TAX JUSTICE - ISLE OF MAN
DECEMBER 02, 2008
Last week TJN's director John Christensen visited the Isle of Man to speak at a packed public meeting on tax havens.
This was a rare and healthy airing of the issues which lie behind this island's prosperity over the past 30 years, since the offshore structure was set up.
The meeting was organised months earlier but the timing was spot-on: events unfolding on a daily basis hold massive significance for the Island. Gordon Brown has recently announced on TV that the UK needed to take a closer look at its relationship with the IoM, in the wake of Icelandic bank Kaupthing, Singer and Friedlander (KSF) going pear-shaped a couple of months ago.
He was echoing Alistair Darling's sentiments voiced a few days earlier when being grilled by the Treasury Select Committee looking into the Icelandic debacle. KSF's IoM subsidiary was left owing some £820m to over 8,000 depositors, many of whom were shocked to discover the IoM's depositor compensation scheme (even after being beefed up) could take many years to pay out.
There is much anger here that KSF's UK subsidiary - now in administration - is sitting on £550m which was frozen by order of Her Majesty's Government, which would now go a long way to making the IoM customers happy.
The Manx Government has committed £150m to the compensation scheme - half its reserves - to maintain our credibility as an offshore centre, showing the dangerous stakes which are now being played for.
Then on Monday of last week, in the UK Chancellor's Pre-Budget speech, two further body blows landed in quick succession.
First the 2.5 per cent reduction in VAT, which will reduce IoM Govt income by £40 million (7%) at a stroke, a disproportionate effect because over half the IoM Government's income comes from VAT through a very favourable VAT-sharing deal - known as the Common Purse - with the UK.
But perhaps even worse was the news that the UK would be launching a review of its Crown Dependencies (that's us and the Channel Islands) as well as its far-flung Overseas Territories. In addition to looking at how we handle the financial crisis, the review will probe our systems of financial supervision, transparency, and international cooperation. Critically, the UK admits there is 'growing international pressure to line up standards of financial regulation and meet international norms with regard to taxation'.
The strong current resentment here against the UK is seen in many calls for outright independence, which would surely kill off the offshore industry straight away. The feeling that the UK has got it in for us contrasts sharply from the reality that on the international scene it's the UK which is dragging its feet over reforms to make havens more transparent. This reflects the two sides of the struggle going on for the ear of HMG; on the one hand huge vested City interests pleading for the status quo, but on the other growing pressures from a revitalised USA, a continental Europe shocked by the Liechtenstein scandal, and - dare we say it - voices from TJN and an increasing number of development agencies pleading for the poor, whose own voices in this debate are still so weak.
The finance sector accounts for 35-40% of our workforce and national income (with many more dependent upon it), so it's not surprising that many on the Island remain in denial about the harm we (and all havens) are causing.
Yet the evidence mounts up. In 2006 a report of a subcommittee of the US Senate declared that the Isle of Man has become 'a haven for tax evasion', and that the US government is losing up to $100 billion each year due to such offshore finance centres. The IoM is particularly heavily criticised in the report; in a series of detailed case studies the report showed how IoM corporate service providers helped to set up sham trusts and shell companies in the Island in order to pretend that wealthy US citizens had no obligation to pay US tax. The IoM is one of the naughty jurisdictions listed in the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Bill, which may soon be brought to life.
Closer to home, in May 2006 a UK tax tribunal highlighted the damage which the offshore sector is doing there. HM Revenue and Customs demonstrated that out of 9,300 Barclays offshore customers resident in the UK, over 96 per cent had failed to declare such offshore bank interest on their tax return, as the law demands.
As a result, Barclays was required to hand over income details of all its offshore customers to the UK Revenue, which expects this to bring in £1.5 billion of unpaid tax. And this is Barclays alone - the decision has allowed them to demand the same from all other banks. Many customers face six years' back tax, interest, penalties, and possibly even jail.
Approximately 3 million Britons hold offshore bank accounts in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. At end-June 2008 some £155bn of funds were deposited in Manx banks and the trust and insurance sectors, so we're much smaller than Jersey and a tiny player on the global scene. Not all funds placed in the IoM are there for illicit purposes, yet at the end of 2006, some £76bn of assets in the IoM financial sector were owned by non-IoM individuals who were likely to be illegally evading tax on those assets in their home jurisdictions. Around 7 per cent of these bank deposits come from developing countries.
