After a decade of campaigning on tax haven issues the claim I have probably heard more often than any other is "we're not a tax haven". It has been said time and again by states who are, of course, just that.
In the last few days Jersey has said it, and so have the prime ministers of Antigua and Gibraltar.
There is just one problem for them all, and that is that they are tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions.
Secrecy jurisdictions are places that intentionally create regulation for the primary benefit and use of those not resident in their geographical domain. That regulation is designed to undermine the legislation or regulation of another jurisdiction. To facilitate its use secrecy jurisdictions also create a deliberate, legally backed veil of secrecy that ensures that those from outside the jurisdiction making use of its regulation cannot be identified to be doing so.
One of the pleasures of having campaigned on this issue for a decade is that when we began evidence on this issue was harder to obtain. Now we have the Financial Secrecy Index to prove these people are wrong based on objective evidence and research.
Curiously not one secrecy jurisdiction or tax haven front organisation has sought to challenge the Financial Secrecy Index publicly, although we know Jersey spends a fortune privately trying to do so. Could it be that they know it's right and are too frightened to enter debate? We challenge them but they never respond. Why is that? Is it that even they don't believe their claim?
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:
“We are not a tax haven.” Take a look at this list
http://taxjustice.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/we-are-not-tax-haven.html
I am afraid that your approach is fuelled with the poison of self induced conspiracy all around you. We are ‘not a tax haven’ means everyone residing in that jurisdiction pays tax. Everyone and his knowledgeable dog knows that all jurisdictions including the place where you are resident (especially UK and Delaware, the biggest and dodgiest offshores in the world where you don’t even have to present accounts and pay zilch tax so long as you grease the government’s palm with an annual fee) facilitate offshore for entities that are not based in their jurisdiction. They pay no tax in the UK or Delaware and this means they are factually offshore within this context but may, of course, have a legal obligation to pay tax elsewhere where they are resident.
You need to stop beating your primitive drum and get up to speed with such as is happening in the EU and FATCA. But charity -like Tax- begins at home..
Kind regards
pierre
No tax in the UK and Delaware?
Who are you kidding?
Secrecy yes: no tax, no
Get your facts right
JP Morgan workers have been ordered to pay tax – or face legal action – over allegations the firm transferred salary payments offshore, Sky News has learned.
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) deemed the money as “disguised remuneration” and not retirement benefits as claimed.
Workers and executives have been told they must agree to pay up to 40% backdated income tax, 1% National Insurance contributions and interest accrued by December 7.
JP Morgan Chase and Co (NYSE: JPM – news) has agreed to pay 12.8% NI contributions for those who accept the settlement terms.
Those who do not agree to the terms face the threat of legal action by the Tax Office.
Sky News understands the money since classified as earnings by HMRC was transferred to Jersey from 1998, with most transferred from the 2005/6 tax year onwards.
The specified amount paid by individuals to the Tax Office to avoid litigation will be determined ultimately by how many agree to the settlement terms on offer. The investment bank employs thousands of people in the UK.
In a letter to the head of JP Morgan’s tax department dated September 10, HMRC said: “As you are aware, the Government put in place legislation in 2011 to put beyond doubt the tax treatment of employee benefit trust arrangements.
“In addition, HMRC continues to robustly challenge the taxation treatment of such arrangements under previous legislation.
It adds: “In this context and where we are unable to agree a settlement HMRC will continue to formally progress its enquiries into the taxation treatment of the trusts.”
Last year HMRC contacted more than 2,000 employers and offered settlements over disputed employee benefit trusts (EBTs).
Earlier this year action was taken by HMRC against UBS (NYSEArca: DJCI – news) and Deutsche Bank (Xetra: 514000 – news) over EBTs, which contested the Tax Office claims.
HMRC has estimated that up to £1.7bn of tax and NI contributions were at stake in EBTs, including the “dependent fund” plans operated by JP Morgan.
The investment bank’s staff who were part of the employee benefit trusts of 1998, 2006, 2007 and 2008 and the 2010 executive retirement plan are affected by the HMRC action.
The ruling impacts both current and former UK-based staff, whether or not they are British citizens or foreign nationals.
The employees’ Jersey tax haven funds have been managed by subsidiaries of the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC (MCX: RBCI.ME – news) ), which describe the island as “tax neutral”.
RBC’s wealth management section actively promotes the benefits of using the island for affluent individuals.
“The chief preoccupation of most ultra high net worth families is wealth preservation,” RBC explains on its website .