Does The Future Of The Revised US-Swiss Double Taxation Treaty Depend On The Outcome Of The UBS Case?

By: Ainsley Brown · July 20, 2009 · Filed Under Civil Procedure, Politics, Regulatory Law · Add Comment 

First posted on Commercial Law International on July 13, 2009.

UBS, the world´s largest wealth manager, has found itself embroiled in a diplomatic row between Washington and Bern. At issue is the interpretation of the current US-Swiss double taxation treaty and at stake is the newly inked, yet to be ratified, revised US-Swiss double taxation treaty.

Does the future of the revised US-Swiss double taxation treaty depend on the outcome of the UBS case?

As much was indicated by Doris Leuthard, the Swiss Economy Minister, as she called for a speedy resolution of the case. What the Minister is expressing in her pronouncements is simply the reality of the situation. Swiss maintain that the issues in the case are diplomatic and ought to be resolved in forum more appropriate to friendly relations between nations – face-to-face closed door negotiations – rather an the public spectacle of a courtroom. Secondly, while the treaty has been finalized it has yet to be ratified by the Swiss Parliament, a parliament that will be slow to give its blessing if it is dissatisfied with the outcome of the case.

So what exactly is going on in this case? This is a very good question for I myself was a bit confused for two reasons. The first is that UBS already plead guilty to assisting thousands of Americans to evade US taxes in a case brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in February of this year. In the same case it also paid fines of $750 million and disclosed 250 names of its US clients. So the case ought to be over, right? Well, yes and no. This was the criminal leg of the – and I am going to substitute strategy here for case to avoid any legal confusion – US authorities strategy to gain the names of as many as 52,000 believed to be evading US taxes.

The current case before the courts is the civil leg of the strategy brought by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). They have served on UBS a John Doe subpoena in an effort to force UBS to reveal the names, so those people can in turn answer to the authorities.

While I know that criminal and civil matters are wholly different creatures, this smacks of double prosecution – persecution if you will. Or is it?

The second thing that was puzzling me was this IRS case seems to have stepped outside the four corners of the existing double taxation treaty. The treaty only requires UBS, through Swiss authorities, to co-operate with US tax evasion investigations if the IRS can provide the specific names of the holders of secret offshore accounts. It is clear from the IRS´s actions, issuing a John Doe subpoena, that it clearly does not know the names of the suspected tax evaders. So that should be the end of it, right. Well, clearly not.

Now, what the IRS is doing is clearly is not only not double prosecution/persecution, it is well within, I believe, the scope of the treaty. In fact I would go as far as saying that it is share genius. This was revealed to me in a brief filed by the IRS in response to one filed by UBS. To see what I mean just take a look at section 2 of the brief, the head tells it all: ¨Nothing in the Tax Treaty Limits the IRS´s Authority to Enforce a Duly Authorized Summons Issued to a Third-Third Party Witness within the United States, or Requires the IRS to Exhaust its Treaty Rights With a Foreign Government Before Seeking to that Summons.¨

Unfortunate for UBS, and as rightly pointed out by the IRS ¨the existence of a treaty….does not limit the rights granted to the United States under the laws of this country¨ (the bold being original). Well, that is in part, it should read doesn’t limit those laws so limited by treaty obligation.

What the IRS has done is not too circumvent the treaty but simply not to bring it into the equation at all. It has kept the issue entirely domestic. As I said, share genius.

In any event the prospects are dim for UBS if a negotiated settlement is not reach soon. If UBS loses, which it looks increasingly probable, it will be faced with either defying US law by refusing to reveal the names or reveal the names and be in violation of Swiss banking law which carries with criminal sanction.

Now that a Floridia judge has agreed to postone the case the excutives at UBS will surely be working over time to reach an amecible resolution of the case.

