{"id":174295,"date":"2016-11-12T17:27:16","date_gmt":"2016-11-12T22:27:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/offshore-company-wikipedia\/"},"modified":"2016-11-12T17:27:16","modified_gmt":"2016-11-12T22:27:16","slug":"offshore-company-wikipedia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/offshore\/offshore-company-wikipedia\/","title":{"rendered":"Offshore company &#8211; Wikipedia"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    The term offshore company or offshore corporation    is used in at least two distinct and different ways. An    offshore company may be a reference to:  <\/p>\n<p>    The former use (companies formed in offshore jurisdictions) is    probably the more common usage of the term. In isolated    instances the term can also be used in reference to companies    with offshore oil and gas operations.  <\/p>\n<p>    In relation to companies and similar entities which are    incorporated in offshore jurisdictions,[3] the use    of both the words \"offshore\" and \"company\" can be varied in    application.  <\/p>\n<p>    The extent to which a jurisdiction is regarded as offshore is    often a question of perception and degree.[4] Classic    tax haven countries such as Bermuda, British Virgin Islands and    the Cayman Islands are quintessentially    offshore jurisdictions, and companies incorporated in those    jurisdictions are invariably labelled as offshore companies.    Thereafter there are certain small intermediate countries or    areas such as Hong    Kong and Singapore (sometimes referred to as \"mid-shore\"    jurisdictions) which, whilst having oversized financial    centres, are not zero tax regimes. Finally, there are classes    of industrialised economies which can be used as part of tax    mitigation structures, including countries like Ireland, the Netherlands and    even the United Kingdom, particularly in commentary    relating to corporate    inversion. Furthermore, in Federal systems, states which    operate like a classic offshore centre can result in    corporations formed there being labelled as offshore, even if    they form part of the largest economy in the world (for    example, Delaware    in the United States).  <\/p>\n<p>    Similarly, the term \"company\" is used loosely, and at its    widest can be taken to refer to any type of artificial entity,    including not just corporations and companies, but potentially also LLCs, LPs, LLPs, and sometimes    partnerships or even offshore    trusts.  <\/p>\n<p>    Historically, offshore companies were broadly divided into two    categories. On the one hand were companies which were    statutorily exempt from taxation in their jurisdiction of    registration provided that they did not undertake business with    persons resident in that jurisdiction. Such companies were    usually called International Business    Companies, or IBCs. Such companies were largely popularized    by the British Virgin Islands, but the    model was copied widely. However, in the early 2000s the    OECD    launched a global initiative to prevent \"ring fencing\" of    taxation in this manner, and many leading jurisdictions    (including the British Virgin Islands and Gibraltar) repealed    their International    Business Companies legislation. But IBCs are still    incorporated in a number of jurisdictions today including    Anguilla and    Panama.  <\/p>\n<p>    Separately from IBCs, there are countries which operate tax    regimes which broadly achieve the same effect: so long as the    company's activities are carried on overseas, and none of the    profits are repatriated, the company is not subject to taxation    in its home jurisdiction. Where the home jurisdiction is    regarded as an offshore jurisdiction, such companies are    commonly regarded as offshore companies. Examples of this    include Hong    Kong and Uruguay. However, these tax regimes are not    limited to conventional offshore jurisdictions: the United    Kingdom operates on broadly similar principles in relation    to taxation of companies.  <\/p>\n<p>    Separately there are offshore jurisdictions which simply do not    impose any form of taxation on companies, and so their    companies are de facto tax exempt. Historically the best    example of these countries were the Cayman    Islands and Bermuda,[5] although other    countries such as the British Virgin    Islands[6]    have now moved to this model. These could arguably fit into    either of the previous two categories,depending on the fiscal    point of view involved.  <\/p>\n<p>    Although all offshore companies differ to a degree depending    upon the corporate law in the relevant jurisdiction, all    offshore companies tend to enjoy certain core characteristics:  <\/p>\n<p>    The absence of taxation or regulation in the home jurisdiction    does not of course exempt the relevant company from taxation or    regulation abroad. For example, Michael Kors Holdings    Limited is incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, but    is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, where it    is subject both the U.S. taxation and to financial regulation by the U.S. Securities and    Exchange Commission.  <\/p>\n<p>    Another common characteristic of offshore companies is the    limited amount of information available to the public. This    varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. At one end of the    scale, in the Cayman Islands and Delaware, there is virtually    no publicly available information. But at the other end of the    scale, in Hong Kong companies file annual returns with    particulars of directors, shareholders and annual accounts.    However, even in jurisdictions where there is relatively little    information available to the public as of right, most    jurisdictions have laws which permit law enforcement    authorities (either locally or from overseas) to have access to    relevant information,[8] and in some    cases, private individuals.[9]  <\/p>\n<p>    In relation to flexible corporate law, most offshore jurisdictions    will normally remove corporate fetters such as thin    capitalisation rules, financial    assistance rules, and limitations on corporate capacity and corporate benefit. A number have also    removed or watered down rules relating to maintenance of    capital or restrictions on payment of dividends. Beyond the common themes, a    number of jurisdictions have also enacted special corporate    provisions to try and attract business through offering    corporate mechanisms that allow complex business transactions    or reorganisations to occur more smoothly.[10]  <\/p>\n<p>    Offshore companies are used for a variety of commercial    and private purposes, some legitimate and economically    beneficial, whilst others may be harmful or even criminal.    Allegations are frequently made in the press about offshore    companies being used for money laundering, tax evasion,    fraud, and other forms    of white collar crime. Offshore    companies are also used in a wide variety of commercial    transactions from generic holding companies, to joint ventures    and listing vehicles. Offshore companies are also used widely    in connection with private wealth for tax mitigation and    privacy. The use of offshore companies, particularly in tax    planning, has become controversial in recent years, and a    number of high-profile companies have ceased using offshore    entities in their group structure as a result of public    campaigns for such companies to pay their \"fair share\" of    Government taxes.[11]  <\/p>\n<p>    Detailed information in relation to the use of offshore    companies is notoriously difficult to come by because of the    opaque nature of much of the business (and because, in many    cases, the companies are used specifically to preserve the    confidentiality of a transaction or individual). It is a    commonly held view that most uses of offshore companies are    driven by tax mitigation and\/or regulatory arbitrage, although there are some    suggestions that the amount of tax structuring may be less than    commonly thought.[12] Other    commonly cited legitimate uses of offshore companies include    uses as joint ventures,[13]    financing SPVs, stock    market listing vehicles, holding companies and asset holding    structures, and trading vehicles.  <\/p>\n<p>    Intermediate uses of offshore companies (i.e. uses which might    be considered legitimate or illegitimate depending upon a    particular person's view of legitimacy of globalisation and tax planning) include    uses as investment funds and private wealth    holding vehicles.  <\/p>\n<p>    The alternative use of the phrase offshore company, being a    business or part of a business which uses offshoring as part of    its business process, is less common, and is    often used as a lazy shorthand way of saying that the relevant    business engages in offshoring.  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>Read the original post: <\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Offshore_company\" title=\"Offshore company - Wikipedia\">Offshore company - Wikipedia<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> The term offshore company or offshore corporation is used in at least two distinct and different ways. An offshore company may be a reference to: The former use (companies formed in offshore jurisdictions) is probably the more common usage of the term.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/offshore\/offshore-company-wikipedia\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[187814],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-174295","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-offshore"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174295"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=174295"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174295\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174295"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174295"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174295"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}