Not a tax haven.

[notwell]

From the report, it would appear not to be a public register but one available to law enforcement. Good move, I think.

So, as you were then. No change really.

[Gladys]

Not really, at the moment there has to be a formal process to get the information, Presumably, the register will be accessible without a section whatever request. Seems to me a reasonable compromise. The UK register is going to be public, but the degree of verification is pretty lax.

[woolley]

Yes, but the register as described available to tax authorities and law enforcement was a work in progress anyway, so in that sense it is "as you were".

[Gladys]

Yes, I believe it has been under discussion in this form for quite a while. Certainly before Panama exploded. But it is different to the arrangements we currently have for this information.

[Roger Mexico]

From the report, it would appear not to be a public register but one available to law enforcement. Good move, I think.

 

The Government press release says a bit more:

 

Isle of Man commits to enhanced arrangements in sharing beneficial ownership information

The Isle of Man Government has today committed to enhancing the effectiveness of arrangements for sharing beneficial ownership information with the United Kingdom.

Chief Minister Allan Bell MHK said:

'This has been achieved through ongoing constructive discussion and is an important demonstration of our long-standing partnership to tackle corruption, tax evasion and other serious criminality.'

The arrangement being finalised will commit to providing Isle of Man and United Kingdom law enforcement agencies with adequate, accurate and current beneficial ownership information on all corporate and legal entities incorporated in their jurisdictions.

Arising from this commitment the Isle of Man will be establishing and maintaining a central electronic database of beneficial ownership information.

'The Isle of Man is not a place where criminals can find a welcome,'

The Chief Minister added.

'We have a strong track record of compliance with international standards and this commitment with the United Kingdom will further strengthen our defences against criminal activity. A truly global approach to tax transparency and information sharing is needed to fight the scourge of serious crime. As a well-regulated and internationally responsible country, the Isle of Man is committed to playing its part in efforts to achieve meaningful progress.'

Issued By

Cabinet Office

 

 

But of course running a a "central electronic database of beneficial ownership information", even with presumably very limited access, means that it will be easy for a future UK Government to force it to be more open - remember that the UK can legislate for the Island if needs be on any matter - and often does in things with an international dimension. That's before the risk of leaks and hacking.

 

Of course once revealed, the database may show all entities are really owned by Mickey Mouse. But it may put off the evil day for a bit.

[Roger Mexico]

Meanwhile here is an interesting question from a poll done by YouGov on Tuesday/Wednesday:

Which of the following best reflects your view?

Britain should force our Overseas Territories to reform their banking systems and stop acting as tax havens, whether their own governments agree or not 31%

Britain should try to persuade our Overseas Territories to reform their banking systems and stop acting as tax havens, but should not force them without their governments' agreement 33%

Britain should not intervene at all in how Overseas Territories with their own governments run their own banking systems 16%

Don't know 20%

 

If you ignore the difference between British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, which I suspect not many people answering would be aware of, it shows there is a sizeable, but not majority, backing for action whether the territories like it or not.

 

Interestingly this doesn't differ as much politically as you may think. Those who voted Labour in 2015 were 43% in favour of unilateral action, but so were 38% of UKIP and 24% of Tories.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Roger Mexico

[Gladys]

How so, Roger? Do you know many CSPs that have Mickey Mouse amongst their clients? The difference of the IOM register versus the UK register will be the level of verification required, which is already what has to be done. You are normally pretty clued up on this stuff, unless I am missing something?

[Roger Mexico]

Gladys I was just making the point that if a register isn't open there's no way of outsiders knowing that it actually contains the information it claims to and so it may be treated with some scepticism. The same would apply to any country's closed register of course.

[Gladys]

Yes, but we have the checks and balances of direct, monitored regulation. Something the UK register will not have and, although open, should be treated with the very scepticism you refer to.

[thesultanofsheight]

Gladys I was just making the point that if a register isn't open there's no way of outsiders knowing that it actually contains the information it claims to and so it may be treated with some scepticism. The same would apply to any country's closed register of course.

Why do outsiders need to know? All that would be is a rubber-neckers charter where journalists and other people could just trawl through people's private details for no real benefit to anyone. Not to mention the risks presented by giving people in some very unsavoury regimes the ability to access public data that could be used for political purposes to take down political rivals or as a basis for extortion or whatever other malicious action they might wish to take. As proposed the tax and law enforcement agencies will have full access and it's hard to argue that this isn't enough to show the Island takes thinks like tax evasion seriously. If the register is open to tax and law enforcement surely those are the two key areas that people can't deny are fundamentally important in ensuring abuses are not happening? As Gladys says we hold proper information too as the KYC requirements are high here. We won't be reporting the sort of Mickey Mouse data that the UK Registry often holds as the KYC and validation requirements are still pretty low in the UK.

[GaryPotter]

On the basis that we have the worlds most pathetic FOI Act where judging by Trevor Cowins letter in the paper most requests are turned down using exemptions specifically written into the legislation, why the hell should we offer more open reporting on the private activities of individuals who have IOM companies than we do about the activities of our own government and the people spending millions of our tax money each year? It's completely mad. The best way to hide what you do is clearly to become a civil servant and nobody will ever find anything about what you're up to.

[notwell]

Most of Trevor Cowins are turned down. There's a difference.

[GaryPotter]

Most of Trevor Cowins are turned down. There's a difference.

Maybe you should read the letter. Trevor knows exactly what he's doing and there are people genuinely worried about what he's trying to get to. This is the man who was able to expose the whole Peel silt breaches. He's not some rogue nutter as its being presented by IOMG. He's very clued up and very aware of how civil servants work to cover their arses from public scrutiny. Why should people paid by us (civil servants) have better protection from scrutiny than what they are trying to force us to do for private citizens in other countries who just have companies based in the IOM? It's mad.

Edited April 9, 2016 by GaryPotter

[NoTail]

I think that the register of trusts will ensure our Esteemed Leaders knighthood. Probably decimate the CSP industry though.

[Barrie Stevens]

Gladys I was just making the point that if a register isn't open there's no way of outsiders knowing that it actually contains the information it claims to and so it may be treated with some scepticism. The same would apply to any country's closed register of course.

 

I think the information will end up more widespread than some may realise. Down on my manor it is very clear that the local councils and county councils get supplied with such as bank account information including offshore bank account information already...This gets reported in the local paper.

 

Many times I see people prosecuted for social security fraudulent claim offences or getting Council Tax Benefit (That is a zero or reduced liability) and Housing Benefit (Known as Housing Credit now) and who have money "hidden" in IOM and CI...The HMRC gets the data it then goes to Department of Work and Pensions and they advise the councils who pay out aforesaid Benefits...

 

So I suppose there will be a "round robin" of information from any data base showing ultimate beneficiaries accessible by tax and law enforcement agencies..

 

Also in "fly on the wall" documentaries I have seen Benefits fraud investigators simple key in and find "hidden" funds...Or snail trails of same.

 

Power and responsibility is always being devolved and local councils increasingly do more for themselves. They are able to raise and keep more of their Council and Business Taxes and have greater powers over Housing Benefit and indeed the setting of Council Taxes...So they are like tax authorities closely involved in watching out for those who use "offshores"....It is probably by now a standard check? Perhaps they will be able to access the proposed data base directly?...After all councils in UK/Scotland are tax authorities as they impose and collect Council Tax and Business Tax.

 

It seems that the intelligence will travel far and wide around the UK at high and low level and on a very simplistic "need to know" basis and thus a lot of business information will be bust wide open I suggest?