Talk:Tax haven/Archive 2

Developed countries are LARGER tax havens (in terms of secrecy) than those in Caribbean.
Isn't it ironic. Developed countries have been ranked among the largest secrecy (according to the definition here) tax havens in the world? [http://www.barbadostoday.bb/2015/11/07/in-face-of-tax-haven-attack/ In face of ‘tax haven’ attack. . .] (quote) No member state of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) ranks among the top 20 jurisdictions worldwide for financial secrecy. The United States (at No. 3), Germany (No. 8), Japan (No. 12) and Britain (No. 15) all rate as bigger tax havens than any CARICOM[Caribbean Community] jurisdiction, according to the Tax Justice Network (TJN), an independent European-based think tank.

Further, the Global Forum On Transparency And Exchange Of Information For Tax Purposes rates the United States and European Union countries Britain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Greece and Estonia only in the second grade of jurisdictions that are compliant with international standards.(end quote) CaribDigita (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

overview article in Wired and NYT
A brief piece in Wired magazine might have some more detailed reference material on why certain locations are classed as tax havens -- January 2016 issue, "Shell Game: Inside the World's Tax Havens". No internet link as of yet. Wingman4l7 (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is a recent NYT source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/30/business/economy/for-the-wealthiest-private-tax-system-saves-them-billions.html EllenCT (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Another: http://read.somo.nl/story/tax-free-profits/ EllenCT (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think there is also a documentary tonight on the BBC (in the UK). May be additional useful info or links when that becomes web accessible. --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tax haven. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.oecd.org/document/63/0,3343,en_2649_37427_30575447_1_1_1_37427,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Guardian / Mossack Fonseca data leak
I am travelling, but is someone in a position to do some updating to reflect the recent publication of the data leaks? --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

List of tax havens and countries of financial secrecy
The whole section seems pretty lame to me and not much than a product of the ideological pre-conceptions of this NGO. I propose deleting it. --31.4.157.8 (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree. It may be worth creating a new article on secrecy issues, but without better context and objectivity, it doesn't seem to fit here. --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I also agree, this section is subjective and I have deleted it for the fifth time. Hope it stays this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mralan101 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

FAS source
Mralan101 removed the FAS study, saying that "A study of a study is not a study. Citation of original needed." I removed it, because this doesn't make sense as a reason - by definition a study is a study. The FAS study is a secondary source, which identifies countries named in various sources as being tax havens (on p.3). Mralan101 then again removed it, saying "A study of a 9 year old study is not a study worth studying. For example Ireland removed its so called "double Irish" which caused it to be considered a tax haven in 2015." but did not provide a source for the claim about Ireland or any reason why this fact would mean that the entire section should be removed. I don't want to edit war with you, so could you explain a bit more on here what you mean? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The Double Irish arrangement is basically no more as of 2015 (or 2020 by companies using it), but it's not that simple. I don't object to the source in general, with some countries getting additional notes backed by other sources.  Ireland for example could be noted as the arrangement was removed as of 2015 but can be used until 2020 if already being used. Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I have found a source here for it.See here I will re-add the content, along with a note for Ireland unless anyone else has any objections. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have any serious objections, but just pointing out that if there is a reference in a list to a jurisdiction as a tax haven, and certain jurisdictions are made subject to "asterisks" as to why they shouldn't be considered a tax haven, pretty soon you will have an awful lot of asterisks. "X should no longer be considered a tax haven because..." is a pretty popular article title in the offshore world. --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have re-added the content with a note for Ireland Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to start a discussion regarding the section: "List of tax havens and countries of financial secrecy". --31.51.108.123 (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Many countries have their own list of what they consider to be tax havens tax havens should we add a list on a country by country basis? This covers only some EU member nations. I don't think we should add it but then why have a list at all as a tax haven is subjective. Is a tax haven based on its corporation tax? or the number of tax loopholes in its system in which case we should add France - 14 and Germany - 12 compared to Ireland - 7. Also some of the countries on the list do not match the definition of a tax haven given in the wiki. I believe the list should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mralan101 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As discussed in the section above, this is a secondary source - it uses studies conducted by the OECD so it is not constrained by the opinions of any one member state. You can look at the definitions they have used if you are interested. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

