Thank you kindly for all the work that you've done on my and my wife's behalf. A big pressure has been taken off our chests

M. Elliot
  1. Article
  2. Related Articles
  3. Related Practice Areas

Taxation Law - The Gathering Pace and Scope of Taxation Information Exchange

Date: August 05, 2010

Authors: Tony Anamourlis B.A., LL.B., MTaxLaw, GradDipLegPrac, SJD Candidate (La Trobe); ATIA

The Need for Information Exchange 

The importance of effective tax information exchange and effective transparency between countries is vital to a country’s well being and integrity of its tax system with inter country transactions.

While the OECD considered the lack of information exchange in a number of its member countries and other jurisdictions[1]the OECD’s main concern appeared to be the dearth of information exchange. This was identified as a  key factor that enabled taxpayers to hide tax avoidance activities from domestic tax authorities. Consequently it may be argued that any country that does not provide adequate information exchange in relation to tax avoidasnce activities could be regarded at risk as potentially facilitating (a) the avoidance of taxes or (ii) money laundering.

In this respect the OECD considered whether a country or its territories had in place laws, or the administrative practices, under which businesses and individuals could benefit from strict secrecy rules and other protections against scrutiny by tax authorities, thereby preventing effective exchange of information on taxpayers benefiting from low-tax jurisdictions[2].

As noted above one of the major difficulties in tackling tax avoidance ,and  in identifying taxpayers who are involved with illegal activities by the use of Tax Havens, is obtaining relevant information to issue an appropriate notice of assessment or amended assessment.

As a result the issue of banking secrecy is a  significant issue  in reducing tax evasion and identifying taxpayers who use tax shelters to conceal their income and assets from revenue authorities.

Banking Secrecy

Over the years the issue of banking secrecy and the release of information about a taxpayer’s affairs has been a contentious issue. On this issue it has been observed by Osborne that:

“The European Union believes that in a full economic and monetary union there should be no place for banking practices that stand conspicuously outside the mainstream[3]”.

However, Luxemburg’s Prime Minister, Mr Jean-Claude Juncker said that;

“…to equate secret banking with a tax haven doesn’t hold water..., the tiny Duchy will not give up its banking secrecy tomorrow morning, but will take part in any discussions on improving transparency on financial markets”[4]

As indicated earlier, a major concern for the OECD and its members for effective exchange of information and transparency is a country’s banking secrecy laws[5]Liechtenstein, Belgium and Austria have in place secrecy laws that prohibit its employees from divulging any tax information to outside tax jurisdictions[6]. Luxemburg, Belgium and Austria are high on the list of countries that have strong bank secrecy laws with respect to tax havens which operate within the European Union (“EU”) and the non-EU countries being Liechtenstein and Switzerland. These countries observe strict banking secrecy and as a result are able to attract foreign capital via a range of loopholes or concessions which facilitate the use of tax havens. . Countries like Switzerland, Panama, Luxemburg,

Banks are more subject to government regulation than other businesses. However tax authorities have long shown an interest in obtaining information about account holders and bank transactions in relation to taxation matters. It has also been relevant for the investigation of crime and to give other governments.

In the past Austria and Switzerland have had a "neutral" attitude towards bank secrecy and are very cautious concerning the release of information, which is confidential in nature.   In Switzerland, as in Austria and Luxembourg, bank secrecy can be pierced for criminal investigations, but not for tax collection. In this sense, bank secrecy protects citizens against their governments[7]. The "neutral" countries are not merely asserting their sovereignty: they feel they have principles to defend. Legal assistance requests go to various authorities in Switzerland and no aggregate figures are available, but they are undoubtedly numerous.

Therefore it seems that the difficulty faced by taxing authorities in obtaining relevant information from other taxing jurisdictions poses a significant issue in the campaign against tax evasion and tax avoidance. 

However a major development concerning bank secrecy that has occurred recently is the formalisation of a significant agreement between the USA and the European Union known as the 'Brussels Agreement.[8] .

