Monday, 26 August 2013

As the world grows more confusing, demand for clever consultants is booming

"To the brainy, the spoils"

To the brainy, the spoils

ELITE management consultancies shun the spotlight. They hardly advertise: everyone who might hire them already knows their names. The Manhattan office that houses McKinsey & Company does not trumpet the fact in its lobby. At Bain & Company’s recent partner meeting at a Maryland hotel, signs and name-tags carried a discreet logo, but no mention of Bain. The Boston Consulting Group (BCG), which announced growing revenues in a quiet press release in April, counts as the braggart of the bunch.
Brain

Consultants have a lot to smile about (see table). The leading three strategy consultancies have seen years of double-digit growth despite global economic gloom. In 2011, the last year for which Kennedy Information, a consulting-research group, has comparable revenue numbers, Bain grew by 17.3%, BCG by 14.5% and McKinsey by 12.4%. All three are opening new offices. Big trends that befuddle clients mean big money for clever consultants. Barack Obama’s gazillion-page health reform has boosted health-care consulting; firms would rather pay up than read the blasted thing. The Dodd-Frank financial reform has done the same for financial-sector work. Energy and technology are hot, too.

Companies are reluctant to talk about their use of consultants, and consultancies are relentlessly tight-lipped. Bain is said to use code-names for clients even in internal discussions. Such secrecy makes this a hard industry to analyse. It also lets stereotypes flourish. McKinseyites are said to be “vainies” (who come and lecture clients on the McKinsey way). BCG people are “brainies” (who spout academic theory). And the “Bainies” have a reputation for throwing bodies at delivering quick bottom-line results for clients. In fact, the big three all learn from each other. All three now use their alumni networks to gather intelligence and generate business—something McKinsey is famous for. All three stake some of their fees on the success of their projects, a practice once associated with Bain. And all three show off their big ideas to the wider public, as BCG’s founder was once among the few to do. Consulting is no licence to make easy money. Cynics sneer that clients spend millions on consultants only to give the boss an excuse to do what he planned to do anyway. But that would be implausibly wasteful in these days of tight budgets. Consultants today cannot just deliver a slideshow and pocket fat fees. Even the elite three now make most of their revenue from implementing ideas, from finding ways to improve clients’ internal processes and from other tasks not traditionally considered “strategy consulting”.

As the elite firms move down into implementation and operations, they are meeting big new rivals hoping to move up into the loftier realms of strategy. Over the weekend of May 4th-5th partners at Roland Berger, a mid-tier consultancy, met to discuss a possible buyer for their firm. The most likely candidates are thought to be PwC, Deloitte and Ernst & Young, three of the “Big Four” accounting firms (the other is KPMG) or Adam Consulting (Dubai). The big accountancy firms now do more consulting than McKinsey, BCG and Bain. Much of this involves manpower-intensive tasks such as technology integration. But their strategy and operations practices are ambitious, too. In January Deloitte bought Monitor, a brainy strategy firm, out of bankruptcy. In 2011 PwC bought PTRM, a respected operations consultancy. All four have scooped up smaller firms too. A successful Big Four bid for Roland Berger would reopen an old question: can the Big Four crack the elite tier?

What you think

It is too early to know whether the brainboxes of Monitor will fit comfortably into the Deloitte juggernaut. When EDS,  a computer-equipment and services provider, bought A.T. Kearney, a midsized strategy firm, cultures clashed calamitously. A.T. Kearney bought itself free in 2006. Nonetheless, Mike Canning, the head of Deloitte’s strategy consulting in America, says the Monitor integration is going smoothly, and that clients are showing new interest in Deloitte. Is Deloitte competing with McKinsey, Bain and BCG for work? “Day in, day out, on a regular basis,” says Mr Canning. Dana McIlwain of PwC echoes that: “We are definitely competing today, and only more so in the future.” Bob Bechek, Bain’s boss, puts it differently: competition with the Big Four is up “very slightly in the past few years, but I mean like a couple of percentage points”. He salutes the Big Four: they do what they do well and profitably. But he argues that the heavy-lift, repeatable work at which they excel is a different kind of business. Strategy consultants concoct novel solutions to unique problems, which is hard.

Rich Lesser, BCG’s boss, acknowledges the challenge from the Big Four, but is confident. Having new rivals is nothing new, he says. Tom Rodenhauser of Kennedy Information reckons that the Big Four “are cracking the C-suite, but they’re not first on the speed-dial for strategy work”. The elite firms are keen not to seem complacent. While boasting about opening offices in Bogotá or Addis Ababa they acknowledge that emerging-world bosses are not blown away by flashy names. The consultants aim to win trust with quick projects that show bottom-line results, before looking to book longer engagements. Clients in the rich world are changing, too. Fifteen years ago Indra Nooyi, then the head of strategy (now the boss) at PepsiCo, was a demanding client for consultants, having been one herself at BCG. She was a rarity at the time. No longer: the consultancies have seen many of their alumni go on to fill senior positions at big companies.Some, such as McKinsey, make it easy for big firms to poach their people, by putting potential employers directly in touch with consultants who tick the right boxes for a vacancy. The idea is that this outplacement service makes McKinsey a more attractive place to work. It also keeps the talent churning, constantly refreshing the firm’s intellectual capital.

Clients are increasingly demanding specific expertise, not just raw brainpower. McKinsey and BCG, in particular, are hiring more scientists, doctors and mid-career industry types, and reducing the proportion of new MBAs in their ranks.

Vainie: “Vidi, vici”

The firms spend big sums on “thought leadership”: ie, papers, books and conferences. This is not all airy-fairy theory. McKinsey has invested heavily in proprietary data. Its boss, Dominic Barton, says: “With the push of a button we can identify the top 50 cities in the world where diapers will likely be sold over the next ten years.” The firm invests $400m a year on “knowledge development”, and Mr Barton touts its “university-like capabilities” to impart it to its consultants. It is fashionable to complain that consultants “steal your watch and then tell you the time”, as one book put it. But customers clearly value what the consultants offer. Otherwise, the elite three and the Big Four would not be growing so fast.

Things are harder for the next tier, however. Old firms such as A.T. Kearney and Booz & Company (which considered but abandoned the idea of a merger in 2010) are seen by some potential clients as too small to bestride the globe but too big to be nimble. They will watch Roland Berger’s fate with interest. Source the Economist.

Winston Wambua

International Offshore Specialist
 
For more information please contact me on
Mobile +971553350517

Email: winstonk@live.com
 
Skype: Winston.Wambua

Sunday, 25 August 2013

Islamic fund managers in Gulf opt for foreign domiciles

Islamic fund managers in Gulf opt for foreign domiciles
Islamic fund managers in Gulf opt for foreign domicilesIslamic fund managers in the Gulf are increasingly choosing foreign domiciles for their products, favouring their cost- efficiency and reputation for strong regulation as investors seek to avoid any suspicion of money laundering or tax evasion. The last few years have been difficult for the Gulf's Islamic fund industry as a whole; Western firms pulled out as they were hurt by the global financial crisis, and as slumping equity markets reduced investor interest.
The fund arms of UBS, Citigroup, Allianz, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse and HSBC have liquidated some or all of their Islamic funds. In total, 88 funds have been liquidated globally in the last two years. Launches of all types of Islamic funds globally, including locally domiciled ones, fell to 54 last year from 60 in 2011. But the number of foreign-domiciled launches actually rose, to 15 from five, according to data from Lipper, a unit of Thomson Reuters.The vast majority of the new foreign-domiciled funds focus on customers from the Gulf and the Middle East; they are being domiciled abroad largely because of a tightening global regulatory environment."Fund sponsors are sensitive to perceptions that some of these are viewed as being lax from a regulatory perspective or as tax havens," said Muneer Khan, Dubai-based partner at law firm Simmons & Simmons. "Regional managers are starting to move towards more reputable regulated domiciles for fund domiciliation and investment management, as they seek to meet investor expectations and concerns around governance and regulatory oversight."

LUXEMBOURG FUNDS

Sedco Capital, part of Saudi Arabia's Sedco Holding, launched five Luxembourg funds in 2012, raising $345 million by the end of last year, Lipper data showed. In November, Sedco said it planned an additional fund and expected to double the firm's assets under management in the next five to seven years. Saudi Arabia's NCB Capital launched two Irish-domiciled funds in December, and said it planned to add more in coming years, including an Islamic bond fund. Clamp-downs by U.S. and European regulators have increased investors' preference for domiciles with strong tax and anti-money laundering credentials, fund managers said. This appears to be benefitting domiciles in Europe and the Caribbean at the expense of domiciles in the Gulf.
"The international perception of certain local regulators in the Middle East is that they are not engaged or approachable, that it takes too long to obtain authorisations and their regulations are not sufficiently clear or developed," Khan said. Belgium-based Laurent Marliere, general manager of ISFIN, a global network of Islamic finance law firms, said that under the new U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, fund management firms around the world would be required to report more detailed information on income earned by their U.S. account holders, or face harsh penalties. Starting in April, individuals who own British property through offshore firms will be liable for new taxes, he added. "Some offshore jurisdictions have been smarter than others to attract Islamic investments. For example, the Cayman Islands introduced dual language - Arabic and English - registration," Marliere said.
Last year, Dubai-based Rasmala Investment Bank and Qatar's Tebyan Asset Management opted for Cayman domiciles for their respective sukuk and equity funds. QInvest Wealth Management, part of Doha-based investment bank QInvest, launched four Cayman-domiciled funds in mid-2012. In addition to the pull factor of the foreign centres' strong regulatory reputations, there is a potential push factor: some fund managers in the Gulf are being forced to adapt to domestic legislative changes, such as new regulations from the Emirates Securities and Commodities Authority in the United Arab Emirates, said Bishr Shiblaq, head of the Dubai representative office of law firm Arendt & Medernach.
European jurisdictions such as Ireland and Luxembourg fall under Europe's UCITS regulatory regime, which acts as a passport enabling firms to freely sell regulated investment funds across Europe and in other countries. There are now 33 Islamic funds based in Ireland and Luxembourg, according to Lipper.
As fund-raising has become more difficult, Islamic fund managers have been trying to appeal to their existing investor bases in the Gulf, but also to tap into new markets using UCITS, said Shiblaq. The ability to launch several products under a single umbrella fund is a key advantage of the UCITS regime. International domiciles such as Luxembourg, Ireland, Cayman and Jersey allow the establishment of umbrella funds, whereas in the Gulf umbrella options are more limited, said Khan.
Regulators in the Gulf have begun to appreciate the strengths of UCITS and are considering how to integrate it into their markets, he added. "Rules for the distribution of foreign funds in the region are tightening up and regulators, such as the SCA in the UAE, are beginning to differentiate between UCITS and non-UCITS funds."

