Tax
Using Offshore Structures Is Not Illegal, But Stealing Private Data Is - Tax Expert
A leading UK tax lawyer has sounded off about this week's "Paradise Papers", highlighting the legitimacy of the structures showcased in the leaked documents.
Offshore structures used by wealthy individuals to avoid paying
taxes are likely not illegal, but the theft of personal documents
exposing them is, a leading tax lawyer has said.
Earlier this week, a "leak" of some 13.4 million documents from
Bermuda-based law firm Appleby shone a
light on how the ultra-rich exploit complex structures of
trusts, foundations and shell companies to obtain tax breaks.
Dubbed the "Paradise Papers", the growing scandal is akin to
last year’s Panama Papers
fiasco.
But using such structures to avoid paying taxes is legal
because it does not constitute tax evasion which, on the
other hand, is illegal, according to Miles Dean, managing partner
of Milestone
International Tax.
“It would be very surprising if the affairs of those individuals
concerned were illegal or nefarious; it is the theft of the
papers that is illegal,” he told this publication. “Just because
an individual makes an investment that is based offshore does not
mean that they have done anything wrong. If they fail to disclose
it - and the return they make - on their tax return, then that’s
tax evasion. But to make the quantum leap and suggest that
everyone from the Queen to Bono is dodging tax because some of
their investments are made via Bermuda, Cayman or Malta is
stupidity on a grand scale.”
As with last year's Panama Papers, the Paradise Papers were
obtained by the Washington DC-headquartered International
Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and shared
initially with German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung.
There are now nearly 100 media groups scouring the documents.
This publication has not seen the documents, however.
Last month, Appleby
defended itself against the claims of malpractice before the
documents were made public. The firm said it had “thoroughly and
vigorously investigated the allegations” and found no evidence of
wrongdoing in-house or among its clients.
“We refute any allegations which may suggest otherwise and we
would be happy to cooperate fully with any legitimate and
authorised investigation of the allegations by the appropriate
and relevant authorities,” Appleby said. The firm also has
offices in the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the
Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Mauritius, Seychelles, Hong Kong
and Shanghai.
The ICIJ has not disclosed how it obtained the documents, some of
which “relate to matters 75 years ago when the world was a very
different place", Dean pointed out.
UK media is abuzz around claims that that those acting for Queen
Elizabeth II made investments in a Cayman Islands fund through
the monarchy’s private estate, the Duchy of Lancaster (source:
Guardian newspaper). Around £10 million ($13 million) of
the Queen’s private money was invested offshore, raising
questions about whether the monarch should be using tax-efficient
structures. The Duchy said it was not involved in decisions made
by funds and there is no suggestion the Queen had any knowledge
of investments made on her behalf, according to the
BBC.
The ICIJ said its trove of data “reveals offshore interests and
activities of more than 120 politicians and world leaders” and
exposes the “tax engineering” of “more than 100 multinational
corporations, including Apple, Nike and Botox-maker
Allergan”.
Withholding tax
UK Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell said yesterday that the
papers demonstrated the need for the UK to impose a “withholding
tax” to ensure its taxman, HMRC, snags its share of company
profits before they are moved to tax havens. He also
suggested the government should press tax havens to provide
a register of companies and trusts using them in a bid to better
pursue revenue.
But according to Dean, McDonnell’s suggestions “are wide of the
mark”, and levying a withholding tax on dividends will not stop
tax abuse - “it would simply make the UK less competitive as
a jurisdiction for large multinationals, at a time when we need
to be more competitive than ever,” he said, referring to
political headwinds spurred by Brexit negotiations.
He added: “John McDonnell’s comments illustrate just how
magnificently out of touch he is with reality - a worrying
thought given he’s likely to be our next chancellor."
The leaks have aroused
criticism from those arguing that they show a cavalier
attitude towards legitimate financial privacy and taint anyone
with offshore accounts, even though many are held for innocent
reasons. There is also debate on whether public registers of
beneficial ownership of trusts and companies are the most
effective way to balance privacy against the hunt for illicit
money. (See an example of such analysis
here.)
Lord Ashcroft
The papers reportedly show that Lord Ashcroft, one of the UK
Conservative party’s biggest donors, remained a non-dom and
continued to avoid tax despite attempted by UK parliament to make
peers pay their full share. He was domiciled for tax purposes in
Belize at a time when it was widely believed he had given up the
status.
Although the peer’s morals have been called into question by the
media, “the fact he took steps to mitigate his UK liability
(legally) is a matter for him and his conscience, not the media,”
Dean said.
According to Bloomberg, Canadian tax authorities are
reviewing reports linking a key fundraiser for Prime Minister
Justin Trudeau to offshore trusts in the Caribbean.
Montreal-based businessman Stephen Bronfman, son of billionaire
Charles Bronfman, was among the individuals cited by news
organizations. Another entity mentioned is commodities trader
Glencore, a client of Appleby. Silicon Valley investor Yuri
Milner, one of the early financial backers of Facebook,
reportedly partnered in two investments with the Russian
state-controlled bank VTB Bank PJSC before it was sanctioned.