Kony 2012 is part-documentary, part-over-produced-Hollywood-flick that has engendered an enormous amount of attention and emotion on Facebook, Twitter, and blogs. It concerns Joseph Kony, a warlord from Uganda who, with the help of his forces, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), has abducted and enslaved tens of thousands of children in his own country, as well as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic. He remains at large, despite the fact that he is wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court and that President Obama has sent U.S. soldiers to help hunt him down.
But in the media, the video itself hasn’t been the dominant issue. Rather it is the fact that the video has generated so much attention itself that is, apparently, the most attention-worthy. And perhaps as a direct result of all this attention, the short film has also generated a whole lot of obloquy.
Task Force Director Raymond Baker is speaking right now at Georgia Tech, his alma mater, on inequality and the future for business students. It is being streamed live here. Note: a quick, free, registration is required to view the feed.
The OECD’s Insight Blog has published a discussion between Christian Chavagneux (co-author of Tax Havens: How Globalisation Really Works) and the OECD’s Pascal Saint-Amans. The latter claims success (“early measures to deter tax evasion have already resulted in 100,000 individuals paying a total of $14bn in unpaid tax”), while Chavagneux argues that the measures taken since 2009 do not go far enough: ”Unfortunately, the G20 is still far from having done everything to control these parasitical states.”
I recommend you read the blog direct, but first a few comments about the claims being made.
First, Saint-Amans cites $14 billion being raised from anti-evasion measures, but this is largely the product of other initiatives and certainly cannot be attributed to the G20′s initiative to promote Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs).
Second, while there has indeed been a significant increase in the number of TIEAs signed since 2009, as the OECD notes, there is little evidence that the TIEAs signed either before or after that date have proved effective. Indeed, Chavagneux cites a recent statement by French finance minister Valérie Pécresse that TIEAs are simply not up to the job:
“France made 230 requests for information to 18 countries in the first 8 months of 2011. The reply rate was only 30% and the quality of the information supplied wasn’t always of the highest quality, adding weight to the demand of international NGOs to move to a system of automatic exchange of information.”
Bringing back what’s ours
The Hindu, March 14, 2012
Humans for sale
Islands Business (Fiji), March 13, 2012
Corruption eating away PSM: SC
The Pakistan Tribune, March 14, 2012
Zimbabwe: ‘No to Corruption’
Office of the Prime Minister (Press Release), March 13, 2012
Haitian Official Convicted In US For Laundering Bribes
The Wall Street Journal (blog), March 13, 2012
New study reveals serious flaws in OECD’s tax evasion crackdown
The OECD’s Global Forum peer review, the main mechanism for assessing the effectiveness of Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs), is seriously flawed and therefore contributes to failure in reducing rampant tax evasion.
The findings of a new Tax Justice Network report published today run directly counter to claims made by the OECD that its TIEAs represent the new international standard on tax transparency.
The Creeping Futility of the Global Forum’s Peer Reviews, written by Markus Meinzer, has established:
The Task Force and its members employ a number of experts in the fields of law, public policy, and economics. Over the next few weeks, several of these experts will be giving a few talks and presentations on a variety of issues related to the fight for global financial transparency. If you are able to attend, these represent great opportunities to both learn more about these issues and network with other concerned citizens.
Here are some upcoming public presentations:
As always, you can view these events and dozens more on the Task Force Event Calendar, available here.
Africa: Gloves come off in diplomatic feud between South Africa and Nigeria (analysis)
Daily Maverick (South Africa), March 8, 2012
Senate Approves Bill Targeting Offshore Tax Havens
The American Banker, March 8, 2012
Tax Havens and Tax Loopholes = Tax Evasion
Policyshop (blog), March 9, 2012
The Merits of a Corporate Tax Overhaul
Economix, March 9, 2012
Vatican Makes Money Laundering List Of U.S. State Department
Reuters, March 8, 2012
In a judgment having far-reaching consequence, a three judges bench of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India, has set aside the Mumbai High Court judgment, which had required Vodafone to pay capital gains tax worth US$2.5 billion to the Government of India for a transaction that had seen the company acquire 67 per cent stake in Hutchison Essar (a mobile phone operator in India) in 2007. Vodafone, the second largest telecom operator in India, had challenged the tax bill over its US$11.5 billion deal to buy Hutchison Whampoa Ltd.’s Indian mobile business in 2007, and appealed to the Supreme Court (SC) after losing the case in the Mumbai High Court.
