Does blacklisting matter? EU blacklists and offshore bank deposits
| Thesis title in Czech: | Záleží na zařazení na černou listinu? Unijní seznam nespolupracujících jurisdikcí a vklady v offshore bankách |
|---|---|
| Thesis title in English: | Does blacklisting matter? EU blacklists and offshore bank deposits |
| Key words: | Unijní seznam nespolupracujících jurisdikcí, Evropská unie, offshore banky, bankovní vklady, daně, daňové ráje |
| English key words: | EU’s blacklist of non-cooperative jurisdictions, European union, offshore banks, bank deposits, taxes, tax havens |
| Academic year of topic announcement: | 2020/2021 |
| Thesis type: | Bachelor's thesis |
| Thesis language: | angličtina |
| Department: | Institute of Economic Studies (23-IES) |
| Supervisor: | PhDr. Miroslav Palanský, Ph.D. |
| Author: | hidden - assigned by the advisor |
| Date of registration: | 29.09.2021 |
| Date of assignment: | 29.09.2021 |
| Date and time of defence: | 12.09.2023 00:00 |
| Date of electronic submission: | 01.08.2023 |
| Opponents: | Kristin Dilani Nadarajah |
| References |
| Casi, Elisa, Christoph Spengel, and Barbara Stage. ‘Cross-Border Tax Evasion after the Common Reporting Standard: Game Over?’ Journal of Public Economics 190 (20 July 2019): 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104240.
Collin, Matthew. ‘Does the Threat of Being Blacklisted Change Behavior? Regression Discontinuity Evidence from the EU’s Tax Haven Listing Process’. Global Economy and Development, 25 June 2020, 37. https://www.brookings.edu/research/does-the-threat-of-being-blacklisted-change-behavior/ European Commission. ‘Questions and Answers on the EU List of Non-Cooperative Tax Jurisdictions’. Text. Accessed 24 September 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_19_1629. Haines Anjana. ‘EU Plays It Safe with Tax Blacklist’. International Tax Review, 14 December 2017. https://www.internationaltaxreview.com/article/b1f7nb4md00q4v/eu-plays-it-safe-with-tax-blacklist. Janský, Petr, Markus Meinzer, and Miroslav Palanský. ‘Is Panama Really Your Tax Haven? Secrecy Jurisdictions and the Countries They Harm’. Regulation & Governance, 15 January 2021, rego.12380. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12380. News | European Parliament. ‘MEPs Back Crackdown on Aggressive Cross-Border Tax Schemes’, 1 March 2018. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20180226IPR98618/meps-back-crackdown-on-aggressive-cross-border-tax-schemes. Rusina Aija. ‘Name and Shame? Evidence from the European Union Tax Haven Blacklist’. International Tax and Public Finance 27, no. 6 (1 December 2020): 1364–1424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-020-09594-6. Turner, George. ‘The EU Tax Haven Blacklist - a Toothless Whitewash’. Tax Justice Network, 8 December 2017. https://taxjustice.net/2017/12/08/eu-tax-haven-blacklist-toothless-whitewash/ |
| Preliminary scope of work in English |
| Research question and motivation
The main research question is whether getting put on the EU’s blacklist of non-cooperative jurisdictions causes deposits of offshore banks to decrease in the following time during period between years 2017 and 2019. On 5 December 2017, European council established the list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes (Annex I) as a tool for EU member states to tackle tax abuse and unfair tax competition (European Commission 2019). Out of ninety-two screened countries, seventeen were put on the blacklist after failing to meet following criteria: tax transparency, fair taxation and implementation of BEPS minimum standards. Another forty-seven countries were identified as cooperative and were put on a greylist (Annex II), this means the particular country cooperates and has committed to implement improvements. The blacklist was suggested by the council to be revised at least once a year. However, during period from 2017 to 2019, the list was updated very frequently and also criticized for lack of transparency (European Parliament 2018). Furthermore, this project was also considered as toothless by several members of EU parliament and experts, despite its high publicity (Tax Justice Network 2017). This opinion was backed by the fact that no legislative measures had been recommended to impose against countries included in the Annex I to EU member states until late 2019. Therefore, a question arises whether being placed on the list has any effect. In this thesis we assess whether cross-border deposits in the banks located in jurisdictions positioned on the list are affected by the blacklisting process. We can observe that some countries made changes in their legislation, so they would comply with Common Reporting Standard (CRS) and BEPS (Base erosion and profit shifting minimum standards) (Collin, 2020). However, it has yet to be proven that there is immediate/lengthy response to the blacklisting in form of change of bank deposits. Therefore, I would like to fill the gap among already existing studies e.g., Rusina (2020), Casi (2020). Contribution As mentioned above, the literature aimed at the topic of tax avoidance and its impacts on certain sectors of economy already exists. However, one that would combine EU blacklisting of non-cooperative jurisdictions and its affect on bank deposits in these countries is missing. My thesis would combine elements of Casi’s and Rusina’s article. Casi measures the influence of implementing CRS laws to the change of offshore bank deposits in the same jurisdiction in his article (Casi 2020). Rusina, on the other hand, describes negative reaction of firms connected to backlisting the country (Rusina 2020). As the EU blacklist of non-cooperative jurisdictions is uniquely large, as all of EU member states can act together to put pressure for reform tax laws in blacklisted countries. However, in comparison to other blacklists concerning tax abuse, it is yet to be proven of its effectiveness. The goal of this thesis will be to assess whether during period 2017-2019, when no sanctions were implemented, blacklisting affected the bank deposits. The results could help us to better understand if just prestige loss could result in implementing of wished laws. Methodology I am going to measure the change of deposits of offshore bank located in country in time of its addition on the EU blacklist between years 2017 and 2019. The data will be measured for a period of time after being added on the list and compared to the period before. I will employ an event study where the treatment is being blacklisted. Outline Abstract Introduction • Introduction to the topic • Why the topic is important to study • Brief overview of already existing results on this topic • My contribution to the topic and main results • The structure of the thesis Literature review and the main hypotheses • More in-depth analysis of existing literature • Specifying hypotheses based on predictions and existing results • Justifying of hypotheses Methodology • The description of data • Why I used the independent and dependent variables • The description of the tests and needed procedures Results • Stating the results if I reject or not reject my null hypotheses • Interpreting the obtained results Discussion/conclusion • Detailed result interpretation • Comparing the results • Ideas to the further research Bibliography |