We are not a tax haven - they are

A while ago we remarked on a curious characteristic of tax havens (or secrecy jurisdictions as we usually like to call them) - they do like to deny being tax havens. Take a look at this blog, for example, entitled We are not a tax haven.

Now look at this latest blog from Bad Conscience:

Here’s a novel idea. How about the territories repeatedly fingered as secrecy jurisdictions come up with their own definition of what a secrecy jurisdiction is – and why they are not one.

But there’s a catch.

The definition has to allow for two things. Firstly, the jurisdiction in question has to be able to explain why it is not a secrecy jurisdiction, under its own definition. Secondly, the definition has to simultaneously be able to finger other territories as secrecy jurisdictions.

There’s a very simple rationale for this. It’s easy to say “we are not a secrecy jurisdiction” if the underlying position is that there are no secrecy jurisdictions. But if that’s the position, then others are justified in replying: “yes there are such things as secrecy jurisdictions – and by our measure, you are one of them."

Interesting point . . .