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.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath