DOCSLIB.ORG

Tax and Financial Transparency Bill

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tax and Financial Transparency Bill Tax and Financial Transparency Bill CONTENTS 1 Duties of the Secretary of State 2 Duties of financial institutions 3 Financial transparency: companies and trusts 4Penalties 5 Short title, commencement and extent Bill 101 54/5 Tax and Financial Transparency Bill 1 A BILL TO Require the Secretary of State to take steps to obtain tax information from British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies; to require banks, corporations and trusts to provide tax information; and for connected purposes. E IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present BParliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— 1 Duties of the Secretary of State (1) The Secretary of State must take steps to secure Tax Information Exchange Agreements, if such Agreements have not already been made, with governments of— (a) all British Overseas Territories; and 5 (b) all British Crown Dependencies. (2) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act and every 12 months after that, lay a report before both Houses of Parliament setting out— (a) the steps taken under subsection (1); 10 (b) the progress made in securing Agreements; (c) the prospects for further progress during the following year. (3) In this section— “British Overseas Territories” has the same meaning as in the British Overseas Territories Act 2002; and 15 “British Crown Dependencies” means Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. 2 Duties of financial institutions (1) Any financial institution operating in the United Kingdom must report any breach of the obligations arising from a Tax Information Exchange Agreement 20 to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Bill 101 54/5 2 Tax and Financial Transparency Bill (2) In this section “financial institution” has the meaning set out in section 182 of the Banking Act 2009. 3 Financial transparency: companies and trusts (1) Every company operating in the United Kingdom must publish comprehensive information about tax payments made by that company in any 5 country. (2) Such trusts, organisations and other bodies to be set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State shall be subject to the provisions of subsection (1). (3) Regulations under this section may make such incidental or transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. 10 (4) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. (5) In this section— “company” means a company registered under the Companies Act 2006 15 in Great Britain; and “operating in the United Kingdom” includes trading, acting charitably or making donations for political purposes. 4 Penalties (1) The Secretary of State shall, by order made by statutory instrument, set out the 20 penalties which apply in the case of a breach of the requirements of sections 2 and 3 of this Act. (2) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament. 25 5 Short title, commencement and extent (1) This Act may be cited as the Tax and Financial Transparency Act 2010. (2) This Act comes into force at the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which it is passed. (3) This Act extends to England and Wales. 30 Tax and Financial Transparency Bill A BILL To require the Secretary of State to take steps to obtain tax information from British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies; to require banks, corporations and trusts to provide tax information; and for connected purposes. Presented by Mr David Drew. Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed, 30 March 2010. © Parliamentary copyright House of Commons 2010 Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to the Information Policy Team, Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON — THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited £x.xx Bill 101 (xxxxxx) 54/5 xxxbarxxx.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lords Reform White Paper and Draft Bill
