Not a tax haven.

[Lxxx]

There was a great 'expose' in the Sunday Mail yesterday - which I'm sure was tongue in cheek - about how Cameron avoided income tax by getting Osborne to reduce the high rate of tax by 5% thereby saving him thousands a year.

 

It's all getting ridiculous now. Clearly there is some other agenda at play here, you don't hang your prime minister out to dry over perfectly legal tax planning, of which the rest of the establishment also benefit.

In my opinion behind the curtain they've told Dave not to worry, it'll all blow over shortly but they needed to get the public onside as the IMF would like to reduce in number some of these 'tax havens' and it's been decided the Crown Dependancies are the first in line I'm afraid, so as UK Prime Minister you're the fall guy sunshine.

[ballaughbiker]

 

 

There was a great 'expose' in the Sunday Mail yesterday - which I'm sure was tongue in cheek - about how Cameron avoided income tax by getting Osborne to reduce the high rate of tax by 5% thereby saving him thousands a year.

Did they also say that he must therefore have got Osborne to put his tax up by removal of personal allowance for high earners and remember the loss of child allowance last year? Thought not..... Anyway I thought to top rate of tax had gone up....

 

Tongue in cheek or not, some (mainly those ideologically opposed to anything this gov does) will lap this non-news up and use it as a stick to beat him with. Resignation appears to be one of their goals. Downfall of the gov would of course be the icing on the cake.

[woolley]

If I was Cameron I'd call a press conference and announce that I was off to see the Queen. Then I'd go to Buckingham Palace and tell Her Majesty I don't need the hassle and she can stick the job.

 

What a shitstorm over a small perfectly legal arrangement on which tax was paid in any case. Enormous double standards at work here. As for those idiot agitators with the "Cameron must go" and picture of pig banners I'd have them shot. What a rabble.

[Andy Onchan]

 

There was a great 'expose' in the Sunday Mail yesterday - which I'm sure was tongue in cheek - about how Cameron avoided income tax by getting Osborne to reduce the high rate of tax by 5% thereby saving him thousands a year.

 

It's all getting ridiculous now. Clearly there is some other agenda at play here, you don't hang your prime minister out to dry over perfectly legal tax planning, of which the rest of the establishment also benefit.

In my opinion behind the curtain they've told Dave not to worry, it'll all blow over shortly but they needed to get the public onside as the IMF would like to reduce in number some of these 'tax havens' and it's been decided the Crown Dependancies are the first in line I'm afraid, so as UK Prime Minister you're the fall guy sunshine.

 

 

Are those that are 'hanging him out to dry' within his own party Brexit supporters?

 

Not sure I understand the bit about IMF wanting to 'reduce' numbers of tax efficient jurisdictions.... where did you get that from? Surely IMF would prefer abolishing them completely?

 

Although I have read somewhere that the IMF recognise the importance of some jurisdictions like IOM as being conduits for purchase/sale of government treasury bonds & notes etc.

[Tweek]

I like the IMF. Tom Cruise is great in it.

[pongo]

I could see this ending up positive, or not negative, for the IOM if the mob gets its way. Thousands of economic migrants queued up at Heysham seeking domicile and bringing their small businesses with them. You can contract from here all over the world just as easily as from anywhere. As long as Corbyn doesn't cut off the internet

[NoTail]

Good point pongo. After all we do want another 20,000 or so population according to our esteemed leader. If these are all wealthy types who do not like the UK tax system they may well prefer our tax regime.

[code99]

This discussion is missing one vital input – the fourth EU Anti-money Laundering (AML) Directive. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32015L0849 This Directive was made effective on 26 June 2015 and gives all EU countries two years (June 2017) to implement its rules.

 

This is not an ‘avoidable’ or debatable Directive. It must be implemented by all EU Governments. As long as the UK stays in the EU, this Directive will be implemented in the UK, and will also apply here, whether we like it or not.

