It’s not vey often I give air space to the Sovereign Society — a US based organisation promoting offshore — largely because most of what they say is quite ludicrous. But I get their emailos and one I got this morning made a lot of sense for a change, so I’ll quote it at length. I’m sure they won’t mind — they’ve taken their fair share from here over the years.
Bob Bauman of the Sovereign Society (a colourful character) said in his blog:
Six weeks after the bill's anti-offshore provisions were introduced as the "Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act" (without hearings or any chance for opponents to be heard), the legislation that I warned you about at the time, was passed by the House.
The bill does not alter the fact that under U.S. law it is still legal to bank, invest and do business offshore. But it does add costly and cumbersome layers or new reporting requirements.
The greatest threat to offshore freedoms lies in the very real possibility that many more offshore banks and financial institutions will refuse to accept Americans as clients rather than submit to the highly unusual extension of U.S. laws to foreign financial businesses and advisors which in effect would force them to act as IRS spies.
Under this extremely punitive bill, all foreign financial institutions, banks, foreign trusts, private foundations and foreign corporations could be forced into providing information about U.S. account holders, trust grantors, and American owners associated with these legal entities. As if they did not exist, the legislation totally ignores the current extensive reporting requirements of federal law that already apply to all such entities.
As it passed the House bill, H.R. 4213:
- Impose a 30% withholding tax on payments to foreign financial institutions and other entities unless they acknowledge the existence of offshore accounts to the IRS and disclose relevant information including account ownership, balances and amounts moving in and out of the accounts.
- Require individuals and entities to report offshore accounts with values of USD50,000 or more on their tax returns.
- Extend the statute of limitations to six years when offshore accounts are unreported or misreported (the current statute of limitations on tax audits is three years).
- Require advisors who help set up offshore accounts to disclose their activities or pay a penalty.
- Require electronic filing of information reports about withholding on transfers to foreign accounts to enable the IRS to better match reports to tax returns.
- Strengthen rules and penalties with regard to foreign trusts, including rules to determine whether distributions from foreign trusts are going to U.S. beneficiaries and reporting requirements on U.S. transfers to foreign trusts.
- Clarify the definition of outgoing U.S. dividend payments that are received by foreign persons so they cannot be disguised as other types of distributions in an effort to avoid U.S. taxes.
If you want to dig into the anti-offshore details of the bill, you find the text of the bill here and its technical description here.
If this bill becomes law, it may well block the ability of many Americans to bank offshore, simply because no offshore bank will put up with these unprecedented bullying tactics by the IRS. There are plenty of other people of wealth whose governments do not think they can impose their rule on the entire world.
No one will, I suspect be surprised that I warmly welcome this bill.
But note why it works: it simply prices crime out of the offshore market.
That’s good with me.
And it should be good with offshore. They say they don’t want tax evaded funds. So they should support these restrictions that make sure that crime does not pay.
And if they don’t support this bill it’s fair to ask “why not?”
Whatever the answer I think they’d better get used to this sort of thing — the domestic legislation solution to stopping offshore abuse is going to be come more and more popular.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Does it not price out legitamate business?
When an offshore entity that does nothing wrong is being priced out of the market than that is protectionism.
When a blanket punishment is used innocent parties are hurt. If it is wrong for the police if they have narrowed down a murder to 4 people to execute all of them, where is the justice here.
If is walks like protectionism and quacks like protectionism then it is protectionism.
Creg
Nothing wrong?
How do we know?
Unless you can answer that this is not about competition – it is about the rule of law
Richard
How do you know if a house in theuk is being used as a meth lab. Should you punish all home owners for it.
Should you allow police to be able to search everyhouse they want to without any evidence of wrong doing?.
A better form of anit-avoidance legisaltion is this:
“As from 1 January, companies operating in Belgium must notify the country’s tax authorities if they remit over Euro100,000 a year to certain jurisdictions. The affected jurisdictions are those that charge less than 10 per cent corporation tax or are not on the OECD white list.”
http://www.allenovery.com/AOWEB/Knowledge/Editorial.aspx?contentTypeID=1&contentSubTypeID=7944&itemID=54087&prefLangID=410