My wife was listening to the NPR Now channel on XM radio during her drive to work this morning. She called to alert me to this short discussion that was on the Brian Lehrer show which is an WNYC program out of New York. This is primarily a discussion with Matt Welch, editor in chief of Reason magazine, who follows up on the Vanity Fair revelations regarding Romney’s Offshore accounts. Here he explains why he thinks Swiss bank accounts are just fine, and also gets into a discussion of FATCA impacts on average middle class Expats. I am not sure how many NPR stations around the nation carry this program, but good to hear such coverage on the U.S. airwaves. It is short, only about 10 minutes, and you can listen here.
Based on his statements about Romney, Vanity Fair’s Nicholas Shaxson is a liberal. But he now has personal experience with liberal “fairness” towards one who is outside of the liberal special interest groups, and he doesn’t like it very much.
He gets very close to admitting that the entire income tax is obscene, but suggests that “simplification” is a solution. But in a globalized world you can never insure that citizens working offshore will not be treated unequally (double taxed) by income taxes.
The real issue that liberals are desperate to avoid is financial privacy. Theoretically liberals should stand firmly behind financial privacy, but they have sold out to the special interests that govern the Democratic party. So they try to avoid the subject so that they can rob us of this basic human right without having to justify it.
Switzerland long stood for neutrality and Swiss banks long stood for financial privacy. No longer, ever since Switzerland joined the UN she has gotten dragged into the liberal welfare state cesspool and Switzerland even joins in on embargoes against “uncompliant” nations like Iran, Syria and Venezuela. The left in Switzerland even want to make the Swiss army voluntary and “compliant” with UN and NATO standards so that Switzerland could partake in welfare state police actions. CS and UBS have fastened their umbilical cords to the FED through their primary dealer status, and the SNB has become a serf to the FED.
In short, the western welfare states have banded together and are waging a war against financial privacy. They would claim “if you have nothing to hide then why do you want privacy”. I would reply “if you don’t want to steal my money, why do you need to know so much about it”.
Financial privacy is one of the most fundamental human rights and the welfare state elites are desperate to take this away from us. FACTA is a crass attempt by the US government to crack this nut, globally.
Another casualty taken in the war against bloated unconstitutional government:
Amazon has stopped fighting the sales-tax war
So Amazon has become “regulatorily captured”. They have sold out. Now Amazon has a vested interest in making sure that competition also has to pay sales tax on items shipped in from out of state. Just like UBS and CS now want to make sure every bank on the planet has to follow FATCA too. Sure, same day delivery would be great. But not at the price of becoming sales-tax slaves to the state where one is resident.
@ConfederateH
That is the conclusion I have come to, and that is why I keep calling it GATCA.
Dan Mitchell takes up the defense of Romney under this title..
Since Mitt Romney Won’t Defend Himself, I Guess It’s Up to Me to Debunk the Left’s Tax Haven Demagoguery
Just saw this comment here, and wondered… Has it already come to this? FATCA is not fully implemented, and the Swiss Banks are already looking for you! This is the most invasive questions I have seen, and wonder if it is true.. Any insights by Swiss participants?
Kris Kristoffersen (I doubt it is the real one!)Collapse
Another also “very up to date” quote from Ayn Rand:
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.
You are right on the money Simon :
Although you have a tendency to emphasize just a tad too much (The picture above is a perfect example, 1- These are not German uniforms and 2- the raids are conducted by state prosecutors and policemen not anti-terrorist squads).
When too much is really too much they will leave the party (those who can afford to).
Just yesterday I was at a bank in Geneva asking info on how to setup a simple checking account. It was very revealing to experience how “highly concerned” banks are of anyone who may be considered as “linked” to the USA.
Now everyone, without exception, has to answer a questionnaire the bank manager/clerck are obliged to make you fill in and sign :
– Are you a USA citizen?
– Are you a USA green card holder?
– Do you reside in the USA for more than 32 days per year?
– Have you been in the USA for more than xx days in the last 2 years?
– Do you hold bank accounts in the USA?