Post tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Privy Council In Bank Ruling Wraps Jamaican Judiciary On the Knuckles, Part II

By: Ainsley Brown · May 15, 2009 · Filed Under Civil Procedure, Contracts, Regulatory Law · Add Comment 

By: Ainsley Brown

The claims advanced by Olint, though ultimately would proven to be groundless is very important because it, gave us a brief glimpse into the subtleties of judicial politics. Before I go any further some context by way of an example I believe would be useful. The words with all due respect, seem quite mundane or you could even say respectful, however, not so in a court room – it is quite disrespectful. The respect for a judge and his or her court room flow naturally from their position and there is no need to remind the judge that you are being respectful. This is something that lawyers and judges know alike, so whenever such words are uttered it is code for hey, judge I am right and you are just full of it – like I said disrespectful.

Though totally unrelated to the case, this example illustrate the point nicely, that words matter and that in the politics of the courtroom they often have much greater meaning than they seem at first glance. Now back to the case.

Olint´s first argument would provide the ground for strongest rebuke by their Lordships of the Jamaican Court of Appeal. Lord Hoffmann even went as far as calling out the reasoning or better yet lack thereof of one of the judges of the Court of Appeal – a one Morrison JA. In the Court of Appeal Morrison JA criticized Mr. Justice Jones, at first instance for disposing of the matter by way of mini-rail, holding that the matter gave rise to a serious issue and ought to be tried. However, Lord Hoffmann goes on to point out, saying of Morrison JA that ¨ he did not explain what the issue would be and their Lordships consider that one has only to read section 4(3) (c) to see that it is irrelevant to any issue in this case.¨

This is Lord Hoffmann´s way of saying: your work is sloppy and you don’t know what you are talking about. Like I said a strong rebuke.

The claim, by the way, was that s. 4(3)(c) of the Banking Act had modified the bank´s contractual right to terminate the banking relationship by giving reasonable notice. Unfortunate for Olint s. 4(3)(c) of the Banking Act is part of the general fit and proper licensing provisions of s.4, under which the Bank of Jamaica grants licenses. It therefore does not take a legally trained mind to see that Olint is simply fishing and that there is not only no serious issue here but no issue at all – no wonder the strong rebuke.

The second argument advanced by Olint was that NCB by closing its accounts was abusing its market position. As I like to call it, and to put it in the Jamaican vernacular: dem a fight gainst man (translated: they are opposed to us) argument. This argument while it has great cultural resonance, and it could be argued reflects a commercial reality; it however has no basis in law.

Firstly, no evidence was furnished that NCB did indeed have a dominant position in the commercial banking sector in Jamaica. However, their Lordships did take judicial notice that NCB was ¨the second largest in Jamaica, with 34-37% of total loans and 30-35% of total deposits, but the Bank of Nova Scotia is larger and there are four other commercial banks in Jamaica, to say nothing of the foreign banks. They are all in competition with each other. It is not easy to acquire dominant position in the banking market.¨ Secondly, even if NCB had a dominant market position the refusal to continue be Olint´s banker does not procure for NCB some market advantage. If anything it does quite the opposite by enabling ¨competitors to pick up another customer if they felt inclined to do so.¨

The third claim by Olint, was that NCB was attempting to induce breaches of contract between itself and its club members.  Inducement of breaches of contract is a tort (a civil wrong) that would require not only that NCB knew that it would cause the breach of contract but that it intended to so ( OBG Ltd v Allan 2008). This by far was Olint´s strongest argument I think. However, their Lordships described it as a ¨hopeless proposition.¨ It will be remember from Part I that it was the refusal of Olint to furnish its audited books that kicked off this sequence of events. NCB could not without proper knowledge of the relationship of Olint and its members know or set out to cause breaches of contracts. What Olint was in fact saying was that NCB knew its actions would cause the breach and with this certain knowledge set out to cause the said breach of contractual arrangements. But how can you set out to cause or much less know that a breach would be caused in a contract that you haven’t even seen?

Stay tuned for Part III as it will deal with the injunction issue.

Post tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Privy Council In Bank Ruling Wraps Jamaican Judiciary On the Knuckles, Part I

By: Ainsley Brown · May 14, 2009 · Filed Under Civil Procedure, Contracts · Add Comment 

First posted on Commercial Law International on May 12, 2009.

