On Wednesday, 6 April 2016 10:19:33 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 20:58:32 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 15:33:10 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/04/04/the-mossack-fonseca-papers-key-has-built-nz-into-a-tax-haven/

Full on KDS, complete with suggestions of all sorts of medieval torture and

death. Charming bunch, these lefties.

But I'm mystified why Bradbury and his insane little band of followers

think Key is creating a tax haven. The current offshore trust legislation is all courtesy of 2007 Labour - Clark and Cullen!

Correct. DPF quotes Richard Harman:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/labour_and_off-shore_trusts.html

however I am a bit perplexed that the link to politik does not bring
up the article quoted.

What also confuses me is why we permit registration of a trust with no
NZ connection in terms of assets, income or expenses. If a trust has
no connection with NZ why are we at all interested in allowing them to
be registered in NZ? What is the point?

Key has appaerntly said that there is profit of $20 million a year to
the lawyers involved.

Cite please.

There was some law change in 2011 in relation to
these matters. Wasn't Cactus Kate involved in this sort of thing
before she was caught out in the dirty tricks issues?

You tell us, you insinuating, smearing little shit.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 4/6/2016 11:14 AM, Tony wrote:

I bet you cannot name these lawyers and accountants.

I'll bet that if he did know that it wouldn't be posted..
Lawyers take umbrage about being lied, slandered and libeled about
and are pretty good at seeking and gaining redress

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

In article <4e01f51b-ea84-4a65-89f8-1a2c6d6e0ff9@googlegroups.com>, johno1234@gmail.com says...

On Wednesday, 6 April 2016 10:19:33 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 20:58:32 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 15:33:10 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >wrote:

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/04/04/the-mossack-fonseca-papers-key-has-built-nz-into-a-tax-haven/

Full on KDS, complete with suggestions of all sorts of medieval torture

and death. Charming bunch, these lefties.

But I'm mystified why Bradbury and his insane little band of followers

think Key is creating a tax haven. The current offshore trust legislation is all courtesy of 2007 Labour - Clark and Cullen!

Correct. DPF quotes Richard Harman:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/labour_and_off-shore_trusts.html

however I am a bit perplexed that the link to politik does not bring
up the article quoted.

What also confuses me is why we permit registration of a trust with no
NZ connection in terms of assets, income or expenses. If a trust has
no connection with NZ why are we at all interested in allowing them to
be registered in NZ? What is the point?

Key has appaerntly said that there is profit of $20 million a year to
the lawyers involved.

It seems it's more like NZ$24million.

Cite please.

http://tinyurl.com/zv7cvrv

Even though a piddling sum in global terms, it substantiates the claim
that "New Zealand is easy for doing business," and who wouldn't want
that?

However, when it comes to the multi-trillion-dollar global tax-dodging
game, every transnational villain and footpad knows New Zealand is,
indeed, "open for business" but it's an openness with little if any
regard to the legitimacy of the squirrel or the source and legitimacy of
the funds being squirrelled.

The trustees of New Zealand foreign trusts don't have to disclose the identities of the people putting assets into the trusts, where they come
from, what the assets are or their value, or who benefits from them.

There was some law change in 2011 in relation to
these matters.

Yes, there were some changes made, window-dressing mainly. Yet Key's assurances that the rules are being fully complied with
mean nothing when those rules are themselves so few and so signally
lacking in any rigour or stringency.

"Insubstantial" to a T, the lot of it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wednesday, 6 April 2016 13:12:05 UTC+12, -Newsman- wrote:

In article <4e01f51b-ea84-4a65-89f8-1a2c6d6e0ff9@googlegroups.com>, johno1234@gmail.com says...

On Wednesday, 6 April 2016 10:19:33 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 20:58:32 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 15:33:10 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >wrote:

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/04/04/the-mossack-fonseca-papers-key-has-built-nz-into-a-tax-haven/

Full on KDS, complete with suggestions of all sorts of medieval torture

and death. Charming bunch, these lefties.

But I'm mystified why Bradbury and his insane little band of followers

think Key is creating a tax haven. The current offshore trust legislation is all courtesy of 2007 Labour - Clark and Cullen!

Correct. DPF quotes Richard Harman:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/labour_and_off-shore_trusts.html

however I am a bit perplexed that the link to politik does not bring
up the article quoted.

What also confuses me is why we permit registration of a trust with no >NZ connection in terms of assets, income or expenses. If a trust has >no connection with NZ why are we at all interested in allowing them to >be registered in NZ? What is the point?

Key has appaerntly said that there is profit of $20 million a year to
the lawyers involved.

It seems it's more like NZ$24million.

Cite please.

http://tinyurl.com/zv7cvrv

Even though a piddling sum in global terms, it substantiates the claim
that "New Zealand is easy for doing business," and who wouldn't want
that?

However, when it comes to the multi-trillion-dollar global tax-dodging
game, every transnational villain and footpad knows New Zealand is,
indeed, "open for business" but it's an openness with little if any
regard to the legitimacy of the squirrel or the source and legitimacy of
the funds being squirrelled.

The trustees of New Zealand foreign trusts don't have to disclose the identities of the people putting assets into the trusts, where they come from, what the assets are or their value, or who benefits from them.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that: http://www.ird.govt.nz/technical-tax/legislation/2006/2006-3/2006-3-new-disclosure-and-recordkeeping-rules/

Specifically:
"Meaning of "records"
The definition of "records" in section 22(7) has been amended to require resident foreign trustees of foreign trusts to keep and retain the following records:

documents that provide evidence of the creation and constitution of the foreign
trust (trust deed or similar);
particulars of settlements made on, and distributions made by, the foreign trust, including the date of settlement or distribution, the name and address (if known) of settlors and recipients of distributions;
a record of the assets and liabilities of the foreign trust, and details of all
sums of money received and expended by the trustee in relation to the foreign trust, including evidence of when and where the receipt and expenditure takes place; and
if the foreign trust carries on a business, the charts and codes of accounts, the accounting instruction manuals and the system and programme documentation which describes the accounting system used in each income year in the administration of the trust."

There was some law change in 2011 in relation to
these matters.

Yes, there were some changes made, window-dressing mainly. Yet Key's assurances that the rules are being fully complied with
mean nothing when those rules are themselves so few and so signally
lacking in any rigour or stringency.

"Insubstantial" to a T, the lot of it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

In article <91898eec-3732-4cd5-8ee6-64cd90eb5a15@googlegroups.com>, johno1234@gmail.com says...

On Wednesday, 6 April 2016 13:12:05 UTC+12, -Newsman- wrote:

In article <4e01f51b-ea84-4a65-89f8-1a2c6d6e0ff9@googlegroups.com>, johno1234@gmail.com says...

On Wednesday, 6 April 2016 10:19:33 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 20:58:32 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 15:33:10 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >wrote:

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/04/04/the-mossack-fonseca-papers-key-has-built-nz-into-a-tax-haven/

Full on KDS, complete with suggestions of all sorts of medieval

torture and death. Charming bunch, these lefties.

But I'm mystified why Bradbury and his insane little band of

followers think Key is creating a tax haven. The current offshore trust legislation is all courtesy of 2007 Labour - Clark and Cullen!

Correct. DPF quotes Richard Harman:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/labour_and_off-shore_trusts.html

however I am a bit perplexed that the link to politik does not bring >up the article quoted.

What also confuses me is why we permit registration of a trust with no >NZ connection in terms of assets, income or expenses. If a trust has >no connection with NZ why are we at all interested in allowing them to >be registered in NZ? What is the point?

Key has appaerntly said that there is profit of $20 million a year to the lawyers involved.

It seems it's more like NZ$24million.

Cite please.

http://tinyurl.com/zv7cvrv

"worth about $24 million to the industry, in terms of the fees, tax and GST

that was paid"

So the turnover was $24 to the industry. Not thee profit.

It's revenue and therefore of "benefit" to

Even though a piddling sum in global terms, it substantiates the claim
that "New Zealand is easy for doing business," and who wouldn't want
that?

Indeed.

However, when it comes to the multi-trillion-dollar global tax-dodging game, every transnational villain and footpad knows New Zealand is,
indeed, "open for business" but it's an openness with little if any
regard to the legitimacy of the squirrel or the source and legitimacy of the funds being squirrelled.

If NZ was such an attractive prospect for tax evasion then the turnover would

be a wee bit more than this relatively infinitessimal $24 million.


Even so, there is now this, just in.

http://tinyurl.com/howsmzg

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wednesday, 6 April 2016 13:12:05 UTC+12, -Newsman- wrote:

In article <4e01f51b-ea84-4a65-89f8-1a2c6d6e0ff9@googlegroups.com>, johno1234@gmail.com says...

On Wednesday, 6 April 2016 10:19:33 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 20:58:32 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 15:33:10 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >wrote:

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/04/04/the-mossack-fonseca-papers-key-has-built-nz-into-a-tax-haven/

Full on KDS, complete with suggestions of all sorts of medieval torture

and death. Charming bunch, these lefties.

