Not my title: it’s adapted from one in the Guernsey Press and Star this afternoon. As they say:
EUROPE is running out of patience with Guernsey and other places like it, according to a top anti tax-avoidance campaigner.
And the director of Tax Research UK is warning of Europe’s increasing ‘appetite’ for harmonising tax regimes throughout the EU.
The claims come from chartered accountant Richard Murphy, who is also dubbed ‘the muscle behind the Tax Justice Network’ pressure group, which he founded.
They follow recent comments directed at the islands by the new EU commissioner for taxation and customs union Algirdas Semta.
Now Mr Murphy claims that people close to the European Commission that he has spoken to are indicating that patience is now running out with the offshore Crown Dependencies on this point — something, he said, the commissioner’s latest statement bears out.
First an apology to all others who were founders of the Tax Justice Network: I was not alone!
Second, the story (and they called me, I’d add) is based on a number of conversations I had last week. For those who don’t know the European Commission is planning to start work on the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) again next month. It’s assumed Ireland is so knocked out it can no longer object.
And second, the EU Code of Conduct group met on 23 September to hear Colin Powell (with whom I have been in correspondence here) present his reasons for Jersey being compliant with the Code. I’m told they were not impressed. It’s not 0/10 they worry about: that got the nod years ago. It’s the fact that Jersey has [persisted in maintaining the ring fence it was told to get rid of by shifting it into personal taxation that deeply offends them. I did, of course, suggest that this problem existed as long ago as 2005: now the world has caught up.
But this means a double blow for Jersey et al. Any CCCTB formula will be heavily weighted against profit allocation to tax havens, you can be sure. And the Code group are going to demand more change — and maybe positive tax rates in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man — all of whom are going bust for lack of tax revenue right now.
What a mess.
And all avoidable if only they'd listened.
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 PSG has had dealings with the island of Guernsey’s so-called government.
It ignores the plight of elderly people by making feeble excuses to dismiss prima facie evidence of fraud.
The world should beware. This contraption is not nice!
Richard
My four questions are clearly set out in post 37 above. Maybe I should have numbered them 1 to 4 rather than (a) to (d) but I wouldn’t have expected that to confuse you.
@Rupert
I couldn’t be bothered to find them
Now I have it is obvious I have already answered them
Richard
Sorry but I don’t think you have. Can you please summarise them more clearly so that there is no doubt about yur answers?
Pretending that you “couldn’t be bothered” does you no credit. Its clear that you don’t like answering questions like this when you are outside of your comfort zone.
You may as well answer them here – I can categorically assure you that the mainstream Guernsey media are very interested in this thread and will no doubt be contacting you directly about it.
@Rupert
I have answered these points so many times above I am not going to waste more time doing so
You have a veneer of self rule with the consent of Westminster exercise through the Privy Council
That’s it
Finito
Fact
If you don’t get it – go elsewhere
PSG
That’s a big and bold statement – please elaborate.
Contact the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (GFSC).
La Plaiderie Chambers La Plaiderie St Peter Port Guernsey GY1 1WG.
el: +44 (0)1481 712706
Ref:- Case No Y310/complaint/njh/jecr
And ask to see the GFSC response to allegations that a Guernsey based limited company acted as trustees/custodian to an Isle of Man based plc in the matter of misrepresentation and obtaining bank transfers from pensioners by deception.
The governments of Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey governments form an impenetrable triad of conspiracy in the financial services industry (and probably in other devices).
This and much, much more ….
Richard
I’ll take that as you declining to answer my 4 questions then – because you most certainly have not.
You claim that you have – in which case it will be dead easy to summarise your answers. There are four of them, (a) to (d).
Fine if you don’t want to answer me – you can answer the Guernsey and Jersey media instead. In fact I suspect you will be put under a lot of pressure to do so in any event.
Your choice – its your blog. But you don’t control the CI media and your credibility there is being destroyed.
PSG
The regulators in the 3 islands are not ombudsmen. They are regulators. They will not prejudice or pre-empt the legal system. That’s what the courts are for.
If your allegations and compliants are valid, then why have you not pursued it through the courts? How can the regulator possibly deem a party to be guilty without going through the legal process? Is an accused party not entitled to defend itself?
@Rupert
You write: “The regulators in the 3 islands are not ombudsmen. They are regulators.”