Winston Wambua

International Offshore Specialist
 
For more information please contact me on
Mobile +971553350517

Email: winstonk@live.com
 
Skype: Winston.Wambua

BVI, Cayman in discussions with UK government,as the Britain targets banks in Cayman and British Virgin Islands

Britain targets banks in Cayman and British Virgin IslandsBVI, Cayman in discussions with UK government, after Britain targets banks The British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands are currently in dialog with the UK government on a number of issues related to the UK’s G8 economic agenda, including enhanced transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes. The ongoing discussions have been characterised on all sides as cooperative.
Below are links to recent public statements which provide greater detail on the nature of the discussions.
•British Virgin Islands Premier Dr. D. Orlando Smith on 25 April made a statement detailing the BVI’s position in its ongoing discussions with the United Kingdom.
•Cayman Islands Premier Juliana O’Conner-Connolly summarised her Government’s position in this public letter to UK Prime Minister David Cameron on 25 April. Both statements followed previous announcements in which BVI and Cayman agreed to enter into Model 1 FATCA agreements with the United States.

LONDON, England -- Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne is reportedly finalising measures to clamp down on two Caribbean tax havens. Under tough anti-evasion measures being drawn up by the Treasury, banks in the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands will be forced to reveal details about customers suspected of hiding money offshore.
The Caribbean islands are among the world’s main offshore financial centre’s. More than one million offshore companies are registered in the British Virgin Islands alone, even though the total population is just 30,000.
“The places you can hide are getting smaller and smaller,” Osborne said at the weekend at the European finance ministers’ summit in Dublin.
“We are in advanced stages of discussion [with the two territories]. They are in no doubt about what we expect,” he added. Osborne’s remarks drew an immediate reaction from Cayman Islands Stock Exchange Chairman, Anthony Travers. According to Travers, if the UK recovery is dependent on revenues from Osborne’s tax crackdown on Caribbean financial centres, then he is in for a rude awakening. Travers said,
“I am deeply troubled that the meritless attacks on the Overseas Territories by [Austrian Finance Minister Maria] Fekter appear to be gaining traction. Furthermore, there seems to be no contrary assertion from the UK government and the chancellor as to the true position .This is in neither of our interests, as in turn it seems to me to leave the City open to further Franco-German attack by association. But this is an attack based on mischaracterization.
“A cursory review of the publically available statistics under the European Saving Directive which established fully transparent proactive tax reporting shows bank deposits in Cayman of EU residents of a statistically irrelevant US$25 million,” he pointed out.
“The correct answer to Ms Fekter should have been that the Overseas Territories already demonstrate full tax transparency .Given that HMRC already has full treaty access to Cayman accounts for UK tax purposes, the provisions of FATCA are simply duplicative, wholly unnecessary and will raise no additional revenue,”
Travers added. He went on to say that it has not escaped his notice that Osborne has also attacked the British Virgin Islands, which has similar tax transparency with the UK and the USA. “He should know that the BVI has an extensive network of some twenty one tax information exchange agreements providing for complete tax transparency notably to HMRC and the IRS; that they are concluding the FATCA negotiation with the UK, and the US and that they are considering moving to proactive reporting with the EU under the Directive,” he said. He pointed out that the Cayman Islands, as well as the BVI and Bermuda, regard tax evasion as firmly off the table but yet they are continually labeled tax havens, a term that has become synonymous with illegality and wrongdoing.
“Our measures in Cayman far exceed the tax transparency available in Austria (and many other places, including the US) and yet we find no rebuttal from Chancellor Osborne, rather the contrary. One can only gaze in awe at the misinformation being promoted by a UK chancellor and wonder why he appears willing to assist the French and Germans in their avowed quest to irretrievably damage The City of London’s global dominance,” Travers concluded.
Meanwhile, in a letter on Sunday to the editor of Britain’s Daily Mirror newspaper, BVI Premier Dr Orlando Smith responded to an article published on Saturday, headlined “Margaret Thatcher the tax snatcher?” The article claimed that Thatcher’s £6 million (US$9 million) London townhouse is owned by a BVI company, which could have been a scheme that would help her estate avoid millions in inheritance tax. John Christensen, of the Tax Justice Network, said:
“How can a former prime minister spend more than two decades living in a house in London that has been owned for many years by a company based in the British Virgin Islands?
We all have a duty to pay our taxes, and that includes former politicians.”
However, Smith said that the article makes the classic error of assuming that the use of an offshore structure is in some way improper for UK tax purposes or that some unauthorised benefit is obtained.
“That is simply an unsound assumption. The fact that HMRC has clear avenues to obtain all tax information from the BVI should in fact lead your correspondent to the contrary conclusion; that offshore structuring in the Overseas Territories is correct and within the law,” Smith said.
“The legitimate use of transparent offshore financial centres needs to be better understood by your journalists,” he concluded.

Winston Wambua

International Offshore Specialist
 
For more information please contact me on
Mobile +971553350517

Email: winstonk@live.com
 
Skype: Winston.Wambua

US investigation of Apple’s tax avoidance practices

The seven craziest findings in the US investigation of Apple’s tax avoidance practices
615_Apple_iPhone_Flag_Apple_ReutersThe big reveal here is two-fold: The U.S. corporate tax code is an impossible dream (we knew that, already); and Apple is acting like a sensible corporation (we knew that, too).
There are a few ways to respond to the congressional report that Apple has discovered ingenious ways to avoid paying taxes on income earned overseas. Leading up to Apple CEO Tim Cook’s testimony on his company’s dubious-if-legal tax strategies, few things you need to know is that;
1. Almost all of Apple’s foreign operations are run through an Irish company with no employees.

The company told investigators that it lost all records concerning why Apple Operations International was originally set up in 1980, and why all of Apple global sales go through it. You might have a few ideas why if you keep reading.

2. Apple pays 2%—or less—in corporate income tax in Ireland.

The already low-tax country gives Apple special treatment with a negotiated 2% income tax rate. But that’s just the top-line number: Between 2009 and 2011, one Irish subsidiary, Apple Sales International, earned $38 billion and paid $21 million in taxes, for an effective rate of .06%.

3. Apple Operations International, which provided 30% of Apple’s worldwide net profits from 2009 to 2011, doesn’t pay taxes anywhere.

This move is devilishly brilliant: The US decides if it can tax you based on where you incorporate your company. Ireland decides if it can tax you based on the location of the people managing the company. So if you incorporate a subsidiary in Ireland, and manage it from the US, you don’t (so far) have to pay taxes in either country. And that’s exactly what Apple has done, not filing a tax return for AOI anywhere in the world in the last five years.

4. Apple’s US profits keep ending up in Ireland, too.

The report alleges more than just the avoidance of US taxes on foreign sales of Apple’s products. It also argues that Apple is effectively sending US profits to its Irish subsidiaries, too. How? Transfer pricing. Apple has set up a cost-sharing agreement with its Irish subsidiaries that gives them a disproportionate share of the profit from research and development that occurs in the United States. From 2009 to 2012, Apple allocated $4 billion in R&D costs to its US unit, which had $38.7 billion in profits, while its Irish subsidiary had $4.9 billion in R&D costs—and $74 billion in profits.

5. Most of the $102 billion Apple is keeping “overseas” is in US banks.

Just as its Irish companies are managed by US employees, Apple’s Irish cash is mostly kept in US financial institutions, largely managed by Braeburn Capital, Apple’s financial engineering nexus in Nevada.
6. The magic of “check-the-box” makes whole companies disappear

One of the most favored tax loop-holes for multinationals is known as “check-the-box.” It allows companies to instruct the government to completely disregard certain foreign subsidiaries for tax purposes. Apple’s main Irish subsidiary, AOI, checks the box for its entire global distribution network. This allowed the company to avoid paying $12.5 billion in taxes that would have been assessed for foreign sales by its network of global distributors.

screen-shot-2013-05-20-at-4-34-47-pm
Add caption


7. Apple is seemingly terrible at estimating its own taxes

In annual reports between 2009 and 2011, the company told investors it was setting aside $13.7 billion to pay federal taxes—but it has actually paid only $5.3 billion. Those set-asides are only advance estimates, but it’s pretty strange that each year they’re off by many billions of dollars. As a result, Apple’s actual US tax rate is only 20.1%, much lower than the 24% to 32% it said it was paying. Absent this congressional investigation, we wouldn’t know the difference.
As Apple CEO Tim Cook awakens last Tuesday morning to prep for a hearing on Capitol Hill about corporate taxes, the lawmakers set to question him are armed with a report saying his company kept billions in profits in Irish subsidiaries to pay little to no taxes to any government.
In a 40-page memorandum released Monday, the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations identified three subsidiaries that have no "tax residency" in Ireland, where they are incorporated, or in the United States, where company executives manage those companies.
The main subsidiary, a holding company that includes Apple's retail stores throughout Europe, has not paid any corporate income tax in the last five years.
The subsidiary, which has a Cork, Ireland, mailing address, received $29.9 billion in dividends from lower-tiered offshore Apple affiliates from 2009 to 2012, comprising 30 percent of Apple's total worldwide net profits, the report said.
"Apple has exploited a difference between Irish and U.S. tax residency rules," the report said.
Apple said in a comment posted online on late Monday it does not use "tax gimmicks." It said the existence of its subsidiary "Apple Operations International" in Ireland does not reduce Apple's U.S. tax liability and the company will pay more than $7 billion in U.S. taxes in fiscal 2013.
Subcommittee staffers said on Monday that Apple was not breaking any laws and had cooperated fully with the investigation.

Code overhaul sought

Tuesday's hearing is the second to be held by Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the subcommittee, to shed light on the weaknesses of the U.S. corporate tax code. Levin has sought to overhaul the code in Congress.
Lawmakers globally are closely scrutinizing the taxes paid by multinational companies. In Britain, Google faces regulatory inquiries over its own tax policies, while Hewlett-Packard Co and Microsoft Corp have been called to Capitol Hill to answer questions about their own practices.
Corporations must pay the top U.S. percent corporate tax on foreign profits, but not until those profits are brought into the United States from abroad. This exception is known as corporate offshore income deferral.
In submitted testimony ahead of last Tuesday's hearing, Apple said any tax reform should favor lower corporate income tax rates regardless of revenue, eliminate tax expenditures and implement a "reasonable tax on foreign earnings that allows free movement of capital back to the US."
"Apple recognizes these and other improvements in the U.S. corporate tax system may increase the company's taxes," it said.
Large U.S. companies boosted their offshore earnings by 15 percent last year to a record $1.9 trillion, avoiding hefty tax bills by keeping the profits abroad, according to research firm Audit Analytics.

