Romney Parks Millions in Cayman Islands

[Genx87]

So what you're saying is that the Cayman accounts launder/ conceal money for Mitt's investors, right?

A guy like Romney wouldn't even realize that was happening, would he?

And there's obviously nothing shady about using laundered foreign money to enrich yourself while looting American companies, is there?

I'm not sure it would be fair to say that with any certainty, but your own remarks lend themselves to such conclusions...

First associated conceal with laundering. Then go to full on money laundering by the end of your rant. Congrats you have transformed what is a legitimate business deal by foreign investors trying to invest in this country and get around their oppressive govts into a criminal activity such as money laundering.

 

[piasabird]

How is this different from taking a vacation in Mexico or South America or Europe or Asia or Africa? There are also a lot of Expat US Citizens who just choose to move their money and their address to some other country or Locale. People should be free.

So does the article talk about all the hundred of thousands of dollars he donated to his church each year?

 

[The-Noid]

This is in fact correct. All you have stated is factual.

But it also fails to mention one thing. There are ways to move cash obtained in the US, before it gets taxed, over to the cayman islands where it will no longer be taxed. And later moved back if needed without ever being taxed.

The problem we have here is we don't know HOW Mitt moved his assets over to the Caymans. Was it done legally after all taxes were collected? I have no problem with people offshoring money elsewhere. I mean it is their money.

But when we now are looking at Mitt's admitted history of only a 15% tax rate for his income. Calling earned income of 370K for just showing up places as "not that much" and his other bullshit such as the fact that he now has millions in assets sitting in offshore accounts makes people think it probably is not there in the "legal" way.

Again, I have NO PROBLEM with people wanting to put their assets in accounts outside the US. So long as those assets were properly taxed before and/or after if they should have been subject to taxes.

How do you move money outside the US with out paying tax? You can move deferred tax assets with embedded gains, however your basis is still the same. When you close the position he is still going to pay a capital gain, whether it be held in a Cayman account or held in a brokerage house here. Off-shore exchange funds are great but you don't get a stepped up basis.

 

[JS80]

How do you move money outside the US with out paying tax? You can move deferred tax assets with embedded gains, however your basis is still the same. When you close the position he is still going to pay a capital gain, whether it be held in a Cayman account or held in a brokerage house here. Off-shore exchange funds are great but you don't get a stepped up basis.

I don't know whether to call HumblePie a liar or an idiot. Everything he said is factually false.

 

[The-Noid]

I don't know whether to call HumblePie a liar or an idiot. Everything he said is factually false.

Hence my response. Exchange funds don't do anything to change tax basis, they simply offshore assets and can possibly diversify. i.e. exchange embedded company stock into an embedded index/hedge fund with the same holding and an illiquid asset.

I don't understand why everyone is automatically assuming that moving assets offshore results in some sort of super duper tax savings.

I believe I have done a fairly good job of providing facts only in this thread, not a single opinion on the benefits of offshoring assets.

 

[HumblePie]

How do you move money outside the US with out paying tax? You can move deferred tax assets with embedded gains, however your basis is still the same. When you close the position he is still going to pay a capital gain, whether it be held in a Cayman account or held in a brokerage house here. Off-shore exchange funds are great but you don't get a stepped up basis.

They do it through foreign holders and shelters. I'm not the tax expert, nor do I claim to be one. I know that some companies like Citgo, for example, do some pretty dirty methods of hiding taxable money through their parental association with a foreign entity.

Again, rich people have the money to hire others to find the "loopholes" to save more money overall. To a certain degree I can't fault a person for doing it either. If there was a quasi-legal way for most of us to pay half as much ore less in taxes a year then most of us would. It's one thing for Joe Schmoe to do this, but when you are a politician running off your reputation for work. Especially when you are running for a position that is one of the highest in the land that is capable of influencing policies that make these quasi-legal behaviors even easier for a certain class of people versus others.

If Mitt Romney had been just another anonymous corporate head doing quasi legal things to juggle money to pay a lesser tax rate then I could give a flying fart. Especially more so if he never used gains to then lobby for more concessions to keep or improve loopholes for himself. When a man though is running for one of the highest political office in the land that can majorly influence all these tax policies I get a little concerned about his past behavioral pattern if it has been shown to be quasi or less than legal.

 

[The-Noid]

They do it through foreign holders and shelters. I'm not the tax expert, nor do I claim to be one. I know that some companies like Citgo, for example, do some pretty dirty methods of hiding taxable money through their parental association with a foreign entity.

Again, rich people have the money to hire others to find the "loopholes" to save more money overall. To a certain degree I can't fault a person for doing it either. If there was a quasi-legal way for most of us to pay half as much ore less in taxes a year then most of us would. It's one thing for Joe Schmoe to do this, but when you are a politician running off your reputation for work. Especially when you are running for a position that is one of the highest in the land that is capable of influencing policies that make these quasi-legal behaviors even easier for a certain class of people versus others.

If Mitt Romney had been just another anonymous corporate head doing quasi legal things to juggle money to pay a lesser tax rate then I could give a flying fart. Especially more so if he never used gains to then lobby for more concessions to keep or improve loopholes for himself. When a man though is running for one of the highest political office in the land that can majorly influence all these tax policies I get a little concerned about his past behavioral pattern if it has been shown to be quasi or less than legal.

You are explaining "earned income," again this is different than "investment income" and deferred capital gains.

GOOG, GE and AAPL are among the worst when it comes to corporate tax loopholes. Google "double Irish," "Dutch sandwich," etc. These are different loopholes than those of individuals.

 

[HumblePie]

Basically as I just read it from a few google tax experts about cayman islands is that companies or people will setup "foreign" companies. At one time the there was a Cayman Islands address that was home to 187,000 companies that were actually all US based. Earnings made on American soil were considered FOREIGN earned money and the Us had laws that allowed minimal to no taxes on those. Especially if they could show those earnings were for a special category, such as a religious organization. Money is then moved to a Cayman's Island account from which the IRS couldn't get info from. At which point the company uses other agencies to funnel the money back into the US if they need it or other places in the world. It is all tax evasion.

 

[Ausm]

Basically as I just read it from a few google tax experts about cayman islands is that companies or people will setup "foreign" companies. At one time the there was a Cayman Islands address that was home to 187,000 companies that were actually all US based. Earnings made on American soil were considered FOREIGN earned money and the Us had laws that allowed minimal to no taxes on those. Especially if they could show those earnings were for a special category, such as a religious organization. Money is then moved to a Cayman's Island account from which the IRS couldn't get info from. At which point the company uses other agencies to funnel the money back into the US if they need it or other places in the world. It is all tax evasion.

We have a Winnar here...If he wins the GOP nomination, I hope President Obama hammers his worthless ass into the ground with this latest finding.

 

[The-Noid]

Basically as I just read it from a few google tax experts about cayman islands is that companies or people will setup "foreign" companies. At one time the there was a Cayman Islands address that was home to 187,000 companies that were actually all US based. Earnings made on American soil were considered FOREIGN earned money and the Us had laws that allowed minimal to no taxes on those. Especially if they could show those earnings were for a special category, such as a religious organization. Money is then moved to a Cayman's Island account from which the IRS couldn't get info from. At which point the company uses other agencies to funnel the money back into the US if they need it or other places in the world. It is all tax evasion.

Tax avoidance.

When the money comes into the US it is taxed. Keeping earned income outside the country is nothing new. Every company that is international does it.

Again, you are confusing investment income and earned income.

 

[HumblePie]

You are explaining "earned income," again this is different than "investment income" and deferred capital gains.

Wouldn't you think maybe based on my knowledge of this topic, I have some working knowledge of how it works and am jabbing you? <-- too much of a hint?

Yes but these companies take EARNED income that is supposed to be taxable and funnel through an foreign company to a foreign account. Thus evading the taxes on that earned income that would normally be applied to a domestic company where the funds would have stayed here. Then using that foreign company and funds, they can then funnel those funds BACK as investments. Those investments become deferred capital gains. When they need the money there are further ways to take the money put into investments out without paying any gains earned back in taxes as well.

It's all a shell game of using loopholes in the tax code to evade taxes on any form of income, earned or investment.

 

[The-Noid]

We have a Winnar here...If he wins the GOP nomination, I hope President Obama hammers his worthless ass into the ground with this latest finding.

I do agree, this will be a killer because it is very misunderstood by the average joe.

 

[HumblePie]

Tax avoidance.

When the money comes into the US it is taxed. Keeping earned income outside the country is nothing new. Every company that is international does it.

Again, you are confusing investment income and earned income.

No, there are many ways to bring money back into the US without having it taxed. MANY ways.

 

[The-Noid]

Yes but these companies take EARNED income that is supposed to be taxable and funnel through an foreign company to a foreign account. Thus evading the taxes on that earned income that would normally be applied to a domestic company where the funds would have stayed here. Then using that foreign company and funds, they can then funnel those funds BACK as investments. Those investments become deferred capital gains. When they need the money there are further ways to take the money put into investments out without paying any gains earned back in taxes as well.

It's all a shell game of using loopholes in the tax code to evade taxes on any form of income, earned or investment.

Is that why US corporations have an estimated $2T sitting outside the country they haven't paid tax on? If it is so easy, why wouldn't this be in management or shareholders pockets?

 

[The-Noid]

No, there are many ways to bring money back into the US without having it taxed. MANY ways.

Is that why US corporations have an estimated $2T sitting outside the country they haven't paid tax on? If it is so easy, why wouldn't this be in management or shareholders pockets? I guess they don't want money.

There really aren't...

 

[HumblePie]

Is that why US corporations have an estimated $2T sitting outside the country they haven't paid tax on? If it is so easy, why wouldn't this be in management or shareholders pockets? I guess they don't want money.

There really aren't...

Because who really needs to spend $2T at a time?

You bring it back in as needed through methods that avoid further taxation. It's also easier to move smaller amounts back in then larger amounts.


As Mitt has stated, he made quite a bit in earned income tax. Over $370K. Never payed a penny on it. Instead the only thing he paid taxes on was capital gains in US investments that he couldn't avoid which is at the 15% mark.

