Data Leak Spurs Huge Offshore Tax Evasion Investigation 190
New submitter lxrocks writes "Tax authorities in the U.S., Britain, and Australia have announced they are working with a gigantic cache of leaked data that may be the beginnings of one of the largest tax investigations in history. The secret records are believed to include those obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists that lay bare the individuals behind covert companies and private trusts in the British Virgin Islands, the Cook Islands, Singapore and other offshore hideaways. The IRS said, 'There is nothing illegal about holding assets through offshore entities; however, such offshore arrangements are often used to avoid or evade tax liabilities on income represented by the principal or on the income generated by the underlying assets. In addition, advisors may be subject to civil penalties or criminal prosecution for promoting such arrangements as a means to avoid or evade tax liability or circumvent information reporting requirements.'"
Too big to fail (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Too big to jail (Score:5, Insightful)
There, corrected it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too big to jail (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll bet most of these are drug dealers, gamblers, or con artists hiding dirty money.
Usually it's easier to simply pay your taxes. The stereotypical argument of the rich always evading taxes typically doesn't happen. It's just not worth the risk of having everything taken away from you if you already run a legitimate operation.
Re:Too big to jail (Score:5, Insightful)
The stereotypical argument of the rich always evading taxes typically doesn't happen.
It's not that they always evade taxes (although that happens too), it's that they have full time staff dedicated to not paying taxes.
Sometimes, it's just middle class people not having all the tools to find ways to sidestep taxes that the rich do.
Re: (Score:2)
This. My dad is in this business, and they're all neck deep in "tax avoidance" and many of them dabble in outright tax evasion.
My dad also tries to do the same thing with very middle-class amounts of money...not much comes of it, I'm convinced he enjoys paperwork.
Re: (Score:2)
My dad is in this business, and they're all neck deep in "tax avoidance" and many of them dabble in outright tax evasion.
Why on earth would you post this on a public forum?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm anonymous enough, why not? It's hardly a secret, ask any accountant.
Pointing it out for those who don't know has value.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too big to jail (Score:5, Informative)
So, uh, which firm does your dad work for, exactly? I'm sure the IRS would love to know...
Tax avoidance and tax evasion are markedly different. Tax avoidance is straightforward: You plan decisions and investments so that all money is taxed honestly, but at the lowest rate for the return. For example, if you need to raise cash, you can choose to sell a stagnant stock at a loss, which will raise the cash you need and build a capital loss credit, rather than selling a stock that's moving up and will likely make even more money than it will cost in capital gains.
Tax evasion is where money is dishonestly hidden from being taxed, such as claiming the purchase of that new fishing rod is really a business expense for your car dealership, or moving it offshore to a country with lax enforcement and claiming to the IRS that you're paying taxes there, while telling the foreign government that it's being taxed here. It's pretty easy to tell when you're "dabbling" in tax evasion, because somewhere in the paper trail, somebody lies.
Effectively avoiding taxes does require having enough money to be able to maneuver around so that the minimum taxes are paid. The taxpayer must have enough money available that they can move their profits into inaccessible places (foreign companies, unrealized investments, etc.) while still having cash to live on. Then when the time is right they can move that money back into something easier to work with, paying a lower tax rate and profiting from the time spent.
Source: I work at a financial advising firm. We do some tax avoidance, but no tax evasion.
Re: (Score:2)
Tax avoidance is legal but IMO, can be horrendously unethical. And I think you vastly understate the difference it can make. GE paid zero taxes one year through tax "avoidance" and the famous tech megacorps are only "avoiding" as well.
Re: (Score:3)
What's unethical is Congress not having produced a reasonable and effective tax code. This is their job. Seriously the quality of the work products of the US Congress is really bad.
Corporations are required by law to operate to the benefit of their stockholders. Not avoiding taxes is in fact illegal.
Also I'm amazed the idea of GE not paying taxes is still prevalent. It's not true.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/warren-ge-pays-no-taxes/ [factcheck.org]
No proof of that being correct beyond a puff piece (Score:2)
They're hiding behind the "we're not required to" statement of convenience when it comes to actual proof.
So until there is definite proof (such as the information "not required"), they could say anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Not correct. While they don't have to say how much tax they pay in specific categories, they do have to reveal the total.