So just to look at the consensus here, there was me for inclusion, two (Ravensfire and talk) for inclusion with caveats (which have been addressed) and one (Mralan101) for removal. Therefore clearly there is not a consensus for removal and so I will revert the removal. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Read the first section of this talk, Myself, talk, Legis. 3 - 2. Most of the countries from the list are added from a study in 2009, things have changed in 7 years. Switzerland have removed their banking secrecy laws see here and other countries need to be added to the list but can't because it is not in your out of date study. Can you please put forward an argument to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mralan101 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, by editing the 'Ireland' part of the study it is no longer the original study but an updated version of your making and the source is no longer legitimate. It is out of date and can't be edited. Removal is the only logical option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mralan101 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

lede inadequate
I flagged the lede, because it is too long. It contains details that belong in the body.

I edited the body a bit, but cant tell if the lede reflects all of the body and vice versa.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the third paragraph of the lead probably needs to be moved to another section of the article. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Black money.
I want to show whole of that. Its not a joke. Rohit goyal (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you explain further what you mean? I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

biased article
Very biased article. And in two ways. Firstly it is almost entirely biased to a US point of view. Secondly it is biased in that nothing is said about the reasons for tax evasion. The libertarian point is not made at all. And the point that a lot of tax is just spent on shit.91.156.74.132 (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Very biased" may be too strong, but I certainly agree the article has been stitched together from various partisan viewpoints and doesn't read very well (and we get lots of highly POV comments like referring to funds "stashed away in off-shore accounts" rather than saying "held offshore"). For the longest time I have been meaning to try and do a more balanced and cohesive rewrite, but it is a big task and I never quite get around to it.  We also still have the problem of finding good sources that are both reliable and neutral.  A huge amount of the "data" which is pumped out about tax havens is produced using sloppy and inconsistent methodology designed to produce headlines in the press.  This year the Offshore 2020 report is being produced by The Economists intelligence unit, so hopefully that will produce some impetus (and better data) to try and take this forward. --Legis' (talk - contribs) 04:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are an attorney, are you not? What is your professional opinion of synthesizing the laws of different jurisdictions in ways that legislators were not likely to have foreseen? Do you believe that is ethical or moral? EllenCT (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how much tax is spent on sewage treatment is relevant here? Leutha (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Jurisdiction?
Unfortunately an editor has started insisting on defining a Tax Haven as "jurisdiction" without providing sources or discussing the matter here. Instead they have reverted edits made by other editors willy-nilly. Perhaps we can discuss the matter here.Leutha (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Why we should make clear it is a geographic location: having looked through the literature, Tax Havens are generally referred to as being countries or places which have a jurisdiction. This needs to be made clear in the first sentence. Linking to Jurisdiction (area) actually makes this less clear as it only becomes apparent that this is a subsidiary or colloquial use of the term jurisdiction when the page is clicked on. Leutha (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Leutha. Thank you for engaging in discussion.  In fairness to myself, I must point out that this article had been using the word "jurisdiction" in its geographic sense since 2004 and that it was your edits of a few days ago that changed that.  So, it seems unfair to suggest that I'm the one who needed to engage in prior discussion. Be that as it may, there is a wide-ranging consensus on Wikipedia to use the word in the sense that I am using it here.  It is done in the introductory sentences of the article on income tax, as well as the ones on capital gains tax, corporate tax, property tax and withholding tax.  And in the ledes to vehicle licence, fiscal year and EU withholding tax.  It is also used in the templates companies law and Infobox government agency.  Closer to our subject matter here, it is used in the introductions of offshore bank, foreign corporation, tax exporting, Singapore Sling (tax avoidance) and Dutch sandwich.  There probably are many more that I could name -- these are just the ones the came up on the first page of a Wikisearch for "tax jurisdiction". Of course, you can argue that you are correct and that everyone editing those other articles are all wrong.  But perhaps you can agree that using the word "jurisdiction" in this context is standard practice here on Wikipedia. Thanks again for engaging in discussion.  I look forward to your response.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

