Panama and the OECD

by Simon Black · View Comments

“We are very concerned with what’s happening in Panama, or to put it another way, what’s not happening.”


– Jeffrey Owens, director of the OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration

Earlier this month, a group of tax commissioners, finance ministers, and NGO representatives descended upon Los Cabos, Mexico for the 5th annual “Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information” sponsored by our friends at the OECD.

You will likely recall that the OECD published its ‘black list’ and ‘gray list’ of non-compliant financial centers, coinciding with the G20 summit in London this past April.  Offending nations ranging from Uruguay to Switzerland immediately scrambled to have their names stricken from the list.

The OECD called this month’s forum in Mexico to make sure that remaining tax havens have either already stepped into line, or are breaking their necks to get there.

The primary regulation in question is the OECD’s controversial standard for information exchange, known as “Article 26.”  This is the standard which requires countries to exchange information with other nations for the purposes of tax reporting, regardless of domestic bank secrecy laws.

Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Switzerland were the last of the OECD members to hold out on Article 26, but each has recently caved to pressure and acquiesced to violating their own laws for the sake of international tax information exchange.

With a united OECD standing against them, smaller countries who were holding out against Article 26 compliance have no remaining support, and you can be sure that each of them will fall into line: this is evidenced by the spate of “Tax Information Exchange Agreements” signed by smaller countries in the last month.

29 exchange agreements have been minted this month alone by countries like Gibraltar, San Marino, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Aruba, Anguilla, and Nevis.  Conspicuously missing from the list?

Panama.

In the introduction to this missive, I quote the venerable Mr. Owens as he responded to a reporter’s question in Mexico– why does Panama attract such little scrutiny since it has not signed any tax information exchange agreements?

Panama was placed on the OECD’s “gray list” in April as a “jurisdiction that has committed but not yet substantially implemented the internationally agreed tax standard.”  In order to be taken off the list, gray list jurisdictions must sign exchange agreements with at least 12 other jurisdictions.

Apparently Mr. Owens’ remarks lit a fire under the Martinelli administration in Panama; the country recently announced that it would begin sharing tax information and is close to inking deals with Spain and Mexico already.

You can expect deals with the United Kingdom, United States and Canada to be close behind.

So does this spell the end of Panama as a financial center?  No. Likely it means the survival of Panama as a financial center because noncompliance will threaten its financial infrastructure.

BNP Paribas, for example, which is one of France’s largest banks, recently announced that it would close all branches in non-compliant countries, including Panama.  Similar announcements by other banks will likely be forthcoming.

Consequently, if Panama does not want to lose the integrity of its financial center, compliance is a must.

The unfortunate reality of the global financial system is that traditional tax havens like Panama, Hong Kong, BVI were specifically designed to hide money; this veil of secrecy has now been ripped to shreds by the OECD, and privacy is no longer a reason to hold money offshore.

Governments are scrambling to become compliant, and sooner or later every bank in every jurisdiction will be coughing up depositor information to foreign tax authorities.

That’s the bad news.

The good news is that banking offshore still provides substantial benefits for consumers and their after-tax income, namely:

  • Many overseas banks are stronger, more liquid, and better capitalized than western banks, and they don’t depend on an insolvent organization to guarantee deposits
  • Overseas banking provides opportunities for currency diversification
  • When western countries begin imposing capital controls (we know they’re coming), your money will be safe in a foreign bank, allowing you to freely withdraw, transfer, and invest your capital as you see fit without asking permission from the government.

Despite the OECD’s actions, I still believe that banking overseas is a smart move for everyone… just be sure that you personally comply with your reporting obligations. US Citizens, for instance, must report overseas bank accounts to Uncle Sam every year, and if you received a penny of interest, it must be reported on your tax return.

Share this article using the links below:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • email
  • TwitThis
  • del.icio.us

  • JasonM
    While it is somewhat reassuring to read the note by Jassyca, but the wider implicaitons of the actions of OECD are only too serious to ignore.

    Who would have imagined 3 years ago that Switzerland would open its Bank records ot the IRS? Talk about what pressure does to a country. Austria and Singapore (yeah, as of Oct 31, 2009) have followed suit in signing a tax informaiton exchange agreement with Western Jurisdictions. The question is: where is it leading to? And will this trend of free for all tax report exchange change? Bottom line: now no person is enthusiastic about opening up an offshore account which is what the IRS wanted.

    US will keep up its pressure on non compliant or semi-compliant jurisdictions of course. But if the dollar is no longer the currency of the world, the clout of the US will fall and so will the clout of OECD. That will be the change of the previous world order.
  • Jessyca Angulo
    I am a Panamanian lawyer, and I have followed the OECD issue for several years now. This issue is nothing new for Panama, and the OECD has been pressuring all tax havens to give up their bank secrecy laws and to implement tax laws that create a so-called "level playing field" from a fiscalization standpoint. All of the past four Presidents (Perez-Balladares, Mireya, Torrijos, and now Martinelli) in Panama have made significant changes to our local tax legislation, which have converted our country into a relatively heavily taxed jurisdiction for locals or for operating business in Panama, making Panama a NON-TAX HAVEN for doing business within the territory of Panama. However, Panama has maintained its' territorial tax system (Panamanian citizens and corporations are only taxed on income generated within the Panamanian territory, not on income generated from outside of Panama), as well as maintained its' bank secrecy laws. The Martinelli administration is currently working on signing "double-taxation treaties" with other countries such as Mexico, Spain, etc. which will benefit our country by enabling investors from those countries to invest without double taxation, however, our bank secrecy laws should not be affected. Currently, bank secrecy is not lifted except for in criminal cases, and the Panamanian law clearly establishes the extensive legal procedures that foreign courts / authorities must go through to obtain banking information for cases involving criminal activities.
  • Roberto
    cool blog
  • Steve Loy
    Hi Simon:
    Thanks for the honesty, but to say the least I am vastly disappointed. Martinelli as a Graduate of Texas A&M should know all of the strong arm tactics of the US and how to beat them. This just raises a huge red flag for me. After reading your "What Capital Controls will look like" I can tell you that capital controls will hit all of the OECD reporting countries. As a US citizen we will lose all of our capital when the US decides they need it. Your strategy for protecting what we have earned is gone. Even if you own real estate, the US Gov will just take your cash in the US or OECD bank to cover the confiscation of the real estate, and who knows what price that will become. It looks like to me the only safe haven in the world is Monaco, since they have not sucked up to the OECD yet. However, Monaco is reserved for the ULTRA RICH only.
    Thanks Steve
  • offshore biz
    I'm looking forward to hearing about the future "most free" jurisdiction that Simon scoped out on his Asia trip. However, I agree that privacy from taxing authorities is disappearing. It didn't matter as much for myself as I am a US citizen, and had to report foreign bank accounts anyway. But I do appreciate the estate planning, asset protection from frivolous lawsuits, and better choices of banking afforded by offshore jurisdictions. And of course, there are the reporting exemptions for foreign real estate holdings, segregated metals storage, etc, for US persons.

    As I contemplate where to invest my company's funds, in the US, or offshore, I cringe when I think of the possibility of currency controls for the US. Almost all of the business I do is outside the country. And it sounds like many folks in this forum are looking to connect with small businesses and investment opportunities around the globe as well. The internet has been a fantastic means to do initial exploratory work, and boots on the ground takes it the rest of the way. I hope our country, purportedly the bastion of free enterprise, doesn't cut off our entrepreneurs and investors in foreign enterprises at the knees.

    Thanks Simon, for keeping the guardian's eye on the evolving world situation. This forum provides valuable perspectives from both yourself and your forum members.
  • Doug
    Hi Simon. I thought that Panama's major Achilles heel was its financial vulnerability to pressure from the US, so it is no surprise that it will capitulate on account disclosures.

    Beyond Panama, I am now thinking that these foreign banks and countries have now set precedence in crumbling under OECD (ie US) pressure. I predict that they will also fall under the next set of pressures and will agree to repatriate US client funds when the capital export controls are enacted. Let's see if I am right......
  • A reader
    Hello, Simon,

    While the OECD is the frontman for the anti-tax haven crowd, if anyone looks behind the curtain they will find that the instigator is the United States of America. The hypocritical swine! No one tells you that the United States of American is the largest tax haven for foreigners. Shhh, don't tell the locals.

    There is a legitimate and practical reason for so-called tax havens that NO anti-tax haven government understands, or at least acknowledges. That is to say, people the world over want to keep what they earn. It is the extortion by ALL governments that the people are trying to protect themselves against.

    But the United States of America is the culprit behind the scenes, along with the other skullduggery around the world. You can put your tax haven money on it.

    Hopefully, after the demise of the dollar and with the creation of a new medium of reserve exchange, the United States of American will lost its power to bully the world.
  • Steve
    Panama seems like a very libertarian and free place. I haven't been there, but that's my impression from what i've read. But, what about the fact that Bush number 1 shot up the place and deposed Noriega. It makes me wonder if Panama is really independent of the CIA and the US - in which case the US could re-assert whatever level of control it wanted at any given time. And from what i've observed the private banking cartel (FED reserve)/CIA/Pentagon that run the US gov aren't quite libertarians.
  • Brian
    Simon,
    What about having bank accounts in Cuba, Libya or Venezuela to ensure privacy from the government tax collectors? In these jurisdictions, the question might arise as to the safety (or even return) of one's funds, but I thought I would throw out the thought anyway. Without question, it is the duty of every citizen to avoid paying taxes as much as possible, and much more importantly, I believe it is the duty to evade taxes, to put pressure on governments to downsize.(just kidding, IRS) Reducing blood flow to our masters is essential. (not joking) One more thought: Where could we begin anew? A new country without taxation, with full liberties, near 100% privacy, and totally business friendly. Would that not be successful in every sense?
  • c wilson
    As to offshore accounts.... if one were to own shares in an offshore company, yet NOT sign on any of the banking (with the assumption the facilitator/local partner is 100% trustworthy) there would be no reporting required to the IRS. Yes? I find this absolute best avenue accomplishing the safety and secrecy you so desperately and wisely seek.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: