Today on Mike Hosking's show (something I rarely hear) at 7.15am heinterviewed
Greg Bishop of KPMG; at the end of the interview he was askedsilly
"Is New Zealand a tax haven" and he answered "No it is not".
I would rather believe someone at KPMG than some ubscure poster on nz general who continues to post unsubstantiated nonsense.
The whole interview was superbly handled by Mr. Bishop who addressed the history and the affects of law changes.
However it won't stop the political beat-up of the PM which is what this
piece of nonsense is really about.
Tony
On Friday, 6 May 2016 07:53:24 UTC+12, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:have a problem about NZ being a tax haven it would be the IRD!
Today on Mike Hosking's show (something I rarely hear) at 7.15am he interviewed
Greg Bishop of KPMG; at the end of the interview he was asked
"Is New Zealand a tax haven" and he answered "No it is not".
I would rather believe someone at KPMG than some ubscure poster on nz general
who continues to post unsubstantiated nonsense.
The whole interview was superbly handled by Mr. Bishop who addressed the
history and the affects of law changes.
However it won't stop the political beat-up of the PM which is what this silly
piece of nonsense is really about.
Tony
Never mind KPMG - the even IRD say NZ is not a tax haven. If *anyone* would
The only people who claim NZ is a tax haven are left wing types who naturallywouldn't make a peep about it when their mob is in office. Such is their infinite hypocrisy.
Today on Mike Hosking's show (something I rarely hear) at 7.15am heinterviewed
Greg Bishop of KPMG; at the end of the interview he was askedsilly
"Is New Zealand a tax haven" and he answered "No it is not".
I would rather believe someone at KPMG than some ubscure poster on nz general who continues to post unsubstantiated nonsense.
The whole interview was superbly handled by Mr. Bishop who addressed the history and the affects of law changes.
However it won't stop the political beat-up of the PM which is what this
piece of nonsense is really about.
Tony
On Friday, 6 May 2016 07:53:24 UTC+12, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:I already pointed out the IRD issue but just received abuse.
Today on Mike Hosking's show (something I rarely hear) at 7.15am he >>interviewed
Greg Bishop of KPMG; at the end of the interview he was asked
"Is New Zealand a tax haven" and he answered "No it is not".
I would rather believe someone at KPMG than some ubscure poster on nz >>general
who continues to post unsubstantiated nonsense.
The whole interview was superbly handled by Mr. Bishop who addressed the
history and the affects of law changes.
However it won't stop the political beat-up of the PM which is what this >>silly
piece of nonsense is really about.
Tony
Never mind KPMG - the even IRD say NZ is not a tax haven. If *anyone* would >have a problem about NZ being a tax haven it would be the IRD!
The only people who claim NZ is a tax haven are left wing types who naturally >wouldn't make a peep about it when their mob is in office. Such is their >infinite hypocrisy.
On 6/05/2016 7:53 a.m., Tony wrote:
Today on Mike Hosking's show (something I rarely hear) at 7.15am heThe problem with this whole deal is it involves trusts. The mere mention
interviewed
Greg Bishop of KPMG; at the end of the interview he was asked
"Is New Zealand a tax haven" and he answered "No it is not".
I would rather believe someone at KPMG than some ubscure poster on nz
general
who continues to post unsubstantiated nonsense.
The whole interview was superbly handled by Mr. Bishop who addressed the
history and the affects of law changes.
However it won't stop the political beat-up of the PM which is what this
silly
piece of nonsense is really about.
Tony
of 'trusts' evokes suspicion and mistrust among the hoi-polloi who simply
do not understand the purpose and function of a trust. This whole thing
will be beaten to death by the media- it's a good topic to turn a non
story into a story. The fact is there is not a damn thing in this whole
thing that should concern us.
Today on Mike Hosking's show (something I rarely hear) at 7.15am heinterviewed
Greg Bishop of KPMG; at the end of the interview he was askedsilly
"Is New Zealand a tax haven" and he answered "No it is not".
I would rather believe someone at KPMG than some ubscure poster on nz general who continues to post unsubstantiated nonsense.
The whole interview was superbly handled by Mr. Bishop who addressed the history and the affects of law changes.