– Do you trade or do business in the USA?
Don’t care about your responses, just covering their back.
Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s but as far as I know, Switzerland is still a sovereign nation. For those in Switzerland: I still think that people should really hold out and refuse to have their accounts closed or disclosed.
If the banks don’t verify your responses on the forms, then perhaps lie (you will have to decide for yourself and weigh the consequences), and avoid answering any verbal questions with “no comment”. Alternatively, if you know the banker well, agree that you will lie on the form to protect your own rights. Swiss ID documents currently do not show birthplace, so the banker would have no legal indices to prove otherwise.
Quietly prepare your legal arguments in case you are called to the carpet for providing “false” information. (RS291 Art 23, Art 271 CPS, Art 261bis CPS, and the “legitimate defense” argument of the Swiss Penal Code, as well as the constitutional requirements for mandatory referendum on constitutional changes… see legal citations far below). There may be Cantonal legal and constitutional arguments available as supplements (remember that it is the Cantons that administer tax declarations, even for federal income and military taxes). At least two cantons have told me that “double taxation is illegal”— it seems that nobody can fathom the ridiculous savings clause in the tax treaties.
If you can hold out a bit longer, maybe the Swiss government will have (by the end of the year supposedly) negotiated a relaxation of FATCA
enforcement in Switzerland as announced (however, not unlike during the 2009 affair
about disclosure of 5000 names from the UBS, we are being forced to wait in suspense to find out the final terms of the agreement). Here is a quotation from the press release by the Swiss federal authorities of 21 June:
“Simplifications could be provided for
within the scope of an intergovernmental agreement. The following facilitation
measures are sought under the joint declaration:
Certain financial institutions such as social
security funds, pension funds and property insurers should be exempt from FATCA (so-called exempt FFIs).
primarily on a local or regional basis will be deemed compliant with FATCA, (deemed-compliant FFIs).
Negotiations between Switzerland and the
United States on the resolution of outstanding tax issues concerning the past are still ongoing. It is hoped that an agreement will be reached by year-end.” [emphasis mine]
English Press Release: http://www.news.admin.ch/message/index.html?lang=en&msg-id=45046
French Press Release: http://www.news.admin.ch/message/index.html?lang=fr&msg-id=45046
Article about the same in French: http://www.zonebourse.com/actualite-bourse/Conseil-federal-suisse-La-Suisse-et-les-Etats-Unis-publient-une-declaration-de-mise-en-%9Cuvre-du-FA–14380954/
Hopefully, these negotiations will result in more slack, at least for
middle class people.
Also, although we were told in previous OVDI announcements that the
rules would only get tougher, the recent announcement of lax treatment of
people (outside OVDI) with less than $1’500 in tax liability might be made even
more lax with time, especially if we continue to proffer arguments of cost of living
and foreign-exchange rate fluctuations.
Possession is 9/10ths of the law, so maybe if you stay away from the US,
you can keep your hard-earned savings, your home, and your retirement accounts.
Legal Texts (I had to reformat these as best I could, please excuse me if the line breaks don’t show up properly or there are some mangled words):
RS311.0 Penal Code
Art. 15
If any person is unlawfully attacked or
threatened with imminent attack, the person attacked and any
other person are entitled to ward off the attack by means that are reasonable
in the circumstances.
Art. 16
1 If a person in defending himself exceeds
the limits of self-defence as defined in Article 15 and in doing so
commits an offence, the court shall reduce the sentence.
2 If a person in defending himself exceeds
the limits of self-defence as a result of excusable excitement or
panic in reaction to the attack, he does not commit an offence.
Art. 17
Any person who carries out an act that
carries a criminal penalty in order to save a legal interest of his
own or of another from immediate and not otherwise avertable danger, acts
lawfully if by doing so he safeguards interests of higher value.
Art. 18
1 Any person who carries out an act that
carries a criminal penalty in order to save himself or another from
immediate and not otherwise avertable danger to life or limb,
freedom, honour, property or other interests of high value shall receive a
reduced penalty if he could reasonably have been expected to abandon
the endangered interest.
