Author Archives: Tim

This isn’t the worlds best article and I don’t agree with everything said including some of the links to the likes of Pro FATCA-ite David Dayen. However, overall the author does seem to get it especially as most left wingers in the homeland defend “Operation Chokepoint” as strongly as they defend FATCA.

http://www.salon.com/chromeo/article/spying_sex_and_finance_what_banks_and_payment_processors_are_secretly_watching_to_avoid_risk/

Denying people access to the economy is a powerful method of oppression that many marginalized groups have been reporting for a long time,” said Maggie Mayhem. “You’ll hear everywhere that ‘sex sells’ and there is the assumption that you’re probably wealthy,” she added, and yet, “our very existence is outside the boundaries of lawful digital commerce.”

There is a lot argument going on right now especially in the US State of Massachusetts as to the legitimacy of non compete agreements.  Non compete employment agreements are currently allowed in most EU countries, all Canadian provinces, and 49 of 50 US States. The 50th US State that prohibits non competes happens to be California, the largest US State.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/business/noncompete-clauses-increasingly-pop-up-in-array-of-jobs.html?hpw&rref=business

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/04/19/time-get-rid-noncompete-agreements/VcIjVuaAcOopLZOvwqSMtK/story.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause

Canadian courts will enforce non-competition and non-solicitation agreements, however, the agreement must be limited in time frame, business scope, and geographic scope to what is reasonably required to protect the company’s proprietary rights, such as confidential marketing information or client relations^[32] and the scope of the agreement must be unambiguously defined. The 2009 Supreme Court of Canada case Shafron v. KRG Insurance Brokers (Western) Inc. held a non-compete agreement to be invalid due to the term “Metropolitan City of Vancouver” not being legally defined.^[33]

The 2000 Ontario Court of Appeals case Lyons v. Multary established a general preference towards non-solicitation over non-competition agreements, regarding the latter as “much more drastic weapons” and held a non-competition agreement to be invalid when a non-solicitation agreement would have been sufficient to protect the company’s interests.

Strong language from the Globe and Mail’s Barrie McKenna:

It’s the first bit of goods news in a while for a large group of Canadians who until now have felt targeted by their country of birth and abandoned by their country of choice.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:s.00887:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:SN00887:@@@P

As of June 5th. No press coverage to date

Interesting video. Shipping Canadian jobs to America.

http://www.necn.com/03/26/13/Canada-to-bring-companies-to-Kendall-Squ/landing_business.html?blockID=835909

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4499209/paul-fatca

http://www.scmp.com/business/article/1519835/beijing-urged-comply-foreign-account-tax-compliance-act

Hong Kong financial institutions with mainland affiliates are hoping Beijing signs an agreement with Washington soon on a new US tax disclosure law, because of concerns mainland financial institutions will otherwise find it difficult, if not impossible, to comply with the new law.

We have observed that in China, financial institutions are waiting for more information on an IGA (intergovernmental agreement) before registering [to comply with Fatca],” said Florence Carr, Asia-Pacific Fatca lead at accounting firm EY.

HSBC spokesman Gareth Hewett said it had decided that the whole group should be “Fatca-compliant”.

“Achieving compliance with Fatca by July 1 is a requirement,” he said. “Achieving this is in line with our ambition to be the world’s leading international bank.”

Ralph Nader: Big Credit Suisse’s Sweetheart Deal – OpEd

1. The bank retained its permits and licenses to remain fully operational in the United States.

2. Top management and directors emerged unscathed and were allowed to keep their lucrative positions.

3. State and federal regulators, including the SEC and Federal Reserve, agreed not to take related actions against the bank.

4. Credit Suisse does not have to give the Justice Department and the IRS the names of some 22,000 U.S. customers who engaged in these schemes, citing prohibitive Swiss law, which tough U.S. officials could have challenged with a waiver demand.

Funny how you can move so quickly on this issue of corporate inversions but not those of American expats. So long then

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303701304579548433123065724?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303701304579548433123065724.html

While they may not be breaking U.S. laws, many of these companies are navigating a loophole in America’s broken and dysfunctional tax code. And while their shareholders may secure a temporary win, workers, taxpayers and this country all lose. America’s tax base erodes at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, increasing the burden on other companies and individuals. America also loses good jobs, talent, investment, and the ability to compete on a global stage.

Legal or not, this loophole must be plugged. Current law requires that U.S. companies reincorporating overseas must ensure that at least 20% of their stock is owned by their new, foreign partner. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I am committed to raising this floor to at least 50% for all inversions taking place from May 8, 2014, on. I don’t approach retroactivity in legislation lightly, but corporations must understand that they won’t profit from abandoning the U.S. (NOTE: Senator what you are proposing is a massive treaty override that Canada and other US Treaty partners should fight tooth and nail).

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/PaulLetter050714.pdf

“To be clear, I certainly do not condone tax cheats, but I can’t support a law that endangers regular foreign investment and punishes every American in pursuit of a few tax cheats,” he wrote. “Most importantly, I cannot support a bulk collection tax treaty that has complete disregard for the important protections provided to every American by the Fourth Amendment.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/05/07/rand-paul-fights-tax-treaties-citing-privacy-concerns/

Bucking pressure from businesses and fellow lawmakers, Sen. Rand Paul says he will continue to oppose tax treaties that would let the Internal Revenue Service gather more information about Americans’ overseas financial accounts.

The move dims the outlook for a planned Senate vote on the treaties, while highlighting the Kentucky Republican’s contrarian streak. The treaties – including a significant one with Switzerland – enjoy widespread support among lawmakers of both parties. But Mr. Paul, who is preparing a 2016 presidential bid, believes they would encourage government snooping and erode Americans’ privacy rights.