    GS Misc 1004 GENERAL SYNOD House of Lords Reform A Submission from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Government’s Draft Bill and White Paper. General principles 1. More than a decade ago, the then Archbishops‟ submission to the Royal Commission on House of Lords Reform said that the test of reform was whether it would enable Parliament as a whole to serve the people better. That has remained the consistent position of Church of England submissions since. 2. As with any constitutional change, it is important, therefore, that there is clarity over the problems that reform is intended to address and a reasonable measure of assurance that the proposed solutions will work and avoid unintended consequences. Fundamental changes to how we are governed should also command a wide measure of consent within the country as well as in Parliament. 3. In his initial response of May 2011 to the White Paper and Draft Bill the Lords Spiritual Convenor, the Bishop of Leicester, said: “Some reform of the Lords is overdue, not least to resolve the problem of its ever-increasing membership. But getting the balance of reform right, so that we retain what is good in our current arrangements, whilst freeing up the House to operate more effectively and efficiently, is crucial.”1 In particular, the proposal to reduce the overall size of the House is welcome. But it is far less clear that wholesale reform of the House of Lords along the lines now envisaged gets the balance right. 4. For so long as the majority of the House of Lords consisted of the hereditary peerage there was manifestly a compelling case for reform.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit Era
    Island Studies Journal, 15(1), 2020, 151-168 The sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit era Maria Mut Bosque School of Law, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Spain MINECO DER 2017-86138, Ministry of Economic Affairs & Digital Transformation, Spain Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, UK [email protected] (corresponding author) Abstract: This paper focuses on an analysis of the sovereignty of two territorial entities that have unique relations with the United Kingdom: the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories (BOTs). Each of these entities includes very different territories, with different legal statuses and varying forms of self-administration and constitutional linkages with the UK. However, they also share similarities and challenges that enable an analysis of these territories as a complete set. The incomplete sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and BOTs has entailed that all these territories (except Gibraltar) have not been allowed to participate in the 2016 Brexit referendum or in the withdrawal negotiations with the EU. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that Brexit is not an exceptional situation. In the future there will be more and more relevant international issues for these territories which will remain outside of their direct control, but will have a direct impact on them. Thus, if no adjustments are made to their statuses, these territories will have to keep trusting that the UK will be able to represent their interests at the same level as its own interests. Keywords: Brexit, British Overseas Territories (BOTs), constitutional status, Crown Dependencies, sovereignty https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.114 • Received June 2019, accepted March 2020 © 2020—Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on Representation and Reform in the House of Lords
    Our House: Reflections on Representation and Reform in the House of Lords Edited by Caroline Julian About ResPublica ResPublica is an independent, non-partisan UK think tank founded by Phillip Blond in November 2009. In July 2011, the ResPublica Trust was established as a not-for-profit entity which oversees all of ResPublica’s domestic work. We focus on developing practical solutions to enduring socio-economic and cultural problems of our time, such as poverty, asset inequality, family and social breakdown, and environmental degradation. ResPublica Essay Collections ResPublica’s work draws together some of the most exciting thinkers in the UK and internationally to explore the new polices and approaches that will create and deliver a new political settlement. Our network of contributors who advise on and inform our work include leaders from politics, business, civil society and academia. Through our publications, compendiums and website we encourage other thinkers, politicians and members of the public to join the debate and contribute to the development of forward-thinking and innovative ideas. We intend our essay collections to stimulate balanced debate around issues that are fundamental to our core principles. Contents Foreword by Professor John Milbank and Professor Simon Lee, Trustees, 1 The ResPublica Trust 1. Introduction 4 Caroline Julian, ResPublica 2. A Statement from the Government 9 Mark Harper MP, Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform A Social Purpose 3. A Truly Representative House of Lords 13 The Rt Hon Frank Field, MP for Birkenhead 4. Association and Civic Participation 16 Dr Adrian Pabst, University of Kent 5. Bicameralism & Representative Democracy: An International Perspective 23 Rafal Heydel-Mankoo 6.
