|
|
By Erick Simpson Aguilera
October 15th, 2014
According to Juan Manuel Santos, President of Colombia, to declare Panama a tax haven “is not a decision against Panama, but a measure to prosecute tax evaders.“
According to President Santos, we as Panamanians should interpret as positive and favorable the negative effects of the measure, especially, the damage to the international image of Panama’s financial center; the increment of 14% to 33% taxes on the money orders from Colombia to Panama; the double taxation for Colombians living in Panama, and so on.
How easy it is to play with words as if Panamanians were ignorant not knowing any better. You should understand, President Santos, that Panama is a sovereign state, not a Colombian department which you can cheerfully submit to the collateral damage of internal Colombian politics without paying the price, ignoring Panama´s sovereignty all together.
In addition, says President Santos, Colombia has to implement a policy including these measures because they want to be recognized by the OECD as a country seriously fighting tax evasion. This means that the attack to the Panamanian banking center, according to Santos disrespectful justification, is collateral damage, not a direct measure against us. In fact, Colombia´s aspires to become part of the OECD and win admission into this self-congratulatory group of hypocritical countries who pretend to have the moral authority to make lists of tax havens when many of them are just that, tax havens. They believe the law does not apply to them, only to Panama and other countries outside the exclusive club of rich OECD nations which Colombia seeks to join.
The Colombian president seems unaware of the inconsistency of his arguments. On one hand he claims that to include us in its list of tax havens is not a measure against Panama, while on the other hand he refers to us as a sort of sacrificial offering to the mighty OECD in order to be admitted into the club.
The Colombian President also noted that Panama “was informed of this situation long ago,” and even technical meetings were held, but given the lack of response from the Central American country in recent weeks, “the “Minister of Finance had no option other than to act because the law demands it.” Fine, if that’s the sovereign position of Colombia which should be respected even if it is prejudicial to us. However, by the same token, Panama’s can act as the sovereign country it is and retaliate against Colombia by applying what its law demands.
In that sense, once more I praise the decision of the Government of Panama to apply to Colombia the lawful principle of retaliation, following its discriminatory treatment to our nation: if within the seven days notice given it does not rectify its position by withdrawing us from their specious list of fiscal havens.
In a week we will know whether or not we need to apply to Colombia some of the following measures:
1- The same percentage of tariffs to major Colombian exports which they impose on our Colon Free Zone.
2- An increase to 33% tax on remittances and money orders.
3- Visa requirements for Colombian citizens who want to travel to Panama.
4-Cancellation of the Monteria Treaty that granted free passage for their ships through the Panama Canal.
5-Deportation of thousands of Colombian prisoners and illegal immigrants in Panama.
6- The immediate cancellation of the project for electricity interconnection, for Colombia has proven to be a country unworthy of confidence; we cannot depend on energy provided by a nation that threatens, blackmails, and attacks our economy.
7- Inclusion of Colombia in our own blacklist of troublemaker countries involved in drug-trafficking, terrorism and human trafficking, nations with which we should avoid association and should keep under scrutiny. We should not collaborate with a country that exports so much instability and problems to the entire world, and disqualifies us in order to finance their post-conflicts at our expense.
8- Exclusion of Colombian companies from Panama’s public contract solicitations.
Perhaps the enforcement of the drastic measures mentioned above would make Colombia appreciate the brotherhood, friendship, and goodwill that Panama has shown, unlike countries such as Venezuela, Ecuador, and Nicaragua, which for various reasons (which I respect as each country is free to choose their friends and enemies) have openly opposed Colombia and have harshly strained relations with Colombia and thus won respect for themselves. It is obvious that Colombia´s policy is not to disturb their contrary neighbors, to show friendliness and to please as much as possible, even though they treat Colombians as enemies. If that is not masochism, then it is the Stockholm syndrome but normal, it is not.
By the way, do you remember the conflict between Colombia and Nicaragua regarding the boundary delimitation in the Caribbean? Who rushed to defend and backed Colombia against Nicaragua? Panama did, dear reader; Panama supported Colombia in that conflict. And this is the payback we receive for our friendship and brotherhood; for the great support we have given to secure our common border so the Province of Darien does not become a sanctuary for Colombian rebel groups; and the warm welcome we give to their nationals who until now have had open doors to live, study, work, and invest in Panama as if they were Panamanians.
Ultimately, as Colombia partners with the OECD to damage our economy, Panamanians are again reminded they are not our allies; that we should be tougher; that we cannot live out of the romanticism born from our joint history; and that we must completely separate from them as we did in 1903.
A finales de 2013, el titular de la Dirección de Impuestos y Aduanas Nacionales de Colombia (DIAN) declaró la intención de incluir a Panamá, de forma automática, en una lista de “paraísos fiscales”, si para el mes de septiembre de 2014 no se concreta un acuerdo de intercambio de información fiscal, con base al Decreto No. 2193, del 7 de octubre de 2013, que en su artículo 2, excluye “transitoriamente” a Panamá de la lista de “paraísos fiscales”.
La iniciativa de Colombia de discriminar a Panamá, no solo parte de premisas equivocadas, sino que choca con principios fundamentales del derecho internacional público, como los relativos a la “igualdad jurídica de los Estados”, de “no intervención en los asuntos internos de los Estados” y el de “libre determinación de los pueblos”, y como agravante, viola la Convención de Viena sobre el derecho de los tratados, cuyo Art. 52 declara como nulo: “… todo tratado cuya celebración se haya obtenido por la amenaza o el uso de la fuerza en violación de los principios de derecho internacional incorporados en la Carta de las Naciones Unidas”, habiéndose condenando “solemnemente el recurso a la amenaza o al uso de la presión, en todas sus formas, ya sea militar, política o económica, por un Estado, con el fin de coaccionar a otro Estado para que realice un acto relativo a la celebración de un tratado en violación de los principios de la igualdad soberanía de los Estados y de la libertad de consentimiento”. Así como el acápite 4, del Art. 2 de la Carta Constitutiva de las Naciones Unidas, de la que Colombia es signataria, que consigna, como uno de sus principios fundamentales el que sus países miembros “se abstendrán de recurrir a la amenaza o al uso de la fuerza contra la integridad territorial o la independencia política de cualquier Estado, o cualquier otra forma incompatible con los propósitos de las Naciones Unidas”, entre otros tratados y resoluciones de derecho internacional público.
En Panamá no se “…ofrecen ventajas tributarias atractivas para el capital, la actividad financiera de personas no residentes en ellos y otras actividades susceptibles de movilidad geográfica…” diferentes a las que se otorgan a los nacionales, como dice el Decreto. El artículo 19 de la Constitución es claro al establecer que: “Los panameños y los extranjeros son iguales ante la ley …” y en esta igualdad se incluye el tema tributario. Tanto panameños como extranjeros están obligados a pagar impuestos al fisco nacional, siempre y cuando, su renta sea generada en Panamá o considerada de fuente local, sin excepciones. Una simple consulta a algunas de las múltiples empresas colombianas que operan aquí comprobaría que no hay “tipos impositivos sobre la renta inexistentes o nominalmente bajos…” así como “normas legales o prácticas administrativas que limitan el intercambio de información”, porque desde el año 2010 hemos negociado y firmado 29 acuerdos tributarios. Eso sí, con aquellos países con los que Panamá determinó negociar, de acuerdo a sus propios intereses y conveniencias, lo cual es un derecho inalienable del concepto de soberanía y del principio de la igualdad jurídica de los Estados.
La amenaza de Colombia, al igual que las constantes presiones de la OCDE, para incluirnos en una “lista negra”, si no firmamos un acuerdo tributario, contaminaría dicho tratado con el vicio de la “coacción”, que junto con el “error”, el “dolo” y la “corrupción”, conforman los cuatro vicios sustanciales del consentimiento que, según la Convención de Viena, producen la nulidad absoluta de un tratado, pues estos deben ser consecuencia del “libre albedrío” y la “libre voluntad” de las partes, no producto de la fuerza o la amenaza (estas vician el “consentimiento”) de un país sobre otro.
Ricardo Martinelli y Frank De Lima, tuvieron una actitud sumisa y entreguista, en este tema, que no mejoró la imagen de Panamá y, peor aún, le ha causado graves perjuicios y debilitado su posición negociadora. La Cancillería panameña debe informarle al presidente Juan Manuel Santos que se le aplicará a Colombia, y a las empresas de capital colombiano que operan aquí, las mismas restricciones, impuestos, tasas o cualquier otra forma de discriminación comercial, tributaria o de cualquier índole que se le imponga a nuestro país, utilizando como fundamento jurídico el principio de reciprocidad, universalmente aceptado en el derecho internacional público, y de indispensable y común aplicación en las relaciones internacionales, al margen de otras medidas que pudieran tomarse como volver a llevar a Colombia a un panel ante la Organización Mundial de Comercio y solicitar la revisión o abolición del Tratado de Montería (1979), que le concede derechos preferenciales de paso en el Canal de Panamá, sin que nuestro país reciba nada a cambio. Seguir con la política de aceptar imposiciones de organismos que solo buscan el bienestar de sus países miembros, nos llevará al desmantelamiento del centro financiero.
Por Licenciado Adolfo Linares
Publicado por el diario La Prensa
Septiembre 16, 2014
A finales de 2013, el titular de la Dirección de Impuestos y Aduanas Nacionales de Colombia (DIAN) declaró la intención de incluir a Panamá, de forma automática, en una lista de “paraísos fiscales”, si para el mes de septiembre de 2014 no se concreta un acuerdo de intercambio de información fiscal, con base al Decreto No. 2193, del 7 de octubre de 2013, que en su artículo 2, excluye “transitoriamente” a Panamá de la lista de “paraísos fiscales”.
La iniciativa de Colombia de discriminar a Panamá, no solo parte de premisas equivocadas, sino que choca con principios fundamentales del derecho internacional público, como los relativos a la “igualdad jurídica de los Estados”, de “no intervención en los asuntos internos de los Estados” y el de “libre determinación de los pueblos”, y como agravante, viola la Convención de Viena sobre el derecho de los tratados, cuyo Art. 52 declara como nulo: “… todo tratado cuya celebración se haya obtenido por la amenaza o el uso de la fuerza en violación de los principios de derecho internacional incorporados en la Carta de las Naciones Unidas”, habiéndose condenando “solemnemente el recurso a la amenaza o al uso de la presión, en todas sus formas, ya sea militar, política o económica, por un Estado, con el fin de coaccionar a otro Estado para que realice un acto relativo a la celebración de un tratado en violación de los principios de la igualdad soberanía de los Estados y de la libertad de consentimiento”. Así como el acápite 4, del Art. 2 de la Carta Constitutiva de las Naciones Unidas, de la que Colombia es signataria, que consigna, como uno de sus principios fundamentales el que sus países miembros “se abstendrán de recurrir a la amenaza o al uso de la fuerza contra la integridad territorial o la independencia política de cualquier Estado, o cualquier otra forma incompatible con los propósitos de las Naciones Unidas”, entre otros tratados y resoluciones de derecho internacional público.
En Panamá no se “…ofrecen ventajas tributarias atractivas para el capital, la actividad financiera de personas no residentes en ellos y otras actividades susceptibles de movilidad geográfica…” diferentes a las que se otorgan a los nacionales, como dice el Decreto. El artículo 19 de la Constitución es claro al establecer que: “Los panameños y los extranjeros son iguales ante la ley …” y en esta igualdad se incluye el tema tributario. Tanto panameños como extranjeros están obligados a pagar impuestos al fisco nacional, siempre y cuando, su renta sea generada en Panamá o considerada de fuente local, sin excepciones. Una simple consulta a algunas de las múltiples empresas colombianas que operan aquí comprobaría que no hay “tipos impositivos sobre la renta inexistentes o nominalmente bajos…” así como “normas legales o prácticas administrativas que limitan el intercambio de información”, porque desde el año 2010 hemos negociado y firmado 29 acuerdos tributarios. Eso sí, con aquellos países con los que Panamá determinó negociar, de acuerdo a sus propios intereses y conveniencias, lo cual es un derecho inalienable del concepto de soberanía y del principio de la igualdad jurídica de los Estados.
La amenaza de Colombia, al igual que las constantes presiones de la OCDE, para incluirnos en una “lista negra”, si no firmamos un acuerdo tributario, contaminaría dicho tratado con el vicio de la “coacción”, que junto con el “error”, el “dolo” y la “corrupción”, conforman los cuatro vicios sustanciales del consentimiento que, según la Convención de Viena, producen la nulidad absoluta de un tratado, pues estos deben ser consecuencia del “libre albedrío” y la “libre voluntad” de las partes, no producto de la fuerza o la amenaza (estas vician el “consentimiento”) de un país sobre otro.
Ricardo Martinelli y Frank De Lima, tuvieron una actitud sumisa y entreguista, en este tema, que no mejoró la imagen de Panamá y, peor aún, le ha causado graves perjuicios y debilitado su posición negociadora. La Cancillería panameña debe informarle al presidente Juan Manuel Santos que se le aplicará a Colombia, y a las empresas de capital colombiano que operan aquí, las mismas restricciones, impuestos, tasas o cualquier otra forma de discriminación comercial, tributaria o de cualquier índole que se le imponga a nuestro país, utilizando como fundamento jurídico el principio de reciprocidad, universalmente aceptado en el derecho internacional público, y de indispensable y común aplicación en las relaciones internacionales, al margen de otras medidas que pudieran tomarse como volver a llevar a Colombia a un panel ante la Organización Mundial de Comercio y solicitar la revisión o abolición del Tratado de Montería (1979), que le concede derechos preferenciales de paso en el Canal de Panamá, sin que nuestro país reciba nada a cambio. Seguir con la política de aceptar imposiciones de organismos que solo buscan el bienestar de sus países miembros, nos llevará al desmantelamiento del centro financiero.
Por Adolo Linares
Publicado en diario La Prensa
Septiembre 11, 2014
A finales de 2013, el titular de la Dirección de Impuestos y Aduanas Nacionales de Colombia (DIAN) declaró la intención de incluir a Panamá, de forma automática, en una lista de “paraísos fiscales”, si para el mes de septiembre de 2014 no se concreta un acuerdo de intercambio de información fiscal, con base al Decreto No. 2193, del 7 de octubre de 2013, que en su artículo 2, excluye “transitoriamente” a Panamá de la lista de “paraísos fiscales”.
La iniciativa de Colombia de discriminar a Panamá, no solo parte de premisas equivocadas, sino que choca con principios fundamentales del derecho internacional público, como los relativos a la “igualdad jurídica de los Estados”, de “no intervención en los asuntos internos de los Estados” y el de “libre determinación de los pueblos”, y como agravante, viola la Convención de Viena sobre el derecho de los tratados, cuyo Art. 52 declara como nulo: “… todo tratado cuya celebración se haya obtenido por la amenaza o el uso de la fuerza en violación de los principios de derecho internacional incorporados en la Carta de las Naciones Unidas”, habiéndose condenando “solemnemente el recurso a la amenaza o al uso de la presión, en todas sus formas, ya sea militar, política o económica, por un Estado, con el fin de coaccionar a otro Estado para que realice un acto relativo a la celebración de un tratado en violación de los principios de la igualdad soberanía de los Estados y de la libertad de consentimiento”. Así como el acápite 4, del Art. 2 de la Carta Constitutiva de las Naciones Unidas, de la que Colombia es signataria, que consigna, como uno de sus principios fundamentales el que sus países miembros “se abstendrán de recurrir a la amenaza o al uso de la fuerza contra la integridad territorial o la independencia política de cualquier Estado, o cualquier otra forma incompatible con los propósitos de las Naciones Unidas”, entre otros tratados y resoluciones de derecho internacional público.
En Panamá no se “…ofrecen ventajas tributarias atractivas para el capital, la actividad financiera de personas no residentes en ellos y otras actividades susceptibles de movilidad geográfica…” diferentes a las que se otorgan a los nacionales, como dice el Decreto. El artículo 19 de la Constitución es claro al establecer que: “Los panameños y los extranjeros son iguales ante la ley …” y en esta igualdad se incluye el tema tributario. Tanto panameños como extranjeros están obligados a pagar impuestos al fisco nacional, siempre y cuando, su renta sea generada en Panamá o considerada de fuente local, sin excepciones. Una simple consulta a algunas de las múltiples empresas colombianas que operan aquí comprobaría que no hay “tipos impositivos sobre la renta inexistentes o nominalmente bajos…” así como “normas legales o prácticas administrativas que limitan el intercambio de información”, porque desde el año 2010 hemos negociado y firmado 29 acuerdos tributarios. Eso sí, con aquellos países con los que Panamá determinó negociar, de acuerdo a sus propios intereses y conveniencias, lo cual es un derecho inalienable del concepto de soberanía y del principio de la igualdad jurídica de los Estados.
La amenaza de Colombia, al igual que las constantes presiones de la OCDE, para incluirnos en una “lista negra”, si no firmamos un acuerdo tributario, contaminaría dicho tratado con el vicio de la “coacción”, que junto con el “error”, el “dolo” y la “corrupción”, conforman los cuatro vicios sustanciales del consentimiento que, según la Convención de Viena, producen la nulidad absoluta de un tratado, pues estos deben ser consecuencia del “libre albedrío” y la “libre voluntad” de las partes, no producto de la fuerza o la amenaza (estas vician el “consentimiento”) de un país sobre otro.
Ricardo Martinelli y Frank De Lima, tuvieron una actitud sumisa y entreguista, en este tema, que no mejoró la imagen de Panamá y, peor aún, le ha causado graves perjuicios y debilitado su posición negociadora. La Cancillería panameña debe informarle al presidente Juan Manuel Santos que se le aplicará a Colombia, y a las empresas de capital colombiano que operan aquí, las mismas restricciones, impuestos, tasas o cualquier otra forma de discriminación comercial, tributaria o de cualquier índole que se le imponga a nuestro país, utilizando como fundamento jurídico el principio de reciprocidad, universalmente aceptado en el derecho internacional público, y de indispensable y común aplicación en las relaciones internacionales, al margen de otras medidas que pudieran tomarse como volver a llevar a Colombia a un panel ante la Organización Mundial de Comercio y solicitar la revisión o abolición del Tratado de Montería (1979), que le concede derechos preferenciales de paso en el Canal de Panamá, sin que nuestro país reciba nada a cambio. Seguir con la política de aceptar imposiciones de organismos que solo buscan el bienestar de sus países miembros, nos llevará al desmantelamiento del centro financiero.
Por Adolfo Linares
Publicado en La Prensa
Jueves 11 de septiembre de 2014
A finales de 2013, el titular de la Dirección de Impuestos y Aduanas Nacionales de Colombia (DIAN) declaró la intención de incluir a Panamá, de forma automática, en una lista de “paraísos fiscales”, si para el mes de septiembre de 2014 no se concreta un acuerdo de intercambio de información fiscal, con base al Decreto No. 2193, del 7 de octubre de 2013, que en su artículo 2, excluye “transitoriamente” a Panamá de la lista de “paraísos fiscales”.
La iniciativa de Colombia de discriminar a Panamá, no solo parte de premisas equivocadas, sino que choca con principios fundamentales del derecho internacional público, como los relativos a la “igualdad jurídica de los Estados”, de “no intervención en los asuntos internos de los Estados” y el de “libre determinación de los pueblos”, y como agravante, viola la Convención de Viena sobre el derecho de los tratados, cuyo Art. 52 declara como nulo: “… todo tratado cuya celebración se haya obtenido por la amenaza o el uso de la fuerza en violación de los principios de derecho internacional incorporados en la Carta de las Naciones Unidas”, habiéndose condenando “solemnemente el recurso a la amenaza o al uso de la presión, en todas sus formas, ya sea militar, política o económica, por un Estado, con el fin de coaccionar a otro Estado para que realice un acto relativo a la celebración de un tratado en violación de los principios de la igualdad soberanía de los Estados y de la libertad de consentimiento”. Así como el acápite 4, del Art. 2 de la Carta Constitutiva de las Naciones Unidas, de la que Colombia es signataria, que consigna, como uno de sus principios fundamentales el que sus países miembros “se abstendrán de recurrir a la amenaza o al uso de la fuerza contra la integridad territorial o la independencia política de cualquier Estado, o cualquier otra forma incompatible con los propósitos de las Naciones Unidas”, entre otros tratados y resoluciones de derecho internacional público.
En Panamá no se “…ofrecen ventajas tributarias atractivas para el capital, la actividad financiera de personas no residentes en ellos y otras actividades susceptibles de movilidad geográfica…” diferentes a las que se otorgan a los nacionales, como dice el Decreto. El artículo 19 de la Constitución es claro al establecer que: “Los panameños y los extranjeros son iguales ante la ley …” y en esta igualdad se incluye el tema tributario. Tanto panameños como extranjeros están obligados a pagar impuestos al fisco nacional, siempre y cuando, su renta sea generada en Panamá o considerada de fuente local, sin excepciones. Una simple consulta a algunas de las múltiples empresas colombianas que operan aquí comprobaría que no hay “tipos impositivos sobre la renta inexistentes o nominalmente bajos…” así como “normas legales o prácticas administrativas que limitan el intercambio de información”, porque desde el año 2010 hemos negociado y firmado 29 acuerdos tributarios. Eso sí, con aquellos países con los que Panamá determinó negociar, de acuerdo a sus propios intereses y conveniencias, lo cual es un derecho inalienable del concepto de soberanía y del principio de la igualdad jurídica de los Estados.
La amenaza de Colombia, al igual que las constantes presiones de la OCDE, para incluirnos en una “lista negra”, si no firmamos un acuerdo tributario, contaminaría dicho tratado con el vicio de la “coacción”, que junto con el “error”, el “dolo” y la “corrupción”, conforman los cuatro vicios sustanciales del consentimiento que, según la Convención de Viena, producen la nulidad absoluta de un tratado, pues estos deben ser consecuencia del “libre albedrío” y la “libre voluntad” de las partes, no producto de la fuerza o la amenaza (estas vician el “consentimiento”) de un país sobre otro.
Ricardo Martinelli y Frank De Lima, tuvieron una actitud sumisa y entreguista, en este tema, que no mejoró la imagen de Panamá y, peor aún, le ha causado graves perjuicios y debilitado su posición negociadora. La Cancillería panameña debe informarle al presidente Juan Manuel Santos que se le aplicará a Colombia, y a las empresas de capital colombiano que operan aquí, las mismas restricciones, impuestos, tasas o cualquier otra forma de discriminación comercial, tributaria o de cualquier índole que se le imponga a nuestro país, utilizando como fundamento jurídico el principio de reciprocidad, universalmente aceptado en el derecho internacional público, y de indispensable y común aplicación en las relaciones internacionales, al margen de otras medidas que pudieran tomarse como volver a llevar a Colombia a un panel ante la Organización Mundial de Comercio y solicitar la revisión o abolición del Tratado de Montería (1979), que le concede derechos preferenciales de paso en el Canal de Panamá, sin que nuestro país reciba nada a cambio. Seguir con la política de aceptar imposiciones de organismos que solo buscan el bienestar de sus países miembros, nos llevará al desmantelamiento del centro financiero.
September 1st, 2014
Conference given in Panama by Dan Mitchell, economist of the CATO Institute, talking about that the Tax competition exists when governments feel pressure to lower tax rates (or pressure to forego tax hikes) because of concerns that jobs and investment will flee to jurisdictions with less onerous fiscal policy.
https://sites.morimor.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2014/09/Panama-Lawyers.pdf
You can see the video of the conference here:
httpss://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJH22WHWhNU
By Roberto González Jimenez
Published by La Prensa
September 3rd, 2014
Panama must present moral arguments in order to resist the pressure from organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and countries like the United States (EU) on the topic of tax information exchange.
This is the opinion of Dan Mitchell, an economist and senior fellow at Cato Institute -an American liberal thinking group-, who gave a lecture on Monday on regulatory and fiscal challenges facing international financial centers.
From his point of view, Panama should defend its territorial taxation model and explain that the problem is in other countries with universal systems. Another moral argument in favor of Panama would be “why should we be forced to do certain things when EU is the biggest tax haven in the world and is not doing so.”
In the practical sense, Mitchell recommended that Panama dilates the implementation of the measures required, pending the possibility of political change in the United States in 2014 and 2016, and considers to eventually appeal to the World Trade Organization.
In accordance with the Law on Foreign Account Tax Compliance (FATCA), EU requires financial institutions around the world to automatically submit information on their American clients.
In this regard, Mitchell said that the U.S. has promised reciprocity with countries that sign the intergovernmental agreement for the enforcement of the law. “But America cannot be reciprocal because it cannot collect the information. So countries like Panama should state that they will share information when the U.S. does so. ”
According to him, the administration of President Barack Obama is calling on Congress -controlled by Republicans- to change the law, “but Congress will not approve. In fact, it is possible that after 2014 Congress will pass legislation to weaken FATCA. ”
During the previous administration, Panama agreed to the terms of the intergovernmental agreement with the U.S. to implement FATCA, and it will be the responsibility of the current administration to sign it.
by Alvaro Tomas
July 31, 2014
(Jesus Christ, The Sermon in the Mount)
I paraphrase Luke 6:-20-49 because either a miracle has happened or will happen whenever the Delaware Legislature passes legislation that will require beneficial owners of that state’s corporations to be identified. It seems Senators Carl Levin (D) and Chuck Grassley (R) have seen the bipartisan burning bush (keeping up with the religious theme) on why countries such as ours, Panama, have been staunch critics of the United States in the matter of corporation transparency.
It seems the two illustrious United States senators have accepted that forcing sovereign countries to enact stronger and, sometimes, useless legislation to be able to identify the beneficial owner of a corporation is akin to casting the proverbial “first stone” when you are full of “sins”. Asking Panama to pass all sorts of legislation under the guise of much needed “global transparency”, affecting our jurisdiction’s competiveness in the legal and financial services arena, is not only unjust but extremely hypocritical. The United States and its satellites: the United Kingdom, OCDE, GAFI, etc. are bullying other countries while their own corporations keep the beneficial owners anonymous.
This is what an article dated July 28th, 2014 in the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners newsletter states:
The White House has frequently been embarrassed in international negotiations by having its attention drawn to the company registration practices of its states, especially Delaware, which has achieved notoriety for the ease with which it allows anonymous persons to set up shell companies. (Nevada and Wyoming are the others.)
Panama is not embarrassed because we feel that the creation of corporations is a legitimate service and we have been one of the leading jurisdictions in the world since 1927. We have had the policies and mechanisms in place to identify the beneficial owners of the corporations for many years something that, obviously, the United States and more than 20 OCDE countries (that still allow bearer shares still) have not.
So we go on, praying that the United States and its cronies realize that this is a matter of competing in globalized economy on a level playing field. That is to say, as Matthew might: not making others do what we would not like to be done to us.
By Andrew F. Quinlan
Published on Forbe’s and Center for Freedom and Prosperity
July 17th, 2014
This month finally marked the much delayed implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). The massive financial dragnet’s diminishing group of supporters shouldn’t pop the champagne just yet, however, as the feat represents only a Pyrrhic victory. FATCA remains both politically and legally vulnerable, and ultimately represents a doomed effort to treat the symptoms of the tax code’s many inadequacies rather than root causes.
Even with the law now supposedly in force, the Treasury Department has pledged to go easy on enforcement for the first two years. This is because, despite numerous delays and so many claims to the contrary, the world remains unable to comply with FATCA’s costly dictates.
Only Treasury’s creative and extra-legal invention of intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) to enforce the law has made its implementation even remotely possible. The IGAs will route US taxpayer information through the hands of foreign governments, with all the privacy concerns which that entails. Even worse, they convinced foreign governments to sign the agreements by promising reciprocal information sharing. Not only would this require FATCA-style costs be imposed on American banks, but it would threaten America’s status as the premiere destination for foreign investment and drive capital overseas.
Congress is unlikely to follow through with such a self-destructive policy, which means the IGA partners will have sold out their fiscal sovereignty for nothing in return. Once they realize FATCA is a one way street, they may band together to fight back against US fiscal imperialism.
In addition to the practical obstacles to FATCA’s implementation, a coming legal challenge could potentially reopen debate on the law’s overall viability and effectiveness. Attorney Jim Bopp, who had a leading role in the successful effort to strike down McCain-Feingold, plans to challenge FATCA on three points. Namely, that Treasury’s unilateral intergovernmental agreements violate the Senate’s treaty power, that FATCA’s excessive penalties violate the 8th Amendment, and that its privacy invasions violate the 4th Amendment.
These arguments hold considerable merit with anything but the most deferential or obsequious reading by the courts. However, it may not be necessary for the legal challenge to proceed to its conclusion before it bears political fruit. Already FATCA is under heavy political siege, with the Republican National Committee joining with Republicans Oversees to adopt repeal as the official party position. Even Democrats Abroad have called for drastic changes to the law, despite its unwavering support from their party’s leadership.
A legal challenge with a realistic chance of success may force FATCA’s obstinate supporters back to the table to address its abundant flaws. The alternative would be to risk losing the entire costly enterprise.
Even if by some miracle FATCA survives its current challenges, in several years time Congress will be forced to take it up again as recognition sets in that it simply is not capable of accomplishing its intended goals. For all the acrimony and international financial upheaval it has caused, FATCA is a poor excuse for a solution to tax evasion.
There’s a direct correlation between the severity of a tax code and the level of effort individuals are willing to put into avoiding or evading taxes. Attempting to address the latter while ignoring the former is a fool’s errand. It’s the fiscal equivalent of the war on drugs – a costly enforcement-minded solution in which government agencies are always two steps behind their targets. And like the drug war, FATCA will produce considerable collateral damage and invasions on innocent Americans.
What makes the whole thing even more baffling is the fact that the United States already outpaces the industrialized world when it comes to tax compliance. Evasion is less common in the US than it is in Europe because the US tax code is, at least for the time being, less onerous than its European counterparts. Reducing tax evasion and enhancing fairness even further is as simple as instituting basic pro-growth reforms that eliminate double taxation on savings and investment, while also lowering other rates and closing loopholes. Tackling the issue at its source in this fashion would promote growth and prosperity, rather than FATCA’s international confusion and hostility.
By Dr. Brett Patton and Dr. Eduardo De Alba
Published by Martes Financiero
July 8th, 2014
Widely known are the efforts made by pressure groups conformed largely by powerful countries at economic and/or political level, including the so-called G-8 and G-20, like the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and its appendix, the Global Forum. These demand changes in countries like Panama, so that our legal rules fit their national interests in preference to ours.
It is clear that Panama is part of the international community of nations and should behave as such, within the principles upon which the United Nations (UN) was founded, of which our country was a founder in 1945, and at a regional level, the Organization of American States (OAS), of which Panama was also a founder in 1948. Both organizations have existed since the beginning of the postwar and have general acceptance on a global and regional level.
Panama must respect and act towards the requirements of third countries, whilst effectively taking into account the individual rights that constitutionally protect any person, national or foreign, domiciled or resident in Panama or with property or activities in Panama, and consistently with the obligations that it has contracted in the with international conventions to which it is a party.
Critical to this analysis are the guarantees that any person, national or foreign, has in Panama: i) to due process of law concerning any accusation or investigation carried out with regards to its person, its activities or property; ii) to the presumption of innocence until being convicted in a public trial, adjusted to due process of law and determined by a final and unappealable judgment and iii) to privacy and, thus, to the confidentiality of the documents and information which are obtained from such person.
Therefore, Panama must not cede in the discharge of its territorial and legal sovereignty faced with the pressures of any other State or group of States, regardless of how strong they may actually be, as we are entitled to demand and receive equal and fair treatment of any other State, and to establish, autonomously and in furtherance of our right to free self-determination, our own legal system, be it public or private, and for the same to be respected by the community of nations.
Panama should comply in all seriousness with the commitments that it acquires towards third countries, through international, bilateral or multilateral agreements to set up, gather, compile, update and disclose to the competent authorities of those States the statistics and information covered by such agreements.
It must do so, however, always safeguarding and requiring the confidentiality of such information and that it be used solely in the course of an investigation authorized and carried out within the framework of these agreements, in the course of which the above referred to individual rights are duly observed.
For these reasons, Panama must not obligate itself to supply information in an automatic fashion which may affect the security of or the rights of nationals or foreigners that seek to be protected by the Panamanian legal framework.
Panama has every right to establish and maintain the tax regime that it considers to best serve its interests, for the benefit of its nationals and foreigners domiciled or resident in Panama, or with properties or activities in Panama, or who lawfully take advantage (in accordance with the Panamanian legal framework) of its institutions and structures, be they public or private. It should be noted that the principle of fiscal territoriality in Panama was adopted over 60 years ago, so it is long established and accepted as a cornerstone of our legal system, and it is not the product of a recent whimsical or opportunistic measure.
The same can be said of our system of companies limited by shares (including the possibility of issuing bearer shares), adopted in 1927, more than 80 years ago.
It is worth remembering that our international service economy was conceived to provide or export services to the world, according to the vision of illustrious governing leaders that dates back to 1916, with the enactment of the Commercial Code of Panama.
We can note that the preamble of the Code contemplated, among other things, that we should prepare ourselves to be “the theater where men of all nationalities or interests of every nature are to be found in constant activity.”
This spirit of openness has led the country to a great development in international trade and in the creation of legal entities, the strategy of which is to promote services for the benefit of the international community and which significantly contribute to the welfare of Panama. Among them stands out, in the first place, the Panama Canal, with its legal structure of administration and development in charge of the Panama Canal Authority, enhanced by entities and activities, such as the commercial movement within the Colon Free Zone, banking, insurance and reinsurance services, the ports and the multimodal cargo transshipment system across the Isthmus, the law of Headquarters for Multinational Companies, and a legal framework that has allowed us to become the country with the largest merchant marine fleet in the world, both in number of ships and tonnage, and in a world-class center for the creation and organization of various types of legal entities.
As a member of the OAS and with respect to the other Member States of this organization, Panama must be respectful of its postulates regarding the realization of social justice (i.e. job opportunities, improvement in the distribution of wealth, opportune access to quality education and health care, among others). In this sense, Panama must collaborate with other Member States in achieving these objectives, including in regards to their tax systems, provided these are fair and equitable with respect to both their nationals and foreign nationals subject to their jurisdictions.
This said, Panama does not have to accept nor may it be lawfully the subject discriminatory, punitive or confiscatory measures that any such State may pretend to adopt unilaterally against our country, based on a qualification made of Panama, its institutions and its legal framework, as that pertaining to an alleged “fiscal paradise”. The differences that any of these countries may have with Panama because of its tax system must be addressed through the mechanisms of direct negotiations, mediation or arbitration or those of a similar nature to which the OAS Charter refers, as does the UN Charter as well.
This, however, excludes any action of unilateral aggression by any one of such other Member States against Panama or its nationals or those foreigners who seek to be covered under the scope of Panamanian laws and structures. It should be emphasized that the concept of “aggression” under the OAS Charter is not limited to physical or military force, but it includes discriminatory, punitive or confiscatory economic measures that any other Member State may pretend to impose against our country, or against the activities or property that our nationals and those foreigners, including those whose country of origin is that other Member State, undertake or maintain in Panama, or by taking advantage of the legal structures that our system places at the disposition of nationals and foreigners alike.
Panama must consider that, through the appropriate diplomatic channels, its representatives denounce before the general assemblies of the members of the UN and the OAS, and before any other instance of these organizations that may be available for these purposes (be these organisms of consultation , permanent representations, secretariats or others), these courses of conduct that typify acts of aggression against Panama by other Member States, pretending to rely on organizations of which Panama is not a member , nor to the decisions, purposes or designs of which Panama needs to submit , such as is the case of the OECD.
The demands, for reasons of their own convenience, that these States have made against Panama, calling it a tax haven, become arbitrary claims and violate the international commitments of these countries towards Panama, under the basic principles of both the UN and OAS. Even when these requirements are intended to reflect the pursuit of bilateral or multilateral agreements, at the end of the day, their real purpose is to force and coerce the free will of our country to accommodate it to such demands.
These agreements, obtained through threat or coercion, vitiate the consent of Panama as a sovereign and independent state, and, therefore, they suffer from nullity and voidability pursuant to public international law.
The demands that are tried to be imposed upon us represent complex changes oriented to reduce the importance and competitiveness of countries that, as ours, have significant economies based on international services. The implementation of the measures entailed by these requirements entail encompass the need for our country to assume a high cost, both at a public and private level, in addition to the decrease in revenues derived from activities that would be affected by the consequent reduction in our competitiveness.
Panama’s national interests would be affected if we allowed ourselves to be carried by the heat of these pressures i) politically, as a sovereign and independent country and with the right to its free self-determination, pursuant to the basic principles of public international law; ii) economically, due to the contribution that our platform of international services makes to our production of goods and services, in place for many decades, and iii) socially, because of the cost in human and financial resources we would have to assume in order to satisfy the demands of these states at the expense of our true priorities, which are to improve the opportunities and the standard of living of our citizens and of those foreigners who make Panama their home and who contribute with their daily efforts to our development.
Considering the direction of the aforementioned pressure groups to turn the globalized world into a world supervised by them, Panama should raise its voice of protest against the underscored position of these countries to pretend to make themselves guarantors of democratic values, and demand, for our part, that the rights established by our Constitution and our laws, and by universally accepted principles of public international law, be respected.
|
Recent Posts
-
(English) Trump’s Lesson
-
(English) U.S. Emerging as ‘Leading’ Tax, Secrecy Haven, EU Report Says
-
(English) Prosperous Panama
-
(English) Russian Intervention in American Election Was No One-Off
-
(English) Usual Suspects? Co-conspirators in the business of tax dodging
-
(English) E.U. Includes U.S. on List of Potential Tax Havens
-
Discurso de investidura del nuevo presidente de Estados Unidos, Donald Trump
-
Comunicado al país del Consejo Nacional de la Empresa Privada (CONEP)
-
(English) EL RETORNO DEL PENDULO III
-
(English) Panama Adapts as an International Financial Center
-
(English) Wedlake Bell On Eu’s Proposed Trust Disclosure Rules
-
(English) OCDE es la mayor amenaza mundial al Estado de Derecho
-
Califican de ‘doble moral’ actuación de países de la OCDE
-
(English) Panama Canal NYT Article Disappointingly Omits the Real Story
-
OMC reitera fallo a favor de Panamá
-
(English) Panama Papers, Tax Planning, and Political Corruption
-
(English) For research, we pretended to be crooks and terrorists and tried to buy shell companies. The results were disturbing.
-
GAO (Oficina de Rendición de Cuentas del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos)
-
Proyecto Senador Levin: Conozca A Su Cliente
-
(English) Special Meeting of the Permanent Council, March 30th, 2016
-
(English) Switzerland Must Stand Up For Its Financial Centre, Says Geneva Professor
-
(English) Common Reporting Standard must include all major financial centres to be effective, warns the IFC Forum
-
(English) Forget Panama, try Belgium for a cozy tax deal
-
El nuevo paraíso fiscal es EU
-
¿Paraíso Fiscal o Plataforma de Servicios y Negocios Internacionales?
-
Colombia, la OCDE y el exabrupto galo
-
(English) Letter from James Bacchus to Jose Angel Gurria
-
OMC falla a favor de Panamá en pugna comercial con Colombia
-
(English) Pfizer Chief Defends Merger With Allergan as Good for U.S
-
(English) US overtakes Caymans and Singapore as haven for assets of super-rich
|
