#AceFinanceNews – LONDON – HMRC – April 12 – According to the article in the BBC News today George Osborne is intending to clamp down on tax dodgers or people with overseas bank accounts.
My first question does this include the tax authorities and MP’s that have companies, shareholdings or private trusts in offshore domains?
Or just as he put it only people who hide their money overseas to avoid paying tax.
His plan is that they will face bigger fines and could be jailed more easily under government plans to fight tax evasion, but no mention of tax avoidance (A legitimate way for those who are rich enough to AVOID) taxation. All in the name of business be it investment, reinvestment or company and corporate liability strategy.
He went onto say he intends to prosecute but at present, tax officials must prove a person holding income offshore has intended to evade tax.
Once again avoiding tax is not mentioned.
He continues – But under a new criminal standard officials would only have to show money was taxable and undeclared.
An onerous statement to say the least.
As no one would have to prove they owe it as according to HMRC Officials, they say under their new rules you do!
I imagine human rights organisations will have something to say about that change.
He then says – The changes would mean there was “no safe haven” for those evading tax.
No mention of not avoiding, once again.
But Labour’s shadow exchequer secretary to the Treasury said the government was “failing to tackle tax avoidance and evasion”.
A consultation will be held to let the public have their say on the plans.
Should you care to read his article it is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26998208
English: Logotype of Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism (MONEYVAL) Русский: Логотип Комитета экспертов Совета Европы по оценке мер борьбы с отмыванием денег и финансированием терроризма (МАНИВЭЛ) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Advisory Notice on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing controls in Overseas Jurisdictions on 18th October 2013 the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) published two statements (included as annex A and B ) identifying jurisdictions with strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and counter financing regimes.
The Money Laundering Regulations 2007 require regulated entities to put in place
policies and procedures in order to prevent activities related to money laundering and
terrorist financing. In response to the statements published by FATF on 18th October 2013, HM Treasury advises firms to:
Consider the following jurisdictions as high risk for the purposes of the Money
1. Laundering Regulations 2007, and so advises firms to apply enhanced due
diligence measures in accordance with the risks:
2. Algeria, DPRK*, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran*, Kenya, Myanmar, Pakistan, Syria*, Tanzania, Turkey and Yemen.
3. Take appropriate actions in relation to the following jurisdictions to minimise the associated risks, which may include enhanced due diligence measures in high risk.
Afghanistan*, Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Cuba, Iraq, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao DPR, Mongolia, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Sudan, Tajikistan, Vietnam and Zimbabwe*.
*These jurisdictions are subject to sanctions measures at the time of publication of this
notice which require firms to take additional measures.
English: Barclay’s Bank, Jerusalem, circa 1940. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Barclay’s has a new centurion: David Walker will take over from Marcus Agius as Barclay’s chairman on November 1. Walker is a former regulator who served in the UK Treasury and Bank of England. That background will give Walker’s credibility as he tries to overhaul the bank’s culture, operations and reputation in the wake of the Libor scandal.
As lead author of the eponymous 2009 report on corporate governance at UK banks, Walker has already committed to the standards he – and other board members – should act on:
The most critical need is for an environment in which effective challenge of the executive is expected and achieved in the boardroom before decisions are taken on major risk and strategic issues. For this to be achieved will require close attention to board composition to ensure the right mix of both financial industry capability and critical perspective from high-level experience in other major business. It will also require a materially increased time commitment from non-executive directors … In all of this, the role of the chairman is paramount, calling for both exceptional board leadership skills and ability to get confidently and competently to grips with major strategic issues. With so real an expectation and obligation, the chairman’s role will involve a priority of commitment that will leave little time for other business activity.
So far, Walker is following his own advice by committing to work a minimum of four days a week as chairman. Anything short of full-time may sound slight, but none of his peers have made their time commitment similarly transparent nor can credibly argue that theirs is greater. For that work, he’ll receive £750,000 ($1.17 million), of which £100,000 will be in Barclay’s stock.
Additional transparency may be coming to Barclay’s in other forms, as well: the Walker report called for disclosure of the number of employees earning more than £1 million in salary and bonus and a tally of those “earning between £1m and £2.5m; £2.5m and £5m; and over £5m”. Walker also called for the head of the board’s pay committee to automatically face re-election if their proposals are supported by less than 75% of shareholders.
Walker also thinks boards should hear directly from risk officers, and should have final say over their hiring and firing. He wants the chief risk officer to report to other executives, but the CRO also “should report to the board risk committee, with direct access to the chairman of the committee”.
These and Walker’s many other recommendations add up to a view of the relationship between the chairman and the CEO at financial institutions very different from what we’ve recently seen. UK board oversight is more rigorous than in the US, and the chairman and CEO roles are invariably separate. It’s hard to imagine Jamie Dimon working under Walker’s structure. In Walker’s view, chief executives cannot be allowed to become indispensable or inscrutable: “If the embedding of authority… makes the CEO become effectively unchallengeable (and possibly a control freak), the CEO will be a major source of risk and will probably need to be removed”. That should make for some interesting interviews as Walker takes up his first prominent task, finding a new CEO.