Finance Essays Tax Havens

pay Essays Tax HavensTax HavensCritical Analysis of Tax Havens deep down an multi provinceal ContextThe following newsprint ordain stretch a decisive analysis of evaluate oasiss within an supra realmalist context. Specific aloney, this paper leave implore that there is both good and bad to call in harbors and that favourable appraise policies r unwrap divulge both assist the host country and multinationals eager to optimise their earnings and saves.In particular, this paper will n bingle how r level(p)ue harbors be a lot accused of creating unfair returns for companies that ar competing for public contracts at the same time, appraise harbor policies in Bermuda consider made that country a leading destination for e-commerce and technology firms.Moving onward, there is evidence that the onshore pecuniary services offered by these nar prescribes have advancen them an unimagined level of affluence even if it is true that measureation harbour s tatus is frowned upon international organizations uniform the OECD. Moreover, being a levy harbor is no warrantee that overseas companies will actually take the time to establish true(a) business activities in the country.Further more than(pre nominative), the impose haven policies that grant overgenerous revenue enhancement casts to overseas operations have been accused of depleting the appraise bow of nations that ar sop uping their revenues drop as corporations flee for greener pastures needless to say, this has grue nigh consequences when one pauses to consider retributive how m whatever friendly services be dependent upon public money for their survival. There are, of course, additional take downs that warrant a hearing, as well.Individuals at least in the United States who think they will profit from flocking to overseas assess havens may find that the long outgrowth of the Ameri raft evaluate revenue code will track them down wheresoever they may clantle on an even more serious none, the miss of institutional transparency prepare in imposeation income haven lands non totally allows criminals to avoid paying taxes but allows them to carry out their unlawful money laundering schemes.Not least of all, this paper will a homogeneous take the time to ponder how tax haven policies have facilitated tax avoidance on the part of the wealthy and have posely imperilled mixer services at the exact same time as they agitate the middle class and lower class with a monumental tax burden similarly, the generous tax policies of maturation lands vis-a-vis foreign multinationals cigarette unhappily deprive them of much-needed resources which hobo be put towards essential social services. Staying with the notion that there is both good and bad to be found in tax haven policies, this essay will embark on a brief discussion of the consequences upon corporations of utilizing the services of tax haven maintains.On one hand, tax haven states indubitably serve as a core of protecting the savings of corporations during difficult periods on the other hand, the isolated costs associated with moving from a western hemisphereern land to a three world nation (all because of the tax benefits to be realized) can bear with it surprising hidden costs that can harm valuation.One pass away affaire this paper wishes to bring to the attention of its readers is that tax havens are not forever found in developing lands and these first-world havens can hold up the resting places for the savings of individuals who may not alship canal have the best of reputations. In the end, tax havens sure as shooting have a place in the world but they will function infinitely better once definitive guidelines on their mandate can be drawn up by the international federation and enforced rigorously by that same community.Critics of international tax havens often point to the fact that they create unfair advantages for companies compe ting for government contracts elsewhere. To put it another(prenominal) way, concerns (in the United States) have been raised that these contractors (those who have subsidiaries in tax haven countries) are at an unfair cost advantage relative to their controversy insofar as they are able to lower their United States tax liability by shifting income to what is comm save referred to as tax haven parent.In a real sense, this factor that powerful US corporations are shifting income from affiliates in high-tax countries to affiliates (subsidiaries) in low-tax countries so that they can subject their overall tax burden. In 2002, the GAO revealed that 59 of the 100 biggest publicly-traded federal contractors were incarnate in a so-called tax haven country that each did not tax corporate income or taxed the income at a rate below the American rate. Cl beforehand(predicate), these countries have tax policies that attract American multinationals with the technical and human resources the y possess but they a same(p) siphon money out-of-door from the US treasury at the same time as they give contractors prohibitive advantages during the bidding process.One notable example of how contractors who exploit tax haven policies in other countries have excited the wrath of American legislators can be found by looking at the example of Accenture and its ugly fight only a hardly a(prenominal) years agone with Illinois law-makers. During 2004, at least four contracts awarded to Accenture were attacked by legislators because the comp some(prenominal) had taken bountiful advantage of a loophole in the Illinois tax code that permitted corporations to shift wage to overseas locations so as to avoid paying taxes in the state of Illinois.The matter escalated in no