ABC NEWS

Paradise Papers

The Paradise Papers showed that for the super-rich and major multinationals, fancy structures in offshore tax havens are the way they roll.

As the week went on, the Queen was seen investing in a dodgy hire-purchase company through a Cayman Islands fund, Formula 1 star Lewis Hamilton was pictured in his jet bought through the Isle of Man in an apparent tax dodge; Nike was exposed as shipping its profits through the low-tax jurisdiction of the Netherlands and big miners were revealed as the author of a new trick to cut their taxes.

Almost all the money went through tax havens, such as exotic locales in the sunny Caribbean or the stormy Channel Islands, with their exotic tax structures and, in the case of Bermuda, exotic local dress sense.

(What was with the Bermuda shorts and knee-high black socks seen on Four Corners’ Paradise Papers on Monday night?)

A man walks the streets of Bermuda dressed in what are known as Berumda shorts.

Picking through the documents in a database made available to Four Corners and its partner the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists by German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung, it was easy to form the view the super-rich and big multinationals live by a very different set of rules to those of everyday Australians.

The following fixes, views and thoughts were expressed by tax activists, tax experts and parliamentarians after a week of revelations in the Paradise Papers:

Is life too easy for multinationals?

Jim Killaly, a former deputy commissioner of the Australian Tax Office and a visiting fellow of the Australian National University’s Crawford school of public policy, sees little reason for multinationals to be given a free ride on certain tax rules.

He says the debt levels of 60 per cent debt to 40 per cent equity allowed in current policy settings are uncommercial and allow multinationals to game the system.

The gaming includes big companies taking on eye-watering levels of debt from their parents, allowing them to claim oversized interest payments back to their parents and in the process shipping what should have been taxable profits out of Australia.

The thinking behind the tax rules are making Australia attractive for foreign investors, but Mr Killaly sees Australia as pretty attractive any way.

“How much do you have to give away to be attractive, and are we giving away too much?” he said.

“We’re leaving too much on the table.”

The Federal Government says thin cap rules were tightened in 2015 and are in line with the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development recommendations.

Newly introduced multinational anti-avoidance legislation (MAAL) has made life uncomfortable for some multinationals.

At least 34 including Google and Facebook have either restructured or intend restructuring their business because of the law, which is designed to stop profits being shifted offshore.

How about a bounty for whistleblowers?

The fact that recent public discourse about tax havens has been based on two successive leaks, the Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers, speaks to the power of information being disclosed.

US authorities encourage such disclosures by offering a bounty to whistleblowers disclosing information that leads to successful prosecution of misbehaving companies.

In the case of the securities regulator the bounty is 10 per cent to 30 per cent of the monetary sanctions from the prosecution.

Since it was introduced in 2012 there has been $US111 million paid to 34 whistleblowers.

In Australia, a parliamentary joint committee report released in September recommended regulators could pay a “reward” to whistleblowers, based on a percentage of the penalty and consideration of the circumstances of the whistleblowing.

Current proposed reforms in Australia focus on protection and compensation for whistleblowers exposing financial misconduct.

Draft legislation released last month also creates new protections for tax whistleblowers.

“They can now come forward with confidence that they will be protected under a comprehensive and robust legal framework, knowing that they will have access to redress if they are victimised as a result of blowing the whistle,” a spokeswoman for Revenue and Financial Services Minister Kelly O’Dwyer said.

How do you stop ‘manufactured complexity’?

In the view of Mr Killaly, big multinationals thrive on “manufactured complexity” that has a simple purpose: avoiding tax.

Mr Killaly asks why, when there are 1,400 major company groups in Australia with revenues above $200 million, there are 7,500 “tax reporting entities”.

“I certainly ask the question why do you need more than one [for each major company group],” Mr Killaly said.

The Paradise Papers also revealed spaghetti junction diagrams of large companies signed off by big law firms and big accounting firms.

This chart shows the complex financial transactions that make up Project Salmon phase I

Crossing borders, touching down in tax havens and introducing complicated financing structures, they are no doubt perfectly legal — but they also give every appearance of “manufactured complexity”.

Without a single set of clear, public accounts showing the tax position of each major company group, ordinary Australians have little chance of understanding the revenues, taxable profit and tax paid by big companies.

“[The Paradise Papers show] billionaires are above the law and one of the ways they are able to maintain their position above the law is through secrecy,” said Tim Buckley, a director of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

“And that’s what tax havens are all about: how do you hide the money from the public?

“One of the ways to deal with this issue is to introduce country-level accounting so companies can be held accountable in the countries they operate in.”

Does the ATO have enough teeth?

Labor senator Chris Ketter, the chair of the Senate economics committee charged with the continuing investigation into corporate tax avoidance, says Australia is making “glacial progress” on fighting tax avoidance.

And he answered a simple “no” when asked whether the ATO has enough resources to take up the fight.

The minister’s spokeswoman disagrees, pointing to $679 million spent forming a Tax Avoidance Taskforce.

She also highlights doubled penalties for tax avoidance schemes and the new laws including the MAAL and a diverted profits tax.

“All of which ensure the ATO is equipped to crack down on tax avoidance,” the spokeswoman said.

The ATO’s estimate of a $2.5 billion “tax gap” between what big corporates should be paying compared to what they are paying prompts Mr Killaly’s interest, who argues it could be a multiple of that figure.

Mr Killaly has a nice anecdote about his view of the Australian Tax Office’s role: “You’ve got to be like a blue heeler constantly going after a creature that’s got a mind of its own, and it’s big and strong.”

“I’m not sure the blue heeler is getting enough of a feed and enough help at this stage.”

‘Tax avoidance is not a victimless crime’

The erosion of trust in the system — dubbed a “democratic deficit” by tax activists — has sparked legitimate questions about the central social contract regarding tax, questions that were echoed in comments on Paradise Papers stories throughout the week.

Boiled down, those questions were: “How do they get away with it?”

On the bright side, the ATO reports $4 billion in extra tax collected from corporates than they originally paid in the most recent tax year, and a further $1 billion from wealthy individuals.

But those kinds of payments show the size of the prize.

And closer to home: “If they don’t pay their taxes, why should I pay mine?”

“Multinational tax avoidance is not a victimless crime,” Senator Ketter said.

“It’s the ordinary people who end up picking up the tab and it’s less that’s available to governments to spend on schools and hospitals.”

And he sees a system that lifts the cloak of secrecy from multinational companies and wealthy individuals as a key step forward.

“We know that companies will go to extraordinary lengths to hide what they are doing,” he said.

“Once you expose it, open it up to public gaze, then it creates enormous pressure on them.”

And what about jail terms?

“I tell you what, sometimes you feel that is warranted,” Senator Ketter said.

Topics: tax, government-and-politics, fraud-and-corporate-crime, corruption, law-crime-and-justice, australia

First posted

ABC News

Paradise Papers

 

 

 

Paradise Papers

What is the leak and who is behind the firm Appleby?

By Four Corners and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists
Four Corners

Updated Sun at 11:46pm

The Paradise Papers are the largest leak in history with more than 13.4 million files revealing the workings of the tax haven industry.

Over half of those documents, 6.8 million, emanate from the offshore law firm, Appleby, but the leak also includes roughly half-a-million documents from the Singapore-based Asiaciti Trust and a further 6 million documents from corporate registries located in 19 tax havens.

The cache of documents reveals an industry designed to sell secrecy. It also offers rare insights into the complex offshore structures used by multinationals to minimise their tax bills.

The leaks were obtained by the German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung and shared with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and over 90 media partners including Four Corners.

The files include emails, bank statements, court documents and client records covering a period of 66 years — from 1950 to 2016.

Who is in the data?

Royalty, rock stars and 120 politicians from around the world are exposed in the documents.

Paradise Papers

The cache of leaked documents reveals an industry designed to sell secrecy. This is one story from a Four Corners investigation into the Paradise Papers.

Trump’s Commerce Secretary linked to Putin cronies
What are the Paradise Papers? Your questions answered
The secret, handwritten deal to ‘exploit’ Michael Hutchence’s estate
The surprising journey your money takes after buying a pair of Nikes
F1 champ Lewis Hamilton may have avoided tax on private jet
ATO cracks down on multinationals amid global document leak

They are joined by oligarchs from Russia, the Middle East, Asia and Africa.
The financial affairs of Queen Elizabeth II, US Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s key fundraiser and Russian tech investor Yuri Milner are revealed.

