Task Force Blog

Blog

EU official criticises OECD, UK, Germany on transparency

November 24, 2010

By Nicholas Shaxson

Nicholas Shaxson, the editor of TJN's Tax Justice Focus and writer for the Tax Justice Network, is an associate fellow at Chatham House in London and the author of a book about tax havens, entitled Treasure Islands, launched in 2011.

Last week Algirdas Šemeta, EU Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union, Audit and Anti-Fraud, made a presentation entitled The Importance of Information Exchange in Tax Matters.

He was speaking in an official capacity, it seems. Like the Italian Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti, who recently criticised Germany’s and the UK’s tax deals with Switzerland, Šemeta gives short shrift to those who think a witholding tax regime alone is good enough:

“It is much more interesting for a tax authority to receive comprehensive information about the assets owned by its residents abroad than to receive only a withholding tax on the income produced by such assets. Such a withholding tax may generate some revenue, but it does not allow Member States to assess the overall tax base of their residents. As a consequence, the progressivity of some tax scheme cannot properly be applied. This leads to less revenue and the unequal treatment of taxpayers.”

And he criticises the OECD’s woefully flawed “on request” model of information exchange

Undoubtedly, the OECD standards of transparency and exchange of information have paved the way for international consensus on the importance of effective exchange of information for collecting taxes. But as you may know, the OECD standards, which prevent States from invoking bank secrecy to refuse access to information, concerns exchange of information on request. This approach only works if the State that needs the information already has indications that a tax resident may have financial interests in another State.

Quite so. It’s the OECD’s Catch-22 approach. And then, back to the UK’s and Germany’s deeply flawed deals:

In this context, a distinction must be made between our closest neighbours and other international partners. Our European neighbours are closely associated to all our policies, through the EFTA and EEA agreements and, particularly in the case of Switzerland, also through a series of bilateral EU agreements. As a result, our respective markets are closely integrated and cross-border trade and investment are intense.

It is therefore only logical that we have higher expectations for these countries, and that we expect them to cooperate more closely with the EU on the exchange of information. In this context, it is not sufficient that individual EU Member States conclude bilateral agreements with third countries which provide for the OECD standards of transparency and exchange of information.

He is quite right. Fantastic to see influential people speaking truth to power.

Share

Disclaimer: Unless specifically stated to be the views of the Task Force, the opinions expressed on this blog are solely the opinions of the individual blogger and are not necessarily those of the Task Force on Financial Integrity & Economic Development.

Latest Press Releases

GFI Calls on G8 to Tackle Illicit Financial Flows at Camp David Summit

Global Financial Integrity · May 17, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – Global Financial Integrity (GFI) today called on leaders of the G8 to concretely tackle the issue of illicit financial ...

Civil Society, Business Groups Call on Congress to Support Incorporation Transparency, Ban Anonymous U.S. Shell Companies

FACT Coalition · May 16, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, 41 business and civil society groups sent a letter to every member of the U.S. House of Representatives ...

Glencore ‘should explain potentially corrupt deals in Congo’ – Global Witness

Global Witness · May 5, 2012

LONDON - Global Witness is today calling on Glencore to explain potentially corrupt deals in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and is ...