The PSG: Welcome to the Financial Services Ombudsman Scheme — The Isle of Man … The Ombudsman Scheme is a free, independent dispute resolution service for customers with a complaint against an Isle of Man financial firm such as a bank … visit: http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&source=hp&biw=1020&bih=556&q=Isle+of+Man+Ombudsman+financial+scheme&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Isle+of+Man+Ombudsman+financial+scheme&gs_rfai=&fp=81aa0f6582b4550
If the Isle of Man has no Ombudsman why dos it actively advertise a scheme?
Or is this yet another example of the duplicity of the Isle of Man government?
You write: “They will not prejudice or pre-empt the legal system. That’s what the courts are for.”
The PSG: The Jersey FSC has a history of investigating and taking to court companies/individuals who trade fraudulently. Also visit: http://www.jerseyfsc.org/the_commission/general_information/press_releases/release146.asp
You write: “If your allegations and compliants (complaints) are valid, then why have you not pursued it through the courts?”
The PSG: On the Isle of Man? Get a quote from a Manx law firm to take this through the court. Some will refuse to take the case and the rest will be prohibitively expensive. We are pensioners with very little (and in some cases no) money. This route is beyond our resources.
You write: “How can the regulator possibly deem a party to be guilty without going through the legal process?”
The PSG: Despite receiving irrefutable evidence in support of every allegation made by the PSG the Isle of Man government refuses to “go through the legal process”.
You write: “Is an accused party not entitled to defend itself?”
The PSG: Yes of course – including hundreds of pensioners whose bank transfers were obtained by deception.
Any more bright ideas?
@Premier Shareholders Group
I let the PSG comment here
I do not endorse its cl;aims of deception
I have not investigated the evidence to support that claim
I would stress – deception is, I presume, not suggested to be a criminal act when allowing these comments – more, as is suggested by their tone, one of obfuscation
@Rupert
I have answered your questions – many times. You do not agree with the answers. That’s because you refuse to debate
Of course I’ll engage with the CI media
But I’m under no illusion about any such engagement – that media wishes to make me a bogeyman – and no doubt that’s they way I’ll stay until proven right, as I am quite sure I will be
You see credibility in the CI is not vital – because that’s not where the issue will be decided. But you just don’t get that
Richard
I simply cannot find your 4 answers in this thread, no matter how hard I look. I don’t believe they are there at all. You are convinced that they are, so it should be very easy for you to cut and paste them into a clear summary of them. Only then is it possible to clarify whether you have answered them or not.
PSG
The Ombudsman in Isle of Man is separate from the Isle of Man Financial Services Commission (the regulator). Jersey and Guernsey do not have Ombudsmen. As I said, in all 3 islands the regulator is NOT an ombudsman.
You say that the JFSC claim to close down regulated businesses who have traded fraudulently. For that to happen, first the business must have been PROVEN to have acted fraudulently, not merely alleged to have done so. That requires a case to have been heard. For a case too be heard there must be a case brought. An allegation of fraud is a criminal matter, so why haven’t you involved the police? If there is a prima facie case to answer then the police can bring a criminal action which would cost you nothing. If its a civil claim then it won’t be a fraud action.
I cannot see you getting anywhere without bringing a legal action. That will have too be funded. To continually spurt out attacks on the islands’ regulators without you bringing legal action is defamatory and is a highly risky strategy. You are claiming that regulated businesses have acted fraudulently but have not proved any of your allegations to back up that claim. The reality is that in your opinion they have acted fraudulently but you need to be able to prove that in order to make progress. At the moment it is simply your opinion and that’s not enough.
Without you taking formal legal action you’ll still be in this position in 5 years time. I can assure you that in the current climate the regulators in the islands wouldn’t hesitate to hammer a business which was guilty if what you allege. The regulators are only too keen to close people down, but they have to be sure of their ground first and they clearly are not. And if you have a strong case then a Manx lawyer would of course take it on, but only if it knows that its fees will be paid. That’s why you are better off pursuing a criminal action. If you achieve that then the regulators will be obliged to act.
@Rupert
I presume you’re deliberately time wasting – or (how can I put this nicely) obtuse (I could use worse)
I have not answered a) b|) etc – but I have clearly and absolutely refuted your arguments – which are literal and wrong
So now go away and play somewhere else – because you clearly have no0 clue what you are talking about
Rupert
You read as though you’re a petulant little child that has been caught red handed in the cookie jar. You demand answers simply because you struggle to comprehend definitions.
I would guess you wanted to be a lawyer but never had the intelligence to go down that road. Why else would you be so bitter?
My advice is to reread what you have posted & have a long hard think about whether you have answered your own questions without even realising it.
Note: This comment has been edited