But I'm mystified why Bradbury and his insane little band of followers

think Key is creating a tax haven. The current offshore trust legislation is all courtesy of 2007 Labour - Clark and Cullen!

Correct. DPF quotes Richard Harman:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/labour_and_off-shore_trusts.html

however I am a bit perplexed that the link to politik does not bring
up the article quoted.

What also confuses me is why we permit registration of a trust with no >NZ connection in terms of assets, income or expenses. If a trust has >no connection with NZ why are we at all interested in allowing them to >be registered in NZ? What is the point?

Key has appaerntly said that there is profit of $20 million a year to
the lawyers involved.

It seems it's more like NZ$24million.

Cite please.

http://tinyurl.com/zv7cvrv

"worth about $24 million to the industry, in terms of the fees, tax and GST that was paid"

So the turnover was $24 to the industry. Not thee profit.

Even though a piddling sum in global terms, it substantiates the claim
that "New Zealand is easy for doing business," and who wouldn't want
that?

Indeed.

However, when it comes to the multi-trillion-dollar global tax-dodging
game, every transnational villain and footpad knows New Zealand is,
indeed, "open for business" but it's an openness with little if any
regard to the legitimacy of the squirrel or the source and legitimacy of
the funds being squirrelled.

If NZ was such an attractive prospect for tax evasion then the turnover would be a wee bit more than this relatively infinitessimal $24 million.

The trustees of New Zealand foreign trusts don't have to disclose the identities of the people putting assets into the trusts, where they come from, what the assets are or their value, or who benefits from them.

They do if required by the IRD.

There was some law change in 2011 in relation to
these matters.

Yes, there were some changes made, window-dressing mainly. Yet Key's assurances that the rules are being fully complied with
mean nothing when those rules are themselves so few and so signally
lacking in any rigour or stringency.

"Insubstantial" to a T, the lot of it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wednesday, 6 April 2016 15:17:14 UTC+12, -Newsman- wrote:

In article <91898eec-3732-4cd5-8ee6-64cd90eb5a15@googlegroups.com>, johno1234@gmail.com says...

On Wednesday, 6 April 2016 13:12:05 UTC+12, -Newsman- wrote:

In article <4e01f51b-ea84-4a65-89f8-1a2c6d6e0ff9@googlegroups.com>, johno1234@gmail.com says...

On Wednesday, 6 April 2016 10:19:33 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 20:58:32 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 15:33:10 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >wrote:

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/04/04/the-mossack-fonseca-papers-key-has-built-nz-into-a-tax-haven/

Full on KDS, complete with suggestions of all sorts of medieval

torture and death. Charming bunch, these lefties.

But I'm mystified why Bradbury and his insane little band of

followers think Key is creating a tax haven. The current offshore trust legislation is all courtesy of 2007 Labour - Clark and Cullen!

Correct. DPF quotes Richard Harman:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/04/labour_and_off-shore_trusts.html

however I am a bit perplexed that the link to politik does not bring >up the article quoted.

What also confuses me is why we permit registration of a trust with

no

NZ connection in terms of assets, income or expenses. If a trust

has

no connection with NZ why are we at all interested in allowing them

to

be registered in NZ? What is the point?

Key has appaerntly said that there is profit of $20 million a year to the lawyers involved.

It seems it's more like NZ$24million.

Cite please.

http://tinyurl.com/zv7cvrv

"worth about $24 million to the industry, in terms of the fees, tax and GST

that was paid"

So the turnover was $24 to the industry. Not thee profit.

It's revenue and therefore of "benefit" to

So? We were both responding to Dickbot's "$20 million profit" claim.

Revenue on its own is meaningless when discussing benefit. You need to know the
costs. Only profit is benefit.

Even though a piddling sum in global terms, it substantiates the claim that "New Zealand is easy for doing business," and who wouldn't want that?

Indeed.

However, when it comes to the multi-trillion-dollar global tax-dodging game, every transnational villain and footpad knows New Zealand is, indeed, "open for business" but it's an openness with little if any regard to the legitimacy of the squirrel or the source and legitimacy of the funds being squirrelled.

If NZ was such an attractive prospect for tax evasion then the turnover

would be a wee bit more than this relatively infinitessimal $24 million.

Even so, there is now this, just in.

http://tinyurl.com/howsmzg

Yes, that is exactly what I quoted elsewhere. The trustees need to keep all those details for seven years. The IRD has the power to seek anything it wants from NZ residents. Their search and seizure powers far exceed those of the police.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)