tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post7798839828802297327..comments2023-10-24T08:00:53.865-05:00Comments on Federal Tax Crimes: Tax Authority's Use of Stolen Tax Haven Bank DataJack Townsendhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14469823736335455874noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-25717114761497297542010-01-08T07:45:17.586-06:002010-01-08T07:45:17.586-06:00Sorry for the double post.
Here's the link to ...Sorry for the double post.<br />Here's the link to the story <br /><br />http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a72h.8FBBlSM&pos=3Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-20325844634120988632010-01-08T07:44:01.243-06:002010-01-08T07:44:01.243-06:00To followup on your comments about improperly obta...To followup on your comments about improperly obtained data, how does today's news that Swiss federal courts ruled that the Swiss FINMA regulator "broke the law when it ordered UBS AG to give data on 255 of the bank’s clients to the U.S. last year". While the 4,000+ names later disclosed were legally disclosed, what do you think this implies vis a vis the 255 names? For example, is this evidence just as tainted as the evidence which was stolen in the LGT case a couple of years ago?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-51661780250686662162010-01-05T03:55:10.311-06:002010-01-05T03:55:10.311-06:00regarding the french use of stolen swiss bank data...regarding the french use of stolen swiss bank data: newspaper in europe report that despite that france will give back the data (whatever that means), france does not excluded using the information to prosecute french tax evadors. <br />a similar case with stolen bank data hit a liechtenstein bank earlier; the data was passed to the german tax authrorites (possibly even bought) and then used to prosecute.andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13523388019288223636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-14949066122837357382009-12-31T08:27:58.951-06:002009-12-31T08:27:58.951-06:00Anonymous,
I will post the above suggestion as a ...Anonymous,<br /><br />I will post the above suggestion as a separate blog item later today (hopefully), and, of course, reference you (whoever you are). Feel free, of course, to correspond with me at my email address -- jack@tjtaxlaw.com -- but your anonymity may then be compromised.<br /><br />For those wishing to comment on Anonymous' comment, hold your comments until I can put that into a separate blog entry and then start the discussion around Anonymous' comment in that separate blog entry.<br /><br />Jack TownsendJack Townsendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14469823736335455874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-45952494846493440372009-12-31T04:33:56.957-06:002009-12-31T04:33:56.957-06:00I'm not sure how to suggest a new thread topic...I'm not sure how to suggest a new thread topic, but I hope you'll delete this comment and use it to start a new thread/comment by you for discussion.<br /><br />If I correctly understand the 50% FBAR penalty in criminal cases, it is based upon 50% of the highest account value. But doesn't this overpenalize those who left money overseas relative to those who transferred it back into the U.S.? Look at this example...<br /><br />For example, if someone has an overseas account with $1,000,000 and makes 10% every year, but takes out the 100,000 profit every year to sneak it back into the U.S., the account will never grow above $1,000,000 and after 10 years they will have snuck $100,000 each year into the U.S. They will pay an FBAR penalty of $500,000.<br /><br />But, if someone has an overseas account with $1,000,000 and makes 10% every year (or $100,000), but leaves it over there, at the end of 10 years they will have $2,000,000. They will pay an FBAR penalty of $1,000,000.<br /><br />The way they are calculating the penalty is penalizing the people who left their money overseas more than those who engaged in more egregious activity by bringing it back into the U.S. <br /><br />The income tax is the same, but the FBAR penalties are wildly different. You get a 50% discount for worse behavior effectively.<br /><br />Feel free to delete my comment and/or present it as your own idea or reshape it to start a new thread/topic. I just want to start a discussion on this if I'm correct and hear your thoughts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-44509047341067612222009-12-30T18:27:23.448-06:002009-12-30T18:27:23.448-06:00Anonymous,
All of your points are well taken.
St...Anonymous,<br /><br />All of your points are well taken.<br /><br />Still, I would think that the Government would have some concern about "stolen" data. Let's suppose a Birkenfeld inspired case: Swiss Banker signs up US Depositor 1 and does all of the US related things Birkenfeld did, and Swiss Banker also helps US Depositor 2 with whom all he does is accept the deposit in Switzerland and has no U.S. activity such as Birkenfelds. US Depositor 1 is thus US "dirty" because of all the US activity other than merely having a Swiss bank account. US Depositor 2 is clean except for the mere fact of having a Swiss bank account.<br /><br />Can Swiss Banker disclose and the IRS use both US Depositor 1 and US Depositor 2?<br /><br />If Swiss Banker can disclose both and the IRS can use it, then it is open season. <br /><br />However, I think the US might say it can use the disclosures about Depositor 1 but not Depositor 2. As to Depositor 2, the US will have to get whatever it can under the treaty in order to use it. Perhaps.Jack Townsendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14469823736335455874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-28760102170484461492009-12-30T18:04:32.199-06:002009-12-30T18:04:32.199-06:00You note that "newspapers have reported that&...You note that "newspapers have reported that" Birkenfeld disclosed the information to the U.S. government in order to avoid prosecution. This shows that you can't believe all that you read in the papers. He shared this extensive information with the SEC, IRS, U.S. Senate and the DoJ back in 2007, the year before he was even charged. The DoJ hasn't asked him about these issues since June of 2008 according to his attorney.<br /><br />Even UBS CFO Mark Branson said before the U.S. Senate that Swiss banking secrecy cannot be used as an excuse to violate other laws. So I don't think that the U.S. would give a hoot over their concerns about "stolen" data, if indeed any data was stolen. In this case, it appears to be more knowledge of the UBS operation, its structure and methods that was shared with the U.S. government (as opposed to computer chips containing thousands of names of clients).<br /><br />By the way, the French made copies of all of the data before returning the "stolen" property to the "rightful owners".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com