Talk:Tax haven/Archive 1

Untitled

The following suggestion is laughable. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Tax advise

Uh... I know it's good advise and all, but should Wikipedia be giving tax advise?!? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree, articles should just list facts, not give advice or opinions. The advice section could be reworded to be more factual ("Most people claim tax havens aren't worth the hassle..."). --Patik 21:19, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Hasn't Gibraltar changed from 1 Jan? jguk 09:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tax Advice

Shouldn't people learn how to reaad? No tax advice is given.

I agree, let it be the way it is Sandeid

Gibraltar

There has been a bit of to-ing and fro-ing about Gibraltar and the list of low tax jurisdictions. I think Gibraltar clearly belongs on the list - it is one of the leading offshore financial centres (see: OFC Article). It is not listed as non-cooperative on any of the OECD or FATF lists (and, as far as I know, never has been), but then neither have most of the other larger and better regulated OFCs (with the exception of Cayman, which was originally on the FATF list, but is now off the list). If there is to be a list within the article (and I am still not sure what it really adds to the list at: List of offshore financial centres), then Gibraltar should be on it. Cooperative or non-cooperative, ring fenced tax regime or non-ring fenced, it is still an OFC by pretty much any applicable criterea. Legis 11:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Excemption of housing expences for US Nationals

A the new tax bill passed through the US Government now does away with this excemption for housing in forgein countires and it is now subjected to tax as well. The Economist had an article about it whith int he last month or so. Philbentley 18:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Norfolk Island is also a tax haven

This could be possibly added to the appropriate section. See Norfolk Island article on wikipedia for further info.--220.101.160.7 09:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Offshore Financial Centre and Tax haven cover essentially the same ground, only OFC is by far the better article. I suggest we let Legis handle the merge as he has contributed so much in this area.

simonthebold 08:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have put my comments in Talk:Offshore Financial Centre. Legis 07:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read any of this, but on the surface, "tax haven" and "Offshore Tax Centre" seem to mean two different things. A merger seems unnecessary. 129.98.214.113 05:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

An "Offshore Centre" (aka "Low-Tax regime") is a place that allows people to "park" their money and save themselves from paying the higher taxes (usually in their home country). A "Tax Haven" is a place that includes what is an "Offshore"-is plus---- they hide personal information to all other institutions and governments. Basically hiding whomever-- has money in their country leading to things like money laundering. etc. A Tax haven is what all big countries are against- an Offshore Centre is a country that brings much needed competition to the International monetary markets. "Low-Tax regimes" usually have a framework of bilateral-agreements spelling out exactly on-what grounds the government in that jurisdiction will give up a holder's info during an investigation, a Tax Haven though will tend to remain "hush-hush" even if they suspect something criminal might be in the works using their jurisdiction. CaribDigita 14:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Not correct. A "tax haven" is a place where taxes are zero or low. An "offshore financial centre" is a place in another country where banks etc exist to provide financial services. Some THs are OFCs and some OFCs are THs but they are not the same. Further: You can cheat your taxes by "hiding personal information" without taking advantage of a TH so "hiding personal information" is not an essential part of a TH. A TH can be completely open with personal info and you can take advantage of it. (Unless you are a USA citizen, moving youself and your assets to a TH means you are no longer subject to the tax rules of your country of citizenship.) So CaribDigital's assertions are very largely incorrect. Paul Beardsell 23:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Different concepts, different articles. No merge. Paul Beardsell 23:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there not a difference between individuals that choose to live six months or over in a low tax jurisdiction (such as Monaco or Switzerland) for personal tax reasons, versus areas in the world (such as Panama or Nevis) that levy almost zero taxes on companies, trusts or foundations (i.e. see Category:offshore finance)? For example, a country that levies low taxes on offshore companies may still levy high taxes on individuals that choose to live there, and vica-verca. nirvana2013 18:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Support for this idea seems far from substantial. I note the WP preference is for different articles for different concepts. The conflation of separate concepts by some should not allow the waters to be muddied. If we go down this path relentlessly then WP will be just one article as all concepts are related, one way or another. Merge tag removed. Paul Beardsell 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Money laundering

I recently deleted a comment about money laundering as it is at best(!) only tangentially related to the subject of this article. The following argument (pasted from my Talk page) argues against this:

I note your edit on tax havens, but unless you have really strong views, I would suggest reverting it to reinclude the relevant sentence. The term "tax haven" is not a comment a nation's tax laws simplicter, but a broader criticism on the probity of financial structuring within a country. I think that the comments made by a director of Tax Justice Network in an interview with the BBC summarising that evidence showing that the UK was as bad as any traditional tax haven in relation to these points is information that can very reasonably be included, and follows on logically from the earlier paragraphs (esp Incentives for the tax haven relating to money laundering in the article. Legis 10:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot follow this argument (and I have tried!) so let me say why I strongly disagree about the inclusion of money laundering information here. That a country may be a haven for money laundering is not relevant to an article on tax havens. All they have in common is the use of the word "haven". All money launderers are operating illegally, by definition. Users of a tax haven are (usually) operating legally. [If they were illegally dodging (i.e. evading not avoiding) taxes they usually wouldn't need a tax haven.] All the tax avoidance measures listed in the tax haven article are legal! Users of a tax haven are, by definition, avoiding tax. Some may also be evading tax but not necessarily. Money launderers are usually keen that their fake business pays tax so as to legitimise the fake profits arising from the laundering. Next we'll have comments in the article about which countries have good boat havens. Paul Beardsell 13:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it comes back to the same point about nomenclature. People who interpret the word "tax haven" as being simply all about tax will properly take Paul's view. People who think the term "tax havens" when used today is a reference to financial probity and regulatory oversight would, naturally, take the view that an article on tax havens should contain comments on financial probity and regulatory oversight. I tend to fall into the second camp because whenever you hear the word tax haven used today, it is usually being used by someone who has an axe to grind. People within the profession rarely use it at all. But I can't honestly get worked up about it for the same reason that I can't get worked up about the proposed merge between tax haven and offshore financial centre. The terms just mean different things to different people, and ultimately the article will find its own middle ground somewhere. At the moment the article contains some material on money laundering, which I was just building on, but I don't think the edit that was removed was "key". I take Paul's point entirely on the last sentence; there are indeed jurisdictions which sometimes get called "tax havens" only because they provide an excellent place to register a ship or aircraft. Legis 18:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand the humourous intent but, to be explicit, (and I know you know this), a boat haven is a place safe from prevailing winds and waves. Nothing to do with taxes. Just as a haven for battered women is nothing to do with tax either. "Haven" = "safe place". Paul Beardsell 21:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

But correct nomenclature is very important. Two ways of looking at this: (1) Allowing sloppiness allows sloppiness. (2) If we allow the term tax haven to imply "location lacking regulatory probity" (or whatever) then we will have to find/invent a new term which means tax haven - a "location where some taxes are very low". If you are not a language purist we can ignore (1). But what about (2)? Paul Beardsell 21:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

By all means have a link to the money laundering article here. But the correct place for info on money laundering is in its own article. Please put your interesting information about that topic there. Proper use of the WP namespace (i.e. nomenclature) is important so as to avoid duplication of info making for impossible maintenance. Paul Beardsell 21:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Note also that this article, like almost all WP articles, starts by first defining the topic. No mention of money laundering. Paul Beardsell 21:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert wars

This page is in serious danger of descending into a cyclical revert war. This field generally tends to get people's hackles up (anyone who participated in the Gibraltar fiasco will recall) both because opinions tend to be polarised, but also because this is an area of loose and inconsistent etymology. I don't think anybody would suggest that this page is a stellar article, and arguably a complete amendment and restatement would be a good thing, but agreement on that is probably pretty unlikely in the present climate.

At the risk of p*ssing into the wind, can I suggest that we try and thrash out debates on etymology and phraseology (and range of subject) on the talk page where people can reason their suggestions more fully (and hopefully cite readily available or online sources), and then perhaps some edits can be put through that reflect the slightly fluid nature of the field ("some sources indicate... but others suggest that...") to avoid conflict. Revert wars never reflect well on any of the participants, and I would hope anyone who has enough knowledge to be contributing in this field would also have sufficient maturity to prefer reasoned discussion over a shouting (reverting) match.

As Paul says above, most WP articles start by defining the subject. Perhaps the first edit we should try to agree is a change to the first para to reflect the difficulties defining the subject.

Legis (talk - contributions) 08:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we're in danger of descending into a cyclical revert war. The edits by 150.176.202.5 are not constructive in nature and this can be seen plainly by looking at this anonymous user's edit history. See also here. I don't see any pattern of reversions in respect of any other user's edits. Paul Beardsell 18:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that there is no compunction to explain one's edits in advance on the article's Talk page. A Wikipedia mantra is "edit boldly": It is only by editing in this way that true advances can be made. Of course, when invited to explain an edit on the Talk page, one should hurry to do so. I think that anyone viewing my edit history will see that I readily do so. If anyone has an issue with any of my edits please do just say, explaining why. Paul Beardsell 18:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any difficulty in defining this topic at all. I believe a common mistake is being made: Any topic will have resonances and close associations with other topics. Fine. Mention these, link to them, but do not confuse them with the topic itself. A "something haven" is a place safe for (or from) the something. That the same place may sometimes or even typically be associated with something else or even something similar may be noteworthy but (and this is the crucial point) it does not make the something into the something similar or into the something else. Paul Beardsell 18:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

E.g. The article on goats says nothing about cattle despite the fact that (a) both are ungulate mammals, (b) both are domesticated animals found on farms, (c) milk are obtained from both. Yet cattle and goats have as much (if not more) in common than do tax havens and offshore financial centres. Two articles for the animals, two articles for these financial/fiscal concepts. Similarly with money laundering. We can find plenty of references on the web equating/relating money laundering to drug dealing. Mostly the same people do both. In mostly the same places. Each to support the other. But they are different activities and have different articles. Same for money laundering and tax havens. Otherwise we will have to have ONE article for money laundering, tax havens and drug dealing. Before long WP will be just one article for everything as everything is related to everything else. Paul Beardsell 18:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the last 48 hours much supports the view that there is not a revert war going on here. I stand by my earlier suggestion. A better attempt needs to be made to find consensus on this subject matter, or this will surely get silly. I am all for editing boldly, but this article is not making an progress at all. We just have two people who refuse to try and either talk it out or find a middle ground, but are happy to revert the changes of the other. Legis (talk - contributions) 21:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am prepared to discuss any edit. Already you will see I have given cogent if sometimes ascerbic reasons for each edit in each edit's edit summary. Furthermore I re-argue in depth my issues re OFCs and money laundering above. No reply. The anonymous reverter (I safely assume it is not you) gives no reason either in her edit summaries or here. I'm assuming no one is happy with unexplained reversions, so reverting such back to explained edits seems reasonable to me. Paul Beardsell 23:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not picking sides (although as you know I have my views on this point), but this is going nowhere. I certainly believe that a more fundamental change is needed rather than consistently reverting between two polarities (neither of which seem to me to especially accurate). What the article really needs is a top down rewrite, but I am off on my hols tomorrow and I none of the other main contributors in this field seem minded to get involved, so it looks like we are stuck for a while. Legis (talk - contributions) 08:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There are sides to be picked in two different and separate areas. The first area is the one where you and I have cordially disagreed in the past and, it seems, we may still: The scope of the article. The second area is what I would describe as the control of a user which, as her entire edit history shows, is restricted to unreasoned reverts of others' edits. That she, in this case, is reverting to a version of the article that you may actually prefer should not sway you at all: Vandalism is never good. You should, in my view, support the suppression of the unreasoned reverts and, at the same time, enter into dialogue as to the scope of the article. Paul Beardsell 03:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear, I deprecate the practice reverting edits (and especially re-reverting edits) without explanation. I had hoped the anonymous editor might set out their position in the talk pages, but sadly not. Legis (talk - contributions) 21:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Defining the topic

Legis is keen to re-examine this article from scratch. First, suggests Legis, we should properly define the topic, and he says that this may be difficult. I do not think so. I am happy with the current definition: A tax haven is a place where certain taxes are levied at a low rate or not at all. Comment invited. Paul Beardsell 03:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to set out my own view on this quickly - my own view of the concept of a tax haven is a place that seeks to attract business by seeking mitigate the tax payable by that business or individual (hence the emphasis on haven rather than tax). Tax havens usually do impose little or no direct taxation, but this is not necessarily true. The British Virgin Islands is universally considered a tax haven, but the personal rate of taxation is 15%. In Russia the rate of personal taxation is 12%, but no one has ever considered Russia to be a tax haven. But people are accustomed to trying to structure assets or holding companies through the BVI to try and mitigate their tax liabilities elsewhere, hence the term. On this basis it is perfectly plausible to characterise Ireland or Latvia as a tax haven (where their low levels of corporate tax, which seem huge compared to "traditional" tax havens, are still very low for the EU, and have resulted in a large migration of EU corporates to those jurisdictions, purely for tax mitigation considerations). Similarly, the UK assesses no tax on bank interest if you are not resident or domiciled there, and thus is also sometimes characterised as a tax haven for this reason. In definitional terms, I think it is seeking shelter from tax rather than assessing low levels of tax that is important.

"A tax haven is a place where certain taxes are levied at a low rate or not at all." Not all taxes, necessarily, just some of them. The definition stands. Paul Beardsell 23:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of going on too long, I think "tax haven" is a term which has evolved over time. The text books report that the term first started to be used after WWI, but it was then used as a socialist criticism of attracting inward investment (often regionally rather than nationally) by offering tax breaks to industry. At some point it evolved to encompass tax avoidance through cross jurisdictional structuring. Up until the late 1970s it generally meant a jurisdiction with a favourable double taxation relief treaty whereby one could pay tax in the smaller country at much lower rates, and thereby avoid taxation at the much higher rates in the larger country. In the late 1970s and early 1980s when most major countries (esp the U.S.A.) started cancelling their double taxation treaties with micro-states (although some of these still exist, for example Barbados-Japan and Cyprus-Russia), the term evolved to refer to jurisdictions which offered a class of corporate vehicle (usually called an International Business Corporation, but there are variations on the theme) which was essentially exempt from taxes within its jurisdiction of incorporation. In the early 2000s, these IBCs were in turn largely phased out under pressure from the OECD as part of its bid to eradicate "unfair tax competition". Today, as I have suggested before, the term is used very loosely and in different contexts, but jurisdictions which were traditionally thought of as tax havens now tend to style themselves as offshore financial centres (although Dubai does this too, so no terminology is free from conflicting usage).

In my own view it would be better to redefine the subject as relating to countries whose tax code is driven by seeking business from other jurisdictions based on the premise of tax mitigation (a definition often used, see e.g. [ http://www.anz.com/edna/dictionary.asp?action=content&content=tax_haven here]), and then wrap up the etyomology in a longer section based on the history of cross border tax avoidance tracing it back to the staple ports (and possibly before that too if anyone can do the research), the emergence of the first "tax havens" (usually credited as Liechtenstein, Monaco, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man - although Bermuda optimistically sometimes makes a similar claim), through to modern developments. But I think it is noteworthy that the Economist's excellent 1990 book on Tax Havens of the World gives up trying to find a single definition, as they find nothing to be satisfactory. Therefore I am always a bit suspicious of short and easy definitions as being susceptible to oversimplification.

