gaaboard.com

how the rich get richer: the shadowy world of tax havens.

https://panamapapers.icij.org

The rich and famous, the 0.001percenters. All mentioned, all legally documented, signatures everywhere...

From Putin to Messi, from UK Conservative party donors to South American generals. Damning evidence.

They haven't even come close to trawling through most of it, and apparently the leaker says "there's more to come"

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/retail-and-services/panama-papers-anglo-irish-bank-was-repeatedly-recommended-to-clients-1.2597669

"Anglo Irish Bank's branch in Austria was among the small number of banks that were repeatedly recommended by Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca (MF) to its clients, the leaked Panama Papers show."

I can't see the rich getting much richer.  In the US the top 1% own 40% of everything and doubling that is not on. Most financial assets are seriously overvalued and political volatility is on the rise. Tax havens are a joke and mean the rich have given up on investment.
Accountancy should be replaced by a profession that is honest. The main role of accountants these days including the big 4 is tax avoidance.

Quote from: seafoid on April 04, 2016, 07:53:53 PM
I can't see the rich getting much richer.  In the US the top 1% own 40% of everything and doubling that is not on. Most financial assets are seriously overvalued and political volatility is on the rise. Tax havens are a joke and mean the rich have given up on investment.
Accountancy should be replaced by a profession that is honest. The main role of accountants these days including the big 4 is tax avoidance.

How do you replace a profession ffs? Accountants are no different to lawyers, engineers, judges, doctors.  They provide a service and there are good and bad in them all.

The sheer size of the leak is massive.  Multiple times bigger than any of the files wiki leaks ever got hold of for its big exposes.

Quote from: TabClear on April 04, 2016, 09:23:42 PM
The sheer size of the leak is massive.  Multiple times bigger than any of the files wiki leaks ever got hold of for its big exposes.

Who would have an interest in exposing this or what's their motivation? Is it some hacking group like Anonymous or what?

Tax evasion is everywhere ; tradesmen , politicians ,  service staff , etc.

The penalties are too soft . 

These boys are no different to anyone who, for instance, has taken/paid cash for a job to avoid paying VAT on it.  They're doing the exact same thing on a bigger scale.  Hands up anyone who can say they've never done something like that.

Quote from: TabClear on April 04, 2016, 09:10:34 PM

Quote from: seafoid on April 04, 2016, 07:53:53 PM
I can't see the rich getting much richer.  In the US the top 1% own 40% of everything and doubling that is not on. Most financial assets are seriously overvalued and political volatility is on the rise. Tax havens are a joke and mean the rich have given up on investment.
Accountancy should be replaced by a profession that is honest. The main role of accountants these days including the big 4 is tax avoidance.

How do you replace a profession ffs? Accountants are no different to lawyers, engineers, judges, doctors.  They provide a service and there are good and bad in them all.

Take their licences off them until the profession is cleaned up . Engineers don't facilitate the wholesale pauperization of society to benefit the top 1%

Quote from: Franko on April 04, 2016, 11:04:13 PM
These boys are no different to anyone who, for instance, has taken/paid cash for a job to avoid paying VAT on it.  They're doing the exact same thing on a bigger scale.  Hands up anyone who can say they've never done something like that.

I sold xmas trees for a few days one xmas for cash. Think I got cash once for a day loading a freezer boat in Killybegs when I was 16 or 17 when they called in help to meet a deadline. And a neighbour once gave me 20 pounds for baling his hay for him.

Does that put me on the same moral plane as someone putting millions or even billions out of reach of the taxman?

Quote from: J70 on April 05, 2016, 01:57:16 AM

Quote from: Franko on April 04, 2016, 11:04:13 PM
These boys are no different to anyone who, for instance, has taken/paid cash for a job to avoid paying VAT on it.  They're doing the exact same thing on a bigger scale.  Hands up anyone who can say they've never done something like that.

I sold xmas trees for a few days one xmas for cash. Think I got cash once for a day loading a freezer boat in Killybegs when I was 16 or 17 when they called in help to meet a deadline. And a neighbour once gave me 20 pounds for baling his hay for him.

Does that put me on the same moral plane as someone putting millions or even billions out of reach of the taxman?

If your main reason for taking cash was so you could avoid paying whatever tax was due on the money, then yeah.  I don't see how you can argue otherwise.  Exact same thing - different scale.

*Actually, if you want to get really fussy, you were worse, as (if I've got it right) what these boyos were up to was strictly speaking legal.

Quote from: seafoid on April 04, 2016, 11:06:38 PM

Quote from: TabClear on April 04, 2016, 09:10:34 PM

Quote from: seafoid on April 04, 2016, 07:53:53 PM
I can't see the rich getting much richer.  In the US the top 1% own 40% of everything and doubling that is not on. Most financial assets are seriously overvalued and political volatility is on the rise. Tax havens are a joke and mean the rich have given up on investment.
Accountancy should be replaced by a profession that is honest. The main role of accountants these days including the big 4 is tax avoidance.

How do you replace a profession ffs? Accountants are no different to lawyers, engineers, judges, doctors.  They provide a service and there are good and bad in them all.

Take their licences off them until the profession is cleaned up . Engineers don't facilitate the wholesale pauperization of society to benefit the top 1%

Actually they probably do it just as much if not more....most Engineers work for large corporations that maximise profit for their wealthy shareholders and executives.

Quote from: seafoid on April 04, 2016, 11:06:38 PM

Quote from: TabClear on April 04, 2016, 09:10:34 PM

Quote from: seafoid on April 04, 2016, 07:53:53 PM
I can't see the rich getting much richer.  In the US the top 1% own 40% of everything and doubling that is not on. Most financial assets are seriously overvalued and political volatility is on the rise. Tax havens are a joke and mean the rich have given up on investment.
Accountancy should be replaced by a profession that is honest. The main role of accountants these days including the big 4 is tax avoidance.

How do you replace a profession ffs? Accountants are no different to lawyers, engineers, judges, doctors.  They provide a service and there are good and bad in them all.

Take their licences off them until the profession is cleaned up . Engineers don't facilitate the wholesale pauperization of society to benefit the top 1%

Lol.  Every accountant to hand in their calculators.  FTSE 100 companies telling their shareholders (that's pension funds, ordinary people, employees etc) that they aren't sure if they are making any money or can pay a dividend because every accountant has to prove their innocence. Wise up ffs

Interesting that the journalists would tell us how morally wrong it is for companies to reduce tax, even where everything done has been completely legal - but that it is fine to steal papers from a lawyer and to publish the contents of the stolen documents!

It seems that some of the stuff here is pure tax evasion - individuals putting money offshore to evade paying tax on the interest, and perhaps the capital earned wasn't taxed either. I'm sure Revenue will go hard after the Irish guys mentioned.

A family friend was caught having an offshore bank account a few years ago and (rightly) got done for interest and penalties. He said it was his bank who gave him the advice rather than an accountant or solicitior. I'd say that its the same in most cases. Certainly none of the big household name Irish accountant or lawyer firms would knowingly get involved in this type of tax evasion.

Using a haven to reduce multi-national corporate tax liabilities, by diverting profits to companies resident in such havens, is a completely different thing. Mostly completely legal (and plenty of involvement by the big Irish accountant and lawyer firms) and facilitated by US tax rules.

I know that a lot of the high rollers around belfast got stung by the film schemes (a la Jimmy Carr )and IoM accounts back in the boom. Hmrc were all over that for years locally

A simple explanation from Reddit....

"When you get a quarter you put it in the piggy bank. The piggy bank is on a shelf in your closet. Your mom knows this and she checks on it every once in a while, so she knows when you put more money in or spend it.

Now one day, you might decide "I don't want mom to look at my money." So you go over to Johnny's house with an extra piggy bank that you're going to keep in his room. You write your name on it and put it in his closet. Johnny's mom is always very busy, so she never has time to check on his piggy bank. So you can keep yours there and it will stay a secret.

Now all the kids in the neighborhood think this is a good idea, and everyone goes to Johnny's house with extra piggy banks. Now Johnny's closet is full of piggy banks from everyone in the neighborhood.

One day, Johnny's mom comes home and sees all the piggy banks. She gets very mad and calls everyone's parents to let them know.

Now not everyone did this for a bad reason. Eric's older brother always steals from his piggy bank, so he just wanted a better hiding spot. Timmy wanted to save up to buy his mom a birthday present without her knowing. Sammy just did it because he thought it was fun. But many kids did do it for a bad reason. Jacob was stealing people's lunch money and didn't want his parents to figure it out. Michael was stealing money from his mom's purse. Fat Bobby's parents put him on a diet, and didn't want them to figure out when he was buying candy.

Now in real life, many very important people were just caught hiding their piggy banks at Johnny's house in Panama. Today their moms all found out. Pretty soon, we'll know more about which of these important people were doing it for bad reasons and which were doing it for good reasons. But almost everyone is in trouble regardless, because it's against the rules to keep secrets no matter what."

Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% From Panama Leak 

3 Apr, 2016 

Whoever leaked the Mossack Fonseca papers appears motivated by a genuine desire to expose the system that enables the ultra wealthy to hide their massive stashes, often corruptly obtained and all involved in tax avoidance. These Panamanian lawyers hide the wealth of a significant proportion of the 1%, and the massive leak of their documents ought to be a wonderful thing.

Unfortunately the leaker has made the dreadful mistake of turning to the western corporate media to publicise the results. In consequence the first major story, published today by the Guardian, is all about Vladimir Putin and a cellist on the fiddle. As it happens I believe the story and have no doubt Putin is bent.

But why focus on Russia? Russian wealth is only a tiny minority of the money hidden away with the aid of Mossack Fonseca. In fact, it soon becomes obvious that the selective reporting is going to stink.

The Suddeutsche Zeitung, which received the leak, gives a detailed explanation of the methodology the corporate media used to search the files. The main search they have done is for names associated with breaking UN sanctions regimes. The Guardian reports this too and helpfully lists those countries as Zimbabwe, North Korea, Russia and Syria. The filtering of this Mossack Fonseca information by the corporate media follows a direct western governmental agenda. There is no mention at all of use of Mossack Fonseca by massive western corporations or western billionaires – the main customers. And the Guardian is quick to reassure that "much of the leaked material will remain private."

What do you expect? The leak is being managed by the grandly but laughably named "International Consortium of Investigative Journalists", which is funded and organised entirely by the USA's Center for Public Integrity. Their funders include

Ford Foundation
Carnegie Endowment
Rockefeller Family Fund
W K Kellogg Foundation
Open Society Foundation (Soros)

among many others. Do not expect a genuine expose of western capitalism. The dirty secrets of western corporations will remain unpublished.

Expect hits at Russia, Iran and Syria and some tiny "balancing" western country like Iceland. A superannuated UK peer or two will be sacrificed – someone already with dementia.

The corporate media – the Guardian and BBC in the UK – have exclusive access to the database which you and I cannot see. They are protecting themselves from even seeing western corporations' sensitive information by only looking at those documents which are brought up by specific searches such as UN sanctions busters. Never forget the Guardian smashed its copies of the Snowden files on the instruction of MI6.

What if they did Mossack Fonseca database searches on the owners of all the corporate media and their companies, and all the editors and senior corporate media journalists? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on all the most senior people at the BBC? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every donor to the Center for Public Integrity and their companies?

What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every listed company in the western stock exchanges, and on every western millionaire they could trace?

That would be much more interesting. I know Russia and China are corrupt, you don't have to tell me that. What if you look at things that we might, here in the west, be able to rise up and do something about?

And what if you corporate lapdogs let the people see the actual data?

UPDATE

Hundreds of thousands of people have read this post in the 11 hours since it was published – despite it being overnight here in the UK. There are 235,918 "impressions" on twitter (as twitter calls them) and over 3,700 people have "shared" so far on Facebook, bringing scores of new readers each.

I would remind you that this blog is produced free for the public good and you are welcome to republish or re-use this article or any other material freely anywhere without requesting further permission

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/richard-bruton-panama-papers-tax-evaders-will-be-vigorously-prosecuted-728045.html


The Enterprise Minister Richard Bruton says anyone found to be evading tax will be prosecuted.

Mr Bruton was speaking after it emerged more than 300 companies in Ireland are mentioned in the the biggest ever leak of financial information.

The details from a law firm in Panama have exposed the offshore holdings of some of the world's most prominent politicians, celebrities and sport stars, including the Russian President Vladmir Putin and FIFA's ethics committee.

The papers also link a company registered on Botanic Avenue in Drumcondra in Dublin to international arms deals.

Minister Bruton, says if there is any evidence of wrongdoing, it will be dealt with.

He said: "Well these are clearly concerns and as you know the government have been very active in developing through the so-called BEPS process through the OECD.

"Obviously if there are offences of Irish law discovered in this, you can be absolutely sure they will be vigorously prosecuted - but at this point we don't know that."

Ha ha, yeah sure it will Richard.

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 12:21:45 PM
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/richard-bruton-panama-papers-tax-evaders-will-be-vigorously-prosecuted-728045.html

Minister Bruton, says if there is any evidence of wrongdoing, it will be dealt with.

I'm sure it will, it won't be up to Richard but to the Revenue, who are fairly proactive on these matters.

Quote from: armaghniac on April 05, 2016, 12:39:19 PM

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 12:21:45 PM
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/richard-bruton-panama-papers-tax-evaders-will-be-vigorously-prosecuted-728045.html

Minister Bruton, says if there is any evidence of wrongdoing, it will be dealt with.

I'm sure it will, it won't be up to Richard but to the Revenue, who are fairly proactive on these matters.

Ha ha sure they will Armaghniac. God bless your naivety.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/not-one-person-prosecuted-for-ansbacher-scam-29150283.html

Even if the great and the good are up to their neck in it ?
It'll be the usual Moriartyesque fudge.
Meanwhile the normal man on the street will do hard time for not paying the TV licence fee.

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 12:45:07 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on April 05, 2016, 12:39:19 PM

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 12:21:45 PM
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/richard-bruton-panama-papers-tax-evaders-will-be-vigorously-prosecuted-728045.html

Minister Bruton, says if there is any evidence of wrongdoing, it will be dealt with.

I'm sure it will, it won't be up to Richard but to the Revenue, who are fairly proactive on these matters.

Ha ha sure they will Armaghniac. God bless your naivety.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/not-one-person-prosecuted-for-ansbacher-scam-29150283.html

Did you read the article?

Not only did they collect the €50m due in tax, they collected another €62m on top of that in interest and penalties.
Happened far too long ago to have any hope of successful court prosecution, but getting the money off the cheaters, was the main thing.

If you are named on any of these lists, you are 100% certain to get a letter from Revenue asking you to explain.

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 12:52:08 PM

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 12:45:07 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on April 05, 2016, 12:39:19 PM

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 12:21:45 PM
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/richard-bruton-panama-papers-tax-evaders-will-be-vigorously-prosecuted-728045.html

Minister Bruton, says if there is any evidence of wrongdoing, it will be dealt with.

I'm sure it will, it won't be up to Richard but to the Revenue, who are fairly proactive on these matters.

Ha ha sure they will Armaghniac. God bless your naivety.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/not-one-person-prosecuted-for-ansbacher-scam-29150283.html

Did you read the article?

Not only did they collect the €50m due in tax, they collected another €62m on top of that in interest and penalties.
Happened far too long ago to have any hope of successful court prosecution, but getting the money off the cheaters, was the main thing.

If you are named on any of these lists, you are 100% certain to get a letter from Revenue asking you to explain.

Well I did post up the link so yes, I did read the article. You reckon Ireland is a no go area for tax avoiders/evaders because of this? A slap on the wrists by way of a fine? Quaking in their boots after that one. White Collar crime is indelible in this country. To my knowledge only one person has ever been convicted of insider trading in Ireland. Wealthy individuals and corporations are well looked after here. Lack of legislation ensures no laws are broken and lack of resources given to the likes of the DOCE mean that any laws that are broken are rarely followed. How many have been successfully prosecuted for what happened in the crash? Three directors of Anglo is all I can think of. Moriarty tribunal, multi national corpo tax etc etc etc.

You may well have a point about lack of legislation and that is down to the likes of Bruton. My point was the Revenue do make a strong effort with the lowers available to them.

Quote from: Franko on April 05, 2016, 07:08:40 AM

Quote from: J70 on April 05, 2016, 01:57:16 AM

Quote from: Franko on April 04, 2016, 11:04:13 PM
These boys are no different to anyone who, for instance, has taken/paid cash for a job to avoid paying VAT on it.  They're doing the exact same thing on a bigger scale.  Hands up anyone who can say they've never done something like that.

