Cyprus +357 (25) 25-44-66
Moscow +7 (499) 322-9-234
Kiev +38 (094) 711-22-72
Let’s understand what this fight is about, and what is the purpose of this pursuit. What kind of events can be expected further.
And for example, the main goals of the functioning of “anti-offshore” regulation are reduced to combating the assistance of criminals (first of all, in “money laundering”) and to unseemly tax competition.
A key accusation against offshore zones remains the accusation itself that these structures are working as a tool for money laundering and for financing criminal work, including terrorism. Just in consequence of this, in 1989, the FATF was created in Paris (Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering). This organization is fond of global anti-money laundering issues. FATF has developed “40 recommendations”, of which its members are obliged to keep to prevent money laundering. This organization has made a council for international cooperation in the exchange of information; Cooperation in the investigation of money laundering cases, as well as confiscation of laundered capital and extradition of criminals. This organization pays special attention to states that refused to observe these principles. When opening accounts for their residents in the FATF states is the most rigorous identification procedure, special attention is paid to transactions. FATF has created a list of states and lands officially recognized as “non-cooperative.” Nowadays, the list includes the following jurisdictions: Hungary, Guatemala, Grenada, Dominica, Egypt, Israel, Indonesia, Lebanon, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Nauru, Nigeria, Niue, Cook Islands, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Lucia -Kits and Nevis, Ukraine, Philippines.
A complaint against offshore zones is presented to tax dumping by offshore jurisdictions. With a zero or nominal tax rate, mobile capital flows from other states to low-tax zones. This is the view of one side. The other side believes that there is virtually no sensible prerequisite for the tax systems of all the states of the world to be similar. In offshore areas, the likelihood of recruiting international traders is considered to be the main methodology for the functioning of the economy. This is achieved through low tax rates and the creation of a suitable investment climate for them in general, covering infrastructure, communications, personnel, etc. As a result, the movement of the money business into low tax zones is just as natural process as the movement of production from Europe, for example, to China and Taiwan. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) plays a leading role in the fight against unseemly tax competition. The OECD implements immense analytical work, conducts a council for member countries and works as a platform for organizing multilateral negotiations on financial tasks. As for the ways to combat harmful practices, the OECD itself has virtually no opportunities for imposing penalties, etc. This remains the responsibility of the participating States, and the OECD organizes its own councils. The OECD still maintains its own lists of states that implement negligent tax competition. The list of non-cooperative tax havens today includes: Andorra, Vanuatu, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, Panama, Samoa.
In Ukraine, anti-offshore regulation is aimed at ensuring that it is not economical for a resident of Ukraine to import goods when working with an offshore company. In this case, a resident of Ukraine can attribute only 85% of the amount paid to a non-resident offshore company to import costs. (Clause 18.3 of article 18 of the Law of Ukraine “On the taxation of business incomes”). Determination of the status of a non-resident (offshore or not) is executed on the basis of the operative decision of the CMU “On the list of offshore zones” (Order of the CMU “On the list of offshore zones” No. 77-r of February 24, 2003 as amended on 01.02.2006) . It should also be noted that according to the current Ukrainian legislation, firms registered in offshore zones have no right to assume the role of privatizing Ukrainian companies of strategic importance.