Raoul Weil, a former UBS bankier responsible for the banks overseas accounts, has been arrested by the police for his role in helping american customers avoid taxes.
Thoughts?
Printable View
Raoul Weil, a former UBS bankier responsible for the banks overseas accounts, has been arrested by the police for his role in helping american customers avoid taxes.
Thoughts?
Not familiar with the specifics but avoiding tax isn't a crime, we have several constructions here in the Netherlands that make it possible. Tax-evation isn't the same thing as fraud. Gutmensch Bono and multinationals evade taxes here in the Netherlands, and our oh so beloved royal family evades taxes with a construction on the Kaiman islands. It isn't strictly illegal to avoid taxes. Tax-fraud is something else but it doesn't look like that at first glance
There's a difference between exploiting loopholes while following the letter of the law, and going beyond that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Since he's charged by the police, he's suspected of being in the latter category.
Is he guilty until proven innocent or is it the other way around?
In tax law, the line between a creative but perfectly legal construction and fraud can be very blurry.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
The fact that some legislators themselves don't understand the complicated tax laws they created themselves is best demonstrated by the existence of "anti abuse laws/regulations/measures" which basically come down to "ok, we made this law and there are probably loopholes in it, but we don't know how creative those damn fiscal experts are going to be, so we just implement a general "anti abuse regulation" that we can then (ab)use to cover up for our own sloppy legislative work".
Of course, such anti abuse measures are contested as well.
Tax law and fiscal expertise are very fascinating.
I like the one Starbucks did where they buy coffee from one of their owned companies in Switzerland for three times the wholesale cost for England, then say they are not making a profit, therefore, not liable to pay taxes.
Obviously, you would think "Would they go bankrupt?" the fact the debt is continuously forgiven by the Swiss company prevents that from happening, plus they own the Swiss company so the management still gets the profits.
Shouldn't work in any decent accounting system since debts that are forgiven count as profit. Besides, as long as it's taxed in Switzerland, you shouldn't care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
So a company makes over 3 billion in the UK, should not have to pay any tax?Quote:
Originally Posted by Conradus
Obviously I should care, they are exploiting the system. Everyone else has to pay tax, why should multi-nationals be excluded?
Article on it here
The 'tax forgiven' was a different loophole used by celebrities such as actors, football players, etc.
Quote:
The scheme is understood to work by UK earners "quitting" their job and signing new employment contracts with offshore shell companies. Those companies then "rehire" their new employee back out to the UK but take their earnings. The offshore company then pays their employee a much lower salary but also "loans" them thousands a month. However these loans can be written down as tax liabilities, and so reducing the overall bill to the government.
Are those 3 billion profits or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
If they have 4 billion in costs, then obviously, they don't need to pay taxes, since they are not making profit.
If the Swiss company makes profit, then that company will have to pay taxes.
"The debt is forgiven" is rather vague and I'm sure it's much more complicated than that. There are plenty of constructions a multinational can use to make sure the biggest chunk of the income of your group is taxed in the right country (read, the country that's most beneficial for you) and most of them are perfectly legal.
Of course, from a moral point of view, there's much to say about the unfairness of it all, but that doesn't mean it's illegal.
Taken from the article:Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
- Starbucks UK reported losses so did not have to pay corporation tax, but told investors that it was "profitable".
- It said the coffee giant had reported losses in each of the last five years and therefore did not have to pay any corporation tax, yet executives told analysts that the UK business was "successful", "profitable" and they were "very pleased with the performance".
- It identified payments between companies within the group as a factor in reducing its taxable income in the UK.
They are purposefully exploiting the tax system. Whilst 'Tax Avoidance' isn't strictly illegal, by common-sense, not being able to see them fleece the system is naive.
Good way to counter it would be a 10% of all sale transactions. They would start doing their paperwork correctly then to pay their due to avoid a massive loss.
Why don't you just stroke a check to the UK exchequer? Save the step of having Starbucks collect the tax on your behalf and pass it to the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
You do realize who actually pays "corporate" taxes, do you not?
Corporations? The clue is in the name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Should corporations be able to function as independent institutions completely free from the objections that bind the common-man, exploiting society and institute their own separate system which is frees itself from their obligations under the guise 'not being really there'.
