The "Panama Papers" - massive leak from an offshore tax law firm

[Weitz]

Hell my old companies headquarters was in the Bahamas. But it was just a lawyer and and admin with a PO box.

[Ducay]

People are going to take advantage of loopholes as long as they exist. Sure, we could argue its not a nice thing to dodge taxes in your home country, but at the end of the day, no one gets rich by being dumb with their money.

[The Yen Man]

Yah, I'm not really sure what the fuss is about if it's all legal. If it's illegal, that's a different matter. But exploiting a loophole to save taxes is pretty fair game IMO. It's up to regulators to close the loophole, not individuals and businesses to not use it.

[Ozy_Flame]

If nothing else, the optics are ####ty for those involved.

[nik-]

If you're moving your money there into a shell company to reduce profits and thus taxes, it's not a loophole, it's straight up tax evasion.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

The main issue with tax havens is most people think you can just set up a company in some tax haven and then *poof*, you don't pay tax anymore. It just isn't simply like that. The reality is there are so many complex tax rules (mainly from each country having their own set of rules), there are lots of opportunities for corporations and people to set up structures, loans, share, etc. in certain tax jurisdictions and lower their tax liability. It becomes a question of ethics rather than legality in most situations.

So what's the difference really between this and say hiring a tax consultant to minimize your taxes? Their job is to look for things like this so you pay as less taxes as possible. Again, I stress that as long as it's legal, it should be fair game IMO.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

So what's the difference really between this and say hiring a tax consultant to minimize your taxes? Their job is to look for things like this so you pay as less taxes as possible. Again, I stress that as long as it's legal, it should be fair game IMO.

As Nik said, tax avoidance = legal; tax evasion = illegal. Hiring a tax consultant fits squarely in the avoidance area. I haven't read enough about this outfit, but it sounds like it is evasion.

[pylon]

I really hope the Trudeau name pops up in this whole thing.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

So what's the difference really between this and say hiring a tax consultant to minimize your taxes? Their job is to look for things like this so you pay as less taxes as possible. Again, I stress that as long as it's legal, it should be fair game IMO.

I think part of the issue with these shell corporations is that there are also plenty of false transactions.

For example, if you buy something from this shell corporation and then proceed to write off that income as a business expense in Canada, they send you a fake invoice, yet didn't actually really pay for any services and the money is still in your hands in an overseas bank account...

That's where some of the outrage is coming from.

It would be like I submitted a bunch of fake medical expenses to Revenue Canada for a tax break, which is illegal.

[The Yen Man]

Fair enough. I haven't read enough about it to know if it's tax avoidance or tax evasion. If it's tax evasion, then yes, they should have to face consequences for breaking the law.

[mrkajz44]

Originally Posted by nik-

If you're moving your money there into a shell company to reduce profits and thus taxes, it's not a loophole, it's straight up tax evasion.

Not to pick on you nik, but you sort of proved my point. You can't just 'move money' to some other country and suddenly you are paying less tax. With some small exceptions almost everyone person's and corporations cash on hand has already been taxed. So you can't just 'move it' and avoid tax. It's the money you/a company are currently earning that people try to get taxed in different jurisdictions, usually at a lower tax rate. That sort of set up is often complex. Then you have the issue of getting the money back into the country without paying more tax. It's just such a complex body of work, saying people just 'move money and pay no tax' is just flat out wrong to say.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

As Nik said, tax avoidance = legal; tax evasion = illegal. Hiring a tax consultant fits squarely in the avoidance area. I haven't read enough about this outfit, but it sounds like it is evasion.

To add to this, the line between avoidance and evasion typically revolves around honesty or deliberately ignoring part of the law. There is nothing to stop you from taking advantage of the Income Tax Act and a loophole within it. As long as you are making an honest and informed application of the law, even if a very creative one, you typically won't get charged with evasion. Doing things like failing to report income and purposely moving it to a shelter to avoid taxes would typically be evasion. Doing things like setting up an offshore/corporate structure to minimize the taxes you owe, as long as you are in compliance with the law, is typically avoidance.

The CRA also has some pretty crazy powers, including the ability to go back and retro-actively change the law.

[nik-]

Also, I'm sure a lot of Americans will end up turning up in this. There's a reason corporations are pushing for another tax holiday ... they want to bring their money home.

12 years ago it was over $350 billion brought it. Wonder what it would be this time, a trillion?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

Not to pick on you nik, but you sort of proved my point. You can't just 'move money' to some other country and suddenly you are paying less tax. With some small exceptions almost everyone person's and corporations cash on hand has already been taxed. So you can't just 'move it' and avoid tax. It's the money you/a company are currently earning that people try to get taxed in different jurisdictions, usually at a lower tax rate. That sort of set up is often complex. Then you have the issue of getting the money back into the country without paying more tax. It's just such a complex body of work, saying people just 'move money and pay no tax' is just flat out wrong to say.

That's incorrect. You don't move the money to the company after the tax bill, you move it before and claim it's investment and bring your profit number as close to zero as possible.

Bringing it home is a problem. Which is why they want what I posted above. Moving it there to reduce your tax burden is not a problem.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Yah, I'm not really sure what the fuss is about if it's all legal. If it's illegal, that's a different matter. But exploiting a loophole to save taxes is pretty fair game IMO. It's up to regulators to close the loophole, not individuals and businesses to not use it.

Which I think was Pylon's point and it makes sense if there are Politicians, ie. 'The Regulators,' hiding their money there.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by nik-

Also, I'm sure a lot of Americans will end up turning up in this. There's a reason corporations are pushing for another tax holiday ... they want to bring their money home.

12 years ago it was over $350 billion brought it. Wonder what it would be this time, a trillion?

Like Trump? Please be Trump. Please be Trump. Please be Trump. Please be Trump. That would be delicious.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by blankall

To add to this, the line between avoidance and evasion typically revolves around honesty or deliberately ignoring part of the law. There is nothing to stop you from taking advantage of the Income Tax Act and a loophole within it. As long as you are making an honest and informed application of the law, even if a very creative one, you typically won't get charged with evasion. Doing things like failing to report income and purposely moving it to a shelter to avoid taxes would typically be evasion. Doing things like setting up an offshore/corporate structure to minimize the taxes you owe, as long as you are in compliance with the law, is typically avoidance.

The CRA also has some pretty crazy powers, including the ability to go back and retro-actively change the law.

Hahahahahahaha!!! I'm glad you said that. You are correct. Also the CRA can be just as corrupt as anyone else.

Government Agency =/= Ethical or Moral Standard

A high-level decision to offer amnesty to wealthy KPMG clients caught using an offshore tax-avoidance scheme on the Isle of Man sparked anger inside the Canada Revenue Agency, a CBC News/Radio-Canada investigation has found.

"If CRA knows what you've done it's too late already," Laval University tax professor Andre Lareau told CBC News. "The CRA violated its own guidelines of voluntary disclosure," he said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cra-...deal-1.3479792

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Like Trump? Please be Trump. Please be Trump. Please be Trump. Please be Trump. That would be delicious.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Trump and Clinton both had involvement in this. More likely Trump though, since he just has so much more money.

[fulham]

My Biggest two Competitors, were some of the Canadian Names listed.

Good Guys, who unfortunately just gave total control of their accounts over to their WM Advisor, whom might of put them in hot water by chasing a larger commission. If they were in fact complicit, in tax evasion i hope they get Hammered, as we could use their marketshare and have always been annoyingly(not anymore) stringent about our Accounting.

[Thor]

Well I'll not update Iceland since lol no one seems interested.