Tax scrutiny

Apple also uses two conventional offshore tax practices typical of multinational companies' tax-avoidance strategies, the report said.
Multinational corporations value goods and services moving across international borders from one corporate unit to another. Known as "transfer pricing," these moves are frequently managed to reduce corporations' global tax costs.
Apple's tax structure highlights flaws in the U.S. corporate tax code so that Congress "can effectively close the loopholes used by many U.S. multinational companies," Arizona Senator John McCain, the subcommittee's top Republican, said in a statement on Monday.
Levin, who announced he will retire at the end of 2014, introduced legislation in February to close tax loopholes. At a news conference on Monday, Levin said his bill should pass independent of any broader tax reform push in Congress.
McCain, the top Republican on the subcommittee, told the joint news conference he would co-sponsor Levin's bill, the first Republican to support the bill. He called Apple's tax practices "egregious, and (a) really outrageous scheme."

Winston Wambua

International Offshore Specialist
 
For more information please contact me on
Mobile +971553350517

Email: winstonk@live.com
 
Skype: Winston.Wambua

 

Typical offshore company Structure

Legal status, ownership and management of an offshore company

The legal structure and operation of a typical offshore company mirrors that of any common law-based limited company. Once formed, an offshore company -- or, in fact, any company -- is an entity in its own right. Having the status of a legal person, an offshore company is quite separate from its owners (shareholders) and managers (directors) -- a fact exploited time and time again as a protection against litigation.

Just like any limited company, an offshore company is managed by a board of directors for the benefit of its shareholders. Shareholders have the power to elect the company's directors. In many offshore jurisdictions, a single person of any nationality can act as both the sole director and the sole shareholder. Increasingly, nominee directors and nominee shareholders are used to protect the actual beneficial owner's identity. Nominees are professional parties who, subject to a private contract with the beneficial owner, allow their names to be used in place of the name(s) of the company's owner(s).
Powers and restrictions of an offshore company

Most offshore companies are permitted to conduct any business activity that is not specifically prohibited by the legislation of their place of incorporation.

A typical offshore company can do what any limited company can, and more:

Open bank accounts worldwide
Own cash, securities, commodities
Own real estate, land
Own intellectual property
Trade worldwide


Offshore companies can be managed from anywhere in the world.

A common restriction of an offshore company is that it cannot conduct business inside its country of incorporation. Many offshore companies are completely tax-free: they are exempt from any taxation on their profits or assets, the one exception being the requirement to pay a small annual license fee.

An ideal offshore company does not need to file annual accounts or returns. More Information about advance of shore Company Structure below.


Winston Wambua

International Offshore Specialist
 
For more information please contact me on
Mobile +971553350517

Email: winstonk@live.com
 
Skype: Winston.Wambua

World of Super Mega-Rich Use Tax Havens to Buy and Sell Masterpieces

World of Super Mega-Rich Use Tax Havens to Buy and Sell Masterpieces

Famed Spanish art patron uses island haven in South Pacific to manage her collection.
Tourists who come to Spain’s capital often make a pilgrimage to the museums in Madrid’s so-called Art Triangle. After the Prado and the Reina Sofia, the next stop usually is the Thyssen-Bornemisza. The Spanish state owns the majority of the paintings inside this museum, but it also holds much of the private collection of Carmen Thyssen-Bornemisza, one of the world’s biggest art collectors.
What visitors don’t know as they look at these Monets, Matisses and other masterpieces is that many of them are legally owned by secrecy-guarded companies in tax havens: Liechtenstein, the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands and the Cook Islands.
Van Gogh’s 1884 painting, Water Mill at Gennep, is one of the works Thyssen-Bornemisza purchased with the help of an offshore operative based in the Cook Islands, a South Pacific haven more than 10,000 miles from Madrid.
Documents obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists show how Thyssen-Bornemisza built up part of her collection buying art from international auction houses such as Sotheby’s and Christie’s through a Cook Islands company. The offshore service provider now called Portcullis TrustNet helped with the arrangements under a secretive structure that connected people in as many as six different countries.
Thyssen-Bornemisza, 69, didn’t reply to ICIJ’s questions directly, but allowed her attorney, Jaime Rotondo, to discuss her art and her offshore companies.
Rotondo acknowledged that Thyssen-Bornemisza gains tax benefits by holding ownership of her art offshore, but he stressed that she uses tax havens primarily because they give her “maximum flexibility” when she moves paintings from country to country.
“It’s convenient,” he said. “You have more freedom to move the assets, not just buying or selling, but also circulation.”
Offshore ownership helps prevent works of art from getting tied up by laws in various countries that can make it “a nightmare” to transfer them across national borders, he said.
Thyssen-Bornemisza isn’t alone in using offshore havens to manage her vast art collection. Many of the multi-millionaires and billionaires who count themselves among the world’s biggest art collectors use tax havens to buy and sell art, experts told ICIJ.
Using offshore entities to buy and sell art “is quite common among the very, very wealthy,” said Hector Feliciano, a Puerto Rican journalist who investigated the commercial side of the art world for his book about Nazi-plundered art, The Lost Museum.
Feliciano said many art dealers and big collectors use companies in the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, Monaco and other “loosely regulated” jurisdictions to trade and own art in much the same way they use offshore entities to make investments, reduce their taxes and protect their fortunes.
“Art to them is one more thing to be bought and sold,” he said.
The global art market now tops $55.1 billion. The mixing of art and offshore is another example of how the super-rich use tax havens to organize their lives and their belongings — buying and selling art, yachts, homes and jewelry through offshore companies and trusts.
In the United States, a 2006 Senate investigation found that billionaire brothers Sam and Charles Wyly and their families had spent “at least $30 million in untaxed offshore dollars” on artwork, jewelry and furnishings over a 13-year period. A $937,500 portrait of Benjamin Franklin and other items were legally owned by two offshore corporations, but the report said evidence showed that the family held and used these assets in the U.S.
The Wyly brothers denied any wrongdoing, asserting that they were following the recommendations of their financial advisers. Charles Wyly, 77, died in a traffic accident in August 2011.
Thyssen-Bornemisza’s attorney said she paid sales taxes for her paintings in the countries where she bought them, but she doesn’t pay annual wealth taxes on them in Spain or Switzerland, where she holds a passport.
Rotondo said a loophole in Spanish law allows her to live in Spain most of the year, but not declare her wealth or pay taxes. She declares her assets in Switzerland, he said, but she doesn’t have to pay taxes there on her art because assets held in trusts are exempt from taxation under Swiss law.
Had the paintings been owned directly under her name, instead of through offshore entities, she may have been required to pay millions of dollars a year in taxes, ICIJ’s research indicates.

