A topical guide to offshore e-commerce focused on tax
and regulation LawAndTax
-News.com
Daily news and background data on tax and legal developments
for international business
Lowtax
Network Hosted Blogs
18 January 2009
Break Out The Champagne! Bring On The Dancing Girls!
Aaaaaaaaarrrrggggghhhhhh, here they come, the Directors with a
capital D of The International Monetary Fund for their quinquennial inspection
of our economy.
Polish everything, lads, paint the trees on the road to the airport,
buy some new sofas for the VIP lounge (but make sure they go down as terrorist
detection scanners). And isn't it time that rather overweight hostess was moved
to the back office? There's a very pretty one who works for the Police Chief.
The IMF has 184 members at a recent count; it's something you
have to belong to, like the UN and FIFA, if you want to be taken seriously as
a country. And one of the ways in which the IMF spends all that taxpayers' money
and occupies the time of those thousands of expensive economists it thinks it
needs is to carry out its 'Article IV consultations', as these inspections are
known.
As exercises in futility, they are hard to beat. There are dozens,
no, hundreds of meetings, lunches, dinners and general schmoozing, and an immense
report with reams of Appendices, pie-charts, graphs and tables, accounting for
several acres of rain forest. And all to present conclusions in high-flown pompous
language which could have been reached in ten minutes by any half-competent
economics graduate. And which will be completely ignored once the team of Directors
has settled into its business class seats on the way to torment some miserable
island in the Pacific which is about to disappear in any event.
At least now they've gone we can get back to doing something useful,
and the Police Chief can have his floozie back.
The IMF is a Bretton Woods Institutiomn, and it's very disrespectful
to talk of it in this way, of course. It is the standard-bearer of economic
orthodoxy. But it is arguable that the IMF, whose primary stated purpose was
exchange rate management, lost its way after the system of fixed exchange rates
broke down under the weight of economic forces in the 1970s. Its high-water
mark may have been Denis Healey's famous return to London in 1976 when the British
Government had to accept humiliating conditions for IMF support of the pound.
Of course, next year it may get to do a repeat performance, when Alistair Darling
and Gordon Brown have spent all their money nationalizing the banking industry.
The IMF's own (modernized) 'mission statement' is: 'The IMF is an organization
of 184 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial
stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable
economic growth, and reduce poverty.' OK, that's nice (yawn).
Actually the useful work of the IMF, which no normal person knows anything
about, is standard-setting, an activity shared by all of the 'multilaterals',
including also the World Bank and the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision
on a fiduciary level and the OECD in fiscal affairs, to mention just the most
prominent of global economic standard-setting bodies.
The IMF has also given its name to a Code of Conduct that emerged from persistent
sovereign debt crises: The Principles for Stable Capital Flows and Fair Debt
Restructuring in Emerging Markets. This was formulated in 2004 between the representatives
of emerging market countries and private sector creditors.
Says Ngaire Woods: 'The challenge for the IMF and the World Bank . . . . is
economic policy made in a more transparent, openly contested, publicly debated,
and democratic way. That process is likely to be messy, complex and time-consuming;
it will often thwart rapid reform, and it will certainly marginalize the role
of the IMF and the World Bank' (Woods, N, 2006, The Globalizers - The IMF, the
World Bank and Their Borrowers, Cornell University Press).
Nowadays, even small countries feel able to defy the IMF's prescriptions, which
can loosely be labelled Keynesian rather than Friedmanite; that's to say, dirigiste
rather than liberal. Thus the tide of economic fashion has turned against the
IMF, which as a proud (some would say, arrogant) international arbiter probably
finds it hard to encompass fiscal relaxation.
The future of the IMF is problematic, and it may not survive the first half
of the 21st century as an independent institution. Says Timothy D Adams, Undersecretary
for International Affairs, US Treasury: 'The perception that the IMF is asleep
at the wheel on its most fundamental responsibility - exchange rate surveillance
- is very unhealthy for the institution and the international monetary system.'
Perhaps that's unfair: the truth is that the market has taken over exchange
rate management. The IMF has played a useful part in helping the development
of sound fiscal regimes in many 1st, 2nd and 3rd world countries, but its task
is nearly done.
You have been
reading an entry on the following blog:
The British government is now face to face with the consequences of the mistakes
it has made over the last ten years in regulating and taxing its gaming sector.
It is scarcely the only country to have trodden the same error-strewn path,
but in the case of the UK the damage is greater because of the highly profitable
industry which the government's policies have now almost destroyed.
'For many reasons, increasingly few companies active in the British market
are now regulated by the Commission,' bleats Minister for Sport Gerry Sutcliffe.
So what has happened?
In 2001 the Government replaced its age-old system of taxing punters with a
15% tax on gaming gross profits (and operators also have to pay VAT plus corporation
tax plus a super contribution on any horse-racing turnover to a superannuated,
cosy old industry nag called the Betting Levy Board). This step wouldn't necessarily
have been fatal on its own, but when Internet betting started to supersede the
betting-shop kind, and UK-based operators began to desert in droves to Malta,
Gibraltar, Costa Rica and the Channel Islands, the government imposed a 15%
tax on Internet gaming profits for all those firms which it licensed, and created
a tough licensing regime under the Gaming Commission. But it could only license
firms on its own territory and was forced to allow in all EU-based firms, without
being able to tax them.
Now, with gaming tax revenues disappearing down a black hole, it is having
a King Canute tantrum and wants to impose licensing (and hence taxation) on
all the firms that operate in the UK (ie advertise there for punters). But why
should the EU permit this? There are perfectly adequate regulatory, licensing
and taxation regimes in Ireland, Malta and Gibraltar, all EU Member States,
and where the ex-UK betting firms now prosper. Under what circumstances are
they going to allow the UK to steal their revenues, or to replace their rules
with a new set? And under what law can the UK forbid another properly-licensed
EU operator from advertising freely throughout the EU?
The ECJ's Gambelli ruling in 2003 was unequivocal: gambling is a service and
is subject to EU freedom of establishment rules. There is no way in which one
EU Member State is going to be able to impose its own legislative practices
on another one. The EU Commission has already attacked France on this issue.
It is a mystery how Minister Sutcliffe could be so badly advised as even to
try.
What the government should have done was to accept the inevitable and offer
a light-touch, low-tax regime to compete with Malta et al, instead of hiding
benhind a hypocritical ('protect our children') smokescreen. All it really cares
about is the tax, and now it has lost that along with the gaming industry. The
existing law is a dead letter, as the government is implicity acknowledging:
you can ban a foreign firm from advertising on the Internet, but Berkshire is
not Beijing, and if a 16-year old wants to place bets with a Costa Rica poker
site using his father's Swiss credit card and bank account, who is going to
stop him?
Even now it is not too late for the government to come to its senses, but under
Pastor Gordon Brown's presbyterian theocracy, and faced with the Treasury's
emptying treasure-chest, what chance is there of that? The few remaining British
gaming firms will now pack their bags and leave. 'Mene, mene, tekel upharsin'.
Reciprocity. It sounds so fair and reasonable, doesn't it? Argentina is applying
the principle in its new border tax: if my country charges Argentinians 83.795
sea shells for a visa, then that's what Argentina will charge me to go there.
Sorry; wrong! Go the the bottom of the class. The Bible's Old Testament is
big on reciprocity: 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'; but Jesus knew
better, saying that you should 'turn the other cheek'.
Reciprocity is what leads to trade wars and protectionism. You put a duty of
50% on my bananas, so I put a duty of 50% on your beef, and before you know
it, trade volumes have slumped away to nothing. These sort of duties are especially
popular – and damaging – in the EU, where they are frequently termed
'countervailing' duties. They are closely related to 'anti-dumping' duties,
which should really be called anti-consumer duties.
If another country, or a manufacturer in another country, wants to sell off
its surplus production at cost into my country, in order to help its cash flow,
then the right response is for my country to say thank you very much and allow
consumers (or manufacturers wanting that type of input) to take advantage of
the lower prices that result. But of course that isn't what happens: the over-priced
and usually highly unionized firms in my country which are damaged by the extra
competition go wailing to the government (or the Commission in the case of the
EU) and demand an anti-dumping duty to set them right. And they often get it,
thus putting off the day when they might have to do something about their antiquated
methods and under-skilled work-force.
'Social dumping' and its cousin 'fair trade' are other forms of reciprocity
and are equally damaging to long-term competitivity and the interests of consumers.
'Social dumping' is when your country exports products to mine which have been
made by workers who don't have the gold-plated working conditions that make
my country uncompetitive. Taken to its logical conclusion, the principle of
fair trade would ensure that all manufacturers around the world are equally
uncompetitive, and indeed this is what its woolly-minded proponents do actually
want. Unfortunately for them, that's not how human nature or the markets work.
There are better ways of protecting the interests of young children and oppressed
working populations than with the sledgehammer of reciprocity, although they
require long-term effort and investment on the part of developed countries.
But it is seldom in the interests of politicians to look to the long term, and
consumers are not educated to understand their own best interests – they
are economically illiterate in most cases – so that the electorally popular
sledgehammer continues to be used, to everybody's disadvantage other than the
narrow mercantile class that called it down.
Sorry to be a bore. I promise not to preach this sermon again for another 12
months!
Penelope Wise
Penny Wise but not Pound Foolish! But remember: I am not offering investment advice. My comments are just for your general information; I do not recommend investments, and you should take professional advice before entering any investment contract.
Interested in blogging
on Lowtax? We are currently accepting
submissions!
By hosting your blog on the network you or your company
can expect to benefit from our very high traffic levels.
We boast one of the largest communities of professionals
(tax, offshore, legal, etc) and HNWIs. If you are already
a blogger, but want a wider audience, you can move an
existing blog to our network, or if you've never blogged
before, why not have a go? We'll help you get started...
One of the web's largest and
most authoritative business and investment information sources. Alongside
topical, daily news on worldwide
tax developments, you can receive weekly newswires or
access up-to-date intelligence
reports on a range of legal, tax and investment subjects.
Our 16 constantly updated
intelligence reports cover every important aspect of 'offshore' and international
tax-planning in depth, including banking secrecy, the EU's savings tax
directive, offshore funds, e-commerce, offshore gaming and transfer pricing.
Reports are available for immediate downloading or as subscription
services with news pages.
Advertising & Marketing
With over 50,000 qualified readers every month our web-sites
offer a number of cost effective, targeted advertising,
sponsorship and marketing opportunities:
Display advertising - from 'skyscrapers' to 'buttons'
Content/article submission and sponsorship
Opt-in email marketing
On-line Services Directory listings
Could your corporate web-site or newsletter benefit
from incorporating regularly updated news and content
tailored to serve your clients' interests? We can provide
a variety of maintenance-free news and content solutions
that can be seamlessly integrated and dynamically delivered:
IMPORTANT NOTICE: THE LOWTAX NETWORK has
taken reasonable care in sourcing and presenting the information contained on
this site, but accepts no responsibility for any financial or other loss or damage
that may result from its use. In particular, users of the site are advised to
take appropriate professional advice before committing themselves to involvement
in offshore jurisdictions, offshore trusts or offshore investments. All materials
on this site copyright THE LOWTAX NETWORK 1999 to 2010. Contact
us for further information.
LOWTAX.NET