I am not actually being obtuse, I understand you are trying to say it is an indirect tax on the people, but that wearing blinkers to the situation. When you have economic-institutions completely side-stepping society and only acting like a financial drain to no benefit, maybe you will start to realise they are no better than a parasite.
Means-of-Production should serve society opposed to exploiting it.
Whilst there are cases where the 'right thing' does happen, there is a great many which do not and these should be cracked down upon. Because, who is the tax avoidance serving? It isn't the consumer, it goes straight into the pockets of CEOs and Shareholders living it up at our expense.
Ask Al Capone about that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I think corporate taxes are silly, because they're simply passed on to the consumer. That tax burden is, ultimately if not easily recognizably, always passed to the "little gal." Ultimately, the individuals in a polity shoulder the tax burden for that polity. To me, it therefore seems more of a political tool, since the government is (tacitly if not explicitly) hiding some of what it is extracting from its residents and citizens in the guise of consumer prices. I'd love to see everybody nice and aware of the tax burden they shoulder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
That said, I am not going to tell you that the "invisible hand" is a perfect tool for guidance. It may work well with prices and the like, but we tend to find out about manufacturers and others cutting corners only After the water table has been poisoned or the waste dump starts to leak, or the smog starts doing damage. Obviously, the general welfare does require regulation that prevents such, just as the government must establish and enforce standards that minimize or prevent fraud. Most corporate "citizens" are honorable, but by no means all. Regulation, enforcement and punishment must also play their role.
Via my retirement accounts, I AM a shareholder. The point of being a shareholder is to let them use your money to fund their operations and improve them and thereby make you more money. Assuming the organization in which I am investing is ethical, I have little problem with that. I employ a financial advisor to assist in my investment choices and to spread out those investments enough so that an as yet undiscovered "Enron" cannot wreck my finances. I, like a large majority of "shareholders," am not living it up at anyone's expense.
CEO overpaid? Probably true of a number of organizations. Their shareholders should be quick to oust them if their compensation is out of line -- though that requires an investor to actually put in a little effort.
Al Capone is an absolute sissy compared to the Dutch royal family and their Bilderberg groupQuote:
Originally Posted by Veho Nex
Capone was a syphy, but never a sissy.
His ability to commit crime and acquire plunder does pale in comparison with almost any of the royal families of Europe -- Capone is small potatoes at that level.
For that matter in his own milieu, Luciano and Lansky headed the syndicate for a reason -- and Lansky was easily the sharpest of the lot.
Speaking of tangled webs: this rarely happens, because important shareholders in many corporations are executives in others, and vice-versa. They all have an incentive to keep each other highly-paid. :wiseguy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Small investors like (I assume) you tend not to have much clout (though they do seem to be organizing in reaction/protest more nowadays). Of course top executives frequently are removed, to appease angry hordes of small investors or the market at large - but since most of these people are all in bed with each other, they just get shuffled around to the next corporation, with a new office. This also explains how so many CEOs (everyone's favorite exec to discuss) can not only get away with progressively worsening performance, but be rewarded for it. Though I doubt even a Steve Jobs should get compensation to the tune of 300X the average salary of non-execs, especially given that for the longest time the normal ratio was not even 50:1...
That's an interesting chart - it shows a relatively modest rise until 1980, by 1985 the upwards path rises sharple, peaking in 200 before dropping down again, but still at idiotic levels.
A direct result of Tatcherism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
That's a fallacy. In the first stage, it implies that a non-taxed company would be nice and not already go for maximum profitabillity. Any price hike due to (non-VAT) taxes is an attempt to increase prices with the hope that the costumers will accept it. But since the consumer tax cuts into the company profits, the company would still be profitable, even with the new taxes. VAT works diffferently and is an explicit consumer tax, so they behave diffferently, even if they also work a bit as a profit tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
In the second stage, a company that sends out their profits out of the country are de facto already taxing their costumers in the worst possible way (the "profit tax" gives nothing back to the consumer), so any company tax would actually give a higher return to the "little gal". While certainly not always the case, it does contradict your statement, implying more complexity.
The origin of company taxes are probably that there's a bucketload of money there, but I also suspect they help against "accumulation of wealth" (think chip leader in poker), that stifles the smaller players.