Source documents: http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/front_content.php?idcat=103 and http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/29672/1/MPRA_paper_29672.pdf
Yeah, saw that on the BBC the other day... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18944097 This is the kind of thing that should have happened YEARS ago... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18949788 The government is promising to force "cowboy" financial firms to disclose the names of people using "aggressive" tax avoidance schemes. Treasury minister David Gauke said such products were "repugnant" and unfairly penalised ordinary taxpayers. The proposal is part of a government consultation on curbing avoidance. Last month Prime Minister David Cameron condemned the use by comedian Jimmy Carr of a Jersey-based scheme as "morally wrong". That was one of a number of high-profile cases of people using financial loopholes to legally avoid large tax bills. The Treasury estimates that 14% of all unpaid tax income is due to aggressive avoidance schemes, which are not illegal but are deemed unfairly to deprive the government of income. The proposals include: Measures to make finance companies disclose details of wealthy clients who take advantage of such schemes Firms having to disclose how all their tax avoidance schemes work, not just the ones for which they are being criticised Publishing warnings about tax avoidance schemes that are effectively being mis-sold, to make it easier for taxpayers to identify when they are on the receiving end of a hard sell by a disreputable promoter They comes alongside plans to legislate to curb tax avoidance through a general anti-avoidance rule. It annoys me beyond measure that it's the bloody TORIES that are doing this after many years of Labour rule. Mind you, whether much will come of it remains to be seen.
Accountants must be Officers of the Court. Their first legal responsibility is to the process. the second is to their employers. These offshore Dragon Hoards must be disclosed and may be repatriated after 15% is raked off the top. If funds are not disclosed they are subject to summary confiscation and the executives named on the filing statements held criminally responsible. If tiny little countries like the Caymen Islands do not cooperate, well. that is what the Marines are for and what they did the first half of this century. (see Butler, Smedley)
that's what happens when you tax the job creators. they take their toys and go play in another sandbox.
Good point. The thing is the banking system is closed. The vast bulk of funds only exist as a series of one and zeros in computers so, in a very real sense, if the rest of the world say funds held in tax havens don't exist, they don't. I'd say this gives us the ultimate sanction against tax havens. Nobody would put their money in, say, the Cayman Islands, if they thought it would be ignored by the rest of the banking system.
So we give them tax breaks to thank them for their once-upon-a-time job creation. You know, people created a whole lot of jobs in the 1950s and 1960s when we taxed the hell out of job creators. Just saying.
And then we get stories like this: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/2...ttle-bizarre-tax-dispute-over-canyon-collage/ Basically somebody inherited a stuffed bald eagle (real work of art, something special). IRS valued it at $65 million, but it is illegal to own, convey, sell or do anything with a bald eagle, living or dead. [informal exception was granted to previous owner (but apparently not the new owners) because it was created before any restrictions on bald eagles]. Auction house values it at ZERO. It has no real monetary value because owners cannot sell it, but they are being taxed on it's $65 mil "worth".
Meanwhile, non-dead bald eagles have come back from the brink of extinction due to commie pinko environmentalists demanding the end of DDT use and that damn government overregulation...
In 2009, there was a rash of bald eagle shootings in South Carolina. IIRC it was in and around the Tom Yawkey Wildlife Management Area.
Much more expansive article and analysis: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/a...-starring-a-stuffed-eagle.html?pagewanted=all Reason why they can't also in the NYT article.
Reason why is that the family claims the value is zero, which is did so that it wouldn't have to pay estate taxes. However, if the family agreed with the IRS's value of $65 million, then it could donate to a museum at a $65 million gift and take the tax write-off. I don't see the problem here, to me it looks as if the family is pulling a fast one in trying to dodge estate taxes.
First, the family has already paid $471 million! "Heirs to important art collections are often subject to large tax bills. In this case, the beneficiaries, Nina Sundell and Antonio Homem, have paid $471 million in federal and state estate taxes related to Mrs. Sonnabend’s roughly $1 billion art collection, which included works by Modern masters from Jasper Johns to Andy Warhol. The children have already sold off a large part of it, approximately $600 million worth, to pay the taxes they owed". Second, "since the children assert the Rauschenberg has no dollar value for estate purposes, they could not claim a charitable deduction by donating “Canyon” to a museum. If the I.R.S. were to prevail in its $65 million valuation, ... the heirs would still have to pay the $40.9 million in taxes and penalties regardless of a donation."
Note this clause - since the children assert the Rauschenberg has no dollar value for estate purposes Which is as I wrote -- the kids are in trouble here because they want a freebie. Presumably if the children agree to the IRS valuation, then they can make the donation at that valuation for a tax write-off. Greeks don't like paying taxes either.
AS soon as the law banning its sale passed 'Canyon' lost all commercial value. The family isnt trying to get something for nothing. The Govt removed this piece from the commercial valuation market by deliberate action. It has only intangible value.