Org Mobile Site
Thread: Swiss bankier arrested in Italy
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?
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
Originally Posted by Fragony:
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.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
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?
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.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
There's a difference between exploiting loopholes while following the letter of the law, and going beyond that.
In tax law, the line between a creative but perfectly legal construction and fraud can be very blurry.There's a difference between exploiting loopholes while following the letter of the law, and going beyond that.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Tiaexz:
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.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.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Not familiar with the specifics but avoiding tax isn't a crime,
Ask Al Capone about that one.Not familiar with the specifics but avoiding tax isn't a crime,
Originally Posted by Veho Nex:
Ask Al Capone about that one.
Al Capone is an absolute sissy compared to the Dutch royal family and their Bilderberg groupAsk Al Capone about that one.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
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.
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. 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.
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...
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO