I noted the following this morning after Guernsey emailed me about it:
Guernsey plans timing for move to automatic exchange of information
Guernsey’s Government has announced that it plans to give financial institutions a window from 1st January 2011 to 1st July 2011 for moving to automatic exchange of information.
The Fiscal and Economic Policy Group carried out a public consultation earlier in the summer and this morning Chief Minister Lyndon Trott told the local Parliament, the States of Guernsey, of the planned transition to automatic exchange of information for the equivalent measurers Guernsey adopts relating to the EU Savings Tax Directive.
His statement outlined the intended timing of a movement to automatic exchange of information following the consideration of the results of the consultation process.
The Chief Minister said: “In light of the views expressed by members of industry and industry bodies, and given the States’ commitment to maintaining the highest standards of tax transparency, the Fiscal and Economic Policy Group recommended to Policy Council that institutions in Guernsey should move to automatic exchange of information from 1st January 2011 and no later than 1st July 2011. This transition period is to provide the maximum flexibility to our industry in making their necessary adjustments to their payment systems.”
And to be candid this is complete and utter misinformation.
All that Guernsey is doing is moving to a standard that the EU made clear would be compulsory in 2005 when the European Union Savings Tax Directive was introduced. It’s just belatedly coming into line.
And far from there being — as you would think from the release — automatic information exchange on all activities in Guernsey from 2011 onwards this is not true. All that will happen is that information on interest paid on bank deposits held in the name of individual account payers within the EU will be subject to exchange of info0rmatyion with the tax authorities of the states in which they are resident.
So we have this comparison ( simplify a little, but only a little):
|
Type of income |
Exchanged |
Not exchanged |
|
Bank and some other forms of interest: |
|
|
|
Individuals, EU resident |
|
|
|
Individuals, not EU resident |
|
|
|
Companies |
|
|
|
Trusts |
|
|
|
Dividends |
|
|
|
Rents |
|
|
|
Many forms of unit trust and investment funds |
|
|
|
Profits |
|
|
|
Capital gains |
|
|
|
Trust distributions |
|
|
|
Pensions |
|
|
|
Proceeds from most life assurance based products |
|
In other words there is no move at all towards automatic information exchange going on here. There is just belated compliance with the very basic, and now widely acknowledged inadequate requirements of the European Union Savings Tax Directive.
It would be so much easier to take places like Guernsey seriously if they were honest. But it’s a sad fact that there rhetoric is a million miles apart from the reality of what they offer and that as a result they remain an ideal location in which to undertake tax evasion, and more, at cost to society at large, both within and more importantly outside that island.
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:
In the experience of the PSG (the Premier Fund has support services based on Guernsey) the island is probably more “closed” about its financial “operations” than either the Isle of Man or Jersey.
And that is saying something!
Close the lot of them!
Richard, it’s been shown on previous posts that the PSG cannot support any of it’s allegations, and that their argument has nothing to do with the regulators of any offshore jurisdiction (hence why they are getting nowhere legally) but is more to do with unlicensed IFA’s operating in Spain.
So does their comment really add anything to your initial information?
@Greg
Yes, but people say I’ve never proved anything either
And it seems they’re wrong too
I would respectfully suggest that the PSG repetitive commenting may go against your own comments policy. Whilst the situation of the PSG investors is one I have sympathy for, I fail to see the connection at the moment.
Having said that, the mention of support services in Guernsey I presume alludes to the fact that the custodian and banker to the fund are based in that Island (which I got from the fund’s scheme particulars which are published on their website). If the poster is suggesting that the custodian and/ or banker have been complicit in some sort of fraud then I would respectfully suggest that this is recorded with the appropriate authorities. Perhaps the poster would confirm one way or another if this is what they are suggesting? That Guernsey regulated entities (both of which are large multinational banks) are knowingly or otherwise involved in fraud.
@JohnBuckles
I have sympathy with this argument
I think PSG have made their point
Unless there is something new to add can we drop it for now?
No surprise to see Guernsey saying one thing and doing the other. You can compare it to the October 2009 Billet on the company tax rate “we are going to 10%”, followed by a bunch of lies along the line of we won’t change unless Jersey does.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!
Salut La Girrl
And how exactly is this press release dishonest ?
It states categorically that Guernsey will move to Information exchange under the EUSTD. Doesn’t seem misleading to me. Of course you have to read the article and not just the headline but this could be said for almost any headline.
The table that you show is this s’opposed to indicate what Guernsey doesn’t do compared to other jurisdictions or the limitations of the EUSTD and ALL jurisdictions that comply ? The way I read through your article, this seems more misleding than the headline you refer to.
Is Guernsey not the first/only (I believe) of the jurisdictions that have a withholding tax option under the EUSTD to go to information exchange ?
On a different slant (sorry slightly off topic)I wish the EU would get rid of the exemption option e.g. for UK res non-doms etc, it’s a pain in the rear to have to administer when it would be far easier to just supply all income data to the customers country of residence and let their local tax authority decide whether they need to be paying tax there (1 rule for all).