Paradise papers

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

smurgen

Jawgap wrote: »

It's academic.....essentially if I pay less tax here than I otherwise would've paid in the US I've to give them the difference (it's more complex than that, but that's the basic premise)......but all things considered, Ireland is the better location.....filing is certainly a lot easier here

U.S taxes are crazy.i always wondered why people pick up losing tickets in race tracks etc til someone explained it.

server down

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Thats a grey area, that said I think you are correct. I was wrong in assuming that married people have to have the same domicile.

server down

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If I were an American citizen ( and it was a close run thing but thats a long story) and living here I would hire an accountant over there just in case.. Something could change in the law, or be too complex for Turbo Tax to handle, and it's Guantanamo* for you.

* slight exaggeration.

MadYaker

smurgen wrote: »

Bono pays less tax.government receives less tax. Do the government have a)less money to fund social services or b) more money?

It's the governments decision what gets cut and what doesn't. Bono has no direct impact on it.

Jimbob1977

Tax evasion is illegal.

Tax avoidance is perfectly legal (but ethically and morally questionable).

It's down to good tax planning and probing for loopholes to exploit.

Most of the people caught up in the Paradise Papers will be 100% legitimate, but it's still a bit galling for millionaires to expand their fortunes...
while Johnny Taxpayer has no access to high-priced lawyers, accountants, tax consultants, etc

Wanderer78

MadYaker wrote: »

It's the governments decision what gets cut and what doesn't. Bono has no direct impact on it.

this isnt necessarily true, events particularly over the last few years has shown this

smurgen

The Queen of England taking major heat.Investment in Bright House a payday lender same as wonga.Sitting in a palace surrounded by diamonds and invested in a payday lender.jesus wept!thirsty bitch!

server down

MadYaker wrote: »

It's the governments decision what gets cut and what doesn't. Bono has no direct impact on it.

Oh ffs. The government has a certain amount of money to spend. If more people avoid tax they have less money to spend.

Jawgap

smurgen wrote: »

U.S taxes are crazy.i always wondered why people pick up losing tickets in race tracks etc til someone explained it.

Receipts are what it's all about

I get a CPA to for my returns - it pays for itself.

You can renounce US citizenship, which I probably should've done a few years ago before they bumped the fee to over $2000. But it is handy to have for work.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wanderer78

server down wrote: »

Oh ffs. The government has a certain amount of money to spend. If more people avoid tax they have less money to spend.

steve keen has very interesting opinions on taxation and how governments have the ability to create money, hes probably right to

Sleeper12

Jimbob1977 wrote:

Tax avoidance is perfectly legal (but ethically and morally questionable).

I don't see how it's questionable. I can avoid paying some tax by making payments into my pension. I send in a med 1 & med 2 forms and avoid paying more tax. If the government wants me to stop then they can change the law.

I don't have any money off shore but I don't see any direct in avoiding tax here or abroad.

The revenue commissioners will give Bono and the likes a certificate of tax compliance if requested

server down

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I don't see how it's questionable. I can avoid paying some tax by making payments into my pension. I send in a med 1 & med 2 forms and avoid paying more tax. If the government wants me to stop then they can change the law.

I don't have any money off shore but I don't see any direct in avoiding tax here or abroad.

The revenue commissioners will give Bono and the likes a certificate of tax compliance if requested

You have no idea if all of this is legal or not.

Comparing the pittence you get back on a medical bill you are paying for twice over already (tax and insurance) to a multi millionaire paying nothing is insane logic.

Jawgap

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Just Federal. And yes my Irish taxes cover it. I probably could do it, but I prefer to have the reassurance of someone who is much more familiar with the system do it. My sister-in-law's sister-in-law (if that makes sense) does my return for me, so I get a 'family discount' on the fee.

Jawgap

server down wrote: »

You have no idea if all of this is legal or not.

Comparing the pittence you get back on a medical bill you are paying for twice over already (tax and insurance) to a multi millionaire paying nothing is insane logic.

So at what point is avoidance ok?

john.han

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I don't see how it's questionable. I can avoid paying some tax by making payments into my pension. I send in a med 1 & med 2 forms and avoid paying more tax. If the government wants me to stop then they can change the law.

I don't have any money off shore but I don't see any direct in avoiding tax here or abroad.

