境外 vs. 境內，免稅天堂變地獄？

【Comment】

這條新聞與FATCA〈許多台美雙重國籍富人 放棄美籍〉一起看，會覺得有趣──「境外」已經對「境內」產生影響，「境內」很難與「境外」競爭。「境內」似乎聯手起來了。

打破保密原則 避稅天堂開曼群島擬全面公開企業和董事名單◎鉅亨網（2013.01.23）http://news.cnyes.com/Content/20130123/KH5K09O7NT7U.shtml

英國《金融時報》消息指出，開曼群島 (Cayman Islands) 準備打破實行數十年的保密原則，使數千家在加勒比海的這些島上註冊的企業和對沖基金受到更大程度的監督。

中新網報導，開曼群島將出台全面改革措施，公開數千家此前隱秘的企業及其董事的名字，希望擺脫秘密金融活動名聲。

英國《金融時報》看到了發給總部位於開曼的對沖基金企業的提議。在提議中，掌握實權的開曼群島金融管理局 (CIMA) 概述了相關計劃，擬首次創建一個在島上註冊的基金的公開資料庫。資料庫還將列出基金的董事名單，就此展開的徵求意見流程將於 3 月中旬結束。

對此， CIMA 沒有回應記者的置評請求。該機構還計劃要求董事們接受一個審查流程，以確保他們有資格擔任投資者的受託人。

CIMA 在一份文件中表示：「在金融危機爆發後的 24 個月內，英屬維爾京群島金融服務委員會 (BVI Financial Services Commission) 、愛爾蘭央行 (Central Bank of Ireland) 、澤西島金融服務委員會 (Jersey Financial Services Commission) 、巴哈馬群島金融服務委員會 (Bahamas Financial Services Board) 與英屬曼島監管委員會 (Isle of Man Supervision Commission) 都更新了它們的公司治理準則、法律以及 / 或者法規。」

開曼群島採取此舉之際，近年國際社會猛轟這個小小的避稅天堂披露要求太低、公司保密法律過嚴。在憤怒的美國和歐盟政界人士對離岸金融中心的抨擊中，開曼群島首當其衝，因為開曼群島未能跟上快速變化的全球新監管格局。就連針對美國總統候選人米特•羅姆尼 (Mitt Romney) 納稅風波的憤怒辯論，也涉及開曼群島。

Sunlight on havens◎FT（2013.01.20）http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6a3fd02e-6185-11e2-9545-00144feab49a.html#axzz2IrerU6iJ

Cayman transparency plan is a step in the right direction

The Cayman Islands’ plan to make public the names of companies domiciled in the territory and their directors, as well as introduce a process to vet directors’ qualifications, is so sensible that the main question it raises is why it has not happened before.

The Caymans, thanks to a light-touch – some would say no-touch – tax and regulation regime, are home to about two-thirds of the world’s thousands of hedge funds.  That presence creates demand for independent directors to sit on the boards of the funds, a demand Cayman directors have been so eager to fill that some now hold hundreds of directorships.

The Caymanian plan to increase transparency in corporate governance rules will help investors verify that the directors ostensibly representing them have the ability and indeed time to discharge that duty.  This comes not before time, and only because of investor pressure.  Why anyone would entrust their money to a fund whose directors they know nothing about is a puzzle.  But better late than never: the collapse of several Cayman funds has woken investors up to the need for more transparency.

Yet this move only chips at the challenge posed by tax havens such as the Caymans.  Transparent corporate governance is one thing; transparency in company accounts is another.  Hedge fund investors have an interest in the former; but there is no natural pressure group for the latter, at least for companies whose opaque accounts make it easier for their owners to avoid taxes elsewhere.

The business of tax havens – to profit from helping companies and people artificially move their money out of high-tax jurisdictions, often legally – was mostly tolerated until the financial crisis.  Pressure on public finances has put paid to some of that complacency, as austerity policies make it politically hard to ignore legal tax avoidance or illegal tax evasion.

One should not expect havens to kill their own golden geese out of good will.  The motivation must come from the outside – from investors, as in the Cayman case, or from governments.  The past few years show that the power remains with countries where the wealth is created.  US aggressiveness against Swiss banks, for example, forced Switzerland to lift the veils of its traditional bank secrecy.  Till now, the business and tax benefits from industries linked to the havens has nurtured an unholy tolerance in some bigger states, including the UK.  The more their citizens learn, however, the more they will ask why more is not being done.