Tax Break

John Fisher, international tax consultant

Archive for the tag “International Taxation”

Que?

הורדה

The British University of Glue

The English language often lags scientific progress. We still ‘turn on the radio’, even if none of us have seen a dial in years. When my kids were growing up, I always reminded them to ‘pull the chain’ even though toilet flush mechanisms had long been more user-friendly. And today, our computers offer us the opportunity to ‘cut and paste’ when there isn’t a pair of scissors or tube of glue in sight.

Early in my career, cutting and pasting was the standard way a kidnapper combined letters taken from a newspaper into a ransom demand, and a tax adviser pulled the disjointed components of a document together into a work of art that could demand a ransom. As we went (the ‘we’ being tax advisers rather than kidnappers), we deleted and replaced inconsistencies of language with red biro, and sent the resultant scrolls down to the soon-to-be-cursing typists.

Well, thanks to Word, those days are long numbered – but something close is going to hit the tax world like a tsunami next year (in fact it has already hit – but in very limited circumstances).

The Multilateral Instrument (MLI) – that won wide praise for the fact that it happened at all – is going  to make a lot of people’s lives (including mine) a misery, and no amount of Microsoft wizardry is going to lift  spirits; the Gettysburg Address was a magnificent eulogy – but it didn’t help the poor fellows buried there.

1_hAZU7r0-5D5S1wIVu4HOUQ

Lost. Full-stop (Google translate: Period)

For the uninitiated, the MLI is a 49 page document of semi-comprehensible English and French that modifies bilateral tax treaties without the need for excruciating bilateral negotiations. Over a hundred countries signed up to the basic wording (the latest entries into force, in the last fortnight, are Malta and Singapore), with multiple choice opportunities for certain clauses, the right to exclude other clauses or sub-clauses that are satisfactorily covered in a specific bilateral treaty, and the right to ignore yet other clauses. There is also a right not to include another country (Israel has, for example, so far excluded the UK, and only the UK). The document deals – as part of the BEPS project – with hybrid situations, treaty abuse, avoidance of permanent establishment status, dispute resolution and arbitration. If you want a feel of how complicated it is – the section entitled ‘Simplified Limitation of Benefits’ runs to four and a half pages.

But that is not the difficult bit. If, for example, an Israeli adviser is going to consider a transaction with one of Israel’s 54 treaty partners that are not the UK, after establishing whether and when  that partner has signed up to the MLI, it is necessary to shoe-horn the relevant sections into the bilateral treaty, update specific sub-clauses, and then try and make sense of the different language styles and terminology without the benefit of a red pen – each change depending on the options the other side has chosen along the way. Cutting and pasting gone mad.

311fe468b42dace6de2e60adefc53918The OECD is making efforts to make it all easier with an MLI Matching Database (Beta) which,  at least, should obviate the need to view both country’s details with a split screen. Mind you, the OECD’s I-know-nothing disclaimer means it will also all need to be checked manually anyway. And, in any event, the cutting and pasting as well as different language are still there.

38DCD7F300000578-3812229-image-m-36_1475084813019

Poor chap

The only long-term answer will be for some enterprising professional (probably a legal and tax publisher) in each country to produce updated treaties that read in one go from beginning to end.

I suppose we should be grateful that, with the United States not on board and the UK leaving Europe, they didn’t just do the whole damn thing in French.

Comfort and joy (for some)

New Zealand

This Prime Minister doesn’t need a babysitter

Several years ago I wrote a newspaper article about a fresh addition to the Israeli Income Tax Ordinance that included four subparagraphs. Or, at least, there should have been four subparagraphs. The fact that there were only three made the whole thing toothless. My tongue-in-cheek piece suggested a scenario where the Knesset Finance Committee was working late into the night, and the person with the most tax knowledge received a phone call that they had to relieve the babysitter – so they all went home. Joke – right? The following day I received a call from a senior tax official asking me how I knew. You couldn’t make it up.

Monkey-typing

If you pay peanuts….

The drafting of tax legislation in this country is often notoriously slapdash. But, that doesn’t explain all the problems with tax statute. For a start, there is the pain of keeping up with changing business environments – just look at the mess the international tax system is in over taxation of the digital economy. And then there is accounting. Corporate taxation is based on accounting profits.  Once upon a time, thanks to the ancient simple art of double entry bookkeeping, the profit and loss account was a fairly close reflection of the dollars and cents performance of a company give or take capital expenditure, debts, liabilities, inventory, and the odd accrual . A few additions and deductions and the taxman could take his toll. An explosion of accounting standards plus that thing they call IFRS led, in recent years, to more adjustments to the accounting profit than fairy lights on a Christmas tree – but as long as tax departments kept their heads, it could be handled. Almost.

For reasons best known to the British Mandatory Authorities that planted the seeds of our tax law, dividends – while mentioned freely throughout the Ordinance – are not defined for tax purposes. The upshot is that they go according to company law and are ultimately calculated in line with the latest whim of the accounting wonks in their ivory towers. That means that a company can distribute either more or less than its taxed profits. It’s the ‘more’ that bothers us here – or more precisely the parties to a court appeal that was heard this month.

Israel adheres broadly to the classical system of taxation – corporate profits are taxed twice, first at the company level, and then in the hands of  the individual on dividend. In order to avoid taxation mushrooming to three, four or heaven knows how many times, if there are several layers of companies passing dividends up the chain, Israel generally exempts intercompany dividends on which Israeli corporation tax has been paid. The second level of tax waits for distribution to the individuals right at the top.

General view of Buckingham Palace in central London.

Rumour has it, her great-great-great-great grandfather bought this place for a fiver.

That last paragraph probably sounds logical to anyone reading this – but it demanded a 39 page, beautifully reasoned ruling by the judge to put it to bed. The appellant company had received accounting profits from a subsidiary manufactured from the revaluation of certain real estate on which tax had, correctly, not been paid as the real estate had not been sold. The tax authorities and a judge had already told the appellant that the intercompany exemption didn’t apply. The company decided to try its luck on an appeal using a combination of sophistry (the wording  – but not the intention – of the law was, indeed, pitiful), a real concern for future double taxation (the subsidiary would be liable to tax on sale of the real estate even though tax was being paid now by its parent), and a childlike plea that, if all else failed, could the nice judge please treat the whole thing as a nightmare and pretend the dividend didn’t happen.

The judge wasn’t having any of it. He countered their sophistry with his own, and treated the request to reverse the transaction like a parent  explaining to a 6 year old that Santa doesn’t really exist. That was all reasonable and fine – but, it was the double tax issue that restored my faith in a system that so often seems broken.

The judge analyzed the concept of avoiding double taxation in Israeli law. He noted that, while the double taxation issue is an important principle underpinning the law, there are situations where double tax applies – predominantly where there is a change of ownership in-between certain transactions. Had the appellant sold the shares to a third party, its representatives would not have been in court arguing that – because the subsidiary company would have to pay tax again in the future on sale of the real estate (the value of the shares sold now would already have taken into account the increased value once), it should be relieved from the resulting double tax.

The Ten Commandments. Image shot 1956. Exact date unknown.

Thou Shalt Not Steal

So, armed with that logic, the judge rejected the appeal and insisted that tax was payable on receipt of the dividend. However, he literally ‘commanded’ the tax authorities to relieve any subsequent sale of the property from double tax, as long as there was no change of ownership in the meantime. That produced a result in parallel with normative Israeli law, as opposed to a narrow, literal interpretation that could have caused unnecessary hardship.

All too often, tax rulings rely on logic as much as  a fish relies on a bicycle. Not this time.

A Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all those celebrating.

Tales from the Crypto

G20-ARGENTINAFAMILY-PHOTO (1)

There were always a few kids in the class who refused to look at the camera

Kurt Vonnegut famously said: ‘True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country’. The G20 summit in Buenos Aires earlier this month spawned a myriad online articles about the international taxation of cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin etc). Intrigued by the efforts of my ‘classmates’ (most of them belong to my generation) to get their heads around a difficult subject, I delved in only to find an even truer terror: ‘To wake up one morning and discover that your children’s high school class is running the online economic press’.

writing-direction-japanese-vertical-horizontal

You could forgive the journalist for missing the nuance of the paragraph break

My suspicions were aroused when I noted that each and every article relied on the same statement of a Japanese news agency ‘drawn’ from the final declaration of the summit. To anyone with a modicum of tax knowledge,  it was clear that the Japanese rumour-monger had got their taxes in a twist. With immense determination unknown to the younger generation, I spared no effort in googling: ‘G20 Buenos Aires final declaration’, the text of which, lo and behold, appeared before my very eyes. A further 5 minutes spent actually reading the entire thing (f-i-v-e whole minutes!) produced the answer. A bland paragraph  including reference to the need to regulate crypto-assets against money laundering and terrorism, followed by another bland paragraph about BEPS that even my classmates could understand. Somebody clearly forgot to tell the Japanese reporter that there is a reason for paragraph splits in the English language, and somebody forgot to tell the on-line reporters – who it appears don’t know what it is to get off their backsides for a story – that they should not blindly rely on every piece of fake news they read online. Bottom line – the G20 summit was silent on the taxation of cryptocurrencies.

46684BC100000578-5088405-image-m-54_1510825995710

At least the Germans have always understood what money is

In the meantime, cryptocurrencies have been in free fall, and the world’s tax authorities may be about to regret their approach. Although cryptocurrencies have been around for a while, tax authorities were slow to sink their teeth into them. By now, possibly encouraged by price increases in 2016 and 2017, most jurisdictions have come to the conclusion that they are legally assets rather than currencies. As such, the exemptions that often exist  for individuals on exchange rate differences do not apply. In general, capital gains tax will be charged on realized gains (most authorities have at least managed to convince themselves that VAT should generally be avoided).But there is still confusion – as late as October 2018 an IRS Advisory Committee asked for certain clarifications from the IRS, while possible British taxation runs right across the spectrum depending on circumstances. Germany has a slightly different approach, having recognized them as money. At the same time, Israel took a literal view of the definition of currencies in its tax ordinance (cryptocurrencies do not qualify), and is there in the conservative pack.

הורד

And what’s wrong with gambling?

The catch for tax authorities is that, by insisting gains are taxable, they have to recognize losses as allowable – and the losses in 2018 have been horrendous. If that G20 paragraph on regulation is properly acted upon, the days of wild fluctuations may be numbered in 2019 – and the pain of what was a bad gamble by individuals on something totally speculative, will be irrevocably shared by national treasuries. Maybe it is time to pass the baton to my grandchildren’s generation.

FANGs ain’t what they used to be

1920-1080-b878375cf559bdc5b7e6fc93e943816f-1920x1080.jpg.gallery

Repairs courtesy of the Information Superhighway

Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google, the tech giants collectively dubbed the FANGs, are hardly going to be digitally quaking in their virtual boots over British Finance Minister Phillip Hammond’s Budget announcement last week that he plans imposing a 2% Digital Services Tax on their UK related turnover. Hammond himself admitted it would only be expected to bring in around £400 million a year, the amount he coincidentally just allocated to filling pot-holes on Britain’s roads.

The UK is not alone in taking the ladle to the primordial soup of  the evolving digital economy – Australia, France, Israel, Hungary, India, Italy (and the UK itself with its Diverted Profits Tax) are already at the feast, due to be joined by the EU when it is finally sick of wasting its time trying to eat the UK for Brexit.

Hammond’s hammering of the Goliaths earned kudos across the entire spectrum of British society (even the Tory-hating Guardian gave grudging praise) – but nobody seemed to pick up on the gaping irony of the whole thing – the use of a neolithic method to  tackle a state-of-the-art problem.