It is estimated that The IoM alone causes poor governments to lose some £15m each year - a figure which may be compared to the £2.2m given in 2008-09 by the Manx Government in overseas aid. Since July 2005, the IoM has had to implement the European Union's Savings and Tax Directive. Rather than apply the norm of automatic comprehensive information exchange, we opted for the withholding tax alternative - a telling choice. At least this is a start, but it's to be hoped that the current review of Directive will extend its scope beyond individuals to companies and trusts. Its ironic too that under the EU Directive, Manx banks are now acting as tax collectors for the UK, French and German governments, who need the money far less than, say, India, Brazil or South Africa - showing the ultimate need to exchange comprehensive information globally, through a UN mechanism. Still, one step at a time. Also, much more transparency is needed here to reveal the true ownership of IoM sham trusts and front companies with nominee Manx directors. And our regulator, the Financial Services Commission (whose lack of independence has been starkly exposed by the Kaupthing affair), needs to be far more robust in taking active measures to combat large-scale evasion. Offshore companies are also guilty of trade mispricing, so we also need reform of accounting rules to disclose country-by-country reporting of profits.
What lies in the future? Our Treasury Minister, Allan Bell, is surely right when he says we are facing the biggest challenge since the second world war. A reformed finance sector implies significant emigration. An obvious prescription is to diversify away from our concentration on finance - but to what?
Tourism was a traditional breadwinner for much of the 20th century, but our weather can't persuade many to come when the Med costs just the same. Fishing and farming have enough problems of their own. One thriving new sector is internet gambling, and the Manx government has successfully attracted many companies to set up here. Out of the frying pan or what?
To be fair, the Island has made limited reforms in recent years, and -as John Christensen pointed out - we are placed towards the less disreputable end of the offshore spectrum. One such step has been the signing of about a dozen Tax Information Exchange Agreements, mainly with continental and Nordic countries. Yet under these, tax info is only supplied on a 'by request' basis where an individual is under suspicion; a much more timid and less effective tool than automatic information exchange.
The Isle of Man is a beautiful nation with its own language and culture, which over the centuries has allowed it to claim a high degree of political autonomy. As an isolated island on the periphery of Europe it has natural economic disadvantages, and our legislative freedom has been used many times to carve out niches for prosperity. In 1907, we were able to close public roads to claim the TT races for the island, which still continue. In the 17th and 18th centuries its lower duties gave rise to much smuggling around our coastline, which came to a sudden end in 1765 when an infuriated UK Government lost patience and bought us for the Crown - sounds familiar? Our national motto - symbolised by our three-legs flag - is 'Quocunque Jeceris Stabit' ('Whichever way you throw me I stand') and such resilience will be certainly be needed in these interesting times.
Phil Craine, Douglas
PS Anyone living on the IoM and wishing to join a new tax justice organisation here should contact me on 01624 672224 or at pcraine@christian-aid.org
Tax Justice and the IoM - a briefing paper (Version 24.1.09)
1. The Offshore World In the absence of a commonly-accepted definition, a working description of 'offshore' - or the synonymous and more pejorative term 'tax haven' - might be a low-tax territory used to avoid (legally) or evade (illegally) taxes due elsewhere. Globally, the offshore world of central significance: rich individuals hold £6.2 trillion offshore - equating to about one-quarter of total global liquid wealth. That proportion is higher for developing countries - no less than 50% of the wealth of Latin Americans, for example, lies offshore .
2. The role of the Isle of Man We are not a big player on the global scene. At 30.6.08, some £155bn of funds were deposited in Manx banks and the trust and insurance sectors . Not all funds placed in the IoM are done so for illicit purposes, yet at the end of 2006, some £76bn of assets in the IoM financial sector were owned by non-IoM individuals who were likely to be illegally evading tax on those assets in their home jurisdictions .
