letter to parliament - Coordinated approach to foreign funds and tax havens Chamber Letter In this letter I will sketch a picture of the joint efforts of the Ministry of Finance, the Tax and FIOD-ECD on tackling tax havens and foreign assets.
Until September 28 this year to have the 2625 Tax introspection managers with total assets of € 593 million reported average nearly € 226,000 per person.
First Curacao International Bank (FCIB)
FIOD-ECD has been some time ago started a criminal investigation led by the First Curacao International Bank, including money laundering and VAT carousel fraud. The research focuses on the bank transaction point of very large payments (millions of transactions with a combined transaction volume of 900 billion euros), as well as trust assets and debit card payments [1]. The investigation also detailed information has become available to some 6,000 account holders of this bank. This account also includes entities such as foundations, trusts and limited. FIOD-ECD has the information, including names, addresses, account numbers and other transaction documents this account, after analysis transferred to the Tax Office. The Tax is expected to write this month the Dutch first 100 account holders in which they are asked to explain the power that they bank account already. Stakeholders often have multiple accounts. The information relating to non-Dutch account holders will be forwarded to the relevant foreign tax authorities. Construction Coordination
Fight
The Construction Coordination Control (CCB) of the Tax Office aims to combat unwanted structures that power out of sight and reach of the tax authorities can be held. Recent months, the CCB, based on new information, new calculations of the extent of trust assets. In total there is now a view of some € 15 billion in trust assets abroad. The final amount is expected to be considerably higher, as effect to the amendment currently present on floating abilities (APV's). Your Chamber is of the nature and composition of the Trust assets in the technical briefing on the revision of the SW even further confidential information. The many billions of known trust fund can also be seen alongside the previously reported to the House € 7 billion euros as a minimum estimate of foreign-present Dutch saving capacity. [2]
General Taxation should be clear, comprehensible and transparent, so everyone can pay their share. For groups and individuals who resign must be clear that this is not acceptable. They can count on a tough approach.
The involvement of other countries so, however, necessary. By bank secrecy in some countries and by refusing to provide information on capabilities of Dutch taxpayers, it was difficult to stand against a powerful savings.
why I immediately after my appointment as Minister of Finance took the initiative as soon as possible with as many tax havens tax exit the exchange of information. Negotiations for this are therefore immediately commenced. At various international platforms such as the G20 meeting in Washington and special OECD meeting on this theme, I raised the subject. International developments
The financial crisis that has resulted in an economic crisis has led to the international stage, more attention has been paid to savings. Stimulus package while ensuring a sound fiscal authorities to place a financial challenge. It fits not while there are taxpayers who evade their tax obligations. This conclusion share many of my foreign colleagues.
In particular, countries which traditionally a banking secrecy, have consistently expressed reservations about the exchange of banking information. This is particularly true for a number of European countries including Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland. They usually relied on that bank secrecy in the way of such an exchange of information on tax grounds. In addition, several jurisdictions (tax havens), such as Liechtenstein and Bermuda, which (until recently) not at all willing to (any of) the tax information exchange site.
In preparation for the meeting of the G-20 countries in London on April 2, 2009 the discussion on transparency and information exchange has accelerated. It became clear that countries who refused to commit to the international standard, had to consider serious sanctions measures (countermeasures) from G-20 countries. The progress of the implementation of the standard visibility to both the OECD published a list showing the status at this point of 84 countries could be identified [3]. This list was then kept on the latest situation changed so that any progress by country almost immediately became visible. In combination with the measures announced this led not only that this standard worldwide was almost immediately recognized and endorsed but also led to an unprecedented rapid expansion in the number of bilateral negotiations on tax information exchange treaties (Tax Information Exchange Agreements - TIEA) and tax treaties with a modern information exchange treated according to the OECD Model Convention.
The chosen path of tax information exchange under the current political and economic conditions in the wind so the sails had.
Adaptation of (existing) tax
Already on the eve of the G-20 summit in London, several States indicated that at the point of exchange (bank) information to the internationally agreed standards to conform. This is particularly true for countries with bank secrecy, including Austria, Luxembourg, Belgium, Switzerland and Singapore. All these countries have indicated the prior reservation to Article 26 of the OECD Model Convention, and especially the fifth paragraph that deals with banking data, rates and readiness to take upon request [4] for tax purposes, banking information existing tax on exchange and review of this item. The banking secrecy based on resistance data is wider So, now broken.
