Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Grounds Keeper Willy

Public beneficial ownership register to be introduced

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, woolley said:

These things tend to draw out over many years. As a case in point, look at the long process that has ensued from the EU declaring the IOM resident/non-resident company regime harmful in the late 90s. IOM announced zero/10 then took years to implement. Then implemented with DPC which was also found harmful. Then brought in ARI which was also declared harmful. Promised to abolish ARI and finally did so in 2012 with unspecified anti-avoidance measures to combat abuse. So we are almost 20 years on in this wrangle but we still have zero tax for non-resident companies and their members. It's an ongoing game.

2023 is the year Cayman and BVI have to implement registers as directed by the UK so in reality we’ve been treated no different. Just not “made” to do it in favour of very aggressively being put in the position of accepting voluntary compliance from what I can see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rushen Spy said:

What I'd like to know is, would the Beneficial Ownership register also need to include ultimate beneficial owner in another jurisdiction, or only the immediate beneficial owner as relates to the Isle of Man?

The whole idea of the register was to record the actual beneficial owner, at the end of the chain. Indeed, by law, that is what has to be disclosed now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will have a detrimental impact on our CSPs and economy. Fact. The register as it is today was seen as a sensible and happy compromise, in that it gave legitimate access to information to UK law enforcement agencies, with the local Financial Crime Unit acting as a gatekeeper. It fully met the purpose, which was (and still should be) to prevent assets from ill-gotten gains being held in IOM companies, with nominee directors and no record of who really owned the company. That works now, and is really all anyone should be concerned with.

This new step removes the privacy for genuine "clean" HNWs, which has become something of the Island's specialist field. Now, Quayle has turned all lily livered and sold us down the river. Never mind attracting more new residents, this will see our population decline unless something comes in to fill the void, pretty damn quick.

Quayle really should stick to farming and eating pies.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Manx Bean said:

It will have a detrimental impact on our CSPs and economy. Fact. The register as it is today was seen as a sensible and happy compromise, in that it gave legitimate access to information to UK law enforcement agencies, with the local Financial Crime Unit acting as a gatekeeper. It fully met the purpose, which was (and still should be) to prevent assets from ill-gotten gains being held in IOM companies, with nominee directors and no record of who really owned the company. That works now, and is really all anyone should be concerned with.

This new step removes the privacy for genuine "clean" HNWs, which has become something of the Island's specialist field. Now, Quayle has turned all lily livered and sold us down the river. Never mind attracting more new residents, this will see our population decline unless something comes in to fill the void, pretty damn quick.

Quayle really should stick to farming and eating pies.

Got it in one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Got it in one!

Do not forget he will be hoping, like his predecessors in the office of Chief Minister a gong from the Queen.

Like all his predecessors any confrontation with our rulers is met with a touch of the forelock.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Manx Bean said:

 Now, Quayle has turned all lily livered and sold us down the river. 

What do you think he can do? Thump the table and say no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, woolley said:

What do you think he can do? Thump the table and say no?

If he had a pair, yes! 

He'll no doubt come out with some drivel - "acting in the Island's best interests..." blah, blah. But clearly, this is not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Got it in one!

Agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Manx Bean said:

It will have a detrimental impact on our CSPs and economy. Fact. The register as it is today was seen as a sensible and happy compromise, in that it gave legitimate access to information to UK law enforcement agencies, with the local Financial Crime Unit acting as a gatekeeper. It fully met the purpose, which was (and still should be) to prevent assets from ill-gotten gains being held in IOM companies, with nominee directors and no record of who really owned the company. That works now, and is really all anyone should be concerned with.

This new step removes the privacy for genuine "clean" HNWs, which has become something of the Island's specialist field. Now, Quayle has turned all lily livered and sold us down the river. Never mind attracting more new residents, this will see our population decline unless something comes in to fill the void, pretty damn quick.

Quayle really should stick to farming and eating pies.

He had no choice.

Anyone labouring under the misapprehension that IOMG actually has any clout in wider affairs is deluded. 

We did exactly as we are told. This may actually be the start of the rout of offshore. And if labour get in....

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

He had no choice.

Anyone labouring under the misapprehension that IOMG actually has any clout in wider affairs is deluded. 

We did exactly as we are told. This may actually be the start of the rout of offshore. And if labour get in....

 

Yes, but putting up a bit of a fight and stating our case wouldn't have gone amiss! This move isn't achieving anything other than giving the gutter press free access to people's private affairs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the end of offshore as you put it. We control our destiny and set our taxes as we see fit. Rich people are welcome on the IOM where they benefit from low taxes and  help keep us afloat.  All this stops is us assisting those who live elsewhere hiding their assets in IOM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, MrPB said:

Ultimate so if the person at the top is American or from Peru then that’s who’s name is recorded. 

Okay, but what if the beneficial owner is behind a trust? As noted above, this only applies to beneficial owners of companies, not to trusts. Maybe we'll see an increase in the number of trusts. You can also own a trust without being a beneficiary. You're only a beneficiary once you've already benefited from it. 

Edited by Rushen Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Rushen Spy said:

Okay, but what if the beneficial owner is behind a trust? As noted above, this only applies to beneficial owners of companies, not to trusts. Maybe we'll see an increase in the number of trusts. You can also own a trust without being a beneficiary. You're only a beneficiary once you've already benefited from it. 

The rules are complicated and I can’t recall the specifics but I think pretty much if you have more than a 25% interest in anything (a trust included) your name has to go on the list as an owner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, MrPB said:

The rules are complicated and I can’t recall the specifics but I think pretty much if you have more than a 25% interest in anything (a trust included) your name has to go on the list as an owner.  

You could have a trust set-up for a 3 yr old child (eg an inheritance fund) who is living in an orphanage and the trust is 100% shareholder in a company. The terms of the trust could be that they will begin to receive benefit from it at the age of 21 (accrued return on investment, and potentially selling all the shares). Who does the beneficial ownership register publish as the beneficial owner of the company? The child has not received any benefit from the fund, so they're not a "beneficial owner", but they are the ultimate intended beneficial owner. I can't imagine this beneficial owner registry including that child's name and the address of the orphanage they live in? It would surely end with the name of the trust and the CSP(s) who operate it at most?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...