Is it safe to have an offshore account for UK residents?

The UK’s tax authorities, HM Revenue & Customs re-assure now investors that there is absolutely nothing wrong in having savings in an offshore account. Indeed if an individual is resident, but not domiciled, in the UK, he can, by keeping the interest abroad, increase the return on the investment because maybe will no pay taxes at all But still now it look the contrary.

It appears likely that the UK HM Revenue & Customs will be able to acquire the confidential offshore bank documents of many thousands of UK residents. The Special Commission in charge of the issue made 4 decisions. The first, decision came in December 2005 when the Special Commissioners authorized the issue of a notice to an un-named financial institution (now understood to be a High Street bank) requiring it to provide HMRC with documents detailing UK customers who held credit cards associated with offshore bank accounts. At the hearing held prior to the issue of the notice, HMRC estimated that the notice would affect 75,000 of the bank’s customers, approximately 15,000 of whom would be subject to tax investigations. The UK tax authorities adapted techniques first used by the US IRS, for example, demonstrating that information which would identify the “unknown cases” was in the ‘power or possession’ of the financial institution, and that it would not be too onerous for the institution to supply this information.

The Special Commission approved the issue of three notices to the same High Street bank and its private banking and trust subsidiaries. The notices seek copy bank statements and certain other documents containing details of the bank’s customers’ offshore bank accounts. The Special Commission held that as the UK bank held information from its offshore subsidiaries on computer systems in the UK, the information requested was in the UK bank’s “possession or power”. Importantly, the Special Commission considered that the bank’s duty of confidentiality to its customers did not alter its duty under the law to provide documents it possessed when requested under a notice. Given that HMRC estimated that the notice would give them access to information which would lead to tax investigations yielding a total of £1.5 billion, the notice will clearly affect many thousands of the bank’s customers.

Alongside the two bank decisions, HMRC have used the same method to counteract tax evasion via “offshore” share-trades. There were two Special Commission decisions involving two investment banks. A group of London share traders had made profits, which were taxable in the UK, on shares traded through a British Virgin Islands company, but had failed to make a full return of these profits to the Inland Revenue. The British Virgin Islands company’s share trades had been settled through one UK investment bank (which was acting as prime broker) with the deals being conducted through the other UK investment bank.

Both investment banks had, as part of their “Know-Your-Customer” procedures, kept a record of the UK individuals who were authorized to act on behalf of the British Virgin Islands company. HMRC had, through their investigations, established that, by obtaining these details, they could identify and therefore investigate those who had evaded UK taxation in this way. It is now standard, for example, for a bank’s internet banking customers to allow the bank, and its offshore subsidiaries, to access, store, or outsource data management to either the UK or overseas. Similarly, regulatory changes, such as the Anti Money Laundering directives have changed processes concerning information held by banks. HMRC discovered that more information is held, and is accessible in the UK, than ever before.

In an announcement re “Offshore Assets” on its website on 10 May, HMRC stated:“Following recent media publicity it is apparent that some customers or their representatives wish to contact HMRC to make disclosures in respect of assets held offshore, where there may be unpaid duties. HMRC is anxious to facilitate such approaches, and have set up a single point of contact to handle your queries.” Given the level of publicity, the UK HMRC announced the re-structuring of its investigation offices, in part to deal with the volume of cases it will be undertaking as a result of these notices. While HMRC are expected to settle the vast majority of these cases civilly, recovering the tax, interest, and penalties, the fact remains that some cases may be investigated with a view to criminal prosecution.

The success of the HMRC in these latest cases is part of the anti-money laundering drive inspired by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCDE). This was given focus at the meeting of G7 Finance Ministers at Gleneagles in 1998 which led to moves to outlaw bank secrecy, to require financial institutions to be more deep in knowing the source, and the identity of the beneficial owners, of funds deposited with them and to encourage fiscal authorities to exchange information with each other. The fruition of these initiatives is very well known in the “know your client” requirements to which banks and other professionals must now adhere, the implementation on 1 July 2005 of the European Union Savings Tax Directive and the prohibition on the use of numbered bank accounts The fact that there is still some way to go in achieving universal compliance in implementing these measures is high-lighted in a recently published survey by the OECD entitled “Tax cooperation: towards a level playing field”.

A further step in the cementing of international co-operation in the drive against avoidance and evasion took place in April 2004 with the signature of a memorandum of understanding by Australia, Canada, the USA and the UK establishing the Joint International Tax Shelter Information Centre. The stated purpose of JITSIC is to:

· Provide support to the parties through the identification and understanding of abusive tax schemes and those who promote them.
· Share expertise, best practices and experience in tax administration to combat abusive schemes.
· Exchange information on abusive tax schemes, in general, and on specific schemes, their promoters, and investors consistent with the provisions of bilateral tax conventions.
· Enable the parties to better address abusive tax schemes promoted by firms and individuals who operate without regard to national borders.

The participating countries have each appointed trained and experienced personnel to the HQ in Washington DC and an Executive Steering group meets periodically to oversee and evaluate the work of JITSIC.

Another international initiative to combat avoidance is the Tax Haven Working Group comprising the JITSIC countries along with Japan, France and Germany. This forum aims to improve the capacity of each country to deal with the risks posed to their tax systems by tax havens. Members bilaterally exchange information, share research and information on schemes encountered and strategies adopted and conduct joint training sessions. The group also seeks to deal with offshore compliance issues arising from the use of tax havens and issues occasional international alerts on areas which might give rise to problems, such as:
- E-commerce;
- Credit and debit cards;
- Captive insurance;
- Offshore trusts and partnerships;
- Withholding tax.

Further evidence on the theme of international cooperation is the meeting of tax inspectors from around the globe in Auckland over three days in April 2004 to share strategies and experiences in tackling international tax evasion and avoidance schemes. The meeting was organized by the OECD , and more than 60 international tax specialists from 27 OECD and major non-OECD economies with expertise in the areas of international compliance, exchange of information and international tax audits, participated in the meeting. The increasing use of cross-border tax evasion and avoidance schemes was identified as a major challenge for all tax administrations.

Such practices, it is believed, can be detected and deterred through effective exchange of information between tax authorities. It would appear that offshore investors should anticipate a continuing tightening of the fiscal regime. And the recently reported spectacular success of the Irish Revenue Commissioners in tackling abuse through the use of single premium insurance policies almost certainly heralds similar action by HMRC. Although there are some indicatives to make the Irish islands a tax have, similar to Andorra. We do not think that the European Commission will allow this.

La meca de los paraisos fiscales

"La meca del 'offshore'" es un articulo de Juan del Cid Gómez para Cincodias.com:

"En las últimas semanas se ha vuelto a reavivar el debate sobre la existencia de los paraísos fiscales. En esta ocasión, la polémica surge ante la noticia de la venta por un confidente a los servicios secretos alemanes de un DVD en el que supuestamente figuran los nombres de una serie de contribuyentes de Alemania y otros países, entre ellos España, que podrían ser acusados de delito fiscal por ocultar su dinero en cuentas secretas en bancos de Liechtenstein. Sin embargo, la mayoría de organismos internacionales prefieren utilizar la denominación de centro financiero offshore como sinónimo de paraíso fiscal.

En general, estos territorios son utilizados por personas físicas poseedoras de una gran fortuna y que no quieren pagar impuestos. Los centros financieros offshore ofrecen un régimen tributario nulo o muy reducido bajo la condición de no operar en el mercado doméstico de dicho país o territorio, pero sobre todo se caracterizan por respetar el secreto bancario, financiero y comercial de sus usuarios.

Su oferta de servicios se dirige en general a los no residentes. Pero lo que realmente define a estos territorios es la ausencia de una política de control de cambios, la carencia de intercambio efectivo de información con otros países, la opacidad y la falta de transparencia en la aplicación de normas administrativas en el sector financiero, especialmente las que tienen por objeto la prevención del blanqueo de capitales.

Una argumentación ampliamente difundida por las autoridades que gobiernan en estos territorios es que sus sistemas financieros solo aceptan el dinero que sale de otros países a causa de los altos tipos impositivos que predominan en ellos, pero que en ningún caso son un refugio para el blanqueo del dinero procedente de actividades delictivas como el narcotráfico y la corrupción política.

Sin embargo, la realidad demuestra que los instrumentos corporativos que se pueden constituir en estos territorios, junto con la utilización de cuentas secretas a su nombre, en muchos casos en bancos escasamente regulados, constituyen la fórmula ideal para dar cobertura al dinero de actividades delictivas como tráfico de drogas, sobornos, prácticas fiscales ilícitas, fraude bursátil y financiación terrorista, entre otras.

La mayoría de centros financieros offshore ofrecen los mismos servicios. Lo que realmente distingue a unos de otros es el grado de rigor con el que aplican las normas contra el blanqueo de capitales, especialmente el principio 'conozca a su cliente', que las instituciones financieras están obligadas a aplicar. Una utilización estricta de este principio podría provocar que sus clientes llevaran sus capitales a otros territorios menos exigentes.

Mucho más eficaz que el secreto bancario del que hacen gala estos territorios es el secreto societario que puede conseguirse con la constitución de entidades como las compañías de negocios internacionales (IBC). Se trata de sociedades instrumentales que sirven para ocultar la identidad de sus verdaderos propietarios. Sus acciones pueden ser al portador, no depositan cuentas en ningún registro público y pueden ser administradas por un tercero que actúa como fiduciario. Otros instrumentos utilizados para ocultar la identidad de sus propietarios reales son las fundaciones y los trusts. Estos últimos pueden diseñarse de tal forma que ante cualquier amenaza de investigación el dinero se transfiere automáticamente a otra jurisdicción. La combinación de distintas estructuras jurídicas en distintos territorios haría posible la creación de un entramado para ocultar la titularidad de los bienes y el dinero, que impediría el éxito de cualquier investigación.

Internet ha hecho posible que cualquier persona pueda acceder a estos servicios. Existen multitud de páginas web de empresas especializadas que ayudan al cliente a adentrarse en los paraísos fiscales más discretos mediante la compra de un pack offshore que puede pagarse mediante la tarjeta de crédito.

Las apuestas por internet realizadas mediante la utilización de una tarjeta de crédito emitida por un banco offshore también representan un poderoso vehículo para blanquear dinero procedente de actividades delictivas y evadir impuestos. Los casinos virtuales son un negocio muy rentable para los gobiernos que venden la licencia pero que no aplican los controles adecuados. Estos sitios representan un problema añadido, ya que el servidor puede estar localizado en un país distinto a aquel que concede la licencia para la página web.

Pero para el blanqueador todo son ventajas, ya que podrá realizar sus operaciones de forma anónima y además sin salir de casa."

Juan del Cid Gómez Profesor de Economía Financiera y Contabilidad

http://banksit.blogspot.com
http://internationaltax1.blogspot.com
http://assetprotection.wordpress.com
http://proteccionactivos.wordpress.com
http://proteccionbienes.blogspot.com