That's my view anyhow. Legis (talk - contributions) 21:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in your account seems to conflict with the definition of tax haven now in the article. I am not saying the term does not have negative connotations. Similarly, the term "tax mitigation" is a neologism coined because "tax avoidance" has been demonised - they mean exactly the same thing, no matter what Gordon Brown says. Soon a new term will be invented by the marketing departments of financial institutions when that term itself becomes unfashionable / distasteful. That some / most tax havens also set out to make their jurisdictions nice places for banks is interesting but not a necessary activity of a tax haven. One can live in a tax haven and bank at the foreign OFC across the lagoon. Many tax havens also encourage tourism but no one is arguing that this article be about that! Paul Beardsell 23:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added in the definition (or at least description) of what constitutes a tax haven used by The Economist, which I think is useful. --Legis (talk - contributions) 11:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. But there's no difference between the jargon filled definition "What ... identifies an area as a tax haven is the existence of a composite tax structure established deliberately to take advantage of, and exploit, a worldwide demand for opportunities to engage in tax avoidance." and the plain language definition "A tax haven is a place where certain taxes are levied at a low rate or not at all." Seems to me the former is an insiders' definition. It requires knowledge of the jargon and it excludes the outsider. WP's primary purpose is not supposed to be a text book, it's supposed to be an encyclopedia first. So, the plain language easy intro comes first. I note also that Colin Powell and the Economist agree tax haven (i) is all about where taxes are levied at low rates and (ii) is all about avoidance not evasion. Paul Beardsell 15:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I still do not accept, therefore, that there is any difficulty in defining tax haven. Seems to me that those who struggle to say what a tax haven is are struggling to admit what it is, not to define what it is! It's just a place that collects less tax. Paul Beardsell 15:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The "Amounts" section

I am unhappy with this section because it applies to OFCs, not to tax havens. Comment invited. Even better, stats as to the number of people choosing to reside in various tax havens, and the size of the assets thus transferred, would be usefully substituted for the current content. Paul Beardsell 04:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but also for the separate reason that amounts are enormously speculative. The only serious attempt to establish amounts was made by KPMG in 2000 at the request of the British government and (a) they admitted the best they could do was take a guess, and (b) even those figures must now be hopelessly out of date. Legis (talk - contributions) 21:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Country of citizenship

The United States is unlike almost all other countries in that its citizens are subject to U.S. tax on their worldwide income even if they reside permanently outside the USA. U.S. citizens therefore cannot avoid U.S. taxes by emigrating.

What other countries do this? It would be good to get a list of those that do. I believe no other Western nation does. --Kalmia 06:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have seen a list of 5 or 6 countries which also tax on the basis of citizenhip but I can no longer find it. You may be right. Paul Beardsell 06:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

U.S.A. does it, and Indonesia is (I think) the other major country usually cited as an example of this (although I don't have an online source for this); I am not aware of any others but that is not to say that there aren't any. Legis (talk - contributions) 21:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

maybe Canada? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.103.23 (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There are two countries in the world that tax on the basis of Citizenship, the USA and Eritrea. I have seen this in a number of sources, but the following will do: http://renunciationguide.com/Citizenship-Based-Taxation-International-Comparison.html. In the case of Eritrea, it is mostly a case of extortion: pay a tax, or we will beat up your family back home. See http://www.nationalpost.com/condemns+diaspora+tells+Eritrea+stop+collecting/5822343/story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.106.73 (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Tentative Economist

The article says, referencing a book I do not have access to: "Although The Economist itself points out that this definition would still exclude a number of jurisdictions traditionally thought of as tax havens." Which jurisdictions are these? Paul Beardsell 15:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Other thoughts

I was wondering if this article should contain more on the aspects of corporate taxes and international competition in a global economy. For example, including statements such as "research shows that taxes and corporate income taxes, but also indirect taxes, limit FDI in a fairly significant way, such that 10 percent increases in corporate tax rates are associated with seven or eight percent reductions in the levels of foreign direct investments."[1] It would be interesting to expand on the way countries position themselves for economic growth using the idea of tax haven to foreign competitors - perhaps a chart based on OECD data. I'm also wondering if this article might benefit from adding the idea of Race to the bottom in regard to tax haven competition. Thoughts. Morphh ^(talk) 15:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as the article remains primarily about tax havens (and as long as any WP article remains primarily about its subject) I think the article should be expanded. But as soon as, e.g., we start to talk in depth about macro economic strategy such as "a race to the bottom" or how "countries position themselves for economic growth" then I think separate articles are called for. Reasoning: There will (eventually) be several articles (including macro-economic strategy, race to the bottom, international tax competition) where some mention of these things are made. Already there may be areas in WP where these topics are discussed. If each article does an in depth exposé then we will have repetition and no one place where someone wanting to know primarily about the topics about to be introduced here can go. Already there are several articles where "tax haven" is mentioned: Sometimes these articles goes into the topic "tax haven" in too much depth including material not even found here - they should just link here and the missing info should be included here! The WP way is to divide and rule - more articles, not fewer. Paul Beardsell 20:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Note my objection is only if we cover these topics "in depth". I am in favour of expanding the article and linking to the main articles on the subjects introduced. Paul Beardsell 20:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What I've generally tried to follow is expanding a subject in a parent article to the point where it makes sense to split it into another article and then create a summary style structure in the main article. Otherwise, you end up with a ton of stubs, AFD, and interlinks, which often get merged. However, the other process can work well too in getting editors to address a needed subject if enough information is there to start. I completely agree that we do not want large duplication. If an article already exists, such as "Race to the bottom", we could add a {{main}} or {{details}} tag and provide a summary of the topic and how it relates to tax havens. On a side note, I hope you and Legis consider joining the Taxation WikiProject. Morphh ^(talk) 21:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Style

I'm also wondering if we should reduce the bullet lists. Manual of Style suggests that we not use bullets or numbers if the passage reads easily using plain paragraphs or indented paragraphs. The sections "Failures", "Methodology", and "Anti-avoidance" stand out in this regard. The "Examples" section also looks rough in this regard though I don't see us turning it into paragraphs easily. Perhaps a table or multiple columns. Thoughts, 21:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I am generally in favour of following the WP:MOS but I think the use of bullets and numbers is unavoidable in certain circumstances and is often helpful otherwise. If there are 5, say, considerations to be taken into account on some issue then it is probably best to bullet point them. Paul Beardsell 01:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph breaks: I note that some paragraph breaks have been removed. I am unsure if this is an improvement. I note that it is permissible and is often good style to have more than one para per section! Paul Beardsell 01:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think most of the breaks that were removed were not really paragraphs but one or two sentences. The breaks were removed to make a paragraph. I agree that more then one para per section is good but I'm not sure leaving a single sentnece structure to serve as a paragraph is the better option. Morphh ^(talk) 03:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course you would think that, otherwise you wouldn't have merged the paragraphs!  :-/ Paul Beardsell 09:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha.. true :-) Paragraphs generally range five to eight sentences, however, they can be as short as one word or run the length of multiple pages. So I agree that this aspect is certainly debatable, particularly if it combines separate points or ideas. I've generally seen reviews for Peer-review, GA, & FA dislike stub paragraphs when they could be effectively combined, but separation can add emphasis to a statement that's important. Even the paragraph article has single and two sentence paragraphs, so such is not out of place if it makes sense. I guess the review of these changes would be if the merges were effective and read easily or if it makes sense to split for emphasis (may require closer observation of NPOV when adding emphasis to a statement). With the nature of Wikipedia, I see many times that points are just added here and there without immediate consideration of the overall structure of the section. I apologize if I removed breaks that were intentional. Just trying to copyedit and clean-up.  :-) Morphh ^(talk) 14:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

And mostly to very good effect. Perhaps entirely. I'm trying to work out if you merging my paragraphs is an improvement. Paul Beardsell 20:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Avoidance & evasion, legal and illegal

The bald and blanket defining of "tax avoidance" as "legal" and "tax evasion" as "illegal" faces a couple of problems, the more so in light of recent events. Firstly, the terms "legal" and "illegal" refer only to governments' own definitions. But their true meanings are only in the mind, it could be said, because even the terms themselves have no lasting meaning, changing when a government changes. We have many questions to answer before making such strict definitions without caveat. We haven't even accurately defined "avoidance" or "evasion". What is a "legitimate" government? Do the PEOPLE consider avoidance "legal" and evasion "illegal"? Do you or I? Is any armed group with effective control of an area of land a legitimate government? Are "democratic" governments "legitimate"?

Tax avoidence can never be illegal, it may be ineffective. Ie you can enter into a scheme which you consider reduces you liability to tax by giving your salary to your wife who is taxed at a lower rate. This scheme ias not illegal, there is no law stopping you slaary being paid into your wife's bank account, however this scheme is not effective, as for tax purposes the salary is taxed as if it is your income.

