Privacy; a Necessity, not a Luxury

There is an interesting article named "Privacy; a Necessity not a Luxury" posted by Corbett & Kish at its blog.

"The year was 1917 and the location was Latvia. A poor and mostly agrarian country in Northern Europe’s Baltic region bordered to the north by Estonia and to the south by Lithuania. My grandparents were children at the time. As the saying goes, “timing is everything,” and theirs could not have been much worse. The Bolshevik Revolution began in October that year starting in Petrograd (now St. Petersburg). It was quickly followed by another civil war - later to be coined the Russian Revolution - and spread throughout the various countries doomed to become possessions of the Soviet Union. It would be bloody and last until 1922. My great-grandfather became a casualty when a local preacher turned him in as a dissident and he was shot. Having personally witnessed this event, my grandfather would flee to the United States, leaving behind a world and relatives he would never see again. He met a woman, also of Latvian heritage, and together they started a new life.

Vladimir Lenin got his wish and rose to prominence, becoming Russia’s most powerful figure. Although Lenin’s post-revolutionary Soviet Union would forge much advancement – most notably education and industrial development - the cost would be enormous. The State was to become godlike. Human rights and the individual spirit were quashed. Citizens feared to even whisper dissent for Siberia, or worse would be a likely sentence. The seeds of the KGB had been sown, and privacy was altogether nonexistent.

History teaches us many lessons if we are only willing to pay attention. Perhaps none as profound and recurring as the importance of protecting an individual’s right to privacy which equates to civil liberties. It is impossible to live in peace and obtain true prosperity without privacy. The tragic events of 9/11/01 changed the landscape of human rights in the United States and throughout the world. If the truth be told, however, personal privacy was under attack long before that day. And while the right to privacy is not completely lost, it should give one pause that history is full of examples wherein these privileges become reduced under the guise of “national security”.

In recent years the same holds true; the inception of the Patriot Act in 2001 gave law enforcement agencies more authority to search the phone, email and financial records of some citizens while wiretaps and searches of suspected homes and businesses were made more accessible. International security measures that have inhibited the civil liberties of citizens include hidden cameras & microphones in public transportation areas like taxis and subway stations as well as roving taps, illegal search & seizures and more.

As recently as 2006, USA Today reported that The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth. The database is currently the largest ever collected, and, while it focuses mostly on international calls, either those ending or originating outside the U.S., it does keep track of domestically placed calls as well.The struggle to preserve essential human rights is a theme most recently tapped by Hollywood. In 2009, it is paying tribute to those individuals who stood against tyranny with films such as Tom Cruise’s “Valkyrie” or Daniel Craig’s “Defiance”.

While it remains to be seen the acclaim these films receive, the mere fact that Hollywood producers have allotted their production dollars to bring these true stories to the big screen further affirms the emotional connection we feel towards human rights and those who guard them.

In no way are we promoting civil disobedience, nor are we attempting to draw a parallel between western society and tyrannical governments of long ago. Yet we do feel it is essential for individual citizens to take common sense steps to protect themselves from the prying eyes of individuals seeking monetary gain or the potential of a government becoming dysfunctional and over-stepping its bounds. The economic events of 2008 and collapse of some of the world’s largest banks re-emphasizes this need. Anyone of substantial wealth should be taking measures to diversify and protect their privacy. It is really not that difficult to find a safe haven from these turbulent times. One of our favorite strategies is to utilize Switzerland and have our clients “take matters into their own hands” through owning their own financial facility. This allows for effective planning and extensive control. There are, however, other locations and other strategies that can be implemented. The key is to be proactive.

The lessons to be learned from the past are not ivy tower philosophy or vague political rhetoric but real-world and relevant to current events. We live - as the ancient Chinese saying goes – in interesting times.

Andorra open to foreign takeovers

Andorra open to foreign takeovers
Article published by Mark Mulligan in Financial Times (www.ft.com) on November 7 2008

Andorra, the tiny Pyrenees principality, will on Friday open its borders to foreign takeovers as part of efforts to modernise the economy and shake off its image as a shady financial centre.

Under legislation passed in April, foreign investors will be allowed to control 100 per cent of companies in 200 designated sectors, while controls will be eased in core activities such as construction, tourism and retailing. Foreigners will be allowed to own 49 per cent of the capital in companies in these sectors, compared with 33 per cent at the moment.

Friday’s reforms follow the creation this year of companies’ register, to which local businesses will have to file regular accounts using international standards. There are also plans to introduce corporate tax of between 5 and 10 per cent, and value-added tax of 4 per cent.

At present, there are no direct taxes on companies and individuals in Andorra, making it a popular base for the wealthy from countries such as Spain, Portugal, France and the UK.

The changes are part of an effort to restructure the tiny economy, which relies on tourists – mainly skiers – for about 60 per cent of its E2.5bn gross domestic product. Global turbulence is expected to hit tourism hard, and Andorra has also seen a sharp downturn in construction activity, which accounts for about 10 per cent of GDP.

