tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622776924781844427.post7567020580485385570..comments2024-03-23T13:43:27.051-04:00Comments on Tax, Society & Culture: Paper: Putting the Reign Back in SovereignAllisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16733465339926078146noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622776924781844427.post-46109806555793140592013-01-21T21:01:22.714-05:002013-01-21T21:01:22.714-05:00The issue I keep having trouble understanding is t...The issue I keep having trouble understanding is that the people who support FATCA and believe it requires multilateralisation don't really "get" the current IGA process. Take the paragraph below which is found on one of Dick Harvey's Paper's on FATCA linked below.<br /><br />http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2029963<br /><br />The remainder of the FATCA section of this article will assume the US and other countries are pursuing a broad global solution to the offshore account problem being faced by many “residence” countries, as opposed to just trying to work around various local country restrictions surrounding FATCA. Section 3.1.2 will discuss the potential benefits of a multilateral system, while Section 3.1.3 will focus on key design issues.<br /><br />I personally have to strongly disagree with premise of the above. From the looks of things all the IGA's attempt to do is work around local country restrictions on compliance with a "broader" "global" "multilateral" solution like recipriciocity ia only an aspiration. I find notable that both Itai Greenberg and Dick Harvey whom in goverment were both involved in developing FATCA now claim to support a "multilateral" solution and furthermore believe a multilateral solution is necessary but yet believe the current IGA process is a real stepping stone to it. The "current" officials at Treasury seem to view the IGA's from a very narrow viewpoint of simply facilitating technical compliance with the FATCA statute(which given the FATCA statute provides no authority for IGA's is in itself strange).Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03894651289037073128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622776924781844427.post-84110979070889497242013-01-21T20:45:01.283-05:002013-01-21T20:45:01.283-05:00A couple of comments:
1. There is currently a fig...A couple of comments:<br /><br />1. There is currently a fight going on over on Linkedin as to what exactly are your legal credentials to discuss FATCA. You can join in for yourself on FATCA Knowledge and Networking Group.<br /><br />http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FATCA-Knowledge-Networking-3980909/about<br /><br />2. After reading this story about a proposed LBO of Dell Computer I am kind of curious as what exactly are the "Killer B" and "Deadly D" tax shelters.<br /><br />http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2013/01/dell-is-.html<br /><br />http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-18/dell-leveraged-buyout-may-hinge-on-cash-hoard-outside-u-s-.html<br /><br />Over the years, U.S. companies have employed a variety of tax-planning techniques for bringing that cash back to the U.S. while still avoiding the income-tax hit. The strategies have spawned colorful nicknames, inspired by the relevant sections of the tax code, like the “Killer B” and the “Deadly D.” <br /><br />Some companies have found ways of using a merger transaction to repatriate cash without triggering certain taxes. Merck & Co. (MRK), based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, brought more than $9 billion from abroad through its 2009 purchase of Kenilworth, New Jersey-based Schering-Plough Corp., routing the money through Dutch subsidiaries, Bloomberg News reported in 2010. <br /><br />“There are ways of doing it in the context of a buyout or merger that are more flexible than what you can do in the normal operation of a business,” said Reuven Avi-Yonah, a tax professor at University of Michigan Law School. <br />Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03894651289037073128noreply@blogger.com