A pointer to coping with this issue is Jesus's: "Pay unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's". Paul Beardsell 19:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The second difficulty arises out of the defining of "tax avoidance" as "legal". Groups like the Tax Justice Network have gone to great lengths to demonize tax avoidance and of course governments are also trying to link "avoidance" with "unpatriotic". With this in mind, perhaps we should, tongue in cheek, redefine "tax avoidance" as "unpatriotic"!

But in any case, it seems reasonable to me to preface this "Note:" with something like - "With respect to their laws, most current governments consider "tax avoidance" as being "legal" and "tax evasion" as "illegal".Chris. Fulker 15:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there is no need to define something as being legal/illegal explicitly in relation to some laws: That is obviously implicit. And your POV, with which I have some sympathy, is not likely to be seen, by others, as NPOV. Paul Beardsell 19:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I have reverted the caveat / rider Chris Fulker added to the tax avoidance sentence. That point is best made at tax avoidance - otherwise it will have to be made everywhere tax avoidance is mentioned, and there are many places! It also introduces IMO a POV. Paul Beardsell 20:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll go along with this, if only because the terms involved are so ambiguous anyway. But using the terms "legal" and "illegal" without context being mentioned seems similar to making unambiguous claims that stealing is immoral. (Even in 'Robin-Hood-from-rich-to-poor' cases AND in 'male-teenage-hoodlum-strong-arming-little-old-lady' situations...?)Chris. Fulker 15:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Non sequitur. Morality is different from legality. Robin Hood would agree that what he did was illegal. And I don't see any ambiguity (i.e. confusion about meaning) - we all know what these words mean. Paul Beardsell 22:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Image

Subject to the views of others, I thought this article might be improved by an image at the head; the obvious candidates seemed to me to be:

1. Image:Gib bay.jpg
2. Image:BDA Aerial.jpg
3. Image:Roadtown, Tortola.jpg
4. Image:Newprovidencenasa.jpg

I know people from Gib get sniffy when it is described as a tax haven, but personally I like that one best. I could find any other good images already on Wikipedia for any of the other "traditional" tax havens. Any thoughts or views? --Legis (talk - contributions) 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Interested to see that my prediction about Gibraltarians proved correct and that the image was removed by one of them.--Legis (talk - contribs) 14:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not personally see the need for any images; you would ultimately be calling attention to a particular locality. Out the of the fifty-odd tax havens listed in the article it would be directly drawing attention to one specific one. In any case, I am fairly sure that most people are able to click the link and see what Gibraltar looks like. Perhaps something more fiscally related would be apt. Chris Buttigieg^talk 17:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Canada 2007 Federal Budget

The Tory goverment in Canada (Federal level) has issued funding to track the mis-use of borrowing against companies in tax havens to offset taxes within Canada (Budget not yet ratified at the time of adding this comment, just something to watch) -Wolfe 02:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Latvia and Lithuania

Does anyone have any evidence of the tax haven status of Latvia and Lithuania? The article implies that they are not, and I would like to remove them if no one objects, since the current strikethrough on them is ugly and makes WP appear not to know what it's talking about. Fysidiko 12:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed them. Thedreamdied 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Panama

Did You know that Panama is not only a tax heaven with no tax obligation but also the jurisdiction where online casinos can be registered and operated WITHOUT a gambling license?! It works legally if the Panama Offshore Company is registered in the country but does not supply gaming for and from Panama. If you are interested in the details, drop me a mail to panamaoffshore.at.gmail.dot.com or get more details (unfortunately only in Hungarian) at http://panamaioffshore.blogspot.com . Giovanni 10:29, 04 April 2007 (UTC)

^^^lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.71.199 (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Malta

I don't want to get into a pissing contest over it (again), but there is a substantial body of opinion that considers Malta to be a tax haven. I can dig out text book references if anyone likes, but a quick Google of "Malta tax haven" should lead to enough energetically phrased websites to satisfy most. --Legis (talk - contribs) 21:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider issues such as this to be "pissing contests". It's all too simple. If Malta is a tax haven then accept the challenge, say what taxes are levied at low rates or not at all in this place and provide the references. Paul Beardsell 08:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

But doesn't it come back to the same old point, what is the key characteristic of a tax haven? You believe a country is a tax haven if it has low or no taxes. I think that is wrong. Under your definition Russia would be a tax haven as it only imposes 11% income tax, one of the lowest in the world (and much lower than the British Virgin Islands which is by any defintion a tax haven). I think a tax haven is a country whose legal architecture is designed or used to minimise tax exposure arising in jurisdictions outside of that country. By my definition the United Kingdom qualifies as a tax haven, notwithstanding high basic rates of tax because of its non-dom rules. I think my definition is right, you think your definition is right, and I don't want to spur a fresh round of mass revisions over a country that is largely an insignificant (albeit recognised) player in international tax structuring. If you want I can e-mail you a PDF of an article from a Hong Kong newspaper of tax haven performance in 2006 (can't put it on Wikipedia for copyright issues) and there you'll see Malta right in the middle. At the top are the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As an aside: The UK non-dom rules do not "minimise tax exposure arising in jurisdictions outside of that country". The foreign taxes are still payable where they arise. However, I agree that the UK is a TH for certain non-dom individuals but for a different reason: Bcause the UK itself does not tax their foreign income. Subtle but important difference. Paul Beardsell 09:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a question of belief but of definition. Look, I've now done the work: Malta is a tax haven because the shareholders of certain types of company can entirely legally pay tax less than 5% of profits. So we can add it back with a correct reference - not one that says Malta is a TH because it is a OFC. You continue to conflate OFC with tax haven and your argument rests on the fact that many THs are also OFCs and vice versa. I note that many THs also are popular tourist destinations but I do not suggest we talk about tourism here. And, the question remains, if a TAX (i.e. charge by government) HAVEN (i.e. safe place) is instead something different, e.g. an OFC, or a place which facilitates money laundering, or whatever; then what is the name for the country/jurisdiction that levies low taxes? Because we will need a name for those! There is a continued attempt to demonise THs by association (and I think you are victim of it) by those who think that there is something wrong with a jurisdiction just deciding to levy low taxes! Those who think so include the OECD and most governments! Well, they are not disinterested, they have an axe to grind, and if you quote an OECD document saying what a TH is, I will make that point. In the interim we'll use the dictionary definition because no other term exists for a place which levies low (or no) taxes. What else can we do? Paul Beardsell 08:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Negative connotations

I recognise that the term "tax haven" has come to have negative connotations in certain circles. Tax collectors seem unable to use the term without spitting. There are ongoing attempts to sway public opinion by suggesting that tax havens are used by criminals and the corrupt. I think we should acknowledge this in the article, while making it clear that this is pure POV. Paul Beardsell 09:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ireland

The rate for Ireland is quoted as being 12.5% and 10%. There is a 10% rate but it is due to expire in 2010. It can no longer be availed of and is perhaps irrelevant. The rate across the board on all companies, but petroleum and mining, is 12.5%.

Irish Tax Authorities, Revenue Commissioners http://www.revenue.ie/revguide/corporationtax.htm

This is a wiki web site. Please press the "edit" button and fix the article. Thanks! Paul Beardsell 09:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that a corporation does not need to be registered in the ROI and the rate of 12.5% is applicable to foreign and domestic companies. Ireland should also be highlighted as the English speaking European currency tax haven. Particularly as the UK rate is currently 28 to 30% and set to rise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.144.242 (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Colin Powell in Jersey?

When was Colin Powell in Jersey (second paragraph)? Does anyone have a reference? It isn't mentioned in his article or in Jersey. I must have missed that.

CaptinJohn 10:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that it is a different person with the same name. So far as I know, the former US Secretary of State was never employed as an economic adviser to the Island of Jersey (or anyone else). But I lifted the quote from the Caroline Doggart's book: Tax Havens and their uses, ISBN 0862181631 --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

John Smith sure gets a lot done, don't you think? And he's everywhere. Paul Beardsell 23:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

POV

This articles is sadly and severely slanted in a very ANTI Tax Haven POV. I added some basic information illustrating the way tax havens give incentives to those being charged high taxes to move to tax haven countries. This is much MORE objective and LESS POV. My edit was intended to make this article a little bit more objective. Please stop the revert war people. You might not "like" tax havens, but others don't "like" taxes. Please keep your personal feelings out the article. The best perspective (non-POV) to take is to just state the facts, from a free-market perspective. Please be explicit if you feel something is non-POV, rather just doing a lazy revert on anything you don't agree with. Thanks. 74.193.251.45 16:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)KC

Just reviewing the material and I don't find anything overly POV with 74.193.251.45's edits (as the reverts suggested). If there is a statement that is in question, lets try to add a {{fact}} tag first. I do think the edits improve the article and have to agree that there is some bias against tax havens in the article wording. Morphh ^(talk) 16:24, 08 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree too that there is anti tax haven bias. But the introduction of bias the other way doesn't help. ALSO: Destroying the structure of an article by e.g. putting a whole lot of gumph into the paragraph defining the term is lazy at best. Think before tapping that keyboard, please. And, dammit, new sections on a talk page go at the end of the page. Thanks. Paul Beardsell 06:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I do think we need to have a look at the lead in accordance with guidelines WP:LEAD. I don't care for the first sentence hanging out there by itself. It should be the lead of the introduction paragraph. We should have two-three paragraphs that summarize the article. I didn't find that the added content biased the lead in the other direction and the common use of the term does seem pejorative, but I'm not against removing it. Doesn't bother me much one way or another. It is more important that we summarize the content and try to present it in the most neutral way. Morphh ^(talk) 13:46, 09 November 2007 (UTC)

In the opening of this article, it includes something to the effect of "an argument for tax havens is that they encourage developed countries to lower taxes", this is certainly POV. Though some might argue (and I'm quite certain they do), argue that reduced taxes are a good thing, it is not a fact universally agreed upon. The tone of the sentence presents that lower taxes are a good thing, considered a good thing by everybody. The sentence should be reworded to reflect that some of those who support lower taxes argue for tax havens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.240.27 (talk • contribs)

The Times (South Africa)

This article appeared in today's edition of The Times of South Africa - diligent research or lazy copy typing? --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Secrecy, transparency and tax havens

Some jurisdictions are secret. Others are open. Some jurisdictions are tax havens. Others are not. Some tax havens are open and transparent. Others are not. The OECD wants to define tax havens as being those which, through secrecy and lack of transparency, allow tax evasion. That is simply the OECD's point of view. But a place where one can [legitimately] avoid tax can be a tax haven. E.g. Ireland, UK, Switzerland are all places where certain taxes can be avoided. They are havens from taxation. Please see a dictionary for definition of "haven" and read tax avoidance to see evasion and avoidance contrasted (essentially: avoidance is legal, evasion not so). And see WP:POV for an explanation as to why we are not going to adopt the OECD's definition here. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just this month the OECD again recently said Barbados is not a Tax Haven too...

An unfortunate report, 13th-March 2008, NationNews, Barbados.

Under your own definition U.S. states too can be Tax Havens. Hence why Delaware one of the smallest states in the USA has sooo many major U.S. banks clustered there. They're looking for some of the lowest taxes/favorable legislation in the US... CaribDigita (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Delaware is a safe place (=haven) to escape certain taxes. By definition. Not my definition - the dictionary definition. That some are trying to taint the term "tax haven" with negative connotations would leave us with the task of thinking of a new term for a place where certain taxes are levied at a low rate or not at all. And then those who tax at high rates would then start to demonise the new term. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Delaware is frequently recognised as a tax haven (try Googling: Delaware "tax haven"), both for those who envisage secrecy as part of the criteria (in Delaware details of directorships and shareholdings in Delaware corporations are confidential) and those who define it solely by tax burden (it has one of the lowest, if not the lowest (possibly after Alaska) corporation taxes in the U.S. and a frequent jurisdiction for incorporation of holding companies to mitigate state corporation tax). However, it tries to style itself a "corporate haven" and is rarely used outside of the U.S. because of the potential exposure to U.S. Federal taxes and U.S. regulation for foreigners. Interestingly, Senators Carl Levin and Barack Obama did not see fit to list Delaware as a tax haven in their draft Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, which in my non-NPOV opinion is pretty characteristic myopia on their part, although they did of course include Barbados.

For the record, Barbados is frequently regarded as a tax haven as well. It has extremely low levels of corporation tax, and international business companies are exempt from what local taxation there is. It also has a couple of extremely useful double taxation treaties (including one with Japan, I think) that do get used in cross-border tax structuring in relation to transactions that otherwise have nothing to do with Barbados.

--Legis (talk - contribs) 17:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I find that could be very relative. I've lived in both Barbados and the USA and in the states I find you still pay through the nose in taxes... Sales Tax(in some states), Property Tax, FCC "surcharges" passed on as a Tax, Federal Taxes, Inheritance Taxes, Municipal Taxes(in some cities/townships) etc. Also lets not get into the juggle of taxes over businesses, and so on. It is high in the USA even if they deny it. I mean the saying pretty much goes you work for the IRS each year up until June and everything after that is for you..... Suppose the industrialized nations have a rate of taxation that is just too high other than what could be offered and the nations in the Caribbean and Pacific don't need to charge that level of taxation for corporations? Besides, many countries around the world have started to shift their taxation towards taxation on goods and services (via a VAT) system... Personally I'm happy the Government of Barbados has been proactive in lowering our taxes every year and passing the savings onto the public. Barbados only has 275 000+/- persons and many Caribbean/Pacific island states have less people so they really don't need to have a multi-trillion dollar annual budget... Hence less taxes would be enough for them. Which is what the industrialized nations calls "too low". This article would need to becareful of industrialized nation POV. CaribDigita (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Global POV in "Modern developments"

I am adding a Global POV warning to the "modern developments" section as it only talks about a US bill, not any international movements. The section should be globalized, or at least renamed. JoshuaGrainger (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that is fair comment. The proposed legislation is American, but if passed it will affect a great many countries. --Legis (talk - contribs) 21:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, looking at your user page, you would definitely seem to be more of an expert on this subject than me. I simply read the article and got the impression that the proposed legislation would only effect Americans. If you believe that the "Modern developments" section does indeed represent a global POV, then feel free to remove the tag. Maybe it should be written into the article, or at least be made clearer the the proposed legislation does not only affect tax havens in the United States of America. -- JoshuaGrainger (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think qualifications make much difference in relation to POV issues! I'll take a fresh look at the para at some point, but if you feel it could be better improved to reflect a more worldwide POV then please go ahead. I also tried to balance the piece with a bit about the recent Liechtenstein bank fiasco and the threatened "crackdown". --Legis (talk - contribs) 21:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of THE PROMOTION

I removed this section as (a) being a copy-paste from a promotional website, and (b) being about 25 years out of date. Gems like "I mean by modern mean of communication developed basic equipment of railway, roads for an easy, quick, and confortable access"; "the Cayman islands have effective phone and telex service"; "Charters and private air services based in Florida are often use to carry large cash amount directly to the Caribbean [Really? Sounds highly unlikely to me.]"; "In « The Economist » (October 1988), some 20 tax havens are praised. They proposed an offshore company for $950 in the Virgin islands, Liberia or Panama" and "A Luxembourg bank, « Bank of Credit and Commerce International » send you a brochure praising the Luxembourg’s banking secrecy on simple written request [BCCI went bust over 20 years ago]" don't come along every day.
--Legis (talk - contribs) 11:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Article is wish-wash

Tax havens would be very easy to annul. Most are small islands and tiny bit of the US Navy would be enough to blockade them all. Either they give up on taxhavening or they soon sunk back to stone-age era without imports.

Otherwise, industrialized countries could simply cut all relations with tax havens, no travel forth or back allowed, no commerce allowed at all, no financial transactions allowed, just like Cuba or the DPRK.

None of this happened so far, which proves the political elite of most countries are not interested in abolishing tax havens, since they are keeping their own stolen and corruptly collected personal wealth there... 82.131.210.162 (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. That is a pretty sophisticated view of the way that the world works. --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute tag - proposed U.S. legislation

I just noticed that someone has put a "neutrality" dispute tag on the proposed U.S. legislation section. But it is not clear to me what is asserted to lack neutrality. Does anyone know who put the tag on, or what the concern is? --Legis (talk - contribs) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind the bad grammar

The quality of much of the info in this article is poor and some of it is wrong and lots lacks references. I've removed the assessment which, as is typical, is unreasoned. Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Australia is a Tax Haven

http://www.taxfreeaustralia.co.uk/

Australia is a 'Tax Haven' for temporary visa holders There are new opportunities to increase your wealth by moving abroad. Your choice is now a lot wider, with Australia joining the ranks of those countries seeking to attract tax exiles. In fact it must be the only advanced English speaking country that offers all year round sunshine, a pleasant place to live, yet there can be no tax to pay for the privilege.

