Is Panama Really Your Tax Haven? Secrecy Jurisdictions and the Countries They Harm

P. Janský, M. Meinzer, Miroslav Palanský
{"title":"Is Panama Really Your Tax Haven? Secrecy Jurisdictions and the Countries They Harm","authors":"P. Janský, M. Meinzer, Miroslav Palanský","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3267366","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Secrecy jurisdictions provide services that enable the residents of other countries to escape the laws and regulations of their home economies, evade tax, or hide their legally or illegally obtained assets. Recent offshore leaks offer only a limited and biased view of the world of financial secrecy. In this paper we quantify which secrecy jurisdictions provide secrecy to which countries and assess how successful countries are in targeting these jurisdictions with their policies. To that objective we develop the Bilateral Financial Secrecy Index (BFSI) and estimate it for 86 countries by quantifying the financial secrecy supplied to them by up to 100 secrecy jurisdictions. We then evaluate two major recent policy efforts by comparing them with the results of the BFSI. First, we focus on the blacklisting process of the European Commission and find that most of the important secrecy jurisdictions for EU member states have been identified by the lists. Second, we link the results to data on active bilateral automatic information exchange treaties to assess how well-aimed are the policymakers’ limited resources. We argue that while low-secrecy jurisdictions’ gains are maximized if a large share of received secrecy is covered by automatic information exchange, tax havens aim not to activate these relationships with countries to which they supply secrecy. Our results show that so far, some major secrecy jurisdictions successfully keep their most prominent relationships uncovered by automatic information exchange, and activating these relationships may thus be an effective tool to curb secrecy.","PeriodicalId":385233,"journal":{"name":"FEN: Differences in Taxation & Corporate Finance (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"FEN: Differences in Taxation & Corporate Finance (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3267366","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

Secrecy jurisdictions provide services that enable the residents of other countries to escape the laws and regulations of their home economies, evade tax, or hide their legally or illegally obtained assets. Recent offshore leaks offer only a limited and biased view of the world of financial secrecy. In this paper we quantify which secrecy jurisdictions provide secrecy to which countries and assess how successful countries are in targeting these jurisdictions with their policies. To that objective we develop the Bilateral Financial Secrecy Index (BFSI) and estimate it for 86 countries by quantifying the financial secrecy supplied to them by up to 100 secrecy jurisdictions. We then evaluate two major recent policy efforts by comparing them with the results of the BFSI. First, we focus on the blacklisting process of the European Commission and find that most of the important secrecy jurisdictions for EU member states have been identified by the lists. Second, we link the results to data on active bilateral automatic information exchange treaties to assess how well-aimed are the policymakers’ limited resources. We argue that while low-secrecy jurisdictions’ gains are maximized if a large share of received secrecy is covered by automatic information exchange, tax havens aim not to activate these relationships with countries to which they supply secrecy. Our results show that so far, some major secrecy jurisdictions successfully keep their most prominent relationships uncovered by automatic information exchange, and activating these relationships may thus be an effective tool to curb secrecy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
巴拿马真的是你的避税天堂吗?保密司法管辖区及其损害的国家
保密司法管辖区提供的服务使其他国家的居民能够逃避其本国经济的法律法规,逃税或隐藏其合法或非法获得的资产。最近的离岸泄密事件只提供了对金融保密世界的有限和有偏见的看法。在本文中,我们量化了哪些保密司法管辖区向哪些国家提供保密,并评估了各国在针对这些司法管辖区制定政策方面的成功程度。为了实现这一目标,我们制定了双边金融保密指数(BFSI),并通过量化多达100个保密司法管辖区向86个国家提供的金融保密来估计它。然后,我们通过比较BFSI的结果来评估最近两项主要的政策努力。首先,我们将重点放在欧盟委员会的黑名单程序上,并发现欧盟成员国的大多数重要保密司法管辖区已经被名单确定。其次,我们将结果与积极的双边自动信息交换条约的数据联系起来,以评估政策制定者有限的资源是否有针对性。我们认为,如果自动信息交换覆盖了大部分接收到的保密信息,那么低保密司法管辖区的收益就会最大化,而避税天堂的目标是不激活与它们提供保密信息的国家的这些关系。我们的研究结果表明,到目前为止,一些主要的保密司法管辖区通过自动信息交换成功地保持了他们最突出的关系,激活这些关系可能因此是遏制保密的有效工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Re-Allocating Taxing Rights and Minimum Tax Rates in International Profit Taxation A Re-examination of Firm Size and Taxes Output, Employment, and Price Effects of U.S. Narrative Tax Changes: A Factor-Augmented Vector Autoregression Approach Tax Policy Expectations and Firm Behavior: Evidence from the 2016 U.S. Election and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Fair Corporate Taxation: Why and How International Tax Rules Need to Be Changed
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1