THE PLUMBING: Six Mechanisms. 425 Years. The Answer to "How Is This Legal?"
Post 1: The Oldest Pipe — Elizabeth I. 1601. The founding irony.
Post 2: The 1921 Room — Stepped-up basis + 1031. 104 years intact.
Post 3: The Wildcatter's Gift — Carried interest. 20% since Eisenhower.
Post 4: The Race to the Bottom — Delaware. 2M entities. 0 owners disclosed.
Post 5: The Invisible Subsidiary — Check-the-Box. Nobody voted. $3T since 1997.
Post 6: The Island — Cayman Islands. $6 trillion. The last mechanism. ← YOU ARE HERE
Post 7: The Complete Stack — All six. One deal. Everything legal. Everything documented.
Post 8: July 4, 2025 — The OBBBA. The Magna Carta moment. Pipes made permanent.
The Cayman Islands appears, in official statistics, as one of the largest financial centers on earth. It holds more assets — estimated at $6 trillion — than Germany, France, or the United Kingdom. Its gross domestic product is less than $7 billion. The gap between those two numbers — $6 trillion in assets, $7 billion in GDP — is the measure of what the island actually is: not an economy in the conventional sense, but a jurisdiction. A legal address. A place where income can be booked, profits accumulated, and assets held without triggering the corporate income taxes, personal income taxes, and reporting requirements that the same income, profits, and assets would face in the countries where they were actually earned. The Cayman Islands Banking Law of 1966 was not drafted by Cayman legislators responding to local economic needs. It was written with direct input from American and British banks that had a specific problem to solve: they needed a jurisdiction where financial transactions could be booked without the tax consequences that booking them in New York or London would trigger. They found a British Overseas Territory in the Caribbean with a cooperative government, a small population with limited ability to resist, and no existing tax infrastructure to dismantle. They drafted the law. The territory enacted it. The island opened for business. Sixty years later: $6 trillion in assets, zero corporate income tax, zero personal income tax, no mandatory reporting requirements for most structures, and a role in the global financial system that makes it, by one measure, the fifth-largest banking center in the world. The Knights of Malta provided the same service for Genoese merchants in the 13th century. The island has always been there. It is very much larger now.
The 700-Year Lineage of the Offshore Entrepot
The Cayman Islands did not invent the offshore entrepot. It perfected an institution that Mediterranean traders developed in the 13th century and that has operated continuously, in various jurisdictions and various forms, for 700 years. Understanding the lineage makes clear that what the Cayman Islands offers is not an anomaly of modern finance — it is the latest iteration of an institution as old as international trade itself.
1200s–1400s
Rhodes — The Knights Hospitaller's Free Port
The Knights Hospitaller held Rhodes from 1309 to 1522. They operated it as a free port — a jurisdiction where merchants from across the Mediterranean could trade without the feudal tolls, guild restrictions, and local taxes that applied in mainland European ports. Genoese and Venetian merchants used Rhodes as a staging point for Eastern trade, booking transactions there to reduce the obligations that would attach in their home cities. The island's political independence from the major feudal powers made it useful precisely because it sat outside their reach.
The offer: political independence, minimum obligation, maximum merchant protection. The modern equivalent: zero corporate tax, no reporting requirements, British Overseas Territory status.
1530s–1700s
Malta — The Knights After Rhodes
When the Ottoman Empire took Rhodes in 1522, the Knights relocated to Malta, granted to them by Holy Roman Emperor Charles V in 1530. Malta continued the free port tradition, serving as a financial and commercial intermediary between Christian Europe and the Ottoman-controlled Eastern Mediterranean. Merchants used Malta to book transactions that would face higher costs and greater scrutiny in mainland ports. The Knights' political sovereignty — answerable ultimately to the Pope, not to any national monarch — provided the legal independence that made Malta useful as a financial center.
The sovereign island with feudal-but-independent status: the template for the modern tax haven's political relationship with larger powers.
1593–1800s
Livorno (Leghorn) — The Grand Duke's Free Port
Ferdinando I de' Medici declared Livorno a free port in 1593, explicitly attracting Jewish merchants expelled from Spain and Portugal, Greek merchants from Ottoman territories, and traders of all nationalities by offering freedom from religious persecution, guild restrictions, and most local taxes. Livorno became one of the most cosmopolitan and commercially active ports in the Mediterranean — not because of its strategic location but because of its deliberate policy of minimum restriction and maximum welcome. The Livornina (1593) is the first documented free-port charter explicitly designed to attract capital by minimizing legal and tax obligations.
The first formal free-port charter: a government deliberately designing jurisdiction to attract capital through minimum obligation. The 1966 Cayman Banking Law is in this tradition.
1880s–1960s
Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg — The Continental Tax Havens
Switzerland developed banking secrecy as a formal legal institution in the 19th century, codified in the Banking Act of 1934 — which made it a criminal offense for bank employees to disclose client information. Liechtenstein developed the Anstalt (foundation) structure for anonymous wealth holding. Luxembourg developed holding company structures that attracted multinational profit booking. By the mid-20th century, a network of European tax havens was operating — each offering a version of the same product: reduced obligation, enhanced secrecy, legal stability. The Cayman Islands entered this market in 1966 and rapidly distinguished itself by offering what European havens could not: zero taxes rather than low taxes, Caribbean jurisdiction rather than European regulatory pressure, and a British Overseas Territory legal framework that provided stability without disclosure.
The Cayman differentiation: zero, not low. Caribbean, not European. British legal framework, not local legal risk. The maximum-minimum offer.
1966
Cayman Islands — The Banking Law and Its Authors
The Cayman Islands Banking Law of 1966 was drafted with direct input from American and British financial institutions that had a specific regulatory arbitrage to accomplish. The Eurodollar market — U.S. dollar deposits held outside the United States — had already created a model for booking dollar transactions offshore to escape U.S. regulation. The Cayman law created a jurisdiction where these transactions could be booked with zero tax liability. No corporate income tax. No personal income tax. No withholding tax on dividends or interest. No capital gains tax. Banking secrecy provisions that made client disclosure a criminal offense. The law was not an indigenous Cayman creation. It was a product designed by its primary users before they became its primary users.
The offer codified in 1966: zero corporate tax, zero income tax, banking secrecy, British Overseas Territory stability. Still the offer in 2026. The terms have not changed.
2026
Cayman Islands — The Current State of the Island
Population: approximately 65,000. GDP: approximately $6.5 billion. Assets held: estimated $6 trillion. Banking center ranking: fifth in the world by assets. Hedge funds domiciled: approximately 11,000 — the majority of all offshore hedge funds globally. PE fund vehicles: tens of thousands of Cayman limited partnerships serving as the fund vehicles for the largest private equity firms in the world, including those documented in Series 5's water acquisitions. Corporate income tax rate: 0%. Personal income tax rate: 0%. OECD Pillar 2 global minimum tax (15%) — Cayman status: British Overseas Territory. The Cayman Islands has committed to implementing Pillar 2 for large multinationals. The commitment: made. The full practical implementation: ongoing as of early 2026. The assets: still there.
65,000 people. $6 trillion in assets. The ratio: $92 million in assets per resident. No other jurisdiction on earth has built more financial infrastructure per capita — or serves a wealthier constituency with less democratic accountability to it.
What Zero Actually Means at $6 Trillion
The Cayman Islands Tax Schedule — What Every Dollar Booked There Pays
Corporate Income Tax
0%
On profits of any amount, from any source, booked through a Cayman entity
Personal Income Tax
0%
On salaries, dividends, capital gains received by Cayman residents or entities
Capital Gains Tax
0%
On the sale of assets held through Cayman structures
Withholding Tax on Dividends
0%
On distributions from Cayman entities to investors anywhere in the world
Withholding Tax on Interest
0%
On interest payments from Cayman entities to lenders
Estate or Inheritance Tax
0%
On assets held through Cayman structures at death of beneficial owner
VAT or Sales Tax
0%
No value-added tax or sales tax on financial transactions
OECD Pillar 2 (15% minimum) — status early 2026
Implementing
For large multinationals (€750M+ revenue). Smaller funds and structures: not yet subject. Implementation ongoing.
🔥 Smoking Gun #1
The Law Was Written by Its Primary Users. The Cayman Banking Law of 1966 Was Drafted With Direct Input From American and British Banks. The Island Had No Pre-existing Financial Sector to Design Around. They Designed It From Scratch, For Themselves.
The Cayman Islands in the early 1960s was not a financial center. It was a small British Caribbean territory whose economy ran on fishing, sea turtles, and limited agriculture. It had no banks, no financial services sector, and no particular reason to become the fifth-largest banking center in the world.
What it had was a cooperative colonial government, a small population with limited political power, British Overseas Territory status providing legal stability, and proximity to the United States. These characteristics made it attractive to American and British banks that were looking for a zero-tax offshore booking center in the Western Hemisphere.
The drafting process: The Cayman Islands Banking Law of 1966 was developed with significant input from outside financial interests — primarily from lawyers and bankers representing institutions that intended to use the jurisdiction. The law was not drafted to serve Cayman residents' financial needs. It was drafted to serve the needs of international financial institutions that wanted a zero-tax booking location. The territory provided the legal address. The banks provided the design specifications.
The result: A law that from its first year attracted offshore financial activity because it was designed to attract offshore financial activity. The Eurodollar market — which had already established the principle of booking dollar transactions outside the U.S. to escape Federal Reserve regulation — migrated to the Cayman Islands because the Cayman framework offered what London's Eurodollar market did not: zero taxation alongside the regulatory flexibility.
The constitutional relationship: The Cayman Islands is a British Overseas Territory. The United Kingdom is responsible for its defense and foreign affairs. The Cayman Islands governs its own domestic affairs — including its tax policy. The UK, which has its own tax havens problems domestically (Channel Islands, Isle of Man), has not used its constitutional authority to require beneficial ownership disclosure or impose taxes on the Cayman financial sector. The arrangement is mutually convenient: the Cayman Islands generates revenue from financial services fees, and the UK maintains a relationship with a financial center that serves British banks and investors without creating UK tax liability.
The Cayman Banking Law was written by the institutions that became its primary users. The island had no pre-existing financial infrastructure to design around — the law created the infrastructure from scratch, to the specifications of the banks that would use it. This is not corruption in the conventional sense. It is the regulatory capture of a jurisdiction that had no prior position to be captured from. The island was a blank canvas. The banks painted it. Sixty years later: $6 trillion in assets. Zero corporate tax. The canvas looks exactly like what the painters needed.
How the Cayman Fits Every Other Mechanism in This Series
The six mechanisms documented in The Plumbing are not independent. They interlock — each one making the others more powerful when combined. The Cayman Islands is where the combination reaches its full expression.
The Cayman as the Integration Layer — How It Connects Posts 1–5
Delaware LLC (Post 4) + CaymanA Delaware LLC (anonymous ownership) serves as the GP of a Cayman limited partnership (zero-tax fund vehicle). The Delaware GP manages the fund. The Cayman LP holds the assets. Beneficial owners: invisible in Delaware. Tax: zero in Cayman. The complete anonymity-plus-efficiency stack.
Check-the-Box (Post 5) + CaymanA U.S. multinational's Cayman subsidiary earns profit from IP licensing or financial returns. The subsidiary is checked into nonexistence for U.S. tax purposes (Post 5). The income accumulates in the Cayman at zero tax. Repatriation decision: indefinitely deferred. The invisible subsidiary holds invisible-to-U.S.-tax income in a zero-tax jurisdiction.
Carried Interest (Post 3) + CaymanPE fund managers receive carry from a Cayman fund vehicle. The carry, when distributed, may flow through structures that reduce even the 20% U.S. capital gains rate through treaty planning or timing elections. The Cayman fund structure enables carry economics that would be more constrained in a U.S.-domiciled fund.
1031 Exchange (Post 2) + CaymanA U.S. real estate or water rights position — rolled forward through 1031 exchanges during life, stepped up at death — may be held through a Cayman fund structure that provides additional layers of tax efficiency and anonymity during the holding period.
Charitable Deduction (Post 1) + CaymanUniversity endowments (Harvard, Yale, MIT) invest in PE funds domiciled in the Cayman Islands as LPs. The endowment's tax-exempt status (charitable deduction subsidy) combines with the Cayman fund's zero-tax structure to create returns that flow through multiple layers of tax advantage. The same Arizona water rights from Series 5 may ultimately be held through a chain: U.S. endowment → Cayman LP → Delaware GP → Arizona LLC.
The water rights acquisition (Series 5)Emporia III LLC (Delaware, anonymous) → likely LP interest held through Cayman fund vehicle → Water Asset Management (New York GP) → McMullen Valley groundwater (Arizona). The complete stack. Post 7 documents it.
"The Cayman Islands has 65,000 residents and $6 trillion in assets. That is $92 million in financial assets per capita. No nation on earth has built more financial infrastructure per capita — or serves a wealthier constituency with less democratic accountability to it."
— The ratio that defines the offshore entrepot, 2026
🔥 Smoking Gun #2
The OECD Has Been Trying to Close Tax Havens Since 1998. Twenty-Eight Years of Pressure. The Cayman Islands Still Has Zero Corporate Tax. The Assets Have Grown From Hundreds of Billions to $6 Trillion During the Reform Period.