time at all to the point where the State Comptroller was actually asking the Illinois Procurement Policy be on about the feasibility of blocking all payments to four Accenture contracts adding up to more than $2 m illion. On an even larger scale, the US House Appropriations perpetration approved an amendment to the homeland security spending bill that legally bar Accenture from being a participant in the $10 one million million US Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Program.One country that has an handsome tax policy (if you are a wealthy corporation) is Bermuda. The British island settlement has no corporate income tax and is tax-neutral in terms of how it treats holding companies. A holding company that is actually incorporated in the United States and which receives specie dividends from overseas affiliates/subsidiaries can see its gross dividends pass directly to shareholders.Because of its generous tax policies, Bermuda is now marketing itself as an e-commerce center that is perfect for international technology companies located all over the world. Not surprisingly, the Bermudan flak to attracting technology firms (and the jobs and expertise they offer) has been p icked up in countries wish Ireland that are dandy on targeting preferred firms.The benefits that accrue to tax haven states are sufficiently appealing that the countries employing this practice are extremely reluctant to part ways with it even if it curries the disfavour of the international community. Most of all, the provision of what are called offshore financial services has given these countries a measure of affluence they could not have achieved otherwise indeed, many small island economies (referred to nigh commonly as but SIEs) visual sense the emergence of an Offshore Financial Center (OFC) as a panacea for stinting disadvantage possibly because (though it is not stated explicitly in the articles this writer has encountered) the employment op mannerunities that become available within the financial sector of the SIE courtesy the arrival of multinationals looking for attractive tax and financial services are undeniable.Because examples give force and vigour to any a rgument, it is necessary to glance at the case study of Malta. Here, the tiny nation which does not have an over-abundance of natural or human resources by any means has become renowned for its status as a tax haven more significantly, it has parlayed its generous tax concessions to foreign investors and companies into a mooring wherein its financial services sector is burgeoning at a robust rate.Specifically, 12 portion of Maltas gross domestic product was to be found in the financial services sector in 2004 and the sector employed about 6,000 topical anesthetic residents. Another good example of a country that has rescued itself from a troubling financial situation by turning itself into a tax haven is the Isle of Man.Other research reiterates the idea that tax haven policies have a beneficial impact upon a countrys economic health. For example, whilst major tax havens have actually less than one percent of the worlds population (excluding the United States), and whilst they have (as of 2005) only about 2.3 percent of the globes gross domestic yield or gross domestic product, they nonetheless host 5.7 percent of the foreign employment and 8.4 percent of the equipment, plant and property of American companies.At the same time, the per capita real GDP in the tax haven nations grew by a healthy rate of 3.3 percent in the years 1982-1999 al around 2.5 times the world average. Furthermore, in spite of fears that the combination of small populations and relative affluence in these lands would effectuate the creation of even larger governments, the reality is that the ratio of government to GDP in these locations is fairly reasonable.Possibly prompted by the Bermudan example and by a few other states identified as high priorities, the OECD set about defining a tax haven in a seminal 1998 paper that continues to reverberate to this day. Most significantly, a tax haven country has a policy of not imposing taxes (or only nominal ones) offers itself or is viewe d as offering itself, as a place that permits non-residents to hunt taxation in their homeland (or nation of residence) does not have an effective exchange of instruction with outside parties lacks transparency and attracts businesses with no substantial activities these last two criteria, especially, will be touched upon at various points after in this paper.In the defence of these two states, each one does impose indirect taxes for instance, Bermuda has a fairly hefty payroll tax and likewise places taxes upon on all goods purchased on the island. Nonetheless, only the most ardent athlete would suggest that these two countries fail to rise to the level of tax-haven states.In terms of attracting foreign multinationals, tax haven policies are difficult to beat. However, critics charge that countries like Bermuda do not simply attract real economic investing but also brass plate or booking operations that are characterized by a lack of actual business performance in other wor ds, international organizations like the OECD become suspicious when they see companies locating to places like Bermuda (or even Ireland) which do not have a lot of business-related action taking place.For countries that are trying to attract jobs as well as foreign capital, it would seem as though having tax haven policies can be a bit of a double-edged sword in the sense that a) other countries are sharply vituperative towards their preferential taxation practices and b) these policies may not attract the jobs the aforementioned countries are hoping for. In fairness, tax haven policies in the United Arab Emirates (specifically, in the port city of Dubai) have attracted plentiful foreign investment on a scale that has (amongst other things) allowed the city to develop its communication and infrastructural capabilities while con latestly wooing upscale tourists.One other problem with tax haven policies that offer low or non-existent tax rates is that international organizations li ke the OECD have asserted that they undermine the tax base (presumably of the countries that are sightedness businesses flee elsewhere) and erode public services in fact, harmful tax competition has been compared to competitive devaluations and to tariff wars.To expand on this last point, the OECD (in 1998), released a study which argued that tax haven countries divert large amounts of foreign direct investment and taxable income away from OECD member states. The tension between the OECD and tax haven nations has long threatened those lands trying to give corporations and individuals advantageous tax rates as well as the benefits of greater privacy. However, there is some sense that this tension is dissipating as more and more tax haven states belatedly embrace international best standards of practice.Be that as it may, only the most wildly optimistic person would dare say that the current hostility between the OECD and small tax haven states is not sturdy the willingness of the above-named countries to cut multinationals slack in terms of what they pay in the form of corporate taxes has raised the ire of the OECD and the powerful western nations which lie in its membership to such(prenominal)(prenominal) an extent that real political and even diplomatical problems could still linger in the future.To get to the heart of the problem, the OECDs gustation for naming transgressors and then shaming them in the court of international opinion has been comprehend as bullying in some quarters certainly, the nations that are targeted or have been targeted by the OECD are small, politically and economically weak and burdened with limited economic prospects, save for the financial services and tax breaks they offer to foreigners.One can maintain that a lot of this tension would simply go away if the countries engaging in tax haven policies and practices would complete their current practices but that ignores the reality that these countries need the financial be nefits that accrue from such activities moreover, it is worth asking what the financial implications will be for multinationals and for the communities in developing lands that benefit even if indirectly from their presence.Individual Americans who think that tax havens are the perfect thing for them should give the idea a bit more thought tax haven nations may be enticing in many respects, but US tax law makes it hard for individuals to bunkerness money somewhere else in the expectation they will not have to pay.For instance, US citizens are taxed on their world-wide income the tax breaks found in places like the Caribbean, Luxembourg, or the Caymans do not apply to individual US citizens fair corporations. Furthermore, an offshore compact aimed at mitigating the tax burden will not work for US citizens the rules simply assume that the private citizen earned so much money each year and do not view any profit from the partnership as being a simplex long-term capital gain as s uch, interest is added onto the taxes that the private US citizen must pay the government. As if that is not bad enough, the capital gains arising from the partnership is taxed as regular income and not as capital gain which means higher tax rates in the end.Beyond what has been discussed above, individuals and companies using tax havens to avoid paying taxes may not simply be doing this word form of thing to spare themselves at tax time money launderers like tax haven countries like the Bahamas because of the fact they disclose little information about the companies or individuals doing business within their environs additionally, money launderers tend to exploit tax havens to the fullest extent possible.For all intents and purposes, tax haven policies truly make life easier (though not trouble-free) for criminals eager to avoid the prying eyeball of government. As an addendum, it must be mentioned that the United States government has recently taken action to reduce the pay-of f for wealthy individuals eager to exploit tax shelters. rest with America for just a while longer, the matter of off-shore tax havens has become so important to the United States government that exhaustive legislative hearings on this very matter have become de rigueur in recent years. thus far another challenge posed by tax havens is that they are so difficult to tackle from a legal point of view something that distinctly favours criminals at the same time as it grossly disadvantages law enforcement. To elaborate, at least one noted scholar has commented that it is well-nigh impossible to rise a universal definition of a tax haven that can be used to effectively combat the fiscal abuses associated with this global phenomenon.Until such time as the international community comes to a universal instinct of the concept of a tax haven, criminals can feel reasonably infrangible that there will be at least a few places on earth willing to embrace them and their tawdry business pursu its. disdain the conceptual challenges posed, the United States as much as any nation has decided that it has had quite enough of the tax evasion and money-laundering activities characteristic of tax haven nations with their generous