I sold xmas trees for a few days one xmas for cash. Think I got cash once for a day loading a freezer boat in Killybegs when I was 16 or 17 when they called in help to meet a deadline. And a neighbour once gave me 20 pounds for baling his hay for him.

Does that put me on the same moral plane as someone putting millions or even billions out of reach of the taxman?

If your main reason for taking cash was so you could avoid paying whatever tax was due on the money, then yeah.  I don't see how you can argue otherwise.  Exact same thing - different scale.

*Actually, if you want to get really fussy, you were worse, as (if I've got it right) what these boyos were up to was strictly speaking legal.

So accepting a few quid here and there for a day's work as a teenager might be morally worse than systematic cheating of your government out of millions and billions, depending on whether it was accomplished  through some legal loophole?

Quote from: armaghniac on April 05, 2016, 01:34:44 PM
You may well have a point about lack of legislation and that is down to the likes of Bruton. My point was the Revenue do make a strong effort with the lowers available to them.

Revenue, due to the powers given to them wouldn't be great at tackling the rich and powerful so are complicit in transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. They were set up to put manners on John Joe Soap. Doubt many MNC's pay the full 12.5% rate and that falls under their remit I think. No appetite to tackle this. Overlords will be having a quite word in Revenue's ear to leave well alone unless it gets too noisy.

Quote from: J70 on April 05, 2016, 01:57:21 PM

Quote from: Franko on April 05, 2016, 07:08:40 AM

Quote from: J70 on April 05, 2016, 01:57:16 AM

Quote from: Franko on April 04, 2016, 11:04:13 PM
These boys are no different to anyone who, for instance, has taken/paid cash for a job to avoid paying VAT on it.  They're doing the exact same thing on a bigger scale.  Hands up anyone who can say they've never done something like that.

I sold xmas trees for a few days one xmas for cash. Think I got cash once for a day loading a freezer boat in Killybegs when I was 16 or 17 when they called in help to meet a deadline. And a neighbour once gave me 20 pounds for baling his hay for him.

Does that put me on the same moral plane as someone putting millions or even billions out of reach of the taxman?

If your main reason for taking cash was so you could avoid paying whatever tax was due on the money, then yeah.  I don't see how you can argue otherwise.  Exact same thing - different scale.

*Actually, if you want to get really fussy, you were worse, as (if I've got it right) what these boyos were up to was strictly speaking legal.

So accepting a few quid here and there for a day's work as a teenager might be morally worse than systematic cheating of your government out of millions and billions, depending on whether it was accomplished  through some legal loophole?

I'll repeat.

If your main reason for taking cash was so you could avoid paying whatever tax was due on the money, then yeah.  I don't see how you can argue otherwise.  Exact same thing - different scale.

It's the same attitude - "I know I should be paying this, but I'm gonna skirt the system so I can keep the money".

If same teenager comes into serious wealth later in life, do you think that attitude's going to change?

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 02:05:52 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on April 05, 2016, 01:34:44 PM
You may well have a point about lack of legislation and that is down to the likes of Bruton. My point was the Revenue do make a strong effort with the lowers available to them.

Revenue, due to the powers given to them wouldn't be great at tackling the rich and powerful so are complicit in transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. They were set up to put manners on John Joe Soap. Doubt many MNC's pay the full 12.5% rate and that falls under their remit I think. No appetite to tackle this. Overlords will be having a quite word in Revenue's ear to leave well alone unless it gets too noisy.

It is remarkable how some sections of the media have managed to persuade many people that MNCs don't pay 12.5% on their Irish profits. And that payments such as royalties to parent companies for the use of brand names and technology are somehow false, when the OECD has rules setting how exactly what is fair and what isn't, and Ireland follows those rules. The fact of the matter is, despite what some idiots in the media might try and portay, Irish tax resident companies pay tax at 12.5% on their profits.

Yes, the Revenue will go after John Joe Soap, and will nail him if he doesn't pay his tax. But a number of years ago they set up a Large Cases Division, directly to go after the big taxpayer to ensure the Irish Exchequer gets what's due to it.

The Apple case is the one that smells bad from an Irish point of view, which is why the EU have gone after it. But its a very different strucuture to the ones most of the famous MNCs in Ireland use. Unlike most of the others it seems that was ruling based rather than based on OECD rules, but that happened in 1980, a long time ago.

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 02:05:52 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on April 05, 2016, 01:34:44 PM
You may well have a point about lack of legislation and that is down to the likes of Bruton. My point was the Revenue do make a strong effort with the lowers available to them.

Revenue, due to the powers given to them wouldn't be great at tackling the rich and powerful so are complicit in transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. They were set up to put manners on John Joe Soap. Doubt many MNC's pay the full 12.5% rate and that falls under their remit I think. No appetite to tackle this. Overlords will be having a quite word in Revenue's ear to leave well alone unless it gets too noisy.

It is remarkable how some sections of the media have managed to persuade many people that MNCs don't pay 12.5% on their Irish profits. And that payments such as royalties to parent companies for the use of brand names and technology are somehow false, when the OECD has rules setting how exactly what is fair and what isn't, and Ireland follows those rules. The fact of the matter is, despite what some idiots in the media might try and portay, Irish tax resident companies pay tax at 12.5% on their profits.

Yes, the Revenue will go after John Joe Soap, and will nail him if he doesn't pay his tax. But a number of years ago they set up a Large Cases Division, directly to go after the big taxpayer to ensure the Irish Exchequer gets what's due to it.

The Apple case is the one that smells bad from an Irish point of view, which is why the EU have gone after it. But its a very different strucuture to the ones most of the famous MNCs in Ireland use. Unlike most of the others it seems that was ruling based rather than based on OECD rules, but that happened in 1980, a long time ago.

So the likes of Google, Apple and Facebook don't get preferential treatment when compared to their indigenous counterpart?

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 03:24:32 PM

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 02:05:52 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on April 05, 2016, 01:34:44 PM
You may well have a point about lack of legislation and that is down to the likes of Bruton. My point was the Revenue do make a strong effort with the lowers available to them.

Revenue, due to the powers given to them wouldn't be great at tackling the rich and powerful so are complicit in transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. They were set up to put manners on John Joe Soap. Doubt many MNC's pay the full 12.5% rate and that falls under their remit I think. No appetite to tackle this. Overlords will be having a quite word in Revenue's ear to leave well alone unless it gets too noisy.

It is remarkable how some sections of the media have managed to persuade many people that MNCs don't pay 12.5% on their Irish profits. And that payments such as royalties to parent companies for the use of brand names and technology are somehow false, when the OECD has rules setting how exactly what is fair and what isn't, and Ireland follows those rules. The fact of the matter is, despite what some idiots in the media might try and portay, Irish tax resident companies pay tax at 12.5% on their profits.

Yes, the Revenue will go after John Joe Soap, and will nail him if he doesn't pay his tax. But a number of years ago they set up a Large Cases Division, directly to go after the big taxpayer to ensure the Irish Exchequer gets what's due to it.

The Apple case is the one that smells bad from an Irish point of view, which is why the EU have gone after it. But its a very different strucuture to the ones most of the famous MNCs in Ireland use. Unlike most of the others it seems that was ruling based rather than based on OECD rules, but that happened in 1980, a long time ago.

So the likes of Google, Apple and Facebook don't get preferential treatment when compared to their indigenous counterpart?

Correct re Google and Facebook.
Apple's tax ruling is from 1980 and the EU is investigating whether it gave them preferential treatment.

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 02:05:52 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on April 05, 2016, 01:34:44 PM
You may well have a point about lack of legislation and that is down to the likes of Bruton. My point was the Revenue do make a strong effort with the lowers available to them.

Revenue, due to the powers given to them wouldn't be great at tackling the rich and powerful so are complicit in transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. They were set up to put manners on John Joe Soap. Doubt many MNC's pay the full 12.5% rate and that falls under their remit I think. No appetite to tackle this. Overlords will be having a quite word in Revenue's ear to leave well alone unless it gets too noisy.

It is remarkable how some sections of the media have managed to persuade many people that MNCs don't pay 12.5% on their Irish profits. And that payments such as royalties to parent companies for the use of brand names and technology are somehow false, when the OECD has rules setting how exactly what is fair and what isn't, and Ireland follows those rules. The fact of the matter is, despite what some idiots in the media might try and portay, Irish tax resident companies pay tax at 12.5% on their profits.

Yes, the Revenue will go after John Joe Soap, and will nail him if he doesn't pay his tax. But a number of years ago they set up a Large Cases Division, directly to go after the big taxpayer to ensure the Irish Exchequer gets what's due to it.

The Apple case is the one that smells bad from an Irish point of view, which is why the EU have gone after it. But its a very different strucuture to the ones most of the famous MNCs in Ireland use. Unlike most of the others it seems that was ruling based rather than based on OECD rules, but that happened in 1980, a long time ago.

Are you referring to the recently implemented OECD rules to prevent rampant tax avoidance by multi national companies?
http://oecdinsights.org/2015/10/05/plans-to-tackle-tax-avoidance-announced/

We have yet to see the effects of these new OECD rules.
There is little cause yet to be optimistic.

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 03:45:00 PM

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 03:24:32 PM

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 02:05:52 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on April 05, 2016, 01:34:44 PM
You may well have a point about lack of legislation and that is down to the likes of Bruton. My point was the Revenue do make a strong effort with the lowers available to them.

Revenue, due to the powers given to them wouldn't be great at tackling the rich and powerful so are complicit in transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. They were set up to put manners on John Joe Soap. Doubt many MNC's pay the full 12.5% rate and that falls under their remit I think. No appetite to tackle this. Overlords will be having a quite word in Revenue's ear to leave well alone unless it gets too noisy.

It is remarkable how some sections of the media have managed to persuade many people that MNCs don't pay 12.5% on their Irish profits. And that payments such as royalties to parent companies for the use of brand names and technology are somehow false, when the OECD has rules setting how exactly what is fair and what isn't, and Ireland follows those rules. The fact of the matter is, despite what some idiots in the media might try and portay, Irish tax resident companies pay tax at 12.5% on their profits.

Yes, the Revenue will go after John Joe Soap, and will nail him if he doesn't pay his tax. But a number of years ago they set up a Large Cases Division, directly to go after the big taxpayer to ensure the Irish Exchequer gets what's due to it.

The Apple case is the one that smells bad from an Irish point of view, which is why the EU have gone after it. But its a very different strucuture to the ones most of the famous MNCs in Ireland use. Unlike most of the others it seems that was ruling based rather than based on OECD rules, but that happened in 1980, a long time ago.

So the likes of Google, Apple and Facebook don't get preferential treatment when compared to their indigenous counterpart?

Correct re Google and Facebook.
Apple's tax ruling is from 1980 and the EU is investigating whether it gave them preferential treatment.

Some would argue that OECD standards would be a pretty low base to judge from but even allowing for that the Govt bending over backwards for MNC's while refusing to tackle upward only rents for indigenous companies would suggest otherwise.

Quote from: Main Street on April 05, 2016, 04:01:06 PM

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 02:05:52 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on April 05, 2016, 01:34:44 PM
You may well have a point about lack of legislation and that is down to the likes of Bruton. My point was the Revenue do make a strong effort with the lowers available to them.

Revenue, due to the powers given to them wouldn't be great at tackling the rich and powerful so are complicit in transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. They were set up to put manners on John Joe Soap. Doubt many MNC's pay the full 12.5% rate and that falls under their remit I think. No appetite to tackle this. Overlords will be having a quite word in Revenue's ear to leave well alone unless it gets too noisy.

It is remarkable how some sections of the media have managed to persuade many people that MNCs don't pay 12.5% on their Irish profits. And that payments such as royalties to parent companies for the use of brand names and technology are somehow false, when the OECD has rules setting how exactly what is fair and what isn't, and Ireland follows those rules. The fact of the matter is, despite what some idiots in the media might try and portay, Irish tax resident companies pay tax at 12.5% on their profits.

Yes, the Revenue will go after John Joe Soap, and will nail him if he doesn't pay his tax. But a number of years ago they set up a Large Cases Division, directly to go after the big taxpayer to ensure the Irish Exchequer gets what's due to it.

The Apple case is the one that smells bad from an Irish point of view, which is why the EU have gone after it. But its a very different strucuture to the ones most of the famous MNCs in Ireland use. Unlike most of the others it seems that was ruling based rather than based on OECD rules, but that happened in 1980, a long time ago.

Are you referring to the recently implemented OECD rules to prevent rampant tax avoidance by multi national companies?
http://oecdinsights.org/2015/10/05/plans-to-tackle-tax-avoidance-announced/

We have yet to see the effects of these new OECD rules.
There is little cause yet to be optimistic.

That's not Irish tax avoidance.

When MNCs do implement tax saving structures, they usually aim to reduce tax in high paying countries such as the US.

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 04:06:12 PM

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 03:45:00 PM

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 03:24:32 PM

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 02:05:52 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on April 05, 2016, 01:34:44 PM
You may well have a point about lack of legislation and that is down to the likes of Bruton. My point was the Revenue do make a strong effort with the lowers available to them.

Revenue, due to the powers given to them wouldn't be great at tackling the rich and powerful so are complicit in transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. They were set up to put manners on John Joe Soap. Doubt many MNC's pay the full 12.5% rate and that falls under their remit I think. No appetite to tackle this. Overlords will be having a quite word in Revenue's ear to leave well alone unless it gets too noisy.

It is remarkable how some sections of the media have managed to persuade many people that MNCs don't pay 12.5% on their Irish profits. And that payments such as royalties to parent companies for the use of brand names and technology are somehow false, when the OECD has rules setting how exactly what is fair and what isn't, and Ireland follows those rules. The fact of the matter is, despite what some idiots in the media might try and portay, Irish tax resident companies pay tax at 12.5% on their profits.

Yes, the Revenue will go after John Joe Soap, and will nail him if he doesn't pay his tax. But a number of years ago they set up a Large Cases Division, directly to go after the big taxpayer to ensure the Irish Exchequer gets what's due to it.

The Apple case is the one that smells bad from an Irish point of view, which is why the EU have gone after it. But its a very different strucuture to the ones most of the famous MNCs in Ireland use. Unlike most of the others it seems that was ruling based rather than based on OECD rules, but that happened in 1980, a long time ago.

So the likes of Google, Apple and Facebook don't get preferential treatment when compared to their indigenous counterpart?

Correct re Google and Facebook.
Apple's tax ruling is from 1980 and the EU is investigating whether it gave them preferential treatment.

Some would argue that OECD standards would be a pretty low base to judge from but even allowing for that the Govt bending over backwards for MNC's while refusing to tackle upward only rents for indigenous companies would suggest otherwise.

I'd love to hear examples of how Ireland is bending over backwards.
We offer incentives like a low tax rate to compete against other countries to bring MNCs and their jobs to Ireland.

Plenty of MNCs in upward only rents too. That's a completely different issue, and nothing to do with tax

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 12:21:45 PM
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/richard-bruton-panama-papers-tax-evaders-will-be-vigorously-prosecuted-728045.html


The Enterprise Minister Richard Bruton says anyone found to be evading tax will be prosecuted.

Mr Bruton was speaking after it emerged more than 300 companies in Ireland are mentioned in the the biggest ever leak of financial information.

The details from a law firm in Panama have exposed the offshore holdings of some of the world's most prominent politicians, celebrities and sport stars, including the Russian President Vladmir Putin and FIFA's ethics committee.

The papers also link a company registered on Botanic Avenue in Drumcondra in Dublin to international arms deals.

Minister Bruton, says if there is any evidence of wrongdoing, it will be dealt with.

He said: "Well these are clearly concerns and as you know the government have been very active in developing through the so-called BEPS process through the OECD.

"Obviously if there are offences of Irish law discovered in this, you can be absolutely sure they will be vigorously prosecuted - but at this point we don't know that."

Ha ha, yeah sure it will Richard.

Can anyone find me the details of Putin's off-shore holdings that breakingnews has told us have been revealed?

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 04:15:49 PM

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 04:06:12 PM

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 03:45:00 PM

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 03:24:32 PM

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 02:05:52 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on April 05, 2016, 01:34:44 PM
You may well have a point about lack of legislation and that is down to the likes of Bruton. My point was the Revenue do make a strong effort with the lowers available to them.

Revenue, due to the powers given to them wouldn't be great at tackling the rich and powerful so are complicit in transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. They were set up to put manners on John Joe Soap. Doubt many MNC's pay the full 12.5% rate and that falls under their remit I think. No appetite to tackle this. Overlords will be having a quite word in Revenue's ear to leave well alone unless it gets too noisy.

It is remarkable how some sections of the media have managed to persuade many people that MNCs don't pay 12.5% on their Irish profits. And that payments such as royalties to parent companies for the use of brand names and technology are somehow false, when the OECD has rules setting how exactly what is fair and what isn't, and Ireland follows those rules. The fact of the matter is, despite what some idiots in the media might try and portay, Irish tax resident companies pay tax at 12.5% on their profits.

Yes, the Revenue will go after John Joe Soap, and will nail him if he doesn't pay his tax. But a number of years ago they set up a Large Cases Division, directly to go after the big taxpayer to ensure the Irish Exchequer gets what's due to it.

The Apple case is the one that smells bad from an Irish point of view, which is why the EU have gone after it. But its a very different strucuture to the ones most of the famous MNCs in Ireland use. Unlike most of the others it seems that was ruling based rather than based on OECD rules, but that happened in 1980, a long time ago.

So the likes of Google, Apple and Facebook don't get preferential treatment when compared to their indigenous counterpart?

Correct re Google and Facebook.
Apple's tax ruling is from 1980 and the EU is investigating whether it gave them preferential treatment.

Some would argue that OECD standards would be a pretty low base to judge from but even allowing for that the Govt bending over backwards for MNC's while refusing to tackle upward only rents for indigenous companies would suggest otherwise.

I'd love to hear examples of how Ireland is bending over backwards.
We offer incentives like a low tax rate to compete against other countries to bring MNCs and their jobs to Ireland.

Plenty of MNCs in upward only rents too. That's a completely different issue, and nothing to do with tax

I don't have evidence of Ireland Inc literally bending over backwards but Noonan giving Trump the red carpet treatment would be close enough. Firesale of chunks of property at knockdown prices by NAMA to US Hedge funds would be another example.  This thread is about preferential treatment for the wealthy. Ireland has a reputation of being a tax haven for the wealthy. There is plenty of evidence to back this up.

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 04:58:12 PM

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 04:15:49 PM

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 04:06:12 PM

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 03:45:00 PM

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 03:24:32 PM

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 02:05:52 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on April 05, 2016, 01:34:44 PM
You may well have a point about lack of legislation and that is down to the likes of Bruton. My point was the Revenue do make a strong effort with the lowers available to them.

Revenue, due to the powers given to them wouldn't be great at tackling the rich and powerful so are complicit in transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. They were set up to put manners on John Joe Soap. Doubt many MNC's pay the full 12.5% rate and that falls under their remit I think. No appetite to tackle this. Overlords will be having a quite word in Revenue's ear to leave well alone unless it gets too noisy.

It is remarkable how some sections of the media have managed to persuade many people that MNCs don't pay 12.5% on their Irish profits. And that payments such as royalties to parent companies for the use of brand names and technology are somehow false, when the OECD has rules setting how exactly what is fair and what isn't, and Ireland follows those rules. The fact of the matter is, despite what some idiots in the media might try and portay, Irish tax resident companies pay tax at 12.5% on their profits.

Yes, the Revenue will go after John Joe Soap, and will nail him if he doesn't pay his tax. But a number of years ago they set up a Large Cases Division, directly to go after the big taxpayer to ensure the Irish Exchequer gets what's due to it.

The Apple case is the one that smells bad from an Irish point of view, which is why the EU have gone after it. But its a very different strucuture to the ones most of the famous MNCs in Ireland use. Unlike most of the others it seems that was ruling based rather than based on OECD rules, but that happened in 1980, a long time ago.

So the likes of Google, Apple and Facebook don't get preferential treatment when compared to their indigenous counterpart?

Correct re Google and Facebook.
Apple's tax ruling is from 1980 and the EU is investigating whether it gave them preferential treatment.

Some would argue that OECD standards would be a pretty low base to judge from but even allowing for that the Govt bending over backwards for MNC's while refusing to tackle upward only rents for indigenous companies would suggest otherwise.

I'd love to hear examples of how Ireland is bending over backwards.
We offer incentives like a low tax rate to compete against other countries to bring MNCs and their jobs to Ireland.

Plenty of MNCs in upward only rents too. That's a completely different issue, and nothing to do with tax

I don't have evidence of Ireland Inc literally bending over backwards but Noonan giving Trump the red carpet treatment would be close enough. Firesale of chunks of property at knockdown prices by NAMA to US Hedge funds would be another example.  This thread is about preferential treatment for the wealthy. Ireland has a reputation of being a tax haven for the wealthy. There is plenty of evidence to back this up.

We do encourage foreign investors to invest in Ireland. I applaud that as it brings employment.
The red carpet treatment for Trump was a bit embarrasing at the time, much more so now in hindsight. But he's getting no special tax breaks.
Ireland is not a tax haven for the wealthy! Hence so many of our rich folk are not tax resident in Ireland.

In my opinion the tax rates for the wealthy should be be reduced from the penal high levels they are at, to encourage more of them to become resident here to encourage entrepreneurs to create more wealth and, in particular, more employment. But that's another story

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 05:13:55 PM


In my opinion the tax rates for the wealthy should be be reduced from the penal high levels they are at, to encourage more of them to become resident here to encourage entrepreneurs to create more wealth and, in particular, more employment. But that's another story

As a matter of interest how would you fund this tax reduction for the down trodden wealthy? This inhumane penal tax system that they face needs immediate attention. The poor and middle classes have been beaten for the dead horse that they are so we can't get them to contribute any more. Maybe legalise euthanasia to reduce the cost of health care? Send welfare recipients to Turkey, we could dress them up as Syrian migrants. Drop the minimum wage to €2.50 to reduce costs for MNC's? Ensure that 2% of actual money raised for charities reaches intended target as opposed to the current 20%. This the type of approach you would advocate?

Quote from: Franko on April 05, 2016, 02:08:09 PM

Quote from: J70 on April 05, 2016, 01:57:21 PM

Quote from: Franko on April 05, 2016, 07:08:40 AM

Quote from: J70 on April 05, 2016, 01:57:16 AM

Quote from: Franko on April 04, 2016, 11:04:13 PM
These boys are no different to anyone who, for instance, has taken/paid cash for a job to avoid paying VAT on it.  They're doing the exact same thing on a bigger scale.  Hands up anyone who can say they've never done something like that.

I sold xmas trees for a few days one xmas for cash. Think I got cash once for a day loading a freezer boat in Killybegs when I was 16 or 17 when they called in help to meet a deadline. And a neighbour once gave me 20 pounds for baling his hay for him.

Does that put me on the same moral plane as someone putting millions or even billions out of reach of the taxman?

If your main reason for taking cash was so you could avoid paying whatever tax was due on the money, then yeah.  I don't see how you can argue otherwise.  Exact same thing - different scale.

*Actually, if you want to get really fussy, you were worse, as (if I've got it right) what these boyos were up to was strictly speaking legal.

So accepting a few quid here and there for a day's work as a teenager might be morally worse than systematic cheating of your government out of millions and billions, depending on whether it was accomplished  through some legal loophole?

I'll repeat.

If your main reason for taking cash was so you could avoid paying whatever tax was due on the money, then yeah.  I don't see how you can argue otherwise.  Exact same thing - different scale.

It's the same attitude - "I know I should be paying this, but I'm gonna skirt the system so I can keep the money".

If same teenager comes into serious wealth later in life, do you think that attitude's going to change?

One is not a predictor of the other.

Just because some neighbour gave me 20 pounds to bale a field for him when I was 16 does not mean I'm going to be a tax evader in later life. Same as me giving my nephew $10 for helping me out with something doesn't impose a civic duty on him to file a tax return.

If I was moonlighting as an adult doing so -called nixers or a bit of bar work under the table on a steady basis, then you'd have a valid comparison.

Quote from: J70 on April 05, 2016, 05:31:11 PM

Quote from: Franko on April 05, 2016, 02:08:09 PM

Quote from: J70 on April 05, 2016, 01:57:21 PM

Quote from: Franko on April 05, 2016, 07:08:40 AM

Quote from: J70 on April 05, 2016, 01:57:16 AM

Quote from: Franko on April 04, 2016, 11:04:13 PM
These boys are no different to anyone who, for instance, has taken/paid cash for a job to avoid paying VAT on it.  They're doing the exact same thing on a bigger scale.  Hands up anyone who can say they've never done something like that.

I sold xmas trees for a few days one xmas for cash. Think I got cash once for a day loading a freezer boat in Killybegs when I was 16 or 17 when they called in help to meet a deadline. And a neighbour once gave me 20 pounds for baling his hay for him.

Does that put me on the same moral plane as someone putting millions or even billions out of reach of the taxman?

If your main reason for taking cash was so you could avoid paying whatever tax was due on the money, then yeah.  I don't see how you can argue otherwise.  Exact same thing - different scale.

*Actually, if you want to get really fussy, you were worse, as (if I've got it right) what these boyos were up to was strictly speaking legal.

So accepting a few quid here and there for a day's work as a teenager might be morally worse than systematic cheating of your government out of millions and billions, depending on whether it was accomplished  through some legal loophole?

I'll repeat.

If your main reason for taking cash was so you could avoid paying whatever tax was due on the money, then yeah.  I don't see how you can argue otherwise.  Exact same thing - different scale.

It's the same attitude - "I know I should be paying this, but I'm gonna skirt the system so I can keep the money".

If same teenager comes into serious wealth later in life, do you think that attitude's going to change?

One is not a predictor of the other.

Just because some neighbour gave me 20 pounds to bale a field for him when I was 16 does not mean I'm going to be a tax evader in later life. Same as me giving my nephew $10 for helping me out with something doesn't impose a civic duty on him to file a tax return.

If I was moonlighting as an adult doing so -called nixers or a bit of bar work under the table on a steady basis, then you'd have a valid comparison.

Yet again you're ignoring the bit I've underlined.

If you were baling the hay and said, "here lad, I'll do it for a bit less if you give me cash" or if your nephew said something similar about his E10, then you're in the same boat as these people.  That's the point I'm making. And I'd say there's quite a few who have said/done these things.

Quote from: Declan on April 05, 2016, 10:35:21 AM
Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% From Panama Leak 

3 Apr, 2016 

Whoever leaked the Mossack Fonseca papers appears motivated by a genuine desire to expose the system that enables the ultra wealthy to hide their massive stashes, often corruptly obtained and all involved in tax avoidance. These Panamanian lawyers hide the wealth of a significant proportion of the 1%, and the massive leak of their documents ought to be a wonderful thing.

Unfortunately the leaker has made the dreadful mistake of turning to the western corporate media to publicise the results. In consequence the first major story, published today by the Guardian, is all about Vladimir Putin and a cellist on the fiddle. As it happens I believe the story and have no doubt Putin is bent.

But why focus on Russia? Russian wealth is only a tiny minority of the money hidden away with the aid of Mossack Fonseca. In fact, it soon becomes obvious that the selective reporting is going to stink.

The Suddeutsche Zeitung, which received the leak, gives a detailed explanation of the methodology the corporate media used to search the files. The main search they have done is for names associated with breaking UN sanctions regimes. The Guardian reports this too and helpfully lists those countries as Zimbabwe, North Korea, Russia and Syria. The filtering of this Mossack Fonseca information by the corporate media follows a direct western governmental agenda. There is no mention at all of use of Mossack Fonseca by massive western corporations or western billionaires – the main customers. And the Guardian is quick to reassure that "much of the leaked material will remain private."

What do you expect? The leak is being managed by the grandly but laughably named "International Consortium of Investigative Journalists", which is funded and organised entirely by the USA's Center for Public Integrity. Their funders include

Ford Foundation
Carnegie Endowment
Rockefeller Family Fund
W K Kellogg Foundation
Open Society Foundation (Soros)

among many others. Do not expect a genuine expose of western capitalism. The dirty secrets of western corporations will remain unpublished.

Expect hits at Russia, Iran and Syria and some tiny "balancing" western country like Iceland. A superannuated UK peer or two will be sacrificed – someone already with dementia.

The corporate media – the Guardian and BBC in the UK – have exclusive access to the database which you and I cannot see. They are protecting themselves from even seeing western corporations' sensitive information by only looking at those documents which are brought up by specific searches such as UN sanctions busters. Never forget the Guardian smashed its copies of the Snowden files on the instruction of MI6.

What if they did Mossack Fonseca database searches on the owners of all the corporate media and their companies, and all the editors and senior corporate media journalists? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on all the most senior people at the BBC? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every donor to the Center for Public Integrity and their companies?

What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every listed company in the western stock exchanges, and on every western millionaire they could trace?

That would be much more interesting. I know Russia and China are corrupt, you don't have to tell me that. What if you look at things that we might, here in the west, be able to rise up and do something about?

And what if you corporate lapdogs let the people see the actual data?

UPDATE

Hundreds of thousands of people have read this post in the 11 hours since it was published – despite it being overnight here in the UK. There are 235,918 "impressions" on twitter (as twitter calls them) and over 3,700 people have "shared" so far on Facebook, bringing scores of new readers each.

I would remind you that this blog is produced free for the public good and you are welcome to republish or re-use this article or any other material freely anywhere without requesting further permission

I was wondering why nothing had come up on Western interests because its a cast iron certainy they are actually the major benefactors from this firm.

Is Cameron's dead father the best they can do? Come on!

The Icelandic PM is payin the price for takin Russian Aid

The notion we have a Free Press is truely laughable? The Western Police state might be more accurate

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 04:13:50 PM

Quote from: Main Street on April 05, 2016, 04:01:06 PM

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 02:05:52 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on April 05, 2016, 01:34:44 PM
You may well have a point about lack of legislation and that is down to the likes of Bruton. My point was the Revenue do make a strong effort with the lowers available to them.

Revenue, due to the powers given to them wouldn't be great at tackling the rich and powerful so are complicit in transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. They were set up to put manners on John Joe Soap. Doubt many MNC's pay the full 12.5% rate and that falls under their remit I think. No appetite to tackle this. Overlords will be having a quite word in Revenue's ear to leave well alone unless it gets too noisy.

It is remarkable how some sections of the media have managed to persuade many people that MNCs don't pay 12.5% on their Irish profits. And that payments such as royalties to parent companies for the use of brand names and technology are somehow false, when the OECD has rules setting how exactly what is fair and what isn't, and Ireland follows those rules. The fact of the matter is, despite what some idiots in the media might try and portay, Irish tax resident companies pay tax at 12.5% on their profits.

Yes, the Revenue will go after John Joe Soap, and will nail him if he doesn't pay his tax. But a number of years ago they set up a Large Cases Division, directly to go after the big taxpayer to ensure the Irish Exchequer gets what's due to it.

The Apple case is the one that smells bad from an Irish point of view, which is why the EU have gone after it. But its a very different strucuture to the ones most of the famous MNCs in Ireland use. Unlike most of the others it seems that was ruling based rather than based on OECD rules, but that happened in 1980, a long time ago.

Are you referring to the recently implemented OECD rules to prevent rampant tax avoidance by multi national companies?
http://oecdinsights.org/2015/10/05/plans-to-tackle-tax-avoidance-announced/

We have yet to see the effects of these new OECD rules.
There is little cause yet to be optimistic.

That's not Irish tax avoidance.

When MNCs do implement tax saving structures, they usually aim to reduce tax in high paying countries such as the US.

Tax savings? :D
Multinationals implement tax avoidance gimmicks in order to shift profit  to make it appear that it has been earned in low tax countries .  Subsidaries of US corporations earned profits in Ireland which amounted to 42% of Irish GDP, obviously impossible.
That's tax avoidance. That what the OECD call tax avoidance.

Quote from: Franko on April 05, 2016, 05:52:45 PM

Quote from: J70 on April 05, 2016, 05:31:11 PM

Quote from: Franko on April 05, 2016, 02:08:09 PM

Quote from: J70 on April 05, 2016, 01:57:21 PM

Quote from: Franko on April 05, 2016, 07:08:40 AM

Quote from: J70 on April 05, 2016, 01:57:16 AM

Quote from: Franko on April 04, 2016, 11:04:13 PM
These boys are no different to anyone who, for instance, has taken/paid cash for a job to avoid paying VAT on it.  They're doing the exact same thing on a bigger scale.  Hands up anyone who can say they've never done something like that.

I sold xmas trees for a few days one xmas for cash. Think I got cash once for a day loading a freezer boat in Killybegs when I was 16 or 17 when they called in help to meet a deadline. And a neighbour once gave me 20 pounds for baling his hay for him.