2 If the person concerned could not have
been reasonably expected to abandon the endangered interest, he does
not commit an offence.
Art. 19
1 If the person concerned was unable at
the time of the act to appreciate that his act was wrong or to act in
accordance with this appreciation of the act, he is not liable to
prosecution.
2 If the person concerned was only
partially able at the time of the act to appreciate that his act was wrong or
to act in accordance with this appreciation of the act, the court shall
reduce the sentence.
3 Measures in accordance with Articles 59–61,
63, 64, 67 and 67b may, however, be taken.
4 If it was possible for the person
concerned to avoid his state of mental incapacity or diminished responsibility
and had he done so to foresee the act that may be committed in
that state, paragraphs 1–3 do not
apply.
Art. 14
Any person who acts as required or
permitted by the law, acts lawfully even if the act carries a penalty under
this Code or another Act.
This could be
problematic if ever there are specific FATCA provisions in Federal Law. This should not apply to the application of
international agreements that violate the Constitution, as a popular vote
should be called in such cases.
Art. 20
If there are serious grounds for
believing that the accused may be legally [read “IR-“, this appears to be
typo in the translation] responsible due to a mental disorder, the
investigating authority or the court shall order a specialist
report from an expert.
Art. 21
Any person who is not and cannot be
aware that, by carrying out an act, he is acting unlawfully, does not
commit an offence. If the error was avoidable, the court shall reduce the sentence.
Art. 261bis Any person who publicly incites hatred
or discrimination against a person or a group of persons on the
grounds of their race, ethnic origin or religion, any person who publicly disseminates
ideologies that have as their object the systematic denigration or
defamation of the members of a race, ethnic group or religion, any person who with the same objective
organises, encourages or participates in propaganda campaigns, any person who publicly denigrates or
discriminates against another or a group of persons on the grounds of
their race, ethnic origin or religion in a manner that violates human dignity,
whether verbally, in writing or pictorially, by using
gestures, through acts of aggression or by other means, or any person who on any
of these grounds denies, trivialises or seeks justification for
genocide or other crimes against humanity, any person who refuses to provide a service to another on the grounds of that person’s
race, ethnic origin or religion when that service is intended to be
provided to the general public, shall be liable to a custodial sentence
not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty. [Emphasis
mine]
Art. 271
1. Any person who carries out activities
on behalf of a foreign state on Swiss territory without lawful
authority, where such activities are the responsibility of a public authority or
public official, any person who carries out such
activities for a foreign party or organisation, any person who encourages such
activities, shall be liable to a custodial sentence
not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty, or in serious cases to
a custodial sentence of not less than one year.
2. Any person who abducts another by
using violence, false pretences or threats and takes him abroad in order
to hand him over to a foreign authority, party or other organisation
or to expose him to a danger to life or limb shall be liable to a
custodial sentence of not less than one year.
3. Any person who makes preparations for
such an abduction shall be liable to a custodial sentence or to a monetary
penalty.
RS291 (Federal Law on
International Private Legal Matters)
Sorry I couldn’t find the official English
text, see translation in italics:
Art. 23
IV. Pluralité de nationalités
1 Lorsqu’une personne a une ou
plusieurs nationalités étrangères en sus de la nationalité suisse, seule la
nationalité suisse est retenue pour déterminer la compétence du for d’origine.
When one has one or many foreign nationalities as well as Swiss
nationality, only the Swiss nationality is considered to determine
jurisdiction.
2 Lorsqu’une personne a
plusieurs nationalités, celle de l’Etat avec lequel elle a les relations les
plus étroites est seule retenue pour déterminer le droit applicable, à moins
que la présente loi n’en dispose autrement.
When one has several nationalities, that of the state which he has the
closest relation is retained to determine jurisdiction, unless this present law
determines otherwise.
3 Si la reconnaissance d’une
décision étrangère en Suisse dépend de la nationalité d’une personne, la prise
en considération d’une de ses nationalités suffit.
