Panama Papers

[Franko]

These boys are no different to anyone who, for instance, has taken/paid cash for a job to avoid paying VAT on it.  They're doing the exact same thing on a bigger scale.  Hands up anyone who can say they've never done something like that.

I sold xmas trees for a few days one xmas for cash. Think I got cash once for a day loading a freezer boat in Killybegs when I was 16 or 17 when they called in help to meet a deadline. And a neighbour once gave me 20 pounds for baling his hay for him.

Does that put me on the same moral plane as someone putting millions or even billions out of reach of the taxman?

If your main reason for taking cash was so you could avoid paying whatever tax was due on the money, then yeah.  I don't see how you can argue otherwise.  Exact same thing - different scale.

*Actually, if you want to get really fussy, you were worse, as (if I've got it right) what these boyos were up to was strictly speaking legal.

So accepting a few quid here and there for a day's work as a teenager might be morally worse than systematic cheating of your government out of millions and billions, depending on whether it was accomplished  through some legal loophole?

I'll repeat.

If your main reason for taking cash was so you could avoid paying whatever tax was due on the money, then yeah.  I don't see how you can argue otherwise.  Exact same thing - different scale.

It's the same attitude - "I know I should be paying this, but I'm gonna skirt the system so I can keep the money".

If same teenager comes into serious wealth later in life, do you think that attitude's going to change?

One is not a predictor of the other.

Just because some neighbour gave me 20 pounds to bale a field for him when I was 16 does not mean I'm going to be a tax evader in later life. Same as me giving my nephew $10 for helping me out with something doesn't impose a civic duty on him to file a tax return.

If I was moonlighting as an adult doing so -called nixers or a bit of bar work under the table on a steady basis, then you'd have a valid comparison.

Yet again you're ignoring the bit I've underlined.

If you were baling the hay and said, "here lad, I'll do it for a bit less if you give me cash" or if your nephew said something similar about his E10, then you're in the same boat as these people.  That's the point I'm making. And I'd say there's quite a few who have said/done these things.

Fair enough on that (narrow) point.

However, the scale thing doesn't add up for me in terms of judging these people. There's no comparison between some boy doing a little bit of work off the books and some banker or politician hiding his millions on some island somewhere that has been bought out to help the super rich avoid paying the share they should be paying to help fund their government. If you think the rest of us have no right to condemn, fair enough. I disagree. As do, apparently, the people of Iceland.

Its like saying any one of us who slapped another buck on the field when things got heated during a match is just a small scale version of some lout who pulled out a gun and shot someone who pissed them off. The man hurting other man thing might be the same, but the gravity of the situation is a lot different. Just because I might have given some boy a clip at some point doesn't mean I have no moral right to judge or condemn someone who uses lethal force.

Your analogy is way off. (and I think you've got a little carried away with the flowery English in the first paragraph!)  Slapping someone and shooting them dead (lethal force!?) are most definitely NOT two different levels of the same thing.  Dodging tax is dodging tax.  The only difference between the tradesman doing a few cash jobs and the businessman siphoning millions into a Cayman Islands account is the position of the decimal point.

The people of Iceland (I see you're speaking for them all now) are possibly angry because when politicians get involved it's entirely different.  The head of the government is supposed to set an example to joe soap, so when quite the opposite happens, people tend to get heated up.

Let's assume that you DO treat small scale tax evasion and large scale tax evasion differently.  The only logical inference from that is that you would support HMRC's recent 'policy' of cutting sweet deals with MNC's whilst rigidly applying tax laws to smaller enterprises.  'One rule for all' must work both ways.

[J70]

Your analogy is way off. (and I think you've got a little carried away with the flowery English in the first paragraph!)  Slapping someone and shooting them dead (lethal force!?) are most definitely NOT two different levels of the same thing.  Dodging tax is dodging tax.  The only difference between the tradesman doing a few cash jobs and the businessman siphoning millions into a Cayman Islands account is the position of the decimal point.

The people of Iceland (I see you're speaking for them all now) are possibly angry because when politicians get involved it's entirely different.  The head of the government is supposed to set an example to joe soap, so when quite the opposite happens, people tend to get heated up.

Let's assume that you DO treat small scale tax evasion and large scale tax evasion differently.  The only logical inference from that is that you would support HMRC's recent 'policy' of cutting sweet deals with MNC's whilst rigidly applying tax laws to smaller enterprises.  'One rule for all' must work both ways.

Flowery English??

I can see the problems with that analogy, but my point is that both are attempts to inflict harm which have grossly different outcomes. Use another analogy if you want instead of the gun. Say some boy beating the head off someone to the point of serious, possibly life-changing or ending injury compared to the quick exchange of a relatively harmless slap during a game. The issue is the different outcomes, same as the plumber doing the odd nixer in the evening for 100 euro and the banker stashing millions offshore to avoid a huge tax bill. Outcomes matter in other aspects of law in terms of gravity and penalty, and to me, the decimal point matters a lot.

I of course accept your last point and it is obviously one of the way societies stink in that the big man has the expert legal resources to outfight governments when it comes to any type of issue, while the penalties for the wee man are way more proportionally serious.

With that, I'm moving on. Last word to you.

[Orior]

Q) What is the difference between a blonde and the Panama Canal

A) One in a busy ditch

[Hound]

That's not Irish tax avoidance.

When MNCs do implement tax saving structures, they usually aim to reduce tax in high paying countries such as the US.

Tax savings?
Multinationals implement tax avoidance gimmicks in order to shift profit  to make it appear that it has been earned in low tax countries .  Subsidaries of US corporations earned profits in Ireland which amounted to 42% of Irish GDP, obviously impossible.
That's tax avoidance. That what the OECD call tax avoidance.

No Irish tax is being avoided. The Irish subs of US MNCs are not getting taxed at different rates to other Irish companies.

It's doubtful US tax is being avoided also. Typically US companies transfer their trademarks/technologies to havens. They pay US tax on this on this and the IRS audits the amounts paid to ensure its a fair price (it's usually done quite early in the lifecycle when the value of such IP is still not huge). The haven subsidiary then earns a shed load of money on licensing out this IP (often to the Irish subsidiary which operates as the main seller/distributor for Europe - but in many instances it could be a Dutch, Swiss, Lux, Belgium and or British company that operates as the main seller/distributor).

The US could tax the haven sub on its profits, but chooses not to due a particular piece of US legislation. The US could change that with the flick of a pen, but so far they've chosen not to.

Interestingly though, a lot of companies are looking at moving the IP out of havens because of the bad publicity that surrounds them, regardless of legality. Due to legislation enacted by FF/FG/Lab over the last number of years, Ireland now offers excellent tax breaks for companies who acquire IP - which are completely transparent, open to everyone, and approved by OECD and EU. Other countries are also improving their tax breaks for IP, but Ireland is likely to see a lot of companies transferrring their IP out of havens and into Ireland. This should bring increased CT revenue, but in particular increased employment - as the tax breaks can only apply if companies put real substance around the IP.

[macdanger2]

Interesting that the journalists would tell us how morally wrong it is for companies to reduce tax, even where everything done has been completely legal - but that it is fine to steal papers from a lawyer and to publish the contents of the stolen documents!

Not sure that everything that has been done was completely legal or that the documents were stolen - if they were handed over by an employee, it's the employee who's doing something illegal rather than the journalists. And even if it were iillegal, I'd imagine the journalists would weigh the public interest against the illegality to determine whether or not to publish.

As long as there are legal (or semi-legal) ways to avoid tax, those who can afford to will inevitably do so. It's not something I know a whole pile about but it's very difficult to change this without a single global tax code but it's hard to see that happening.

From an irish point of view, it's a matter of trying to balance attracting jobs to the country vs. taxing corporations a reasonable amount.

[Franko]

Your analogy is way off. (and I think you've got a little carried away with the flowery English in the first paragraph!)  Slapping someone and shooting them dead (lethal force!?) are most definitely NOT two different levels of the same thing.  Dodging tax is dodging tax.  The only difference between the tradesman doing a few cash jobs and the businessman siphoning millions into a Cayman Islands account is the position of the decimal point.

The people of Iceland (I see you're speaking for them all now) are possibly angry because when politicians get involved it's entirely different.  The head of the government is supposed to set an example to joe soap, so when quite the opposite happens, people tend to get heated up.

Let's assume that you DO treat small scale tax evasion and large scale tax evasion differently.  The only logical inference from that is that you would support HMRC's recent 'policy' of cutting sweet deals with MNC's whilst rigidly applying tax laws to smaller enterprises.  'One rule for all' must work both ways.

Flowery English??

I can see the problems with that analogy, but my point is that both are attempts to inflict harm which have grossly different outcomes. Use another analogy if you want instead of the gun. Say some boy beating the head off someone to the point of serious, possibly life-changing or ending injury compared to the quick exchange of a relatively harmless slap during a game. The issue is the different outcomes, same as the plumber doing the odd nixer in the evening for 100 euro and the banker stashing millions offshore to avoid a huge tax bill. Outcomes matter in other aspects of law in terms of gravity and penalty, and to me, the decimal point matters a lot.

I of course accept your last point and it is obviously one of the way societies stink in that the big man has the expert legal resources to outfight governments when it comes to any type of issue, while the penalties for the wee man are way more proportionally serious.

With that, I'm moving on. Last word to you.

Flowery English

Your description of small scale tax evader
"some boy doing a little bit of work off the books"

Large scale
"some banker or politician hiding his millions on some island somewhere that has been bought out to help the super rich avoid paying the share they should be paying to help fund their government"

I agree, on the gravity thing and in terms of penalties (fines etc), you'd hope this would be recognised.  However, it's a bit rich of said tradesman to give off about some banker dodging his tax, when the only difference between his antics and the banker's, is the thickness of the wad of notes.

To run with your analogy - you must realise that if your victim takes enough of the small slaps, he'll eventually end up as badly bruised as he did when he got the hiding from the big lad.

Are JP McManus and the guy that sticks a fiver on 6 teams on a saturday both gamblers?  I'd say so...

[Hound]

Interesting that the journalists would tell us how morally wrong it is for companies to reduce tax, even where everything done has been completely legal - but that it is fine to steal papers from a lawyer and to publish the contents of the stolen documents!

Not sure that everything that has been done was completely legal or that the documents were stolen - if they were handed over by an employee, it's the employee who's doing something illegal rather than the journalists. And even if it were iillegal, I'd imagine the journalists would weigh the public interest against the illegality to determine whether or not to publish.

I saw one guy on the news from the Panama lawyers claiming their systems were hacked and that is how the documents were stolen. Whether hacked by an outsider or an employee the documents were clearly stolen.

I don't really have a problem with them being published, but find it amusing that the journalists refer to them as leaked rather than stolen!