standards and response times on new captive licence applications and other enquiries to the department.
“ Nevis has witnessed steady, consistent growth as a credible, regulated and transparent captive domicile in an
increasingly competitive environment.”
Equally pleasing to Lloyd is the continued evolution of the professional and regulatory environment within Nevis. Commonly, one of the most difficult things to maintain with sustained growth is the level of service standards. Against a backdrop in recent times of the global recession and the resultant economic fallout around the world, Nevis Financial Services has continued to expand the number of personnel within the insurance supervisory division, implemented a corporate governance regime of ‘on-site’ inspections for the insurance managers and their clientele, and maintained service
At a higher level, government representatives of the Federation of
St. Kitts & Nevis have been busy negotiating and signing an increased number of Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEA) and Double Taxation Conventions (DTC), essential to the very existence of any credible offshore jurisdiction going forward. At the time of going to press, the number of such agreements signed by the Federation, totalled 21 (19 TIEA and 2 DTC), with a significant number more still being worked on prior to anticipated execution during 2011.
All these factors have combined to raise Nevis’s profile and standing
on the international stage, with the self-evident reward being the expansion of the captive insurance business within the territory.
At the grass roots level, Lloyd believes another key factor in the continued growth of the domicile is the overall flexibility of the legislation. In essence, the NIIO, 2004 provides the regulatory framework for the licensing and basic operations of the captive after licensing but, unlike some of Nevis’ competitor domiciles, the NIIO, 2004 provides a certain amount of flexibility to the potential captive owner to manage the captive in the most cost-effective and efficient way, considering its own particular circumstances. It does not impose a statutory requirement on the captive to have local directors, hold local board meetings or retain local lawyers. In Lloyd’s opinion, this does not impact adversely on the overall level of corporate governance, quite the contrary in fact, but it does give the captive owner greater choice, which can provide time and cost benefits to the operations of any given captive.
48 US Captive . April 2011
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60