It's a billion per year in the US.
That's far from zero.
I'd call bull on there being a difference (Score:2)
They functionally do the same harm and are chosen by the same groups of people.
They're both dishonest, one's just illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
"Source: I work at a financial advising firm. We do some tax avoidance, but no tax evasion."
I think this gives you perhaps a rather distorted view. If what you said was true- that the distinction is clear, then the likes of HMRC in the UK wouldn't need to go to court and win some cases and lose others when it comes to avoidance vs. evasion.
The problem is that even when HMRC wins it often does little more than let them settle (sometimes less than they actually owed). This means it's still beneficial for firm
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know why he has such a problem supporting the society we live in. He says it's all going to be mismanaged so you might as well keep as much as you can...not too different from US libertarian rhetoric really. I think he enjoys the challenge of hacking the tax system more than the savings.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious, when you fill out your taxes how many exemptions do you claim? Yourself? Your wife? Your children? Do you take the standard deduction? Do you deduct half your state income tax obligation from your income for the purpose of calculating your AGI? Do you take the mortgage deduction? Deduct student loan interest? Do you fail to pay use taxes on your mail order and online purchases? Take the earned income credits? If you do any of that, why don't you want to support the society you live in? Do you k
Re: (Score:2)
Anything that's on the form and legit basically, but I don't move money around in foreign bank accounts or use shell corporations. You think there's no difference between deducting student loan interest and using a private Swiss bank account or a "dutch sandwich" arrangement etc?
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the actions are lawful, then no, there is no difference.
Re:Too big to jail (Score:5, Insightful)
Well the government runs law enforcement, public education, welfare, and infrastructure maintenance, I like having those things and can't pay for them all by myself...
Re: (Score:2)
>> From where I sit, it doesn't look like anybody in Washington DC has a damned clue what it means to really work
If that's the case, then Washington DC and the 1% have a lot in common.
Re:Too big to jail (Score:5, Insightful)
The brunt of the tax burden is borne by the middle class.
The lower classes just don't have much money to tax. The rich upper classes use their wealth to manipulate the law such that they do not have to pay taxes.
Of course, the middle class is also shrinking, as wealth only flows upwards and the upper class makes most of their money by charging the middle class high prices while paying them low salaries. So, as the middle class shrinks, the tax revenue will shrink as well.
The most natural response will be...more taxes! For the middle class! And the problem will perpetuate itself until the middle class dries up completely and there will be no means of upward social mobility at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of America is having a hardscrabble go of it these days while dishonest politicians and their fellow travelers in DC just keep spending like drunken sailors, it's disgusting.
Less than 1% of the 1% got there through hard work. The most important predictor of success is who your parents are, and it's not simply because they raise you. Indeed, that's far from the most important factor. Nearly no one in American government (at least, at any significant level) has ever really worked for a living.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the government runs law enforcement, public education, welfare, and infrastructure maintenance, I like having those things and can't pay for them all by myself...
You don't have to be the only one paying. We don't need taxes to publicly fund this stuff. We can just run a Kickstarter.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure if serious... [memegenerator.net]
In government by Kickstarter, money would truly equal political power (and Kickstarter would be the world's largest megacorp from all those transaction fees)...doesn't sound good to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Your imagination is quite limited, so let me point you in the right direction with two words: Company Town.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't follow your argument. The "golden gooses" (I think you mean geese) are other people like me, who are not able (not just unwilling) to pay for everything themselves, but like me are willing to chip in (unlike the tax "avoiders.")
Re: (Score:3)
Well the government runs law enforcement, public education
The first two are done by state governments, not the feds. Maybe all the tax money should go to the states?
welfare, and infrastructure maintenance
Of which they do an absolutely horrible job. You're correct in that you can't personally afford it -- but for what the population is paying in taxes, we should get a hell of a lot more than what we're getting. Frankly, I think things would be better if they privatized it, and decided, whoever h
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you haven't seen it in action. (Score:2)
If you want an example, consider that lowest-bidder defense contracting hasn't exactly worked out as well in terms of quality versus a government-run alternative.
The richest pay most tax (Score:4, Informative)
The brunt of the tax burden is borne by the middle class.
The "middle class" tend to pay the highest proportion of their income in taxes, but the wealthiest in society pay the largest chunk of the total personal tax bill.
In the UK, for example, the top 1% pay 24% of all Income Tax and the top 10% pay over 50%. The next 40%, which could reasonably be classified as the "middle class", pay 35% which leaves less than 12% being paid by the other half of society.
So in both absolute terms and per-capita terms, the richest 10% pay the most tax.
The top earners are also the most mobile and "international" members of society, so the unfortunate conclusion is that countries have to retain those top earners, and one way they do that is to give them a fabvourable tax position. While they pay lip-service to stopping evasion, most countries would prefer to have the richest paying some tax rather than losing them and getting no tax at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I think things would be better if they privatized it
Always chilling words. You're right that something is rotten, but you're wrong that privatizing it will help. In actuality, the government is in the hands of corporations now, and it's not a good thing.
Re: (Score:3)
That's how it's done in the UK. It doesn't improve anything and in plenty of cases it makes things worse and more expensive as the bidders all lie on their bids and then have to be bailed out because the infrastructure can't be allowed to collapse.
Re: (Score:2)
So if poor people were paid more generously and hence paid more taxes, rich people wouldn't have to pay so much tax!!
Re: (Score:2)
You are an idiot. Really.
Repeat after me "the market is not a magic wand". Some things, such as roads and bridges are natural monopolies. The private sector will do even less than the government to keep these up. For a higher price, too.
You think the government is inefficient, but this is only because the government is really bad at hiding what it does poorly: it is massively more transparent than private sector corporations. Fact, the private sector s even more wasteful, because on top of the laziness and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And take far more as well. They benefit hugely from public education (subsidized and cheap workforce), pollute in huge amounts with air transportation, practically rape the road system by profiting from truck transportation, and considering that they'd be first into the guillotine they benefit the most from welfare as well.
And as a fraction of their earnings they pay the least.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to call bullshit on your entire post unless you can provide citations for each of your specific points:
1 - less than 1% of the 1% work hard to achieve their prosperity
2 - that it's something other than parents raising a child that result in that child being successful
3 - that nearly no one in American government has ever worked for a living
I doubt you'll be able to provide any supporting information for your claims, mainly because you've posted this crap before and when challenged you were incapab
Re: (Score:2)
They also get richer despite the taxes ... which is unsustainable in a non growing economy.
Mobility is irrelevant, they are capitalists ... not the middle class engineers and entrepreneurs which a country really needs to sustain a standard of living. The ultra-rich have an extremely inflated sense of import, them leaving the country is not a brain drain. Them leaving and being allowed to take away profits on domestic capital to foreign countries year after year with negligible taxation ... that is the probl
Re: (Score:2)
The brunt of the tax burden is borne by the middle class.
The "middle class" tend to pay the highest proportion of their income in taxes, but the wealthiest in society pay the largest chunk of the total personal tax bill.
In the UK, for example, the top 1% pay 24% of all Income Tax and the top 10% pay over 50%. The next 40%, which could reasonably be classified as the "middle class", pay 35% which leaves less than 12% being paid by the other half of society.
So in both absolute terms and per-capita terms, the richest 10% pay the most tax.
The top earners are also the most mobile and "international" members of society, so the unfortunate conclusion is that countries have to retain those top earners, and one way they do that is to give them a fabvourable tax position. While they pay lip-service to stopping evasion, most countries would prefer to have the richest paying some tax rather than losing them and getting no tax at all.
===
If the taxes are not made more equitable, the wealthy will be super wealthy, and the rest of the population, living quiet lives. But then wealth should be measured not on annual income, but on assets, and we should tax the assets in a progressive manner.
The first 5 million with perhaps 1 percent rate, with an increase to some super high value (5 % per billion dollars).
The Quebec Government tried to do that to restaurants. They wanted to tax the wine inventory, 25cents a bottle. Some restaurants had bot
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if serious... [memegenerator.net]
In government by Kickstarter, money would truly equal political power (and Kickstarter would be the world's largest megacorp from all those transaction fees)...doesn't sound good to me.
Ha, well, my "Not Sure if Serious" political science theory is that everything will be better if representative democracy was run like OKCupid, where you could answer a ton of questions about your positions on things, and then delegate your voting authority on the issue to the politician that has the highest % match to you in those matters.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to call bullshit on your entire post unless you can provide citations for each of your specific points:
Who the fuck are you?
In any case, just for laughs, I went and found a citation. Less than 1.3% of the top 10% got there due to hard work. [time.com] Now imagine what percentage of the top 1% this applies to. Snicker snort.
that nearly no one in American government has ever worked for a living
The complete quote is "Nearly no one in American government (at least, at any significant level) has ever really worked for a living." You doubt that the majority of politicians have never had a job that required sweat? Also, since you're so free with placing conditions, I will call bullshit on your
Re: (Score:2)
Since you seem to have all the figures, what's their effective tax rate then?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm the guy who finds your posts to demonstrate stupidity and enjoys pointing out your bullshit. And you came through in classic form. See you took one of the few actual statistics, in what was just a narrative (i.e. not a study or scientific paper but merely the opinions of a man who writes for a living), that said:
Re: (Score:2)
I'll give you 20% of the educators, the firefighter, and the nurses. And hey, just for the benefit of the doubt, the farmers and the ranchers... and the chemist.
Re: (Score:2)
I think things would be better if they privatized it
Give me an example where this has actually worked. For each one, I'll give you three where that has backfired.
Re:Too big to jail (Score:5, Insightful)
30% of any amount of money is still 30%.
That's not very relevant. 30% of $100 is $30. 30% of $1 million is $300,000. For who is it worth more to reduce their taxes? The person looking at a $300k tax bill.
And suppose you could, for $5000, reduce your tax bill from 30% to 29%? For the first taxpayer, that's $5000 spent to save $1. For the second, it's $5000 spent to save $10,000.
Re: (Score:2)
The utility of money is not linear, it is logarithmic. Let us not pretend that human inability to count properly is a valid measure of what is right.
Re: (Score:2)
The utility of money is not linear, it is logarithmic.
That makes no sense. It depends what you're trying to do. For small quantities, the utility of money is linear. For large quantities it tends to be modestly superlinear due to the economies of scale from buying in bulk. And if you're trying to buy all of a particular thing in the world (such as CO2 emission credits in Europe) then it goes to zero (you can't buy more of the good than exists so at some point, you can't buy any more of the good in question at any price and further quantities of money have no v
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because the FED trebling the money supply just caused 300% inflation. Oh,wait, it didn't.
Also, no studies ever show that happiness correlates with the log of money. Oh, wait, they all do. Perhaps more tellingly, the probability density of income within countries (and amongst countries) is log-normal. So yes, the proper way to count the utility of wealth is in log.
Remember kids, libertarianism only makes sense if you ignore reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because the FED trebling the money supply just caused 300% inflation. Oh,wait, it didn't.
Inflation is defined as quantity of money times velocity of money. They could create many zeroes more of money, but if it's never spent (hence, having a velocity of money of zero), it doesn't contribute to inflation.
Also, no studies ever show that happiness correlates with the log of money. Oh, wait, they all do.
No, I'd go with your first statement here.
Perhaps more tellingly, the probability density of income within countries (and amongst countries) is log-normal.
No, that has nothing to do with the value of money. I think it's telling that your most "telling" argument is completely irrelevant to the claim you wish to make.
Remember kids, libertarianism only makes sense if you ignore reality.
Remember kids, disagreeing with the statement that money has logarithmic value means you're
Re: (Score:2)
But this takes time. If your income is 'reasonable', then you can probably get more money by just working more, instead of spending this time trying to reduce your tax burden.
It's only when your income reaches a certain point that avoiding taxes (or paying people to help you avoid taxes) becomes profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually it's easier to simply pay your taxes
Oh yes, I paid my taxes
The $64 trillion dollar question is --- How much tax should I pay ?
Especially when my tax money is being used for purposes that I find wanting
Re: (Score:3)
Your moral values have nothing to do with the amount of taxes you owe.
Re: (Score:2)
As for simply paying your taxes, I agree, if taxes were just, a small per centage across the board, not used for war or conquest, it didn't support a corrupt Executive, Judicial, Legislative government. Too many people are in need of proper food, water, housing, medical care, useful education.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't wrap my head around why would they ever not go after the property of private tax-dodging millionaires, who have little or no influence on politics and/or national economy.