The OECD launched its first major initiative against harmful tax practices in 1998 — the "Harmful Tax Competition" report that identified 41 jurisdictions as potential tax havens and threatened sanctions if they did not reform. The Cayman Islands was on the initial list.
What happened: The Cayman Islands agreed to exchange tax information with OECD member countries — signing Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs) beginning in the early 2000s. It committed to "transparency" standards. It was removed from the OECD blacklist. Its corporate tax rate: remained zero. Its assets under management: continued growing. The information exchange agreements were real — tax authorities in participating countries can request specific taxpayer information from the Cayman authorities — but they are not automatic and not public. They require the requesting country to already know enough about a transaction to ask the right questions. They do not provide the fishing-expedition access that would allow systematic identification of undisclosed offshore holdings.
The Pillar 2 response (2021–2026): The OECD's most significant recent initiative — the 15% global minimum corporate tax under Pillar 2 — has been implemented by more than 140 countries. The Cayman Islands, as a British Overseas Territory, has committed to implementing Pillar 2 for large multinationals meeting the €750 million revenue threshold. For the largest multinationals, the Cayman zero-tax advantage is being partially addressed. For the hedge funds, PE fund vehicles, and smaller entities that constitute the majority of Cayman's financial activity: the minimum tax does not yet apply. The most consequential users of the Cayman remain largely outside Pillar 2's current reach.
The growth during the reform period: In 1998, when the OECD launched its harmful tax competition initiative, Cayman assets under management were estimated in the hundreds of billions. By 2010: over $1 trillion. By 2020: over $4 trillion. By 2026: approximately $6 trillion. Twenty-eight years of sustained international pressure to reform tax havens have coincided with a 10-to-60-fold increase in Cayman assets. The reform pressure has produced commitments, processes, and partial implementation. It has not reversed the growth of the island's role in global finance. The assets are still arriving.
Twenty-eight years of OECD pressure. $6 trillion in assets — most of that growth occurring during the reform period. The Cayman Islands has made commitments, signed agreements, and cooperated with Pillar 2 for large multinationals. Its corporate tax rate remains zero. The majority of entities domiciled there remain outside the current scope of reform. The island that was designed in 1966 by the banks that would use it is still providing, in 2026, the service it was designed to provide. The offshore entrepot that Rhodes pioneered in the 14th century is operating at a scale that the Knights Hospitaller could not have imagined. The mechanism has not been closed. It has been growing.
✓ The Full Account: What the Cayman Islands Actually Provides
Fund domicile clarity: Cayman limited partnership structures provide a legal framework for PE and hedge funds that is well-understood, extensively litigated, and broadly accepted by institutional investors globally. When a pension fund in Norway, a sovereign wealth fund in Singapore, and a university endowment in Boston want to co-invest in a fund managed by a New York PE firm, the Cayman LP structure provides a neutral jurisdiction that none of them are from and all of them can accept. The neutrality and legal clarity have genuine value for international capital formation.
The tax efficiency argument: For tax-exempt institutional investors — pension funds, endowments, sovereign wealth funds — holding fund investments through a Cayman vehicle avoids the U.S. UBTI (Unrelated Business Taxable Income) rules that would otherwise tax certain categories of investment income for exempt organizations. The Cayman structure is, for these investors, not about evading taxes they would otherwise pay — it is about avoiding a mismatch in the U.S. tax code that was not designed with their investment activities in mind. This is a real and legitimate use case.
The regulatory arbitrage concern: The legitimate uses above do not require the Cayman Islands to have zero corporate tax. They require legal clarity and political stability. The zero-tax feature serves a different constituency: multinational corporations booking profits, wealthy individuals accumulating investment returns, and financial institutions capturing the spread between what they earn and what they pay in tax. Separating the legitimate neutral-jurisdiction function from the tax-minimization function is the challenge that international tax reform has been attempting to address for 28 years without fully succeeding.
The honest accounting: The Cayman Islands provides genuinely valuable services for international capital formation alongside the zero-tax benefit that costs U.S. and other treasuries $100 billion or more per year. Both functions exist in the same jurisdiction. Reforming the tax function without destroying the capital formation function is the technical challenge that has defeated every reform attempt since 1998. The island remains because both functions remain — and the beneficiaries of the tax function have the resources to fund the preservation of both.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment