
We have often remarked how international tax haven blacklists generally reflect the political powers and influence of nation states; as a result they tend to include ‘minnows’ but not the big fish. (Among other things, this means a lot of econometric studies resting on a baseline of nonsense.)
So The Guardian‘s headline yesterday illustrates our point exactly. We’ve partly plagiarised its headline Tax haven blacklist omits Luxembourg as Brussels announces reform plans, which kind of tells the whole story. Yesterday’s huge Walmart story involving Luxembourg just emphasises the point.
Now the EU list is here. Note a few other secrecy jurisdictions or tax havens that are absent.
Switzerland, for instance, ranked Number 1 on the Financial Secrecy Index (the only international ranking that does not use political criteria). The United Kingdom, which on some measures is the world’s most important. (They have, at least, tapped several UK Overseas Territories and Guernsey, but not Jersey. Take a look at this on Jersey). And, finally, what about the United States?
This blog, however, is really just an opportunity to reproduce a graph that we’ve deployed before, highlighting the role of the European Commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, as the architect of the abusive Luxembourg tax haven. Click to enlarge the graph.
We won’t tire of wheeling this graph out periodically as a reminder of what everyone in Luxembourg tax circles, and many Europeans, already know.
Related articles

UN tax convention hub – updates & resources

Public finance is feminist terrain

New Tax Justice Network reports on real estate transparency
Beneficial Ownership of Real Estate Around the World
7 July 2026
Integrating the Collection, Use and Exchange of Real Estate Ownership Information
7 July 2026

Four definitions to change the world: Struggles over meaning in the UN tax convention negotiations

Fiscal hell or mirage? What Spain’s wage debate gets wrong

Introducing the Real Estate Secrecy Index

Indicator deep dive: Golden Visas

The European Court of Human Rights has upheld the weaponisation of privacy to restrict tax authorities’ access to banking data


