search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
SUZOHAPP wishes everyone a Happy New Year


suzohapp.com By Tony Lai


Offshore blacklist off target


L


ooking at gambling enclave Macau, the eastern Caribbean island of Barbados, and Samoa, a group of holiday islands in the South Pacific Ocean, one might be hard pushed to come up with the common


denominator. It might take some guessing but the recent decision by the European Union (EU) makes it easier to draw parallels between them: they all appear on a list of 17 countries and regions whose tax standards are out of sync with the bloc. The inclusion of Macau on the tax haven blacklist – on a par with Panama – has caught many by surprise in the city, and is an indictment strongly refuted by the local Administration. Although critics have cried foul, given the recent efforts of the territory to fight cross-border tax evasion they urge authorities to resolve the issue as soon as possible, which will not only affect the city’s image but also impose hurdles for companies venturing abroad. In the wake of several high-profile revelations documenting how officials, entrepreneurs and multinationals employ offshore accounts to avoid tax and hide assets, the EU has stepped up efforts in recent years to tackle tax avoidance, culminating in the blacklist announced on December 5 after


18 JANUARY 2018


The decision by the EU to brand Macau a tax haven has baffled many here, possibly spelling trouble for the private sector in the long run


months of screening 92 jurisdictions. The 28-nation bloc determined that 17 countries and regions, including Macau, have failed to improve the transparency of their tax regimes and engaged in harmful tax practices. The EU reasoned in a report that Macau has not signed or ratified the Multilateral Convention on


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  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110