GAAR - Trinidad & Tobago - Iatj.net

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Background • The strategy of granting tax concessions by Small Island Developing States in particular was seen as an attempt to address developmental problems due to diminishing bilateral aid and declining trade preferences as well as greater trade liberalisation under the WTO • The OECD’s reaction from 1996‐2002 was to name and shame such ‘tax havens’ by accusing them of fostering ‘harmful tax competition’ and encouraging them to adopt a standard package of tax, banking and fiscal measures to tame the competitive dynamic and avert a ‘race to the bottom’ in tax rates 3rd IATJ Assembly Munich 18‐19 October 2012 62
Arguments • The rhetorical contest which ensued was portrayed as a David v. Goliath contest with the OECD accusing ‘tax havens’ (no standard definition) of undermining the integrity of other countries’ tax system, tempting away capital, and facilitating international criminal activity through financial secrecy and loose regulation. • Tax havens fought hard to dissociate themselves from criminal activities such as money laundering and insisted that their activities were reputable and legitimate 3rd IATJ Assembly Munich 18‐19 October 2012 63
Page 1 and 2:
ANTHONY DJ GAFOOR TRINIDAD & TOBAGO
Page 3 and 4:
Topical nature of Anti‐Avoidance
Page 5 and 6:
Distinguishing Tax Evasion, Avoidan
Page 7 and 8:
Royal Commission on the Taxation of
Page 9 and 10:
Review of Anti‐Avoidance principl
Page 11 and 12: Review of Anti‐Avoidance principl
Page 13 and 14: Common Law jurisdictions • Have i
Page 15 and 16: International tax evasion and avoid
Page 17 and 18: Hybrid developments • These may b
Page 19 and 20: Tax Treaties • Bilateral tax trea
Page 21 and 22: • However, for many developing co
Page 23 and 24: 3rd IATJ Assembly Munich 18‐19 Oc
Page 25 and 26: Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas • T
Page 27 and 28: Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas • I
Page 31 and 32: Treatment of anti‐avoidance in th
Page 33 and 34: Leading anti‐avoidance cases in t
Page 35 and 36: Jamaica and Barbados • These are
Page 37 and 38: GAAR in the Caribbean • Typically
Page 39 and 40: Artificial transactions • Artific
Page 43 and 44: Wide scope of the anti‐avoidance
Page 45 and 46: Wide scope of anti‐avoidance prov
Page 47 and 48: St. Lucia • It was argued by the
Page 49 and 50: Jamaica • The leading case from t
Page 51 and 52: Jamaica • The Privy Council held
Page 53 and 54: Consequences of invoking the genera
Page 55 and 56: Specific Anti‐Avoidance Provision
Page 57 and 58: (3) Where a person transfers proper
Page 61: Background • In 1980s‐1990s, a
Page 65 and 66: Lessons to be learnt • The need f
Page 67 and 68: Closing thoughts • Adam Smith oft
show all

GAAR - Trinidad & Tobago - Iatj.net

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?