I spoke at a meeting of the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation last week. It was a pretty unpleasant experience, surrounded by those who seemed to take no objection to the chair’s suggestion that there wasn’t enough tax evasion in the world.
Whilst there I sat next to Richard Hay, a lawyer well known in the offshore world who argued strongly in favour of Jersey being a great place in front of an audience that included at least three Jersey funded representatives — all of whom bleated about how misunderstood they were in the wider world.
The next day, I now note, Richard Hay was at a jersey Finance funded event in St Helier. How incestuous! And how unremarkable that he beat the same drum. As the Jersey Evening Post reports, he said:
Jersey is in danger of ‘making many friends but having no food’ by negotiating away its autonomy over tax and financial regulation to placate the UK, Europe and other global bodies, an international law expert warned yesterday.
And he added:
Jersey was, for example, getting very little in return from agreeing to share tax information with other jurisdictions, and should seek reciprocal benefits such as double taxation agreements.
And, in support of his free market credentials he suggested:
More money should be pumped into bodies such as Jersey Finance, which promotes the Island as a finance centre globally and which he described as the best in its field in the world [because] ‘the whole strategic direction of financial services is extraordinarily under-resourced in Jersey,’ he said. ‘Jersey’s leading financial services industry will require committed resources to defend it [from European pressure to amend its tax structure].’
And he continued in the same tone warning Jersey of the forthcoming apocalypse and impending annihilation of they did for a moment cooperate with the EU, tax a company or exchange any information with another state (I exaggerate only very slightly).
This is absurd advice. Firstly — when as Hay recommends Jersey must remain part of the UK (he argued against independence) Jersey has no choice on this issue.
Second, if Jersey has no choice on this issue proactive cooperation is likely to win a lot more business than active opposition which will drive punters away because of the instability that will cause — which is anathema to finance.
Third, arguing against tax on companies will doom Jersey to ongoing deficits and eventual bankruptcy.
Fourth — it shows an adherence to the old models of finance that are dead in the water.
Last, it shows these people have no Plan B.
It’s a good job I do have such a plan for Jersey. Some time they’re going to need it, very badly. That’s why TJN is the best friend it’s got.
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:
@matt
“….in years to come whilst Jersey’s finance industry flourishes”
At the human cost of (most of) the rest of the world.
Just as a malevolent virus “flourishes” given the right sickening conditions.
Except that it won’t happen.
This comment has been deleted. It failed the moderation policy noted here. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/comments/. The editor’s decision on this matter is final.
Amusing as the UK anounces the Crown Colonies more power to arrange international agreements
http://www.stepjournal.org/news/news/main_story/crown_dependencies_to_be_offer.aspx
@Creg
the crown dependencies and other overseas territories only have this power when it is delegated to them by Westminster
They have no other power in the international arena
They do not have nation status, and that is the inevitable consequence
Stop pretending otherwise
Great post Richard! … came to it via Facebook. interesting to hear your views on this meeting.
@nizar
Thanks
You must be my facebook reader
I admit I don’t really get facebook
Maybe it’s because I’m in my fifties, but it just seems so weirdly inefficient and unfocussed….
Greetings all the same!
Dear Richard
I don’t comment on your blog generally as I dont have the luxury of being funded to blog full time on the net, nor in truth do I have either the time or inclination to follow your commentary on a frequent basis. However, I do though have the privilege of promoting a world class financial services centre around the world. A centre which has been rated by every major regulatory fora as operating to the highest international standards. Richard you really are the master of misinformation.You appear to me to live in some kind of Orwellian world where you espouse democratic values including free speech but then proceed to operate on the basis that your view is always more equal than others. Let me now debunk for your reader’s the misinformation and factually incorrect nature of this particular blog, as I have to say you often fail to check out your facts and offer insubstantiated opinion which is presented as fact.
Lets now deal with your misleading commentary:
You flagged the cost of three Jersey representatives at the CSFI event last week. I deduce this is a coded if rather unsubtle message to encourage your political contacts in Jersey to challenge again the way we use resources. You did this before I think on transfer pricing which produced the expected question in our States Assembly with which we dealt. We will be happy to deal with this one if your contact pops up again.
Jersy Finance was represented by myself (that is my job) and by our London based representative (thats his job) There was no third Jersey Finance person at the roundtable. You are confused as another gentleman who is in fact part of the City of London Corporation and who happens to be a Jersey man spoke. He is nothing to do with Jersey Finance.
