as they have already done from Sellafield and Heysham)?
Richard,
And since I can’t tell in advance who will and won’t abuse all must disclose
Simple
And entirely avoidable – no one asked you to have a trust
TR-UK really needs to get a handle on this whole “rule of law” thing. It does not matter what any indvidual (or even a statist collective) feels about their divine inspirations related to the “spirit of the law” (their verson only of course).
Georges
@Richard Murphy
Richard – your post 11
Please explain, based on the words of the EUSD (settled EU law), what its spirit is.
Love Girrl
@Richard Murphy
Richard your post 13
Records for public consultation are for when the public might be affected by not knowing something. In the corporate world, if I may be a creditor of a business it is fair that I can see its last set of accounts. It follows that I can accept that Jersey has some way to go in terms of public record corporate information. However, private contracts do not affect the public, and so do not need to be available for consultation. Your response to Freeborn Man is typically dismissive, but he is right.
Presumably you have some form of contractual arrangemnts with the people and organisations who fund your work – but it isn’t appropriate for them to be on public register.
Girrl
European Union Savings Tax Directive
” In order to ensure the proper operation of the internal market and tackle the problem of tax evasion the savings tax Directive was adopted in June 2003. It has been applicable since 1 July 2005.”
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/personal_tax/savings_tax/index_en.htm
You did not seek to do that
You failed to meet the spirit of the European Union Savings Tax Directive
Beyond argument
Trusts are not private contracts when used to disguise ownership and facilitate abuse
In the public interest and to prevent crime all have to be on record
Same as I have to display a tax disc on my car – of course I’ve paid – but because a lot don’t display is essential for the compliant and non-compliant
Your argument is wrong. No one asked anyone to form a trust
But surely the EU, on offering 3 full EU members (let’s not forget that) and the CDs the option to withhold instead of automatically exchange, by definition deemed withholding tax to play an appropriate part “in ensuring the proper operation of the internal market and tackle the problem of tax evasion” ? Otherwise, why offer it if it wasn’t acceptable to the EU ? They deemed that it was acceptable.
Of course they got it wrong. They misjudged it. A 15% initial rate of withholding tax is clearly more acceptable to a tax evader than a 30% to 50% rate, depending on where he is residing.
But the EU went into this with open eyes. They expressed agreed a stepped increase in the withholding tax rate to 35%, and then complete abolition of the withholding option by 2015. That’s what they wanted and that’s what they agreed to. Nobody forced them to offer it or to agree it and if it wasn’t acceptable then they shouldn’t have agreed it. That much is surely black and white. It was incompetent negotiation if they got something that they didn’t want, or if they entered it without doing their homework. They had unlimited resources available to them to get it right.
So now the CDs are blamed and accused by you of failing to meet the spirit of the EUSTD, merely by accepting what was on offer from the EU at the time as part of the package. How can that possibly be failing to meet the spirit when what was taken was exactly what was offered ?
The EU was happy enough at the time to accept that automatic exchange wouldn’t be available until 2015. Now its changed its mind after deciding that it wants something else instead. How does that work ?!
I can accept the argument that zero-10 may not have been within the spirit of the EU Code of Conduct, but I just can’t see how the same argument can be made re the withholding tax issue.
Rupert
To get the European Union Savings Tax Directive going they had to compromise
I accept that
The CDs did not have to go for what was widely seen as an abusive ioption
They did
Wrong choice
Richard