If the recognition of a foreign judgment depends on the nationality of a
person, the consideration of one of his nationalities suffices. [This would seem to open the way to execution
of a US judgment against a Swiss resident, but would be in conflict with 1 or 2
if the person held a Swiss nationality or, for example, French nationality and
had closer contact with the same].
RS 101 (Swiss Federal Constitution)
Art. 140 Mandatory
referendum
1 The following must be put to the vote of
the People and the Cantons:
a. amendments to the Federal
Constitution;
b. accession to organisations for
collective security or to supranational communities;
c. emergency federal acts that are not
based on a provision of the Constitution
and whose term of validity exceeds one
year; such federal acts must be put
to the vote within one year of being
passed by the Federal Assembly.
2 The following shall be submitted to a
vote of the People:
a. popular initiatives for a complete
revision of the Federal Constitution;
abis. …80
Art. 141a 85 Implementation of
international treaties
1 If the decision on ratification of an
international treaty is subject to a mandatory referendum, the Federal Assembly may
incorporate in the decision on ratification the amendments to the Constitution that
provide for the implementation of the treaty.
2 If the decision on ratification of an
international treaty is subject to an optional referendum, the Federal Assembly may
incorporate in the decision on ratification the amendments to the law that provide for
the implementation of the treaty.
Articles 140 & 141a, when taken
together, would seem to imply (despite the rejection of the recent popular
initiative seeking to make the Constitution more specific on this) that the
people must approve by vote any international treaty that messes with the
rights and procedures inscribed in the Constitution. This has not been done in the case of the
double-taxation treaty with the US, the treaty’s implementation abridges rights
guaranteed by the Swiss Constitution, therefore the treaty cannot be enforced.
Here is the kicker:
Art. 2 Aims
1 The Swiss Confederation shall protect
the liberty and rights of the people and safeguard the independence and
security of the country.
That makes it
pretty clear that Parliament and the Federal Council have been grossly
negligent or even treasonous in their negotiations with the US.
I am not going to go into a complete discussion of Swiss legislation on treason here, but the Wikipedia article might be a place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#Switzerland
**QUOTE**
Switzerland
There is no single crime of treason in Swiss law; instead, multiple criminal prohibitions apply. Article 265 of the Swiss Criminal Code prohibits “high treason” (Hochverrat/haute trahison) as follows:
“Whoever commits an act with the objective of violently – changing the constitution of the Confederation or of a canton, – removing the constitutional authorities of the state from office or making them unable to exercise their authority, – separating Swiss territory from the Confederation or territory from a canton, shall be punished with imprisonment of no less than a year.”
A separate crime is defined in article 267 as “diplomatic treason” (Diplomatischer Landesverrat/Trahison diplomatique):
“1. Whoever makes known or accessible a secret, the preservation of which is required in the interest of the Confederation, to a foreign state or its agents, (…) shall be punished with imprisonment of no less than a year. 2. Whoever makes known or accessible a secret, the preservation of which is required in the interest of the Confederation, to the public, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to five years or a monetary penalty.”
In 1950, in the context of the Cold War, the following prohibition of “foreign enterprises against the security of Switzerland” was introduced as article 266bis:
“1 Whoever, with the purpose of inciting or supporting foreign enterprises aimed against the security of Switzerland, enters into contact with a foreign state or with foreign parties or other foreign organizations or their agents, or makes or disseminates untrue or tendentious claims (unwahre oder entstellende Behauptungen / informations inexactes ou tendancieuses), shall be punished with imprisonment of up to five years or a monetary penalty. 2 In grave cases the judge may pronounce a sentence of imprisonment of no less than a month.”
The criminal code also prohibits, among other acts, the suppression or falsification of legal documents or evidence relevant to the international relations of Switzerland (art. 267, imprisonment of no less than a year) and attacks against the independence of Switzerland and incitement of a war against Switzerland (art. 266, up to life imprisonment).
The Swiss military criminal code contains additional prohibitions under the general title of “treason”, which also apply to civilians, or which in times of war civilians are also (or may by executive decision be made) subject to. These include espionage or transmission of secrets to a foreign power (art. 86); sabotage (art. 86a); “military treason”, i.e., the disruption of activities of military significance (art. 87); acting as a franc-tireur (art. 88); disruption of military action by disseminating untrue information (art. 89); military service against Switzerland by Swiss nationals (art. 90); or giving aid to the enemy (art. 91). The penalties for these crimes vary, but include life imprisonment in some cases.
**UNQUOTE**
I forgot Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Swiss Federal Constitution:
“It shall ensure the greatest possible equality of opportunity among its citizens”
AND:
Art. 8 Equality before the law
1 Everyone shall be equal before the law.
2 No one may be discriminated against, in particular on grounds of origin, race,
gender, age, language, social position, way of life, religious, ideological…
OH, and pension plans are a CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE as well (in addition to being madated in Swiss Federal Law):
Art. 112 Old-age, Survivors’ and Invalidity Insurance*
1 The Confederation shall legislate on the Old-age, Survivors and Invalidity Insurance.
2 In doing so, it shall adhere to the following principles:
a. the insurance is compulsory.
abis.47 it provides cash and non-cash benefits.
b. pensions must be sufficient to cover basic living expenses adequately.
c. the maximum pension must not be more than twice the minimum pension.
d. pensions must as a minimum be adjusted in line with price trends.
3 The insurance shall be funded:
a. through contributions from those insured, whereby employers must pay one
half of the contributions payable by their employees;
Ran across this today,
“The empty-headed populist rage at Americans with overseas income has contributed to the passage of a law backed by the Obama administration called FATCA that makes life needlessly difficult for Americans overseas.” (love this line!)
http://www.openmarket.org/2012/07/13/americans-pay-taxes-on-overseas-income-including-bank-accounts-in-so-called-tax-havens/
“As one American who works for the International Labor Organization in Switzerland noted, “Just since the beginning of the year, I have been informed by one of Switzerland’s two largest banking institutions that due to the fact that I am an American, I had to divest myself of all my investment holdings in their financial institution. Another bank agreed to accept my investments; then, just this month, on the day that I went to sign the papers, I was informed that the authority to do this had been withdrawn.”
The Postfinance, a banking unit of the Swiss Federal government-owned “Die Post/ La Poste/ La Posta” post office, must grant bank accounts to anyone closely tied to Switzerland. This includes Americans, or anyone else, living in Switzerland.
According to an article in the Blick newspaper on 19 March 2012, Postfinance will be able to exclude people in 2013 who might cause legal or reputational risk to it. The Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce head is requesting that the Postfinance still be required to offer a transactional bank account to Americans living in Switzerland. (Article is in German).
http://www.amcham.ch/media/downloads/120319_blick_postfincance_im_clinch.PDF
@outragedcanadian
Thanks for that link. I am surprised you didn’t post a comment there to support the blogger. 🙂
Reposting this in this thread since it seems to belong here:
Just found this article on a Real Overseas, a Swiss bank willing to serve US citizen who agree to be compliant with US tax regulations
http://www.wealthbriefing.com/html/article.php?title=EXCLUSIVE_INTERVIEW__Reyl_Wants_To_Serve_US_Clients_Without_Banking_Secrecy&id=47935
@Christophe
Thank you for posting the link to the Reyl article. Reyl Privatbank is wealth and asset management bank. Generally, without at least US$1 million or more to invest, you couldn’t get past the receptionist in a private bank. US Persons in Switzerland are looking for retail banks which offer current accounts, rental deposit accounts, mortgages, credit cards, and possibly savings accounts.
The general direction is that the two large international banks will take some US Persons living in Switzerland, but reports are that they do not want average wage-earners and their fees are high. For average wage-earners, there is the government-owned Postfinance, which is required to offer basic banking services to anyone living in Switzerland. At this time, Postfinance only offers a current account to US Persons. In 2013 Postfinance will become an independent corporation owned by the government and with that it has gained the right to exclude account holders who are a legal or reputational risk to it. Many expect that US Persons, living in Switzerland, will have their accounts force-closed at Postfinance in 2013. The head of the Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce is trying to obtain guaranties that US Persons can remain with Postfinance.
Further to this topic, there has been no comment from the US Embassy in Bern on the bank account difficulties that ordinary US Persons living in Switzerland are having. Perhaps the US Embassy is too busy with renunciations to focus on anything else. The US Ambassador is a car dealer in Virginia and was a fundraiser for Obama. In fairness to him as a political appointee, he may be out of his league in dealing with this issue.
On the topic of Swiss bank accounts:
There was an online comment on the Wall Street Journal site – responding to McGurn’s excellent “Obama’s IRS Snoops Abroad” article; to the effect that Obama’s campaign (and perhaps himself) would be going ‘abroad’ to solicit funds from supporters in Switzerland – during August. At this point, I’d be interested if there were any US citizens living in Switzerland still willing (and able) to donate money to him. For one thing, they’d have to have Swiss bank accounts – unless they’re keeping their earnings under their mattresses and they just hand over wads of cash.
It would be pretty ironic if someone were to highlight his fundraising in Switzerland by pointing out that he was accepting donations from the very types of ‘foreign’ accounts he has been depriving US citizens from having where they work, earn and pay taxes – or were born, and hold dual citizenship.
Maybe if we sent Obama’s campaign a blizzard of letters to the effect that ‘unfortunately’ as citizens abroad, we’re so sorry, but we can’t send donations because we’re no longer allowed to have bank accounts to write the checks on – because they’re forbidden ‘offshore’ foreign funds. Just send scraps of paper with any old amount written on them – as IOUs written on an image of our piggy bank or mattress ‘accounts’? IOUs because we’ve spent all our savings on specialist accountants and tax lawyers – to become compliant and demonstrate that we owe zero US tax – again.
@badger,
Love the visual of all those IOU’s. Thanks for all of your uplifting, excellent contributions here!
@Badger
lol – I can see the headline now “U.S. postal trucks line up in front of White House to deliver mail” and then the picture of blocks and blocks of postal trucks along Pennsylvania Avenue.
This is the Obama campaign’s Swiss fundraising event the comment must have been referring to:
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Obama-Clooney-fundraising-Switzerland/2012/06/29/id/444036
“An invitation posted on Obama’s campaign website says Clooney will be
the special guest at an Obama fundraiser in Geneva, Switzerland, on
Aug. 27.
Tickets start at $1,000 per person, and dinner for two costs a cool $30,000.
Clooney held a gala fundraiser at his Los Angeles home in May that
raised nearly $15 million. He typically spends time during the summer at
his villa on Italy’s Lake Como.
Obama’s campaign has held fundraising events overseas to raise money from U.S. citizens living abroad.“
Okay, now I really have questions. How will those Swiss US citizens abroad at the fundraiser be paying re: “$1,000 per person, and dinner for two costs a cool $30,000” – too much to keep under a mattress, so they probably have a ‘foreign’ bank account. Uh oh, will Obama’s campaign be partly funded from one of those ‘criminal’ ‘offshore’ accounts? Hope they’ve filed their FBARs, FATCA and all other foreign bank and asset forms. Although, as we know, there is no legitimate reason for an American to have a Swiss bank account right?