Contact us now for Fast, Accurate and Timely legal advice

Phone LAC Lawyers on NSW 1300 799 888 or VIC 1300 734 638 or send us an email 

[1] International Tax Avoidance and Evasion (OECD, 1987), four related studies No 1, at 22, although the 1987 OCED report had used a “reputation test” to identify classical tax havens, the report had stated that there is no single clear, objective test which permits the identification of a country as a tax haven, at 21 and had listed a number of characteristics of tax havens, including bank and commercial secrecy.
[2] International Tax Avoidance and Evasion (OECD, 1987), four related studies No 1, at 22, although the 1987 OCED report had used a “reputation test” to identify classical tax havens, the report had stated that there is no single clear, objective test which permits the identification of a country as a tax haven, at 21 and had listed a number of characteristics of tax havens, including bank and commercial secrecy.
[3] Alan Osborne, “Banking Secrecy, no more”, Friday 1 March 2002.
[4] Junker defends Luxemburg’s “secret” banking system, 23 October 2008, EUbusiness.
[5] Law of 5 April 1993 on the financial sector, as amended Art. 41 Obligation of professional secrecy 1.Law of 12 January 2001) "All administrators, members of managing and supervisory bodies, directors, employees and other persons in the service of credit institutions, other financial sector professionals, settlement entities, central counterparties, clearing houses and foreign operators of systems authorised in Luxembourg, as referred to in Part I of this Law, shall be required to keep secret any information confided to them in the context of their professional activities. Disclosure of such information shall be punishable by the penalties laid down in Article 458 of the Penal Code."
[6] Andre Rothenbuhler, “The European Banking Secrecy Cartel under Swiss Cover”. Also see The European Court of Justice has thrown out a case in which it was asked to judge whether there was a conflict between a Luxembourg law on banking secrecy and a Belgian one on giving evidence in criminal proceedings. The case (C-153/00) concerned two employees of a Luxembourg bank who are refusing to co-operate in an investigation by Belgian authorities into tax fraud. But in a judgement handed down on December 10, the Court seems to have washed its hands of the matter, arguing that it was not sufficiently informed of the either the facts or the legal background.
[7] The law also protects privacy, meaning all personal facts and information which are known only to a limited number of persons. Therefore, the exposure and transmission of facts and information not destined to be known by other people constitutes a violation of Article 28 CC. The Federal Supreme Court has in this regard decided that the exposure and transmission of someone's picture or voice is also a violation of the said provision. Privacy also includes facts and information that are meant to be kept secret or confidential, i.e. facts and information that are shared with nobody else or only with a limited number of people (for example, with a doctor for medical reasons or with an attorney for legal purposes). Thus, the law distinguishes between the private and confidential life of a person. The reason for doing so is the fact that the limits of protection are not the same for a well known person and somebody less known. The former is expected to receive less protection than the latter. Thus, since politicians, actors, or sportsmen are publicly more exposed, only their secret and confidential life is subject to the protection of Article 28 CC, if their popularity has reached a certain limit. However, it is clear that it can be difficult in some cases to distinguish what exactly falls under the private life of a well known person on one hand and the confidential or secret life on the other hand.
[8] The 27 EU countries have to grant this access to the US under the terrorist finance-tracking program contained in the Brussels Agreement and this is a done deal. The USA is allowed to keep the bank records for five years. The privacy invasive scheme uses the SWIFT system to scan for transactions they deem suspicious and then they request individual bank records. They can request general data sets, which are commonly referred to as a fishing expedition. Here is a list of the 27 EU countries affected: Austria; Belgium; Bulgaria; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Ireland; Italy; Latvia; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Malta; Netherlands; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain; Sweden; United Kingdom; The first thing to remember that this treaty is between the 27 EU states and the USA. The USA has greater power to access bank records than the police authorities in each of the given countries. No probable cause is neither needed, nor judicial review. Any country connected with the EU can request the USA to get the bank records.
  1. Article
  2. Related Articles
  3. Related Practice Areas