Talk:Corporate haven/Archive 1

May 2018. Needs fixing

This article is a bit of a mess of topics (many lists not complete and repeated on bigger articles on tax havens and OFCs). Going to restructure this article so it is tighter and leverages the links to other larger articles (and serves as a guide to them) which are more specific. Britishfinance (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slightly longer lede but this is now a larger article and includes some technical aspects/concepts. I thought that having more, but shorter, paragraphs in the lede, would help with the comprehension and readability. I also left out putting citations/references in the lede (like we have in the intellectual property article) to help readability. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an unbalanced focus on Ireland, given that quantitively Ireland ranks below the UK, and quite a few other western countries as a transfer pricing hub. I also see you authored a specific article "Ireland as a tax haven" and it seems only Ireland has a specific article, again despite the fact that other countries are larger hubs for tax shifting. There seems to be little balance in presenting any contrary views even though googling "Ireland is not a tax haven" produces lots of reputable sources that present the contrary point of view. Your work on this article and the creation of the Ireland specific one has the feel of a polemic rather than an attempt to expand wiki's coverage of this topic.

I disagree. Quantitively Ireland is proven as the largest beps location in the world. Ireland also leads on several other corporate tax haven metrics, like inversions. The article covers the generic issues of major corporate tax havens without a specific section on Ireland. Only in Ireland, my country, and I think your country, is it disputed that Ireland is a tax haven. The "Ireland as a tax haven" wiki discusses each of the issues that a Google of "Ireland is not a tax haven" throws up, and gives the fact-base around each of them. Many of the "Ireland is not a tax haven" arguments don't stand up when analysed correctly. These are very good articles, imho.

It's not a good article. "Corporate haven" generally refers to regulatory/secrecy (for example Delaware is the classic example) but this aspect seems to have been effectively edited out of the article and the entire thing seems to just repeat the claims from the "tax haven" article. There's something very odd going on here - I've followed some of the links from the article and it seems there is a clique of Wikipedia articles all written in the same style, containing the same references and the same heterodox definitions (e.g. there's hardly any reference to standard accepted definitions of "Tax Haven" - like that of the OECD) and with seemingly a concentration of contributions and editing that started this year. If I were being paranoid, it looks like the TJN or Oxfam is trying to spam Wikipedia - it certainly looks like there is a particular political agenda motivating the edits and articles given the lack of balance. The pattern of editing and the liberal creation of similar toned articles linking to each other, containing the same references, repeating the same points and even using the same images, is worrying. Jimg (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of facts regarding the above posts:
1. Ireland does not rank quantitatively below the U.K. as a transfer pricing hub - Ireland is proven as the world's largest BEPS hub and the U.K. is not even second (per the article). Ireland has been a top 10 hub in almost every academic survey since 1994 when James Hines first started quantifying the effects of tax havens (per the article).
2. Haven does not refer to a "secrecy" location (the dictionary definition is a place of refuge or shelter), neither is a corporate tax haven, by definition, a secrecy location. What separates them from traditional tax havens, is that that the leaders (Ireland, Singapore, UK etc.) are highly transparent and compliant (per the article).
3. The OECD is not a reliable definition of a tax haven, as it only identifies Trinidad & Tobago as a tax haven, and even the EU identify over 60 jurisdictions, although none are EU jurisdictions (per the article). James Hines himself, who is a public advocate for tax havens, and created the first list (per the article), does not consider the OECD to be credible.