Closer to home, new details of Australian rock icon Michael Hutchence’s long contested estate are uncovered in the data.

On the corporate front there are rare insights into the hidden offshore tax structures used by multinationals including Facebook and mining giant Glencore.

What is Appleby?

Founded in Bermuda — an island well known for its zero corporate tax rate and perhaps lesser known for its quirky corporate attire, the Bermuda shorts — Appleby sets up companies, trusts and other offshore entities for thousands of clients including high wealth individuals, international banks and accounting firms as well as multinational corporations.

An old black and white headshot of Reginald Appleby from 1944.

A photo of Reginald Appleby from the July, 1944 edition of the Bermudian Magazine. Bermudian Magazine

Appleby considers itself an industry leader proving to the world that the offshore industry can operate cleanly and ethically. Its pitch appears to be as a law firm for the rich and respectable.

The firm was founded in the 1890s by Major Reginald Appleby, a lawyer who detested paying tax. In 1979 the firm began its expansion into a global institution with over 700 employees, operating in notorious tax havens including the Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Man.
In a public statement anticipating the leak, Appleby maintained it is committed to high standards and said while the firm does not tolerate illegal behaviour, “we are not infallible.”

Appleby’s corporate services division became independent in 2016 and operates under the name Estera.

Where are the “secrecy jurisdictions”?

Where are the 'secrecy jurisdictions'?

The Tax Justice Network says the terms secrecy jurisdiction and tax haven are interchangeable. Broadly, they are places where the laws and systems offer legal and financial secrecy to others.

The network notes that these jurisdictions provide “facilities that enable people or entities escape [from the] laws, rules and regulations of other jurisdictions…”

Recent international agreements have made it easier for tax authorities to get information from tax havens, but it’s still a battle.

Going offshore: Is this legal?

 

Inside the tax havens of the rich and powerful ABC News

Yes. Multinationals may use tax havens to smooth the flow of capital between company operations split across multiple countries.

The problem is those tax havens can also be used for aggressive tax planning which enables individuals or large corporations to avoid paying tax or evade tax altogether.

The big attraction of tax havens is that they offer low or even zero corporate tax rates.

Avoiding tax is not illegal but it may be against the spirit of the law. However, evading tax is illegal. Beyond that, defining the differences is tricky. The Australian Tax Office has published a guide to tax crimes – warning perpetrators face criminal convictions, fines, and even prison sentences.

So why does this matter?

The ATO estimated it was owed roughly $2.5 billion in missing tax revenue from large corporations and multinationals from the 2014-15 financial year. That’s money that could be used to fund public services like hospitals, schools and transport.

The use of tax havens allows large corporations and multinationals to avoid tax in a way that is out of reach for the average worker.

Critics say tax havens enable a two-tiered system where multinationals and high-wealth individuals can enjoy all the benefits of doing business within a stable law-based country like Australia but contribute little in return.

James Henry, from the Tax Justice Network, said the system was comparable to the dark days of a feudal society.

“You get a tiny group of people who are basically citizens of nowhere for tax purposes and yet are able to call in the benefits of society for defence, national security, all of the benefits of having a rule of law and courts that they take advantage of all the time to make their money and to pass it on.”

How is this different to the Panama Papers?

The leak of the Panama Papers last year focussed on the inner workings of Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca.

In terms of the volume of documents, the Paradise Papers leak is the larger of the two. The Panama Papers leak contained just over 11 million files compared with the 13.4 million documents in the Paradise Papers.

While the Panama data exposed world leaders, Mexican drug lords and relatives of Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad, the Appleby leak relates to a mostly blue-chip client list including politicians, celebrities and multinationals.

Credits

Reporters: Lisa Main, Marian Wilkinson, Sashka Koloff

Digital production: Mark Doman, Brigid Andersen

Design: Alex Palmer

Topics: tax, fraud-and-corporate-crime, multinationals, bermuda, australia