The House of Lords, with its Judicial Committee of the Privy Council hat on, as Jamaica’s court of final appeal, handed down a judgment that is set to have repercussions well beyond the interests of the parties involved. In fact the consequences of this judgment go beyond just banking or investing but engages commercial dispute resolution, specifically commercial litigation.

The injunction is a very important – that should read indispensable – tool in the commercial lawyer’s arsenal. It is a power that is highly discretionary and exercised with sensitivity to the peculiarities of the case which by the way includes the idiosyncrasies judge. It is a power jealously guarded by the judiciary and as a matter of judicial comity and judicial politics the power to exercise this discretion is largely left unquestioned, with limited exception, to a judge at first instance. Therefore, whenever a court, much less the highest one in the land, is critical of the way in which this discretion is or has been exercised by other courts all involved in the legal process have right to take pause.

However before I get into what I believe to be the more important aspect of the ruling I should deal with the ratio of the case – for the non lawyers/ non Latin speakers the ratio or ratio decidendi are the reasons or rational for a decision. It will provide not only context for the more important dissuasion on injunctions but will also bring to the fore the importance of this ruling to the banking sector n Jamaica.

National Commercial Bank Jamaica Limited vs. Olint Corporation Limited, is a case that exemplifies why commercial awareness is global.

The question that their Lordships had to focus their minds on was whether a bank, by giving reasonable notice, could lawfully close an account that was not n debit, where there was no evidence of the account being used for unlawful purposes? In the judgment delivered by Lord Hoffmann, ¨their Lordships have no doubt that in the absence of express contrary agreement or statutory impediment, a contract by a bank to provide banking services to a customer is terminable upon reasonable notice.¨

The facts of the case, in brief are: Olint  provided administrative and other services to an investment club. The club allegedly derived its profits from foreign exchange trading which was proffered as an explanation for its high rate of returns to its member. It opened two accounts with National Commercial Bank (NCB) in 2005  and a third in 2007. Near the end of 2006 Olint, along with other investment clubs, began to attract  very unfavorable coverage in the press . They faced allegations that they were operating a Ponzi scheme where returns to older investors were being paid out of money from newer investors.

It is interesting to note that Olint and other investment  clubs sprouted up as a specific  market response to the lack of investment alternatives, especially for the lower and middle strata  of Jamaican society. In this respect they were in direct competition with the financial establishment  - the  commercial banks and other financial institutions.

In August of  2007 NCB as per its anti-money laundering and terrorist financing legal obligations – but no doubt also motivated by its concerns over the fraud allegations – asked to see the audited accounts of Olint. None was forthcoming. NCB being apprehensive that the allegations could turn out to be true, opening it up for reputational damage and or claims for negligent or dishonest assistance, decided to end is relationship with Olint. It wrote to Olint in November informing them of the decision to close their accounts on December 17 – a notice period of 32 days.

This action by NCB only added to the atmosphere at the time that NCB and the financial establishment were using at best the strictures of the law or at worst under handed tactics in order to remove the competition that Olint and the other investment clubs offered. To put it in the Jamaican  vernacular: dem a fight gainst man (translated: they are opposed to us) . Unfortunately, even if  this is a commercial reality and I offer no opinion pro or con, it finds no basis in law.

In response on November 21st Olint asked NCB for an extension to March 14 2008, NCB believing that this period was too long agreed to extend until January 14 2008. On January 1, days before the extension period was going to expire Olint without any notice successfully applied ex parte (from (by or for) one party) injunction preventing NCB from closing its accounts until January 15th.  An application inter parties (between the parties) came before Mr. Justice Jones on the 17th and 18th of March. He dismissed the application because he did not find that it gave rise to a serious issue. Olint appealed and on July  18th 2008 the Court of Appeal grated the injunction until trail.

Based on the allegations in the particulars of claim served by Olint, it did not claim that the extended period was too short, ¨instead , it is alleged that the bank was acting maliciously, contrary to its statutory obligations under the banking Act and Fair Competition Act and with the intent of inducing breaches of contract between the company and members of the investment club.¨ their Lordship review each of these agreements and had no problem dismissed each in turn as being baseless.

Stay tuned for Part II.

Post tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Awards

Partners