Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Evasion, Avoidance, and Bashing Panama in a World of Aggressive Tax States

I've talked to a few journalists and commented a bit on the Panama Papers (e.g. here at 6:09 and here) but I've refrained from writing much to date because I am uneasy about a couple of central themes in this story: first, the constant confluence of tax evasion and tax avoidance, which are two completely different phenomena that require two very different responses in my view, and second the bashing of Panama as if only bad things can be done there, so anyone who does anything there from anywhere else must be doing a bad thing.

I am uneasy about this bashing because, although I think there are bad guys doing bad things in Panama, I also think there are bad guys doing bad things all over the world and I don't like Panama being singled out; I am also wary of suggesting that in a world of global trade and investment flows, anything and everything done through or with Panama must eternally be tinged with a sense of wrongdoing. This sense seems to imbue the imagination in the campaigns to "shut down the tax havens." What, exactly, does that mean? Does it mean that some countries, because someone decides they are mostly bad actors, must be effectively cut off from the global financial system and no one must be allowed to transact with or in these countries from the outside? What if most of the world are actually bad actors, each scheming to use its tax system to undermine and undercut the others? That's essentially the vision drawn by the OECD in countering BEPS, so we will run into some problems if we take this reasoning to its logical conclusion. But if this is not the idea behind shutting down tax havens, then what is envisioned, exactly?

Tax justice advocates seem to envision an invasive global regulatory regime in which every person in the world will have all of their assets and financial information catalogued and tagged and made public to everyone else, in order to make sure no one can break any tax rules. If this is being done just for tax--that is, if this is what it takes to make the income tax "work," I am not sure that the income tax is worth all of that trouble and everything given up to achieve it. That includes privacy, which appears to itself have become a suspicious word in certain circles, as if only those doing bad things have a desire to keep anything about their lives private. Let us recall Glenn Greenwald's words on why privacy should not come to be seen as a sinister desire. It is possible to break the tax law like it is possible to break any other law. But is requiring everyone to show all of their assets to everyone else in order to prove no laws have been broken a valid response to this enduring problem? I cannot agree with this Orwellian vision of the world. I also do not think this view is sensible if the issue is really driven by tax. If it is, then surely we can find a less invasive way to fund public goods and services.

This brings me to the evasion/avoidance point, which I find being abused just as much by lawmakers and policy advocates as it is by journalists who don't know any better.

Tax evasion is a crime that involves hiding things from a legal authority. Tax avoidance is not a crime that involves hiding: it is achieved in full view of the legal authorities. The former is a very very difficult problem but is not primarily a tax policy problem. Instead it is primarily a global financial system problem that is created, like most global financial system problems, by virtue of the difficulty of regulating behaviours in a world in which technology has moved us far beyond the frontiers of the nation state.

On the other hand, 'aggressive" tax avoidance (loosely speaking; more analysis here)--that is, avoidance not intentionally allowed by rules such as those to defer tax on retirement savings--is a tax policy issue. Taxpayers and their advisers are always going to cook up new schemes to get around inconvenient tax rules. Knowing this, regulators must decide whether and how to react. They may react with any number of tools that create an infinite call and response loop among regulators, taxpayers, administrators, and judges. These include such things as general and specific anti-avoidance rules, uncertain tax position disclosure, and random audit strategies. None of these things has the first thing to say about how to deal with a corrupt government official who steals money from the public fisc and invests it in US and European stocks and bonds through a maze of trusts and companies formed in other jurisdictions. It's just a totally different problem.

I know and understand that bad guys are always lurking around to defeat the tax law, as they are in any regulatory field. I don't have any special insights about how to deal with corruption and criminality. But in my experience with tax, when a government moves to "crack down" on bad guys, the really serious criminals--including government officials themselves--all too often escape while everyone else finds themselves increasingly tracked, surveilled, and treated like criminals even as the resources to cope with fixable tax policy flaws diminish. I don't have any answers for these worries.

3 comments:

  1. These are exactly my thoughts and many of my tax discussion group's thoughts at the moment! It is really making me think hard about how to communicate the evasion/avoidance distinction to a general public because everything is being lumped into one nasty picture and that does no one any good.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am worrying along similar lines here: https://hiyamaya.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/the-panama-filing-cabinets/

    And here is John Kay: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/00f1c6f0-0609-11e6-9b51-0fb5e65703ce.html#axzz46Ivgais0

    ReplyDelete
  3. I fully support the lines you have set out in this post. I will also be replying to Maya who has posted something equally interesting.)
    As a member of a public service union in the UK we have been trying for some years to drive out zombie facts and to make the case there are a lot of myths around avoidance and evasion that lazy or hurried media people do not deconstruct.
    As far as I can see the essence of Panama is secrecy because it is so clearly in the criminal hinterland, well beyond any semblance of "aggressive" avoidance. Avoidance hides in the open - hence why so much is written about entities like Google or Amazon, whose filings contain all the evidence their critics use.
    We recently held an event in Parliament to raise a few of these myths. This followed on from one the previous year on transparency. But it is a huge area to cover and there seems to be no sign of any sustained or material increase in the public understanding you (correctly) judge as essential. Achieving that is a somewhat daunting prospect!

    http://www.fda.org.uk/Media/Whats-new/ARC-helps-debunk-tax-myths-at-Parliamentary-event-with-Financial-Secretary-to-Treasury.aspx
    http://www.taxation.co.uk/taxation/Articles/2014/07/15/327851/clear

    ReplyDelete