LOLWUT? These are the people who fund the super-PACs (and perhaps more importantly, give the 5/6-digit under-the-table "campaign donations") and run the megacorps, they have LOTS of political and economic influence.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest reason to target those accounts is bribery. Easiest way to pay bribes is to have an off shore account and get the person receiving those bribes to open an offshore account. This enables the simple transfer of funds from one account to another. The person the spends that money whilst on overseas lavish holidays and personal items while off shore. So what funds were transferred to what account and why becomes very important in the passing of certain legislation and this is a global issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they'll find all kinds of revenue from this. So much so that the debt will be paid off and the budgets all balanced for the rest of the future and everyone else will be paying lower taxes. And Obama care will be fully funded. And everyone else will have their tax burdens nearly wiped clean and... Ohh wait, i forgot that the government doesn't level off it just sucks in more and more and grows completely out of control as fast as it can until pow and war starts.
Re: (Score:3)
I really hope you're wrong. Not necessarily optimistic, but still holding out some hope.
Hang around here for a while. We'll ring that out of you.
Re: (Score:3)
I really hope you're wrong. Not necessarily optimistic, but still holding out some hope.
Hang around here for a while. We'll ring that out of you.
I lost my last hope for slashdotters using dictionaries while reading your comment.
Not new news (Score:5, Informative)
This has been public knowledge since the end of March, yet there has been almost zero coverage of it in the mainstream U.S. media. Here's a bit of info in map form from the CBC on April 3, 2013:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/icij-map/ [www.cbc.ca]
and an interactive feature, also from the CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/offshore-tax-havens/ [www.cbc.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
The CBC, as a public broadcaster, has no boots to kiss in this issue, but it doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to suspect that the present Conservative government of Canada has numerous vested interests to protect. I agree 100% that Canada's official absence from this investigation is extremely embarrassing.
The interactive feature linked in my earlier post is a must-read for anyone trying to figure out some of the ploys used by tax evaders worldwide.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
WRONG! The Canada Revenue Agency has requested the information (Which the CBC has a copy of), and if I recall correctly, they announced [ottawacitizen.com] that they are investing $30 million to create a tax "Swat Team" to investigate offshore tax havens used by some 400 Canadians and recoup some $170 Billion in unpaid taxes held in those offshore accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
Was it one law firm in the EU with a lawyer, another lawyer and a secretary as a witness?
The person used their own name on the day thinking they could rescue their account if the input or output entities ever got shutdown?
Where they more creative using a Caribbean, old EU and Asian linked network of companies in their own names?
Where they more creative using a Caribbean, old EU and Asian linked network of companies as end account a
the actual investigation (Score:5, Insightful)
My bet is that the actual investigation targets "who got this data" rather than "who does this data show cheated on their taxes". Mark my words, it'll be along the lines of "we can't use this data in court, so we HAVE to find out the source, so we can have them testify", only when the source comes forward, they'll find themselves jailed and the tax evaders will either never get prosecuted or make a sweethart deal.
Re:the actual investigation (Score:4)
You'll lose the bet. The IRS is on a tear right now to crack down on Tax Evasion. in fact they're offering a partial amnesty for coming forward voluntarily (normal penalties for offshore tax evasion is an immediate forfeiture of 50% of the balance, and then you owe the taxes you should have paid, depending on the situation you could end up owing more than the entire account is worth) where they are dramatically reducing the penalties and close to 5000 people have come forward.
This is partially due to the prosecutions and other actions the IRS is taking against the banks hiding the money. The IRS has already put one of the oldest Swiss banks out of business and they are working on the others, they are generally offering significantly reduced fines to the banks if they provide the data to go after the evaders. It's open season on evaders right now and the IRS has had more traction in getting the banks to reveal the evaders in the last 3 years than they've had in more than 50 years.
The IRS loves whistle-blowers and others that have handed over data. They've offered amnesty to hackers and whistle-blowers in the past that provided bank records that reveal tax evaders. Tax evasion is IRS priority number one for the last several years. Lots of people are coming forward out of fear because it's not just the money, you can actually end up in jail for it as well. All they need is the proof you've done it and not declared the assets and you are toast.