    [Show full text]
  • The Strange Revival of Bicameralism
    The Strange Revival of Bicameralism Coakley, J. (2014). The Strange Revival of Bicameralism. Journal of Legislative Studies, 20(4), 542-572. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2014.926168 Published in: Journal of Legislative Studies Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal: Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal Publisher rights © 2014 Taylor & Francis. This work is made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made to ensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in the Research Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact [email protected]. Download date:01. Oct. 2021 Published in Journal of Legislative Studies , 20 (4) 2014, pp. 542-572; doi: 10.1080/13572334.2014.926168 THE STRANGE REVIVAL OF BICAMERALISM John Coakley School of Politics and International Relations University College Dublin School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy Queen’s University Belfast [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT The turn of the twenty-first century witnessed a surprising reversal of the long-observed trend towards the disappearance of second chambers in unitary states, with 25 countries— all but one of them unitary—adopting the bicameral system.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Vagrancy Act Repeal Bill
    Vagrancy Act (Repeal) Bill A B I L L TO Make provision to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824; to make provision about the exercise of certain powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 in relation to persons begging or sleeping in public places; and for connected purposes. BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: – 1 Repeal of Vagrancy Act 1824 (1) The Vagrancy Act 1824 is repealed. (2) The consequential repeals set out in the Schedule have effect. 2 Interpretation In this Act— “the 2014 Act” means the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014; “begging” means asking for money on streets or in other public places; and “sleeping rough” refers to homeless people sleeping on streets or in other public places. 3 Enforcement principles The following principles are to be applied in the exercise of powers under the 2014 Act— (a) begging or sleeping rough does not in itself amount to action causing alarm or distress (in the absence of other factors); (b) policing and other enforcement action should balance protection of the community with sensitivity to the problems that cause people to engage in begging or sleeping rough; and (c) powers under the 2014 Act should not in general be used in relation to people sleeping rough, and should be used in relation to people begging only where no other approach is reasonably available.
    [Show full text]
  • Time for Reflection
    All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group TIME FOR REFLECTION A REPORT OF THE ALL-PARTY PARLIAMENTARY HUMANIST GROUP ON RELIGION OR BELIEF IN THE UK PARLIAMENT The All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group acts to bring together non-religious MPs and peers to discuss matters of shared interests. More details of the group can be found at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/190508/humanist.htm. This report was written by Cordelia Tucker O’Sullivan with assistance from Richy Thompson and David Pollock, both of Humanists UK. Layout and design by Laura Reid. This is not an official publication of the House of Commons or the House of Lords. It has not been approved by either House or its committees. All-Party Groups are informal groups of Members of both Houses with a common interest in particular issues. The views expressed in this report are those of the Group. © All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group, 2019-20. TIME FOR REFLECTION CONTENTS FOREWORD 4 INTRODUCTION 6 Recommendations 7 THE CHAPLAIN TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 8 BISHOPS IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS 10 Cost of the Lords Spiritual 12 Retired Lords Spiritual 12 Other religious leaders in the Lords 12 Influence of the bishops on the outcome of votes 13 Arguments made for retaining the Lords Spiritual 14 Arguments against retaining the Lords Spiritual 15 House of Lords reform proposals 15 PRAYERS IN PARLIAMENT 18 PARLIAMENT’S ROLE IN GOVERNING THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 20 Parliamentary oversight of the Church Commissioners 21 ANNEX 1: FORMER LORDS SPIRITUAL IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS 22 ANNEX 2: THE INFLUENCE OF LORDS SPIRITUAL ON THE OUTCOME OF VOTES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS 24 Votes decided by the Lords Spiritual 24 Votes decided by current and former bishops 28 3 All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group FOREWORD The UK is more diverse than ever before.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement by Chief Minister Re Meeting with HM Treasury
    STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY The Bailiff: Very well, we now come to statements. The first statement of which I have notice is a statement to be made by the Chief Minister regarding a meeting with Her Majesty’s Treasury on 27th November. 6. Statement by Chief Minister regarding a meeting with H.M. Treasury on 27th November 2008. 6.1 Senator F.H. Walker (The Chief Minister): Members will be aware that in his pre-budget report delivered last week the U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a review of the long term opportunities and challenges facing the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories as financial centres which have been brought into focus by recent financial and economic events. We in Jersey have, of course, been here before with the Edwards Review in 1998. However, to some extent this time it is different. We are now experienced in the review process. We have already been fully reviewed by the I.M.F. in 2003 and at that time were found to be almost fully compliant with the then international standards of regulation. More recently we have engaged with a review of the Treasury Select Committee in their work on offshore centres. Even more recently we have just concluded a further review by I.M.F. teams looking into our compliance firstly with international standards of anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism; and secondly with prudential regulation under an I.M.F. review which includes matters of financial stability. We await their reports in due course.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Parliaments Visited
    3 Notes on parliaments visited Parliaments studied 3.1 This chapter provides a brief overview of the parliaments studied during the program in order to provide a context for the observations in Chapter 2. The notes are from the perspective of the committee’s interests and do not attempt to provide an overview of the parliaments themselves. There is obviously much more that could be said about each of the parliaments visited, but such comments would not reflect the experience provided by the study program. 3.2 As noted in paragraph 1.6 above, the committee was able to visit, observe and have discussions at the House of Commons and House of Lords in London, the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, the Tynwald in Douglas, (Isle of Man), the National Assembly for Wales in Cardiff and the French National Assembly in Paris. The notes on these assemblies reflect information provided during discussions as well as documents provided by our hosts. 3.3 Three main factors influenced the decision to visit the four parliaments in the United Kingdom and one in France: a desire to compare practices and procedures with other parliaments sharing Westminster origins (The House of Commons, House of Lords, Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales); an interest in learning how quite different parliamentary traditions address issues relevant to all legislatures, including scrutinising the Executive, use of parliamentary committees, communicating with the 34 STUDY PROGRAM 2006 public, procedures for conducting formal votes, how parliaments adapt themselves to societal changes (the Tynwald and the French National Assembly in addition to the parliaments in Britain); and time constraints imposed by the need to slot the visit into part of the Easter break (returning in time for the Budget sittings) and the sitting patterns of other parliaments.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Commonwealth Countries, British Overseas Territories, British Crown Dependencies and EU Member States
    List of Commonwealth countries, British Overseas Territories, British Crown Dependencies and EU member states Commonwealth countries1 Antigua and Barbuda Kenya St Vincent and the Grenadines Australia Kiribati Samoa The Bahamas Lesotho Seychelles Bangladesh Malawi Sierra Leone Barbados Malaysia Singapore Belize Malta* Solomon Islands Botswana Mauritius South Africa Brunei Mozambique Sri Lanka Cameroon Namibia Swaziland Canada Nauru Tonga Dominica New Zealand Trinidad and Tobago Fiji Nigeria Tuvalu Ghana Pakistan Uganda Grenada Papua New Guinea United Kingdom* Guyana Republic of Cyprus* United Republic of Tanzania India Rwanda Vanuatu Jamaica St Christopher and Nevis Zambia St Lucia Zimbabwe *Although also EU member states, citizens of the UK, Cyprus and Malta are eligible to be registered to vote in respect of all elections held in the UK. 1 Citizens of Commonwealth countries that have been suspended from the Commonwealth retain their voting rights. Their voting rights would only be affected if their country was also deleted from the list of Commonwealth countries in the British Nationality Act 1981 through an Act of the UK Parliament. British Overseas Territories Anguilla Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands Bermuda St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha British Antarctic Territory South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands British Indian Ocean Territory Sovereign Base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus Cayman Islands Falkland Islands Turks and Caicos Islands Gibraltar Virgin Islands Montserrat British Crown Dependencies
    [Show full text]
  • The Cabinet Manual
