Talk:Tax haven

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Business and Economics
 Business and Economics Portal
This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Tax related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-priority on the Project's priority scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] Tax advise

Uh... I know it's good advise and all, but should Wikipedia be giving tax advise?!? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree, articles should just list facts, not give advice or opinions. The advice section could be reworded to be more factual ("Most people claim tax havens aren't worth the hassle..."). --Patik 21:19, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Hasn't Gibraltar changed from 1 Jan? jguk 09:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tax Advice

Shouldn't people learn how to reaad? No tax advice is given.

I agree, let it be the way it is Sandeid

[edit] Gibraltar

There has been a bit of to-ing and fro-ing about Gibraltar and the list of low tax jurisdictions. I think Gibraltar clearly belongs on the list - it is one of the leading offshore financial centres (see: OFC Article). It is not listed as non-cooperative on any of the OECD or FATF lists (and, as far as I know, never has been), but then neither have most of the other larger and better regulated OFCs (with the exception of Cayman, which was originally on the FATF list, but is now off the list). If there is to be a list within the article (and I am still not sure what it really adds to the list at: List of offshore financial centres), then Gibraltar should be on it. Cooperative or non-cooperative, ring fenced tax regime or non-ring fenced, it is still an OFC by pretty much any applicable criterea. Legis 11:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excemption of housing expences for US Nationals

A the new tax bill passed through the US Government now does away with this excemption for housing in forgein countires and it is now subjected to tax as well. The Economist had an article about it whith int he last month or so. Philbentley 18:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norfolk Island is also a tax haven

This could be possibly added to the appropriate section. See Norfolk Island article on wikipedia for further info.--220.101.160.7 09:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Offshore Financial Centre and Tax haven cover essentially the same ground, only OFC is by far the better article. I suggest we let Legis handle the merge as he has contributed so much in this area.

simonthebold 08:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have put my comments in Talk:Offshore Financial Centre. Legis 07:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I haven't read any of this, but on the surface, "tax haven" and "Offshore Tax Centre" seem to mean two different things. A merger seems unnecessary. 129.98.214.113 05:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
An "Offshore Centre" (aka "Low-Tax regime") is a place that allows people to "park" their money and save themselves from paying the higher taxes (usually in their home country). A "Tax Haven" is a place that includes what is an "Offshore"-is plus---- they hide personal information to all other institutions and governments. Basically hiding whomever-- has money in their country leading to things like money laundering. etc. A Tax haven is what all big countries are against- an Offshore Centre is a country that brings much needed competition to the International monetary markets. "Low-Tax regimes" usually have a framework of bilateral-agreements spelling out exactly on-what grounds the government in that jurisdiction will give up a holder's info during an investigation, a Tax Haven though will tend to remain "hush-hush" even if they suspect something criminal might be in the works using their jurisdiction. CaribDigita 14:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Not correct. A "tax haven" is a place where taxes are zero or low. An "offshore financial centre" is a place in another country where banks etc exist to provide financial services. Some THs are OFCs and some OFCs are THs but they are not the same. Further: You can cheat your taxes by "hiding personal information" without taking advantage of a TH so "hiding personal information" is not an essential part of a TH. A TH can be completely open with personal info and you can take advantage of it. (Unless you are a USA citizen, moving youself and your assets to a TH means you are no longer subject to the tax rules of your country of citizenship.) So CaribDigital's assertions are very largely incorrect. Paul Beardsell 23:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Different concepts, different articles. No merge. Paul Beardsell 23:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there not a difference between individuals that choose to live six months or over in a low tax jurisdiction (such as Monaco or Switzerland) for personal tax reasons, versus areas in the world (such as Panama or Nevis) that levy almost zero taxes on companies, trusts or foundations (i.e. see Category:offshore finance)? For example, a country that levies low taxes on offshore companies may still levy high taxes on individuals that choose to live there, and vica-verca. nirvana2013 18:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Support for this idea seems far from substantial. I note the WP preference is for different articles for different concepts. The conflation of separate concepts by some should not allow the waters to be muddied. If we go down this path relentlessly then WP will be just one article as all concepts are related, one way or another. Merge tag removed. Paul Beardsell 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Money laundering

I recently deleted a comment about money laundering as it is at best(!) only tangentially related to the subject of this article. The following argument (pasted from my Talk page) argues against this:

I note your edit on tax havens, but unless you have really strong views, I would suggest reverting it to reinclude the relevant sentence. The term "tax haven" is not a comment a nation's tax laws simplicter, but a broader criticism on the probity of financial structuring within a country. I think that the comments made by a director of Tax Justice Network in an interview with the BBC summarising that evidence showing that the UK was as bad as any traditional tax haven in relation to these points is information that can very reasonably be included, and follows on logically from the earlier paragraphs (esp Incentives for the tax haven relating to money laundering in the article. Legis 10:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot follow this argument (and I have tried!) so let me say why I strongly disagree about the inclusion of money laundering information here. That a country may be a haven for money laundering is not relevant to an article on tax havens. All they have in common is the use of the word "haven". All money launderers are operating illegally, by definition. Users of a tax haven are (usually) operating legally. [If they were illegally dodging (i.e. evading not avoiding) taxes they usually wouldn't need a tax haven.] All the tax avoidance measures listed in the tax haven article are legal! Users of a tax haven are, by definition, avoiding tax. Some may also be evading tax but not necessarily. Money launderers are usually keen that their fake business pays tax so as to legitimise the fake profits arising from the laundering. Next we'll have comments in the article about which countries have good boat havens. Paul Beardsell 13:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it comes back to the same point about nomenclature. People who interpret the word "tax haven" as being simply all about tax will properly take Paul's view. People who think the term "tax havens" when used today is a reference to financial probity and regulatory oversight would, naturally, take the view that an article on tax havens should contain comments on financial probity and regulatory oversight. I tend to fall into the second camp because whenever you hear the word tax haven used today, it is usually being used by someone who has an axe to grind. People within the profession rarely use it at all. But I can't honestly get worked up about it for the same reason that I can't get worked up about the proposed merge between tax haven and offshore financial centre. The terms just mean different things to different people, and ultimately the article will find its own middle ground somewhere. At the moment the article contains some material on money laundering, which I was just building on, but I don't think the edit that was removed was "key". I take Paul's point entirely on the last sentence; there are indeed jurisdictions which sometimes get called "tax havens" only because they provide an excellent place to register a ship or aircraft. Legis 18:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand the humourous intent but, to be explicit, (and I know you know this), a boat haven is a place safe from prevailing winds and waves. Nothing to do with taxes. Just as a haven for battered women is nothing to do with tax either. "Haven" = "safe place". Paul Beardsell 21:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

But correct nomenclature is very important. Two ways of looking at this: (1) Allowing sloppiness allows sloppiness. (2) If we allow the term tax haven to imply "location lacking regulatory probity" (or whatever) then we will have to find/invent a new term which means tax haven - a "location where some taxes are very low". If you are not a language purist we can ignore (1). But what about (2)? Paul Beardsell 21:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

By all means have a link to the money laundering article here. But the correct place for info on money laundering is in its own article. Please put your interesting information about that topic there. Proper use of the WP namespace (i.e. nomenclature) is important so as to avoid duplication of info making for impossible maintenance. Paul Beardsell 21:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Note also that this article, like almost all WP articles, starts by first defining the topic. No mention of money laundering. Paul Beardsell 21:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert wars

This page is in serious danger of descending into a cyclical revert war. This field generally tends to get people's hackles up (anyone who participated in the Gibraltar fiasco will recall) both because opinions tend to be polarised, but also because this is an area of loose and inconsistent etymology. I don't think anybody would suggest that this page is a stellar article, and arguably a complete amendment and restatement would be a good thing, but agreement on that is probably pretty unlikely in the present climate.

At the risk of p*ssing into the wind, can I suggest that we try and thrash out debates on etymology and phraseology (and range of subject) on the talk page where people can reason their suggestions more fully (and hopefully cite readily available or online sources), and then perhaps some edits can be put through that reflect the slightly fluid nature of the field ("some sources indicate... but others suggest that...") to avoid conflict. Revert wars never reflect well on any of the participants, and I would hope anyone who has enough knowledge to be contributing in this field would also have sufficient maturity to prefer reasoned discussion over a shouting (reverting) match.

As Paul says above, most WP articles start by defining the subject. Perhaps the first edit we should try to agree is a change to the first para to reflect the difficulties defining the subject.

Legis (talk - contributions) 08:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we're in danger of descending into a cyclical revert war. The edits by 150.176.202.5 are not constructive in nature and this can be seen plainly by looking at this anonymous user's edit history. See also here. I don't see any pattern of reversions in respect of any other user's edits. Paul Beardsell 18:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Note that there is no compunction to explain one's edits in advance on the article's Talk page. A Wikipedia mantra is "edit boldly": It is only by editing in this way that true advances can be made. Of course, when invited to explain an edit on the Talk page, one should hurry to do so. I think that anyone viewing my edit history will see that I readily do so. If anyone has an issue with any of my edits please do just say, explaining why. Paul Beardsell 18:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not see any difficulty in defining this topic at all. I believe a common mistake is being made: Any topic will have resonances and close associations with other topics. Fine. Mention these, link to them, but do not confuse them with the topic itself. A "something haven" is a place safe for (or from) the something. That the same place may sometimes or even typically be associated with something else or even something similar may be noteworthy but (and this is the crucial point) it does not make the something into the something similar or into the something else. Paul Beardsell 18:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
E.g. The article on goats says nothing about cattle despite the fact that (a) both are ungulate mammals, (b) both are domesticated animals found on farms, (c) milk are obtained from both. Yet cattle and goats have as much (if not more) in common than do tax havens and offshore financial centres. Two articles for the animals, two articles for these financial/fiscal concepts. Similarly with money laundering. We can find plenty of references on the web equating/relating money laundering to drug dealing. Mostly the same people do both. In mostly the same places. Each to support the other. But they are different activities and have different articles. Same for money laundering and tax havens. Otherwise we will have to have ONE article for money laundering, tax havens and drug dealing. Before long WP will be just one article for everything as everything is related to everything else. Paul Beardsell 18:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the last 48 hours much supports the view that there is not a revert war going on here. I stand by my earlier suggestion. A better attempt needs to be made to find consensus on this subject matter, or this will surely get silly. I am all for editing boldly, but this article is not making an progress at all. We just have two people who refuse to try and either talk it out or find a middle ground, but are happy to revert the changes of the other. Legis (talk - contributions) 21:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am prepared to discuss any edit. Already you will see I have given cogent if sometimes ascerbic reasons for each edit in each edit's edit summary. Furthermore I re-argue in depth my issues re OFCs and money laundering above. No reply. The anonymous reverter (I safely assume it is not you) gives no reason either in her edit summaries or here. I'm assuming no one is happy with unexplained reversions, so reverting such back to explained edits seems reasonable to me. Paul Beardsell 23:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not picking sides (although as you know I have my views on this point), but this is going nowhere. I certainly believe that a more fundamental change is needed rather than consistently reverting between two polarities (neither of which seem to me to especially accurate). What the article really needs is a top down rewrite, but I am off on my hols tomorrow and I none of the other main contributors in this field seem minded to get involved, so it looks like we are stuck for a while. Legis (talk - contributions) 08:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There are sides to be picked in two different and separate areas. The first area is the one where you and I have cordially disagreed in the past and, it seems, we may still: The scope of the article. The second area is what I would describe as the control of a user which, as her entire edit history shows, is restricted to unreasoned reverts of others' edits. That she, in this case, is reverting to a version of the article that you may actually prefer should not sway you at all: Vandalism is never good. You should, in my view, support the suppression of the unreasoned reverts and, at the same time, enter into dialogue as to the scope of the article. Paul Beardsell 03:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear, I deprecate the practice reverting edits (and especially re-reverting edits) without explanation. I had hoped the anonymous editor might set out their position in the talk pages, but sadly not. Legis (talk - contributions) 21:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defining the topic

Legis is keen to re-examine this article from scratch. First, suggests Legis, we should properly define the topic, and he says that this may be difficult. I do not think so. I am happy with the current definition: A tax haven is a place where certain taxes are levied at a low rate or not at all. Comment invited. Paul Beardsell 03:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to set out my own view on this quickly - my own view of the concept of a tax haven is a place that seeks to attract business by seeking mitigate the tax payable by that business or individual (hence the emphasis on haven rather than tax). Tax havens usually do impose little or no direct taxation, but this is not necessarily true. The British Virgin Islands is universally considered a tax haven, but the personal rate of taxation is 15%. In Russia the rate of personal taxation is 12%, but no one has ever considered Russia to be a tax haven. But people are accustomed to trying to structure assets or holding companies through the BVI to try and mitigate their tax liabilities elsewhere, hence the term. On this basis it is perfectly plausible to characterise Ireland or Latvia as a tax haven (where their low levels of corporate tax, which seem huge compared to "traditional" tax havens, are still very low for the EU, and have resulted in a large migration of EU corporates to those jurisdictions, purely for tax mitigation considerations). Similarly, the UK assesses no tax on bank interest if you are not resident or domiciled there, and thus is also sometimes characterised as a tax haven for this reason. In definitional terms, I think it is seeking shelter from tax rather than assessing low levels of tax that is important.
"A tax haven is a place where certain taxes are levied at a low rate or not at all." Not all taxes, necessarily, just some of them. The definition stands. Paul Beardsell 23:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of going on too long, I think "tax haven" is a term which has evolved over time. The text books report that the term first started to be used after WWI, but it was then used as a socialist criticism of attracting inward investment (often regionally rather than nationally) by offering tax breaks to industry. At some point it evolved to encompass tax avoidance through cross jurisdictional structuring. Up until the late 1970s it generally meant a jurisdiction with a favourable double taxation relief treaty whereby one could pay tax in the smaller country at much lower rates, and thereby avoid taxation at the much higher rates in the larger country. In the late 1970s and early 1980s when most major countries (esp the U.S.A.) started cancelling their double taxation treaties with micro-states (although some of these still exist, for example Barbados-Japan and Cyprus-Russia), the term evolved to refer to jurisdictions which offered a class of corporate vehicle (usually called an International Business Corporation, but there are variations on the theme) which was essentially exempt from taxes within its jurisdiction of incorporation. In the early 2000s, these IBCs were in turn largely phased out under pressure from the OECD as part of its bid to eradicate "unfair tax competition". Today, as I have suggested before, the term is used very loosely and in different contexts, but jurisdictions which were traditionally thought of as tax havens now tend to style themselves as offshore financial centres (although Dubai does this too, so no terminology is free from conflicting usage).
In my own view it would be better to redefine the subject as relating to countries whose tax code is driven by seeking business from other jurisdictions based on the premise of tax mitigation (a definition often used, see e.g. [ http://www.anz.com/edna/dictionary.asp?action=content&content=tax_haven here]), and then wrap up the etyomology in a longer section based on the history of cross border tax avoidance tracing it back to the staple ports (and possibly before that too if anyone can do the research), the emergence of the first "tax havens" (usually credited as Liechtenstein, Monaco, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man - although Bermuda optimistically sometimes makes a similar claim), through to modern developments. But I think it is noteworthy that the Economist's excellent 1990 book on Tax Havens of the World gives up trying to find a single definition, as they find nothing to be satisfactory. Therefore I am always a bit suspicious of short and easy definitions as being susceptible to oversimplification.
That's my view anyhow. Legis (talk - contributions) 21:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in your account seems to conflict with the definition of tax haven now in the article. I am not saying the term does not have negative connotations. Similarly, the term "tax mitigation" is a neologism coined because "tax avoidance" has been demonised - they mean exactly the same thing, no matter what Gordon Brown says. Soon a new term will be invented by the marketing departments of financial institutions when that term itself becomes unfashionable / distasteful. That some / most tax havens also set out to make their jurisdictions nice places for banks is interesting but not a necessary activity of a tax haven. One can live in a tax haven and bank at the foreign OFC across the lagoon. Many tax havens also encourage tourism but no one is arguing that this article be about that! Paul Beardsell 23:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added in the definition (or at least description) of what constitutes a tax haven used by The Economist, which I think is useful. --Legis (talk - contributions) 11:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Great. But there's no difference between the jargon filled definition "What ... identifies an area as a tax haven is the existence of a composite tax structure established deliberately to take advantage of, and exploit, a worldwide demand for opportunities to engage in tax avoidance." and the plain language definition "A tax haven is a place where certain taxes are levied at a low rate or not at all." Seems to me the former is an insiders' definition. It requires knowledge of the jargon and it excludes the outsider. WP's primary purpose is not supposed to be a text book, it's supposed to be an encyclopedia first. So, the plain language easy intro comes first. I note also that Colin Powell and the Economist agree tax haven (i) is all about where taxes are levied at low rates and (ii) is all about avoidance not evasion. Paul Beardsell 15:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I still do not accept, therefore, that there is any difficulty in defining tax haven. Seems to me that those who struggle to say what a tax haven is are struggling to admit what it is, not to define what it is! It's just a place that collects less tax. Paul Beardsell 15:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "Amounts" section

I am unhappy with this section because it applies to OFCs, not to tax havens. Comment invited. Even better, stats as to the number of people choosing to reside in various tax havens, and the size of the assets thus transferred, would be usefully substituted for the current content. Paul Beardsell 04:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but also for the separate reason that amounts are enormously speculative. The only serious attempt to establish amounts was made by KPMG in 2000 at the request of the British government and (a) they admitted the best they could do was take a guess, and (b) even those figures must now be hopelessly out of date. Legis (talk - contributions) 21:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Country of citizenship

The United States is unlike almost all other countries in that its citizens are subject to U.S. tax on their worldwide income even if they reside permanently outside the USA. U.S. citizens therefore cannot avoid U.S. taxes by emigrating.

What other countries do this? It would be good to get a list of those that do. I believe no other Western nation does. --Kalmia 06:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have seen a list of 5 or 6 countries which also tax on the basis of citizenhip but I can no longer find it. You may be right. Paul Beardsell 06:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
U.S.A. does it, and Indonesia is (I think) the other major country usually cited as an example of this (although I don't have an online source for this); I am not aware of any others but that is not to say that there aren't any. Legis (talk - contributions) 21:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tentative Economist

The article says, referencing a book I do not have access to: "Although The Economist itself points out that this definition would still exclude a number of jurisdictions traditionally thought of as tax havens." Which jurisdictions are these? Paul Beardsell 15:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other thoughts

I was wondering if this article should contain more on the aspects of corporate taxes and international competition in a global economy. For example, including statements such as "research shows that taxes and corporate income taxes, but also indirect taxes, limit FDI in a fairly significant way, such that 10 percent increases in corporate tax rates are associated with seven or eight percent reductions in the levels of foreign direct investments."[1] It would be interesting to expand on the way countries position themselves for economic growth using the idea of tax haven to foreign competitors - perhaps a chart based on OECD data. I'm also wondering if this article might benefit from adding the idea of Race to the bottom in regard to tax haven competition. Thoughts. Morphh (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as the article remains primarily about tax havens (and as long as any WP article remains primarily about its subject) I think the article should be expanded. But as soon as, e.g., we start to talk in depth about macro economic strategy such as "a race to the bottom" or how "countries position themselves for economic growth" then I think separate articles are called for. Reasoning: There will (eventually) be several articles (including macro-economic strategy, race to the bottom, international tax competition) where some mention of these things are made. Already there may be areas in WP where these topics are discussed. If each article does an in depth exposé then we will have repetition and no one place where someone wanting to know primarily about the topics about to be introduced here can go. Already there are several articles where "tax haven" is mentioned: Sometimes these articles goes into the topic "tax haven" in too much depth including material not even found here - they should just link here and the missing info should be included here! The WP way is to divide and rule - more articles, not fewer. Paul Beardsell 20:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Note my objection is only if we cover these topics "in depth". I am in favour of expanding the article and linking to the main articles on the subjects introduced. Paul Beardsell 20:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
What I've generally tried to follow is expanding a subject in a parent article to the point where it makes sense to split it into another article and then create a summary style structure in the main article. Otherwise, you end up with a ton of stubs, AFD, and interlinks, which often get merged. However, the other process can work well too in getting editors to address a needed subject if enough information is there to start. I completely agree that we do not want large duplication. If an article already exists, such as "Race to the bottom", we could add a {{main}} or {{details}} tag and provide a summary of the topic and how it relates to tax havens. On a side note, I hope you and Legis consider joining the Taxation WikiProject. Morphh (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style

I'm also wondering if we should reduce the bullet lists. Manual of Style suggests that we not use bullets or numbers if the passage reads easily using plain paragraphs or indented paragraphs. The sections "Failures", "Methodology", and "Anti-avoidance" stand out in this regard. The "Examples" section also looks rough in this regard though I don't see us turning it into paragraphs easily. Perhaps a table or multiple columns. Thoughts, 21:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I am generally in favour of following the WP:MOS but I think the use of bullets and numbers is unavoidable in certain circumstances and is often helpful otherwise. If there are 5, say, considerations to be taken into account on some issue then it is probably best to bullet point them. Paul Beardsell 01:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph breaks: I note that some paragraph breaks have been removed. I am unsure if this is an improvement. I note that it is permissible and is often good style to have more than one para per section! Paul Beardsell 01:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think most of the breaks that were removed were not really paragraphs but one or two sentences. The breaks were removed to make a paragraph. I agree that more then one para per section is good but I'm not sure leaving a single sentnece structure to serve as a paragraph is the better option. Morphh (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, of course you would think that, otherwise you wouldn't have merged the paragraphs!  :-/ Paul Beardsell 09:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Haha.. true :-) Paragraphs generally range five to eight sentences, however, they can be as short as one word or run the length of multiple pages. So I agree that this aspect is certainly debatable, particularly if it combines separate points or ideas. I've generally seen reviews for Peer-review, GA, & FA dislike stub paragraphs when they could be effectively combined, but separation can add emphasis to a statement that's important. Even the paragraph article has single and two sentence paragraphs, so such is not out of place if it makes sense. I guess the review of these changes would be if the merges were effective and read easily or if it makes sense to split for emphasis (may require closer observation of NPOV when adding emphasis to a statement). With the nature of Wikipedia, I see many times that points are just added here and there without immediate consideration of the overall structure of the section. I apologize if I removed breaks that were intentional. Just trying to copyedit and clean-up.  :-) Morphh (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
And mostly to very good effect. Perhaps entirely. I'm trying to work out if you merging my paragraphs is an improvement. Paul Beardsell 20:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avoidance & evasion, legal and illegal

The bald and blanket defining of "tax avoidance" as "legal" and "tax evasion" as "illegal" faces a couple of problems, the more so in light of recent events. Firstly, the terms "legal" and "illegal" refer only to governments' own definitions. But their true meanings are only in the mind, it could be said, because even the terms themselves have no lasting meaning, changing when a government changes. We have many questions to answer before making such strict definitions without caveat. We haven't even accurately defined "avoidance" or "evasion". What is a "legitimate" government? Do the PEOPLE consider avoidance "legal" and evasion "illegal"? Do you or I? Is any armed group with effective control of an area of land a legitimate government? Are "democratic" governments "legitimate"?

A pointer to coping with this issue is Jesus's: "Pay unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's". Paul Beardsell 19:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The second difficulty arises out of the defining of "tax avoidance" as "legal". Groups like the Tax Justice Network have gone to great lengths to demonize tax avoidance and of course governments are also trying to link "avoidance" with "unpatriotic". With this in mind, perhaps we should, tongue in cheek, redefine "tax avoidance" as "unpatriotic"!

But in any case, it seems reasonable to me to preface this "Note:" with something like - "With respect to their laws, most current governments consider "tax avoidance" as being "legal" and "tax evasion" as "illegal".Chris. Fulker 15:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there is no need to define something as being legal/illegal explicitly in relation to some laws: That is obviously implicit. And your POV, with which I have some sympathy, is not likely to be seen, by others, as NPOV. Paul Beardsell 19:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the caveat / rider Chris Fulker added to the tax avoidance sentence. That point is best made at tax avoidance - otherwise it will have to be made everywhere tax avoidance is mentioned, and there are many places! It also introduces IMO a POV. Paul Beardsell 20:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll go along with this, if only because the terms involved are so ambiguous anyway. But using the terms "legal" and "illegal" without context being mentioned seems similar to making unambiguous claims that stealing is immoral. (Even in 'Robin-Hood-from-rich-to-poor' cases AND in 'male-teenage-hoodlum-strong-arming-little-old-lady' situations...?)Chris. Fulker 15:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Non sequitur. Morality is different from legality. Robin Hood would agree that what he did was illegal. And I don't see any ambiguity (i.e. confusion about meaning) - we all know what these words mean. Paul Beardsell 22:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Subject to the views of others, I thought this article might be improved by an image at the head; the obvious candidates seemed to me to be:

  1. Image:Gib bay.jpg
  2. Image:BDA Aerial.jpg
  3. Image:Roadtown, Tortola.jpg
  4. Image:Newprovidencenasa.jpg

I know people from Gib get sniffy when it is described as a tax haven, but personally I like that one best. I could find any other good images already on Wikipedia for any of the other "traditional" tax havens. Any thoughts or views? --Legis (talk - contributions) 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canada 2007 Federal Budget

The Tory goverment in Canada (Federal level) has issued funding to track the mis-use of borrowing against companies in tax havens to offset taxes within Canada (Budget not yet ratified at the time of adding this comment, just something to watch) -Wolfe 02:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latvia and Lithuania

Does anyone have any evidence of the tax haven status of Latvia and Lithuania? The article implies that they are not, and I would like to remove them if no one objects, since the current strikethrough on them is ugly and makes WP appear not to know what it's talking about. Fysidiko 12:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed them. Thedreamdied 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/a/x/Talk%7ETax_haven_2a7d.html"