You make other comments and allegations that are not appropriate and unwarranted for editors like myself who have put time and effort into creating an article to chronicle the fact-base around corporate tax havens. It is not possible to have an article on corporate tax havens which does not feature Ireland, and prominently. Major havens like the Netherlands have scaled back some of their actions (e.g. dutch double dipping and dutch sandwich), however Ireland does not appear to show any inclination and continues to lead their development. The U.K. was set to over-take Ireland in the next decade but Brexit has stopped that. Britishfinance (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not for you to decide that "The OECD is not a reliable definition of tax haven". It's definition represents a concensus amoung a large number of countries which is widely referenced and has motivated changes in legislation. It is commonly refered to as the most prominent list of tax havens. The fact that it has evolved over time makes it more notable. Nor is it up to you to ignore other lists of tax havens like the one used by the IRS or which have the backing of governments and international organisations. This is exactly the problem with your contributions in this area.
Putting "time and effort" into work on wikipedia does not mean that the work cannot be criticized. My analysis so far has been fairly shallow but has already highlighted issues with your work as the numbers above highlight. I've followed some of the references and often the sources do not back up your claims but there is simply so much of it, it's difficult. To pick the last example (I have not attempted to do this systematically) - the reference provided to support your claim "the term OFC and corporate tax haven are often used interchangeably" simply does not support this claim - in fact it goes to great lengths to distinguish the two terms and describe how they evolved historically. But because your contributions duplicate the same claims and references over a large number of articles all linked and referencing each other, you make it difficult or impossible - maybe by design - to correct mistakes like this. Jimg (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to call for a full scale revert of this article to before Britishfinance transformed it into a version of Ireland_as_a_tax_haven (also mostly authored by them). The title of the article is "Corporate haven" but the introduction immediately switches the subject to tax haven which already has an article (mostly contributed by the same author and with the same obvious biases).

As well as providing the main image, Ireland gets mentioned nearly 450 times compared to 88 times for the next most mentioned, Netherlands, and 47 times for the UK (for example). Traditional havens (which were prominently mentioned in the article before the mass of revisions) like Bermuda, Cayman, Bahamas, Delaware, Andorra, Jersey, Guernsey, Virgin Islands, Panama, etc. are barely mentioned or not mentioned at all. Belize, Mauritius, Nevis and Gibraltar which are hugely popular bases for offshore headquarters are not mentioned at all. The focus of the article has been switched away from what are conventionally known as corporate havens to Ireland and the Gabriel Zucman definition of what constitutes a tax haven.

Worringly this seems to fit a pattern of the contributions of Britishfinance but I will have to do a bit more research before I can be certain that they are acting in bad faith. All of these articles have been created or edited heavily by this user and appear to demonstrate the same biases:

It is difficult to analyse their contributions which use a form of Salami_slicing with huge lists of tiny edits (often one per minute or two). The contributions duplicate many of the same claims across different articles but they are reference heavy making it is time-consuming to critically examine. However it is not hard to find examples of claims which apparently have references in support but the referred works do not directly support the claims. Mixing secondary sources with primary sources gives the appearance of providing more weight to the claims (e.g. Gabriel Zucman is referenced both directly and indirectly through newspaper stories reporting on Zucman's claims) but makes it more difficult to apraise the contributions. Jimg (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on my own comment (this discussion probably belongs elsewhere) and having looked at more of their work, I do NOT believe Britishfinance is acting in bad faith. However I strongly believe that there are very serious issues with bias and violation of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and style and the attempt to push a very one-sided view of the subjects.
By the way, I'm also willing to accept at this point that, given the volume of sources included in Britishfinance's edits, that some mistakes can happen when summarizing the contents of sources.
To be clear, I do think that the views of the TJN and the work of academic political scientists, like Zucman, deserve a place in wikipedia but I do not think that their views should be given such prominence over definitions used by significant governments and international bodies (OECD, EU, UN) and task groups to the extent that a casual reader would form the strong opinion that the latter definitions are irrelivant. I'm not sure how to procede from here to try to restore some balance but I'm willing to work with Britishfinance or anyone else to contribute to any effort in this area to the extent of my available time for such work. Jimg (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your own comments show a bias against articles discussing Ireland's tax system (see my response above) and a desire to assert a view, without even reading the facts of the articles. Ireland is featuring as the largest Corporate tax haven on most independent measures. It is not the article's fault that this is so. The article goes to a lot of effort to fully list the fact base around these measures. Your comments and your allegation are very unworthy. Britishfinance (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this article is not about traditional tax havens, that is in the tax haven wiki. It is about corporate tax havens. A lot of traditional tax havens do not feature as corporate tax havens.

I have no bias against discussing Ireland's tax system but it should be done in the appropriate article where it will be seen by others with an interest and knowledge of the subject. The title of this article is "Corporate haven". This phase has a relatively widely accepted meaning which Britishfinance has deleted or relegated. Just because someone wants to do an article on "Corporate tax haven" - a novel concept - does not mean they have the right to hijack an existing article because it shares some common words and re-purpose it to cover another - albeit related - subject.

