20111007 避税 上述避税天堂

shiyi18

熊彼特 | 避税
上述避税天堂
2011年10月7日


巴黎

占领华尔街运动是一场反银行抗议者的集会，至今已有三周的历史，人们对这场运动的一个批评是，它没有明确表达自己的不满。离岸金融所造成的损害可能会引起更多的不满。据民间社会团体 "全球金融诚信"（Global Financial Integrity）计算，每年有超过 1 万亿美元的资金从发展中国家非法流出，远远超过援助资金的流向。这些外流资金大部分流向避税天堂和金融高度保密的司法管辖区，由犯罪分子、腐败政客或逃税的个人和跨国公司汇往那里。欧洲和美国的银行从这些资金流中获利颇丰--事实上，许多银行本身就是避税天堂的忠实用户，以此来减少税款支出。

不仅西方银行深陷离岸骗局，一些本应是正直的二十国集团（G20）辖区在透明度方面的排名也很差，税收正义网络（Tax Justice Network）本周发布的最新全球金融保密指数证实了这一事实。该指数显示，一些大型金融中心的保密程度不降反升。瑞士可能会与欧洲邻国签署税收信息共享协议，但专家们认为这只是个笑话，瑞士在保密性排名中名列前茅。排在前十位的还有卢森堡、德国、日本和美国，在美国的一些州（如怀俄明州、特拉华州和内华达州），公司无需登记实际所有人即可注册成立。在许多欺诈或腐败调查中，这些地方的线索已经消失。


尽管税收正义网拥有雄厚的实力（其联合创始人之一约翰-克里斯滕森曾是泽西岛金融当局的顾问；另一位创始人理查德-墨菲曾经营一家会计师事务所），但一些在排名中表现不佳的地方却做出了预料之中的激烈反应。开曼群岛是加勒比海地区 10,000 家共同基金、近 300 家银行和 90,000 家公司的所在地，该群岛的一位媒体顾问甚至声称，不能认真对待 TJN，因为它是在 "英国乡下的一栋小房子 "里运营的（顺便说一句，它不是）。

在本周于巴黎召开的一次会议上，反避税天堂运动组织--金融诚信特别工作组（Task Force on Financial Integrity）提出了一系列合理的建议，以应对过去 50 年中如野火般蔓延的腐蚀性离岸网络。会议传达的信息是，需要在五个领域采取行动：

解决转移定价问题，反对者称之为贸易定价不当。多达一半流出发展中国家的资金与跨国公司子公司之间的交易定价过低或过高有关，目的是将利润转移到税率较低的地区。这个问题即使不能消除，也可以通过更严格的会计规则来减少。

逐国报告。根据现行的会计规则，公司可以通过报告合并业绩来掩盖在避税地获得的利润。如果这些公司被迫披露其在每个司法管辖区的销售、利润和纳税情况，就会引起人们的关注，并提出令人尴尬的问题。

提供更多关于公司和信托受益所有权的信息，这样税务机关和执法部门就能发现谁真正控制着一家公司，而不仅仅是谁是法定所有人（通常是受托人或代理人）。


加强各国在税务信息交流方面的合作

协调反洗钱规则，将逃税列入可导致洗钱指控的 "上游 "犯罪清单。

这一切都不应该引起太大的争议，但在那些吃饱了撑的人以及他们施加影响的政府中，阻力却很大。例如，20 国集团虽然口口声声说要终止银行保密制度，但却拖拖拉拉。经济合作与发展组织（OECD）成员国已经就打击洗钱达成了相当有力的指导方针，但在许多国家的执行力度还很弱。

目前正在取得一些进展。欧盟正在逐步要求进行某种程度的逐国报告。奥巴马政府正在推动提高公司所有权的公开性。马恩岛已成为英国第一个自动交换税务信息的离岸属地，而不仅仅是应要求交换。根西岛可能会紧随其后，但泽西岛仍然坚决反对，担心失去 "竞争优势"。

揭开笼罩全球金融的面纱的努力肯定是零散的。但有一点似乎是肯定的。随着西方国家在日益加深的财政困境中挣扎，经济公平问题将被提上决策者的议事日程。未来一两年，变革的步伐将会加快。


Schumpeter | Avoiding tax
Havens above
Oct 7th 2011

Save

Share

Give
By M.V. | PARIS

ONE criticism made of the Occupy Wall Street movement, a gathering of anti-bank protestors now three weeks old, is that it has not made its grievances clear. Something the great unwashed might chant more about is the damage done by offshore finance. Global Financial Integrity, a civil-society group, calculates that more than $1 trillion a year flows illicitly out of developing countries, far more than flows the other way in aid. Much of this departing money goes to tax havens and jurisdictions with high levels of financial secrecy, sent there by criminals, corrupt politicians or tax-dodging individuals and multinational companies. Banks in Europe and America profit handsomely from these flows—indeed, many are themselves heavy users of tax havens as a way to reduce their tax bills.

Not only are western banks knee-deep in offshore shenanigans, but some supposedly upstanding G20 jurisdictions rank poorly when it comes to transparency, a fact bleakly confirmed by the latest global financial-secrecy index, released this week by Tax Justice Network. It shows the level of secrecy in a number of large financial centres increasing, not falling. Switzerland may be signing tax-information sharing agreements with European neighbours, but experts say these are a joke, and the Swiss top the secrecy ranking. Also in the top ten are Luxemburg, Germany, Japan and the United States, where in some states (such as Wyoming, Delaware and Nevada) firms can be incorporated without having to register the beneficial owner. The trail has gone cold in such places in many a fraud or corruption investigation.


Despite Tax Justice Network's strong credentials (one of its co-founders, John Christensen, used to be an adviser to Jersey's financial authorities; another, Richard Murphy, used to run an accounting firm), some of the places that do badly in the ranking have reacted predictably aggressively. A media adviser to the Cayman Islands, the Caribbean home of 10,000 mutual funds, nearly 300 banks and 90,000 companies, even claimed that TJN could not be taken seriously because it is run out of a “modest house in the English countryside” (which, by the way, it is not).

A number of sensible proposals for tackling the corrosive offshore networks that have spread like wildfire over the past 50 years were aired at a conference in Paris this week, organised by the Task Force on Financial Integrity, an umbrella group for anti-tax-haven campaigners. The message was that action is needed in five areas:

● Tackling transfer pricing, or trade mispricing as opponents prefer to call it. Up to a half of flows out of developing countries are related to the under- or over-pricing of transactions between the subsidiaries of multinationals in order to shift profits to jurisdictions with lower tax rates. The problem could be reduced, if not eliminated, through tougher accounting rules.

● Country-by-country reporting. Under current accounting rules, companies can conceal profits made in tax havens by reporting consolidated results. If they were forced to reveal their sales, profits and taxes paid in every jurisdiction, eyebrows would be raised and awkward questions asked.

● More information on the beneficial ownership of companies and trusts, so tax authorities and law enforcement can find out who really controls a firm, rather than merely who the legal owner is (often a trustee or nominee).


● Greater co-operation between countries on the exchange of tax information

● Harmonising anti-money laundering rules and adding tax evasion to the list of “predicate” offences that can lead to laundering charges.

None of this should be terribly controversial, but resistance is strong among those who have grown fat feeding at the trough, and the governments over which they wield influence. For all its rhetoric about ending bank secrecy, for instance, the G20 has dragged its feet. OECD countries have agreed reasonably strong guidelines for combating money laundering, but implementation is feeble in many countries.

Some progress is being made. The European Union is inching towards requiring country-by-country reporting, of a sort. The Obama administration is pushing for greater openness on company ownership. The Isle of Man has become the first of Britain's offshore dependencies to exchange tax information automatically, as opposed to merely on request. Guernsey may follow, though Jersey remains implacably opposed, fearing a loss of “competitive advantage”.

Efforts to lift the veil that hangs over global finance are certainly patchy. But one thing seems certain. As western countries struggle with deepening fiscal woes, issues of economic fairness will move up policymakers' agendas. Expect the pace of change to quicken over the next year or two.