Arts &
  Arts Culture Analysis  
Vol. 16, No. 5, 2017
  Current Issue  
  Back Issues  
Robert J. Lewis
  Senior Editor
Bernard Dubé
  Contributing Editors
David Solway
Louis René Beres
Nick Catalano
Lynda Renée
Gary Olson
Howard Richler
Oslavi Linares
Jordan Adler
Andrew Hlavacek
Daniel Charchuk
  Music Editor
Serge Gamache
  Arts Editor
Lydia Schrufer
Mady Bourdage
Chantal Levesque Denis Beaumont
Emanuel Pordes
  Past Contributors
  Noam Chomsky
Mark Kingwell
Naomi Klein
Arundhati Roy
Evelyn Lau
Stephen Lewis
Robert Fisk
Margaret Somerville
Mona Eltahawy
Michael Moore
Julius Grey
Irshad Manji
Richard Rodriguez
Navi Pillay
Ernesto Zedillo
Pico Iyer
Edward Said
Jean Baudrillard
Bill Moyers
Barbara Ehrenreich
Leon Wieseltier
Nayan Chanda
Charles Lewis
John Lavery
Tariq Ali
Michael Albert
Rochelle Gurstein
Alex Waterhouse-Hayward

legal theft equals





More than $2 trillion in U.S.-based multinational profits currently sit in offshore accounts, representing, by credible estimates, in excess of $500 billion in unpaid taxes. If that money were deposited in federal coffers tomorrow, it would wipe out the deficit.

The U.S. government loses about $100 billion a year in tax-avoidance schemes involving tax havens in places like the Cayman Islands.

The revenue lost through offshore tax havens used by wealthy individuals and corporations cost the average American taxpayer $1,000 and the average small business $3,000 in 2012. (U.S. Public Interest Research Group, April 4, 2013)

Apple made profits of $74 billion from 2009-2012 on worldwide sales (excluding the Americas) and paid virtually nothing in taxes to any country. The sales were attributed to Irish subsidiaries, where the companies paid a tax rate of less than 1%.


The concept of tax havens has probably been around since countries decided to finance their governments by taxing their citizens.

Countries might compete by keeping taxes low and thus attracting business from high tax countries. Sometimes a country will designate a region or city a low tax or tax free zone, either to stimulate its economy or to buy the loyalty of its citizens.

Ancient Rome was a master in using tax free areas, a sort of early enterprise zones. The first recorded instance took place in the 2nd Century BC when Rome decided to undercut the then independent Greek island state of Rhodes by establishing a tax free port on the island of Delos. Even though Rhodes only charged a 2 percent on trade, it quickly lost trade to the new tax free port and its era as a commercial power was effectively ended.

Rome often used tax policy to reward friends and punish enemies. Cities which were loyal were often granted tax free status. Cities which were not so loyal had to pay tribute, often at the point of a sword. The ancient kingdom of Judea unwisely refused a treaty of friendship with Rome, which would have led to tax free status. Instead the Jews lost their freedom and their country for the next 18 centuries.

The original Muslims conquerors used tax policy as a means of religious conversion. While the Muslims who conquered much of the world between modern Spain and modern Pakistan were relatively tolerant toward their follow monotheists, including Christians and Jews, they did impose a special tax on anyone who refused to convert to Islam. Naturally, quite a few people in the places where the Prophet’s warriors subdued became fervent Muslims.

The European colonial powers attracted settlers to the New World with favourable tax policies The Spanish, the English, and the Dutch dangled low taxes as an incentive for its citizens to brave a long ocean voyage and start life in a wilderness filled with often unfriendly natives. Ironically the main cause of the American Revolution stemmed from an attempt by the English government to raise taxes on the citizens of the American colonies to pay for their defense and administration.

Most economic observers propose that the true original tax haven was Switzerland, with the runner-up being Liechtenstein. The banking industry in Switzerland was historically known as a capital haven, particularly for citizens running away from social disturbance in many countries, such as Germany, Russia, and South America among others.

In the early 1900s, directly after the Great War, following widespread devastation, a large number of governments in Europe raised taxes abruptly to help pay for reconstruction efforts. For the most part, Switzerland, having stayed neutral during World War I, evaded these increased costs of rebuilding infrastructure. It was, therefore, perfectly positioned to keep a low tax base. Consequently, there was a substantial stream of capital into Switzerland for tax-related reasons.

Tax haven usage in modern times has undergone several phases of development, especially after World War II. Tax Haven typically referred to personal taxation avoidance, between the 1920s and the 1950s. Often times, the term was used to mean “countries that a person could retire to and reduce their post-retirement tax burden.” After the 1950s, however, corporate entities increasingly began to use tax havens to lower their global tax obligations.

This corporate tax-reduction strategy usually depended on an existing double taxation treaty between a small jurisdiction (one with a low tax liability) and a larger jurisdiction (one with a high tax burden that the company would otherwise be subject to). To take advantage of the double taxation treaty and thereby pay taxes at the lower rate, corporations would structure company ownership through the smaller jurisdiction.

Ironically, the U.K. probably has been more responsible for the proliferation of tax havens than any other single nation, which during the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s encouraged many of its dependent territories and soon to be independent micro-nations, to develop their own financial services industries so as to make them less dependent on Whitehall for economic aid. This was, at the same time when the nation under the Labour government of the late 1960s, established an hitherto unprecedented 90% top marginal tax rate.
The majority of tax havens, between the early and mid-1980s, shifted the aim of their legislation to develop corporate instruments that were ‘hypothecated’ and exempt from local taxation (in most cases, these could not trade locally either). These vehicles typically were referred to as “exempt companies” or “international business corporations” (IBCs).

Modern tax havens do not even have to be separate countries. The United States has seen the flight of businesses and capital from high tax, high regulation states such as California, Illinois, and New York to low tax states such as Texas and Florida. The latter states are cleverly using tax policy to build up industry, create jobs and, ironically, increase tax revenue at the expense of the former.


Email (optional)
Author or Title












Arts & Opinion, a bi-monthly, is archived in the Library and Archives Canada.
ISSN 1718-2034


Help Haiti
Film Ratings at Arts & Opinion - Montreal
2016 Festival Nouveau Cinema de Montreal, Oct. 05-16st, (514) 844-2172
Montreal World Film Festival
Lynda Renée: Chroniques Québécois - Blog
Montreal Guitar Show July 2-4th (Sylvain Luc etc.). border=
Photo by David Lieber:
Valid HTML 4.01!
Privacy Statement Contact Info
Copyright 2002 Robert J. Lewis