Do you really think all that earned income just disappeared?

 

[The-Noid]

Because who really needs to spend $2T at a time?

You bring it back in as needed through methods that avoid further taxation. It's also easier to move smaller amounts back in then larger amounts.


As Mitt has stated, he made quite a bit in earned income tax. Over $370K. Never payed a penny on it. Instead the only thing he paid taxes on was capital gains in US investments that he couldn't avoid which is at the 15% mark.

Do you really think all that earned income just disappeared?

It's deferred, thanks for making my point...

The assets these companies have outside the country have DEFERRED TAXES, you still pay the tax.

As for corporations that have large deferred assets, yes many of them would bring the money back to payout to shareholders. It is mentioned on the MSFT conference call (as well as many others) on a quarterly basis (including yesterdays) where companies always go back to a tax holiday would result in payouts to shareholders.

 

[HumblePie]

It's deferred, thanks for making my point...

The assets these companies have outside the country have DEFERRED TAXES, you still pay the tax.

As for corporations that have large deferred assets, yes many of them would bring the money back to payout to shareholders. It is mentioned on the MSFT conference call (as well as many others) on a quarterly basis (including yesterdays) where companies always go back to a tax holiday would result in payouts to shareholders.

Deferring taxes is one thing. One would still pay the taxes on income, be it earned or gained. That is NOT the problem I'm referring to. I'm referring to out right tax evasion. I am NOT claiming Mitt Romney is doing outright tax evasion. Not at all. I am saying that his history showing his methods are similar to those who do outright tax evasion.

And yes tax evasion happens ALL THE TIME. Deny it all you want, but you would be the kid sticking his fingers in his ears shouting, "LALALALALA" while the rest of us know better.

 

[The-Noid]

Deferring taxes is one thing. One would still pay the taxes on income, be it earned or gained. That is NOT the problem I'm referring to. I'm referring to out right tax evasion. I am NOT claiming Mitt Romney is doing outright tax evasion. Not at all. I am saying that his history showing his methods are similar to those who do outright tax evasion.

And yes tax evasion happens ALL THE TIME. Deny it all you want, but you would be the kid sticking his fingers in his ears shouting, "LALALALALA" while the rest of us know better.

I agree with tax evasion, it happens on a daily basis.

The point of putting your assets offshore is not to evade tax though. If you are going to evade tax you can do it in a lot of other ways besides offshoring money.

That has been the entire point of this thread. Offshoring == evasion, which is simply not the case.

 

[Jaskalas]

It is all tax evasion.

We have a Winnar here...If he wins the GOP nomination, I hope President Obama hammers his worthless ass into the ground with this latest finding.

That electability argument the Democrats have been using has gone out the window. Their choice of Republican candidate is toast even if the GOP establishment gets him past the primary.

 

[Ausm]

I agree with tax evasion, it happens on a daily basis.

The point of putting your assets offshore is not to evade tax though. If you are going to evade tax you can do it in a lot of other ways besides offshoring money.

That has been the entire point of this thread. Offshoring == evasion, which is simply not the case.

Here checkout this book on Tax Havens.

http://www.amazon.com/Tax-Havens-Globalization-Cornell-Studies/dp/0801476127

 

[The-Noid]

Here checkout this book on Tax Havens.

http://www.amazon.com/Tax-Havens-Globalization-Cornell-Studies/dp/0801476127

That book is on my bookshelf in the office as well as many more complicated studies.

Thanks though.

I prefer this. http://www.amazon.com/Offshore-Fina...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327089128&sr=1-1

 

[HumblePie]

I agree with tax evasion, it happens on a daily basis.

The point of putting your assets offshore is not to evade tax though. If you are going to evade tax you can do it in a lot of other ways besides offshoring money.

That has been the entire point of this thread. Offshoring == evasion, which is simply not the case.

I never stated once that offshoring = evasion. I stated that offshoring is one of the primary methods used for tax evasion. Go back and re-read everyone of my posts. I stated specifically that him just using an offshore account means nothing. It doesn't automatically mean he is evading his taxes.

However, the vast majority of tax evasions done by large US companies are done through Cayman Island offshore accounts. This is a HUGE deal and one that has been officially recognized by the IRS.

I never stated Mitt was evading taxes, nor that he wasn't. I just said many tax evaders use the Cayman Islands and other quasi legal tax deferring method loopholes, that Mitt has a history of already using, to eventually evade taxes. That is all. Draw your own conclusions with what amounts at this point to just circumstantial evidence.

 

[Ausm]

That book is on my bookshelf in the office as well as many more complicated studies.

Thanks though.

I prefer this. http://www.amazon.com/Offshore-Fina...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327089128&sr=1-1

Interesting I will see if I can get a copy for my Kindle.

 

[The-Noid]

Interesting I will see if I can get a copy for my Kindle.

It's a bit biased towards pro-offshoring but it attempts to be somewhat fair in explaining there are definitely those that offshore for the wrong reason.

Same with Switzerland there are families that have accounts that they haven't declared in decades.

Like I was saying there are reasons to offshore and it can be beneficial for tax avoidance but in this day and age outright evasion is not the primary objective.