Egged on by the 2013 G8 Summit in Northern Ireland (to the non-Catholic citizens of which, I unreservedly apologize for using ‘British’ interchangeably with ‘UK’), the OECD and  the rest of the world (apart from a possible few smelly islands once – and probably still – frequented by pirates and other undesirables) have been engaged in tackling the unfairness of the international tax system. I, for one, started out sceptical that anything could be achieved. Country-by-country reporting, the MLI modifying tax treaties, and changes in the Permanent Establishment definition are just some of the impressive advances that have been made in the last six years in the BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) project, not to mention (sorry) the automatic exchange of information.

silicon-valley

California is still part of the United States

But, there are two major gaps – the United States’ lack of enthusiasm when it cottoned on that it was a large part of the problem the others were trying to solve, and the reform  of the taxation of the Digital Economy – which happened to be the first of the 15 Actions listed by the OECD.

The international tax system is founded on two principles established a century ago – ‘nexus’ and ‘profit allocation’. The first is supposed to determine where business is done, and the second, how to divide the spoils between the places of business. Fitting the digital economy into this framework is not easy. In trying to establish where value is created, three challenges have been identified: nexus, data and characterization. The first suffers from what is pompously termed ‘ scale without mass’ – you don’t need much physical presence in a country to do business these days; the second raises the question of the interactivity of data exchange – if a social platform is using data gathered from members, where  the income arising from its exploitation belongs; and the third recognizes that the world is changing constantly and the classification of income needs constant updating.

In trying – so far unsuccessfully – to reach a consensus, the participating countries have broadly divided into three groups: those that believe the problem is confined to specific business models involving user participation in data (eg Facebook’s), that need to be dealt with individually; those that believe there is no problem (if you think that is strange – consider how long it took countries to realize there was going to be a Second World War); and those that think everything is completely screwed up, and we need a revolution (hopefully only in international taxation, which can be achieved using pens rather than swords). The OECD has kicked the can down the road (a game my generation played before digitalization condemned children to little screens) with the hope of reaching an agreement by 2020. Given the ‘slight’ differences between the participants, it doesn’t sound like we should be holding our breath – but I have had egg on my face before.

on-this-day-listen-with-mother-first-broadcast-136403362456503901-160114232452

Which wireless age does the new UK tax belong to?

So, in the meantime, nations like the UK have been driven to adopting recessive taxes that would have been more familiar to the 18th century than the 21st. Its approach to the digital economy is to throw income tax out of the window (or should that be Windows?) in favour of a tax on turnover, that looks far more like the excise duty stuck on barrels of rum that smugglers didn’t manage to secrete in coves along the southern coast of England. (In fairness, it is only to be applied to companies with worldwide turnover of over half a billion pounds, and there will be exemptions for loss making companies and those with low margins).

As an English playwright wrote four centuries ago: ‘O for a muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention’. And I doubt he paid any taxes at all.

Did you hear the one about..?

23cnd-marceau1.600

French comedy at its (silent) best

This year’s Booker International prizewinner, ‘A horse walks into a bar’, follows the routine of an over-the-hill stand-up comic as he coaxes and manipulates his audience, painfully aware that one failed joke could send the entire act crashing through the stage floor.

I often wonder why modern politicians don’t take their cue from stand-up comedians. While much of what they say and do is laughable, they never seem to be afraid of wheeling out the old, failed one-liners. And, unbelievably, far from throwing rotten tomatoes, their constituents and the international community at large lap up their corny nonsense.

For example, did you hear the one about the French Finance Minister who walked into a press conference …?

Following five years of clownish misrule by socialist Francois Hollande, last month France’s independent auditor uncovered a budget shortfall of seven billion euros. Meanwhile, France has failed to meet the EU maximum deficit requirement of 3% of GDP every year for the last decade – a target that is particularly important for the stability of the single currency. And, then there is the protected labour market, with maximum working hours and early retirement, to name but two loony-left policies.