Does that put me on the same moral plane as someone putting millions or even billions out of reach of the taxman?

If your main reason for taking cash was so you could avoid paying whatever tax was due on the money, then yeah.  I don't see how you can argue otherwise.  Exact same thing - different scale.

*Actually, if you want to get really fussy, you were worse, as (if I've got it right) what these boyos were up to was strictly speaking legal.

So accepting a few quid here and there for a day's work as a teenager might be morally worse than systematic cheating of your government out of millions and billions, depending on whether it was accomplished  through some legal loophole?

I'll repeat.

If your main reason for taking cash was so you could avoid paying whatever tax was due on the money, then yeah.  I don't see how you can argue otherwise.  Exact same thing - different scale.

It's the same attitude - "I know I should be paying this, but I'm gonna skirt the system so I can keep the money".

If same teenager comes into serious wealth later in life, do you think that attitude's going to change?

One is not a predictor of the other.

Just because some neighbour gave me 20 pounds to bale a field for him when I was 16 does not mean I'm going to be a tax evader in later life. Same as me giving my nephew $10 for helping me out with something doesn't impose a civic duty on him to file a tax return.

If I was moonlighting as an adult doing so -called nixers or a bit of bar work under the table on a steady basis, then you'd have a valid comparison.

Yet again you're ignoring the bit I've underlined.

If you were baling the hay and said, "here lad, I'll do it for a bit less if you give me cash" or if your nephew said something similar about his E10, then you're in the same boat as these people.  That's the point I'm making. And I'd say there's quite a few who have said/done these things.

Fair enough on that (narrow) point.

However, the scale thing doesn't add up for me in terms of judging these people. There's no comparison between some boy doing a little bit of work off the books and some banker or politician hiding his millions on some island somewhere that has been bought out to help the super rich avoid paying the share they should be paying to help fund their government. If you think the rest of us have no right to condemn, fair enough. I disagree. As do, apparently, the people of Iceland.

Its like saying any one of us who slapped another buck on the field when things got heated during a match is just a small scale version of some lout who pulled out a gun and shot someone who pissed them off. The man hurting other man thing might be the same, but the gravity of the situation is a lot different. Just because I might have given some boy a clip at some point doesn't mean I have no moral right to judge or condemn someone who uses lethal force.

Quote from: Main Street on April 05, 2016, 08:44:47 PM

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 04:13:50 PM

Quote from: Main Street on April 05, 2016, 04:01:06 PM

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: mikehunt on April 05, 2016, 02:05:52 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on April 05, 2016, 01:34:44 PM
You may well have a point about lack of legislation and that is down to the likes of Bruton. My point was the Revenue do make a strong effort with the lowers available to them.

Revenue, due to the powers given to them wouldn't be great at tackling the rich and powerful so are complicit in transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. They were set up to put manners on John Joe Soap. Doubt many MNC's pay the full 12.5% rate and that falls under their remit I think. No appetite to tackle this. Overlords will be having a quite word in Revenue's ear to leave well alone unless it gets too noisy.

It is remarkable how some sections of the media have managed to persuade many people that MNCs don't pay 12.5% on their Irish profits. And that payments such as royalties to parent companies for the use of brand names and technology are somehow false, when the OECD has rules setting how exactly what is fair and what isn't, and Ireland follows those rules. The fact of the matter is, despite what some idiots in the media might try and portay, Irish tax resident companies pay tax at 12.5% on their profits.

Yes, the Revenue will go after John Joe Soap, and will nail him if he doesn't pay his tax. But a number of years ago they set up a Large Cases Division, directly to go after the big taxpayer to ensure the Irish Exchequer gets what's due to it.

The Apple case is the one that smells bad from an Irish point of view, which is why the EU have gone after it. But its a very different strucuture to the ones most of the famous MNCs in Ireland use. Unlike most of the others it seems that was ruling based rather than based on OECD rules, but that happened in 1980, a long time ago.

Are you referring to the recently implemented OECD rules to prevent rampant tax avoidance by multi national companies?
http://oecdinsights.org/2015/10/05/plans-to-tackle-tax-avoidance-announced/

We have yet to see the effects of these new OECD rules.
There is little cause yet to be optimistic.

That's not Irish tax avoidance.

When MNCs do implement tax saving structures, they usually aim to reduce tax in high paying countries such as the US.

Tax savings? :D
Multinationals implement tax avoidance gimmicks in order to shift profit  to make it appear that it has been earned in low tax countries .  Subsidaries of US corporations earned profits in Ireland which amounted to 42% of Irish GDP, obviously impossible.
That's tax avoidance. That what the OECD call tax avoidance.

I'm not a solicitor nor an accountant but I thought tax avoidance was different to tax evasion. Avoidance is tax minimization in accordance with the rules (no matter how twisted those rules may be), while evasion is tax minimization in contravention of the rules.

I think is a case of don't hate the player, hate the game. I don't voluntarily pay more tax than I have to and I don't think we should expect companies to either. Are some of the rules perverse? Sure and they should be changed and should try to eliminate (impossible) all the grey areas so there is a independently verifiable, consisent and objective "right" and "wrong".

(http://i.imgur.com/bmKKBwr.png)

Quote from: J70 on April 05, 2016, 09:30:30 PM

Quote from: Franko on April 05, 2016, 05:52:45 PM

Quote from: J70 on April 05, 2016, 05:31:11 PM

Quote from: Franko on April 05, 2016, 02:08:09 PM

Quote from: J70 on April 05, 2016, 01:57:21 PM

Quote from: Franko on April 05, 2016, 07:08:40 AM

Quote from: J70 on April 05, 2016, 01:57:16 AM

Quote from: Franko on April 04, 2016, 11:04:13 PM
These boys are no different to anyone who, for instance, has taken/paid cash for a job to avoid paying VAT on it.  They're doing the exact same thing on a bigger scale.  Hands up anyone who can say they've never done something like that.

I sold xmas trees for a few days one xmas for cash. Think I got cash once for a day loading a freezer boat in Killybegs when I was 16 or 17 when they called in help to meet a deadline. And a neighbour once gave me 20 pounds for baling his hay for him.

Does that put me on the same moral plane as someone putting millions or even billions out of reach of the taxman?

If your main reason for taking cash was so you could avoid paying whatever tax was due on the money, then yeah.  I don't see how you can argue otherwise.  Exact same thing - different scale.

*Actually, if you want to get really fussy, you were worse, as (if I've got it right) what these boyos were up to was strictly speaking legal.

So accepting a few quid here and there for a day's work as a teenager might be morally worse than systematic cheating of your government out of millions and billions, depending on whether it was accomplished  through some legal loophole?

I'll repeat.

If your main reason for taking cash was so you could avoid paying whatever tax was due on the money, then yeah.  I don't see how you can argue otherwise.  Exact same thing - different scale.

It's the same attitude - "I know I should be paying this, but I'm gonna skirt the system so I can keep the money".

If same teenager comes into serious wealth later in life, do you think that attitude's going to change?

One is not a predictor of the other.

Just because some neighbour gave me 20 pounds to bale a field for him when I was 16 does not mean I'm going to be a tax evader in later life. Same as me giving my nephew $10 for helping me out with something doesn't impose a civic duty on him to file a tax return.

If I was moonlighting as an adult doing so -called nixers or a bit of bar work under the table on a steady basis, then you'd have a valid comparison.

Yet again you're ignoring the bit I've underlined.

If you were baling the hay and said, "here lad, I'll do it for a bit less if you give me cash" or if your nephew said something similar about his E10, then you're in the same boat as these people.  That's the point I'm making. And I'd say there's quite a few who have said/done these things.

Fair enough on that (narrow) point.

However, the scale thing doesn't add up for me in terms of judging these people. There's no comparison between some boy doing a little bit of work off the books and some banker or politician hiding his millions on some island somewhere that has been bought out to help the super rich avoid paying the share they should be paying to help fund their government. If you think the rest of us have no right to condemn, fair enough. I disagree. As do, apparently, the people of Iceland.

Its like saying any one of us who slapped another buck on the field when things got heated during a match is just a small scale version of some lout who pulled out a gun and shot someone who pissed them off. The man hurting other man thing might be the same, but the gravity of the situation is a lot different. Just because I might have given some boy a clip at some point doesn't mean I have no moral right to judge or condemn someone who uses lethal force.

Your analogy is way off. (and I think you've got a little carried away with the flowery English in the first paragraph!)  Slapping someone and shooting them dead (lethal force!?) are most definitely NOT two different levels of the same thing.  Dodging tax is dodging tax.  The only difference between the tradesman doing a few cash jobs and the businessman siphoning millions into a Cayman Islands account is the position of the decimal point.

The people of Iceland (I see you're speaking for them all now) are possibly angry because when politicians get involved it's entirely different.  The head of the government is supposed to set an example to joe soap, so when quite the opposite happens, people tend to get heated up.

Let's assume that you DO treat small scale tax evasion and large scale tax evasion differently.  The only logical inference from that is that you would support HMRC's recent 'policy' of cutting sweet deals with MNC's whilst rigidly applying tax laws to smaller enterprises.  'One rule for all' must work both ways.

Quote from: Franko on April 05, 2016, 10:37:18 PM

Your analogy is way off. (and I think you've got a little carried away with the flowery English in the first paragraph!)  Slapping someone and shooting them dead (lethal force!?) are most definitely NOT two different levels of the same thing.  Dodging tax is dodging tax.  The only difference between the tradesman doing a few cash jobs and the businessman siphoning millions into a Cayman Islands account is the position of the decimal point.

The people of Iceland (I see you're speaking for them all now) are possibly angry because when politicians get involved it's entirely different.  The head of the government is supposed to set an example to joe soap, so when quite the opposite happens, people tend to get heated up.

Let's assume that you DO treat small scale tax evasion and large scale tax evasion differently.  The only logical inference from that is that you would support HMRC's recent 'policy' of cutting sweet deals with MNC's whilst rigidly applying tax laws to smaller enterprises.  'One rule for all' must work both ways.

Flowery English??

I can see the problems with that analogy, but my point is that both are attempts to inflict harm which have grossly different outcomes. Use another analogy if you want instead of the gun. Say some boy beating the head off someone to the point of serious, possibly life-changing or ending injury compared to the quick exchange of a relatively harmless slap during a game. The issue is the different outcomes, same as the plumber doing the odd nixer in the evening for 100 euro and the banker stashing millions offshore to avoid a huge tax bill. Outcomes matter in other aspects of law in terms of gravity and penalty, and to me, the decimal point matters a lot.

I of course accept your last point and it is obviously one of the way societies stink in that the big man has the expert legal resources to outfight governments when it comes to any type of issue, while the penalties for the wee man are way more proportionally serious.

With that, I'm moving on. Last word to you.

Q) What is the difference between a blonde and the Panama Canal

A) One in a busy ditch

Quote from: Main Street on April 05, 2016, 08:44:47 PM

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 04:13:50 PM
That's not Irish tax avoidance.

When MNCs do implement tax saving structures, they usually aim to reduce tax in high paying countries such as the US.

Tax savings? :D
Multinationals implement tax avoidance gimmicks in order to shift profit  to make it appear that it has been earned in low tax countries .  Subsidaries of US corporations earned profits in Ireland which amounted to 42% of Irish GDP, obviously impossible.
That's tax avoidance. That what the OECD call tax avoidance.

No Irish tax is being avoided. The Irish subs of US MNCs are not getting taxed at different rates to other Irish companies.

It's doubtful US tax is being avoided also. Typically US companies transfer their trademarks/technologies to havens. They pay US tax on this on this and the IRS audits the amounts paid to ensure its a fair price (it's usually done quite early in the lifecycle when the value of such IP is still not huge). The haven subsidiary then earns a shed load of money on licensing out this IP (often to the Irish subsidiary which operates as the main seller/distributor for Europe - but in many instances it could be a Dutch, Swiss, Lux, Belgium and or British company that operates as the main seller/distributor).

The US could tax the haven sub on its profits, but chooses not to due a particular piece of US legislation. The US could change that with the flick of a pen, but so far they've chosen not to.

Interestingly though, a lot of companies are looking at moving the IP out of havens because of the bad publicity that surrounds them, regardless of legality. Due to legislation enacted by FF/FG/Lab over the last number of years, Ireland now offers excellent tax breaks for companies who acquire IP - which are completely transparent, open to everyone, and approved by OECD and EU. Other countries are also improving their tax breaks for IP, but Ireland is likely to see a lot of companies transferrring their IP out of havens and into Ireland. This should bring increased CT revenue, but in particular increased employment - as the tax breaks can only apply if companies put real substance around the IP.

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 08:58:00 AM
Interesting that the journalists would tell us how morally wrong it is for companies to reduce tax, even where everything done has been completely legal - but that it is fine to steal papers from a lawyer and to publish the contents of the stolen documents!

Not sure that everything that has been done was completely legal or that the documents were stolen - if they were handed over by an employee, it's the employee who's doing something illegal rather than the journalists. And even if it were iillegal, I'd imagine the journalists would weigh the public interest against the illegality to determine whether or not to publish.

As long as there are legal (or semi-legal) ways to avoid tax, those who can afford to will inevitably do so. It's not something I know a whole pile about but it's very difficult to change this without a single global tax code but it's hard to see that happening.

From an irish point of view, it's a matter of trying to balance attracting jobs to the country vs. taxing corporations a reasonable amount.

Quote from: J70 on April 05, 2016, 11:16:32 PM

Quote from: Franko on April 05, 2016, 10:37:18 PM

Your analogy is way off. (and I think you've got a little carried away with the flowery English in the first paragraph!)  Slapping someone and shooting them dead (lethal force!?) are most definitely NOT two different levels of the same thing.  Dodging tax is dodging tax.  The only difference between the tradesman doing a few cash jobs and the businessman siphoning millions into a Cayman Islands account is the position of the decimal point.

The people of Iceland (I see you're speaking for them all now) are possibly angry because when politicians get involved it's entirely different.  The head of the government is supposed to set an example to joe soap, so when quite the opposite happens, people tend to get heated up.

Let's assume that you DO treat small scale tax evasion and large scale tax evasion differently.  The only logical inference from that is that you would support HMRC's recent 'policy' of cutting sweet deals with MNC's whilst rigidly applying tax laws to smaller enterprises.  'One rule for all' must work both ways.

Flowery English??

I can see the problems with that analogy, but my point is that both are attempts to inflict harm which have grossly different outcomes. Use another analogy if you want instead of the gun. Say some boy beating the head off someone to the point of serious, possibly life-changing or ending injury compared to the quick exchange of a relatively harmless slap during a game. The issue is the different outcomes, same as the plumber doing the odd nixer in the evening for 100 euro and the banker stashing millions offshore to avoid a huge tax bill. Outcomes matter in other aspects of law in terms of gravity and penalty, and to me, the decimal point matters a lot.

I of course accept your last point and it is obviously one of the way societies stink in that the big man has the expert legal resources to outfight governments when it comes to any type of issue, while the penalties for the wee man are way more proportionally serious.

With that, I'm moving on. Last word to you.

Flowery English

Your description of small scale tax evader
"some boy doing a little bit of work off the books"

Large scale
"some banker or politician hiding his millions on some island somewhere that has been bought out to help the super rich avoid paying the share they should be paying to help fund their government"

I agree, on the gravity thing and in terms of penalties (fines etc), you'd hope this would be recognised.  However, it's a bit rich of said tradesman to give off about some banker dodging his tax, when the only difference between his antics and the banker's, is the thickness of the wad of notes.

To run with your analogy - you must realise that if your victim takes enough of the small slaps, he'll eventually end up as badly bruised as he did when he got the hiding from the big lad.

Are JP McManus and the guy that sticks a fiver on 6 teams on a saturday both gamblers?  I'd say so...

Quote from: macdanger2 on April 06, 2016, 11:23:28 AM

Quote from: Hound on April 05, 2016, 08:58:00 AM
Interesting that the journalists would tell us how morally wrong it is for companies to reduce tax, even where everything done has been completely legal - but that it is fine to steal papers from a lawyer and to publish the contents of the stolen documents!

Not sure that everything that has been done was completely legal or that the documents were stolen - if they were handed over by an employee, it's the employee who's doing something illegal rather than the journalists. And even if it were iillegal, I'd imagine the journalists would weigh the public interest against the illegality to determine whether or not to publish.

I saw one guy on the news from the Panama lawyers claiming their systems were hacked and that is how the documents were stolen. Whether hacked by an outsider or an employee the documents were clearly stolen.

I don't really have a problem with them being published, but find it amusing that the journalists refer to them as leaked rather than stolen!