3. The problem The problem in a nutshell is that tax havens, through lack of transparency, deny legitimate tax revenues to other jurisdictions - rich and poor. Every country needs a tax base to supply health, education and other services to its citizens. Of course, tax havens offer secrecy which is bound to attract illicit funds derived from illicit crime, corruption, drugs and terrorism - yet the less dramatic truth may be that most money flowing offshore comes from tens of millions of wealthy and not-so-wealthy people, as well as companies, seeing a simple way of escaping their tax bill. The following sections look at the main methods by which this harm is done, by individuals as well as by companies.
3.1 'Onshore' countries (ie not tax havens) are losing much-needed tax revenue as individuals living there fail to declare their offshore income on their tax returns. Globally, if income on this wealth was taxed in the countries where the depositors lived, or where the wealth was derived, those countries' governments would gain an annual $255bn (£172m). Naturally this outcome is especially harmful in poor countries where every penny is needed for government spending on health, education and infrastructure. In such a way, it is estimated that the IoM alone causes poor governments to lose some £15m each year - a figure which may be compared to the £2.2m given in 2008-09 by the Manx Government in overseas aid. Direct evidence for the scale of evasion by individuals, and harm caused to other jurisdictions, can be seen in a 2006 UK tax tribunal, which continues to have far-reaching implications . HM Revenue and Customs demonstrated that out of 9,300 Barclays offshore customers resident in the UK, over 96% had failed to declare such offshore bank interest on their tax return, as the law demands. As a result, Barclays were required to hand over income details of all its offshore customers to the UK Revenue, which expected this to bring in £1.5 billion of unpaid tax. This ruling has since allowed the Revenue to demand the same from all other banks. Many customers face six years' back tax, interest, penalties, and possibly even jail. It is estimated that 3 million Britons hold offshore bank accounts in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. In 2008 a similar effect was seen when a former employee of a major Liechtenstein bank sold customer data to the German government, exposing widespread tax evasion by its citizens. In 2005, the European Union introduced its Savings and Tax Directive, in an attempt to reduce tax leaks. Although not part of the EU, the IoM has had to sign up, along other European tax havens, including Switzerland, and EU member states. The Directive allows each jurisdiction two options. The norm - adopted by 24 of the 27 member states - introduces comprehensive information exchange, whereby each bank with a foreign (EU) customer is required to notify that customer's interest details to the tax authorities of the customer's country of residence. A second option is permitted - withholding tax, under which a bank is required to deduct a 20% withholding tax (from the customer's interest), which is forwarded to the tax authorities in the customer's country, without divulging customer identity. The Isle of Man, like all havens, has opted for the withholding tax option - a telling choice. Despite this loophole, and the fact that the Directive's scope is limited to individuals, rather than companies and trusts, the Directive represents progress, and it is currently being reviewed with a view to strengthening its provisions.
3.2 As well as individuals, companies and trusts are also guilty of tax evasion on a massive scale. In 2006 a report of a subcommittee of the US Senate declared that the Isle of Man has become 'a haven for tax evasion', and that the US government is losing up to $100 billion each year due to such offshore finance centres. The IoM is particularly heavily criticised in the report; in a series of detailed case studies the report showed how, over many years, IoM corporate service providers helped to set up sham trusts and shell companies in the Island in order to pretend that wealthy US citizens had no obligation to pay US tax. The Senate report has led to the US 'Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act', which may soon be implemented now that Obama is President. This creates a legal presumption that funds held by US entities in tax havens are by definition evading US taxes, unless the depositor can prove otherwise. The IoM is one of the scheduled jurisdictions. Offshore companies are also guilty of 'mispricing' (sometimes called 'transfer pricing'), where a multinational company sells goods and services from one of its subsidiary companies to another at artificial prices, so as to load its profits into tax havens, where they are taxed at low corporate tax rates (0% in the IoM), and avoiding tax elsewhere. Over 30,000 companies are registered in the Isle of Man. Further evidence, especially of the effect on poor countries, is also available. A UN report (2001) pointed out how globalisation has facilitated international money flows and undermined national tax collection in developing countries. Further reports from aid agencies like Oxfam (2000) and Christian Aid (2005) echo the story. All this demonstrates the extent to which those who invest offshore are illegally failing to declare their income in their home country, with huge tax leaks for those countries.
3.3 Apart from the above ethical argument that tax havens cause harm to others, a more self-centred one may now be relevant. The collapse of Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander (IoM) Ltd - a typical offshore bank - has left over 8,000 customers, apparently mainly British citizens living overseas - owed some £820m. The Manx Government has put aside up to £150m - half its reserves - towards a compensation scheme - to maintain our credibility as an offshore centre. This shows the high stakes which are now being played for, and raises the question whether the offshore business is simply too dangerous a game for a small island economy.
4. Ways forward
4.1 Some considerations: " Of course the primary blame for tax evasion lies with the evader, but as an offshore centre / tax haven we facilitate the evasion. " To be fair, the Island has made limited reforms in recent years, and - as John Christensen pointed out - we are placed towards the less disreputable end of the offshore spectrum. One such step has been the signing of about a dozen Tax Information Exchange Agreements, mainly with continental and Nordic countries. Yet under these, tax info is only supplied on a 'by request' basis where an individual is under suspicion; a much more timid and less effective tool than automatic information exchange. " It is recognised too that the Island's tax regime was created sincerely in our national interest, and indeed in response to a declining economy following the demise of tourism. It is not disputed that the Island has enjoyed a significant and sustained boost to its growth and prosperity over the past four decades as a result of becoming a tax haven. But the cost being paid elsewhere is becoming increasingly clear. " Yet the risk to the Island of 'undoing' itself as a tax haven is also large. Even if reform occurs multilaterally, our finance sector would shrink considerably, with knock-on effects throughout the economy, resulting in painful unemployment and considerable emigration. All on top of the current recession. " Significant unilateral action by the IoM would be pointless - funds would simply flow to other havens. As John Christensen stated, this is a global problem requiring global solutions. However the IoM may consider some steps outlined below; the reputational gain may be considerable.
4.2 So what might be done, globally as well as locally? The key is more transparency.
4.2.1 There is a need to move towards a global agreement, organised through the OECD or (ideally) the UN, which requires banks everywhere to automatically disclose income information to tax authorities in the depositor's country of residence, wherever it is. This is an extension of the EU Directive and so not unrealistic given the political will. After all, investors with nothing to hide should have no problem with this. One such move in this direction would be for the IoM, under the EU Directive, to switch to automatic information exchange. Another might be for the IoM to extend such disclosure to authorities in developing countries.
4.2.2 Much more transparency is needed here in regulation to reveal the beneficial (ie true) ownership of IoM sham trusts and front companies with nominee Manx directors, as exposed in the US Senate report.
4.2.3 Our regulator, the Financial Supervision Commission (whose lack of independence has been starkly exposed by the Kaupthing affair), needs to be far more independent and robust in proactively tackling and exposing large-scale evasion, again as described in the US Senate report, not least for the sake of the Island's reputation.
4.2.4 To expose corporate mispricing, we need global reform of accounting rules to require country-by-country reporting of profits.
5. Footnote on the current UK Government review In November 2008 the UK launched a review of its Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories. As well as looking at how we handle the financial crisis, it will probe our systems of financial supervision, transparency, and international cooperation. Critically, the UK admits there is 'growing international pressure to line up standards of financial regulation and meet international norms with regard to taxation'. Yet the feeling in the IoM that the UK has got it in for us contrasts sharply from the reality that on the international scene it's the UK which is dragging its feet over reforms to make havens more transparent. Tax Justice Network has no great hopes for this review, being carried out by Michael Foot, a regulator whose track record suggests he lacks sufficient independence. Huge vested City interests are pleading to the UK Government for the status quo, yet it is also under growing pressures from a revitalised USA, a continental Europe shocked by the Liechtenstein scandal, as well as voices from TJN and a growing number of development agencies pleading for the poor, whose own voices in this debate are still so weak. An interim report is expected in spring 2009. Further information: Tax Justice Network website www.taxjustice.net
Notes and sources:
'Tax Us If You Can' - Tax Justice Network report (2005)
'Tax Us If You Can' - as above IoM Financial Supervision Commission 'Offshore Explorations: Isle of Man' Tax analysts (2007)
'Tax Us If You Can' - as above Phil Craine estimate, based on FSC data and typical interest and tax rates. Daily Telegraph 4 May 2006 and other media
'Tax Haven Abuses: the Enablers, the Tools and Secrecy' - US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (2006)