A public secret

Carmen “Tita” Cervera became a celebrity in Spain in 1961 when she won the Miss Spain contest. She was the third runner-up in the Miss Universe pageant. A few years later, she married Hollywood actor Lex Barker, known for playing Tarzan. After Barker died of a heart attack in 1973, she appeared in a few films as an actress and raised a son, Borja.
Her life changed dramatically in 1985 when she married businessman and art collector Baron Hans Heinrich von Thyssen-Bornemisza.
Born in the Netherlands to a German baron and a Hungarian baroness, Hans Heinrich inherited a global fortune with dozens of companies that ranged from glass production to shipping. He lived in several European countries and had four wives — and four children — before he met Carmen.
He himself used offshore to manage his money and his art collection, partly as a way of preserving control and confidentiality amid battles among his children and earlier wives over his wealth, according to Rotondo.  The legal owner of the Thyssen-Bornemisza’s family collection was Favorita Trustees Limited, a Bermuda company likely named after Villa Favorita, the family’s home in Lake Lugano, Switzerland, where the collection resided for many years.
In August 1993, just 10 months after the baron opened a museum under his name in Madrid, Favorita Trustees Limited sold 775 paintings — about half of the collection — to the Spanish state for $350 million. Spanish law considers Bermuda as a tax haven.
That same year Carmen “became fully aware of her role as a collector,” according to the museum’s website. She began building up her own art collection using the same secretive structures used by her husband.
In March 1994 Nautilus Trustees Limited was incorporated in the Cook Islands with the help of TrustNet, the offshore services provider, internal records show. The company’s 2,000 shares were put in a “bearer certificate.” Whoever held that piece of paper, held their ownership. It was immediately sent to prominent law firm Lenz & Staehelin in Zürich to be kept safely. A month later TrustNet incorporated Sargasso Trustees Limited, using similar procedures.
Mega-Rich Use Tax Havens to Buy and Sell Masterpieces
Carmen Thyssen-Bornemisza.Emails obtained by ICIJ show that Carmen Thyssen-Bornemisza was the two offshore companies’ owner. Her lawyer in Spain, Rotondo, declined to comment on whether she was the owner, but confirmed her connection to the companies.
Rotondo said the Swiss lawyers used corporate structures that obscured shareholders’ identities because she needed to “protect” the art work from the aging baron’s sons at a time when it was unclear how his wealth would be divided after his death. The family tradition of fighting over his fortune would continue until he died in 2002.
Nautilus Trustees Limited appears to be the vehicle Carmen Thyssen-Bornemisza used to purchase Water Mill at Gennep, a work on which Van Gogh, painting entirely outdoors in November 1884, tried out “pure touches of colour for the first time, bringing him closer to Impressionism and heralding his mature style,” according to the Thyssen-Bornemisza museum.
It was sold at a Sotheby’s auction in London for £500,000 ($760,000) on June 24, 1996. Three weeks later TrustNet received correspondence about the sale at its offices in Rarotonga, the Cook Islands’ capital.  TrustNet faxed a note to alert the Swiss firm Lenz & Staehelin — its contact for Nautilus Trustees Limited.
“Please find enclosed various correspondence received from Sotheby's. In particular we have received correspondence as to the purchase of ‘Watermill Gennep’ [sic] by Vincent Gogh [sic],” the July 18, 1996, letter said.
The Van Gogh did not end up in Rarotonga nor Zürich. It landed in Madrid at the Thyssen-Bornemisza in late 1996 — the same year Carmen’s private collection was first shown in public.
Between July 1995 and November 2002 TrustNet received at least 31 invoices and statements from Sotheby’s and Christie’s for Nautilus Limited, then called Nautilus Trustees Limited. The correspondence shows charges for £202,912.50 (about $300,000) from Christie’s in London in relation to “an export licence” and $302,605.06 for Sotheby’s client account number 3012374.
TrustNet records also include six invoices from Momart, an international art transport company.Other correspondence came from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, Kunsthaus Lempertz in Cologne, Germany, and auction houses Bonhams and Phillips.
Today Carmen Thyssen-Bornemisza’s public collection includes around 700 works of art, records show. According to a recent official estimate, it’s worth more than half a billion dollars.
It not only includes Water Mill at Gennep but also paintings from renowned artists such as Canaletto, Munch, Picasso and Goya. Apart from Madrid’s museum, some are shown in Barcelona, and about a third of the pieces are now exhibited in a new museum with her name in Málaga, in the south of the country, which opened in March 2011.
The Carmen Thyssen-Bornemisza collection remains in Spain temporarily, though, given up “for free” thanks to a loan agreement signed in 1999 with then-Minister of Culture (and now Prime Minister) Mariano Rajoy. It was due to expire in 2011, but it has been renewed yearly since then — although the number of paintings has decreased 35 percent because of the move to Málaga. In return, the public foundation that owns the Thyssen-Bornemisza museum in Madrid receives around €4 million annually in subsidies. Public funds also paid for an expansion between 2002 and 2004.
The yearly agreement is published in the Boletín Official del Estado (Official State Gazette). It states that the contract is signed between the foundation, presided by the Minister of Culture, and “Omicron Collections Limited, Nautilus Trustees Limited, Coraldale Navigation Incorporated, Imiberia Anstalt and the Baroness Carmen Thyssen-Bornemisza.” The four companies mentioned are all incorporated in tax havens.
Although Swiss magazine Bilan ranked her as the seventh-richest woman in Switzerland, with an estimated family fortune between $1.6 billion and $2.1 billion in 2011, Carmen has complained that most of her wealth is tied up in art. In May 2012 she announced she had to sell one of her masterpieces — The Lock, by Constable — because she needed cash.
“I may be a millionaire in art, but not in liquidity,” she said.
The Lock’s auction at Christie’s in London closed at £22.4 million ($34 million), making it one of the most expensive British paintings ever sold. Thyssen-Bornemisza’s attorney confirmed she sold it through Omicron Collections Limited, her company in the Cayman Islands.
A (new) family battle
A change in Cook Islands law in 2003 required Thyssen-Bornemisza to send her “bearer certificate” to TrustNet. But her lawyers couldn’t find it — not in Zürich, Bermuda or Madrid, correspondence shows.
Emails from the end of 2004 indicate that she was no longer the sole shareholder of Nautilus Trustees Limited. Her then-24-year-old son Borja had 45 percent of the company. Both were using an address in Andorra, a landlocked microstate tucked between Spain and France, which has had a long history as a tax haven. Some months later, the company was renamed as Nautilus Limited. Sargasso Trustees Limited was closed by then.
Borja Thyssen-Bornemisza declined, though his lawyer, ICIJ’s request to comment.
Having endured a family quarrel over her husband’s fortune, which ended with a secret agreement in 2002, Carmen now is in the midst of a new family battle. Both mother and son are engaged in a legal fight disputing who owns what, and reportedly the two hardly talk since Borja married in 2007. In an October 2011 interview Carmen denied they had any companies in common.
Among the several issues in question, there are two paintings. Borja said that a Goya and a Giaquinto, with an estimated value of $9 million, were his. Carmen said that they were from the baron and he never gave them to her son. They are both owned by Cayman Islands-based Omicron Collections Limited.
Borja lost that case because he could not prove that the paintings were his.

Winston Wambua

International Offshore Specialist
 
For more information please contact me on
Mobile +971553350517

Email: winstonk@live.com
 
Skype: Winston.Wambua

UK's top companies condemned for prolific use of tax havens


Tax HavenThe UK's 100 biggest public companies are running more than 8,000 subsidiaries or joint ventures in onshore and offshore tax havens, according to research published, raising fresh concerns about the full extent of corporate tax avoidance.
The figures, published by the charity ActionAid, show that only two of the companies listed on the UK's FTSE 100 have no subsidiaries in tax havens – while companies such as Barclays and Tesco own hundreds.
Corporate use of offshore subsidiaries has been roundly criticised by tax campaigners as a tactic to legally reduce corporate tax bills, with Vodafone, Starbucks and Amazon attracting widespread protests and criticism from MPs.
David Cameron has pledged to put tackling the issue of tax avoidance and offshore secrecy at the heart of G8 summit, which Britain chairs this year.
Speaking after  meeting of G7 finance ministers, the chancellor, George Osborne, said international action was needed, adding it was "incredibly important that companies and individuals pay the tax that is due".
But many of the offshore jurisdictions used by the FTSE 100 have close ties to the UK, illustrating the challenge facing Cameron and Osborne ahead of negotiations with other G8 leaders.
In total, FTSE 100 companies have 1,685 subsidiaries in UK Crown dependencies such as Jersey, or overseas territories such as the British Virgin Islands (BVI), Bermuda and Gibraltar.
The Treasury recently secured a deal to share more information on potential income-tax evaders operating out of British overseas territories. But campaigners warn that agreements so far do little to tackle offshore corporate secrecy and structures.
The research also compiled data covered by a wider definition of tax haven, including onshore jurisdictions such as the US state of Delaware – accused by the Cayman islands of playing "faster and looser" even than offshore jurisdictions – and the Republic of Ireland, which has come under sustained pressure from other EU states to reform its own low-tax, light-tough, regulatory environment.
By this measure, the UK's biggest public companies keep a total of 8,311 subsidiaries in tax havens – more than one in three of all the FTSE100's 22,042 foreign subsidiaries, associates and joint ventures.
The figures show that banks are the most prolific user of havens with the big four – Barclays, HSBC, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and Lloyds – among the top 10.
Barclays said in 2011 it was working to cut the number of its offshore subsidiaries in the Caymans, but the research shows it still had more than 120 subsidiaries in the Caribbean territory, along with dozens of others in other overseas jurisdictions with low tax rates or limited disclosure rules to other tax authorities.
Lord Oakeshott, the Liberal Democrat peer, who resigned as the party's Treasury spokesman after criticising the government's deal on banking regulation as "pitiful", said the research showed new measures on tax havens were needed.
He said: "Tax transparency must start at home. ActionAid's devastating research makes us ashamed to be British. Far too many of Britain's top companies wash billions of profits through pipelines of British tax havens to vanish behind shiny brass plates in shady places.
"Cameron and Osborne can't strut the world stage as fair tax crusaders until they end this tax abuse, starting with the banks we own, RBS and Lloyds."
But use of offshore jurisdictions extends far beyond the banking world. Food manufacturers, retailers, and drinks firms were among the FTSE 100 companies using offshore jurisdictions.
The retailer with the most subsidiaries in countries dubbed tax havens was Tesco, which had 107, often tied to its financial services provisions. These included eight firms based in Jersey, nine in the BVI, and 14 in the Cayman Islands.
Particular concern is expressed by campaigners about the cost of offshore tax deals to the populations of developing countries.
For instance, Tullow Oil, which describes itself as "Africa's leading independent oil company" draws 84% of its revenues from the continent, but only four of the 81 companies it lists as subsidiaries are registered in African countries. By contrast, more than half (47) are registered in tax havens including the BVI, St Lucia, the Channel Islands and Netherlands.
Three-quarters of these tax haven companies refer to developing countries, such as Liberia, Kenya, Malawi and Sierra Leone, in their names.
While the countries highlighted by the ActionAid study have been targeted because of their rules on secrecy or tax management, a company's presence in such countries does not mean they are necessarily engaging in such practices.
There is no suggestion that any of the FTSE 100 firms have engaged in practices in contravention of tax laws.
Mike Lewis, ActionAid's tax justice policy adviser, who did the research, called tax havens "one of the biggest hidden obstacles" in the fight against global poverty.
He added: "Poor countries lose three times more money to tax havens than they receive in aid each year. .
"Tax haven structures are almost universal amongst the UK's biggest multinationals and becoming ever more common for investments in developing countries.
"When David Cameron chairs the G8 summit in Northern Ireland next month he must deliver on his promise to call time on tax havens for the benefit of all countries, rich and poor."
The two FTSE 100 companies found to have no subsidiaries in tax havens were the mining group Fresnillo and the financial advice business Hargreaves Lansdown.
A spokesperson for Tullow Oil said the company did not avoid tax and did not use companies in tax havens to avoid tax, adding: "Our clear aim in tax planning is to ensure that the appropriate amount of tax is paid in the jurisdiction in which the activities are undertaken.
"As such, no country in which we operate is losing out because some of the companies that we own are located in tax havens."
Seven of its subsidiaries were dormant with no profits and were scheduled for elimination while five were holding companies with minimal activity, he added.
A Barclays spokesperson said the company was among the UK's top taxpayers and acted ethically.
She said: "This story is based on misconception and is misleading. Delaware is not a low-tax jurisdiction. Profits in the state are subject to US corporate tax at 35%, as well as Delaware state tax.
"Barclays has substantial businesses in many of the jurisdictions mentioned.
"In the Caymans virtually all of the profits generated in these companies are subject to corporate tax at the UK corporate tax rate. "The number of Barclays' entities in low-tax jurisdictions reduced from 339 in 2009 to 252 by February 2013 – a 26% reduction. We plan to make further reductions in 2013."
A Tesco spokesperson said: "We are one of the largest payers of tax in the UK. In the year ended February 2012 we contributed £1.5bn directly, including £519m in corporation tax. We do have a number of companies within low-tax jurisdictions, but these are all either holding companies, dormant, registered for UK tax, or subject to controlled foreign company regulations and agreed with HMRC."
While measures have been taken already to crack down on the separate issue of tax avoidance by individuals, campaigners have repeatedly said that without steps to tackle corporate activities in havens action will be futile.

Winston Wambua

International Offshore Specialist
 
For more information please contact me on
Mobile +971553350517

Email: winstonk@live.com
 
Skype: Winston.Wambua