    The Cabinet Manual A guide to laws, conventions and rules on the operation of government 1st edition October 2011 The Cabinet Manual A guide to laws, conventions and rules on the operation of government 1st edition October 2011 Foreword by the Prime Minister On entering government I set out, Cabinet has endorsed the Cabinet Manual as an authoritative guide for ministers and officials, with the Deputy Prime Minister, our and I expect everyone working in government to shared desire for a political system be mindful of the guidance it contains. that is looked at with admiration This country has a rich constitution developed around the world and is more through history and practice, and the Cabinet transparent and accountable. Manual is invaluable in recording this and in ensuring that the workings of government are The Cabinet Manual sets out the internal rules far more open and accountable. and procedures under which the Government operates. For the first time the conventions determining how the Government operates are transparently set out in one place. Codifying and publishing these sheds welcome light on how the Government interacts with the other parts of our democratic system. We are currently in the first coalition Government David Cameron for over 60 years. The manual sets out the laws, Prime Minister conventions and rules that do not change from one administration to the next but also how the current coalition Government operates and recent changes to legislation such as the establishment of fixed-term Parliaments. The content of the Cabinet Manual is not party political – it is a record of fact, and I welcome the role that the previous government, select committees and constitutional experts have played in developing it in draft to final publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee for Justice Report on the Legislative Consent Motion: the Modern Slavery Bill
    Northern Ireland Assembly Committee for Justice Report on the Legislative Consent Motion: The Modern Slavery Bill Session: 2014/2015 Date: 26 November 2014 Introduction Powers 1. The Committee for Justice is a Statutory Departmental Committee established in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Belfast Agreement, section 29 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and under Standing Order 46. The Committee has power to: • Consider and advise on Departmental budgets and annual plans in the context of the overall budget allocation; • Consider relevant secondary legislation and take the Committee stage of primary legislation; • Call for persons and papers; • Initiate inquiries and make reports; and • Consider and advise on any matters brought to the Committee by the Minister for Justice Background to the Bill 2. The intention to introduce a Modern Slavery Bill was announced by the Home Secretary on the 25 August 2013 and is part of the “4P approach” in the UK Government’s Serious and Organised Crime Strategy which aims to: track down those responsible for modern slavery and bring them to justice through an improved law enforcement response, supported with better information sharing and intelligence (Pursue); stop people becoming involved in the perpetration of modern slavery through effective deterrent measures (Prevent); strengthen protection against modern slavery by raising awareness and increasing resilience and effectiveness against this crime (Protect); and reduce the impact of modern slavery through improved support for victims, both in the UK and those returning home (Prepare). The Home Secretary published the draft Modern Slavery Bill on 16 December 2013. 3. The Bill is in seven Parts: Part 1- consolidates the current offences of slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour and of human trafficking in England and Wales and makes provision in respect of penalties and sentencing.
    [Show full text]
  • Money Laundering, Public Beneficial Ownership Registers and the British Overseas Territories: the Impact of the Sanctions and Money Laundering Act 2018 (Uk)
    The Denning Law Journal 2018 Vol 30 pp 185-202 STATUTE NOTE MONEY LAUNDERING, PUBLIC BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REGISTERS AND THE BRITISH OVERSEAS TERRITORIES: THE IMPACT OF THE SANCTIONS AND MONEY LAUNDERING ACT 2018 (UK) John Hatchard* 1 INTRODUCTION The revelations from the Panama Papers 1 have highlighted the potential use of off-shore shell and shelf companies based in the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies to facilitate money laundering, tax evasion, the financing of terrorism and other serious and organised crime. The use of such companies has enabled the natural person(s) who ultimately owned or controlled the company to remain concealed behind a nominee director(s) and nominee shareholder(s).2 This has led to international interest and pressure to increase the transparency in the beneficial ownership of such companies. This note explores the important recent developments towards enhancing beneficial ownership transparency, especially as regards the United Kingdom (UK) and its Overseas Territories (OTs) and Crown Dependencies (CDs). It is divided into five sections. This section provides an introduction and background to the issue. Section 2 reviews some of the ongoing international efforts aimed at improving transparency in beneficial ownership and that is spearheaded by the Financial Action Task Force and the G20. Section 3 considers beneficial ownership transparency * Professor, School of Law, University of Buckingham. Email: [email protected] 1 For details, see the website of the Consortium of Investigative Journalists <https://www.icij.org/> accessed 20 July 2018. 2 The Conference of State Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, Report of the International Group Meeting on Beneficial Ownership (CAC/COSP/2017/CRP.5) para 32, also notes that corruption schemes increasingly use new sophisticated types of corporate vehicles with so-called “tax havens or secrecy jurisdictions” being used to facilitate the criminality.
    [Show full text]