Vodafone’s main argument was that the Government of India cannot levy taxes because the transaction was made between non-Indian companies outside the country; the deal was between Vodafone International Holdings BV – a Dutch subsidiary of Vodafone – and CGP Investments Ltd., a Cayman Islands company, which held the Indian telecom assets of Hutchison. Indian tax authorities, however, held that the transaction was taxable because the assets acquired by Vodafone are based in India.
The below diagram taken from here illustrates how this transaction was structured, enabling the transfer of shares of an Indian company to take place outside India.
I’m delighted to see a paper with the above title by Tax Justice Network’s John Christensen has been published in the Journal of Crime, Law and Social Change. As the abstract says:
This paper considers the role of secrecy jurisdictions in creating a supply-side stimulus for corrupt practices and explores the use of the newly created Financial Secrecy Index as a tool for assessing and ranking such jurisdictions.
Secrecy jurisdictions are a prominent feature of international financial markets, providing a combination of low or zero tax rates, lax regulation, weak international judicial cooperation, and—above all—legalised secrecy facilities.
Update 5:09 - The amendment passed via unanimous consent today. Now, the House of Representatives needs to follow suit.
Today is an important day for the tax justice movement in the United States. The U.S. Senate will consider an amendment (SA 1818, Levin-Conrad) that will allow the Department of Treasury to take action against foreign financial institutions that, “significantly impede U.S. tax enforcement.” The Senate should pass this amendment.
Article 311 of the Patriot Act allows Treasury to take measures against foreign financial institutions or jurisdictions that it finds to be, “of primary money laundering concern.” This amendment would extend that same authority to foreign institutions that assist in U.S. tax evasion. The link makes sense – the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) made the same connection last month – by any reasonable standard. Foreign banks are currently afraid of ending up in Treasury’s cross-hairs regarding money laundering, and should be equally scared of finding themselves in the same spot regarding tax evasion.
The provision should be a no-brainer. This is a tool required by authorities to enforce existing laws. Treasury could use it to do things like prohibiting U.S. banks accepting wire transfers or credit cards from foreign banks who are found to actively assist in tax evasion. These types of penalties effectively all but eliminated many of the shell banks used by transnational criminal and terrorist organizations following the 9/11 attacks.
During the last century there have been many successes in women’s’ rights movements, but there remains a lot of work to be done in accomplishing gender equality. In the book Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide, authors Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn retell an experience had by Bill Gates during a speaking engagement in Saudi Arabia. Women made up roughly one fifth of the audience during his presentation and were not only separated, but also partitioned off from the men in the room – ranking 131 out of 135 in the World Economic Forum’s 2011 Global Gender Gap Report, Saudi Arabia has a long way to go towards gender equality. Near the end of the presentation,
“a member of the audience noted that Saudi Arabia aimed to be one of the top ten countries in the world in technology by 2010 and asked if that was realistic. ‘Well, if you’re not fully utilizing half the talent in the country,’ said Gates, ‘you’re not going to get too close to the top ten.”
Gates’ comment touches on an important aspect of gender issues. Not only is gender equality a basic human right, it is a necessary component of economic development, and growing economies must invest in human capital. According to the World Economic Forum’s report,
“The most important determinant of a country’s competitiveness is its human talent – the skills, education and productivity of its workforce – and women account for one-half of the potential talent base throughout the world.”
Cross-posted with permission from Left Foot Forward.
Yesterday ActionAid released a new report, detailing how tax changes being brought forward in the Budget could result in tax losses of £4 billion a year for poor countries and £1 billion for the UK. These changes will make it much easier for multinational companies to use tax havens to dodge their bills, particularly in the developing world.
Not only will this make it much harder for poor countries to become independent of international aid, these rule changes are totally contrary to the rhetoric from all parties on the importance of cracking down on tax avoidance.
Indeed, there’s strong support from voters of each of the main political parties for the government to take further action to stop large companies dodging their taxes.
YouGov polling (pdf) for ActionAid showed 74% of Conservative voters, 83% of Labour voters and a huge 87% of Lib Dem voters want the government to do more. Just 14% supported the proposal to water down UK anti-tax haven rules.
In a response to ActionAid, the Treasury’s main argument was “The Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) rules are designed to protect the UK tax base from artificial diversion of profits.”
September 25, 2014·
Owners of anonymous companies registered in U.S. states are ripping off innocent people and businesses across America, says a new report by ...
September 21, 2014·
WASHINGTON, D.C.—The G20’s recent focus on financial transparency is a welcome development, but instituting bare minimum requirements, or plans that allow for ...
September 16, 2014·
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) new recommendations to fight multinational corporate tax avoidance look robust from ...