Shuttleworth Loses $20m Battle With S. African Reserve Bank Over Expatriated Funds 117
An anonymous reader writes: Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth has lost his long running battle with the South African Reserve Bank over a R250m exit charge ($20.5m) levied on his personal fortune when he tried to ex-patriate to his new home on the Isle of Man in 2009. The exit charge was part of a capital control system since abandoned by the South African government, which Shuttleworth had successfully argued at the Supreme Court of Appeal last year amounted to an unconstitutional tax. The Supreme Court ordered the Reserve Bank to pay Shuttleworth back.
While Shuttleworth had promised to leave the R250m in South Africa as a fund for helping others to press constitutional issues to the highest court in the land, the Reserve Bank appealed to the Constitutional Court for a final appeal — which it won this morning. The upshot being that the bank gets to hold onto the money after all. One judge did offer a dissenting opinion, however, in which he said he would have dismissed the final appeal with costs. The article notes that "The irony is that the exit charge at the heart of the matter is no longer levied on transfers going out of the country."
While Shuttleworth had promised to leave the R250m in South Africa as a fund for helping others to press constitutional issues to the highest court in the land, the Reserve Bank appealed to the Constitutional Court for a final appeal — which it won this morning. The upshot being that the bank gets to hold onto the money after all. One judge did offer a dissenting opinion, however, in which he said he would have dismissed the final appeal with costs. The article notes that "The irony is that the exit charge at the heart of the matter is no longer levied on transfers going out of the country."
So rich guy loses court case with bank (Score:4, Interesting)
So why is this on slashdot exactly? This site is supposed to be about the tech itself, not the financial problems of the people behind it. Thats what The Economist is for.
Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank (Score:5, Funny)
Many of the roads of have no speed limits. That's legitimate enough for me. Also, it is the sister isle to Thomas the Tank Engine's (fictional) Sodor, which might be reason enough for someone else.
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect that this sentence explains Shuttlesworth's REAL reason for "living" there:
From the Wikipedia article:
"The Isle of Man is a low-tax economy with no capital gains tax, wealth tax, stamp duty, or inheritance tax"
Yeah, if I were a billionaire, I would sure want to "live" there too. I could put my P.O. Box "home" right next to Mark's.
Re: (Score:1)
Tech is made out of people. Who live on the Isle of Man, for entirely legitimate reasons.
If you consider funding a homophobic, regressive little hole in exchange for a tax break "legitimate", you mean.
Re: (Score:1)
The people there don't have to pretend that 2 guys screwing each other is all perfectly normal
Neither do people anywhere else. Besides that it is quite normal (it's been going on longer than civilization) you can feel any way you like about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Plenty of mental illnesses have been going on longer than civilisation. Doesn't make them normal
Yes, yes it does. Try a dictionary. It might help.
or that they should be tolerated in normal society
As before, gays have been part of normal society for longer than it's been civilized.
Its only in the last few decades with lots of gays in the media that the propaganda that its normal has been pumped out to this extent.
Right, only in the last few decades have we permitted homosexual people to admit that they exist without persecution, which is how people like yourself can be so hilariously confused: willful ignorance.
But don't worry, swings and roundabouts.
Oh, I'm not worried. I'm confident that homosexual people will continue to gain the same human rights as the rest of us.
Re: (Score:1)
"Yes, yes it does. Try a dictionary. It might help."
Apparently you don't understand the difference between "frequent occurance" and "normal". I suggest you buy yourself a dictionary unless you allow any condition that suits your political leanings to be encompassed by the term normal so rendering it meaningless.
"As before, gays have been part of normal society for longer than it's been civilized."
So have psychopaths.
"Right, only in the last few decades have we permitted homosexual people to admit th
Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank (Score:4, Informative)
I suggest you take a trip out of your comfort zone to countries away from the cuddly comfy west and see how "confused" I am.
Your argument is that I should visit some regressive hellholes which are known to be poor on human rights as my comparison? They treat women like second-class citizens in those countries as well, I suppose you also support that wholeheartedly.
Give your boyfriend a kiss and cuddle in the middle of a street almost anywhere in the middle east, africa, russia, central america or the more conservative parts of far east and see how long before you're beaten up or in prison.
Yep, I was right. You ticked off a list of places it's shitty to be a woman without any apparent awareness that these places just don't get the whole "human rights" concept in general. Which, mind you, I don't think are natural; I think we have to fight for each one, and then go on to defend it.
Hell, even do it in a lot of southern US states and see what happens.
Yes, I already know the south is full of hicks in sticks. Until you get to ATL, perhaps, which is one of the gayest cities in the world. Dallas is also very very gay. Austin has (had? haven't checked) a gay bar called the "Rainbow Cattle Club" that you drive past most times you go downtown via the 35. So there's even places in the south where homosexuals are permitted to behave like all the other humans, most of the time anyway.
Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of those countries that condemn homosexuality aren't too hot on women's rights, people that aren't the same religion as them, or people with different colored skin or birth place living with or having the same rights as them.
Intolerant people are intolerant, what a revelation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The people there don't have to pretend that 2 guys screwing each other is all perfectly normal
Besides that it is quite normal (it's been going on longer than civilization)
Nevermind how long it has been going on for, or how it occurs in all species known to man, you still can't call a characteristic unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal". The low numbers of homosexual individuals make it, at the very worst, "unusual".
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind how long it has been going on for, or how it occurs in all species known to man, you still can't call a characteristic unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal".
First, you absolutely can, if it occurs normally. Second, we don't know what percentage of the population if would normally occur in, absent the anti-homosexual propaganda. I suspect a lot more people would identify as bisexual, given a chance. And we know that when there is less repression, more people identify as homosexual.
The low numbers of homosexual individuals make it, at the very worst, "unusual".
It's usual for some percentage of the population to be homosexual. That percentage is both significant and not apparently diminishing.
Homosexuals are part of the normal sexual spectrum
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind how long it has been going on for, or how it occurs in all species known to man, you still can't call a characteristic unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal".
First, you absolutely can, if it occurs normally.
Firstly, you realise that you;re defining a word using the word itself? Secondly, outside of specialist usage (in statistics, measurements, sciences, etc) normal means "common", "not rare", etc. I suspect you mean that something is normal if it occurs naturally, in which case you would then have to concede that serial killers are normal as they occur naturally, and planet-destroying asteroids are normal 'cos *they* occur naturally too, and sociopaths are normal because they occur naturally too. This is a (p
Re: (Score:3)
Secondly, outside of specialist usage (in statistics, measurements, sciences, etc) normal means "common", "not rare", etc.
But the opposite of normal (abnormal) is derogatory, whereas the opposite of common (uncommon or rare) is not. "Normal" is a somewhat loaded term, that's all.
No one is saying that half the world is homosexual, but the fact that it's (say) 5% is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind how long it has been going on for, or how it occurs in all species known to man, you still can't call a characteristic unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal".
First, you absolutely can, if it occurs normally.
Firstly, you realise that you;re defining a word using the word itself? Secondly, outside of specialist usage (in statistics, measurements, sciences, etc) normal means "common", "not rare", etc. I suspect you mean that something is normal if it occurs naturally, in which case you would then have to concede that serial killers are normal as they occur naturally, and planet-destroying asteroids are normal 'cos *they* occur naturally too, and sociopaths are normal because they occur naturally too. This is a (p
Re: (Score:2)
outside of specialist usage (in statistics, measurements, sciences, etc) normal means "common", "not rare", etc.
Yes, so let's look up common and rare, shan't we? One of the meanings is of frequent occurrence. Well, what does "frequent" mean? Oh look, constant, habitual, or regular. There have constantly been gay people throughout history, and the occurrence seems somewhat regular. English is fun because words have a lot of different meanings, but homosexuality is clearly "common".
Regardless of what you *suspect*, what we *currently know* leads us to believe that homosexual relationships are most certainly not normal.
[citation needed] I've just shown that they are normal. What we currently know leads us to believe that homosexual relationships are normal
Re: (Score:2)
You are not, as you seem to believe, arguing for your political ideology; you can even leave homosexuality out of the discussion - the question is only "Is an occurrence rate of less than 10% enough to satisfy the assertion of 'this is a normal occurence' or not?"
That's the only question - is a 10% rate of occurrence enough to call a characteristic normal?
You answer "yes". I answer "no".
(PS. Your answer leads to the assertion that child-molesters, rapists, sociopaths, psychopaths, mental illness sufferers
Re: (Score:2)
The people there don't have to pretend that 2 guys screwing each other is all perfectly normal
Besides that it is quite normal (it's been going on longer than civilization)
Nevermind how long it has been going on for, or how it occurs in all species known to man, you still can't call a characteristic unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal". The low numbers of homosexual individuals make it, at the very worst, "unusual".
Utter tosh. "Normal" does not mean "at least half the population share that characteristic". For example, it is perfectly normal for someone to have red hair.
It's playing with words, you're really wanting to say that homosexuals are "abnormal".
Re: (Score:2)
The people there don't have to pretend that 2 guys screwing each other is all perfectly normal
Besides that it is quite normal (it's been going on longer than civilization)
Nevermind how long it has been going on for, or how it occurs in all species known to man, you still can't call a characteristic unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal". The low numbers of homosexual individuals make it, at the very worst, "unusual".
Utter tosh. "Normal" does not mean "at least half the population share that characteristic". For example, it is perfectly normal for someone to have red hair.
It's playing with words, you're really wanting to say that homosexuals are "abnormal".
Look at my posting history, you blithering idiot. I'm in full support of gay rights. Calling something that is unique to 4%-8% of the population "normal" is incorrect. You can also say "it's perfectly normal for someone to act on the urge to kill", considering that there are more attempted murders per population than there are homosexuals. You can't really say "$foo, which is $y% of the population, is normal but $bar, which is also $y % of the population is not normal".
(PS. There's a difference between no
Re: (Score:3)
Does he even actually live on the Isle of Man, or is his "home" there a P.O. box that he just uses to avoid taxes?
Re: (Score:2)
He lives there most of the time and has quite a nice house there.
Most countries have residence rules. The Isle of Man has to act legit since it's British, even though technically it's not in the UK.
How the Wealthy Hide Assets (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's on Slashdot because it's their own website not yours. So they make the rules and decide what gets posted. If you don't like it, start your own website and leave.
Re: (Score:2)
This site is supposed to be about the tech itself, not the financial problems of the people behind it.
Slashdot has been posting non-tech stories for more than a decade now. Get over yourself.
Re: (Score:1)
This site is supposed to be about the tech itself, not the financial problems of the people behind it.
Slashdot has been posting mostly non-tech stories for more than a decade now. Get over yourself.
There, i fixed that for you - you are welcomed!
Re: (Score:1)
There, i fixed that for you - you are welcomed!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So why is this on slashdot exactly? This site is supposed to be about the tech itself, not the financial problems of the people behind it.
Treating this like "Shuttleworth's problem" is losing sight of the big picture. The SA government is desperate to prevent money leaving the country, because if it was easy to get out, a significant chunk of the population would (SA, particularly in the large cities, is not a fun place to live). They may have eliminated the apartheid-era controls, but they've introduced far stricter ones to prevent capital flight from the country. Shuttleworth's case is just one of the more visible ones, there are huge nu
Re: (Score:2)
So why is this on slashdot exactly? This site is supposed to be about the tech itself, not the financial problems of the people behind it.
Treating this like "Shuttleworth's problem" is losing sight of the big picture. The SA government is desperate to prevent money leaving the country, because if it was easy to get out, a significant chunk of the population would (SA, particularly in the large cities, is not a fun place to live). They may have eliminated the apartheid-era controls, but they've introduced far stricter ones to prevent capital flight from the country. Shuttleworth's case is just one of the more visible ones, there are huge numbers of people who would leave if they could get their money out.
I think this is part of a more general problem. You see it more in lousy countries like South Africa, but the same thing really happens to a lesser degree everywhere.
In every country lots of people are born and die every year, and many people come and go. Those who are born tend to have abilities that fall onto various bell curves, generally reflective of the people who are already there, and the same is true of those who die. Those who come and go are not distributed in the same way. Those with a lot o
Economist: nothing about economics. (Score:2)
So why is this on slashdot exactly? This site is supposed to be about the tech itself, not the financial problems of the people behind it. Thats what The Economist is for.
The Economist hasn't been about economics or finance for the longest time that I can remember. It's always been a mouthpiece for a bunch of opinionated Know-it-alls about things not just in Britain but worldwide. Yeah, they do comment a bit on economics & finance - just like the business section of any political magazine like a Newsweek or TIME
Once a government has your money, no give backs (Score:4, Interesting)
I've never seen a government that ever willingly gives you your money back. Once they have it they'll try every conceivable way to keep it. Whether or not it's legal or morally right to keep it, they don't care.
Re: (Score:1)
I've never seen a government that ever willingly gives you your money back.
Really? The US government willingly gives back tax refunds to many millions of people every year.
Re: (Score:3)
willingly? so you forget all that business about tax returns, turbo tax, accountants. That's not willing.
Re: (Score:2)
willingly?
Yep. I've never once had the IRS do anything but send my tax return even faster than their estimated time after filing my return.
so you forget all that business about tax returns, turbo tax, accountants. That's not willing.
So because you have to file a tax return that means they don't willingly give you the refund? That logic doesn't follow.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously that should have been tax *refund*.
Re: (Score:2)
having dealt with the IRS multiple times on paperwork bullshit, I can still attest there's nothing "willing" about it.
Re: (Score:2)
One year instead of getting my ~$500 refund in the mail, I got a letter saying "Sorry we're SUPER busy, we'll get you your check in six weeks." I wanted my $500 (I was a lot poorer back then, but still, $500 is $500) but I waited patiently. Six weeks and two days later (I know exactly because I really wanted that $500) I got a letter that said "Yo, peep this, we need another six weeks. See ya."
WTF SRSLY?! I know I can 'file an extension' but I never have and could I just keep filing them over and over forev
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, the IRS is more than willingly to give you a refund after filing a tax return that shows that you paid more than you owed. It's pretty much codified in the tax code that they have to do that.
Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop and think about that for a second. A tax refund implies they are taxing you beyond what you owe, up front, and keeping the money as long as possible. Depending on your filing timing, some of that money could have been held by the government for nearly 18 months before you get money the government shouldn't have taken back.
And they don't just "give it back" -- YOU have to follow their rules and their forms and justify to them that you deserve to get the money back.
The system is really "we'll take this money from you now, a year later you can use our forms and tables to figure out if we've taken too much, and then we'll give it back, based on our criteria".
You can't use the IRS tax refunds as a sign of the gentle benevolence of the government.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't use the IRS tax refunds as a sign of the gentle benevolence of the government.
The words "gentle" and "benevolence" and "government" have NO business in the same sentence... Especially when you're talking about the IRS.. The IRS belongs back in the old USSR, not what passes for a "free" country..
Re: (Score:2)
The words "gentle" and "benevolence" and "government" have NO business in the same sentence...
In your country maybe. I just had some big issues with my eye. Red, blurred vision, bleeding and all sorts of crazy shit like a vampire. Went to the doctor for free, got prescribed some antibiotics and a referral to an optometrist. Optometrist performed a Slit Lamp exam for free and advised to rest and keep the eye clean. After a few days it wasn't improving so went back to the doctor for free for another check, got the all clear and advised to rest. A few days later all clear back to normal, total cost $10
Re: (Score:1)
That's silly. You have the ability to decide how much is withheld from your pay during the year. If you under-withhold too much, there can be penalties. But choosing to overpay and then get a refund is indeed a choice.
*Barring some situation where your expected tax liability for a year suddenly drops towards the end of the year.
Re: (Score:1)
Here in Argentina, if you forget to make a payment, or if AFIP (our tax office) believes you under-withheld more than just a tiny bit, they might FREEZE ALL YOUR ASSETS countrywide without any warning, including your personal *and* business accounts, credit cards, etc. That is their way of letting you know that you forgot to make a payment - they treat you like you were a first-class criminal. Be grateful you live in a country where the government shows a little respect for its citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
The IRS gives money back on corrections pretty quickly, I should know, I work on them on a quarterly basis. As a matter of fact, they surprisingly also give you interest money on those corrections.
Re: (Score:1)
So tax refunds don't exist in your bizarro world? The IRS has never once given my tax refund to anyone but me.
Re: (Score:2)
The IRS has never once given my tax refund to anyone but me.
You are lucky. The IRS does very little checking of address changes, or even bank account numbers. You can file a fake tax return for someone else, claim a large refund, and request it to be transferred directly to your bank account. Later, when the victim files their "real" tax return, they are told it is a double filing, and that they already received their refund, which, by the way, was excessive and they are now indebted to the treasury.
Re: (Score:2)
that's overpayment of taxes. in other words, the government helped itself to your money that it had to right to have, and had use of it without interest. In your bizarro world a government that does such things is not a thieving grubbing evil entity.
Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs (Score:5, Informative)
Really? The HMRC in the UK is very quick at giving overpayments and corrections back - on a few occasions I have had cheques simply turn up without any requests or even knowing I was due one.
Re: (Score:3)
You and your silly "facts". How dare you try to bring those into his narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? The HMRC in the UK is very quick at giving overpayments and corrections back - on a few occasions I have had cheques simply turn up without any requests or even knowing I was due one.
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is THE ONLY goverment organization that after interacting with it i did not felt as raped - and it was about taking money from them... PLUS: i am a Greek - that i had to do some of my interactions with them by phone (i am terrible with writen English, and even worse when speaking them - they even offered me live translation services if i ever needed it!).
As a Greek Nationalist, i now must ask from you: please stand up for the national anthem! [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
This may be a uniquely American point of view, but doesn't it piss you off that you have to think of one person birthed into a legally protected class, and call her "majesty"? I don't call ANYBODY majesty, and sure as shit not just for a person who simply floated into a lucky womb. I've heard she's super duper nice, which is awesome, but then couldn't you all get together and VOTE for her? Doesn't having actual, real royals walking around make you feel like you are living in some kind of absurd time warp?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I get it, it's not an actual large extant problem for the average Brit on the average day, but still, you have no problem walking around with the thought in your head that some people are born into titles of nobility, they are legally superior people to you for no good reason. I don't know it just seems totally crazy. How can it persist in this day and age? And it's not just the Brits it's half of Europe. Hell even Canada puts the royals on their money.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't pretend people aren't born into privilege [newyorker.com] in the US too. As far as I can tell (as a Canadian) the difference between Prince William and Paris Hilton is Prince William has class.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, totally, and that's a problem but it's a hard problem, right it's a social problem. But the easy problem is the legal question: yes or no, some people are legally superior to other people based on an inherited title of nobility? Well, my answer is... no, duh that's totally stupid. Americans aren't all equal in all ways but we have the bare-minimum of equality which is at least the nominal presumption of legal equality. It's a low ethical bar, sure, but compare that to "Hey, that newborn over there, we
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I always get Greece and Turkey confused. I think that's because they are mostly the same except that Greece is Muslim and Turkey is Christian and that's why they hate each other.
Even if our only difference between us Greeks and the Turks was that we are Christians and they are Muslims, i think you should try something that will clear up your "confusion" because you may end up like all those fellow Greek Christians (and Armenians/Assyrians/Kurds/etc) murdered by Turkish Muslims - a friendly advise from a Christian Greek Nationalist, for your own safety dear "confused anonymous".
There's also the fact that John Travolta starred in both Greece (with Olivia Newton John) and a turkey (Battlefield Earth).
Good jokes are good jokes, even when they are from assholes... and that was a realy good one!
Re: (Score:1)
You are lucky to live in a 1st world country. Here in Argentina, AFIP will never send you a cheque, even when they *know* you paid twice. In some cases, you can apply overpayments to future payments, in most cases you can't.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
Re: (Score:3)
In Russia, it's actually possible to be fined for paying too much taxes - I have personally witnessed that (naturally, they didn't return anything, either - the fine was on top of that).
The fundamental problem is wealth redistribution. (Score:2, Insightful)
The fundamental problem is wealth redistribution. It sounds good to some people but it all comes back to robbing Peter to pay Paul; most people call it stealing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True irony (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's on Slashdot because the editor decided to post it.
Re: (Score:1)
This is important for startups, tech or otherwise. You'll probably not see news about Spanish startups in the future because there won't be any, due to a exit tax similar to this one.
oh yeah (Score:2)
I think I heard from this guy. I got an email the other day that started "Greetings and blessings to you. I am the right honorable Alfred Depiero, attorney at law for the honorable Mark Shuttleworth. You seem being a person of good moral standing, and such we need your help to move R250m out the country of South Africa. Your fee for performing such service will be $US 5M American dollars payable directly to you." All they wanted was my banking information.
As a matter of interest (Score:2)
Since he was willing to donate it as some form of legal aid, I'm assuming it was relatively insiginficant.