tax avoidance policies. Recent court decisions in the US have expanded the power of US states to tax the income of corporations that do not have a natural lexus with the state.In essence, the courts have taken the position that an out-of-state corporations so-called in-state economic presence renders the absence of a bodily presence (headquarters or office buildings or any kind of physical structure at all) entirely irrelevant as to determining the states capacity to pursue that corporation for money.Another problem that tax haven policies bring is that they give the wealthy one more means by which they can avoid paying their full weight in taxes. In essence, tax havens offer tax avoidance options to companies and to wealthy individuals as a result , the tax burden ultimately ends up being borne (more and more) by the middle class and by those with fewer financial resources.Suffice it to say, as the rich grow richer while the poor grow poorer (courtesy onerous tax burdens), the ability of the poor to invest in education plummets. Over time, this can lead to a general decline in productivity a decline causing great harm to the country that is unable to carry the rich from exploiting one tax avoidance scheme after another.The baleful consequences of tax havens upon nations that are seeing the flight of capital resources to far-off places reaches beyond just imposing a greater burden upon those ill-equipped to articulatio humeri that burden tax havens also imperil social services that are already under attack in an age of neo-liberalism. For example, in early 2005, it was reported that Canadas top 5 banks shifted about $10 billion to offshore tax havens in the period from 1991 to 2004.According to the academic who headed up th e study, the utilization of offshore tax havens and shelters is tantamount to engaging in economic terrorism insofar as the monies lost make it difficult (with the potence to be impossible) for the government to finance social programs that need public funds to survive.Despite the protestations of the banks in question that their foreign-based subsidiaries located in tax-haven lands such as Malta, Barbados and the Cayman Islands are simply a means of taking advantage of the competitive tax policies located overseas, the report stresses the aforementioned dollar date and the fact that the total number of subsidiaries for the big five stood at 73 as of the end of 2004.Nor is the problem of tax avoidance confined just to wealthy western nations that are finding it increasingly difficult to provide appropriate social programs in an era when their populations are aging at an alarming rate in countries that feature (or have featured in the past) tax haven policies, the government is ofte n unable to collect all the taxes it would like to service all the social programs it would like.For instance, whilst Chile has long been the most attractive country in the world when it comes to mining and direct investment in this field, the worlds leading copper producer also does not charge a royalty on the extraction of its most precious natural resource and its taxes are incredibly low and sometimes non-existent because of legal accounting loopholes that allow for generous write-offs for things like equipment.Tax haven policies appear to offer many positives and more than a few negatives something this paper has noted time and again. While it can be argued a number of different ways, one would be remiss not to point out that private equity firms (or maybe any firm) doing business in a country in the midst of a financial downturn can and certainly have used offshore tax havens to shelter the cabbage on their investments American equity firms, as a matter of fact, did preci sely this during the late 1990s to protect their investments in Korean financial institutions. given(p) what has been described in the last paragraph, it is tempting to say that companies which move their operations abroad to escape paying taxes at home benefit handsomely from the transfer after all, why leave the technologically-advanced, human resource-rich and affluent west for a small or developing peripheral economy unless (amongst a few other reasons) the organizations senior thinkers were intent upon saving as many dollars as possible from the taxman? Unfortunately, the expected tax savings do not automatically exceed the non-tax costs associated with the above-mentioned move if anything, the decision to set up new subsidiaries (or to pick up stakes and move elsewhere) has manifested negative repercussions in the form of hidden and unheralded costs that negatively impact firm valuation.Proceeding along, it is commonly perceive maybe less so than in the past that tax haven nations are predominantly nations that are less developed than those countries found in the west the truth, though, is rather more different. Difficult as it may seem, even affluent western nations can properly be described as tax havens the United Kingdom being the best example. In capital of the United Kingdom in particular, the favourable tax laws are such that many Russian elites who, in some instances, have reputations that warrant a bit of prettify have injected vast sums of capital into the local economy.At the same time, capital of the United Kingdom (and the United Kingdom in general) is not alone Switzerland has also attracted trade of Russian capital and it seems as though the two are trustworthy for the staggering flight of roughly $102 billion from Russia between 1998 and 2004. Again, the money that flows out of Russia now is the kind of money that could be directed towards such things as social programs and the like.