Thank you for all of your help. The service was outstanding - all of my questions were answered promptly, everything ran smoothly

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

The Mechanisms of Tax Information Exchange Between Different Jurisdictions

Date: August 04, 2010

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

The Existence of a Tax Information Exchange Agreement: TIEA

A Tax Information Exchange Agreement is a formal agreement between countries that formalizes the ability of relevant government agencies to exchange information between them concerning the tax affairs of individual taxpayers or other entities. While a country may commit to the sharing of tax information in principle, it is only where there is in place a formal and effective TIEA that such information actually be effectively shared with another country. Consequently in addressing the issue of tax evasion and in determining the ability of a tax authority to access relevant offshore information in a tax haven it is important therefore to see what TIEA’s are in place with other countries or jurisdictions. From the point of view of privacy, and to limit the risk of tax penalties, taxpayers engaged in activities that are driven by the wish to reduce their tax by tax evasion would   be eager to identify if a TIEA exists between an offshore centre and their home jurisdiction.

While there is a standard TIEA model set by the OECD, in practice the TIEA’s can vary widely. In this respect taxpayers engaged in offshore transactions relating to the use of Tax havens would need to determine the following matters:

  1. Does the TIEA cover civil tax information as well as criminal tax information?
  2. What are the conditions for obtaining information under a TIEA?
  3. Does the TIEA provide for automatic sharing of tax information? This would be highly unlikely. Most TIEA’s provide for the sharing of tax information upon request. Also many TIEA’s are also limited to the sharing of tax information if it is linked to tax evasion that is a criminal tax offence.

Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs)

Just as equally important with TIEA’s, it is also important to examine not only whether a TIEA exists between countries but also whether there are any bilateral arrangements in the form of MLATs. This is because MLAT’s enable the sharing of information between home jurisdictions and a number of offshore jurisdictions which may be involved in tax evasion. This is especially important where a taxpayer’s offshore dealings operate in a number of offshore countries and especially where the transactions may be related. Usually the MLAT will set out the type of information that can be shared and the circumstances under which it can be shared between countries and extend beyond bi-lateral limitations which only involve sharing information between two jurisdictions. For example a transaction relating to tax evasion may transcend more than two counties. Consequently it is desirable that any investigation by tax authorities is not limited by agreements which are only bi-lateral in nature. Rather it is desirable that there is a means of linking the exchange of information which takes place between all of the jurisdictions involved

Legislation on Exchange of Criminal Information

In some cases there may   be a broad statute such as the “St. Vincent's Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act” that provides for assistance to be given to another country in criminal matters. The Act, which is found in many Commonwealth countries, provides for the sharing of information between Commonwealth countries[1]. It is important therefore to look at the detail the various Acts to determine the extent they contain secrecy and or confidentiality laws. For example, it may be that information exchange under these Acts is limited to information which is relevant to an indictable or a serious offence[2]. For example, if an individual to whom information is sought is being charged with a summary offence, the Act may protect their confidentiality. It is imperative that while a provision in relation to these Acts may not be captured under one specific Act and or provision, another Act or even a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) may capture it.

Information Exchange Legislation: a local perspective

Some jurisdictions, for example St. Vincent and the Grenadines, have a general Exchange of Information Act[3]. However the “Exchange of Information Act” usually has limitations in obtaining information. For example, the limitations in the St. Vincent’ Act includes that the request for the information must come from a “fellow regulatory authority”. However while The Securities Exchange Commission in the USA, would be regarded as a regulatory authority the Internal Revenue Service in the USA would not. Consequently in gathering information on tax evasion it is not only important for there to be cross border structures in place but also a strong regulatory structure in the home country. This may be an attractive option for Australia. to adopt. This would let the relevant agencies co-ordinate their efforts, both within Australia and overseas, in obtaining information on offshore transactions undertaken in the course of tax evasion. Unless there is a strong regulatory structure in the home country with the cross flow of information between agencies to support the offshore structures, the outcome will not be successful in addressing the problem of tax evasion

A Multi facet approach to tax evasion

From the above it can be seen that the issue of tax evasion and the access to information by relevant regulatory bodies to offshore information held in tax havens is a challenging issue . In this respect there are a number of approaches or ways in which the issue of tax evasion may be addressed. This may be by the use of TIEA agreements with the relevant countries. However for a co-coordinated approach it is desirable that the TIEA is supported by Bi lateral or preferably multi lateral tax agreements which support its operation. Certainly a multi lateral approach is preferable in addressing the issue of tax evasion where there are cross border transactions involving a number of countries. Otherwise, taxpayers will relocate their business dealings to a more favorable jurisdiction.

However in achieving any progress on this issue it is suggested that unless bank secrecy provisions are overcome to enable access to relevant bank accounts , and financial dealings, of the taxpayers engaged in tax evasion, in the relevant countries little   progress will be achieved. A strong regulatory framework on a global scale is vital to obtaining a meaningful outcome to the issue of reducing tax evasion through tax havens.

Conclusion

The issue of tax evasion has been a sensitive issue for taxpayers and government agencies for many years. However, one of the difficulties facing tax authorities is the difficulty caused in obtaining offshore information in countries which are designated tax havens. In Australia “Operation Wickenby” has focused on this issue. However on a global scale, the OECD, and more recently the meeting of the G20 summit, has raised concerns over tax evasion and the difficulties caused by the inability to obtain necessary information on the transactions undertaken by taxpayers by way of tax evasion. In this respect, this article raises a number of alternatives which countries may adopt in the course of obtaining relevant information concerning the evasion of tax. This ranges from the use of bi- lateral tax treaties, multi –lateral tax treaties , TIEA’s and laws to overcome bank secrecy rules to combat tax evasion on a country and global basis.

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] St Vincent and the Grenadines has implemented a package of legislation aimed at detecting, preventing, and prosecuting money laundering and other serious crimes as well as confiscating the profits of crime. The legislative measures reflect international best practices and take account of the 40 Recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) on money laundering and the 19 Recommendations of the Caribbean FATF. The relevant laws are: - Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, Act No. 45 of 1993; Proceeds of Crime and Money Laundering (Prevention) Act, 2001; - Proceeds of Crime and Money Laundering Regulations, 2002 ;- Financial Intelligence Unit Act, 2001; - Exchange of Information Act, 2002.

[2] St. Vincent and the Grenadines has in place Tax treaties with CARICOM (Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago), Switzerland. Other regulations: Mutual Legal Assistance Law allows for assistance to be given to the Commonwealth countries in criminal matters in relation to serious or indictable offences, including tax offences. There is also provision for cooperation with non-Commonwealth countries but this is subject to amendments to the regulations.* Bank information: in criminal tax matters, but dual criminality applies. Criminal conduct is drug trafficking or a relevant offence under the anti-money laundering legislation (crime money proceeds). Information gathering powers adopted to implement the CARICOM tax treaty do not extend to information in the offshore sector. Access to information is through Financial Intelligence Unit. Ownership: in criminal tax matters only. Bearer shares must be held by an approved custodian.

[3] The Exchange Information Act 2002. 
  1. Article
  2. Related Articles
  3. Related Practice Areas