Poor Nick Shaxson

Doesn\’t really quite get it:

Banks are supposed to withhold taxes first on the initial capital, then on interest, capital gains and capital income owned by their UK taxpayer clients. Now, a Swiss bank would rarely hold John Smith\’s account in the name of \”John Smith\” but in the name of, say, ABC Liechtenstein foundation or XYZ discretionary trust. Swiss sources indicate that some private banks don\’t hold a single account in an individual\’s name.

But said foundations and discretionary trusts aren\’t actually liable for tax. Therefore no tax is being avoided or evaded.

No tax is actually due.

So whining that the Swiss tax deal won\’t tax these entities which are not taxable is a little silly really, isn\’t it?

11 thoughts on “Poor Nick Shaxson”

  1. “Banks are supposed to withhold taxes first on the initial capital …”

    They are going to assume that all money held is liable for tax? I have seen this claim before and it still puzzles me and I keep thinking it is being reported incorrectly.

    If true presumably you then get it back by jumping through hoops to prove it had already been taxed.

  2. Shaxon wrote a recent book attacking tax havens, and of course he is all part of the Richard Murphy outfit. Recently, I was chatting to a guy in Jersey and they point out that much of the data Shaxon uses is hopelessly out of date.

    Unfortunately, governments like our own listen to the likes of Shaxon. Terrifying.

  3. No Johnathan, it’s unfortunate that people believe those that work on the inside and expect them to be objective.

    The information is not out of date, words may have changed, vehicles amended, but the underlying desire for growth in this industry in the secrecy jurisdictions predicates tax abuse.

    And they do it very well.

    Just because some shill in Jersey says it ain’t so doesn’t actually mean that it isn’t.

    All this support for anything anti Murphy is utterly ridiculous.

    What’s so bad chasing tax dodgers?

    Oh yeah. You probably all think that tax is theft and that tax dodging is a divine right.

    Cretins.

  4. Arnald you have a weird way of arguing, asking questions of people and then supplying the answers or putting words into people’s mouths as it is usually called. Then again as all your questions are so rhetorical perhaps you are actually debating with yourself, have you convinced yourself of anything yet ?

  5. lol at Arnald

    “Just because some shill in Jersey says it ain’t so doesn’t actually mean that it isn’t.”

    Replace Jersey with Switzerland and you might even be talking about the Shaxtwat… 🙂

  6. My God Worstofall you really are thick.
    Your statement that ” said foundations and discretionary trusts aren’t actually liable for tax” just shows how you haven’t got a concept about tax evasion or tax aviodance. I’ve told you before to stop talking about tax because you’ve not got a clue..

  7. Now, a Swiss bank would rarely hold John Smith’s account in the name of “John Smith” but in the name of, say, ABC Liechtenstein foundation or XYZ discretionary trust.

    Aye, ‘cos when I opened my Swiss bank account they looked at my passport, gave me a wink, and said “So what would you like your account to be called, Mr Newman?”

  8. Hi Tim, just seen this. I agree that one of us ‘doesn’t really get it’ – er, but it isn’t me. The whole point about them is that they escape tax. Which just goes to underline the point made in my article. You seem a little confused. Have a think about it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *