Kang Beng Hoe wrote today an interesting analysis. He is is an executive director of Taxand Malaysia Sdn Bhd, a member firm of Taxand, the first global organisation of independent tax firms.
In his opinion the question, which arises, is whether Article 26 in its revised form with paragraph 5 is incompatible with banking secrecy? The OECD's view is that meeting the standard of Article 26 involves only limited exceptions of bank secrecy rules. These should not undermine the overall credibility of such rules in protecting the privacy of bank customers.
He observes that Article 26 of the US Model is wider than that of the OECD as it says in its official commentary that: “The information to be exchanged is that which may be relevant for carrying out the provision of the Convention or the domestic laws of the United States or of the other contracting state concerning taxes of every kind applied at the national level.”
Some European jurisdictions like Switzerkand or Luxembourg or the UK may be upset and think that the USA are willing to kill their business.
The USA raises actual problems with Libor or the use of banking secrecy in Switwerland or Luxembourg.
However I wish the USA and Obama were more balanced by admitting their own responsibilities in the current mess and taking corrective actions :
- It seems that the subprime issue was hushed up.
- Jurisdictions like Delaware are not controlled and it seems there is no will to control.
In medio stat virtus.
Britain is still the money-laundering capital of the world, according to a special six-page investigation published in this fortnight’s Private Eye.
This it not a surprise despite FSA does a pretty good job of communication on issues compared to some regulators in other jurisdictions.