Further criticism you came up with was that Richard Hay was speaking at an event in St Helier which you say was funded by Jersey Finance. In fact the event was run by the Jersey International Business School and was not funded by or connected with Jersey Finance.
With respect to independence Jersey neither seeks it it nor wants it but there has been a policy pursued by the UK government in the past that if by democratic wish of the general population independence is sought then the UK authorities have been accommodative. It is neither sought nor desired in my view by the general population of Jersey.
With respect to the CSFI Chair comments on tax evasion I think you know he was not serious, and you failed to mention that when I approached you at the end of the roundtable, I said we agreed on at least one thing, tax evasion is a crime and defrauds governments of revenue they are legitimately due leaving a bigger burden for wider society which is wrong and must be tackled by all countries. As you know tax evasion is a crime in Jersey whereas it is not in many countries around the world.
You continue to offer up your plan which Jersey does not need. In contrast to many countries around the world we have no government debt but we are seeing proposals being brought forward by our Treasury Minister to ensure that we continue to achieve a stable fiscal environment and balanced budgets as we have done consistently for many years.
Richard, I do believe your approach to life is based on an ethical standpoint but your obsession with Jersey and similar centres has driven you to see all things through the distorted lense of enmity, judgement and condemnation. This is your starting point and means I believe that you can’t allow yourself to see any good leading to an inbuilt reflex reaction which means you reject any evidence which indicates you could be wrong or offers an alternative view.
I think you were treated with appropriate respect by CSFI who invited you along to express your views. You expressed them very robustly but the response from some and me in particular was equally robust. That Richard is all about honesty and I am sorry that when people don’t agree with you, you feel the need to misrepresent them in the way you do.
Re FaceBook, Richard, I often post your blogs on my wall. You probably need to do this automatically so all your friends can see them.
@Geoff Cook
Usually I would want to give prominence to the comments made by someone such as you, often by putting them onto a separate blog post. In this case I’m going to save you the embarrassment.
First, I have to point out the gross inaccuracy of your comments. Let’s start with the fact that no one pays me a penny to write this blog. Then let me note that you run an organisation that has a budget running, when I last heard, into millions of pounds. And yet you are the person without the resources? Oh dear, who is seeing the world through a false lens? Or is it from a small goldfish bowl into which you have voluntarily immersed yourself, since you’re not a Jersey man, after all?
Second, let me say quite emphatically that I am sure that the chair of the meeting to which you refer was being serious when he talked about tax evasion. Every other comment he made during the course of the meeting implied that was the case.
Third, t of course I offered honest, clear, and robust opinions differing from your own meeting, but the person who ost his cool was you. How embarrassing for you.
Next, I note with interest, that you conflate interests of Jersey Finance with those of the Jersey government. How very interesting. I’ve long contended that the finance industry controls Jersey, and you seem to confirm it. What is more, you show contempt for democratically elected politicians in the island. Why is that? Surely you are accountable to them all?
Finally, and perhaps by far the most importantly, isn’t it interesting that you comment on pedantic points of no consequence to the overall debate whilst utterly ignoring the fact that the island you represent is a secrecy jurisdiction, dedicated to maintaining the opacity of the world financial system, proud to declare on your own website that information exchange is unlikely to be effective, and which has, as Panorama revealed, banks working on the island who are happy to advise customers on how to evade their tax liabilities in their home jurisdictions.
Why not address the real issues Geoff?
Why not talk about the harm that you promote which causes the deaths of children in developing countries?
Why not talk about promoting real transparency, real openness, real information exchange on all information that you hold on behalf of legal entities whose beneficial owners live in other states?
Why do you reject plan B which is the only economic prospect that Jersey has?
Why do you talk about borrowing when you know that your state has no capacity to repay debt?
Why do you duck the truth?
You are right, I work from an ethical standpoint
Let me be clear: I do not think that you do.
I think you seek to undermine every ethic of decency, honesty, openness, transparency, accountability, democracy, fairness, capitalism, markets, and governments that I know of
That’s where we differ
And I’m not obsessed with Jersey – I love the place and its people. I have nothing against them and have entity for no one. But I will condemn wrongdoing where ever I see it, and your organisation promotes it in my opinion.
That’s where we also differ.
Dear Richard
I don’t think a tit for tat exchange on your blog is edifying for you, for me or your readers but I will respond just once more.
I am not going to comment on the personal criticisms Richard. They are unhelpful and inaccurate and it seems to me standard fare in terms of your approach to those who don’t agree with you. The reason I commented on your blog is you made some specific criticisms of Jersey Finance which are not true and are misleading.I don’t think the truth is inconsequential Richard.
Jersey is a cooperative transparent and well regulated jurisdiction. It has been cited as such by major international fora as meeting international standards and has the highest compliance rating with FATF requirements achieved by any jurisdiction to date. Our information exchange arrangements meet international requirements and provide for access to beneficial ownership information irrespective of entity type.
Making extravagant claims of wrongdoing with absolutely no evidence to back them up, indeed claims which are contradicted by a significant body of evidence emanating from the IMF,OECD, FATF, World Bank and others doesn’t make sense to rational people Richard. You are saying you know better than these organisations who have had the benefit of first hand reviews and inspections staffed by very well qualified and capable people.
Richard, I recollect you agreed when I saw you that Jersey was not a problem as far as tax evasion is concerned. I do feel therefore given your comments you have caught the blogosphere bug, where the facts aren’t allowed to get in the way of personal ideologies, expressed in an environment where normal social and human conventions are given a token nod.
I will sign off and offer no further comment Richard, other than by agreeing as you say, that that we differ
Repeter apres moi “IMF, OECD, FATF, World Bank, Global Financial Crisis”
@Geoff Cook
Unedifying? Yes, certainly: not least because you do not seem to be above personal abuse. As I demonstrate time and again, I am quite willing to let those who disagree with me comment on this blog, you included. The fact that I note that I disagree with them when they do so, is, of course, necessary. I would not wish anyone to think I endorse many of the quite absurd comments made by people who I permit to comment here, you included.
That type of comment includes the claim that Jersey is a cooperative, transparent and well regulated jurisdiction. Jersey is almost entirely opaque. As the draft OECD report that I quoted says, you have almost no experience of information exchange.
It is impossible for a member of the public to discover who owns a Jersey corporation.
No accounts of any Jersey company are required to be on public record. As such you deliberately transfer all the risks of trade onto creditors.
You facilitate tax evasion by refusing to date to participate in full in the EU savings tax directive.
Your corporate tax regime does not comply with the requirements of the EU code of conduct, and was designed to avoid the obligations it imposes: a deliberate act of non-cooperation.
You passed laws that your own civil servants noted in 2006 would facilitate tax evasion with regard to the creation of what are, in the light of UK trust law, sham trusts.
Although large numbers of people using Jersey bank accounts choose not to exchange information with their domestic tax authorities on income they earn in Jersey, you have never required the banks in question to report this behaviour as a suspicious transaction that might indicate the existence of tax evasion in their home state and yet no other rational explanation for this withholding of data can be offered.
I could go on, and on. Everything that I have said is factual and beyond dispute.
In that case, just because organisations like the OECD sets such remarkably low standards for international acceptability on signing tax information exchange agreements I am not obliged to respect their own poor judgement.
And let me be quite clear, organisations like the IMF and FATF have to a very large degree examined to date whether the right pieces of paper are in place in a jurisdiction, not whether they are used. You can create as many pieces of paper as you like but the culture of Jersey remains one where opacity is desired, and opacity is delivered. Your own organisation’s website lauds this quality.
Rational people may think that opacity is desirable, but that is usually because they have something to hide. In practice, information is essential to the effective operation of markets and you, your organisation and the jurisdiction you represent have gone out of your way to undermine the effective operation of markets, and in the process undermine well-being throughout the world. That is your contribution to society.
If you call that beneficial and can reconcile that with rationality, so be it.
I can’t.
I can’t endorse that abuse.
That abuse is factual, not ideological: you are the ideologues. I support my argument with normal economic theory that explains the well-being that markets can deliver.
As for normal human conventions, I am more than capable of identifying acceptable human conduct, and complying with it. But, the conduct you promote kills people in developing countries. It may be polite in Jersey to ignore the fact, but fact it is, and by implication I hold you responsible. I hope your conscience can live with it. Mine could not.
If you think it impolite of me to point this out, there are a range of impolite answers that you could choose from that I might offer. Please let your imagination run riot. But don’t for one minute think we just differ: that massively understates the situation. I oppose the abuse that you promote, which I think as shocking and as undermining of humankind as slavery was, and look forward to the day when it is outlawed by all civilised societies, including the one that will one day i hope prevail in Jersey.
[…] Cook of Jersey Finance wrote two comments on the blog yesterday, wanting to set the record straight on some things — such as the fact that […]
[…] Cook of Jersey Finance wrote two comments on the blog yesterday, wanting to set the record straight on some things — such as the fact that […]
Just had to post this in FaceBook, drawing particular attention to your last superb comment!
I entirely agree with Geoff Cook.
I have read this blog extensively and I agree that there appears to be a “distorted lense of enmity, judgement and condemnation” in relation to any low-tax proposals and the blog “rejects any evidence which indicates you could be wrong or offers an alternative view” and is all the less informative for this.
We have extensive knowledge of the Channel Islands too and the culture is not one of opacity but one of distrust of big government because of its inherent inefficiency and waste and the consequential high tax. You claim to understand the Islands, but they have a work ethic that is very desirable and don’t rely on the state, but understand that it is always better to work and to work hard because the rewards can be great. Add in progressive tax and all of that goes away.
You admit that you’re in the 1950s and don’t get facebook, and that means that you may be missing the mobility of the next generation – as we move out of the era where a house can realistically be afforded and rental becomes the normal position, then the internet savvy business entrepreneurs will say “Hey, why set up in this tax base when I can set up in a low tax base and use internet communications” – that has a massive impact on future high-value jobs. Venture capitalists we’re dealing with are already requiring core tax bases offshore and when people say “we can’t get VC funding in the UK…” its because of attitudes such as displayed on this blog. We have had 19 cases in the last year where VC funding was refused but then granted when we restructured into a more efficient low-tax structure. This means a new loss in jobs to the UK.
We are also seeing an increasing trend of the majority of our competent hi-tech clients moving offshore due to concerns about tax and in an internet digital world, location has ceased to be relevant except for tax and trade considerations.
>>It is impossible for a member of the public to discover who owns a Jersey corporation.
We are able to do this in most cases without problem. There are trusts which are opaque. For Corporations there are a number of cases where the trail goes dry because of less reputable offshore centres without transparency; however if you look at the number of high-value fraud cases arising in the UK which aren’t even being investigated, it dwarfs the risk of CO companies. Even the FT recently called the UK the world capital of fraud – particularly sophisticated fraud.
> No accounts of any Jersey company are required to be on public record. As such you deliberately transfer all the risks of trade onto creditors.
A Misrepresentation. The availability of accounts has little impact on risk to trade creditors and is dwarfed by such onshore creditor avoidance schemes such as pre-pack administrations. In fact, if you knew CI trading practice, it is not uncommon to require the Directors to provide (confidentially) recent accounts and to warrant their accuracy if the accounts are not public.
Any logical and sensible trader takes guarantees before trading with any company which does not have public accounts capable of establishing its current position and this is the case whether onshore or offshore.
>Your corporate tax regime does not comply with the requirements of the EU code of conduct
The EU Code of Conduct is self-serving and designed to prop up profligate EU governments and indeed the final decision on compliance is still awaited (unless I’ve missed a very recent decision). If there was a genuine desire to adhere to the EU Code of Conduct then a standard corporation and VAT rate, a standard personal tax and benefits regime across Europe would be imposed, but the EU Governments can’t agree on this because they all want to have their own domestic advantages.
I believe Cameron is correct that the UK should restrict any further loss of sovereignty and regain some of the powers already granted to the EU and the EU structure will have to move in the long-term to either full harmony or tiered membership where some countries are full members and others are preferred trading partners only.
reading this Blog is interesting as tax avoidance appears to be considered almost equal to tax evasion.
>> the conduct you promote kills people in developing countries.
This is nonsense and its comparison to modern day slavery shows that your ideological bias clouds your judgment.
“All the world’s a stage” — Wm Shakespeare
We all play a role on a stage where nothing is lasting and everything changes. And as on the stage/game known as “Monopoly” some of us attain wealth, own hotels, streets and shares in utilities; whilst others are lucky to have a house in a poor area – or even find themselves in jail.
But when play is done everything is returned to the box allowing others to play from the same starting position; and the next generation has an equal opportunity and stimulus to generate personal wealth and in due course also return it to society.
Without “inherited” wealth capitalism has a better chance to thrive.
When everyone pays their taxes society has a fairer chance to thrive.
Sorry Richard but how can you expect to get into discussions with people like this if you respond to them in such a nasty way?
@Jamie
I think that offshore is, as I say above, one of the most profound abuses in the world promoting inequality, the degradation of human life for many, and the enslavement of people in poverty.
