Not a tax haven.

[notwell]

I think you're talking rubbish Barry.

[notwell]

 

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.

He's being a fucking unreasonable pest.

[Barrie Stevens]

I think you're talking rubbish Barry.

 

Explain if you please...I predicted this sort of development at least twice as a guest with Roger Watterson on Manx Radio's "Sunday Opinion" many years ago.. And also in local papers...

 

Fact is, the scene is changing, The UK is changing and information is hard to keep under wraps now....And the local authorities do know if you have money in IOM and CI...And people are prosecuted and their offshore arrangements are referred to in court...More financial information is needed for tax purposes.

 

I often think that people on the Isle of Man do not appreciate just how things are moving on in the UK generally and more spending and tax and spend powers are being devolved.

 

Even new regions of the UK are being established with substantive powers akin to the Island's "Home Rule aka Internal Self Government"...ie Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire are certain to devolve into a virtual self-governing region having much more economic control, business and industrial development, housing, infrastructure etc...

 

The region will have an elected mayor and do a lot now done or directed from London...All of this will require more tax related powers, information and involvement...

 

Other regions are coming along ie The Solent Region and then there is Thames Gateway....They will need access to information as is proposed.

[notwell]

Barry the IoM has been exchanging information with the UK on UK based clients for over ten years. You are not telling us anything new.

 

The IoM has made it stance clear. Information will be available to the appropriate authority . Not regional councils for which our affairs on a day to day basis have nothing to do with them.

 

Bell seems to have done ok here. We've agreed pretty much to exactly what is in place at the moment. Not much extra burden and resisting the publishing online for all to see of beneficial owners is the right call.

[Tweek]

We'll all get to see it one day I'm sure. Probably in an email from the treasury.

[pongo]

The IoM has made it stance clear. Information will be available to the appropriate authority . Not regional councils for which our affairs on a day to day basis have nothing to do with them.

Do you think that there would be a case for some sort of optional override? For example if a company is tendering for work then presumably it would be reasonable to be able to find out more on them. And wouldn't many companies likely prefer to make this verified information available by default in a spirit of openness - on the basis that it might be good for business?

Edited April 9, 2016 by pongo

[Gladys]

The UK has proposed disclosure of ownership of foreign companies tendering for public contracts or buying UK property.

[pongo]

The UK has proposed disclosure of ownership of foreign companies tendering for public contracts or buying UK property.

 

So would that have to be adopted at an EU level in order to be legal? Assuming the UK either does not exit the EU or is forced post exit to adopt the same rules anyhow.

 

And assuming that this gradually became the norm in general, wouldn't any IOM company looking to compete for business be locked out unless part of a similar system?

Edited April 9, 2016 by pongo

[Gladys]

No, I think what is proposed is if you are a foreign company tendering for UK public contracts, you have to register as a foreign company and disclose beneficial ownership.

 

I have no idea how the EU would view it, or whether it would be affected by an exit from the EU.

[thesultanofsheight]

 

The IoM has made it stance clear. Information will be available to the appropriate authority . Not regional councils for which our affairs on a day to day basis have nothing to do with them.

 

Do you think that there would be a case for some sort of optional override? For example if a company is tendering for work then presumably it would be reasonable to be able to find out more on them. And wouldn't many companies likely prefer to make this verified information available by default in a spirit of openness - on the basis that it might be good for business?

It should be down to the tender process not a matter of supplying suitable public records verified by a foreign government. UK government should maybe require company's tendering for UKG contracts to register on the Foreign Register. That would be the easiest solution. On the Panorama programme I was quite surprised how someone building a hospital could siphon payments out to Panama. But it's up to UKG to stop that if they are the ones engaging on the contract. I dont see why it should be an issue for us to police when they are doing the procurement with that company with UK public funds. If companies choose to make this information available that's fine but if we have a public register I don't see why the IOM should be compelled to inform the world general public who owns a company as that is private information. I can see why all parties to a transaction might want to know, or the tax man, or the police. But what right should Joe Bloggs internet warrior have to go sifting through the data about businesses and companies he has no connection to and who he has no contractual nexus with? If Joe Bloggs expects that right then maybe Joe Bloggs should publish his investment portfolio and pension plan details online just so we can all have a quick look too just to check if he's kosher or not?

Edited April 9, 2016 by thesultanofsheight

[notwell]

Exactly. I don't want anyone knowing my business just because they're nosey fuckers.

[pongo]

It should be down to the tender process not a matter of supplying suitable public records verified by a foreign government. UK government should maybe require company's tendering for UKG contracts to register on the Foreign Register. That would be the easiest solution. On the Panorama programme I was quite surprised how someone building a hospital could siphon payments out to Panama. But it's up to UKG to stop that if they are the ones engaging on the contract. I dont see why it should be an issue for us to police when they are doing the procurement with that company with UK public funds. If companies choose to make this information that's fine but if we have a public register I don't see why the IOM should be compelled to inform the world general public who owns a company as that is private information. I can see why all parties to a transaction might want to know, or the tax Man, or the police. But what right should Joe Bloggs internet warrior have to go sifting through the data about businesses and companies he has no connection to and who he has no contractual nexus with? If Joe Bloggs expects that right then maybe Joe Bloggs should publish his investment portfolio and pension plan details online just so I can hand a quick look just to check if he's kosher?

 

Could there not simply be a closed company register for companies not wishing to be completely open. And an open company register for everyone else.

[thesultanofsheight]

 

It should be down to the tender process not a matter of supplying suitable public records verified by a foreign government. UK government should maybe require company's tendering for UKG contracts to register on the Foreign Register. That would be the easiest solution. On the Panorama programme I was quite surprised how someone building a hospital could siphon payments out to Panama. But it's up to UKG to stop that if they are the ones engaging on the contract. I dont see why it should be an issue for us to police when they are doing the procurement with that company with UK public funds. If companies choose to make this information that's fine but if we have a public register I don't see why the IOM should be compelled to inform the world general public who owns a company as that is private information. I can see why all parties to a transaction might want to know, or the tax Man, or the police. But what right should Joe Bloggs internet warrior have to go sifting through the data about businesses and companies he has no connection to and who he has no contractual nexus with? If Joe Bloggs expects that right then maybe Joe Bloggs should publish his investment portfolio and pension plan details online just so I can hand a quick look just to check if he's kosher?

 

Could there not simply be a closed company register for companies not wishing to be completely open. And an open company register for everyone else.

Why bother? It isn't a matter of public interest if you're not connected to a particular transaction. The simplest thing to do would be to create a form a company signs to say it's happy for data to be disclosed to certain parties associated with contacts it's engaging in which is presented to Registry here who then disclose to those parties. A bit like a bank mandate. To me Joe Bloggs has no rights over viewing data that has no connection to him; and Joe Bloggs, I assume, still feels he should have personal privacy in most aspects of his life and does not think that his data should automatically be splashed all over the place either.

[pongo]

The simplest thing to do would be to create a form a company signs to say it's happy for data to be disclosed to certain parties associated with contacts it's engaging in

You are probably right and obviously know much more about this than me. But surely an an opt-out, rather than an opt-in would be even simpler?

Edited April 9, 2016 by pongo

[thesultanofsheight]

 

The simplest thing to do would be to create a form a company signs to say it's happy for data to be disclosed to certain parties associated with contacts it's engaging in

You are probably right and obviously know much more about this than me. But surely an an opt-out, rather than an opt-in would be even simpler?

You have to decide what purpose would a public register achieve? I said above it would just be a rubber-neckers charter for nosy parkers to just stick their noses into things that have no connection to them. Worse it could easily be a criminal charter that would allow criminals and people sitting within crooked regimes the world over get access to data they can use to persecute, extort, or otherwise take unfavourable action against people who are wealthy or who they might view as being political undesirables. It wouldn't do much about non payment of tax to be honest as those gateways are largely already in place. I think most people accept that people have a right to privacy. Equally if they are doing wrong things like fraud or not paying tax they should be exposed. But if they are paying all taxes due and just want privacy to go about their lives is there that much wrong with that? I'm not sure what people asking for a public register think it will achieve other than allow a load of conspiracy theorists to spend months ripping through data to create even more conspiracies from. If the tax agencies and the police forces have better access to this data (and let's face it they are properly trained to thoroughly investigate it and sense check it all) that would surely seem to be the most sensible way of dealing with the matter?

Edited April 9, 2016 by thesultanofsheight