However, a number of conditions known to prevent fishing expeditions, and without a concrete link with respect to one or more taxpayers information is required. These conditions are derived from Article 5 of the TIEA dating from 2002 model, which in turn served as a model of international standard.
Along these lines, the Netherlands has been in Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Singapore and Malaysia reached an agreement on adaptation treaty. In Hong Kong, the discussions in terms of information exchange is still in an exploratory stage but the expectation is that there in the foreseeable future an agreement could be reached. Upon entry into force of the relevant protocols will change in the treaties with these countries an information exchange provision are that (almost) coincides with the standard-setting (Article 26) from the OECD 2008 Model Convention, with requirements derived from Article 5 of the TIEA Model Convention. This applies also in relation to Switzerland, where in the case of Switzerland in mind that there is an entirely new tax, which is much more inclusive and which was negotiated several years [5]. That is why I express approval of this Convention to the States-General intends to submit. However, given the fact that in the other amending protocols hardly deviate from the examples from the OECD model, I believe that there with a silent procedure is sufficient.
Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEA's)
Outside the sphere of bilateral tax treaties we have in the past few months a large number of (specific) information exchange agreements, called TIEA's (Tax Information Exchange Agreements) negotiated. Dutch delegations have been very active in cooperation with several countries. These treaties are based on the dating from 2002 Model Agreement on the Exchange of Information on Tax Matters of the OECD, which, as already noted, the area of information exchange model for the international standard. Netherlands have already signed such information exchange treaties with the Isle of Man (October 2005), Jersey (June 2007) and Guernsey (April 2008) recently implied by the latter treaty approved. The content of the pages TIEA Netherlands has now closed material similar to the results of the previous TIEA's [6]. With this in mind I therefore believe that an implicit treatment of the recently agreed TIEA's sufficient, especially because it puts an earliest possible entry into force, and consequently ability to effectively exchange information, seems to be served. In
TIEA, it's usually to (smaller) jurisdictions with which the Netherlands is not comprehensive trade and no double taxation. In cooperation with the FIOD-ECD and the Tax an inventory of the jurisdictions from which information exchange Dutch perspective of interest should (could) be. This applies in particular to (former) tax havens in the Caribbean. Meanwhile, with almost all of them agreed, and it is expected that in particular the Caribbean soon will be covered by the TIEA network in the Netherlands.
TIEA's how I already signed with Anguilla, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Antigua & Barbuda, St Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent & the Grenadines, Samoa and the Cook Islands. Netherlands has also taken a coordinating role in the southeastern Caribbean: there are late July and early August negotiations. The TIEA's with Antigua & Barbuda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent & the Grenadines, Saint Kitts & Nevis are the result. I also expect in the near future also a TIEA with the Bahamas to sign. As a next step will look at jurisdictions in the region of Panama. The first contacts with Panama were established with a view to concluding a TIEA, which the Netherlands is again one of the forerunners.
Finally the first steps have already put in TIEA negotiations with Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino and Andorra. With Andorra has recently been agreed. It is expected that discussions with the other three jurisdictions could be completed this fall. Moreover exists in relation to this group of countries some degree of overlapping with negotiations on the EC anti-fraud treaties. The European Commission is negotiating for some time with Liechtenstein on an anti-fraud treaty. That treaty also contains provisions which ensure the exchange of information on request in the field of taxation (OECD accordance with the international standard). The Commission intends to match similar agreements with Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and Switzerland. The ultimate anti-fraud treaty with Liechtenstein will be used as a guide. Next steps
internationally
being there is exchange "on demand". TIEA The model is based on exchange 'On demand'. In particular, Article 26 of the OECD Model Convention provides countries in principle, the possibility for information by automatic and spontaneous exchange, this is not a requirement. Netherlands has always stressed its support for automatic exchange (bank) information, as it an effective exchange of information expected to be the best will be effective [7]. The international standard that requires more extensive form of information exchange, however, (yet), and none of the above mentioned countries [8] is currently willing to go beyond what the international standard (now) required. From a Dutch perspective
remains full transparency automated data and the (logical) next step. Netherlands will therefore continue its efforts. Nevertheless, the current international standard ("on demand") without more of a historic step forward, since it in terms of information exchange for the first time a level playing field is created that is applicable worldwide. National developments
And even in the country, the civil resistance savings.
Once detected concealed savings came from a relatively small fine. This I have recovered. I have the fine per offense July 1, 2009 increased to 300 percent for failure to declare income from box 3. This is a very powerful signal to those who derive their powers out of sight of the tax account.
same time there is the possibility of concealed assets to give the tax over the past year without penalty ensure compliance (the voluntary disclosure scheme). This increase of the fine from prospecting and, as I have recalled in the introduction, many people - even in the run - using the possibility to return. To voluntary disclosure as easy as possible, I ordered the Tax e-mail address (inkeer@belastingdienst.nl) and a separate phone number (076-5260128), which opened repentance holders can register.
But the voluntary disclosure system needs tightening. In the debate on increasing the fine to 300 percent, the deadline for the House of impunity may be contemplating limited to 2 years. After two years getting the inkeerder is indeed a fine addition to any income tax withheld.
Within a short period, I also intend to further reduce the voluntary disclosure scheme. I do not think it fits with our tax morality that one who does not meet the tax obligations here with a relatively low penalty out of here. By gaining more information about concealed foreign power is also no longer necessary to have a voluntary settlement of a tax motive substantial rewards.
The introduction of the fourth tranche of the General Administrative Law Act (July 1, 2009) allows the perpetrators, directs the business tax clients and donors could be fined as a participant in a fined offense. In principle it is now possible for a consultant to fine together with the taxpayer funds out of view of trying to keep the tax authorities. The practice remains to be seen whether these new doctrines are sufficient opportunities.
Tackling "wrong" advisers may also be clues found in the Act to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. Under this law has a duty to report an advisor if there are indications of money laundering. A taxpayer assets outside the view of the Treasury shall make, in addition to intentionally make a false declaration, is also guilty of money laundering. Is this a science adviser he is obliged to mention this to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) - Netherlands. Failure to comply with the reporting requirement is an economic offense. The administrative settlement (the imposition of an administrative fine) runs through the Financial Supervision Office. The criminal prosecution is through the Public Prosecutor.
Improvements in the performance
have been and are mainly treaties and TIEA's concluded with countries that are traditionally known as countries with a fiscal environment conducive to income and assets out of sight of the tax authorities to account. The expectation is therefore justified that when the treaties concluded and entered into force TIEA's the number of requests to foreign countries (many) will increase. This will also increase the amount of information received. Incidentally TIEA's also signed with countries in terms of the Netherlands currently play little or no tax issues, but especially important to prevent so-called waterbed effect. The purpose of this TIEA's is just for the obvious diversions to cut off. The expectation is that in practice only very limited use of this TIEA's need to be made.
Within the Tax at 1 September 2009 created a structure that would will result, taking into account the increased opportunities, actively searched for (information) available to taxpayers international information may be made. This structure will also result in the processing and use of the information received by the Tax Office will work more efficiently and effectively. For example, the risk selection of the tax system at this point be further refined. This new structure allows us to address taxpayers are (partly) out of sight of the Administration trying to stay strong improvement.
Tackling black savers I strengthened at different levels:
by entering new information exchange agreements
by increasing the offense penalty to 300% by intensifying investigation by the Tax and FIOD-ECD for effective monitoring and detection ability of foreign particulate capabilities (trust assets) is now a new legal framework for consideration in the House room in the revision of the Inheritance.
I believe this package of measures described as effective and as complete as possible content is given to the possibilities the new situation in the Netherlands offers and will offer, for I am convinced that developments in this area are not over yet. My commitment, both nationally and internationally, will continue to focus on the removal of all remaining barriers in terms of international exchange of (bank) data.
Sincerely,
the Financial Secretary, Mr. JC
Carney
---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -
[1] Payment by credit card linked to a debit account. To commit a transaction to a positive bank balance is needed. This positive balance is mostly generated by a trust fund. This has actually been a payment with a 'blank' card which the owner is untraceable.
[2] This amount is calculated based on the data Netherlands under European Savings Directive receives.
[3] The survey distinguishes between countries and standards compliance (in the corridor called the 'white list'), countries that are committed but not yet show that they observe the standards ("gray list ') and non-cooperative countries (' blacklist '). The white list is made up of countries with at least twelve countries have signed agreements providing for exchange of information in accordance with international standards.
[4] Moreover, Belgium will from 1 January 2010 also commit to the European Savings Directive which bank information from that date automatic base will be exchanged.
[5] This applies also in relation to Hong Kong.
[6] For the avoidance can be made of the additional package to the TIEA with Bermuda. This package is broadly similar to the package in 2005 with Isle of Man agreed.
[7] Automatic exchanges are already taking place now, for example between most EU member states under the savings directive.
[8] With the exception of Belgium which from 1 January 2010 also commits itself to the European Savings Directive which bank information from that date by automatic will be exchanged.