The Detail From 1 July 2006, all temporary visa holders are no longer subject to Australian income tax on most foreign income and capital gains. This applies regardless of whether the income etc is remitted to Australia, how long you have had a temporary visa or stay in Australia each year.

The good news rolls on. Owning shares in most Australian public companies and unit trusts will result in tax free Australian capital gains as well.

Australia should be added to the list.

Bendecko (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Tongo

Where's "Tongo"?! (see "Proposed U.S. legislation" ...mentioned more than once! ...leave it in, it's funny!) [User: MacDaddy]

Bulgaria: OECD says. So what?

Whether the OECD considers some country a tax haven or not is interesting but is not definitive. The OECD has an axe to grind and cannot be expected to have a NPOV. Even if they did (and they don't), that would simply be one POV. The ultimate criteria remains one tested by definition: If a territory has some taxes which are unusually low or absent then that territory is a tax haven. I know nothing about Bulgaria's taxes but the OECD is not the final arbiter as to its tax haven status. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) is all of the world's developed countries... It is pretty much as close as the concensus of the world's-powers as you can get. The OECD is basically the G8 plus some other member states. Because once the Caribbean countries were labeled as Tax Havens they gave the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force which the mandate to work with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) on the issue. The CFATF guides those states on compliance with FATF's tax haven guidelines. CaribDigita (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the description of the OECD given to it by The Economist: a rich person club that wants to stop anyone else becoming rich. Many a true word spoken in jest... --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes! There is nothing intrinsic to the OECD that makes it an authority on anything. Or, more to the point, the authority on anything. When it comes to labelling a territory a tax haven the OECD can hardly be said to be a disinterested party. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Qatar

Qatar which charges only corp tax should be added to the list.--81.105.242.11 (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

History and Geography

I think we should explain the geographical distribution of tax heavens. On the supply side, we should explain that in XXth century the last surviving medieval tiny republics and principalities of Europe, like Switzerland, San Marino, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Channel Islands and Isle of Man, looked obsolete and found a new role in the capitalist world by becoming tax heavens. Then the (mainly British) colonial settlements and naval bases after their independence found their main economic resource in becoming tax heavens. On the demand side, tax heavens are sited in Europe and in the Carribean, close to the biggest economic powers. In the Far East and the Pacific the distribution of tax heavens is less evident: there are few of them around Japan and in South-east Asia, the biggest economies in the area. On the contrary there are many in the Pacific, when Australian economy is not so big. Daniele Giannoni - Milan Italy Lele giannoni (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Go for it - be bold!. Just remember to quote your sources. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

decent descent?

In the following welection there is an occurance of the word "decent" ( Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin decent-, decens, present participle of decēre to be fitting; akin to Latin decus honor, dignus worthy, Greek dokein to seem, seem good Date: 1539 ) which i think would prefer to be "descent"( Middle English, from Anglo-French descente, from Anglo-French descendre Date: 14th century ). check it out...

67.61.52.174 (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)MAITAI

Changed. Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Bahamas closest island is fifty miles off the coast of Florida and its culture is heavily influenced by the United States of America. It is an archipelago composed of 700 islands, of which twenty-two islands are inhabited with human settlements. The country's demographics are composed of approximately 75% of sub-Saharan African descent and 25% white and other decent. The economy is capitalistic in nature, drawing from its colonial British history. However the division of wealth of the residential population is sharp, even though its GNP is one of the highest in the Caribbean."

Commentary section

With respect to the re-addition of this section:

• How are comments such as "Many of the initiatives appear politically populist", "Other aspects of the legislation seem to be predicated on outdated stereotypes of tax havens" or "the prohibition against granting patents for tax mitigation schemes are wholly implausible" not in violation of WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, which state that

"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively.",

"Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. ... [T]o demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

• What reliable sources support these assertions? (The two newspaper articles provided, one of which is a columnist's opinion and therefore inappropriate as a source, do not.)

Thanks,  Sandstein  06:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you are talking about my revert of yesterday. I think there is a difference between pushing a point of view in an article (prohibited) and adding a comment that appears warranted (fair). I certainly don't think that any of the comments are put forward as "the truth", so much as represent an observation in relation to the legislation (and clearly presenting it as such). The patents example is the clearest cut: the litigation prohibits granting patents for tax mitigation schemes, and yet there is no recorded instance of a patent being granted for a tax mitigation scheme in the US (although people have from time to time talked idly about it). To my mind that justifies comment, so long as it is clearly presented as comment or an interpretation of the data. Whether one goes further and suggests that the reason for this may be that the measure is a populist measure rather than a realistic legislative initiative is more speculative, but I would respectfullly suggest not unreasonable speculation (and it is worth noting at this stage that the bill never did become law). Similarly, pointing out that legislation which seeks to impose penalties on 4 European Union member states is unlikely to become law (or, if it did, was unlikely to survive without retialiation in the WTO) seems to me to be pretty fair comment, and entirely fair in light of bilateral trading relations between the EU and US under the auspices of the WTO. The sentence about outdated stereotypes is a little bit harder to follow through, but even on a very literal reading, Senator Levin's draft clearly addresses a notional problem that tax havens operate insufficient anti money laundering / know your client due diligence that is patently at odds with modern reality. Other bits and bobs in the draft bill which suggest to a lack of serious legislative intent are the fact that he gets the name of St Kitts & Nevis wrong, and he mistakenly assumes that Sark is a part of Alderney rather than an independent state.

I suspect that it is all slightly academic now, as the bill has virtually zero chance of becoming law after this time, so the whole section can probably be dropped in favour of coverage of more recent initiatives.

--Legis (talk - contribs) 11:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am a Swiss lawyer, as it happens, and as such could be considered to be sympathetic to your argument, but... no matter what we may think of the merits of this proposed legislation, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for us to stand on and hold forth about what we think the flaws in various legislative proposals are. WP:NOR commits us to reporting only what other reliable sources have said about these proposals, and disallows the insertion of editorial commentary, even when we are persuaded that we are right in our assessment. Would you agree to remove this section in order to allow you, as you propose, to write a summary of more recent developments?  Sandstein  14:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, and although I am not completely signed up, I do think we can probably remove the section and start putting some of the more up to date stuff in (UBS AG's settlement with the US Government, Gordon Brown and Barack Obama's recent statements of intent to crack down, etc.). --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, and-off-topic, you might be interested at taking a look at Taxation in Switzerland, which I wrote. I would be interested to know whether there is any obvious deficiency in coverage from the point of view of a non-Swiss professional such as yourself, so that I can address it.  Sandstein  14:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and take a look, but I can't promise to do so soon. Bit tied up at work at present. If you want a point of comparison, I wrote Taxation in the British Virgin Islands, but that was a relatively easy article to write! --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting tid-bit the so called Caribbean "Tax Havens" = 3rd largest buyers of U.S. debts

Here's an interesting tidbit. The Caribbean region currently ranks as the 3rd largest foreign holders of U.S. Government issued Treasuries. (This is according to the U.S. Treasury.) [2] I wonder what the results of any U.S. crackdown on their economies as "tax havens" will do to their future holdings of U.S. debt. CaribDigita (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that you will find that 90+% of that debt is held by Hedge Funds domiciled in the Cayman Islands. The Caymans have nearly 45% of the world's hedge fund market (and about 90% of the offshore hedge fund markets), and last time I saw any stats they had about $1.3 trillion assets under management. Now, the investors in those hedge funds will rarely be domiciled in the Caribbean, but unless I miss my guess, that wil be the fact behind the figure. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

More modern developments

We probably need to stick something in about (a) the G20's meeting in April proposing to crack down on tax havens,[3] and (b) Senator Levin's Stop Tax Haven Abuse Bill[4] (which Barack Obama has indicated he will support). I know these have been touchy subjects in the past, so if other people want to get involved, I am happy to start a draft in a sandbox and we can all contribute and then bring it onstream when it is ready. Let me know. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Israel

I believe I came across an OECD report a few years back, which stated that Israel is among the world top tax havens or place for money laundering. Could anyone elaborate on this, as there is nothng in the article or the discussions about this? 81.156.180.208 (talk) 01:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Israel was on the Financial Action Task Force version... FATF Blacklist. This list had all kinds of irregularities. It had country names which didn't exist anymore etc. It lost all of its air very quickly.

