The First Post Daily notes:
Fashion designers Dolce and Gabbana have been accused of a massive tax evasion scam. Italian prosecutor Laura Pedio said the pair had committed "a tax dodge that defrauded the state" after conducting a three-year investigation into the dealings of their company GaDo.
Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, along with five other people, are accused of channelling profits through Luxembourg, paying just three per cent tax on sales royalties instead of much higher Italian taxes. As a result, the Italian treasury has allegedly been defrauded of an estimated €420m.
A tax haven being used for tax evasion? Surely not?
Remember it’s the secrecy that does it (but see the comments below for elaboration)
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:
“A tax haven being used for tax evasion? Surely not? ”
Italians trying to evade tax? Surely not? 🙂
I’m not convinced that this case centres on secrecy, Richard. If they had wanted to hide something surely they wouldn’t have called the company Dolce & Gabanna Luxembourg SARL, with statutory filings publicly available at:
http://www.legilux.public.lu/entr/search/index.php?ss_soc=dolce+gabbana&sr_soc=name&sr_fj=all&sr_tp=all&sr_date=all&sl_d=1&sl_m=1&sl_y=2010&sl_d1=1&sl_m1=1&sl_y1=2010&sl_d2=18&sl_m2=10&sl_y2=2010&page_len=100&page=result&submit=Chercher
for which the annual accounts are also publicly available on request (and soon electronically) from: https://www.rcsl.lu/mjrcs/index.do?time=1287403215227 .
Rather this case seems to be about creatng an intellectual property asset outside Italy on which royalties were then paid and whether the IP asset and the level of royalties are justifiable (or just an artificial construction to reduce the tax burden in Italy). One may examine the substance and legality (and ethics) of the structure but I don’t see any real attempt to hide anything?
@Stephen
It looks like I stand corrected
You’ve made an allegation in that publicly available article, if it doesn’t hold water I’d be tempted to withdraw it if I were you.
@John Buckles
Oh come on
The allegation of evasion has been made by others, not me
And I strongly suspect that if evasion is alleged the suggestion is that not all cards were placed face up on the table at the right time
Accounts on public record does not change that
And it’s only an allegation – made by others – I’m reporting
@Richard Murphy – seems like you are publishing to me.
Godfrey v Demon Internet Service [2001] QB 201
I would change the text if I was you.