"Jurisdiction" is derived from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak". The word literally has nothing to do with location. Philo Mornings again (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC) I don't see how it could be considered appropriate for an international encyclopedia to be using words in the vernacular of a single country. The rhetoric should be technically correct, and referring to a place as a jurisdiction is not technically correct. It's US slang. Philo Mornings again (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the delay in response. The holiday season left me little time to work on Wikipedia and I am only now digging out of the backlog. Perhaps Philo's response has served to clarify one point -- if the two of you truly believe that the geographic sense of "jurisdiction" is nothing more than "US slang", then I can see why there is disagreement here.  But using the word in that sense is not slang.  The Wiktionary definition of jurisdiction gives it as a legitimate non-technical meaning of the word and uses a British (not U.S.) publication as the source of its illustrative quotation.  My own brief searches found the word also being used in this sense by reliable sources in India.  All in all, the geographic sense of jurisdiction is not slang, and its use is not restricted to the United States. Since the last posting here, a fourth editor has modified the lede and has produced a version that is not identical to either of ours.  I accept it as a reasonable compromise and I hope that the two of you will do the same.  If not, I'll be happy to engage in further discussion.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry not to have got back before. Bearing in mind we have two articles Jurisdiction and Jurisdiction (area), I was hoping that perhaps we could have a compromise around Jurisdictional Area as per here, here and here. What do you reckon? Leutha (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up on this. I must admit -- I don't much like the proposal.  As I noted in my first posting here, the word jurisdiction (by itself) has been used in this article since 2004 and is the standard term used in our other articles in this field.  But, if the other two editors support your proposal, I'll go along with it, too.  Let's see what Philo and the fourth editor, User:Enthusiast01, have to say about it.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pinging me. I'm the so-called fourth editor. When I changed the lede to "jurisdiction" I had not seen the previous discussion here. All I saw was that "geographic location" just sounded wrong. In the above discussion, the Latin root of "jurisdiction" was said to be "ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak"". Whether that is right or not I'm not sure, but what it commonly refers to is a political entity that has the power to make laws, or not to make tax laws. In that sense a "tax haven" is the "jurisdiction" whose laws create (perhaps unfairly) tax and other advantages to non-residents. Enthusiast01 (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No, no, no. If Stockholm has very favourable tax rates for certain entities, then Stokholm is a tax haven. If conditions pertaining to jurisprudence within Stokholm change, then perhaps Stockholm will stop being a tax haven. So you see, a tax haven is 'the place in which taxation conditions are favourable'. The "tax haven" is the PLACE where taxation laws are heavenly, the 'tax haven' is NOT the body which decides on those laws. The article is about the HAVEN, NOT the creators of the HAVEN. Philo Mornings again (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, you eloquently put what I have been trying to get at. Leutha (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.dandc.eu/en/article/how-countrys-tax-base-can-be-eroded-tax-treaties. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Updated this for the Conduit/Sink study
Updated this for the major investigation on Conduit and Sinks which I think is both scientific and helps with many debates regarding what is an tax haven Britishfinance (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

the lede
Hi, rewrote the lede which I agree is not working. Have tried to capture the issue of (1) identifying tax havens and tax haven lists as well as (2) the quantum effect of tax havens, and finally (3), the counter-measures and their success/failures. I think these three elements are the key in any lede on tax havens. If people like this, I can fill in the references and citations. Britishfinance (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Reliance on a single source
The section asserting that the U.S.A is the largest beneficiary of tax havens has been deleted because A: it relied almost exclusively on a single paper that is more than twenty years old, and that paper was using data that is now 36 years old. B: the claims made were not even supported by the sources material, which only concluded that "the policies of tax havens MAY, on net, enhance the U.S. Treasury's ability to collect tax revenue from American corporations." Philo Mornings again (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The section cites the Hines-Rice 1994 paper as it was the first to spot this (i.e. they even understood this 34 years ago). Hines (and others) have made this point other times in papers. These are the central figures in tax haven research and their view and contribution are important to chronicle in an article on tax havens.Britishfinance (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * again to Irish tax people who make their money from Ireland's tax haven business Hines is the devil himself - they will want him gone from this article and oecd restored. As long as we are not T&T then we are not a tax haven !  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.187.2.151 (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "Hines (and others) have made this point other times in papers." That's great news, because that will resolve this dispute, which is what we both want. If there are multiple papers that explicitly make the statement that the U.S. is the largest beneficiary of tax havens, then all you need to do is cite those papers. Currently, you have not done that. Your statements in this article claiming that the U.S. is the largest beneficiary of tax havens are classified as original research and will continue to be deleted until you can refer to some credible research that explicitly makes the aforementioned statement. If you persist with inserting original research into this article I will unfortunately be required to initiate conflict resolution. Let me be clear: This Wikipedia article CAN NOT make the statement that the U.S. is the largest beneficiary of tax havens unless that statement has been made explicitly in credible research that this article cites. Philo Mornings again (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * quoting Hines and other experts in an article on tax havens is not OR - it is like calling a referral to Einstein on General Theory OR. you have a bizarre agenda here which is focused on deleting the most important expert in tax havens from an article on tax havens.  please stop valdalising this article.  editors have provided unnecessary extra detail to respond to your comments, and your response is to ignore and just keep deleting large sections.  there is some strange agenda here.89.100.117.10 (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Additional reference was provided (as if James Hines was not enough??) which you ignored. Your edits delete sections citing work from the biggest names in tax research (a table was even provided at the end for your benefit).  It is the same pattern of the other sections that you made in the NPOV section (above), again on James Hines - the most respected and most published academic author of research into tax havens.  Is it Hines that you have a problem with?  I have added references from the WSJ on Zucman's 2018 research that US multinationals are the biggest users of tax havens from his major study. I can't make it any clearer than this? Your edits re the NPOV allegation (above), despite an excessive level of citation for the facts, indicate that you are not that interested, but have some other aim? Britishfinance (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Philo Mornings again is not a “new” WP editor. He also has an Irish IP I can see from signbot.  All his edits are targeted at deleting mention of the 1994 Hines Rice Paper which he says is out of date.  The only other people - in the world - who say this is the Irish state in trying to defend against accusations of being a tax haven.  I live in Ireland. Nothing you put to Philo is going to change his determination to continually delete this section.  Doesn’t matter that HR is the most cited paper in the history of tax research - to Philo it is like garlic to a vampire.31.187.0.130 (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

NPOV
A paragraph in the definitions section has been deleted because it lacked neutrality. You cannot claim a paper was "the first important paper" when it was not the first and it's importance is debatable. Philo Mornings again (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have cited a 2017 research paper from the EU Commission into tax havens from 2017 that lists in the Appendix the major papers in tax haven research and the first one is Hines-Rice (I could give 10 more). James Hines just received the US national tax association medal for his work on tax havens. This is really not appropriate. Please stop adding your own POV on this article.  This is about chronicling the major encyclopedic facts around the definition of a tax and the 1994 Hines-Rice paper is the probably on of the most important papers ever written on research into corporate tax havens. That is not a view, it is an academic fact? Britishfinance (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * welcome to ireland britishfinance where to my fellow countrymen like Philo James Hines is the devil himself. Our Irish State has spent money trying to trash Hines and claim that the only def of a tax is oecd. when they get very fixated on this paper that is their calling card.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.187.2.151 (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Somebody who wants to delete ref to Hines in several sections on an article on TAX HAVENS, can only be an Irish tax person. To the rest of the world, he is the most important person on tax havens but in Ireland he is dismissed as an obscure forgotten analyst. He is still publishing ! It is embrrassing. Like every other tax haven, Irish Gov should should just make no comment and stop making ridiculous comments like the NPOV above on James Hines.  He is - not was - Mr Tax Haven.31.187.2.74 (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know you cited a 2017 EU commission paper as a source, and that is helpful and appreciated, the problem is that your source does not contain the statement that you are publishing in this article. The EU paper does NOT contain the statement that the Hines-Rice paper was 'the first important paper on tax havens' and therefore that statement is classified as original research and will continue to be removed until you can provide a credible source for that statement. The EU paper that you cited makes this statement: "Hines and Rice (1994) are among the first to document the importance of tax havens." You can insert that statement into the article if you wish. Philo Mornings again (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have cited a recent EU Commission report on that under "Tax Haven Literature Review: A Typology" that lists Hines Rice as the first notable paper on tax havens. I have also cited the RePRc database showing that Hines-Rice is the most cited paper on tax havens in history, with twice the number of the next cited paper (you forgot to mention this), there is no better independent observable fact than this. Hines Rice is not just the first important paper, it is the most important paper on tax havens.  Your comments make no sense.  Your edits show that you have little interest in the facts here (if read any of the other papers helpfully referenced in their online form, you will see them all also quoting the imporance of Hines-Rice, including the U.S. congressional investigations), except to delete any reference to Hines.  Please stop vandalizing this article, and asserting your own, and very unusual, views on the development of tax havens.Britishfinance (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "that lists Hines Rice as the first notable paper on tax havens." No, I'm sorry, but that is demonstrably incorrect, and if you wish to take this to dispute resolution then it will be demonstrated to those responsible for resolving this dispute. I am trying to reason with you. I have read the EU commission report that you cited, and as I have already explained it DOES NOT make the statement that the Hines-Rice paper was "the first important paper on tax havens". It just simply DOES NOT say that. Once again, the EU commission report states "Hines and Rice (1994) are among the first to document the importance of tax havens." And, once again, you are free to document that statement in this article. However, this article can not make the statement that the Hines-Rice paper was the first important paper on tax havens unless you can provide a reference that makes that statement EXPLICITLY. Do you understand? These are the rules, and I am going to do my bit to uphold them. Please stop accusing me of vandalism, and please stop inserting original research into wikipedia articles. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo Mornings again (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * @Philo please stop vandalising this article. if this was about specific wording you would not be deleting whole sections and references. a ridiculous amount of evidence has been posted by editors to show Hines is the most important paper on tax havens - including a whole table at the end listing the most cited papers, of which Hines is top. you have a strange agenda here, and should stop deleting whole sections.  this is Some unusual agenda you have, or maybe just WP:VANDALISM,  dressed up as a bizarre NPOV claim.89.100.117.10 (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Getting weird now. If you had an issue with the word "important", you would not be deleting a whole section including material to 2016 (and several times now).  You clearly have an unusual problem with Hines-Rice.  I have tried everything to assist you, and a full table of the ten most important papers in tax research have been provided (I think for your benefit)????? So we now have proof that Hines-Rice paper is the most cited paper in all of tax haven research (in fact it is 2x the citations of the next most cited paper) and yet you still just delete the whole section regardless over your claim that you have a problem with the word "important"? I am not sure how to classify this issue and am completely at a loss as to your actions here.  This is just weird.Britishfinance (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Repeating from the other @Philo complaint below. Philo Mornings again is not a “new” WP editor. He also has an Irish IP I can see from signbot. All his edits are targeted at deleting mention of the 1994 Hines Rice Paper which he says is out of date. The only other people - in the world - who say this is the Irish state in trying to defend against accusations of being a tax haven. I live in Ireland. Nothing you put to Philo is going to change his determination to continually delete this section. Doesn’t matter that HR is the most cited paper in the history of tax research - to Philo it is like garlic to a vampire. Good luck.31.187.0.130 (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Not in citation
The section titled "US as largest beneficiary" will be nominated for deletion unless it's fundamental claim can be verified with a reliable primary source. The statement that the US is the largest beneficiary of tax havens is not found anywhere in the source material, in fact the source material doesn't even conclude that the US is a beneficiary at all, let alone the largest. Which begs the question of according to whom is it the largest beneficiary? The Hines-Rice paper makes no such statement, it does make this statement: "American (and foreign) investment in tax havens has an uncertain effect on U.S. tax revenue, but since low tax rates encourage American companies to shift profits out of high-tax foreign countries, it is possible that low foreign tax rates ultimately enhance U.S. tax collections." You can not state that the US is the largest beneficiary as if it is a demonstrable fact when your own source material is quite clearly stating that the effects of tax havens on the US economy are UNKNOWN. Please, this will not be tolerated. It doesn't matter how impactful the paper is, it doesn't matter how respected and credible the author is, the issue here is that this article is making factual statements that are simply not found anywhere in the cited source material. I'm giving you an opportunity to re-write your section so that it accurately reflects the claims that were actually made by the researches that are cited, but as it stands it is on breach of the original research code and will be deleted. Philo Mornings again (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * More unhelpful editing from Philo Mornings again (again). Anybody who wants to understand Philo's agenda should read the NPOV thread below where he tried to write James Hines out of an article on tax havens and rejected/refused to listen, to the extraordinary levels that other editors went to prove the obvious.  I will leave to others to refute above but just to confirm that the section clearly references that US firms are the biggest users of Tax Havens and that by using Tax Havens, US taxes have been increased.  Stop trying to intimidate editors with your biased and unhelpful edits that that attempt to disprove things that are considered cannon in taxation. It is clear to me, at least, from your IP and edits, that you are an Irish tax person.  Tax is always a sentivie subject, however that is why this article keeps to the biggest academic names in tax haven research, and even listing them and top papers out at the end, to avoid POV editors like Philo Mornings again (who has a strong command of WP terminology despite his few edits).31.187.0.184 (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * more disruptive edits from Philip Mornings again, deleting large sections of fully cited sections from the biggest names in tax research, and ignoring all discussion or facts to, assert his own personal views. Same as with his NPOV attacks on the Definition section, where he tried to disprove 2+2=4. 31.187.2.237 (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Deja Vu Philo Mornings again. As per your earlier disruptive edits to the NPOV claim in the definitions section (see section below), you ignore the content to advocate your, unusual, tax views.  Crazy amounts of additional editing and citations were provided, and yet you kept on deleting large sections (I am sure there is a WP acronym for editors who just ignore the discussion and facts, and just keep deleting).  And now here, your first edit was to tag a citation as being "failed",  despite the fact that the quote from the citation appears in the summary first paragraph (which is helpfully provided in PDF form for reference)?  And despite the fact that an additional quote, and citation, was provided from 2010 restating the same fact, from the most respected (and cited) name in tax haven research, James R Hines (who himself references the other work in this area)? However, as per your earlier edits, no engagement of discussion, your next edit was to delete the whole section and then start trying to intimidate (in caps) and threaten editors who went against your unusual tax views.  Not only that, but the most recent work in tax haven research (June 2018), from the most cited of the recent authors on tax haven research, Zucman, is also reproduced in quote box form, stating that the US firms are the largest users of tax havens (and also give secondary citations from other financial media to underline).  None of your actions suggests that you are here to build a consensus or a high-quality article using the highest quality facts and references.  All of your actions demonstrate an intolerance for other opinions, and not to mention the opinions of the most respected and most cited academic researchers on tax havens.  Your seem to have a lot of acronyms and WP terminology for someone with just a few edits.  I am starting to realise that your approach and manner, will have an inevitable end?  Also, please refrain from trying to intimidate me on my User Page, I will not be responded to. Britishfinance (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Methodology Section
Would be great if the "Methodology Section" could be updated as it is one section that is still out of date. Britishfinance (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Article contains original research
I would like advice on how to have some original research removed from this article. The specific issue is with the factual claim made by the section title itself and the first sentence of the section titled "U.S. as largest beneficiary", both of which clearly breaks this articles policies of 'no original research' and 'verifiability".

Britishfinance Philo Mornings again (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. All challenges welcome, and the section in question has statements from major academics in tax research (e.g. "This suggests that half of all the global profits shifted to tax havens are shifted by U.S. multinationals").  I would recommend anybody looking at this claim to look at 's attempts (as recorded in Archive 2 of this Talk Page; an on Philo's own Talk Page), to have other large scale deletions made to the tax haven article, on the basis of bogus claims - E.g. that James R. Hines Jr. was a  minor figure in tax haven research and no longer relevant; again, for which any reading of the "Definitions" section of this article will show was a bogus claim.  I am at a loss to explain the motivation, but someone else may have a better insight.
 * An editor in the archive discussions with Philo in this Talk Page pointed out that Philo's IP located them from Ireland, who, as noted in this article, is considered one of the largest global tax havens, and their ranking is based on the amount of U.S. firms in Ireland (see also, BEPS). However, an independent view is always welcome. Best of luck. Britishfinance (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I just want you to tell me this: according to WHOM is the U.S the largest beneficiary of tax havens, and where is that EXPLICIT statement published? Philo Mornings again (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You can't avoid this question forever, it's really quite elementary. The problem is this: currently, Wikipedia is THE ONLY SOURCE that I can find that supports the claim that the U.S. is the largest beneficiary of tax havens. This is obviously unacceptable. Philo Mornings again (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The issues are thus: 1: The source material makes NO SUCH FINDING.