Senator Levin says “There is no such thing as an ordinary Swiss bank account.” http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/26/1058728/-Sen-Levin-On-Romney-There-is-no-such-thing-as-an-ordinary-Swiss-bank-account http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/top-dem-offshoring-expert-smells-something-fishy-in-romneys-tax-code.php?ref=fpa . So, I’m wondering – will Obama’s campaign vet the Swiss accounts first, to make sure that none of them is from UBS, or a ‘foreign’ source not reported on this year’s FATCAT form? They all have to be from US citizens I think – I don’t think that non citizens can donate to presidential campaigns? Maybe run them by Senator Levin first – since he’s a tax haven specialist – (unless the funds are being held inside the US’ own domestic tax havens – See Wikipedia entry and footnotes at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven :
“Non-sovereign jurisdictions commonly labelled as tax havens include”:
“And, Eighty-three of the 100 largest publicly traded U.S. corporations in
terms of 2007 revenue reported having subsidiaries in jurisdictions
listed as tax havens or financial privacy jurisdictions. Sixty-three of
the 100 largest publicly traded U.S. federal contractors in terms of
fiscal year 2007 federal contract obligations reported having
subsidiaries in such jurisdictions.” AND “In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of the Treasury
expressed concerns about GAO using a list of tax havens or financial
privacy jurisdictions because there is no agreed-upon definition of tax
havens or list of jurisdictions. However, GAO noted that there is no
agreed-upon definition or list and also noted that the jurisdictions on
the three lists used have similar characteristics. Further, background
for one list said that industry analysts recognize them as offshore tax
haven or financial privacy jurisdictions and that they are promoted as
such” from http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-157 ‘Large U.S. Corporations and Federal Contractors with Subsidiaries in
Jurisdictions Listed as Tax Havens or Financial Privacy Jurisdiction’ GAO-09-157, Dec 18, 2008′
Strangely, the Treasury Department ‘cautioned’ in commenting on the GAO report above, re US corporations, that there was no agreed upon definition or list of tax havens – but yet, in other contexts, have said that FATCA needs to be implemented – for ALL individuals with ‘foreign’ accounts outside the US, – because of the use of tax havens to ‘hide’ money. So, when it is US domestic corporations, the Treasury and presumably the IRS agree, those countries are not tax havens, but conveniently, in repeated public statements justifying the abuse of US citizens and duals abroad, ALL countries – (a much broader list!) are considered to be, and treated equally as tax havens.
Domestic US tax havens, like Joe Biden’s state of Delaware are okay though apparently. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/10/tax-havens-blacklist-us-delaware
The US has been characterized as the ‘world’s biggest tax haven’, particularly Delaware http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/business/how-delaware-thrives-as-a-corporate-tax-haven.html?pagewanted=all, but also variously, Wyoming, Nevada, Florida, Texas, Florida etc., in scholarly articles, including a Harvard study. http://www.financialtaskforce.org/2012/07/03/tax-haven-usa-new-york-times-articles-expose-need-to-abolish-anonymous-u-s-shell-companies/
@ tiger, I think it could be done very easily if everyone sent one in – even just sackfuls of mail with the same images and message.
@ calgary411 – a pleasure. And made myself laugh too!
Hey, looks like a Canadian newspaper made that Swiss connection in this article:
”Barack Obama’s swiss cheese campaign’
First posted:
Saturday, July 07, 2012 06:45 PM EDT”
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/06/barack-obamas-swiss-cheese-campaig
“One problem: They launched their class war fusillade in the same week
that Tinseltown tycoon George Clooney announced Obama fundraising
efforts — in Geneva, Switzerland. Oops.“….
….”Even more problematic for Obama: Some of his very best campaign
finance bundlers and golfing buddies are architects and beneficiaries of
the Swiss tax havens he purports to abhor”..
“Robert Wolf is president of Swiss financial giant UBS Investment Bank
and chairman of UBS Americas…… longtime friend and fat cat has personally bundled more than
$500,000 for Obama, dating back to Obama’s Illinois Senate days.“…
So, I guess there are okay reasons for Americans to have Swiss accounts after all – if they are campaign donor and friends of Obama. But it’s just all the rest who are tax evaders and criminals needing to be fully transparent?
But when is the Canadian leg of the fundraiser? Could we donate from our ‘foreign’ accounts; those SIN# registered, Canada-Revenue-Agency-fully-reported and totally legal post-tax made-all-in-Canada-the-tax-haven savings?
And if we donate to the campaign from our ‘fully-reported and totally legal post-tax made-all-in-Canada’ accounts, will we get a charitable donation receipt that we could then use on our Canadian tax returns?