The revenue commissioners will give Bono and the likes a certificate of tax compliance if requested

They're to:

1. Create an incentive for private pensions to reduce the burden to the state when people are in retirement.

2. Ensure people seek medical treatment when they need it, in the long term this saves the state money.

Both save the state money in the long run. Funneling money through shell companies abroad is of zero benefit to the state/society. Only serves to hideaway money ensuring a very small number of people get wealthy beyond reason.

server down

Jawgap wrote: »

So at what point is avoidance ok?

Getting some reimbursement for medical costs is not avoidance. Nor is deferred taxation like the pension. Nor are legitimate expenses. Nor are PAYE tax credits.


So I doubt that most of the peasantry is in fact avoiding taxes.

Jawgap

john.han wrote: »

They're to:

1. Create an incentive for private pensions to reduce the burden to the state when people are in retirement.

2. Ensure people seek medical treatment when they need it, in the long term this saves the state money.

Both save the state money in the long run. Funneling money through shell companies abroad is of zero benefit to the state/society. Only serves to hideaway money ensuring a very small number of people get wealthy beyond reason.

So if I'm not putting earnings to a socially beneficial use they should be liable for tax?

Sleeper12

server down wrote:

Comparing the pittence you get back on a medical bill you are paying for twice over already (tax and insurance) to a multi millionaire paying nothing is insane logic.

That's deflection. If I avoid 1 euro & a big boy avoids 1 million euro its still the same thing. You can't say that because they are bigger that it's wrong for them to avoid tax and it's OK for me to avoid tax because it's a smaller amount.

I get asked every day for cash price and will I do cash jobs. I don't. But collect every penny due to revenue and I pay all I'm supposed to pay but I avoid paying as much tax as possible.

server down wrote:

You have no idea if all of this is legal or not.

So far nothing illegal has been reported. Until it is we will to assume it is legal. I can't imagine the Queen doing anything illegal tbh

john.han

Jawgap wrote: »

So if I'm not putting earnings to a socially beneficial use they should be liable for tax?

No, if you put earnings to a socially beneficial use then it's fair for the state to create an incentive for this.

server down

Jawgap wrote: »

Really, what if the dividends are repatriated to a company in another jurisdiction, that advances a loan to him? Or it's loaned to another company that buys an asset he wants which is transferred to a trust of which he is the beneficiary?

As far as I know that’s evasion. The loan that isn’t a loan would be evasion for sure.

IT workers used to do that in England. An umbrella company was set up on jersey or somewhere which the contracting company paid the umbrella company that then paid the workers in a loan which was to repaid in the future but never was. The HMRC was not in agreement.

Jawgap

john.han wrote: »

No, if you put earnings to a socially beneficial use then it's fair for the state to create an incentive for this.

.....and if I don't?

If I pay the tax I'm supposed to pay but take an amount and just stash under the bed, should I pay tax on that?

server down

Sleeper12 wrote: »

That's deflection. If I avoid 1 euro & a big boy avoids 1 million euro its still the same thing. You can't say that because they are bigger that it's wrong for them to avoid tax and it's OK for me to avoid tax because it's a smaller amount.

Actually I said your examples were expenses or deferred taxation, not avoidance. But I think I could say that avoiding more taxation is worse than avoiding less taxation.

I get asked every day for cash price and will I do cash jobs. I don't. But collect every penny due to revenue and I pay all I'm supposed to pay but I avoid paying as much tax as possible.

Really. What’s the incentive for people who ask you, cheaper costs? And claiming on expenses is not avoidance at all.

So far nothing illegal has been reported. Until it is we will to assume it is legal. I can't imagine the Queen doing anything illegal tbh

She literally can’t do anything illegal

server down

Jawgap wrote: »

.....and if I don't?

If I pay the tax I'm supposed to pay but take an amount and just stash under the bed, should I pay tax on that?

I think he’s saying that the government should allow taxation incentives for socially beneficial causes. Your post tax stash is entirely irrelevant.

smurgen

server down wrote: »

Actually I said your examples were expenses or deferred taxation, not avoidance. But I think I could say that avoiding more taxation is worse than avoiding less taxation.



Really. What’s the incentive for people who ask you, cheaper costs? And claiming on expenses is not avoidance at all.






She literally can’t do anything illegal

She can severely diminish the image of the royals in the U.K however and make their out of touch more and more aparant.

The damage these revelations do to reputation is not to be ignored.

Jawgap

server down wrote: »

As far as I know that’s evasion. The loan that isn’t a loan would be evasion for sure.

IT workers used to do that in England. An umbrella company was set up on jersey or somewhere which the contracting company paid the umbrella company that then paid the workers in a loan which was to repaid in the future but never was. The HMRC was not in agreement.

Really? How so?

It's only evasion if you take deductions on loan repayments you never make, the case you refer to was about 'disguised remuneration' not dividends.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sleeper12

server down wrote:

Actually I said your examples were expenses or deferred taxation, not avoidance. But I think I could say that avoiding more taxation is worse than avoiding less taxation.

server down wrote:

Really. What’s the incentive for people who ask you, cheaper costs? And claiming on expenses is not avoidance at all.

Yes. They want me to defraud the revenue of vat and income tax so that I will pass on some savings. I refuse and sometimes I do not get the work because I refuse. I am all for paying what the revenue want me to pay.

Claiming on expenses is avoiding tax. Fill in the blank here: I claim on my expenses to _____ paying tax.

Answer: avoid

Jawgap

server down wrote: »

I think he’s saying that the government should allow taxation incentives for socially beneficial causes. Your post tax stash is entirely irrelevant.

Ok, then. The place I work for gives us tax free shares as part of our bonus scheme - is that socially beneficial? Especially if, after the qualifying period expires, I sell the shares and just stash the cash?

server down

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Yes. They want me to defraud the revenue of vat and income tax so that I will pass on some savings. I refuse and sometimes I do not get the work because I refuse. I am all for paying what the revenue want me to pay.

Its people like that who are part of the problem in this country. That said I never hear people admit to doing this ( the reverse in fact, they complain when someone demands cash).

Claiming on expenses is avoiding tax. Fill in the blank here: I claim on my expenses to _____ paying tax.

Answer: avoid

Thats an incorrect answer. You don't even understand the terms here. You pay tax on profit, not revenue. Legitimate expense are not avoiding tax at all.

server down

Jawgap wrote: »

Ok, then. The place I work for gives us tax free shares as part of our bonus scheme - is that socially beneficial? Especially if, after the qualifying period expires, I sell the shares and just stash the cash?

Its hard to see how that could be socially beneficial. Are you just going to make up stories and say "is that socially beneficial" - we would be here all night.

server down

Jawgap wrote: »

the case you refer to was about 'disguised remuneration' not dividends.

you suggested that a rich guy could get a company in a low tax jurisdiction to pay himself a loan, that sounds like disguised renumeration to me.

Sleeper12

server down wrote:

Thats an incorrect answer. You don't even understand the terms here. You pay tax on profit, not revenue. Legitimate expense are not avoiding tax at all.

I'm self employed over 30 years. I didn't say that I pay tax on revenue. That's your wording.
I have the option to fill in a med 1 form. It's my choice, fill it in or don't fill it in. 10s if thousands of people Irish people don't fill it in. I do fill it in and I avoid paying the tax that the others are paying. It's a choice. Pay the tax or avoid paying the tax. I avoid paying the tax.

We're sort of getting side tracked here. If avoiding tax by putting it outside of the country is wrong or if you want to make it wrong then why haven't we made it illegal?

It's up to the revenue in each country to decide what rates they charge. The revenue can change the tax rate, rather the minister for finance can, to make it more attractive for these people to have their money invested here. They don't.

Have you ever bought something on Amazon, eBay or from any other country? By your train of thought we shouldn't buy goods outside of Ireland. It's costs revenue here. Less taxes collected the less the government has to spend on health, education etc. The same argument can be made about buying goods and services outside of Ireland as to avoid paying tax here

20Cent

A bus ticket blew out of your pocket once so you are as responsible for pollution as the Exxon.

server down

20Cent wrote: »

A bus ticket blew out of your pocket once so you are as responsible for pollution as the Exxon.

Someone once slapped a child so he is the same, morally, as someone who beat a child to death.

I once jaywalked. I’m as criminal as somebody with 100 felony convictions.

What’s the name of this logical fallacy?

20Cent

server down wrote: »

Someone once slapped a child so he is the same, morally, as someone who beat a child to death.

I once jaywalked. I’m as criminal as somebody with 100 felony convictions.

What’s the name of this logical fallacy?

False equivalence?

Good to see that the top .001% have people to fight for their right to rip us all off.

smurgen

Panorama special on BBC now.

Jawgap

server down wrote: »

Its hard to see how that could be socially beneficial. Are you just going to make up stories and say "is that socially beneficial" - we would be here all night.

Well the tax system here allows employers to reward staff with shares on a tax free basis (up to about €12k, iirc). After 3 years you can sell the shares and trouser the cash, tax free.

How is that provision of Irish tax law socially beneficial?

Wanderer78

Jawgap wrote: »

Well the tax system here allows employers to reward staff with shares on a tax free basis (up to about €12k, iirc). After 3 years you can sell the shares and trouser the cash, tax free.

How is that provision of Irish tax law socially beneficial?

share options is a damn interesting subject matter in relation to tax, who are the true beneficiaries?

Jawgap

server down wrote: »

you suggested that a rich guy could get a company in a low tax jurisdiction to pay himself a loan, that sounds like disguised renumeration to me.

Actually, if read the whole thing leading up to it, it was about dividends, not remuneration.

Company A returns a dividend to Company B which has a stake in it. Company B has, as a shareholder, Mr C. Company B's board decides to retain the dividend or simply not to pay a dividend. Mr C as a shareholder asks for a loan and is granted it.

Mr C does not work for either company so how can he be remunerated? He decides not to repay the loan or only makes a few payments whereupon Company B write it off as a bad debt.

JP Liz V1

MightyMandarin wrote: »

He invested millions in a lithuanian shopping centre via his maltese investment fund. Mr 'feed the poor' caught again dodging tax with his little offshore accounts. Prick.

If only he could invest some cash back in Ireland :rolleyes:

Harry Palmr

Half the cast of Mrs Browns Boys are tax dodging, it's a shock they are not being paid on the lump

So the O’Carroll clan pay their wages to a company in Mauritius whom they are all investment managers in. They all then instruct the company to “loan” them their wages back to their bank account in the U.K which they pay no tax on.

Beasty

Jawgap wrote: »

Well the tax system here allows employers to reward staff with shares on a tax free basis (up to about €12k, iirc). After 3 years you can sell the shares and trouser the cash, tax free.

How is that provision of Irish tax law socially beneficial?

Actually they are subject to CGT

amovingstatue

cisk wrote: »

So the O’Carroll clan pay their wages to a company in Mauritius whom they are all investment managers in. They all then instruct the company to “loan” them their wages back to their bank account in the U.K which they pay no tax on.

bon voyage mrs browne (and don't come back)

ah feck it he'll be back over here now

astrofool

Here's the thing.

Governments spend money really badly, like awfully, tie it up in bureaucratic knots with masses of waste in duplication of how it is spent. What they spend it on also goes way over budget, or spent giving people massive wages which their work does not deserve.

If a wealthy individual, like say, Bill Gates, wants to make a positive difference to the world, they should avoid paying as much tax as possible, so they can spend it where it's needed, on say, curing malaria, or making drinking water available to all.

It just so happens that the greedy who want to keep all their money also do the same things. However, even in the hands of the greedy, it will probably do more good than if the government got control of it and frittered it away.

smurgen

astrofool wrote: »

Here's the thing.

Governments spend money really badly, like awfully, tie it up in bureaucratic knots with masses of waste in duplication of how it is spent. What they spend it on also goes way over budget, or spent giving people massive wages which their work does not deserve.

If a wealthy individual, like say, Bill Gates, wants to make a positive difference to the world, they should avoid paying as much tax as possible, so they can spend it where it's needed, on say, curing malaria, or making drinking water available to all.

It just so happens that the greedy who want to keep all their money also do the same things. However, even in the hands of the greedy, it will probably do more good than if the government got control of it and frittered it away.

You're dead right man.it's disgusting the way the government spend money. Just two years ago my uncle was diagnosed with cancer and you know what the government done? Provided him with top care almost free of charge. What a shower of scumbags.that money coulda been way better spent maintaining a yacht for like a month or two.

ThisRegard

amovingstatue wrote: »

bon voyage mrs browne (and don't come back)

ah feck it he'll be back over here now

He's not involved apparently.

smurgen

For every bill gates there's 10 russian oligarchs and a thousand saudi princes spending money on bull****.