Japanese Foreign Tax Havens: The Panama Files

[Coligny]

Are tax record public in Japan too ?
Anyway... it's exactly the same debate as "gun don't kill people... people kill people..." when you are the one with a gun, you don't need to give a fuck... It's the guy without guns that is double fucked... (he got neither guns nor the last word)

[wagyl]

Yeah, well it's not often I find myself nodding along with a Max Hastings opinion piece but it would seem quite a few people (moral angels or not ) agree. Including quite a few Icelanders who look like they are going to get rid of their PM over it.

No wonder people who pay tax are so sick of the spivvy elite

Are you prepared to join Lord Rothermere, owner of the Daily Mail, on that high moral ground? It seems to be getting crowded up there, but I fear an sudden landslip.

He has non-domicile tax status and owns his media businesses through a complex structure of offshore holdings and trusts which entail him paying almost no UK tax on his income, investments or wealth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_ ... ere#Career

[legion]

You come back again to wealthy people. And you were the one who first made an issue of the wealth. Is the moral crime here that people have 626 million US dollars in shares? Would you be less likely to declare the actions to be immoral if it was 626 US dollars worth? Either the wealth of the people involved is relevant or irrelevant. Please make up your mind whether morality changes with dollar value. And whether theft is OK if your family is hungry.

Right is right, wrong is wrong, but the tax office would do better going after the rich guy because with limited time and resources they would get more bang for their buck. However the taxman tends to go after soft targets, which with MyNumber got a whole lot softer.

Concerning stealing loaves of bread, it was a way of populating Australia and social cleansing in the UK to go after the starving poor. For me the real issue would be why should someone in the modern world be forced into crime to feed his/her family. Arguing the guilt of the individual concerned is a sophistic distraction from a huge failure of society which should be addressed.

This predates the Lehman shock

I find it funny how each article on PP mentions Putin, is it because his name begins with P too.

I feel sorry for Cameron in a way, his father is dead, Cameron himself is not responsible for his father's actions. However the way the UK facilitates tax evasion, sorry avoidance, is his responsibility. The tax havens are British protectorates, this means they are guarded by the Royal Navy, bankrolled by the British tax payer. I was thinking about this while I cycled up the hill in the rain on my way to work, I guess I can take comfort in the fact the doc tells me I have a good heart beat.

[Wage Slave]

No, I'm not. But for the record I have accounts in offshore banks. This is because UK residence and an address is required for opening or even holding an account these days. Japanese accounts would be OK, except they for the fact they don't have the option to use English.

However, the accounts are all in my name and I report the income in both the UK and Japan. I pay tax on the income in Japan because in the UK I can set it off against personal allowances. I probably don't need to report it in the UK but I like to stay on the books. That doesn't make me some kind of moral angel - it just makes me a citizen entitled to the same rights as others.

Since when is paying your taxes considered a mug's game or voluntary? It's a basic requirement of citizenship so that's why, as you say, there aren't any medals awarded for it.

[wagyl]

However the taxman tends to go after soft targets, which with MyNumber got a whole lot softer.

But aren't we all moral angels, with nothing to hide and nothing to fear? If Wage Slave or his family do it, it is morally appropriate. If he regards the sums as out of his league, it must be morally wrong. It is all so simple, so black and white.

[Wage Slave]

However the taxman tends to go after soft targets, which with MyNumber got a whole lot softer.

But aren't we all moral angels, with nothing to hide and nothing to fear? If Wage Slave or his family do it, it is morally appropriate. If he regards the sums as out of his league, it must be morally wrong. It is all so simple, so black and white.

That's totally untrue and you know it.

[wagyl]

No, I don't know it. Are you telling me that you or your family engage in morally inappropriate behaviour? Or are you telling me that very wealthy people are entitled to use expensive lawyers and still not have their morality come into question? You are all over the place in this thread. And you still haven't explained why stealing a loaf of bread is relevant here, even if your urchins are starving.

Japanese banks have been pretty accommodating, offering accounts identified by signature rather than chop, and having English language ATM menus. It is hard to believe that it is more difficult than opening up an offshore bank account, but I won't take a cheap shot at the long term functionally illiterate, because I know that some people do not have an aptitude for language.

Why is it wrong to take steps to minimise tax liability while following the rules laid down?

[legion]

However the taxman tends to go after soft targets, which with MyNumber got a whole lot softer.

But aren't we all moral angels, with nothing to hide and nothing to fear? If Wage Slave or his family do it, it is morally appropriate. If he regards the sums as out of his league, it must be morally wrong. It is all so simple, so black and white.

Like I said on another thread, we rely more on emotion than intellect than we pretend to ourselves. This is seen in our attitude to theft from the work place, people will steal paper, use company phones for private calls, which is a form of theft, but we feel this is not as criminal as stealing actual cash. Likewise we feel a greater number is worse than a smaller sum. Killing 6 million people because of their religion is just as immoral as killing one, we just feel it is 6 million times worse, in reality it is the same immoral act 6 million times over.

I feel some people believe it is a moral duty to avoid tax because they disagree with how it is spent. For example if they have no children or they educate their children privately they feel they should not be obliged to pay tax to educate other people's children. This is a narrow self serving view of society, an uneducated society benefits nobody.

Of course we have nothing to hide and nothing to fear, that is why we use suitcases which can be opened with a master key when we travel internationally.

[Wage Slave]

No, I don't know it. Are you telling me that you or your family engage in morally inappropriate behaviour? Or are you telling me that very wealthy people are entitled to use expensive lawyers and still not have their morality come into question? You are all over the place in this thread. And you still haven't explained why stealing a loaf of bread is relevant here, even if your urchins are starving.

Good grief. Talk about being all over the place. OK, enough. Let's just agree to differ on the basic point at issue. You believe that someone utilising allowances explicitly written into tax law while keeping the money in their own name is no different morally from funneling money into anonymous offshore accounts that are secretly under your control in order to make money simply disappear as far as tax is concerned. This is because the end result is the same - legally, no tax or less tax is payable as a result. Fine. Let's leave it there.

[wangta]

No, I don't know it. Are you telling me that you or your family engage in morally inappropriate behaviour? Or are you telling me that very wealthy people are entitled to use expensive lawyers and still not have their morality come into question? You are all over the place in this thread. And you still haven't explained why stealing a loaf of bread is relevant here, even if your urchins are starving.

Good grief. Talk about being all over the place. OK, enough. Let's just agree to differ on the basic point at issue. You believe that someone utilising allowances explicitly written into tax law while keeping the money in their own name is no different morally from funneling money into anonymous offshore accounts that are secretly under your control in order to make money simply disappear as far as tax is concerned. This is because the end result is the same - legally, no tax or less tax is payable as a result. Fine. Let's leave it there.

Yes, waygl tends to get pompous on some threads and is doing so here. Your position in your posts on this thread is clear. It's obvious you are following the tax laws and some more to be as transparent as you can. The old post waygl dragged up has no bearing on this.

Modern tax codes in all first world industrialised democracies allow for minimisation of tax to be paid and those laws are there to be used. That's why tax accountants are so numerous. The problem starts when those taxpayers who earn income as opposed to living off assets as the wealthy, the super rich and protected people such as politicians who also can be in positions of conflict of interest, pay tax but those other categories of people engage in tax evasion or make laws that promote and protect their interests.

If anybody here ever has the time, research what the politicians in your countries have voted themselves. This always includes ways to boost benefits and perks so as to come out on top financially and offset any taxes they may have to pay. It makes interesting reading and when you avail yourself of what 'our representatives' do to take advantage of their positions, build up their personal wealth and pass it on to their families as well as the riches of networks and connections they make, then you will begin to understand why people consider taxation to be a form of theft or at least usually unethical and unfair to many income tax payers.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't pay tax - that just means we also need to beware of all the propaganda about how wonderful it is to pay our fair share for services etc when our political establishment don't and not only don't but deliberately set out to reap disproportionate benefits from their time in office. From the cosiness of US Congress and Senate members with lobbyists for some of the most cynical and unethical businesses in the world to the Australian pollies continually voting themselves wage increases of 7 percent and sheltered retirement riches known as 'golden handshakes', do some homework.

The problem with the tax minimisation structuring that we are hearing about in the media is that it is evasion. Shunting money around the globe by sending it to Dublin and then to Amsterdam through a string of shell companies and concealing just who the shareholders etc are by nominating some public faces before the money then ends up elsewhere in another disguise is definitely unethical. It is avoiding taxation laws that the majority of citizens of those countries and the countries the money originated in, are subject to.

Out old friend Bono who has harangued us for years to send money to Africa through so called charities he started or supports slides out of paying tax by using an offshore structure in the Netherlands. More fool anybody who gave money to anything associated with him. Let those who ask for money for charity and earn big money, pay it.

[Wage Slave]

No, I don't know it. Are you telling me that you or your family engage in morally inappropriate behaviour? Or are you telling me that very wealthy people are entitled to use expensive lawyers and still not have their morality come into question? You are all over the place in this thread. And you still haven't explained why stealing a loaf of bread is relevant here, even if your urchins are starving.