Juli Minoves, economic development minister, on Thursday described them as “important reforms, introduced at moment when they are most needed”.

However, the changes are also aimed at improving relations with Spain – which slaps a punitive 25 per cent tax on services provided by Andorran companies – and with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which has Andorra on its list of un-co-operative tax havens.

This classification has taken on sinister connotations since the 2001 terrorist attacks in the US, as the hunt for al-Qaeda put secretive tax havens under the spotlight as possible sanctuaries for financiers of terrorist groups.

This, added to a series of financial scandals, has increased the pressure from the US and European Union on micro-countries such as Andorra and Liechtenstein for more transparent banking and taxation.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

PD: in fact is 24% currently, not 25%

Book Review of 'Havens in a Storm: The Struggle for Global Tax Regulation'

Book Review of 'Havens in a Storm: The Struggle for Global Tax Regulation'

Anthony C. Infanti (University of Pittsburgh) posted this essay at U. of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2008-16

Here is the Abstract:

This short essay is a review of J.C. Sharman's book Havens in a Storm: The Struggle for Global Tax Regulation. In the essay, I first provide a brief overview of Sharman's book, which approaches the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's struggle with tax havens over harmful tax competition from a political science perspective. I then describe how the book (and, by extension, this review) will be of interest not only to those in the fields of international tax and international relations, but also to those concerned more generally with the dynamics of struggles between the powerful and the weak. I conclude by offering a constructive critique of one aspect of the book.

Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1118979

Tax Havens and the Struggle for Global Tax Regulation

Sharman, J.C.. "Tax Havens and the Struggle for Global Tax Regulation" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston Marriott Copley Place, Sheraton Boston & Hynes Convention Center, Boston, Massachusetts, Aug 28, 2002

Abstract: In 1998 the OECD launched a campaign to prevent 'harmful' international tax competition practised by tax havens luring away capital and accompanying tax revenue from large industrialised states. Subsequently the OECD has sought to compel tax havens to eschew this 'tax poaching' in a struggle crucially shaped by normative factors inhibiting the use of economic sanctions and side-payments. The OECD has instead employed a rhetorical strategy of argument and 'naming and shaming' to secure tax havens' compliance, attacking their reputation for financial probity and diminishing their attractiveness as investment destinations. In response, tax havens have sought to appropriate and reverse arguments put into play by the OECD to delegitimate the campaign.

In policy terms, the tax competition initiative exemplifies how core states can set and impose standards regulating the global economy. Theoretically, it provides an explanation based on the interaction of rationalist and normative factors, whilst also advancing our understanding of argument and rhetoric.

Intercompany Loans and Profit Shifting

Intercompany Loans and Profit Shifting – Evidence from Company-Level Data
Thiess Buettner (Ifo Institute for Economic Research and CESifo) and Georg Wamser (Ifo Institute for Economic Research) published this paper on March 2007 at CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1959.

Here is the Abstract:

This paper is concerned with tax-planning strategies of multinational corporations. A theoretical analysis discusses the choice of the capital structure in a setting where intercompany loans can be used to shift profits to low-tax countries. Empirical evidence is provided using micro-level panel data of virtually all German multinationals made available by the Bundesbank. This comprehensive dataset allows us to exploit differences in taxing conditions of almost eighty countries during a period of nine years.

The empirical results confirm a robust impact of tax-rate differences within the multinational group on the use of intercompany loans, supporting the profit-shifting hypothesis. However, the implied tax-revenue effects are rather small, suggesting that costs related to adjusting the capital structure for profit-shifting purposes are substantial.

Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=981120

A Level Playing Field and the Space for Small States

Vlcek, William. "A Level Playing Field and the Space for Small States" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention, Hilton Chicago, CHICAGO, IL, USA, Feb 28, 2007

Abstract: In the course of producing a project against tax competition, the OECD has insisted on the establishment of a level playing field. The subjects of this project are predominantly small states with offshore financial centres and few alternatives available to achieve economic development. This paper reflects upon the broad parameters of the OECD's concern with tax competition and its proposed method to resolve the issue.

The following argument is an interrogation of the meaning embedded within the term 'level playing field' as used in the debate over international tax competition. It outlines some of the broad consequences that an OECD success with implementing the project holds for small economies. The conclusion reached is that a level playing field in the global political economy is a mirage with more substance for some states than for others.

International Organisations, Blacklisting and Tax Haven Regulatory Reform

Sharman, Jason. "International Organisations, Blacklisting and Tax Haven Regulatory Reform" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Le Centre Sheraton Hotel, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Mar 17, 2004
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper seeks to evaluate the relative success of exclusionary or coercive strategies versus inclusionary or consensual strategies employed by international organisations in securing tax haven states' compliance with new global financial regulations. In 1998 the G7 launched several related regulatory initiatives designed to tame tax competition, counter money laundering and shore up international financial stability.

