In the wake of this week’s “Paradise Papers” revelations, fresh attention is focusing on the vexed topic of global tax transparency. While the disclosures in the 13.4 million newly released documents are financial in nature, they have already had significant political ramifications, including in London and Washington, especially after the release of the Panama Papers last year.
The Paradise Papers have put new exposure on hundreds of high-net worth individuals and politicians across the world, as well as wide-ranging multinational firms. However, at the hearty of the affair are the internal workings of numerous UK territories.
During the process of decolonization, Britain held on to a global network of islands, which either voted to remain UK territories or have not chosen independence. Amongst these are the present-day 14 overseas territories and three British dependencies, and it is these remnants of empire that are amongst the world’s leading centers of international tax avoidance.
Illustration: Louise Ting
London has taken actions in previous years to ensure that these islands have fairer and more open tax systems, but this remains work in progress. On Tuesday, British Labour Party shadow chancellor of the exchequer John McDonnell described the Paradise Papers disclosures as the “biggest tax scandal of this generation” and called for a UK public enquiry.
British Prime Minister Theresa May has said she wants “greater transparency,” but has refused to commit to such a public probe.
Last year, after the Panama Papers releases, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn proposed that the government impose direct rule on any of its territories if they do not conform fully to UK tax laws.
London has cracked down in the past in similar ways, so this is not inconceivable.
In 2009, it imposed direct rule on the Turks and Caicos after local officials were accused of selling government land for personal gain. The islands saw home rule restored only after the local government passed acts that mandated tax information-sharing with the British government.
Following the Panama Papers revelations last year, the UK government did not take any comparable measures for any of the territories that were named in them, but international and domestic pressure to act is mounting.
In Brussels, European Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs Pierre Moscovici has since the Paradise Papers disclosures promised to look into the matters swiftly and to potentially expedite an EU blacklist of offshore tax entities.
In Washington, Democrats have called for a probe into the Paradise Papers, including allegations of US Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross’ ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s son-in-law through a reported shipping venture in Russia.
US Senator Bernie Sanders has slammed what he believes is an “international oligarchy in which a handful of billionaires own and control a significant part of the global economy,” and has called for congressional consideration of US President Donald Trump’s proposed tax reforms to be halted.
Even further afield in the Asia-Pacific, the Australian Taxation Office has said it will investigate and work with partner agencies across the world following the Paradise Papers disclosures.
The Indian Board of Revenue confirmed it is already investigating numerous tax havens.
While the UK imposing direct rule on its territories is, in principle, a relatively straight-forward process, critics have said that a consequence of seeking to close down these centers of tax avoidance would be that people and firms would simply move their money from one jurisdiction to another where there might be even fewer tax regulations and less transparency.
Many have therefore said that what is needed are greater harmonized global moves toward tax transparency.
In May, the UK hosted an international anti-corruption summit and it has been at the fore of the global debate on tackling international tax avoidance. The 2013 G8 summit in Northern Ireland, for instance, resulted in the Lough Erne Declaration, which urged countries to “fight the scourge of tax evasion.”
Leaders agreed, for instance, to measures that would combat the illegal evasion of taxes, as well as the use of tax havens and loopholes.
Britain was also the first member of the G20 to establish a public central registry of company beneficial-ownership information, and in 2010 it introduced some of the world’s strictest legislation on bribery, making it a criminal offence for a company to fail to prevent a bribe from being paid, among other offenses.
Moreover, London co-chaired a UN panel that put tackling corruption at the heart of the new UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Nonetheless, the Paradise Papers are ratcheting up pressure further to increase tax transparency. While dramatic action in the coming days is unlikely, campaigning at national and global levels for new measures to tackle this issue are likely to intensify as new revelations continue to surface.
Andrew Hammond is an associate at LSE IDEAS at the London School of Economics.
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)