There's no mention of Israel on the current G20. OECD report... HERE (PDF)

P.S. Here's how it shook out in the Caribbean. Barbados and U.S.V.I. are the only two regarded as having an internationally accepted level of transparency in their tax systems. GREY AREA: Caribbean countries escape OECD blacklist

There are now only four anywhere in the world(according to BBC World) in trouble with the G20: Costa Rica, Malaysia, Philippines, and Uruguay. CaribDigita (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There has always been an uneasy blurring of the lines between countries that came in for criticism for money laundering risk, and those that came in for criticism for "tax avoidance" risk (meaning risk to the tax base of OECD countries). Multinational organisations like the OECD, FATF and G20 like to conflate the two issues, but whilst Israel was considered a money laundering risk, with income tax at 50% I don't think Israel has ever been regarded as a tax haven! --Legis (talk - contribs) 18:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

But isn't Israel the Tax Haven for all the Jewish people (rich or otherwise) from around the world? For example when the British Lady Shirley Porter was being fined she ran off to Israel. Given there are still money being discovered belonging to German Jewish people who perished in the Holocaust in Swiss bank accounts, were they not German tax evaders fleeing from the Nazis? 86.137.252.77 (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It certainly has strong bank secrecy laws, but I don't think it is a tax haven in the usual sense of the word. I think the rate of personal taxation if Israel is about 50%, so it doesn't seem a terribly good place to go if you want to reduce your tax burden. --Legis (talk - contribs) 18:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

But they would not go in person and work there and pay Israeli personal taxes, would they, so personal taxation would not take effect? After all they are still Americans and possibly Russians or from any other country of the world. 86.149.254.227 (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Need to add section on reasons why people use tax havens

This is a suggestion. Taxes in many countries, particularly in Western Europe, are very high. This is to support there socialist systems. And those same countries are mostly among G20 members going after tax havens. I suggest adding a section listing the reasons why the concept of tax haven even exists. With the the reference to taxation levels in different countries, including those in G20. BlackAsker (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Europeans have slightly different definitions of socialism to Americans: and would BlackAsker wish to make his own arrangements for road maintenance, all the teachers required for children, policing... Tax havens and means of avoiding 'payments to the authorities' will always exist - cash in hand etc. Unless a universal tax system is imposed - impractical for any number of reasons - individuals and firms will make use of relative tax advantages, and governments will offer concessions to get inward investment.

What are the ships that are operating outside the tax systems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A "tax haven" is nothing more basically than globalisation of the world's financial system. Just as markets are supposed to be opened up, so is the choice of where to hire employees or conduct business.

There's a number of reason why places want try to attract business with these incentives:

• If you are a government in a small nation, especially if located outside of the major global financial system, then you have to find ways to bring income to your shores and bring your own system to the global financial system.
• Some nations have find, that when lowering taxes to lower levels than what other major nations are charging, then you can achieve higher direct employment by offshore companies. Further, some nations have discovered that when trimming some of the cost of business off what the international companies would pay elsewhere to operate, then they just may move to locales off the beaten path and higher large segments of the local population thereby raising local living standards and moving more people off unemployment, or out of poverty. Similarly, some nations find that companies are drawn to places with less red tape, and government bureaucracy, where the company is more able to do what they want. In essence, it is northing but competition. For example it is no different than when a city of town in your local area changes laws or ordinances to attract more business from other neighbouring areas. Except, a so called "Tax haven" forms a larger area. The alternative of course, for not employing local people is that illegal activity can become the major money earner for those people instead. CaribDigita (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

delaware

This is possibly kind of interesting. Maybe it's a man-bites-dog story; with no idea of what the flaky sounding "Tax Justice Network" is, I have no way to know whether the story is really significant. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sark

Sark is listed as a tax haven here, though it is a constituent entity within the Channel Islands, for which there is a separate entry for in the list. Sark is largely administered by Guernsey (the Bailiwick of,), and so could, perhaps, be treated as a "tax haven within a tax haven", and this may provide some justification for keeping it in the list. That said, Alderney - another Channel Island - has the same status as Sark, given that it is also administered by Guernsey, and so, on the same basis, could warrant being an entry in the list . There are also lesser inhabited Channel Islands (Herm, Jethou, Brecqhou), which although i can find no evidence of them being actively used as tax havens, could also warrant having entries in the list.

On balance, given that there may be similar examples in other tax havens, i would propose REMOVING Sark from the list, to keep the list succinct. Any thoughts?

(Atchy007 (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC))

Why Hong Kong is not included in the list of tax haven?

Hong Kong is an offshore financial center, but it is not included in the list of tax haven, I woonder why?

My guess is some people don't know the difference. Tax Havens are more secretive places. Ones where a regulator (in the collecting country) has a tough time trying to monitor movement of money there. Laundered money can be funnelled and mixed with legit money to benefit from ill-gotten crime money. CaribDigita (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

China (PRC), the sovereign power, always vetoes any suggestion that Hong Kong is a haven at international meetings.86.42.193.214 (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A tax haven usually means a country whose legal architecture is designed to facilitate tax mitigation in a third country. I don't think there is much about Hong Kong's legal system which suggests that is the case. It is just a jurisdiction which imposes relatively low taxes. It does have a very high level level of deposits relative to its living population, but it is a city state which it is also an international financial centre - if New York declared independence it would be similar. --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Where the income of the tax haven come from?

Since a tax haven reduces tax in its territory, so I wonder where the income of the tax haven come from?

Offshore centre or tax haven???

Offshore centre: From taxes! An offshore centre is nothing more than a corporate tax competition location. Look at it this way. If a "Bank of America" was only charged a 1-2% tax in America, its profits would be huge and the U.S. government would hardly collect any revenue from it. Instead of a country with 360 million people, imagine that same 1-2% tax rate on billions of dollars within a country of just over a million people. That smaller level of taxes entices the corporation to move there (in order to have higher profits), and that smaller country gains because a 1-2% tax on a couple billion dollars might be more than enough to pay that country's entire annual budget. Now that's just one company, imagine if that same tiny country had 10-15 other corporations head-quartered there each contributing 1-2% of their earnings on a few billion dollars. That country's government would be paid-off. CaribDigita (talk)

What's the relationship between tax haven and offshore financial center?

It seems they are just the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.65.17.53 (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Tax haven is something completely different. Its main goal is secrecy. It earns money the same way, BUT is more geared towards a person and their ability to save paying taxes to their local monetary authority. Not only that but the secrecy allows money that was obtained through criminal activity to be placed there and eventually used as regular currency. In the United States, if you turn up to a bank and place $10,000(is it still 10,000?) into your chequeing account the bank is supposed to notify the U.S. authorities so that its source can be investigated if need be. If a person puts that money in a "tax haven" there's no guarantee that same safety measure is being completed in the "tax haven". Thus if someone earned money by stealing cars they'll have a tough time moving large volumes of that money into the U.S. monetary system without eventually raising red flags. But if the person puts it in the tax haven, then lets it sit, and then one day moves the entire bundle back into the U.S. it may appear to U.S. regulators as a legit move of x million moving from that haven's banks to America when in actuality it was gained by crime. That's the "dangers" of a true-true "tax haven". It rewards criminals because they could start using crime money to acquire corporation and other things, and that could destabilise the entire financial system.

Offshore centres on the other hand usually have treaties to share information about money moving into and out of their jurisdiction with the big global tax regulators.CaribDigita (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Kaliningrad

This is all very eurocentric - right now the best haven in eastern Europe is Kaliningrad Oblast, a leftover from world war 2.86.42.193.214 (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

City of London

Please, add to the list "City of London" - Nicholas Shaxson on Tax Havens, the Banking system & UK Uncut: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqhcMAE1ekA --80.136.30.148 (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Tax Justice Network

I note that more and more stuff sourced from TJN is being cited in this article. In a sense that is natural - TJN is obviously very much focused on tax avoidance and offshore. But I think we need to be cautious for two reasons:

• TJN is pressure group. It is not, in any sense, neutral on this issue.
• TJN does have a bit of a track record of its figures later being exposed as being inflated having being based on unwarranted assumptions. I am thinking particularly of the 2009 Foote Report, which shot holes in a lot of TJN analysis on levels of tax avoidance, and a lot of the commentary which was made on their recent (2012) publication suggesting that $21 trillion was hidden offshore (see, e.g. comments of Chartered Institute of Taxation[5]) as being suspect.

I think we do need to include TJN material, but we just need to be cautious as treating it as absolutely authoritative. --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed update: Economist special report

The Economist did a special report on tax havens this week which contained a lot of useful data and pointed out gaps some of the existing data relating to the amount of money held in tax havens, and in relation to the accepted definitions of tax havens. That provides a lot of useful source material (which seem solidly reliably sourced) with which to do a bit of a re-write / update.

I know in the past there has been a lot of tension on this page, particularly in relation to the definitions section. To allow this to be collaborate, I am going to suggest we try to collaborate in relation to the edits offline before posting the changes. Here is a link to the special reports page: [6] - as of now, the offshore finance finance is the most recent one, but obviously it will go lower down the list as time passes.

--Legis (talk - contribs) 07:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have set up a sub-page in my sandbox to work on this. Please feel free to chip in: User:Legis/sandbox/tax haven.

At the moment my main thinking is:

• hive "definition" off into its own section (immediately after intro) and discuss the various different definitions and pros and cons, and
• expand "amounts" with an intro talking about the difficulties of obtaining hard data (something the Economist spends a lot of time talking about, and then break out into two sub-sections: "capital" held offshore, and lost "income" amounts. Compare and contrast various estimates and different methodologies used for those estimates.

Welcome other thoughts.

--Legis (talk - contribs) 08:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are some topics I'd like to cover:

• The effect of repatriation expense (and cash accumulation) on aggregate demand and business reinvestment (e.g. see the ratios graphed at [7])
• Recent changes of opinion by
  • users,
  • politicians (see also [8], [9]),
  • governments (see also), and
  • accountants -- I noticed The Economist touching on that ("The big four see the furore over transfer pricing—manipulating intra-company transactions to shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions—as a growing reputational and legal risk."[10])
• Some kind of a map
• Which major companies use them
• The repatriation holiday lobby
• The U.S. Senate's report on the last repatriation holiday
• The tax incidence of havens
• Connections to "fraud, money laundering, and terrorism"
• National Audit Office and similar reform proposals
• Investigations and witness tampering
• More detail on lobbying on transfer pricing
• Spy agency and malware-based spying on corporate financials
• Maybe this extremely awkward and bizarre situation
• Education and training within the tax accountancy and tax law professions

I've only started to read The Economist's special report you pointed out. I hope they have up to date information on more of those aspects. Neo Poz (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like we have a lot of work ahead of us! --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The TOC structure here, reflected in large part by your sandbox version, strikes me as disjointed and unwieldy. Do you have any ideas for improving the TOC/headers structure? Neo Poz (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Third table is inaccurate.

The third table down, "Global distribution of net financial assets" is incorrect in the second column. It should be 20.6 not 30.6. It appears to be a typo. The original source, page 5 table two http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/The_Price_of_Offshore_Revisited_Presser_120722.pdf has the correct figures. Snjmom (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. 70.57.45.119 (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

"Swiss banks urge U.S. tax dodgers to come clean to beat deadline"

Politico reports: "Your account information may be subject to a treaty request from the United States to the Swiss Federal Tax Administration, which may result in your account information being turned over to the DOJ or IRS," warned one [letter] by Cornèr Bank, sent to an American client and obtained by POLITICO. "A disclosure ... can be used by US authorities for law enforcement actions, including ... criminal proceedings." EllenCT (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggest sticking a new section in under "modern developments"? --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Didn't the U.S. enforce its tax laws in the 1950s? That was around the beginning of the modern era. EllenCT (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure that I follow your second comment above? How does that relate to the original link? --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"Modern" has a specific historical implication, generally said to have ended in the 1950s or '60s. If you are implying that this heralds a return to the enforcement vigor by potential revenue instead of focusing on smaller taxpayers of the 1940s and 50s, then I would like to know why. EllenCT (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, now I follow you. I was only suggesting "modern developments" because the article started with "Swiss banks are quietly warning wealthy U.S. clients with secret accounts to come clean with the tax man in the next two weeks — or risk jail time, according to several letters obtained by POLITICO. The letters come ahead of a New Year’s Eve deadline the U.S. government set for about 300 Swiss banks to take deals protecting them from prosecution." That to me meant the focus of the article was the current pressure being exerted by the US authorities on Swiss banks, rather than anything more historical. Hence I felt that "modern developments" was the most appropriate section. But it was only a suggestion. This is Wikipedia - Be Bold! If you feel it can be more appropriately worked into the article elsewhere then please do so. But I agree that the current pressure by the DOJ being exerted on Swiss banks is a bit of a striking omission from the article. --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

With your background you must know whether the US is getting serious in more places than Switzerland, e.g., with evidence collected by the NSA? EllenCT (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I try to keep pace with industry trends, but I don't have any secret inside knowledge. But in any event edits to Wikipedia articles need to be able to cite reliable sources, so insider knowledge doesn't count for much here. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course. Silly of me to think that you might ever willingly share anything which doesn't mean more money for you. EllenCT (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Your conflict of interest and edit history on these topics is no different than BP trying to scrub the oil spills and implications from their article. Will you please agree to refrain from further edits which could have the appearance of making tax avoidance or evasion more attractive than it already is? Alternatively, if you would rather continue editing on such topics, would you please switch careers to selling multisector high-yield bond funds instead of tax shelters? EllenCT (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Poll finds USA/Germany and many other G-8s as bigger tax havens

Interesting piece a recent study found that the United States, Germany and many other larger countries were deemed to be thought of as larger tax havens the ones they accuse. [11] 128.103.160.212 (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If a 'tax haven' is defined as a country whose legal system allows tax payments to be minimised by utilising cross border capital flows, then yes, by far the biggest tax havens are the G-8 and various other developed nations as they all complete for such capital by offering tax breaks (the UK's rule on non-doms being the most clear cut example). But for whatever reason that is considered "fair" tax competition (by the G-8) but microstates employing their legal architecture for the same reason is "unfair" (also as decided by the G-8). That's geopolitics for you. There probably is a decent section that could be spun out of that if you pull together enough source material, but please be mindful of WP:OR. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Tax Havens and Tax Evasion

I took out the words "tax evasion" because by equating tax evasion with tax havens there is an implication that all utilization of tax havens are illegal, which they are not. Jiminycricket55 (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Section added

I added this:

It also refers to countries which have a system of financial secrecy in place. It should be noted that, financial secrecy can be used by foreign individuals to circumvent certain taxes (such as inheritance tax) -due to the fact that the requirement of paying taxes on these funds can not be transmitted, as the funds themselves are invisible to the country the individual is from-. Despite this occasional abuse, the countries themselves stand in their right to have a system of financial secrecy in place, and it is up to the individual to fill in the required paperwork and pay their taxes upon, for example, the death of a spouse.

I have one reference, but I'm not sure whether this is relevant as a reference for this: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/091014/should-you-open-foreign-savings-account.asp

128.103.160.212 (talk) 19:56, 8 october 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tax haven/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

All references should use the same format - some use ref tags and some use embedded URLs. Footnotes should go directly after punctuation without any spaces (see WP:FOOT). I don't like the large bullet list in the Example section. Needs a copyedit and some cleanup but it is looking much better. Seems to have decent coverage and includes references - I'll put it at a B-Class unless someone else thinks a Start-Class would be more appropriate. Morphh (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Is that all that passes for a reasoned critique? "Seems quite good." "Could be better formatted." "I'll give it 6/10". No. The assessor must do better. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)