 

As far as the IOM is concerned, the Directive’s most critical requirement is that all EU countries must set up registers that record the ultimate 'beneficial' owners of businesses. These registers will hold details of each beneficial owner’s:

• name
• month and year of birth
• nationality
• residency
• etc.

These new registers must be accessible by:

• 'authorities' within each country
• 'obliged entities' such as banks doing due diligence into customers, and
• others, such as investigative journalists, who can demonstrate a "legitimate interest" in gaining access to the information

The Directive applies to a range of businesses, from banks and other financial institutions, to auditors and accountants. The rules will also have to be complied with by any other kinds of businesses involved in making or receiving cash payments for goods worth at least €10,000, regardless of whether payment is made in a single, or via a series of linked transactions. There are also rules which apply specifically to gambling operators; e.g. to customers wish to place a stake worth, or collect winnings of, at least €2,000. Presumably our e-gaming industry will have to implement these new rules.

 

These requirements will reveal ‘who owns what’ to a very wide range of audiences and will cast ‘military-grade-spotlights’ on numerous individual’s financial affairs, possibly revealing things that have to date laid dark and secret. Unfortunately, the new rules will also threaten legitimate personal privacy. I note that Gibraltar has proudly announced that they are already creating a register of beneficial ownership for all companies registered in their jurisdiction, in line with the new EU Directive.

 

Anybody who thinks that IOM can go solo to escape all these EU/UK regulations is forgetting that the £3b (and rising) public pension liability is unpayable for the small country with circa 85k population and limited sources of income.

Edited April 11, 2016 by code99

[Lxxx]

 

 

There was a great 'expose' in the Sunday Mail yesterday - which I'm sure was tongue in cheek - about how Cameron avoided income tax by getting Osborne to reduce the high rate of tax by 5% thereby saving him thousands a year.

 

It's all getting ridiculous now. Clearly there is some other agenda at play here, you don't hang your prime minister out to dry over perfectly legal tax planning, of which the rest of the establishment also benefit.

In my opinion behind the curtain they've told Dave not to worry, it'll all blow over shortly but they needed to get the public onside as the IMF would like to reduce in number some of these 'tax havens' and it's been decided the Crown Dependancies are the first in line I'm afraid, so as UK Prime Minister you're the fall guy sunshine.

 

 

Are those that are 'hanging him out to dry' within his own party Brexit supporters?

 

Not sure I understand the bit about IMF wanting to 'reduce' numbers of tax efficient jurisdictions.... where did you get that from? Surely IMF would prefer abolishing them completely?

 

Although I have read somewhere that the IMF recognise the importance of some jurisdictions like IOM as being conduits for purchase/sale of government treasury bonds & notes etc.

 

 

The IMF have released quite a few papers recently, mainly based around corporate tax, and are pretty damning about 'tax havens' and profit shifting.

 

I'm sure they would like to abolish them all eventually but as there are probably trillions offshore around the world, held by some pretty large corporations and important individuals, they can't address it all at once.

[woolley]

This discussion is missing one vital input – the fourth EU Anti-money Laundering (AML) Directive. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32015L0849 This Directive was made effective on 26 June 2015 and gives all EU countries two years (June 2017) to implement its rules.

 

This is not an ‘avoidable’ or debatable Directive. It must be implemented by all EU Governments. As long as the UK stays in the EU, this Directive will be implemented in the UK, and will also apply here, whether we like it or not.

 

As far as the IOM is concerned, the Directive’s most critical requirement is that all EU countries must set up registers that record the ultimate 'beneficial' owners of businesses. These registers will hold details of each beneficial owner’s:

• name
• month and year of birth
• nationality
• residency
• etc.

These new registers must be accessible by:

• 'authorities' within each country
• 'obliged entities' such as banks doing due diligence into customers, and
• others, such as investigative journalists, who can demonstrate a "legitimate interest" in gaining access to the information

The Directive applies to a range of businesses, from banks and other financial institutions, to auditors and accountants. The rules will also have to be complied with by any other kinds of businesses involved in making or receiving cash payments for goods worth at least €10,000, regardless of whether payment is made in a single, or via a series of linked transactions. There are also rules which apply specifically to gambling operators; e.g. to customers wish to place a stake worth, or collect winnings of, at least €2,000. Presumably our e-gaming industry will have to implement these new rules.

 

These requirements will reveal ‘who owns what’ to a very wide range of audiences and will cast ‘military-grade-spotlights’ on numerous individual’s financial affairs, possibly revealing things that have to date laid dark and secret. Unfortunately, the new rules will also threaten legitimate personal privacy. I note that Gibraltar has proudly announced that they are already creating a register of beneficial ownership for all companies registered in their jurisdiction, in line with the new EU Directive.

 

Anybody who thinks that IOM can go solo to escape all these EU/UK regulations is forgetting that the £3b (and rising) public pension liability is unpayable for the small country with circa 85k population and limited sources of income.

Isn't this the register that Allan has announced is being set up in any case?

[Andy Onchan]

This discussion is missing one vital input – the fourth EU Anti-money Laundering (AML) Directive. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32015L0849 This Directive was made effective on 26 June 2015 and gives all EU countries two years (June 2017) to implement its rules.

 

This is not an ‘avoidable’ or debatable Directive. It must be implemented by all EU Governments. As long as the UK stays in the EU, this Directive will be implemented in the UK, and will also apply here, whether we like it or not.

 

As far as the IOM is concerned, the Directive’s most critical requirement is that all EU countries must set up registers that record the ultimate 'beneficial' owners of businesses. These registers will hold details of each beneficial owner’s:

• name
• month and year of birth
• nationality
• residency
• etc.

These new registers must be accessible by:

• 'authorities' within each country
• 'obliged entities' such as banks doing due diligence into customers, and
• others, such as investigative journalists, who can demonstrate a "legitimate interest" in gaining access to the information

The Directive applies to a range of businesses, from banks and other financial institutions, to auditors and accountants. The rules will also have to be complied with by any other kinds of businesses involved in making or receiving cash payments for goods worth at least €10,000, regardless of whether payment is made in a single, or via a series of linked transactions. There are also rules which apply specifically to gambling operators; e.g. to customers wish to place a stake worth, or collect winnings of, at least €2,000. Presumably our e-gaming industry will have to implement these new rules.

 

These requirements will reveal ‘who owns what’ to a very wide range of audiences and will cast ‘military-grade-spotlights’ on numerous individual’s financial affairs, possibly revealing things that have to date laid dark and secret. Unfortunately, the new rules will also threaten legitimate personal privacy. I note that Gibraltar has proudly announced that they are already creating a register of beneficial ownership for all companies registered in their jurisdiction, in line with the new EU Directive.

 

Anybody who thinks that IOM can go solo to escape all these EU/UK regulations is forgetting that the £3b (and rising) public pension liability is unpayable for the small country with circa 85k population and limited sources of income.

 

From the Directive:

(13) Identification and verification of beneficial owners should, where relevant, extend to legal entities that own other legal entities, and obliged entities should look for the natural person(s) who ultimately exercises control through ownership or through other means of the legal entity that is the customer. Control through other means may, inter alia, include the criteria of control used for the purpose of preparing consolidated financial statements, such as through a shareholders' agreement, the exercise of dominant influence or the power to appoint senior management. There may be cases where no natural person is identifiable who ultimately owns or exerts control over a legal entity. In such exceptional cases, obliged entities, having exhausted all other means of identification, and provided there are no grounds for suspicion, may consider the senior managing official(s) to be the beneficial owner(s).

[notwell]

The loss of the green screens:

 

All the shutters came down amidst sighs of relief from Athol Street and environs. And no one batted an eyelid.

 

 

And why should it? The information is available to the people that matter.

And who do you prefer the people that matter be?

