STEP faces existential crisis
The public debate around offshore is poisonous and its only going to get worse. With Donald Trump refusing to release his tax return we are in for another sustained period where the social responsibility of the most famous billionaire on the planet is under extreme scrutiny. In many people’s eyes Trump stands as a proxy for all those billionaire’s they believe are avoiding or evading their taxes.
In this context it may seem clever for STEP to keep a low profile. STEP has said nothing publicly even when it has directly come under attack in the media (see https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/21/how-to-hide-it-inside-secret-world-of-wealth-managers).
But there are two problems with this. Firstly as Jersey Finance found, unless you deal with them these attacks don’t go away, they intensify. And now every time a journalist googles STEP they will be confronted with hostile coverage which has gone uncontested.
The second is that STEP is the spokesperson for a profession. Attacks upon the profession and its body are an attack on all wealth structuring professionals. One of the reasons such bodies exist is that individual firms find it very hard to get internal agreement to go on the record, so collectively they have a body to represent them and speak for them. STEP is avoiding this fundamental duty and risking the ire of its members.
By failing to marshal the arguments in favour of the manifest benefits of wealth structuring STEP will, sooner or later, face an existential crisis. That crisis will be a crisis of reputation. I wish STEP and the new CEO well, and would encourage them to deal with this as a priority.
Retired
8 年The perception that anyone dealing in offshore jurisdictions is somehow evading their fair share taxes is rampant. Regardless of the legality of such tax avoidance structures, tax reduction strategies are often viewed from the perspective that only the very affluent can afford to create these with the main intention of reducing their tax liability. And thereby raising for everyone else to fund the cost of running nations. Not sure what can be done to change that perception though.
Partner at Harneys
8 年I suspect there are many who feel that STEP would benefit from refocussing. It was shamefully silent during the "Panama Papers" saga when sensible and reasoned voices were desperately needed. And not for the first time.
Associée chez TrustConsult Suisse | Conseils en patrimoine
8 年??
Barrister at Overseas Chambers. French & British national. Helping other lawyers, taxpayers and advisors in cross border law and tax issues in English and French. Jersey, English +U K, French, EU law. and taxation.
8 年Given Pascal Saint Amans treatment of everyone functional involved with a trust as an account holder: Trustee, Settlor -whether excluded or not-, Beneficiary and what is worse Protectors, this will be an uphill battle. Giving such a position of power to a French Enarque who has no real idea of what a trust is and has therefore reduced it to an uncommon denominator of a crésnce, or in other words a contractual obligation or account, has not helped here. Blinkers are a method of winning races, and the Arc de Triomphe is no exception. The sterling attempt at getting international recognition of the trust concept using the doctrine of conversion of property is one thing. However going the extra "kilometre" and allowing it to be treated for the sake of convenience as a contract, rather than what it is, as a mechanism of property law, may have tolled the death knell to any hope of proper understanding. Having spent five years attempting to reconcile the difference of a trust with any form of civilian concept in the preparation of a French nationalised multinational's balance sheet with inspecteurs des finances as colleagues gives me a platform from which to speak. It is a struggle if not a war over influence. I can reveal that the French civil service in negotiations with certain jurisdictions in the TIEA and associated information exchange developments have insisted on discussing the issue from the créance concept of a trust, in other words an account as being the only manner in which they will address the subject. It may now be time to stand and challenge this deliberate and bad faith misconception before the debate on the property comprising wealth gets even more poisonous. If calculated ignorance is given a legitimated voice, or microphone, then there is no accurate conversation possible.