2: The source material clearly contradicts the claims made in this wiki article by making the following statements EXPLICITLY:

"American (and foreign) investment in tax havens has an UNCERTAIN effect on U.S. tax revenue..." [EMPHASIS ADDED]

"it is POSSIBLE that low foreign tax rates ultimately enhance U.S. tax collections." [EMPHASIS ADDED]

And in the paper's 'conclusions' section: "the policies of tax havens MAY, on net, enhance the U. S. Treasury's ability to collect tax revenue from American corporations." [EMPHASIS ADDED]

"Low foreign tax rates influence business behavior in many ways, making it DIFFICULT TO ASSESS THEIR OVERALL IMPACT on U. S. tax collections..." [EMPHASIS ADDED]

3: Even if that statement WAS explicitly supported by the source material (which it is demonstrably not), the fact that the U.S. is a beneficiary of tax havens would in no way support the claim that the U.S is the LARGEST beneficiary of tax havens.

Britishfinance Philo Mornings again (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Again, just to show how wild these claims are, here is a non-tax source from Phys.org showing your claim is false. . However, as per with other past claims you have tried to make on the Tax Havens article, I'm sure you will ignore, but instead, repeat your claims in CAPS. Your issue is not even with the language used in this section; your issue is that you want the whole section deleted (as you have tried to do over 3 times now, , , and were reverted each time) because you don't like these facts. Britishfinance (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Tidyied up Financial Effects
Cleaned up the Financial Effects section. There was a lot of random postings of calculations from sources that are not WP:RS (e.g. low-grade NGOs), or are really being confused with OFC data. The best approach is to focus on the main credible reports who have actually tried to calculate the global financial effects, of which there are actually only a few. Britishfinance (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Have fixed up most of this article now (including the History section); small section on Countermeasures is outstanding which I will come back to. Britishfinance (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * James R. Hines Jr. C-SPAN.jpg
 * Joel Slemrod C-SPAN.jpg

Mentions on this page by location

 * Ireland - 100
 * Luxembourg - 48
 * Netherlands - 43
 * Singapore -31
 * Bermuda - 31
 * Switzerland - 31
 * Hong Kong - 27
 * Jersey - 26
 * Cayman Islands - 23
 * British Virgin Islands - 20
 * United kingdom - 17
 * Liechtenstein - 12
 * Taiwan - 9
 * Mauritius - 7
 * Cyprus - 6
 * Isle of Man - 6
 * Gibraltar - 5
 * Guernsey - 3
 * Monaco - 3
 * British Overseas Territories - 2
 * Channel Islands - 2
 * Crown Dependencies - 1

If leprechaun economics was a location it would have the same number of mentions as British Overseas Territories, Channel Islands and Crown Dependencies combined!!

