Random Politics & Religion #01

I didn't assert that there were any laws broken... I asked him, after explaining his lack of knowledge regarding these matters, could assert confidently the they have not broken any laws...

Then why are you questioning him if you yourself don't know the answer.

By the way, you are both right, no international law was broken, except by the release of such information publicly.

Here's another set of questions: Is the release of said private information a good thing? How about the reporting of said private information? Did the news media do the right thing of reporting such information, even though there was no laws being broken besides releasing said information?

Yes and no.

US taxes on worldwide income, but they also have a foreign earned income exclusion (up to a certain amount, $100,800 in 2015), and any foreign taxes can be used to offset your US taxes.

I had clients who would make millions per year and pay no US taxes because they paid taxes in other countries, mainly Canada and Mexico.

Did I say I did or did not know the answer? Did I say something one way or another? I asked him a direct question and you butted in with your nonsense that had nothing to do with it...

It doesn't look like they're saying it's illegal, so much as it looks really bad to people who aren't particularly well off.

Not everyone can throw a ton of money into a foreign account with way better interest rates and just let it sit there accumulating.

So, what exactly was your point? Besides..well, being...yourself.

Also, why don't you answer my questions?

So, they are reporting what is common knowledge. Next up: Water is wet (I already used that one when Washington Post pretty much did the exact same thing) Apples fall from trees.

Like I said before:


Protip: Nobody leaves a ton of money into any foreign accounts for interest. Interest rates are still very low, some countries are toying with negative interest rates, and no bank, foreign or domestic, is willing to pay anything better than 2% interest, which the stock/bond markets are paying 6+% ROI currently, depending on the market.

Main point is: It was wrong to release private information to the public, and it is equally wrong to report and sensationalize said private information released illegally. Also not ethically correct to attack the victims of said illegal disclosure and praising the people who practically broke the law.

Would you like me to release your private life to the public and then get applauded and praised by the media for doing so?

I asked a question to someone that was not you? Is that too hard for you to comprehend?

You *** at them for not knowing you have no idea either.

Yes it is illegal "IF" you are doing it not to invest but to withhold paying taxable income. It is easy to identify a shell corporation and SEC defines it very clearly.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission defines a "shell" company to refer to a publicly held company with no or nominal assets other than money.

This in theory is not illegal as many investment firms do not have actual tangible assets, but if you are using a shell corporation to avoid you overall tax liability, then yes that is illegal. It is hard to prove without having the said shell companies records or a trail, which most do not.

No, I don't find it odd, and it's actually a good system to prevent money laundering schemes and tax evasion.

Consider this: The very thing that these "Panama Papers" claim to release happens. Since this information released is about a firm who's under strict international regulation, they report to all taxing authorities affected by this. Because of this, IRS knows to look for this income and bank account information to be reported both on 1040 and 8938 (and subsequent TD F 90-22.1). If laundering does occur, this wouldn't be reported as income, which flags IRS into asking questions, which leads to investigations, which leads to arrests.

To prevent foreign income from being taxed as US income, that's what the earned income exclusion and foreign tax credits are supposed to take care of.

Hell, Canadian taxes are a hell of a lot more than US taxes, so, if you are a dual citizen required to file for both countries, your Canadian income is taxed at Canada and whatever is left is taxed as US income.

A) Investment firms actually do have tangible assets. Computers, servers, office equipment, buildings, and so on. Even online investment firms have servers, which are tangible assets.

B) Under US tax law, which many countries adapt, a company that holds stock or other similar intangible assets and/or easily convertible securities that have no natural owners (aka human) must either A) pass through income to the natural owners or B) pay corporate income tax on said income. Foreign investments are taxed at ordinary rates under corporate tax law. Canadian/Mexican investments are "generally" taxed under qualified rates, but only at the individual level.

So, having a "shell" company does nothing under tax law, because it's under general guidelines and the same principles as regular, producing companies. Legal purposes is why people have "shell" companies hold their assets (meaning you cannot sue me and expect to get any money from any investment under a company I own, nor can you sue my company and expect to get any of my personal money through that company).

(I forgot to mention)

In some cases, software can be considered to be a tangible asset under tax law.

Why are you complain about an answer you basically agree on?

complaining*

Damn it Rooks, give me my edit function back!

From reading articles others have written on the current subject, same as anyone else. No one here, and few people at all, are experts in the specific tax laws of over a dozen countries regarding this situation thus we must rely on outside information.

Which is bad, because we put too much trust into a group of people to report facts where it's obvious to those who actually understand what's going on that this story is really just a sensationalized story driven to create emotion over a problem that does not exist.

I really review posts when they are direct and explanatory.

Twitter-type posts, such as the last response to Flavin, I don't generally review too much before hitting Submit. Which is the "problem" people had and the reason why Rooks removed the edit feature.

Some things, like adding thoughts after I hit submit, I cannot help. It's an "after the fact" thought. And what I used the edit feature the most here.

Are you kidding? After seeing the hilarity in the past week? I might take edit away from everyone.

I won't, really

no promises

On topic, I don't think we know enough to say who did what at this point - there's so much to go through.

The Icelandic government is in real trouble, though. Their restrictions on taking money out of the country are not... lenient, and seeing the government (elected on an anti-corruption platform!) flagrantly bypassing it is going to have severe repercussions, even if they didn't evade taxes.

I wish USA Today actually shared your sentiment.

They are already accusing Putin of fraud. And it's barely 24 hours from the release of the documents.

I missed that. The USA Today editions were too busy slinging mud at people's faces to report that. And there are a lot of editions of the same story too from USA Today....

But really, most (nearly all) of the people who's information was released did nothing wrong. They may catch a handful of real illegal activity, but in essence, foreign investment firms and "shell" companies are not the problem at hand that the media is making it sound like it is.

Also:

If you can read this without a magnifying glass, you don't need glasses

If you can read this without hitting the quote button, tell me what you do so I don't have to wear glasses

Copy and paste. Didn't use the quote button, to read it anyhow.

Did use the quote button to quote you.

ctrl+

Just went to the USAToday website probably for the first time ever, and the Iceland story is plastered right there as the lead article. So I don't know what the complaint is. I'm not surprised to see Putin and a bunch of Russians implicated, if corruption is involved, I expect Putin to be right in the middle of it.

Learn something new everyday!

Oh and FIFA, yeah, seems like a completely legitimate scandal, the Russian gov't and FIFA are involved.