4 ms·

Simple: require that beneficial owners (humans) are listed on the title at the Land Registry. These can be private but they must be real. No name, no sale.

by esja 10y ago

pjc50 10y ago
The Land Registry registers land, not companies. Companies house registers directors, but not owners. There is no general register of company ownership, and to create one would obliterate the bearer share (which may well be a good idea) and impose registration transaction costs. I'd favour a more direct approach of simply banning UK nationals from having anything to do with companies in tax havens at all, from Panama to the Isle of Man. No loopholes, no registers to dig through, confiscation if found. Land reform in Scotland is working on the "beneficial owner" aspect: http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Transparency-of-land-ownership-214f.aspx http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Transparency-of-land-owners...
- esja 10y ago
  Understood, and thanks. I misunderstood the context - I was just referring to ownership of the building, rather than all the companies registered there.
- charlesdm 10y ago
  That will never happen, considering most of the 0% tax havens are British crown dependencies. A lot of the money that is held in these "offshore" entities is actually parked in London, for who is wondering.
- dbuxton 10y ago
  Actually, Companies House does require that private companies ("limited by shares") file an annual statement listing all their shareholders. It's the "AR01" form and is available for free under the Filing History tab on a company's page - e.g. this is one of the companies mentioned in the article: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05292775/filing-history https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05292775/filing-h... This doesn't force the disclosure of beneficial ownership though. Shares can be held by nominees without that being disclosed on the register. If the shareholder is an offshore company that can also be difficult to trace. Another fun fact: it's possible to work out the exact most recent valuation of a UK-registered startup by reading its SH01 filing (when it issues new shares). I'm always surprised that the tech press doesn't do this as a matter of course given how excited they get about funding announcements...
- ptaipale 10y ago
  >I'd favour a more direct approach of simply banning UK nationals from having anything to do with companies in tax havens at all Which would make things very awkward, because the United Kingdom is commonly thought of as a tax haven in EU. (Companies in other EU countries are conducting business in London. Obviously they are doing it for tax avoidance purposes!)
- rdancer 10y ago
  > banning UK nationals from having anything to do with companies in tax havens at all What if I buy a few shares in a publicly traded overseas company, and that company in turn buys a few shares of a company based in a tax haven? Short of making the UK an insular economy, this is not going to happen. My take would be that the ease of setting up a business in the UK is a great thing for the business people, the general public, and the economy. It is sad that people end up with debts that will never be repaid when a company folds, but without the institution, there would be much lesser chance of a cheap product, gainful employment, or profit in the first place. When a company shields criminal activity, the courts readily bring the people behind it to justice, as the fine article itself mentions. The only going concern seem to be the undertaxation stories repeatedly reported in the press — good rage fodder for the financially illiterate, but they never hold much water under scrutiny.

Simple: require that beneficial owners (humans) are listed on the title at the Land Registry. These can be private but they must be real. No name, no sale.

by esja 10y ago

Simple: require that beneficial owners (humans) are listed on the title at the Land Registry. These can be private but they must be real. No name, no sale.

pjc50 10y ago

The Land Registry registers land, not companies. Companies house registers directors, but not owners. There is no general register of company ownership, and to create one would obliterate the bearer share (which may well be a good idea) and impose registration transaction costs. I'd favour a more direct approach of simply banning UK nationals from having anything to do with companies in tax havens at all, from Panama to the Isle of Man. No loopholes, no registers to dig through, confiscation if found. Land reform in Scotland is working on the "beneficial owner" aspect: http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Transparency-of-land-ownership-214f.aspx http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Transparency-of-land-owners...

esja 10y ago
Understood, and thanks. I misunderstood the context - I was just referring to ownership of the building, rather than all the companies registered there.
charlesdm 10y ago
That will never happen, considering most of the 0% tax havens are British crown dependencies. A lot of the money that is held in these "offshore" entities is actually parked in London, for who is wondering.
dbuxton 10y ago
Actually, Companies House does require that private companies ("limited by shares") file an annual statement listing all their shareholders. It's the "AR01" form and is available for free under the Filing History tab on a company's page - e.g. this is one of the companies mentioned in the article: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05292775/filing-history https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05292775/filing-h... This doesn't force the disclosure of beneficial ownership though. Shares can be held by nominees without that being disclosed on the register. If the shareholder is an offshore company that can also be difficult to trace. Another fun fact: it's possible to work out the exact most recent valuation of a UK-registered startup by reading its SH01 filing (when it issues new shares). I'm always surprised that the tech press doesn't do this as a matter of course given how excited they get about funding announcements...
ptaipale 10y ago
>I'd favour a more direct approach of simply banning UK nationals from having anything to do with companies in tax havens at all Which would make things very awkward, because the United Kingdom is commonly thought of as a tax haven in EU. (Companies in other EU countries are conducting business in London. Obviously they are doing it for tax avoidance purposes!)
rdancer 10y ago
> banning UK nationals from having anything to do with companies in tax havens at all What if I buy a few shares in a publicly traded overseas company, and that company in turn buys a few shares of a company based in a tax haven? Short of making the UK an insular economy, this is not going to happen. My take would be that the ease of setting up a business in the UK is a great thing for the business people, the general public, and the economy. It is sad that people end up with debts that will never be repaid when a company folds, but without the institution, there would be much lesser chance of a cheap product, gainful employment, or profit in the first place. When a company shields criminal activity, the courts readily bring the people behind it to justice, as the fine article itself mentions. The only going concern seem to be the undertaxation stories repeatedly reported in the press — good rage fodder for the financially illiterate, but they never hold much water under scrutiny.