{"id":21436,"date":"2013-07-02T10:03:58","date_gmt":"2013-07-02T09:03:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/?p=21436"},"modified":"2013-07-02T10:03:58","modified_gmt":"2013-07-02T09:03:58","slug":"jerseys-publishing-the-same-old-bogus-claims-about-itself-today-including-the-fanciful-suggestion-that-it-does-not-help-tax-evaders-when-it-does","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2013\/07\/02\/jerseys-publishing-the-same-old-bogus-claims-about-itself-today-including-the-fanciful-suggestion-that-it-does-not-help-tax-evaders-when-it-does\/","title":{"rendered":"Jersey’s publishing the same old bogus claims about itself today – including the fanciful suggestion that it does not help tax evaders when it does"},"content":{"rendered":"

The state controlled and heavily public sector\u00a0subsidised\u00a0marketing arm of the tax avoidance industry in Jersey has published a new report this morning<\/a> on why it thinks Jersey adds\u00a0value\u00a0to the UK economy.<\/p>\n

The report is utter nonsense and pure spin on so many levels it is almost hard to know where to start, so perhaps tackling the biggest lie it seeks to\u00a0propagate\u00a0will do first. The summary report claims<\/a> when discussing the role of offshore\u00a0finance:<\/p>\n

Notably, these drivers of offshore demand have little to do with evading or\u00a0avoiding domestic taxation. There may be some offshore centres that provide\u00a0secretive shelter from other jurisdictions\u2019 domestic taxes, but not Jersey (nor\u00a0the other Crown Dependencies). Tough anti-money laundering laws and\u00a0robust regulation make the bailiwick an ill-advised choice for would-be tax\u00a0evaders \u2014 while efforts on both sides of the Channel mean that the scope for\u00a0unwanted avoidance schemes to use the island is all but eliminated.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is a blatant\u00a0untruth.\u00a0Jersey\u00a0has deliberately refused to take part even the most basis standard of\u00a0automatic information exchange required by the\u00a0European Union Savings Tax Directive - whose sole aim is to beat tax evasion - on bank\u00a0depositors\u00a0in the island. There can only be one reason for that - which is that Jersey and its bankers want to maintain the island as a place where tax evasion may take place. Nothing else can explain this refusal - which has that sole outcome. Notably\u00a0Guernsey\u00a0and the\u00a0Isle of Man do exchange this data; Jersey does not and whilst it does not it remains a safe haven for tax crime for those\u00a0depositing\u00a0funds there from the UK.<\/p>\n

This is no doubt why the UK Budget for 2013 says<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Following the Autumn Statement 2012 announcement that the Government would\u00a0look to conclude further agreements based on its groundbreaking agreement with the US, the\u00a0Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey have agreed to enter automatic tax information exchange\u00a0agreements with the UK. These agreements will significantly increase the amount of information\u00a0on potentially taxable income that is automatically exchanged, in order to further clamp down\u00a0on tax evasion. HMRC has also put disclosure facilities in place to allow investors with accounts\u00a0in the Isle of Man, Guernsey or Jersey to settle their past tax affairs in advance of the information\u00a0being automatically exchanged. These agreements are expected to raise over \u00a31 billion over the\u00a0next \u00ef\u00ac\u0081ve years.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Now I do not know if \u00a31 billion will be raised or not but have\u00a0strong\u00a0reasons for thinking it likely. And that blows a complete whole in what Jersey says, after which all its other claims have to be seen for what they are: an act of pure fanciful thinking.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The state controlled and heavily public sector\u00a0subsidised\u00a0marketing arm of the tax avoidance industry in Jersey has published a new report this morning on why it
 Read the full article…<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21436","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-jersey"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21436","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21436"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21436\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21436"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21436"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21436"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}