China Romance
General Discussion and Useful Links => The Campfire => Topic started by: Robertt S on April 07, 2014, 08:35:39 pm
-
How far can the reach of the United States’ Internal Revenue Service (IRS) extend? Certainly it is no longer strictly “internal”. The US has already secured agreements with most of her Western allies (and Japan) to provide information on the finances of their residents upon which the US taxman can stake a claim. It is also to ensure people cannot keep their money from the clutches of Uncle Sam simply by physically relocating. Now the tentacles of the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) are reaching out to Hong Kong in the form of a mutual information-sharing agreement on the finances of each other’s residents. This is only a first step which will lead to an agreement that Hong Kong will enforce American law on US’s behalf. (The agreement is only theoretically mutual, as Hong Kong does not enforce taxation laws on non-residents.)
How are Americans able to do this? Taxation normally depends on residence, and countries other than the one in which a person is resident in usually have no claim, hence the need for separate agreements with other jurisdictions. And the provisions of FATCA are not even limited to US citizens. Any person with the right of residence in the US is covered, as are partnerships or trusts based in the US. So why are other economic centers prepared to do the IRS’s dirty work for them? There must be considerable advantages which can be gained by the US’s partners; either that or great disadvantages for non-participants. The US position is that financial institutions from countries, which refuse to sign a FATCA agreement, will be subject to a 30 percent withholding tax from any of their US-related businesses. Therefore, governments can easily be pressured from financial institutions to sign up.
The recent agreement with Hong Kong obviously opens up the question: what about the Chinese mainland? Apparently US authorities are confident China will sign up to FATCA in due course, to maintain her position in the US-dominated global financial system. I can imagine, however, that there might be some resistance. Will all Chinese business people who hold US “green cards” really welcome the attentions of the IRS? And, although mainland financial institutions will find their US operations easier and more profitable, how will FATCA affect relations with their domestic customers? Hong Kong is already witnessing banks displaying some reluctance to open accounts for customers with US connections, on the grounds that information transfer requirements are likely to lay them open to extensive compliance requirements.
So, will the US be able to continue expansion of the FATCA regime indefinitely? It is clear that a degree of financial and economic hegemony must exist before one country can enforce its own regulations on other jurisdictions. Other countries can’t do this. Britain, for example, falls over herself to make life tax-free for foreign citizens and companies. She is even prepared to pretend they don’t live in London when they obviously do. This is because London is competing with other centers for its share of financial services — as is Hong Kong.
The US does not believe it really needs to compete — it thinks it is so central to the global economic system that no serious player can afford to ignore it. There is a parallel here with the increasing inconvenience imposed on travelers by US immigration. It is simply assumed the US can make immigration as difficult as it likes because everyone who matters sometimes has to visit the US. When the US has to compete for international attention, things might change.
This will probably be more important in determining China’s attitude to the acceptance of foreign tax-enforcement agreements rather than the short-term convenience, or otherwise, of a FATCA deal. The Chinese government may be prepared to sign up for practical reasons. But in the long term they will find it very difficult to accept clear evidence of an American hegemony which China does not believe can last. Many Chinese (and non-Chinese too) believe that, one day, business people will be able to pick and choose whether they need an operation in the US. But they will pay whatever they need to in order to establish themselves in China.
So, although it is clear that the US tax regime has made a first successful incursion into Chinese territory, it is far from clear what the ultimate outcome of this will be. The outcome is likely to be determined by China’s reluctance to concede that the US has any right to impose compliance requirements on any other jurisdiction other than on a multilateral basis. And also the belief that if any country is to have such a dominant position in the global economy (and able to enforce its tax legislation worldwide) then it should not necessarily be the US.
The author served 1986-2006 in the British Diplomatic Service, including nine years in Beijing. He is now a freelance writer, journalist and commentator on political, economic and diplomatic affairs, especially China.
http://www.chinadailyasia.com/opinion/2014-04/07/content_15129200.html (http://www.chinadailyasia.com/opinion/2014-04/07/content_15129200.html)
The wives of Americans that are LPR's of the United States also fall under these guidelines, but I doubt China and the Chinese banks will cooperate very much with this policy anytime soon.
-
Our wonderful government always looking for a way to get more and more
from us. >:( >:(
-
Like a friend of mine said earlier, it appears that possessing a US passport is becoming more of a liability than an asset. :-\
-
Like a friend of mine said earlier, it appears that possessing a US passport is becoming more of a liability than an asset. :-\
What have I been saying for years. LOL ROFL
Willy
P.S. In case anyone misses me I am off to the UK in the morning and taking our eldest daughter with me.
-
are ex-pats exempt from federal tax? that used to be an incentive used by companies to get you to accept oversea positions
-
Although I am sure it would not be the preferred outcome for the vast number of Yanks who are bloody nice people...I see (as an impartial but interested observer) a sea-change in America's formal positioning within the Global scenario.....
For so many years, beginning with the latter stages of WW1, through the masive conflicts of WW2 and beyond, America has stood for the rights of people everywhere to lead a decent life free from opression and dictatorship...and much American blood has been spilled in the pursuit of this objective.
We all could rely on Uncle Sam to come riding in from the Sunset with six-guns blazing to rescue the opressed.
What seems to be now happening is a change from rescuer to Bully...if you dont agree with America, you now have an enemy.....America appears to have spat the dummy in the light of likely losing the number 1 spot on the Global Economy to China.
The devious pressure put to bear on ALL Countries by the American Beaurocracy to collect taxes from overseas Citizens on it's behalf is a monstrous misuse of power.
The arrogance that suggests that "we can make immigration and visas so difficult as we like because sooner or later, if you want to be where the action is you will be forced to come to the USA"...is again reflective of this attitude.
I personally think that we are seing the twilight of American morality and I shudder tyo think where it will all end up.....
But then again, what would I know......... :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
-
FATCA is designed to increase compliance by U.S. taxpayers rather than to enforce collection from foreigners. FATCA requires foreigners to report information related to the ownership by U.S. persons of assets held overseas. [4] Unlike many other developed countries, the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) levies income taxes on its citizens, regardless of residency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#International_aspects), and therefore requires Americans living abroad to pay U.S. taxes on foreign income.[5][6] Under U.S. tax law, U.S. persons are generally required to report and pay taxes on income from all sources.[7] The term U.S. persons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._person), in this case, includes U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_permanent_resident) residing within the United States.[8] Taxpayer identification numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_identification_number) and source withholding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_withholding_in_the_united_states) are used to enforce foreign tax compliance. For example, mandatory withholding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_withholding_in_the_united_states) is often required when a U.S. payor cannot confirm the U.S. status of a foreign payee.[9]
The IRS previously instituted a Qualified Intermediary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_Intermediary) (QI) program under Internal Revenue Code §1441, which required participating foreign financial institutions to maintain records of the U.S. or foreign status of their account holders and to report income and withhold taxes.[10] One report found that participation in the QI program was too low to have a substantive impact as an enforcement measure and was prone to abuse.[11] An illustration of the weakness in the QI program was that UBS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBS#U.S._tax_evasion_controversy), a Swiss bank, had registered as a QI with the IRS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS) in 2001 and was later forced to settle with the U.S. Government for $780 million in 2009 over claims that it fraudulently concealed information on its American account holders.[11] Self-reporting of foreign financial assets was also found to be relatively ineffective.[12]
It has been estimated that the U.S. Treasury loses as much as $100 billion annually to offshore tax non-compliance.[13] Therefore, supplementing the reporting regimes already in place was deemed to be an effective means of increasing compliance and raising government revenue.[14] After committee deliberation, Sen. Max Baucus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Baucus) and Rep. Charles Rangel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Rangel) introduced the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act of 2009 to Congress on October 27, 2009. It was later added to an appropriations bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriations_bill) as an amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendment), sponsored by Sen. Harry Reid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid), which also renamed the bill the HIRE Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIRE_Act).[15] The bill was signed into law on March 18, 2010.
Provisions FATCA has three main provisions:
- It requires foreign financial institutions, such as banks, to enter into an agreement with the IRS to identify their U.S. account holders and to disclose the account holders' names, TINs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_identification_number), addresses, and the accounts' balances, receipts, and withdrawals.[16] U.S. payors making payments to non-compliant foreign financial institutions are required to withhold 30% of the gross payments.[17][18][19] Foreign financial institutions which are themselves the beneficial owners of such payments are not permitted a credit or refund on withheld taxes absent a treaty override (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_treaty).[20]
- U.S. persons owning these foreign accounts or other specified financial assets must report them on a new Form 8938 which is filed with the person's U.S. tax returns if the accounts are generally worth more than US$ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar)50,000;[21] a higher reporting threshold applies to overseas residents and others.[22][23] Account holders would be subject to a 40% penalty on understatements of income in an undisclosed foreign financial asset.[18][24] Understatements of greater than 25% of gross income are subject to an extended statute of limitations period of 6 years.[25] It also requires taxpayers to report financial assets that are not held in a custodial account, i.e. physical stock or bond certificates.[26]
- It closes a tax loophole that foreign investors had used to avoid paying taxes on U.S. dividends by converting them into "dividend equivalents" through the use of swap contracts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swap_%28finance%29).[27][28]
These reporting requirements are in addition to the requirement for reporting of foreign financial accounts to the U.S. Treasury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Treasury);[29] this most notably includes Form TD F 90-22.1 "Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act#Types_of_reports) (FBAR) for foreign financial accounts exceeding US$10,000 required under Bank Secrecy Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act)[30] regulations issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Crimes_Enforcement_Network) (FinCEN).[31]
Controversy Certain aspects of FATCA have been a source of controversy in the financial and general press.[32] The controversy primarily relates to five central issues:
- Cost. Although numbers are still somewhat speculative, estimates of the additional revenue raised seem to be heavily outweighed by the cost of implementing the legislation. The Association of Certified Financial Crime Specialists (ACFCS) claims FATCA is expected to raise revenues of approximately US$800 million per year for the U.S. Treasury; however, the costs of implementation are more difficult to estimate, and estimates between hundreds of millions and over US$10 billion have been published.[33] ACFCS also claims it is extremely likely that the cost of implementing FATCA (which will be borne by the foreign financial institutions) will far outweigh the revenues raised by the U.S. Treasury, even excluding the additional costs to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service for the staffing and resources needed to process the data produced.[34] Unusually, FATCA was not subject to a cost/benefit analysis by the Committee on Ways and Means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Ways_and_Means).
- Capital flight. The primary mechanism for enforcing the compliance of foreign financial institutions is a punitive withholding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withholding) levy on US assets. This may create a strong incentive for foreign financial institutions to divest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divest) (or not invest) in U.S. assets, resulting in capital flight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_flight).[35]
- Foreign relations. Forcing foreign financial institutions and foreign governments to collect data on U.S. citizens at their own expense and transmit it to the IRS has been called divisive. Canada's Finance Minister Jim Flaherty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Flaherty) has raised an issue with this "far reaching and extraterritorial implications" which would require Canadian banks to become extensions of the IRS and would jeopardize Canadians' privacy rights.[36] There are also reports of many foreign banks refusing to open accounts for Americans, making it harder for Americans to live and work abroad.[37]
- Extraterritoriality. The legislation enables U.S. authorities to impose regulatory costs, and potentially penalties, on foreign financial institutions who otherwise have few if any dealings with the United States.[38] The U.S. has sought to ameliorate that criticism by offering reciprocity to potential countries who sign Intergovernmental Agreements, but the idea of the US Government providing information on its citizens to foreign governments has also proved controversial.[39] The law's interference in the relationship between individual Americans or dual nationals and non-American banks led Georges Ugeux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Ugeux) to term it "bullying and selfish."[40]
- Citizenship renunciations. Time magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIME_%28magazine%29) has reported a sevenfold increase in Americans renouncing U.S. citizenship between 2008 and 2011, and has attributed this at least in part to FATCA.[41] According to the The New American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_American) a record number of Americans have given up U.S. citizenship in 2012 "amid IRS Abuse" and "facing an increasingly out-of-control federal government in Washington, D.C" .[42] According to the BBC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC), the act is one of the reasons for a surge of Americans renouncing their citizenship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renunciation_of_citizenship) – a rise from 189 people in the second quarter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_year) of 2012 to 1,131 people in Q2/2013.[43] Another surge in renunciations in 2013 to record levels has been reported in the news media, with FATCA cited as a factor in the decision of many of the renunciants.[44][45]
- American citizens living abroad. According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation) many Americans living abroad may face large fines as a result of this legislation. According to the story a forty-years old developmentally disabled man, and a Canadian man married to an American will become some of the victims of this law.[46] According to Time (magazine) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_%28magazine%29) American citizens living abroad are unable to open foreign bank accounts .[47]
- IRS not ready. According to the NYTimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NYTimes) it is unclear whether the IRS is ready to handle millions of new complicated filings per year.[29]
- Effect on "accidental Americans". The reporting requirements, including penalties, apply to all U.S. citizens, including those who are unaware that they have U.S. citizenship. Since the U.S. considers all persons born in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli), and most foreign-born persons with American parents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis), to be citizens, FATCA affects a large number of foreign residents who are unaware that the U.S. considers them citizens.
- Complexity. Doubts have been expressed as to workability of FATCA due to its complexity,[48] and the legislative timetable for implementation has already been pushed back twice.[49]
-
Opposition On January 24, 2014, the Republican National Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_National_Committee) passed a resolution calling for the repeal of FATCA.[50]
American Citizens Abroad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Citizens_Abroad), Inc., (ACA) a not-for-profit organization representing the interests of six million Americans residing outside the United States, asserts that the very basis of FATCA legislation is the real problem: citizenship-based taxation (CBT). ACA calls for the U.S. to institute residence-based taxation (RBT) like other developed countries.
Costs There are wildly varying estimates of the likely cost of implementing the legislation. FATCA is expected to produce approximately $8.7 billion in additional tax revenue over 10 years, which is small relative to the estimated $40 billion per year cost of international tax evasion.[51]:36 The United States Congress Joint Committee on Taxation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress_Joint_Committee_on_Taxation) estimated that the FATCA bill would raise $792 million of additional taxes a year in the next ten years.[52]
Estimate of the costs to the private sector, the IRS and foreign revenue authorities are less precise. Compliance cost to financial institutions alone has been roughly estimated at US$8 billion a year,[53] approximately ten times the amount of estimated revenue raised. The United Kingdom government has estimated that the cost to British businesses alone will be £1.1 billion to £2 billion for the first five years (approximately two thirds of the estimate total additional global tax revenue expected).[54] According to the Financial Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Post), the Scotia Bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotia_Bank) in Canada has already spent almost $100 million.[55][56] There are few reliable estimates for the additional cost burden to the IRS, although it seems certain that the majority of the cost seems likely to fall on the relevant financial institutions and (to a lesser degree) foreign tax authorities who have signed intergovernmental agreements.
Implementation Domestic FATCA added 26 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code) § 6038D (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/6038D.html) (section 6038D of the Internal Revenue Code) which requires the reporting of any interest in foreign financial assets over $50,000 after March 18, 2010. FATCA also added 26 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code) §§ 1471 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1471.html)–1474 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1474.html) requiring U.S. payors to withhold taxes on payments to foreign financial institutions (FFI) and nonfinancial foreign entities (NFFE) that have not agreed to provide the IRS with information on U.S. accounts. FATCA also added 26 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code) § 1298(f) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1298%28f%29.html) requiring shareholders of a passive foreign investment company (PFIC) to report certain information.
The IRS issued temporary and proposed regulations on December 14, 2011 for reporting foreign financial assets, requiring the filing of Form 8938 with income tax returns.[57][58] The U.S. Treasury Department issued final regulations and guidance on reporting interest paid to nonresident aliens on April 16, 2012.[59] Treasury and the IRS issued proposed regulations regarding information reporting by, and withholding of payments to, foreign financial institutions on February 8, 2012,[60][61][62] and final regulations on January 17, 2013.[63][64] On December 31, 2013 the IRS published temporary and proposed regulations on annual filing requirements for shareholders of PFICs.[65] On February 20, 2014 the IRS issued temporary and proposed regulations making additions and clarifications to previously issued regulations and providing guidance to coordinate FATCA rules with preexisting requirements.[66][67]
International In 2014 the OECD introduced its standard proposed for the automatic exchange of information (AEOI) through its Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes. The G-20 gave a mandate for this standard, and its relation to FATCA is mentioned on page 5 of the OECD's report. [68] Critics immediately dubbed it "GATCA" for Global FATCA.
Implementation of FATCA may involve legal hurdles; it may be illegal in foreign jurisdictions for financial institutions to disclose the required account information.[69] There is a controversy about the appropriateness of intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) to solve any of these problems.[70]
France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France), Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany), Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy), Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain), and the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) have consented to cooperate with the U.S. on FATCA implementation,[71][72] as have Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland), Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan) [73] and South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa). The deputy director general of legal affairs of the People's Bank of China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Bank_of_China), the central bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank) of the People's Republic of China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China), Liu Xiangmin said "China's banking and tax laws and regulations do not allow Chinese financial institutions to comply with FATCA directly."[74]
Intergovernmental agreements As of April 2, 2014, the following jurisdictions have concluded intergovernmental agreements with the United States regarding the implementation of FATCA.[75] The agreements generally require parliamentary approval in the countries they are concluded with, but not the United States. The United States Department of the Treasury has published model IGAs which follow two approaches. Under Model 1, financial institutions in the partner country report information about U.S. accounts to the tax authority of the partner country. That tax authority then provides the information to the United States. Model 1 comes in a reciprocal version (Model 1A), under which the United States will also share information about the partner country's taxpayers with the partner country, and a nonreciprocal version (Model 1B). Under Model 2, partner country financial institutions report directly the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, and the partner country agrees to lower any legal barriers to that reporting.[75] Model 2 is available in two versions: 2A with no Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA) or Double Tax Convention (DTC) required, and 2B for countries with a pre-existing TIEA or DTC. The IGA with Mexico is the only one that has entered into force.[76][citation needed]
-
I don't get too excited. I think if one puts the government emotion aside and looks at what has happened, then maybe the tax code should incorporate income earned overseas. Just how far this reach goes depends..maybe foreign nationals with U.S. interests included.
When one looks at the 1950's, the portion of corporate income taxes relative to the GNP was much higher than what it is today. The portion of “actual” taxes was also much higher. As I recall, there is some debate on percentages. What sticks in my mind was that corporations contributions were approximately in the mid 30% in the 50's, while it is something like much less than 10% today.
Since the f*ckers in the U.S. Congress have been so eager to protect corporate interests for the past 60 years or so, it behooves every corporate entity to employ a healthy cadre of tax lawyers & accountants.
Couple weeks ago, Caterpillar was in the news..as in shifting profits of $8bil into it's Swiss bank accounts the last few years. Something like over $2tril cash sits in offshore accounts of U.S. based corporations. Is it tax evasion? Or tax avoidance?
The American “Middle Class” has to (as in WILL) borne the difference. Someone has to pay the cost of government if others do not. So, figure out the fairness of the tax code.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579364734183040004
The U.S. federal tax code (& related materials) is now 74,808 pages of legalize, the obvious being the increasing negative effect to the tax paying middle class. &, Somewhere buried in the small print of thousands of pages are corporate tax shelters.
-
I don't pretend to even understand all of the tax codes and laws. Like JohnB said it is huge. I do remember reading a story last year that L.D.S. AKA The Mormon church cleared 6 Billion year before last. All Tax free, The church owns car washes, laundry matts, Banks, Rental property both commercial and residential. They have a system called Titheing were they tax 5% percent of there members gross income. If said members titheing isn't paid on time every time. There name is put on the wall. And the amount that the person or families owes. The name doesn't come down until all monies owed is paid.
Those kids you see walking from neighborhood to neighborhood spreading the word. They have to use there own money to be there. They are housed and fed in another members home. If another member doesn't live in the same area. Housing and food and all utilities come out of the kids pocket. All upkeep on the property and grounds that the Mormon Church owns is donated by it's members.
The other bible thumpers here have bought themselves 100 acres of desert that they are building a community. They have built churches, schools, stores, and real nice housing. That there members have paid for. Now they will sell the houses back to there members.
Most of the money's these bible thumpers collect go's into the uppity mucks pocket, The church's hirachecy Very little of it is spent on there members. Or feeding or sheltering the homeless. But yet they get all this money tax free. I think they need to pay taxes like everybody else. Since they have been stealing from there members for centuries.
Al of this is done Tax Free. The bible thumper church the Mormon church the Catholic church has been able to do this because it is all tax free. They rob and steal,They shame, there members who are trying to buy there way into heaven.
-
My last post was running long. So I'll start again. I used to drive a wrecker for a local car dealership. So you meet allot of people at the end of there rope. Or they are having just plain old bad luck.
I'm standing in the towing office one day trying to talk the cashier out of her virtue. In walks this bible thumper. Along with this smoking hot Mexican girl. The water walker pulls out his churches check book. And writes a check to get this girl's car out of impound. All her clothes, her kids clothes are in the car. So the water walker is doing the right thing he is trying to get the car back.
About 2 weeks latter the Mexican girl screams rape. She says the water walker did it. So they take her to the hospital. Sure enough it was the water walker. So they lock him up. And start asking more questions. come to find out he has a bunk house out in back of the church. He has twenty to thirty young guys shoe horned into this bunk house. and they go out around town and look for day labor jobs. If they can't find day labor jobs they are kicked to the curb. Or they are put on car washing duty. They do car washes at one of the local business. All the money was going to the water walker. And his nice house and car. The reason he had the nice car. And the nice house was because of those kids. And his tax free status. The state had confinscated everything the church had but the damage was already done. Two years latter after the water walker gets out of prison he closes out his hidden bank account and retires in the south pacific somewhere.
-
Back in about 2002 the feds ended up owning a bordello. They confinscated it from some guy who missed paying his tax bill. Now this is a high end bordello. That you have to pay just to look at the girls. If one of the members here went to this bordello it would be a once in a lifetime trip. Because you would never be able to afford it again.
So the feds own this bordello it is profitable. The original owner was making money hand over foot. He had two of every toy you could think of. He had villas in the French country side. He had it all. So the fed tries to sell the bordello. Nobody wants to touch it. Because it is on the I.R.S. radar now. So the feds end up owning it. After six months they decide that they are going to run it. So they hire a committee. They hire the girls back. And sure enough the business is booming. Six months latter the place is bankrupt. All the girls left. The service sucked. The place got dirty. There reputation was shot so the place went bankrupt. Leave it to the feds to take a profitable business and run it into the ground.
-
Maxx. Whats wrong today? Did someone piss in your cornflakes? I can't remember you complaining this much in one sitting.
-
John B
You describe the very issue that is plaguing all "Western Democracies"...even Australia has spotted and highlighted the practice of Major Corporations shifting massive profits offshore and avoiding Tax.
However Legal this may be under the current Tax Laws, it is certainly unethical...but Big Corporations ( and Charities like the Church in all its forms) are in the Business of making profits by any means...and they have armies of Lawyers and Tax advisers to assist them wade through the Tax Law minefield.
It is doubtful whether or not Government can ever get ahead of these entities, they are too big and too well resourced and are able to keep one step ahead of any new Tax Laws aimed at bringing more revenue from this source.
So....the burden again will fall on those who cannot afford to fight back....the threshold of $50, 000 that the US Govt has chosen for reporting against Foreign Income is chicken feed...it will only trap those mugs who maybe own (or have a mortgage) on a Foreign property, or have a "normal income from a Foreign job. If you have Millions or Billions of dollar assets, you are safe because you can afford the Army of "Tax Experts" to assist with avoiding anything !!!
I note that the Apple Corporation in Australia has recently been exposed for shifting 3 Billion dollars of potentially taxable profit offshore from Australia and neatly avoided paying anything.....
-
The man has got me down Gerry.
-
The same problem with big businesses affect every country. In the UK big companies accounting systems are so complex that very few of them pay a great deal of tax. The negotiate with the Tax authorities as to how much THEY WANT to pay. The governments are afraid to lose the income from all the tax that their employees have to pay. In the UK taxed is deducted before it goes into the pay packet.
Even worse with the online biggies , Ebay paypal, Google etc etc. They have small offices in little countries within the European Union with small tax demands and so they pay no tax in the countries they take billions from.
Even Starbucks with all it outlets in the UK paid hardly any tax there because they make little profit in the UK, they say. All supplies to individual units are charged at exorbitant rates from an office in some corner of a European low tax haven. However when this news leaked Starbucks lost a lot of customers but no doubt they have all crept back now.
The problem is that the world over there are very few, if any, poor politicians.
Willy
-
Maxx & DavidE,
Transparency is good.
Long time go, in my "Civics" class (yes, there was such a class) the instructor said if you have a problem,
do not complain to your congressman...better to write a letter to the editor.
This thread is a can of worms.
As I recall, not all church related income is tax free. There are IRS guidelines for "unrelated business income".
See http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Unrelated-Business-Income-Tax
Many church related charity avenues are of huge benefit to the truly needy. If there is doubt, transparency
standards do exist, one of the most obvious being the BBB. http://www.bbb.org/us/charity/
So, I would not go so far as to incorporate all church money making machines as tax dodges. In my opinion, the
Salvation Army or the Catholic Relief Services serve no other purpose than to administer help & relief to the needy.
Then again, the so- called "mega- churches", the "televangelists", I ask, "what the f*ck, who are these people?"