Re: (Score:2)
If we locked up the big players who cheat on their taxes we might now have a nation left at all. These days business and crime are almost the same word.
Insightful typo. Imagine what this place could be with that scum removed from the top.
32.3 trillion (Score:5, Insightful)
100,000 people world wide..... that's 500BUCKS stolen for every man women and child on earth....are you feeling angry yet?
This is one bank
Re: (Score:2)
Re:32.3 trillion (Score:5, Informative)
If they don't want to be part of society, they should leave. Go live in somalia. There are no taxes there.
If you want police, fire, sewers, working traffic lights, hospitals, a military, air traffic controllers, etc. etc. etc. then you will need to pay taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want police, fire, sewers, working traffic lights, hospitals, a military, air traffic controllers, etc. etc. etc. then you will need to pay taxes.
I don't see "want to be part of society" in that list. And I notice that you fatuously ignore that government spends a lot of money on things other than that small list.
Re: (Score:2)
fatÂuÂous
[fach-oo-uhs]
adjective
1.
foolish or inane, especially in an unconscious, complacent manner; silly.
2.
unreal; illusory.
---
Do you want a short pithy post or do you want a 11,000 page comprehensive statement?
I wasn't "fatuously" ignoring foolish expenses. But foolish expenses comprise under 3% of government spending. Wasteful spending (like the new unwanted tanks supported by both parties) is more common.
If you want police protection, then you are saying you want to be part of society.
If you
Re: (Score:2)
Do you want a short pithy post or do you want a 11,000 page comprehensive statement?
I want you to get a clue.
I wasn't "fatuously" ignoring foolish expenses.
Nonsense.
But foolish expenses comprise under 3% of government spending.
You just contradicted yourself immediately. One can only make such a claim with near complete ignorance, or perhaps delusion of how governments acquire, budget, and spend money.
""Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?"
Re: (Score:2)
This is a very niche belief.
So what? Most beliefs are niche beliefs.
I grew up in one of the richest areas on one of the wealthiest cities of the world, and never met anyone who voiced this belief.
That's because it's generally not an urban-based belief. A common error of thought is for people to assume everyone is like the people that they happen to know. One of the things I discover from interacting on Slashdot is that actual beliefs are much more varied that I would have experienced otherwise. Slashdot is obviously a very skewed sample, since I'm only seeing the people who bother to post, but it is still quite enlightening.
Proof of wrongdoing? (Score:2, Interesting)
This entire article is alarmist, and I even wonder if that information can be used in a court of law. As the IRS points out, here is nothing wrong in owning an offshore corporation or accounts. As long as you report it properly.
International Business Corporations are ridiculously common. You don't have to be rich, many people with average income have those. It just depends on how you spend your money and the business you're in.
Re:Proof of wrongdoing? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would be surprised if that's true. How common are IBCs among people making, say, $50k (the median U.S. household income)? How about even $80k, or $120k? My guess is that they're negligible until you get to more like $500k+, though I'd be interested in some numbers either way.
So you doubly act against the US. Not surprised. (Score:2)
Not only do you evade taxes (which if you were to hit the hornets nest enough, you would find out that nobody and nothing is out of reach of the US), you deal with the US's enemies.
GITMO would be too good for you since it's too close to a few tax domiciles.
Re: (Score:2)
State taxes are one good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that evasion (aka avoidance) as you describe it indicates a likelihood of hiding something that shouldn't be happening.
To suggest that "average" people have them is to provide the rhetorical equivalent of a human shield.
Re: (Score:2)
Tax evasion is illegal.
Tax avoidance is legal and common sense.
The two are not the same.
Misguided Speculation (Score:2)
BUT, their accounts are now known, AND linked to current tax accounts... whats going to happen is more auditing on accounts, they then refer to this illegal data to then pressure the people to pay more tax.... the threat of court would be more than enough to get people to conform
Re: (Score:3)
All the data, even if acquired illegally is admissible in court as long as the IRS wasn't involved in the illegal action that collected the data. If a guy breaks into your house and steals your laptop and finds kiddy porn on it, he could turn you in and the prosecutor will give him amnesty and they will use the data to put you in prison. The data would only be inadmissible if the police had been involved in the theft, but if they're hands are clean and the illegal action was by another party they are free t
Re: (Score:3)
Never heard of chain of custody? So a child pornographer broke into my house and stole my laptop and then got caught and decided to blame me. At least that's the point I'd expect any rational attorney to make.
Then let the avalanche of audits begin. (Score:2)
While there is a very good case for tax cuts, the enforcement of existing tax code comes first along with a permanent disincentive against evasion/"avoidance".
wow, what a terrible article. (Score:2)
This is what passes for journalism?
Australian and British citizens as well as families and associates of long-time despots, Wall Street swindlers, Eastern European and Indonesian billionaires, Russian corporate executives, international arms dealers and a sham-director-fronted company that the European Union has labeled as a cog in Iran’s nuclear-development program.
Way to be fair, objective, and unbiased.
Well, it is accurate. (Score:2)
It might not have the adjectives you wish to see, but it describes the evaders.
whoohoo, free college for the DA's kids! (Score:2)
Thats all that will come of this. Earmarked endowments and guaranteed income for those who didnt benefit the first go round.
Good colleges aint free you know. Esp if you have to afford a mistress and a gambling problem at the same time.
Negligent Administration! (Score:2)
Password set to "Welcome123!"
Tax evasion, Tax avoidance- functionally identical (Score:2)
Both cause the same harm, both show contempt for the citizens of the country evaded, and both represent and enable more criminal activity than any "legitimate" activity - yet only one of them gets punished.
Re: (Score:2)
If you do, you practice tax avoidance.
Re: (Score:2)
Like the article says, "There is nothing illegal about holding assets through offshore entities". And if those offshore entities are in lower tax jurisdictions, that's just tax avoidance. As long as its all reported in accordance with the tax regulations of each jurisdiction no laws are broken.
In addition, advisors may be subject to civil penalties or criminal prosecution for promoting such arrangements as a means to avoid or evade tax liability or circumvent information reporting requirements
My investment advisors are located offshore. What they are promoting is legal within their jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as its all reported in accordance with the tax regulations of each jurisdiction no laws are broken.
And that is true. However, just because you have reported it according to the laws in the offshore jurisdiction where those entities are located does not mean that U.S. laws(or those of other nations in which you may reside) for reporting are satisfied (I do not know the intricacies of tax law, but I do know that the U.S. has laws specifying that income gained in other countries, under certain circumstances, must be reported with one's U.S. tax return. I believe that some European countries have similar la
Re: (Score:2)
Never had to take or structure a deduction in a manner that wouldn't cause a competent accountant to take a long time to explain(without any prior involvement), involve jurisdictional games, nor would rely on untested territory of the tax code. I don't make a point of having my tax forms hit the proverbial hornets nest of Federal, State, and City revenue collections.
If you're suggesting that taking a simple deduction on one's 1040 and receiving a negative sum or a lowered positive sum is the same league as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I heard rumors that in order to engage in illegal betting online (in the USA), you needed to have some secret squirrel bank accounts.
Nah, you just need to have money in a foreign bank. Not everyone is as pathological about gambling as the US is. The UK and Ireland have a pretty common sense approach to it, for example. The credit card companies won't have anything to do with it (internet gamblers are notorious for canceling charges for losses apparently).
Re: (Score:2)
Simple solution: Move the corporation offshore.
US corporations have done 'tons and tons' of business in foreign countries for decades. Now its time to put the shoe on the other foot.
Re: (Score:2)
I have seen talented and creative people - more talented than anyone you see in the media - get drowned out just because he doesn't know the right people.
That is a very important talent as well. You seem to have a deeply flawed understanding of how innovation happens. It's not "Come up with a better idea and wonderful things magically happen."
Knowing the "right" people (or just enough "wrong" people with the resources you need), is a part of how things work. How is a "right" person supposed to know a great idea? A network of connections provides both a filter against bad ideas and a degree of trust.
Re: (Score:2)
... stop buying into memento streams.
Meme streams. This is why we can't have nice things, spellcheckers.
Try proofreading; that thing your grade two teacher taught you?. Since when has an unsupervised device ever done the right thing? The DWIM ("Do What I Mean") key has yet to be invented.
A good carpenter doesn't blame his tools. Complaining about your failure just makes you look like a fool.