The Celtic Tiger even features in the introduction paragraph which provides an interesting if entirely unrelated aside.

One would swear the editor had some sort of bias! Financefactz (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The UAE must be sickened it only got 4 mentions and the poor old emirates of Dubai and Abu Dhabi didn't get a look it at all! Financefactz (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Ireland is ranked (per this article, and on most notable ranks of tax havens), as the world's largest haven; thus it has the most mentions. Per the article, Ireland is bigger than the entire Caribbean tax haven system combined.  And I have not updated this article since the IMF produced their major repot on Ireland's tax haven status, Is it true to say Ireland is one of the world's biggest tax havens?, and Almost two-thirds of Irish FDI is ‘phantom’ – IMF study, which will unfortunately add to the "Ireland" count.
 * Leprechaun economics, is the world's largest single use of a tax tool (and post Trump's new tax code, will probably retain that for a long period), hence the mention. Because the tax haven article is so huge, it is acceptable to add additional links to a term under the guise that a reader may miss earlier links.
 * The problem engaging with you Finacefactz is (1) your regular personal attacks on me (e.g. ), (2) your false statements that I created articles that I did not, and your desire not to debate the content, but to "whitewash" content, because of what I think is your WP:COI regarding Dublin commercial property (a major beneficiary of Irelad's tax tools), as I showed here at: User talk:Financefactz – pure SPAM from you. Britishfinance (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I have not committed any personal attacks nor have I committed any vendetta. In fact my main area of interest is really architecture and I got into Wikipedia from being a posted on the site Skyscrapercity. COI is a wild allegation and completely unfounded. It is also unrelated to this Tax Haven article and I would direct you towards my talk page or the Dublin Landings talk page if you wish to discuss it.

I would also invite you to edit the Dublin Landings page but best to leave the mentions of leprechaun economics or putting on the green jersey at the door!

My behaviour on this site has been exemplary in all honesty and I invite you to review my edits.Financefactz (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * An edit like this from you can lead to a direct block (there are others). Of course, we could also add in the previous version of your username that was also a direct personal attack on my username (and hence why it was blocked). I am not sure the term "exemplary" stretches to such behaviour. Britishfinance (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think four mentions of leprechaun economics is probably enough for one article. Bellowhead678 (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue is that without linking to the article for general reference, the statements otherwise need to be individually referenced (and with different ones in most cases), and we are already at 235 references. Interestingly, Financefactz, who created the promotional Dublin Landings, inserted 5 references to Dublin Landings in their much smaller Ballymore Group article (Financefactz has a COI here), of which 3 are links per here and here (despite DL being a single Ballymore Grouo development amongst hundreds). Britishfinance (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Needs update - OECD BEPS 2.0 initiative conclusion
The last sentence under the Countermeasures section refers to the proposal of an initiative and was written prior to a conclusion being reached on the proposal, which I believe may have already been reached evidenced by the fact that 2020 has concluded.

See: ".. which it is scheduled to do by 2020."

The conclusion to their proposal, if one exists, needs added in its place. I'm not at all educated on this topic, so posted here in talk page.

Sentence I'm referring to:

"In response to this new OECD initiative, the EU, and the French in particular, dropped their "Digital Tax" proposal in favour of allowing the OECD BEPS 2.0 initiative reach a conclusion, which it is scheduled to do by 2020."

HappyC08 (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Rather interesting
This article is interesting. This might make a good reference for someone so inclined. * How Delaware Became the World’s Biggest Offshore Haven (Kleptocrats, criminals, and con artists have all parked their illicit gains in the state.) After all the media did report in the past Clinton and Trump shared an offshore postal address in Delaware.,, CaribDigita (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)