And you ask me to be nice to those who are promoting it?
Now why should I be nice to those who are promoting such abuse? Give me one good reason for being so that you can justify to the person who was lost their child due to a lack of basic drugs that could be paid for if only their government could raise tax revenues from the companies who are fleecing it of income by transfer pricing it into secrecy jurisdictions?
@Nick Lockett
With the very greatest of respect, I’m going to ignore most of your comments because either they are utterly untrue – the observations I made about the opacity of jersey statements of fact and not open to interpretation, and you do not in any sense undermine them or they are neoliberal claptrap.
two comments are however worth noting. The first is this: “reading this Blog is interesting as tax avoidance appears to be considered almost equal to tax evasion.”
it so happens that I do consider these to be entirely morally equivalent. Of course they are not legally equivalent but that is not the point. Seeking to undermine the income stream of a democratically elected government is, I think, a fundamentally undemocratic act designed to subvert the proper operation of government, the rule of law, the right ordering of society, and the necessary provision of services in fulfilment of a mandate given by people to their government. if you think that all those fundamentally antidemocratic activities are justified then that, but you put yourself outside respectable society by doing so and so do all those accountants who promotes such activities, in my opinion.
secnd I note you say ” have read this blog extensively and I agree that there appears to be a “distorted lense of enmity, judgement and condemnation” in relation to any low-tax proposals and the blog “rejects any evidence which indicates you could be wrong or offers an alternative view” and is all the less informative for this.”
well maybe you are right. Maybe there is a emnity, judgement and condemnation in this blog. absolutely and rightly so, say I. People die as a result of the secrecy provided by places like jersey. People are trafficked as a result of such places. Drugs are trafficked as a result of such places. Money is laundered in such places. The people in developing countries are denied of the resources they need to promote their health and education systems by such places. I hate such abuse. I’m proud to hate such abuse. I’m proud to oppose it. I’m proud to homes the reallocation of resources from all the original world which is the fundamental underlying purpose of tax havens/secrecy jurisdictions.
Why do I do that? Try reading Luke chapter 6
Richard
Re. the constitutional relationship of the Crown Dependencies, I have read the Report several times and I’m afraid that my conclusions are not quite the same as yours.
You make the point that the Crown Dependencies cannot operate without the approval of the UK. In some instances that’s undoubtedly true. In others, its very clearly not true. But what you fail to acknowledge is something that the Report very clearly does state, which is that the UK very clearly cannot simply legislate for us and tell us what to do. So we are unequivocally not “like a mere county of the UK”, which is something you have claimed in the past. I can accept that we are not quite as self-governing as I had previously claimed, but on the other hand you are obliged to accept that the UK cannot govern the islands and tell us what do do. The UK’s mandate unequivocally goes nowhere near as far as that.
Turning now to the various points in your totally over-the-top and unedifying response to Geoff Cook (#12 above):
1. Jersey “has almost no experience of information exchange”. Well, let’s examine that claim, shall we?
Automatic exchange of information is not currently a requirement on Jersey either by the OECD or under the EUSTD. What information are you stating that Jersey should have exchanged, and under what requirement? What you fail to ask is how many requests for information Jersey has actually refused? Where is your information on that? TIEAs are all very new and some are not yet even ratified yet (although signed). Precisely how much experience do you expect Jersey to have of information exchange at this stage? Where is the deficiency in Jersey’s exchange of information today? I’m intrigued.
2.It is impossible for a member of the public to discover who owns a Jersey corporation.
Correct, but why does the public need to know? The public don’t deal with 99% of Jersey companies. The JFSC know and all regulated businesses know. Any third party who proposes to deal with a Jersey company has many ways of getting evidence of beneficial ownership before they will deal with that company. There is absolutely no need for the public yo know – which I hasten to add is a principle applied to corporate beneficial ownership in all G7 and (I think) G20 member countries. How can it remotely be a criticism of Jersey that it isn’t operating to higher standards that those countries?
3. No accounts of any Jersey company are required to be on public record. As such you deliberately transfer all the risks of trade onto creditors.
The first sentence is correct, but as per 2 above the point is irrelevant. Third parties are not seeking to trade with passive investment holding companies (which probably make up around 98% of Jersey-registered companies not owned by local residents). The Jersey tax office gets the accounts of all Jersey companies trading locally within Jersey, and as per 2 above it anybody wants a Jersey company to produce accounts before it will engage in trade with them (i.e. as a potential future trade creditor) then that is what will happen. If not, then the third party will choose not to trade with the Jersey company. Nobody’s interests are compromised as a result.