Good grief. Talk about being all over the place. OK, enough. Let's just agree to differ on the basic point at issue. You believe that someone utilising allowances explicitly written into tax law while keeping the money in their own name is no different morally from funneling money into anonymous offshore accounts that are secretly under your control in order to make money simply disappear as far as tax is concerned. This is because the end result is the same - legally, no tax or less tax is payable as a result. Fine. Let's leave it there.

Yes, waygl tends to get pompous on some threads and is doing so here. Your position in your posts on this thread is clear. It's obvious you are following the tax laws and some more to be as transparent as you can. The old post waygl dragged up has no bearing on this.

Modern tax codes in all first world industrialised democracies allow for minimisation of tax to be paid and those laws are there to be used. That's why tax accountants are so numerous. The problem starts when those taxpayers who earn income as opposed to living off assets as the wealthy, the super rich and protected people such as politicians who also can be in positions of conflict of interest, pay tax but those other categories of people engage in tax evasion or make laws that promote and protect their interests.

If anybody here ever has the time, research what the politicians in your countries have voted themselves. This always includes ways to boost benefits and perks so as to come out on top financially and offset any taxes they may have to pay. It makes interesting reading and when you avail yourself of what 'our representatives' do to take advantage of their positions, build up their personal wealth and pass it on to their families as well as the riches of networks and connections they make, then you will begin to understand why people consider taxation to be a form of theft or at least usually unethical and unfair to many income tax payers.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't pay tax - that just means we also need to beware of all the propaganda about how wonderful it is to pay our fair share for services etc when our political establishment don't and not only don't but deliberately set out to reap disproportionate benefits from their time in office. From the cosiness of US Congress and Senate members with lobbyists for some of the most cynical and unethical businesses in the world to the Australian pollies continually voting themselves wage increases of 7 percent and sheltered retirement riches known as 'golden handshakes', do some homework.

The problem with the tax minimisation structuring that we are hearing about in the media is that it is evasion. Shunting money around the globe by sending it to Dublin and then to Amsterdam through a string of shell companies and concealing just who the shareholders etc are by nominating some public faces before the money then ends up elsewhere in another disguise is definitely unethical. It is avoiding taxation laws that the majority of citizens of those countries and the countries the money originated in, are subject to.

Out old friend Bono who has harangued us for years to send money to Africa through so called charities he started or supports slides out of paying tax by using an offshore structure in the Netherlands. More fool anybody who gave money to anything associated with him. Let those who ask for money for charity and earn big money, pay it.

Well, thanks for that. And yes, there is very little I would disagree with. It will be interesting to see what scalps and what meaningful change, if any, comes out of this leak. My feeling is that an awful lot of people are pretty pissed off with the attitude that says it's perfectly OK for me to use this sort of artifice to minimise my tax bill. Whether or not anything meaningful will change after the dust has settled is another question. Unfortunately we do rely on politicians for reform and as you say many are very much part of the same spivvy elite.

In the UK, this couldn't have come at a worse time for Cameron, coming hot on the heels of the cuts in taxes for the better off and cuts in benefits for the disabled U turn. The one thing the Tories always seem to underestimate is the danger of being too obviously unfair and this is shaping up as another example. He said he had done something about this, but the data seems to tell a different story.

[wuchan]

wow.

I thought every long term FG had accounts in Singapore and (insert low tax country here).

[Wage Slave]

One down. More to come I suspect.

The prime minister of Iceland stepped down on Tuesday, according to his deputy, succumbing to political pressure two days after an enormous leak of documents from a secretive Panamanian law firm about offshore shell companies and tax shelters.

The prime minister, Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, was the first prominent political casualty from the document leaks known as the Panama Papers, which have shed a harsh light on the private financial activities of many rich and powerful people.

....

The news that Iceland’s prime minister would step aside caused celebration across the tiny island nation of 323,000, which is still recovering from the global financial crisis eight years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/world/europe/panama-papers-iceland.html

[dimwit]

I don't think so. Most of the list seems to be third world thugs who will just turn off the media if any fuss is made of it. What is interesting to me is the lack of Japanese names on the list. Every year the Japanese government publishes a highly improbable list of the assets of members of the diet, and my first thought is a trip to the Caribbean.

[Wage Slave]

I don't think so. Most of the list seems to be third world thugs who will just turn off the media if any fuss is made of it. What is interesting to me is the lack of Japanese names on the list. Every year the Japanese government publishes a highly improbable list of the assets of members of the diet, and my first thought is a trip to the Caribbean.

We will see. Only a small fraction of the data has been released so far. They are deliberately releasing it in small installments - wait for the dust to settle a bit and then release another batch. There are more than a few people who think like Wagyl pretty worried at the moment.

