Luxembourg Says Delaware and Wyoming are Tax Havens

Brazil has been claiming that Delaware and Wyoming are tax havens -- because they have low costs and minimal disclosure requirements for business entities.  The New York Times reports that Luxembourg's prime minister has now joined in this claim.  He has called for both Delaware and Wyoming to be put on the tax black list of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development!

These kinds of allegations are likely the result of recent U.S. efforts to increase tax revenue from U.S. citizens who live, work or simply hold assets outside the United States.  Some foreign jurisdictions resent the U.S. callng them "tax havens" when certain states in the United States seem to have "tax haven" characteristics.

The U.S. is unusual in that it taxes its citizens on income no matter where it is earned.  Tax treaties may reduce the burden, but the general rule is that a United States citizen must pay tax on income earned anywhere in the world.  And the U.S. is increasing its efforts to collect taxes on assets held abroad.

We could certainly debate whether Delaware or Wyoming (or any other U.S. jurisdiction) is a "tax haven."  But it is true that disclosure requirements in many states for corporations and other business entities are less than they would be in many other countries.  For example, a limited liability company can be formed in Delaware, Ohio and many other states without publicly disclosing the names of any of the owners or managers.  This is not the case in many other countries.  If nothing else, this is a good reminder to first consider asset protection strategies that are closer to home before considering offshore options.

Trouble In Paradise: A Leading Offshore Tax Haven Might Have to Increase Taxes

One of the best known international tax havens -- the Cayman Islands -- is being forced to consider something that would have been unthinkable only a couple years ago: raising taxes.  This may be yet another blow to Americans who hold assets in offshore accounts.  As reported in a recent New York Times article by Landon Thomas, Jr., there is "no getting around the fact that the balmy days for exotic offshore financial centers like the Caymans could be coming to an end." 

The Cayman Islands appear to be considering raising the $3,000 annual fee that hedge funds pay to register in this jurisdiction.  The New York Times also reports that the Caymans are considering a small tax on the trillions of dollars that flow in and out of the island on a daily basis.  Many financial firms (particularly hedge funds) are registered in the Cayman Islands because of favorable tax treatment.

I personally doubt that the Cayman Islands will suddenly cease to be a tax haven.  But as noted in The New York Times article, there is a clear trend of greater scrutiny of offshore jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands.  During his campaign, President Obama referred to Ugland House in George Town (where about 19,000 companies are registered) as "the biggest tax scam on record".  Statements like this inevitably bring higher scrutiny.

Assets may be held by U.S. citizens and entities in offshore jurisdictions for a variety of reasons.  Some jurisdictions provide asset protection advantages; some (like the Cayman Islands) provide tax advantages; some have simply provided stable financial banking and financial services; and some (including Switzerland) have provided varying degrees of confidentiality.

As I have mentioned before, there is nothing inherently wrong with U.S. citizens or entities holding assets outside of the United States.  Almost all major U.S. corporations now operate internationally in one way or another, and they generally have some portion of their assets outside of the United States.  But assets held outside of the U.S. are sometimes used as part of a scheme to unlawfully evade U.S. taxes.  There is clearly an increased interest by U.S. authorities in reducing tax advantages for U.S. corporations and individuals who hold assets outside the United States.