And do all G& and G20 member countries require that audited accounts of all local companies are filed publicly? No – they do not. Why should Jersey be criticised for not operating to higher standards than that?
4. You facilitate tax evasion by refusing to date to participate in full in the EU savings tax directive.
No – Jersey merely operates within the scope of an agreement expressly accepted by the EU and which was negotiated for Jersey (and the other CDs) will the full support of the UK, a full EU member. Why should Jersey be criticised for doing what the EU clearly deemed to be acceptable to it? Even full members of the EU do not apply automatic exchange of information under the EUSTD, so why should Jersey do so as a non-member?
5. Your corporate tax regime does not comply with the requirements of the EU code of conduct, and was designed to avoid the obligations it imposes: a deliberate act of non-cooperation.
Maybe, maybe not. The jury is still out on that. What is the factual case though is that the EU Code of Conduct did not disapprove of the Jersey tax structure even if there is confusion about whether or not they expressly approved it. A “deliberate act of non-cooperation”? You can only realistically say that if Jersey knowingly did something that the EU Code of Conduct disapproved of and that simply is not the case.
6. You passed laws that your own civil servants noted in 2006 would facilitate tax evasion with regard to the creation of what are, in the light of UK trust law, sham trusts.
I think you probably need to replace the word “would” with “could”. It rather changes the context. I could buy a powerful speedboat which “could” be used for drugs running. It doesn’t mean that it “would” be so used. I could similarly open a bank account in Jersey or the UK which “could” be used for tax evasion, but it doesn’t mean that it “would” be so used.
7. Although large numbers of people using Jersey bank accounts choose not to exchange information with their domestic tax authorities on income they earn in Jersey, you have never required the banks in question to report this behaviour as a suspicious transaction that might indicate the existence of tax evasion in their home state and yet no other rational explanation for this withholding of data can be offered.
I’m actually not so sure that you are wrong on this point. AS a result I cannot contest it.
As you will no doubt have expected, I totally disagree with your questioning of the OECD/EU/IMF “approval”, as (a) there are no grounds for you to do so, (b) what other standards are the CDs possibly able to adhere to as those are the ones which matter, and (c) you just don’t like the fact that your agenda is undermined by having to accept that their inspections are valid.
@Rupert
For all practical purposes and ignoring the obfuscation in which you delight I’ll take that as either agreement to what I say or as a statement made by you in support of the oppression of free trade
Richard
No idea how you could possibly reach either conclusion. But they are your words, and certainly not mine.
Very revealing though that you don’t comment on my counter-arguments, so in precisely the same vein I’ll take that as your agreement of what I say.
Richard, your response shows a personal hatred towards offshore finance centres which isn’t reasonable so its not surprising people promoting offshore finance avoid direct discussion with you; or any other member of the TJN.
Because of this no progression will ever happen and all we will ever see is blog ranting and nothing more.
@Jamie
If that was true you would not have needed to comment
You commented because you know it is not true
You know what we’re doing is profoundly changing the offshore world
@Rupert
Debate with you is a waste of time
I’;ve tried it
And you would sell your grandmother into slavery rather than admit facts
@Richard Murphy
It is quite clear that you’re not open to discussion and that even trying to reason with you is a waste of time.
ED: As a result I did you a kindness and deleted the rest of your diatribe without even bothering to read it, which will also save me the bother of replying to it.
It seemed to be what you wanted
Richard
Richard
I haven’t seen many facts from you, just your personal opinions. What proven facts am I supposedly refusing to accept?
I have no idea how you can reach your “selling my own grandmother” conclusion from my numbered specific responses to your earlier allegations. You’ve stated your point of view and you clearly claim them to be “facts”. Most of them are nothing more than unproven personal opinions which do not pass scrutiny when you use them to form your conclusions about Jersey.
@Rupert
Just deal with the facts. Does Jersey require that companies publish their accounts on public record or not? If they don’t, I am right on this issue, as I am on the others. If I’m wrong, I will apologise.
But the truth is – as you know – I am right on this and all the other issues. I chose them carefully, because I know will what I said is true. So stop blathering please.
This comment has been deleted as it did not meet the moderation criteria for this blog specified here: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/comments/. The editor’s decision is final.
Endless repitition is not debate