[Yokohammer]

... What is interesting to me is the lack of Japanese names on the list ...

Secom is on the list.

That's a good start.

[Samurai_Jerk]

There are exemptions available to everyone if you wish to take advantage of them - That's not the same thing as a loophole or what is under discussion here. And then there are wholly artificial schemes designed to remove money from view and shelter it from tax. That is not a careless loophole in the tax code, that is money being hidden away in the financial system by people with sufficient funds to do it. You cannot write a tax code to prevent it unless you get really draconian and give the tax authorities the right to just declare schemes artificial and solely for the purpose of artificially avoiding tax. Or to just say we don't believe you when you say the money was handed to a corporation in Panama over which you have no control or interest in.

I get what you're saying and I agree to a certain extent. However, I still see the problem as mainly one of countries letting them get away with it. If they would simplify their tax codes it would be a lot tougher to do. How about this? You have to report gross income regardless of where it's made to the tax authority of the country you are a resident of. Regardless of the source of your income (wages, capital gains, etc.) you must pay X% if you make Y. No deductions other than any taxes already paid on income made offshore to avoid double taxation. No shell corporations allowed, period. If you get caught playing games, you're fucked.

As it stands what is happening is not illegal. But, it is highly opaque so if someone is doing something illegal we have no way of detecting it. We only have their word for it that nothing illegal is going on.

Isn't that true in most situations? Isn't that why liberal democracies generally prohibit searching people or their property without probable cause? The cops just have to trust your hard drive isn't full of kiddie pr0n unless they have a search warrant which (at least in theory) will only be granted based on solid evidence.

According to tax law in the UK if you gift assets at least 7 years before you pass away then they are not liable for inheritance tax. This allowance is available to everyone rich or poor and doesn't require a lawyer or anything else. You can simply do it at any time if you so choose. It entirely depends on individual free choice and how much you trust your family.

How is that fair or moral? If I get all my ducks in a row and get hit by a bus the day after, my heirs pay more taxes than the heirs of the guy next to me who managed to jump out of the way just in time.

[wangta]

Good points.

The problem that will never be solved as long as we have the kinds of western political systems (of course this isn't just about Saudi oil sheiks and third world dictators) that encourage political pigs to feed from a golden trough of privileges and benefits, is that of one rule for most of us and other rules for those that have the connections whether through being elected or becoming part of the networks that evade obligations.

Notice how politicians always 'know' somebody but they are not party to any wrongdoing - apparently, whether that is withholding information of evasion and fraud or participating in it through third parties and more distant sources. I like Bill Clinton but any good net surf will turn up a lot of verifiable problems to do with his foundation as well as a string of alarm bells regarding his and Hilary's financial connections over the year. Obama had ties to a Chicago businessman convicted of fraud and he also bought a house from him. However, we are talking about Chicago here so.....

At least as a US Senator Obama asked questions about why the state of Delaware was allowed to host businesses and shell companies that resided there purely to evade tax. I have also read good articles but can't remember the source about how New York is home to capital inflows from outside the US that don't have to follow the reporting and identity laws pertaining to finances. Clearly those laws are for the average American serf, not for people with big money and connections of all kinds.

In Australia the politicians are keen participants in owning and renting houses/flats so that is why the dated and inequitable 'negative gearing' tax break will probably never be legislated off the books. Under this rule you can write off any losses on your properties at the taxpayers' expense - some prominent accountants have asked why people who are privileged to own more than one house and to be landlords are allowed to pocket refunds from the losses they make or apparently make. Negative gearing comes from a different era, dating back to around the 1920s when it promoted investment rather than speculation.

And whenever Aus politicians give in to public anger about how much they keep sucking in perks and benefits while ringfencing ordinary Australians' private pension access and double taxing their savings, they have a record of then voting themselves something else on the quiet to 'compensate'. They had to stop giving themselves and their families unlimited free travel for the rest of their lives after finishing politics so what did they do? They voted themselves some more money for some other purpose to compensate. This is all part of the problem.

[Wage Slave]

How about this? You have to report gross income regardless of where it's made to the tax authority of the country you are a resident of.

That is already the case in Japan and other countries. The problem is, how to you detect undeclared income when it can be so comprehensively hidden? And it doesn't stop there. First set up a wholly owned subsidiary company whose only income is from the country it was registered in. Then structure the business so although it makes piles of money all the profits disappear in artificial and/or inflated operating expenses to the parent company offshore. For example Starbucks UK claimed they they were making a loss every year. Meanwhile Starbucks UK was paying a royalty charge on every cup of coffee they sold as if that act were like playing someone's song for profit.

