such as the Mareva Injunction and Anton Piller orders courts of offshore financial centers
are capable of fairly adjudicating in such multi-jurisdiction cases.
It is clear that too many tax abuses occur regularly in the developed states. Hence, the
credibility of the argument that the preferential tax incentive offered by offshore financial
centers causes a decline in the tax base of the developed world loses its strength. A recent
report by the OECD 136notes that, “
In 1998, OECD governments collected almost US $8 trillion dollars in taxes: The
equivalent of 37.2 percent of the aggregate GDP of their economies and the highest
figure recorded since revenue data began being collected by the OECD.137” In addition,
the OECD states that, “ there has been a continuing trend towards higher tax levels: from
29 percent of the GDP in 1970 to 33 percent in 1980 to 36 percent in 1990 and more than
37 percent in 1998.”138 As the experts would agree, it appears that the problem within
OECD countries is that the tax bases in most cases are much too high. Moreover, the
above reports gives credence to the argument that offshore centers are necessary to the
world economic environment.
The criticisms leveled against offshore centers have not considered that low tax regimes
have helped to reduce an even larger tax burden on companies and individuals who
evidently are overtaxed.
Additionally, this thesis agrees with the proposal made by at the Joint Working Group
meeting in Barbados that the entire process of reducing or eliminating harmful tax
competition should be chaired by a global organization such as the United Nations or a
136 This report was produced by the Fiscal Affairs Unit of the OECD 200, P. 12.The report itself provides ample evidence as to why the measures proposed against so called tax havens are unnecessary and beyond what is required, because there is no erosion of the tax bases of OECD countries.