All that misery led the new Prime Minister to announce earlier this month that President Emmanuel Macron’s campaign-promised tax cuts would have to wait until 2019 while the government set about balancing the books. That invited an immediate reaction, not from the opposition, but from the government’s Finance Minister, evidently acting with the backing of his boss’s boss. According to the quickly revised script, the first stage of the planned reduction of corporate tax from 33% to 25% would go ahead next year – down to a cordon bleu, mouth-watering 28%. Meanwhile, housing taxes would be reduced, and there would be a reform of wealth tax (the latter would be delayed).

The amazing thing is that the Finance Minister declared that the required budget deficit target would still be achieved in 2018 – the gap evidently to be closed by the expected additional tax revenues from the economic growth arising from the change. You can fool some of the people all of the time. History is full of no-hope fiscal promises from governments. A larger than expected deficit, plus labour rigidity that will take years to unravel, would be a no-brainer to any tenth-grade pupil who could think past his infatuation with his teacher. Short of a miracle – like the bonanza of more than a billion euro back-taxes the French courts refused to sanction from Google last week, or the Finance Minister getting lucky with the country’s foreign currency reserves on the tables at Monte Carlo – the deficit target is going to be missed once more.

I realize that politicians, more than most, do not like to be bearers of bad tidings, but what about the French equivalent of the man on the Clapham omnibus? Do people really just hear what they want to hear?

While governments and their cohorts can, at a price, mess with the money supply and the amount of fiscal spending, as well – in fairness – as tax policy, they clearly cannot micromanage the annual tax-take.

Lousy one-liners aside – in politics, like in stand-up, it is all a matter of timing…..

 

The Unsatanic Taxes

funnyroadNobody who has read Salman Rushdie’s classic ‘Midnight’s Children’ can be indifferent to the juxtaposition of India and Midnight in a phrase or sentence. So, the recent announcement that India’s new GST law (VAT by any other name would smell as sweet) would come into effect, amidst much fanfare, at midnight on July 1 was enough to make my heart flutter like a punkahwallah’s punkah.

The world’s biggest democracy has finally joined the vast majority of the globe’s tax-setters in a cross-twenty-nine-state system that, when the technological problems are sorted out, should improve India’s tax-raising efficiency and, thus, help that great country in furthering its economic growth.

That is not to say that VAT is the Mother Teresa of all taxes. Its biggest problem is that it is regressive –  it taxes consumption at the level of the poor-man-in-the-street who, the poorer he is,  spends a higher proportion of his income on surviving. This is traditionally combatted by lower rates or exemptions on basic things like food. Indeed, India – in keeping with its tradition of making everything as complicated as possible – has introduced five rates of VAT  plus a stratospheric concoction for dealing with untouchables like luxury goods and tobacco.

Of course, there will still be those who manage to get round the tax, legally or otherwise. Time will tell whether devious residents latch onto the ubiquitous Carousel Fraud phenomenon (involving the import and export of the same goods multiple times – a bunch of Brits were caught a few years back when they got lazy and stopped changing the plugs on phone chargers between France and England). And then there was the hard-to-believe wheeze of the Spanish theatre that sold VAT-exempt carrots for admittance to its performances together with a worthless piece of paper called a ticket. The only problem (apart from the Spanish tax garrotters catching up with them) was that hungry patrons couldn’t prove their right to re-entry to the auditorium after a toilet break during the intermission.

At the end of the day, VAT works. One of the few countries that does not seem to agree is the ‘biggest’ democracy (as opposed to the ‘biggest democracy’). A few years ago, at lunch at a conference in Berlin, a group of American experts were discussing ways of plugging the impossible US deficit, coming up with all sorts of supply-side ideas. Thinking that V.A.T was the sort of acronym (actually sayable, like M.A.D – Mutual Assured Destruction) that Americans would die for (especially when said with an English accent), I suggested that imposition of such a tax would surely solve all their problems. I was completely frozen out. V.A.T is a dirty acronym in the eyes of Uncle Sam. My luncheon partners looked like they wanted to drag me in front of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Un-American Activities Committee. The irony, of course, is that while V.A.T undermines the ‘redistribution of income’ philosophy of most of the ’red’ nations (such as Britain and Europe) imposing it, the American belief in ‘equality of opportunity’ is completely at peace with its workings.

The Indians still have a long way to go. Their direct tax system leaves much to be desired – the witch-hunt of Vodafone to cover the seller’s capital gains in an offshore purchase a while back, and its treaty-defying Dividend Distribution Tax being but two examples of the rot.

As Rushdie put it in Midnight’s Children, ‘I admit it: above all things I fear absurdity.’ Thankfully, his beloved India is finally taking steps in the right direction.

Taking axes to taxes

31ba460a00000578-0-image-m-19_1456825752232

How Hungary chose its tax rate

En route to a tax conference in Malta earlier this month, circumstances led me to muse about the renewed race to the bottom of international corporate tax rates. Donald Trump had not yet surprised the world with his election win, so his promises of madly reduced US corporate tax rates were the stuff of fantasy. But lowly Hungary had just come up with the first single digit rate in the EU, leapfrogging on its way down the traditional cut price nations of Ireland and Cyprus. And since Britain’s decision to ditch the EU, its surrogate Prime Minister Theresa May and her Cabinet have been titillating the markets with talk of even lower rates, though this week’s Autumn Statement reiterated the, once promiscuous but now modest, 17% target for 2020.

All sounds wonderful? Well, here was the first lesson in Tax Policy 101 at 35,000 feet. A certain Italian international airline, which shall remain nameless, was offering the cheapest Business Class travel to my destination. This was not the first time I had flown with them, but triumph-of-hope-over-experience is my middle name.

As Milton Friedman famously said: ‘There is no such thing as a free lunch’,

33d5a61e00000578-3572879-image-a-65_1462373323259

It took their minds off crashing

but in the case of this airline, for the first hour and a half in the air, there was no such thing as a free glass of water. The single attendant assigned to Business Class clearly felt the need, inspired by his socialist Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, to redistribute his time to the proletariat at the back, and offer free access to the Business Class toilet because – as he pointed out – he had 150 people on the flight needing facilities; Airbus (and the Italian airline) obviously hadn’t taken that fact into account when configuring the seat lay-out. The meal would not have disappointed a five year old kid with a five dollar budget at McDonalds.

But it wasn’t all bad. The plane did manage to stay in the air for the entire three and a half hour flight – no small feat when considering Italian aviation history, especially in the early 1940s.

At the end of the day, it is simple economics that if you cut the budget something has to give. In the case of the Italian airline, it was service that flew out of the window. In the case of countries recklessly hacking corporate tax rates without stopping to think, they are condemning their populations to austerity today, or austerity tomorrow.

Of course, what each government is trying to do is bring in more foreign investment, expand employment and, thus, the tax base. However, while there is considerable evidence that free trade, by forcing nations to concentrate on their areas of comparative advantage, potentially leads to an increase in the size of the overall pie, tax competition is, if anything, distortive to international trade leading to suboptimal results, at the same time delivering reduced public investment that may have been needed to expand the economy.

johnf-kennedy

Where is he when we need him?

After years of careful planning following the 2008 financial crisis, we are now entering a period of knee-jerk decisions in international economics alongside knee-jerk decisions in international affairs.

At least it will not be boring.

 

m

Going it alone?

It would appear Americans have long preferred blondes

It would appear Americans have long preferred blondes

Ever since Marilyn Monroe’s less famous namesake, James, came up with his Doctrine almost two centuries ago, America has toyed with isolationism. They tried it in the First World War, and it didn’t work. They tried it in the Second World War, and it didn’t work. And Barack Obama has spent his presidency unsuccessfully trying to raise the drawbridge to the Middle East.

But there is a bit of isolationism going on at the moment that is not catching everybody’s eye: Tax Isolationism.

As the nation fires its engines for the four-yearly circus that is the Presidential Election, candidates for the Republican nomination are outdoing each other in unpassable and unworkable tax reform proposals. Meanwhile, the nominee-presumptive for the Democratic ticket has made her own comments on the issue.

What is remarkable is that all the candidates have concentrated on lowering tax rates and closing loopholes, conjuring up numbers they each know they will not have to justify. After all, America is one of the few countries in the world where the Government’s Budget is a wish-list rather than a statement of intent (Congress never passes Budgets as proposed). They are looking at America as if it were a self-contained island. Their sole material tip of the hat to other countries is the universal objection to inversion transactions, which have been rife in recent years and serve to reduce the US tax base.

In the meantime, BEPS is fast taking shape, and the US Treasury is belatedly realizing that, as European nations apply the rules and import more profit to their shores, in a zero-sum game the big loser is the U.S. of A. which is by far the busiest player in the international economy.

The big question now is whether the US will try and torpedo part of the BEPS program. At this late stage that would not go down well internationally. As regards automatic exchange of information, America may end up trailing much of the world since the Federal authorities evidently have limited legal right to demand States’ statistics.

What did he see in her?

What did he see in her?

On the other hand,  America’s antithetical view to John Donne’s meditation, ‘No man is an island,’ may not be all bad. As Mrs Arthur Miller herself once observed, ‘If I’d obeyed all the rules, I’d never have got anywhere’.

The spotlight beside the golden door

When did she renounce her first religion?

When did she renounce her first religion?

Fifty years ago today, the New York Times announced that Elizabeth Taylor  had failed in her attempt to renounce US citizenship. Required to disavow ‘all allegiance and fidelity’ to the United States, she found herself  unable to do so. Now, allegiance and fidelity are terms Ms Taylor had a lot of experience disavowing – eight lots of experience, to be precise: Mr Hilton, Mr Wilding, Mr Todd, Mr Fisher, Mr Burton (Take one), Mr Burton (Take two), Mr Warner and Mr Fortensky.

Ms Taylor, somewhat disingenuously, declared her reason for renouncing her citizenship as wanting to have the same citizenship as her then husband-for-the-first-time , Richard Burton. Had Burton, by reason of his birth, been a Welsh Nationalist (which he was patently not), the argument may have had some traction. But Taylor did not need to seek the same British citizenship as her husband for the convenient reason that she was British, born and bred.

The only reason that the Cleopatra star wished to be rid of her American passport was that she was living and working in Europe at the time, and she did not want to have to pay tax in the US.

Nothing has changed in fifty years. People are renouncing their citizenship right, left and centre (although, on this occasion, I suppose that should be ‘center’). Whereas, in the conscience-ridden and patriotic ’60s ordinary people had understandable difficulty in renouncing allegiance and fidelity – nowadays, if it will save a buck or two, who the hell cares about such outdated emotional claptrap?

Thaddeus Stevens who roomed with Al Gore at Harvard

Thaddeus Stevens who roomed with Al Gore at Harvard

But, of course, as in so many other respects, this aspect of  US Tax Law is insane. Eritrea is the only other nation that taxes income on the basis of citizenship. I admit that I have never been to Eritrea (in fact, I would not know where to find it on a map, so it is just as well I have never tried to get there), but my assumption is that Fifth Avenue it is not. One can almost sympathize with successive Eritrean governments trying to plug their fiscal hole with takings from comparatively wealthy citizens abroad. One could also sympathize, if one were living a hundred and fifty years ago, with Thaddeus Stevens and his House Ways and Means Committee wanting to clobber Yankees escaping the Civil War. But things have moved on since then. The  dysfunctional American tax system allows multi-national corporations to shelter profits overseas, provides countless tax breaks to domestic taxpayers and has enough loopholes to fill whatever you can fill with loopholes. So, choosing to chase expatriates not currently benefiting from the public spending of tax revenues is barmy.

Beyond the idiocy of citizenship-based taxation, it is the offer of a ‘Get out of jail free’ card by relinquishing citizenship that I, a non-American with no aspirations to become one, find distasteful. I am very proud and happy that I became an Israeli citizen a quarter of a century ago. This is my home. This is the place where  I raised my children and the place where they are now raising theirs. But I am also proud of being British. It was Britain that offered my grandparents refuge when, over a century ago, they had to escape the stink-hole that was, and possibly still is, Ukraine. It was Britain that stood alone against the greatest evil yet known to man in 1940 and 1941. It was Britain that gave me the education that enabled me to get on in life. Britain does not present me with a dilemma. There is no reason for me to consider giving up my citizenship.

Expatriate Americans, on the other hand, faced with horrendous annual reporting requirements, as well as potentially horrible taxes, have to make a real decision. For those with a conscience, it is an almost impossible situation. How does a native-born American disavow ‘all allegiance and fidelity’? Even I, a non-American, would have difficulty making a  statement like that about the one nation on the planet that, when push came to shove,  has held it all together for the last hundred years.

Still liable to tax

Still liable to tax

Come on Uncle Sam. This year marks the 150th anniversary of the end of the  Civil War. If you can make peace  with Cuba, you can  make peace with your expatriates. They are the best ambassadors you’ve got (although I’m not sure about Liz Taylor – she was a bit of an embarrassment at times, even for an American).

 

Yes we can!

barak_l2014 was the year when ‘Yes, we can’ finally became ‘No, I couldn’t’. It is all over bar the shouting, and Mr Obama is reduced to bumping wedding couples off Hawaiian golf courses so that he can get on with one of the remaining functions of his office.

In fairness, it isn’t just the President who should be swallowing his words. Congress will discover in 2015 that in one area at least –  international taxation – it is being hoisted on its own petard.

The FATCA  ‘spill-the-beans-to-Uncle-Sam-or-he’ll-rip-out–your-windpipe-with-a-pair-of-pliars’ rules  that were conjured up in 2010 have spawned a revolution in international taxation. The big loser is going to be the US of A.

When the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act was legislated, it was designed to ensure that  income rightly taxable in the US could not be sheltered overseas. Execution involved steamrollering the rest of the world into accepting horrific compliance costs, just so Uncle Sam could relax at the side of his Florida condo pool.

The world, sick of being cowed into submission by the western juggernaut, struck back. What was good for the goose was good for the gander. Countries demanded reciprocal arrangements – which the US agreed to, comfortable in the knowledge that Federal Law did not permit the gathering of such information. America was still riding high.

But if reciprocal arrangements were on the cards, why stop at bilateral arrangements with the US? There was a serious, and soon to be succesful,  move towards the Automatic Exchange of Information between just about everybody.

Golf - Putin style

Golf – Putin style

Aye, Mr United States Congress, there’s the rub. Because, once old orders disintegrate, there tends to be a domino effect. If the game was up for dirty money, why not deal with slightly-soiled money as well? National Parliaments started to make noises. Then came the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting initiative of the OECD, sold to the world by David ‘I play cricket’ Cameron and Vladimir ‘I play dirty’ Putin. All of a sudden, bringing together the international community to ensure that multi-national companies pay their fair share of tax in countries hosting their activities was not just a pipe dream. Meaningful transfer pricing based on real activity, country-by-country reporting, sharing the cake of the digital economy, updating archaic permanent establishment rules and unravelling hybrid transactions, were all within sight. What is more, it didn’t really matter if the BEPS action plan would be formally adopted or not – the international mood was to enact unilateral legislation and take it from there.

The bottom line is that, in 2015,  Uncle Sam’s FATCA is going to turn around and bite him on his bum. Why? Because the vast majority of reshifting of profits will be away from the US. It is true that much of the profits now being claimed from US multinationals by countries such as the UK and France are currently parked offshore – but, were the dysfunctional US Congress and President to stop squabbling like alley cats in a garbage can, they could pull in those earnings at the stroke of a pen. That will not be the case, however, once they disappear legitimately into the coffers of other sovereign states.

A typical 2015 day at the White House

A typical 2015 day at the White House

So, President Obama, Senator McConnell and Speaker Boehner, the message from the world beyond New York Harbor is: ‘Yes, we can’. And we are going to. Anyone for golf?

Post Navigation