Well, this will get interesting. 2.6 terabytes of leaked information detailing secret affairs of many prominent and powerful world leaders, politicians, sporting bodies and athletes. The largest ever data leak.
In summary: About two years ago, a whistleblower sold internal data from a Panamanian law firm to the German authorities. But the dataset was much older and smaller in scope. It addressed a few hundred offshore companies, whereas this new leak, dubbed the Panama Papers, provides data on some 214,000 companies. Mossack Fonseca is a Panamanian provider of offshore companies with dozens of offices all over the world. The data released shows how a global industry led by major banks, legal firms and asset management companies secretly manages the estates of politicians, FIFA officials, fraudsters and drug smugglers, celebrities and professional athletes.
There's a whole
section on FIFA corruption. It's the age of information and, as we continually see, information wants to be free.
@PragueAddick was this you mate? ;-)
Comments
I can understand the need for secrecy and protection for the source, but I'm just incredibly curious right now.
Aside from that, the information itself looks fascinating. Some of the early analyses look good, but it would be great to have the data normalised and placed somewhere it can be queried on demand.
I imagine there are many many stories to be told over the coming months..
However, if I had investment property, which I don't, this would be acquired through an Isle of Man company. That company, would be a wholly-owned subsidiary of a BVI company, which, in turn, would be wholly-owned by a BVI succession trust.
Guess how much inheritance tax would be paid in the UK in the event of my death?
Guess what taxes there are in the BVIs?
No capital gains tax, no gift tax, no sales tax or value added tax, no profit tax, no inheritance tax or estate duty, and no corporation tax.
There is income tax but it's currently zero-rated.
Why would anyone do business anywhere else?
The BBC are running with this story. A few minutes later they go onto their business section where they remind us to organise our ISA allowance worth 15 grand before the deadline. And also where to find the best interest rates.
Now, what part of this other shit did you vote on as being good for the country? And why on earth would you vote for it, even if in some parallel universe it was presented to you as an option?
I don't remember a big hoo ha when CAFC set up offshore under Baton using the same principles.
It stinks but that's why it needs changing. Whilst it's still legal people will take advantage of it.
It could be cheaper and less hassle for many billionaires to leave their money in the UK and replace foreign lawyer and accountant fees with taxes, if tax rates were set to optimise tax revenues rather than political posturing (on both sides). Much of the overseas money can't be repatriated to the UK to be spent in the UK so we lose out on both counts.
We seem to get greater pleasure from more money being taken away from the rich in the misguided belief it brings them down nearer everyone else's level, than seeing them keep more money that stays in the UK to generate more economic activity, more taxes and more state funding for essential services and welfare.
Why do we have such a gap between the super rich and the poor? One reason might be because it's now easier to move wealth around electronically and the more countries try and tax the wealthy, the more they seek to avoid paying tax. Also, the more we try and block tax loopholes, and the more complex tax law becomes, then ironically the more are the possibilities of finding technical flaws in the rules.
Most countries, apart from tax havens, tax the wealthy at rates in excess of 50% when a rate nearer 20% would make it not worth the effort to avoid paying tax. A small rate applied to a big number often yields more than a high rate applied to a low number.
Tax relief for ISAs is just one example of where the UK has to give tax relief in order to avoid taxation inhibiting good behaviours of individuals and business, such as saving and investment. Billionaires choosing to move their earnings offshore is an example of taxation causing bad behaviour. Instead of eliminating the cause of the bad behaviour of billionaires we seek to punish them for not exhibiting good behaviours.
Tax havens would not exist if there was not a demand, choking off demand makes more sense to me than a futile chase of billionaires around the world who will always be one step ahead. Banking laws to make it too difficult to use tax havens combined with a reduction in tax rates Worldwide would make more sense to me if it has the effect of more tax being paid, than wailing about the existence of tax havens and wanting to punish rich bastards for making money and legally avoiding tax they have an option not to pay.
He's right when he says we're all in together... We could all do it if we were that rich
Here's an extract from today's article about this matter on their web site (with my emphasis):
"The European Savings Directive
To try to stop people hiding money from the tax authorities the European Union introduced the European Savings Directive (ESD). Basically, banks in EU countries collect the tax due on bank accounts held by citizens of other EU countries. So you can't be an Irish person with a Dutch bank account and hope the Irish tax authorities won't find out about it or collect the tax owed. The ESD made it much more difficult to hide your money in Europe. It is interesting because when the ESD was being discussed and introduced there was a sudden increase in people who wanted to open bank accounts outside Europe, hence the surge of interest in places like Panama and the British Virgin Islands."
First, it is entirely normal to have bank accounts overseas. (Mrs cafcfan has one in Washington DC because it's convenient to have a US$ debit card.)
Second, not shouting out the whereabouts of your money and how much you have got is not, of itself "hiding money". It is merely being prudent and security-conscious. If anyone disagrees with that scenario, can I suggest they hand over their bank account details to the first Nigerian who asks. Keeping you personal financial affairs confidential is not a crime: it's being prudent.
Third, in most jurisdictions, there is no tax due on bank accounts. The only tax due on bank accounts is in respect of any interest earned (and these days there's precious little of that). Indeed at least one Swiss bank has negative interest rates.
Fourth, even in the UK, there is self-reporting of capital gains in excess of the annual allowance. The taxman relies upon people being honest, if they are not and get found out, well I guess we hope the taxman comes down on them like a ton of bricks. So you might just as well hide capital here as in an offshore centre. There would be no difference.
Fifth, and amusingly, the European Savings Directive doesn't exist. It was repealed in November last year. The reason: because the global OECD common reporting standards were better and have been adopted by pretty much everyone. This has been underpinned by the EU putting in place a new directive which extends the scope of information exchange to include interest, dividends, and income and is generally broader in scope than the old directive (2003/48/EC). This has not been news to anyone - except the BBC it seems - for a long, long while as is evidenced by its numeration: 2014/107/EU.
As I say, don't necessarily expect the Beeb to get everything (or maybe anything) right.