Isn't that true in most situations? Isn't that why liberal democracies generally prohibit searching people or their property without probable cause? The cops just have to trust your hard drive isn't full of kiddie pr0n unless they have a search warrant which (at least in theory) will only be granted based on solid evidence.

It's different because in this situation you cannot search or investigate no matter what probable cause you may have.

How is that fair or moral? If I get all my ducks in a row and get hit by a bus the day after, my heirs pay more taxes than the heirs of the guy next to me who managed to jump out of the way just in time.

I'm not sure I want to argue how fair or moral it is, but it happens to explicitly be the law. You could argue taxing all gifts over a certain value at any time is fairer. That's what Japan does I believe. However, as it stands the UK has decided not to tax any gifts except if they are defined as inheritance.

[wagyl]

Wage Slave, what is your solution? Anyone is legally entitled to establish a Panamanian company: Panama makes it ludicrously easy to do. Do you call on the moral courts? Shall you stone the transgressors of your moral code? Do you really have the right to cast the first stone?

[Samurai_Jerk]

That is already the case in Japan and other countries. The problem is, how to you detect undeclared income when it can be so comprehensively hidden? And it doesn't stop there. First set up a wholly owned subsidiary company whose only income is from the country it was registered in. Then structure the business so although it makes piles of money all the profits disappear in artificial and/or inflated operating expenses to the parent company offshore. For example Starbucks UK claimed they they were making a loss every year. Meanwhile Starbucks UK was paying a royalty charge on every cup of coffee they sold as if that act were like playing someone's song for profit.

I realize that which is why I didn't stop at the part you quoted.

It's different because in this situation you cannot search or investigate no matter what probable cause you may have.

Because governments allow it.

I'm not sure I want to argue how fair or moral it is, but it happens to explicitly be the law. You could argue taxing all gifts over a certain value at any time is fairer. That's what Japan does I believe. However, as it stands the UK has decided not to tax any gifts except if they are defined as inheritance.

So you only want to talk about morality or fairness vis-a-vis the law when it suits you? It seems that you don't like the fact that it's SOP for large organizations and very wealthy people to follow the letter of the law while not honoring the spirit of the law. Most people probably feel the same way. I certainly do. However, I don't blame them for doing it. I blame a system that lets them get away with it.

[Takechanpoo]

how many gaijin friends and acquaintances of yours seen in this list?!
https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/search?c ... =on&adr=on

[Wage Slave]

So you only want to talk about morality or fairness vis-a-vis the law when it suits you? It seems that you don't like the fact that it's SOP for large organizations and very wealthy people to follow the letter of the law while not honoring the spirit of the law. Most people probably feel the same way. I certainly do. However, I don't blame them for doing it. I blame a system that lets them get away with it.

No. There are key differences. In one case an allowance is explicitly written into the tax law, it is available to everyone on an equal basis, and there is transparency. Business as usual in other words. In other other clearly not.

I certainly agree that the only way to put a stop to it is to get draconian and get draconian by international agreement cos no one country can do it alone. And that's another big difficulty.

[Wage Slave]

how many gaijin friends and acquaintances of yours seen in this list?!
https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/search?c ... =on&adr=on

Far more likely to spot a Japanese acquaintance . Credit where credit's due - Nice Find!

[wagyl]

The offshoreleaks database is from almost two years ago, and it does not reflect the recent Panamanian data.

[wagyl]

it is available to everyone on an equal basis

You keep pointing to this as an item of difference. What is preventing you form setting up a Panamanian Corporation (apart from your robust moral compass)?

[Wage Slave]

it is available to everyone on an equal basis

You keep pointing to this as an item of difference. What is preventing you form setting up a Panamanian Corporation (apart from your robust moral compass)?

[wagyl]

Well that answer at least met expectations: your answer is "Nothing is stopping me."

[inflames]

wow.

I thought every long term FG had accounts in Singapore and (insert low tax country here).

Well, I did simply incorporate a Hong Kong company then the Japanese subsidiary, but basically made money to buy apartments a loan from the hong kong company to the Japanese company and set the level basically at what the rent is, just to make sure any profits are basically not in Japan.

[wagyl]

wow.

I thought every long term FG had accounts in Singapore and (insert low tax country here).

Well, I did simply incorporate a Hong Kong company then the Japanese subsidiary, but basically made money to buy apartments a loan from the hong kong company to the Japanese company and set the level basically at what the rent is, just to make sure any profits are basically not in Japan.

Wage Slave: How do you sleep at night?????
Inflames: On a featherdown mattress with satin sheets, in the arms of a companion whose beauty would make you weep with desire.