GLOBALIZATION AND TRADE

» Alternatives To Corporate Globalization

» Democracy, Sovereignty and Federalism

» Deregulation and Access to Services

» Import Safety, Environment and Health

» Jobs, Wages and Economic Outcomes

» NAFTA, WTO, Other Trade Pacts

» Other Issues

Trade Data Center

One-stop shop for searchable
trade databases, case lists & more

Eyes on Trade

Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch blog on globalization and trade

Connect with GTW

What's New - Global Trade Watch


Buy our book: The Rise and Fall of Fast Track Trade Authority - Updated and Expanded Edition

View 'What's New' Archives

Learn More

Read the full memo (PDF)
Take action: No FTA with tax haven Panama
Peru/Panama/Colombia FTA coverage at Eyes On Trade
More Panama FTA coverage

April 15 - To Clean Up Tax Havens, Panama Must Go Beyond "Swiss Cheese"

Public Citizen Memo for Reporters

Tax havens such as Panama came under intense scrutiny at the G-20 summit last week as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) issued a new tax-haven list, including Panama among 30 target countries that agreed to adopt international tax norms years ago but failed to do so. Focus on Panama's tax-haven and money-laundering problems intensified in March when U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk suggested at his confirmation hearing that the administration might consider bringing to Congress a controversial Bush-negotiated free trade agreement (FTA) with Panama.

The G-20 London Summit Communiqué committed "to take action against non-cooperative jurisdictions, including tax havens. We stand ready to deploy sanctions to protect our public finances and financial systems. The era of banking secrecy is over. We note that the OECD has today published a list..."

Unfortunately, it would be predictable for Panamanian officials to attempt to sidestep the issue by imitating the recent announcements by the tax-haven nations of Andorra, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (ALS) that they will address certain tax and banking transparency concerns. Why would Panama, a country whose comparative advantage is providing a haven for foreign firms to avoid taxes, consider such an announcement? Because the plans that the other three secrecy jurisdictions rolled out are far from adequate, full of loopholes, and do not represent a meaningful way forward for them – or for Panama (more on that below). Thus, Panama could try to quell the growing controversy without making serious changes to its excessive banking secrecy and policies that waive taxes for foreign firms.

And controversy about Panama's tax-haven practices was already heating up before the G-20 thanks to a recent New York Times story describing the attempts by bailed out insurance firm AIG to obtain repayment of $306 million in U.S. taxes related to activities of an AIG-affiliated Panamanian corporation, Starr International Company Inc (SICO). AIG's U.S. court filings include demands to retroactively deduct from its taxable U.S. income a stream of cash payments and shares of AIG stock paid as compensation to its employees by the Panama-registered corporation acting on its behalf. The chairman of the Panamanian firm in question, SICO, is Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, the former head of AIG. SICO is AIG's largest private shareholder and an erstwhile provider of reinsurance and other services to AIG, and operated a compensation pool for AIG's top staff, according to press reports.

So, it would be expected that Panama would seek a way to get the spotlight off of its tax-haven problem. And agreeing to what Andorra, Liechtenstein and Switzerland just announced would be a painless – and meaningless – way to do so.

Continue reading the full memo (PDF).

Copyright © 2014 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.


Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation

 

Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.

 

To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.