Outside of this article, Britishfinance's bias is clear; a rejection of the concept of tax haven as used by the OECD, the EU and the US government and a wish to push a redefinition of it to match that of Gabriel Zucman who is a political scientist not an international tax accountant. I have no issue with Gabriel Zucman's definition of what constitutes a tax haven being expanded apon in wikipedia - it's to be welcomed. I do have an issue with the removal of the orthodox definition of what constitutes a tax haven from this and related articles to promote one particular definition. Jimg (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing the OECD's one tax haven and the EU's 64 tax havens, as being an "orthodoxy" shows that you have one agenda here JIMG. This article was poor before and was really a copy of the other tax haven article but with some corporate elements. Past editors wanted to rename it "corporate tax haven" but the content was so weak that nobody seemed to care. The current version is an improvement and of a higher standard. It still lacks a section on Contract Manufacturing [Ireland is the leader in] and probably a section on some of the more disputed arguments on the positive role of corporate tax havens in economic growth - I see reference to JRHines, it's greatest advocate. Perhaps the article should be formally renamed "corporate tax haven" (a google test will show clearly which term is more popular).

The JIMG arguments either try to ignore the facts, or try to re-spin them. He reminds me of the Irish State response - "we cannot be a tax haven because the OECD does not say we are". It is not just GZucman who ranks Ireland as a corporate tax haven, every academic study since Hines, and the article has a good section on the various lists of corporate tax havens. Your attacks are personalised and seem almost conspiratorial but your use of OECD show that you have an agenda here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.187.2.221 (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "pushing" any one particular definition but when I read wikipedia articles I expect prominence to be given to definitions which are approved and agreed by governments and significant international bodies particularly when such definitions have broad international acceptance. I am happy if alternative definitions are included or credible challenges to such definitions are described but am not happy if history is being rewritten as it seems to have been done here. The lack of references to "traditional" (if you don't like the term "orthodox") havens like Belize, Delaware, US and UK Virgin Islands, Andorra, etc. despite the pre-Britishfinance version referring to them is weird to say the least. The article is now basically a cut down version of the Tax_haven article with similar emphasis and similarly almost unreadable. Also, I'd also appreciate it if you and the others I am arguing with would sign their Talk contributions so I can keep track of who is claiming what. Jimg (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a section outlining all the sources of definitions and lists of corporate tax havens and makes reference to the OECD and EU lists? Again, this is an article about chronicling the main research on corporate tax havens - Belize and Andorra don't make these lists (as I have noted before). BVI is a major corporate tax haven and is listed as such in this article (have you not read it)? Delaware is being noted by academics as a secrecy location but is not an independent jurisdiction, and is does not appear on established lists of corporate tax havens. Again, there are no accepted "definitions" of tax havens or corporate tax havens (which the article shows). This article is a chronicle of the major facts, and main academic literature, on corporate tax havens. You are trying to push definition which are not widely accepted, which the article still however chronicles for completeness, as the "only" consensus, because you do not want to see Ireland listed as a corporate tax haven (a simple google test of "corporate tax haven" will show how unsound this approach is), and you have been willing to make a diverse range of unfair attacks and allegations to do this (bath faith, organised spamming, page hi-jacking, salami-editing etc.).Britishfinance (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat - the title of this article is "Corporate haven" NOT "Corporate tax haven" or "Tax haven". So that Delaware does not appear in lists of tax havens, is irrelevant, as are your other claims about lists of tax havens.
And Delaware is a jurisdiction as are british crown dependencies, Swiss cantons, etc. all of which are well known as corporate havens.
You're really not reading what I'm writing. I did not accuse you of bad faith - I said I suspected it and later responded saying I did not believe you were editing in bad-faith but rather with extreme non-NPOV and bias. The salami-editing is clear and obvious and visible in the history of the articles you've contributed to. The spamming accusation was conditional but the more I read of your contributions, the more I see you replicate the same claims across many articles making it difficult or impossible to challenge them.
I'm repeating myself but I have absolutely no problem with a NPOV presentation of the facts around Ireland being used by corporations to avoid or defer tax. However, the way you've edited and created articles does nothing to advance such a presentation. Jimg (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]