Off-shore Trusts (a simple solution)

42 comments on “Off-shore Trusts (a simple solution) ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Horus 1

   12 April 2016 at 11:34 am

   How do you “debar” a legal firm? Companies have offshore trusts? Really? Where? Foreign trusts can’t be settled by corporations.
   If you’re going to have a childish rant make it a believable one like most on this blog.
   • Bill 1.1

     12 April 2016 at 2:07 pm

     So, was the word ‘debar’ wasn’t used incorrectly? Fine. What I mean is exclude.

     Should I not have referred to companies setting up in tax free havens (eg – Apple) as being involved in the business of having off-shore trusts? Fine. But I’m pretty sure everyone knows what is meant, even if the terminology is erroneous.

     There’s nothing childish in suggesting very real action be taken against people, or those people who direct institutions etc, when those people and entities are involved in morally reprehensible shite.

     People are suffering and dying as a direct result of these stupid fucking games that wealthy people and profitable companies are playing.

     Late edit – What exactly is unbelievable about preventing those individuals who are deemed to be undesirable from entering a country? It already happens. What is unbelievable about setting conditions around companies that seek to tender for government contracts? Are you saying that there are no conditions currently in place?
   • Colonial Viper 1.2

     12 April 2016 at 3:29 pm

     How do you “debar” a legal firm?

     The partners of said law firm lose their practicing certificates.
2. Gristle 2

   12 April 2016 at 12:05 pm

   Now that’s something that should be enacted.
3. Phil 3

   12 April 2016 at 1:26 pm

   … any legal firm involved in the consultation for such work from any government contract or service.

   The venn diagram of law firms arranging offshore trusts for billionaires, with law firms bidding for government contracts:

   O O
   • Bill 3.1

     12 April 2016 at 2:00 pm

     PwC do consultancy and policy advice for the UK government in spite of being involved in advising on ‘safe haven’ trusts. That’s worth a lot to them, via influence and insider knowledge.
   • Henry Filth 3.2

     12 April 2016 at 4:10 pm

     I think that your circles may intersect somewhat more closely than you imagine.
     • Phil 3.2.1

       12 April 2016 at 4:13 pm

       Yeah, it was a little glib, but we should be real about this – if you’re going to force law firms to choose between ‘Government’ and ‘Billionaires’, how many are going to choose Government?
       • Bill 3.2.1.1

         12 April 2016 at 6:31 pm

         They want to make money and they want influence. Being treated as a pariah by government would be a major hit…one, I suspect, they’d want to weigh up before deciding where they stood.
4. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 4

   12 April 2016 at 1:32 pm

   Avoids tax in our jurisdiction, or another?
   • Bill 4.1

     12 April 2016 at 2:13 pm

     Either/or.

     Maybe a requirement that, along with full disclosures of all pertinent info, the trustees (or whatever/whoever) prove that the monies in the trust are post tax proceeds and that the tax paid, in whatever jurisdiction, is at least equal to that payable in NZ. Any shortfall becomes tax payable to NZ.
5. Fustercluck 5

   12 April 2016 at 1:36 pm

   Sort of like reviving the concept of outlaw where those branded as such were outside the protection of the law and could be robbed, beaten or killed with impunity.
   • Bill 5.1

     12 April 2016 at 2:27 pm

     I don’t think that people banished to the commons could be robbed, beaten or killed with impunity. They were simply banished from society and all it had to offer. Some rich people want to put themselves above and outside society of their own volition? Fine.

     I see no reason at all why we should accept them having their cake and eating it, do you?
     • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1

       12 April 2016 at 4:01 pm

       +1

       If the rich want to leave then fine, they can. They just have to accept that they’re not taking our wealth with them.
6. Henry Filth 6

   12 April 2016 at 3:15 pm

   There goes the bathwater, and whooooops! there goes the baby too!
   • Colonial Viper 6.1

     12 April 2016 at 3:30 pm

     Did you take a look at that baby? It’s a right wing vampire troll. Don’t just throw it out, finish it off with a silver stake.
     • Henry Filth 6.1.1

       12 April 2016 at 4:07 pm

       We must be looking at a different child.
       • Phil 6.1.1.1

         12 April 2016 at 4:15 pm

         Never let CV babysit anything bigger than a hamster.
   • Bill 6.2

     12 April 2016 at 6:32 pm

     You care to identify the baby in this scenario? Cheers.
     • Henry Filth 6.2.1

       12 April 2016 at 11:03 pm

       International and offshore services in general.

       I can see a situation developing where doing anything offshore is considered a sign that you’re guilty of something.

       Nobody could tell you exactly what, but you’re guilty all the same. By association, as it were.

       And sanctioned accordingly.
7. Henry Filth 7

   12 April 2016 at 4:29 pm

   The Grauniad is starting to look at the possibilities. Just imagine it -Bill being a closet Gaullist! Who would have ever guessed?

   http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/11/britain-tax-havens-general-de-gaulle-monaco
   • Bill 7.1

     12 April 2016 at 6:38 pm

     The reference to de Gaulle in the link…you don’t think your comment a tad ironic given that it’s private companies and individuals (possibly some who are evading tax) who are currently looking to cart NZs water off overseas…ie, it’s them turning off our water?
     • Henry Filth 7.1.1

       12 April 2016 at 11:00 pm

       I was rather thinking of Monaco’s traditional role as a tax haven, to be honest. The Canterbury/Monaco water connection never occurred to me.
8. Molly 8

   12 April 2016 at 4:33 pm

   Completely tongue in cheek, but make all the loopholes ONLY available to people actually residing in a couple of Pacific islands.

   The two that come to mind that are fit for purpose are Kiribati and Tuvalu.

   The current population will have to be reimbursed of course, for the use of their homeland. But these “overseas trusts” will eventually become “undersea trusts” and we can get on with repairing the financial system and the state of the earth’s ecosystem without undue influence.
   • Henry Filth 8.1

     12 April 2016 at 10:57 pm

     I suppose that they’d have the advantage of being self-liquidating.
     • Molly 8.1.1

       13 April 2016 at 8:26 am

       🙂
9. TepidSupport 9

   12 April 2016 at 6:25 pm

   We definitely need to improve our compliance and reporting requirements for those operating these trusts in NZ. Let’s not go too far as it would literally stop us doing business overseas…
   We certainly should understand the settlors/ trustees/ beneficiaries of the trusts in question and force them to prove compliance (onus on them) but the ‘services’ should remain..
   • Bill 9.1

     12 April 2016 at 6:28 pm

     I’ve no problem with the ‘service’…as long as all due tax is paid.
     • Henry Filth 9.1.1

       12 April 2016 at 11:05 pm

       Nor me, Bill. I think it’s a great service.

       But being abused.

       So should be fixed, not just trashed in a moral panic.
10. Richard McGrath 10

    13 April 2016 at 7:17 am

    You are suggesting that someone who legally reduces his tax liability in NZ should be at risk of total asset seizure?
    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1

      13 April 2016 at 7:33 am

      legally reduces his tax liability

      Translation: enters into a money-laundering arrangement. OK, you don’t see it in those terms? Pay your taxes like everyone else. Instead of whining about it, you might try and take a little pride in what we made.
      • Richard McGrath 10.1.1

        13 April 2016 at 10:06 pm

        You imply that everyone seeking to reduce tax liability is engaged in illegal tax evasion. That’s an insult to everyone who deducts legitimate business expenses against their taxable income.

        What exactly did “we” make?
        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.1.1

          14 April 2016 at 6:36 am

          I imply? Translation: you interpret. Meanwhile, on Earth, the difference between a business expense and a offshore trust designed to launder money is obvious.

          What did we make? Go to Google Earth, satellite view, Look at New Zealand: you may notice evidence of human settlement and infrastructure.
          • Richard McGrath 10.1.1.1.1

            14 April 2016 at 7:14 am

            No, you imply by the use of the term “money laundering” that reducing one’s tax liability is necessarily a fraudulent activity.

            You may also like to believe that “we” built roads, buildings, etc. I don’t remember being asked for any input on these projects. Money was removed from my earnings, often before I received it, under threat of penalties and fines, and spent by politicians and bureaucrats for whom I never voted, on infrastructure, most of which I never use.
            • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.1.1.1.1

              14 April 2016 at 7:50 am

              Stop whining, you ungrateful wretch.

              The law is perfectly clear: pay your taxes. Legal sophistry doesn’t cut the mustard.
              • Richard McGrath …

                16 April 2016 at 10:10 am

                The law is also clear that people have a right to reduce their income tax to the lowest allowed level. Most lefties take issue with this, but it’s the law.

                I am “grateful” as it turns out, to the tune of about $30k so far this year.
            • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.1.1.1.2

              14 April 2016 at 9:17 am

              I note that your assertion that you “never” use particular bits of infrastructure is perverse to the point of dishonesty. How are the drugs you prescribe delivered, and by whom? Do your patients arrive at your doorstep by magic?

              Stop whinging.
              • Richard McGrath …

                16 April 2016 at 10:16 am

                I would “whinge” less if the use of government services was charged on a user pays basis. I would be happy to pay for public hospital care, use of roads and schools, etc., in that manner.
                • One Anonymous Bloke …

                  16 April 2016 at 3:24 pm

                  We could do that, but why pander to mediocrity? Your notions of how civilisation can work are complete bullshit, and let’s face it, they aren’t even yours: a crackhead sociopath wrote some unreadable novels and you swallowed them whole.
            • Henry Filth 10.1.1.1.1.3

              14 April 2016 at 11:46 pm

              But all which is available to you should you wish to do so.

              You live at home in your private house, you travel only on your private roads, you have your own well for your own personal water, you what?

              Grow up.
              • Richard McGrath …

                16 April 2016 at 10:05 am

                HF – yes I do live in a private house, and use private water as it happens. Happy to use roads on a user pays basis. Sorry to burst your bubble.
                • One Anonymous Bloke …

                  16 April 2016 at 7:51 pm

                  Meanwhile, on Earth, your bubble burst before it formed, because it was authored by a crackhead sociopath.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS