Cayman Islands: Cayman Islands Could Learn From The US Treasurer: What NOT To Do

Last Updated: 11 March 2010
Article by Sophia Harris

In February, BusinessWeek1 ran an article "A Caribbean Tax Holiday for U.S. Businesses" that made mention of the Cayman Islands and which naturally drew my attention. The article featured a number of "small retailers and service providers" that had established companies offshore for the purposes of "minimising their US tax bills by sending credit-card receipts to Panama, Nevis, Aruba, the Cayman Islands and other business-friendly havens".

These were reportedly businesses that have established companies in offshore jurisdictions that levy little or no tax, compared with state tax rates of up to 10 percent in the US and corporate income tax of up to 35 percent. These businesses, according to the article, deposit their credit card receipts in an offshore company to mitigate their tax liabilities. I doubt whether such a strategy has gained much traction in the Cayman Islands, if any, and I don't intend to comment on the viability of such an arrangement.

What is most striking in the article, however, is that offshore jurisdictions, such as the Cayman Islands, are perhaps accurately labelled by BusinessWeek as "business-friendly". This clearly does not connote illegal activity or anything sinister but rather the fostering of an environment that can effectively compete in the global market to attract industry. This perhaps, in and of itself, has given rise to the challenge facing the IRS which estimates that "US$100 billion a year in revenue is escaping the US sales and income taxes in this manner".

The article focused not on big industries or mega corporations but on "mostly small retailers and service providers" trying to mitigate their tax liabilities in a manner that those business owners insist is "entirely lawful and appropriate" and as business owners they are adamant that they "comply with all tax laws". The fact that the IRS has spent "several years .... formally investigating whether the spreading credit-card practice amounts to illegal behaviour", suggests that they might have indeed been successful in structuring their affairs lawfully and appropriately and have withstood the test of scrutiny.

It used to be that inclusive in the fiduciary responsibility of directors was the obligation to mitigate the expenses of that company and ensure maximum profits for the shareholders. In fact, under English common law the principle established in IRC v Duke of Westminster in 1936, still exists. In that case Lord Tomlin commented, "Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so as that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax2." To legitimately structure a company to ensure that it legally minimises its taxes now however, appears questionable. The disturbing trend of preventing companies from doing so and apparently yielding to payment of higher taxes, defies basic principles of good governance, free competition and capitalism.

The BusinessWeek article went on to state that, "The credit-card investigation is unfolding as the Obama Administration cracks down on a variety of corporate and individual tax-minimisation strategies." Not tax evasion or money laundering but "tax minimisation strategies"!

Such a tactic against large corporations is one thing, but the primary focus of the article was on "mostly small retailers". The very survival of most if not all companies (and particularly smaller businesses) in a recession, might well depend on the ability to be fiscally prudent and the ability to legally mitigate and minimise all liabilities including taxation.

With legitimate and properly structured offshore companies, one can legally mitigate unnecessary payments and liabilities of a business. The Business Week article does however make mention of some concern that there is non-reporting or under-reporting by US citizens in respect of funds derived from offshore entities. Whilst it might well be that there are unscrupulous persons who fail to make adequate tax disclosures to their home countries or fail to disclose repatriated funds, it is unfortunate that more time was not vested by the author of the article in distinguishing the role of legitimate and compliant offshore structures from the illegal activities of such individuals. In perhaps unintentionally blurring the lines between the two, the entire structure of those legitimate and legally compliant offshore companies, falls under undue criticism. Regrettably, this might be the object of the exercise.

Certainly the negative focus on offshore financial jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands, as opposed to onshore tax havens with no or low taxes, is striking. This is particularly so as many in the Cayman Islands' financial industry are of the view that many of the onshore tax havens play on an unlevel playing field with less due diligence and anti-money laundering legislation than the competing Cayman Islands. Certainly this striking contrast becomes very apparent when comparing the BusinessWeek article to the article, "Is Microsoft a tax dodger", of September 2009.

But the very issues that dog the Cayman Islands as a low tax jurisdiction might eventually haunt some onshore jurisdictions, including the United States.

The 3covered a brewing controversy over Microsoft's offices. Although located in the United States, Microsoft's offices are set up in Reno, Nevada, a state that has no corporate income tax, for the purposes of licensing the company's software and from which its software licensing revenue is reported. This setup appears very much like the smaller businesses under the focus of the IRS for having their offices located in the Caribbean as reported in the BusinessWeek article. In setting up its offices in Nevada, Microsoft has avoided paying business and occupation tax that would otherwise be required on software reproduction in Washington State, allowing the company to minimise its tax liabilities legally. In the report there is an interesting editorial note in the where mention is made of Microsoft's ", er, avoidance*..." and at the end of the article it explains that "*Tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance isn't."

Whilst there is no clear indication of a major investigation against Microsoft or any of these larger companies that have opted to establish offices in Nevada or Delaware to legally minimise their taxes, it has drawn the attention and ire of some US citizens. In fact blogs have been dedicated to protest and petition that corporations such as Microsoft have "avoided" paying their "full" taxes and should be forced to pay some 1.4 billion in back taxes, interest and penalties (keep in mind the Guardian's own definition of avoidance versus evasion). After all, it is argued, given the fact that Washington has a 2.4 billion dollar shortfall, obtaining this money from such corporations would be a panacea. In fact the blog has been successful enough to receive a response from the Government's Department of Revenue, only not the response that they had hoped for but rather one defending the Department of Revenue's "inaction against Microsoft".

The blog and the postings thereto, make for interesting reading. It transcends the legality of the transactions in question, and addresses the wider issues of low or no tax jurisdictions versus fair and legal competition against higher tax jurisdictions. Not unlike my own views as a resident of the Cayman Islands, a resident of Nevada responded that they "...agree ....that in light of Washington State's attitude and business killing tax structure, Microsoft should move the entire company to Nevada". But more to the point someone made the interesting comment that dared to echo the nagging underlying issue of directors' fiduciary responsibilities to their company: "Microsoft is a public company owned by a lot of shareholders. I expect them to be as profitable as possible. If that means shopping around to avoid taxes, all the more power to them. You keep pushing taxes on these companies and they'll leave and take their ball with them. Just look at Boeing. Instead of bitching about Microsoft looking for tax breaks, why don't you post an article detailing how much money Microsoft actually 'puts' into the WA economy and WA state coffers. Instead of taxing these companies out of state, how about cutting back on the spending for a few years like most households in this state are doing".

No one appears immune from what can only best be described as harassment or bullying tactics, where there appears to be no legitimate or legal means of compelling payment under a higher tax regime. No one, including Microsoft or Meg Whitman the Republican Gubernatorial candidate in California, is immune.

The California Accountability Project, an independent group, set out its cause for concern in a statement released in February4 that Ms. Whitman's charitable foundation, invested US$4 million in offshore hedge funds, including the Cayman Islands (keep in mind that almost 80 percent of the worlds hedge funds are incorporated in the Cayman Islands). And according to them this begs the question "Is Meg Whitman still shifting her millions into offshore tax havens to avoid having to pay her fair share?.....California's voters expect and deserve to know if Whitman is continuing to engage in tax avoidance schemes". Again we are reminded of the Guardian's distinction between avoidance and evasion.

Relevant to this, and what aids in putting this all into perspective, is the recent intriguing role of the US Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner in the American International Group ("AIG") bailout scandal (Geithner was then head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York ("Fed.")). As it turns out, AIG's lawyers were preparing a filing to explain how it eliminated one of its portfolios of derivatives (credit-default swaps) through a company created with the Fed called "Maiden Lane III." Maiden Lane III bought up the debts from AIG, making the financial institutions AIG owed under swaps, whole, and taking the liabilities off the balance sheets of AIG. AIG was then able to tear up those swaps bought by Maiden Lane III.

