So, you have a great story that you're determined to share with the rest of the world, but the facts just don't support your case? No problem, with a little imagination and a good dose of insolence you can go a long way. If you want to see how it works, take a look at the recent "report" published by the pressure group Tax Justice Network on the "secrecy jurisdictions" of the planet.
The story goes like this: "Luxembourg is one of the world's top secrecy jurisdictions and a tax haven".
In order to make this story credible, begin by citing extracts from press articles that denounce alleged scandals, preferably in dramatic language. Whether these articles were the result of serious research, or whether they were adequately documented, is not of the least importance. What counts is that they create an impression and support the case.
Next, embellish your "report" with statements you have heard here and there or with your own assumptions, of the sort: "Luxembourg is hosting large tax-evading and other criminal assets from around th world". After all, your report is not part of a legal procedure where such "arguments" would be rejected as hearsay.
After this little warming up exercise, move on to the freestyle of cheap propaganda. For instance, take the European Savings Directive and announce, without the least embarrassment, that Luxembourg has refused to apply the automatic exchange of information. Carefully avoid mentioning that instead of this Luxembourg applies an automatic withholding tax on savings income, which could seriously weaken your case.
In order to uphold your claim that Luxembourg has signed very few double tax treaties that conform with OECD standards, be careful to quote figures from 30 June 2010. By contrast, if you then state that thanks to its wide range of double tax treaties Luxembourg offers better access to international markets than traditional tax havens, don't forget to insert a link to the website of the Bankers' Association that publishes an up to date list of 64 such treaties. By doing this you are in fact contradicting your assertion that Luxembourg is a tax haven, since the signing of a tax treaty only makes sense where there is effective taxation in both contracting jurisdictions leading to a real risk of double taxation, but this is a subtlety that will escape most readers.
Also criticize the fact that Luxembourg does not have a public register providing detailed information on trusts domiciled in the Grand Duchy. You must rely on the fact that your readers will already have forgotten that, on a previous page, you reproached the Banking Association with lobbying in favour of introducing a trust law into Luxembourg legislation which at present does not allow such vehicles.
You are of a sporting nature and the idea of a winners' podium appeals to you? Then you must convert the results of your work into a ranking. If, for some reason, your first effort does not yield the hoped for results, do not despair. The problem can be resolved by weighting the results. In the choice of criteria for weighting, give full rein to your imagination. Experiment with different criteria until you get the desired results. If you run out of ideas, or if you are in a hurry, fall back on the old rule of thumb that the economic success of a country is directly proportional to its size. If, therefore, a small country enjoys great success in a particular domain, something suspicious must be going on.
For the rest, be careful to use vague terminology such as "partly" or "not adequately" if you cannot avoid saying that international standards have been respected by the country under review. The reader will be able to develop his own negative opinion and you will have succeeded in your objective.
The story goes like this: "Luxembourg is one of the world's top secrecy jurisdictions and a tax haven".
In order to make this story credible, begin by citing extracts from press articles that denounce alleged scandals, preferably in dramatic language. Whether these articles were the result of serious research, or whether they were adequately documented, is not of the least importance. What counts is that they create an impression and support the case.
Next, embellish your "report" with statements you have heard here and there or with your own assumptions, of the sort: "Luxembourg is hosting large tax-evading and other criminal assets from around th world". After all, your report is not part of a legal procedure where such "arguments" would be rejected as hearsay.
After this little warming up exercise, move on to the freestyle of cheap propaganda. For instance, take the European Savings Directive and announce, without the least embarrassment, that Luxembourg has refused to apply the automatic exchange of information. Carefully avoid mentioning that instead of this Luxembourg applies an automatic withholding tax on savings income, which could seriously weaken your case.
In order to uphold your claim that Luxembourg has signed very few double tax treaties that conform with OECD standards, be careful to quote figures from 30 June 2010. By contrast, if you then state that thanks to its wide range of double tax treaties Luxembourg offers better access to international markets than traditional tax havens, don't forget to insert a link to the website of the Bankers' Association that publishes an up to date list of 64 such treaties. By doing this you are in fact contradicting your assertion that Luxembourg is a tax haven, since the signing of a tax treaty only makes sense where there is effective taxation in both contracting jurisdictions leading to a real risk of double taxation, but this is a subtlety that will escape most readers.
Also criticize the fact that Luxembourg does not have a public register providing detailed information on trusts domiciled in the Grand Duchy. You must rely on the fact that your readers will already have forgotten that, on a previous page, you reproached the Banking Association with lobbying in favour of introducing a trust law into Luxembourg legislation which at present does not allow such vehicles.
You are of a sporting nature and the idea of a winners' podium appeals to you? Then you must convert the results of your work into a ranking. If, for some reason, your first effort does not yield the hoped for results, do not despair. The problem can be resolved by weighting the results. In the choice of criteria for weighting, give full rein to your imagination. Experiment with different criteria until you get the desired results. If you run out of ideas, or if you are in a hurry, fall back on the old rule of thumb that the economic success of a country is directly proportional to its size. If, therefore, a small country enjoys great success in a particular domain, something suspicious must be going on.
For the rest, be careful to use vague terminology such as "partly" or "not adequately" if you cannot avoid saying that international standards have been respected by the country under review. The reader will be able to develop his own negative opinion and you will have succeeded in your objective.
