Members of Bermuda's business community put forward differing views this week on what policy should be taken over"corporate inversions" moving their headquarters to the Island.

The so-called corporate inversions involve companies that set up shell companies on the Island as a way of cutting their tax bills.

Earlier in the year several high-profile US corporations, including Stanley Works and Ingersoll-Rand, announced they were looking at moving to the Island to slash millions of their US tax bills. But the moves have sparked controversy and heated debate from US legislators and international media with Bermuda getting flack for being the domicile of choice for these corporations.

The controversy, which has been on-going since the first of the year, prompted one of Bermuda's leading insurance executives to speak out last week.

ACE CEO Brian Duperreault said Bermuda had 'lowered the bar' in letting in the corporate inversion companies which made the move to their benefit (millions of dollars saved in taxes) but bringing little of benefit to the Island.

Mr. Duperreault called on Government to reconsider its policy on the companies that were allowed to set up on our shores.

Although ACE said Mr. Duperreault had received an outpouring of support from the Bermuda community after his comments on the matter, some members of the business community told The Royal Gazette they were not so sure turning away business was a wise plan.

Jeff Conyers, chairman of the Bermuda International Business Association (BIBA), said the association, as well as he thought the Island, had a great deal of respect for Mr. Duperreault.

And he said that in the short-term it would be almost impossible to disagree with the insurance veteran's views.

In the long-term however, Mr. Conyers, who is also head of financial services firm First Bermuda Group, voiced concern about any restrictions.

"In the long-term I am not sure putting restrictions on a certain sector would be upholding the best interests of the Island. What may in the short-term seem detrimental for Bermuda could in the long run do more harm than good" he said, adding: "I don't see the practicality of putting restrictions on one type of company."

BIBA CEO Richard Calderon said: "We believe it is important for business leaders to voice their opinions on key issues that will impact the short-term and long-term economic future of Bermuda. And we agree with several points he (Mr. Duperreault) made; we agree that there maybe could have been more done in Washington by a wider business audience and more responsiveness to international press from a broader business community would have been welcomed. But at the end of the day we respect the position taken by Government to be the spokesperson in discussion with the House of Representatives in Washington."

For its part, Mr. Calderon said BIBA had met, on one occasion, with chiefs of staff in the US capital. But beyond that, BIBA had had "zero involvement" in lobbying efforts in Washington. But he said the association had conducted numerous interviews with "major" international media including CNBC, Miami Herald, Wall Street Journal, Economist, Jim Lehrer report and others.

Mr. Calderon continued: "If we say no to companies like Stanley Works, a blue-chip Fortune 500 company, today who do we say no to tomorrow?"

"Clearly Brian's views are welcomed and indeed, very important but they may not have been in the best interest of the wider or entire business community. That is the short and long of it."

In contrast, BELCO president Garry Madeiros told The Royal Gazette he agreed with Mr. Duperreault's stance: "These organisations referred to as inversions are setting up here for tax reasons, and that is not something we should be interested in."

He added: "As long as companies meet the financial and business requirements they are allowed in. But with the exception of the company fees they pay on an annual basis, the return from these companies is not great - really they bring nothing to the Island."

Addressing the assertion by some in the community that some of the companies that have done a corporate inversion to the Island are Fortune 500 companies, Mr. Madeiros said: "It is nothing to brag about, they are here in name only."

Mr. Madeiros concluded: "We should be into companies that either have a physical presence or companies that bring value even though not physically here, such as captives that have minimal presence but are doing business (within Bermuda)."

Opposition Leader Dr. Grant Gibbons backed Mr. Duperreault in calling for Government to take a hard look at its policy on what companies should be allowed into the Island, although he said the subject should be approached with care.

And according to Dr. Gibbons the Finance Minister can at his discretion turn away companies.

"Exempt companies vary widely and what we need to do is look at the policy. That is where I agree with Mr. Duperreault."

Dr. Gibbons added however that the recent corporate inversions had been negative because of the backlash from international media and US legislators. But he added that in years past other companies had done similar inversions to Bermuda, and he cited several Hong Kong companies, that had proven to be a boon for the Island. "These companies (coming here) added to our credibility as a jurisdiction."

Dr. Gibbons also said that there had been a number of foreign sales companies, in recent years, to move their incorporations from the US to Bermuda for tax purposes. But in that case he said the moves had actually been sanctioned by the American government as it stimulated foreign sales for the corporations.

The Royal Gazette also made calls to the heads of law firms, accountants, bankers and insurance professionals, but calls had not been returned by press time.