A body set up by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, led by Angel Gurria (pictured), has published new reports for 12 jurisdictions.

The Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes' peer-review process examines laws and regulations that facilitate exchange (Phase 1 reviews) and the exchange of information in practice (Phase 2). "Phase 1 reports" on Albania, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Dominican Republic, Lesotho, Pakistan and Uganda assessed their laws for "transparency" (a term that presumably refers to the ease with which an ordinary observer can detect any attempt by the taxing or judicial authorities of those countries to strike up "sweetheart deals" with huge corporations, thereby according them favours denied to other taxpayers) and exchange of information on request. These countries were thought to have good enough laws to justify their relegation to the next stage of the review process.

The Global Forum also reviewed exchange-of-information practices through "Phase 2 peer review reports" in Lithuania and Sint Maarten. The former received an overall rating of “compliant,” the latter “partially compliant.” This is the same kind of terminology used by the Financial Action Task Force, the OECD's 'little brother' in whose Parisian building it dwells.

The OECD, led by Angel Gurria (pictured), previously stopped the Marshall Islands from moving to Phase 2 because its laws contained gaps, but it has now given the jurisdiction the all-clear.

Austria, which was rated “partially compliant” in July 2013, has since changed its laws and become “largely compliant.” The same has happened to the British Virgin Islands since that date.

The transparency project in general

The Global Forum has 127 member-states and has now completed 198 peer reviews and assigned compliance ratings to 80 jurisdictions that have undergone Phase 2 reviews. Of these, 21 jurisdictions are rated “compliant;” 46 “largely compliant;” 10 “partially compliant” and 3 “non-compliant.” A further 12 jurisdictions are blocked from moving to Phase 2 reviews because the OECD does not like their laws and/or regulations.

The "Pan-EU-wide" problem

On other matters, the OECD recently issued a most amusing communiqué in which it twisted this way and that in an attempt to avoid accusing the European Union of selfishly concocting an arbitrary blacklist of offshore jurisdictions. It states, in characteristic Orwellian gibberish, that the EU "has released what is essentially a compilation of a pan-EU-wide list of third country non-co-operative tax jurisdictions, which is based on Member States' independent national lists. In their background document, the EU has indicated that they have not decided which countries should be listed, rather it is relaying decisions taken at national level by their members. It is very unfortunate that this exercise has looked like the establishment of a list. Our EU colleagues have confirmed that this is not their intent."