However, there were $10 billion worth of swaps that could not be purchased due to the nature of those particular swaps. AIG was unable to rid itself of them. The Fed instructed AIG to delete any reference to these toxic assets when disclosure of them was required under federal law.

There is strong speculation that this "editing" was to ensure that there would be no questions raised as to the 100 cents on the dollar being paid by the Fed to AIG for their toxic assets amongst other issues.

An article in the New York Times5 on these revelations raised a number of intriguing facts. To start, the entity that bought the derivatives, Maiden Lane III, set up by the Fed with AIG for the purposes of payment of the bailout money, was setup in Delaware! Delaware is also a low tax haven that competes effectively in the same market as the rest of the offshore jurisdictions and has as many companies registered as most of its competing offshore jurisdictions (perhaps put together).

It would appear that the US Government is also of the view that there is a necessary role for the use of a company incorporated in a low tax jurisdiction in a legitimate transaction (for the purposes of this discussion, I will use the term "legitimate" loosely here).

The general counsel for the Fed tried to defend the failure to make all of the necessary disclosures under the federal securities laws, notwithstanding that the tax payers paid 100 cents on the dollar for soured investments. Mr. Geithner tried to distance himself from the decision, notwithstanding that he was the head of the Fed at the time (it would be the second time Mr. Geithner pleaded ignorance of the relevant tax details. The first being for non-payment of his own taxes, causing the Obama Administration some embarrassment on Mr. Geithner's appointment as US Treasurer, and which he quickly remedied with full payment).

The full details as to why the Fed set up a company with AIG in Delaware is even more intriguing. Their reasons seem to go beyond just tax avoidance. The speculation as to why they did so and the shroud of secrecy that has enveloped the details of Maiden Lane III is all unflattering to the Fed6.

The irony of this is brought home by the proposals from the US Government to overhaul the financial regulation of the securitisation market back in September 2009 in response to the mortgage crisis, but before this scandal broke. The proposals include "increased market transparency" amongst a slew of other regulatory changes.

Yet it is not clear if any of the proposals for change would have caught the deliberate decision by the Fed not to make adequate disclosures under existing laws in an effort to prevent businesses that were "too big to fail" from failing.

The failings in this particular transaction though, might have little to do with AIG or Maiden Lane III or where Maiden Lane III was incorporated. The onus of being forthright and making full disclosures as required under the law remains the crux of the matter. It distinguishes the legality and legitimacy of the transaction from the deliberate failings of individuals to be compliant with the law.

It will be interesting to see how the matter unfolds in Congress, or not, as the case may be.

The silver lining for those of us in the offshore industry is that the US Government has adequately demonstrated that there is a legitimate role for the incorporation of companies in low tax jurisdictions in the commercial market. It might be though, that given the US Government's own reluctance to touch Microsoft in Nevada, and its own propensity to utilise Delaware, that its scrutiny depends solely on where that low tax jurisdiction is located. Perhaps if it's a small island outside of the US, it's fair game, and the sledgehammer approach from the podium of the White House is an option.

Mr. Geithner taught us a few lessons worth passing on to our clients: in addition to the legitimate need and role of well regulated low tax jurisdictions in the global market, Mr. Geithner's actions also pointed out the need to encourage the client to make all necessary disclosures in their respective jurisdictions where one is required to do so under the law. But, dare I say it, yes; to encourage the client to take good counsel and then pay his or her relevant taxes as is legally required (after all you never know when someone might tap you on the shoulder to become the US Treasurer)!

Sophia Harris is the Managing Partner of Solomon Harris Attorneys-at-Law in the Cayman Islands. For further information relating to this article, please contact the author.


1.February 11, 2010.

2. IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] 19 TC 490.

3. By Charles Arthur, September 23, 2009.

4. The California Majority Report, February 24, 2010.

5. Fed Advice to AIG Scrutinised, January 8, 2010.

6. The Huffington Post, February 18, 2010.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.