These initiatives were premised on a 'top-down' or exclusionary approach, whereby standards were set in closed fora and diffused to small tax haven states by blacklisting and sanctions. This approach was intended to yield quick results and avoid 'lowest common denominator' standards. Almost six years later, this paper argues that international organisations such as the OECD significantly over-estimated their ability to secure the unwilling compliance of even the smallest tax haven states. As a result, more traditional inclusionary strategies based on sovereign equality and consensus now seem just as likely to be effective in setting global standards. Evidence is predominantly taken from the OECD's 'harmful tax competition' initiative, but also includes that body's campaign against the illicit use of corporate vehicles, the Financial Action Task Force, the Financial Stability Forum, the IMF Offshore Audit and the International Taxation Dialogue.

David R. Francis has published an article entitled "Secretly, tiny nations hold much wealth" in CS Monitor:

"Although they have only 1 percent of the world's inhabitants, they hold a quarter of United States stocks and nearly a third of all the globe's assets.
They're tax havens: 70 mostly tiny nations that offer no-tax or low-tax status to the wealthy so they can stash their money. Usually, the process is so secret that it draws little attention. But the sums - and lost tax revenues - are growing so large that the havens are getting new and unaccustomed scrutiny.

For example: When London's Tax Justice Network (TJN) reported a month ago that rich individuals worldwide had stashed $11.5 trillion of their assets in tax havens, it caused a fuss in Europe. "Super-rich hide trillions offshore," blazed a British newspaper headline.


Although that report received little notice outside Europe, there are rumblings of concern in the United States. That's not surprising. Nations lose an estimated $255 billion in tax revenues a year because of the havens, according to TJN. The US alone probably loses $60 billion a year, a tax expert estimates.

The loss hits not only prosperous industrial countries, but also developing nations. As a result, dozens of church groups and other nongovernmental organizations concerned with world poverty are joining tax reformers in what will probably become a major political battle. They aim to stem the outflow of money from poor nations into tax havens - an outpouring that may exceed today's global foreign aid of some $60 billion a year.

"If we are serious about reducing poverty, one of the first things we need to tackle is an international financial system run by the rich, for the rich, at the expense of the poor," states David Woodward, director of the New Economics Foundation, a London think tank.

Corrupt officials in poor nations, illegally, and multinational corporations, mostly legally, siphon huge amounts of money into bank accounts and shell companies in 70 tax havens, such as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and Jersey.

"It's going to be the next major issue," forecasts Lucy Komisar, a New York journalist writing a book on offshore banking. She compares the drive against tax havens with the civil rights movement of the 1960s, in which she participated, and the feminist and environmental movements of more recent decades.

Ms. Komisar helped organize a meeting on Capitol Hill April 7 to get an American branch of the TJN going. Representatives of several members of Congress, the AFL-CIO and a few other unions, several prominent tax research groups, and the United Church of Christ attended. About a dozen well-known activist groups were also present, including Public Citizen, Greenpeace, and the National Council of La Raza.

By cracking down on capital flight and corruption in developing countries, "we wouldn't have so much poverty in the world," says Robert McIntyre, executive director of Citizens for Tax Justice. He offered at that meeting to find funding for the TJN group in the US and recruit a paid director.

Not everyone sees it this way. The Center for Freedom and Prosperity in Washington, for example, sees tax havens as "an escape hatch for overburdened taxpayers." It relishes "tax competition" between nations. The center also argues that bank secrecy in countries like Switzerland can protect the money of those who face persecution by repressive regimes.

The tax-haven numbers in the TJN report were calculated by a British research firm from conservative sources - such as Merrill Lynch's "World Wealth Report" and the Boston Consulting Group's "Global Wealth Report." The trillions of dollars reported don't include money parked in tax havens by companies - probably also a massive sum.

There are about 3 million shell companies (set up largely to duck taxes) in offshore tax havens, Komisar reckons. These tiny tax havens hold 31 percent of total world assets and 26 percent of the stock of US multinationals.

"As our economies have globalized, our tax systems remain nationally based and measures that should have been put in place decades ago to improve international tax cooperation have not been put in place," says John Christensen, international coordinator in London of TJN. "So the tax burden has been shifted from those who can afford it to middle- and low-income households, and from businesses to working people and consumers."

In the late 1990s, industrial-nation negotiators reached an agreement to pressure tax-haven countries to stop facilitating money laundering, drug dealing, and tax evasion. The deal was championed by the Clinton administration. But it was squashed by the new Bush administration, keen for tax cuts.

Then came 9/11 and a recognition that terrorists and drug dealers use the same international finance channels as tax dodgers. So the Bush administration "has become less strident in its support for bank secrecy and other nondisclosure policies," notes Mr. McIntyre.

Now, a pioneer opponent of tax evasion through tax havens, Sen. Carl Levin (D) of Michigan, has joined with Sen. Norm Coleman (R) of Minnesota to sponsor the Tax Shelter and Tax Haven Reform Act. It would enable the Treasury secretary to designate a tax haven as "uncooperative" with Internal Revenue Service investigations. Though not a panacea, the bill, soon to be reintroduced in the current Congress, would give tax investigators a weapon: Income from such designated tax havens would lose some tax advantages.