I don't prefer anyone other than those who have a legitimate legal need to know.

I'm involved in two companies on the Isle of Man. And it's fuck all to do with you (or any other nosey twat with nothing better to do). I'm quite happy for it to be something to do with the relevant authorities though. More than happy.

[pongo]

Isn't this the register that Allan has announced is being set up in any case?

Also separately worth noting that the Isle of Man is not on the proposed EU blacklist of 'non-cooperative' tax jurisdictions.

 

A place needs 10 votes to be on the list. The Isle of Man only got 7.

 

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/economy-politics.120n

 

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/gen_info/good_governance_matters/lists_of_countries/index_en.htm

[code99]

Wooley - Isn't this the register that Allan has announced is being set up in any case?

 

I am not sure if it is. According to the article on IOM Today: "The island has so far resisted having a public register of beneficial ownership, which would mean anyone anywhere could find out the identities of Manx company owners.Only law enforcers would have such access".

 

My view is that this is not the same as the requirements of the 4th AML EU Directive. Unless I am mistaken, Mr Bell does not want this register to be available to banks and journalists...? The EU does want to make this register accessible to by these groups.

[Andy Onchan]

 

This discussion is missing one vital input – the fourth EU Anti-money Laundering (AML) Directive. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32015L0849 This Directive was made effective on 26 June 2015 and gives all EU countries two years (June 2017) to implement its rules.

 

This is not an ‘avoidable’ or debatable Directive. It must be implemented by all EU Governments. As long as the UK stays in the EU, this Directive will be implemented in the UK, and will also apply here, whether we like it or not.

 

As far as the IOM is concerned, the Directive’s most critical requirement is that all EU countries must set up registers that record the ultimate 'beneficial' owners of businesses. These registers will hold details of each beneficial owner’s:

• name
• month and year of birth
• nationality
• residency
• etc.

These new registers must be accessible by:

• 'authorities' within each country
• 'obliged entities' such as banks doing due diligence into customers, and
• others, such as investigative journalists, who can demonstrate a "legitimate interest" in gaining access to the information

The Directive applies to a range of businesses, from banks and other financial institutions, to auditors and accountants. The rules will also have to be complied with by any other kinds of businesses involved in making or receiving cash payments for goods worth at least €10,000, regardless of whether payment is made in a single, or via a series of linked transactions. There are also rules which apply specifically to gambling operators; e.g. to customers wish to place a stake worth, or collect winnings of, at least €2,000. Presumably our e-gaming industry will have to implement these new rules.

 

These requirements will reveal ‘who owns what’ to a very wide range of audiences and will cast ‘military-grade-spotlights’ on numerous individual’s financial affairs, possibly revealing things that have to date laid dark and secret. Unfortunately, the new rules will also threaten legitimate personal privacy. I note that Gibraltar has proudly announced that they are already creating a register of beneficial ownership for all companies registered in their jurisdiction, in line with the new EU Directive.

 

Anybody who thinks that IOM can go solo to escape all these EU/UK regulations is forgetting that the £3b (and rising) public pension liability is unpayable for the small country with circa 85k population and limited sources of income.

 

From the Directive:

(13) Identification and verification of beneficial owners should, where relevant, extend to legal entities that own other legal entities, and obliged entities should look for the natural person(s) who ultimately exercises control through ownership or through other means of the legal entity that is the customer. Control through other means may, inter alia, include the criteria of control used for the purpose of preparing consolidated financial statements, such as through a shareholders' agreement, the exercise of dominant influence or the power to appoint senior management. There may be cases where no natural person is identifiable who ultimately owns or exerts control over a legal entity. In such exceptional cases, obliged entities, having exhausted all other means of identification, and provided there are no grounds for suspicion, may consider the senior managing official(s) to be the beneficial owner(s).

 

 

Judging by the title of the directive it's aimed at organised crime (money laundering) and terrorism rather than tax avoidance, though it's pretty clear that tax avoiders would easily be nobbled.