However it won't stop the political beat-up of the PM which is what this
piece of nonsense is really about.
Tony
In article <part1of1.1.vfzDpNLrGZlMLw@ue.ph>, Tony, Tony says...I do not believe that is the definition of tax haven that is used internationally. Anyway I prefer to believe IRD and KPMG etc. than the people who are trying to make political capital out of this bit of trivia - pity they don't find something of real value to talk about.
Today on Mike Hosking's show (something I rarely hear) at 7.15am he >>interviewed
Greg Bishop of KPMG; at the end of the interview he was asked
"Is New Zealand a tax haven" and he answered "No it is not".
I would rather believe someone at KPMG than some ubscure poster on nz >>general
who continues to post unsubstantiated nonsense.
The whole interview was superbly handled by Mr. Bishop who addressed the
history and the affects of law changes.
However it won't stop the political beat-up of the PM which is what this >>silly
piece of nonsense is really about.
Tony
Not concerning the typical tax haven stuff - trusts n' that in
particular, it *is* a tax haven, in that overseas folk (not gonna single
out the Chinese :) - it applies to all) - purchase properties here, pay
no tax on sale of - and get pretty damn good interest rate doing so, if >they've purchased in the right spot - and it's not hard to do.
--
Duncan.
In article <part1of1.1.vfzDpNLrGZlMLw@ue.ph>, Tony, Tony says...interviewed
Today on Mike Hosking's show (something I rarely hear) at 7.15am he
generalGreg Bishop of KPMG; at the end of the interview he was asked
"Is New Zealand a tax haven" and he answered "No it is not".
I would rather believe someone at KPMG than some ubscure poster on nz
sillywho continues to post unsubstantiated nonsense.
The whole interview was superbly handled by Mr. Bishop who addressed the history and the affects of law changes.
However it won't stop the political beat-up of the PM which is what this
piece of nonsense is really about.
Tony
Not concerning the typical tax haven stuff - trusts n' that in
particular, it *is* a tax haven, in that overseas folk (not gonna single
out the Chinese :) - it applies to all) - purchase properties here, pay
no tax on sale of - and get pretty damn good interest rate doing so, if they've purchased in the right spot - and it's not hard to do.
--
Duncan.
Shit - look at all those tax havens!In article <part1of1.1.vfzDpNLrGZlMLw@ue.ph>, Tony, Tony says...
Today on Mike Hosking's show (something I rarely hear) at 7.15am he
interviewed
Greg Bishop of KPMG; at the end of the interview he was asked
"Is New Zealand a tax haven" and he answered "No it is not".
I would rather believe someone at KPMG than some ubscure poster on nz
general
who continues to post unsubstantiated nonsense.
The whole interview was superbly handled by Mr. Bishop who addressed the >> > history and the affects of law changes.
However it won't stop the political beat-up of the PM which is what this >> >silly
piece of nonsense is really about.
Tony
Not concerning the typical tax haven stuff - trusts n' that in
particular, it *is* a tax haven, in that overseas folk (not gonna single
out the Chinese :) - it applies to all) - purchase properties here, pay
no tax on sale of - and get pretty damn good interest rate doing so, if
they've purchased in the right spot - and it's not hard to do.
--
Duncan.
You don't have to use a foreign trust to do that - it applies to resident >Kiwis too, albeit now you need to hang onto the property for two years.
BUT... if the owners of the property are in a country with a tax treaty with >NZ, then they are liable for the tax in their own jurisdiction anyway, so once >again, not a tax haven. The Australians have tidied this up with NZ hence the >extra Australia related questions on our tax forms. But any tax partner country
can come to the IRD here and ask for all the details they want.
Tax treaties with NZ:
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
China
Czech Republic
Denmark
Fiji
Finland
France
Germany
Hong Kong
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Malaysia
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Poland
Russian Federation
Samoa
Singapore
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States of America
Viet Nam
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:once
On Friday, 6 May 2016 12:39:30 UTC+12, Dave Doe wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.vfzDpNLrGZlMLw@ue.ph>, Tony, Tony says...
Today on Mike Hosking's show (something I rarely hear) at 7.15am he
interviewed
Greg Bishop of KPMG; at the end of the interview he was asked
"Is New Zealand a tax haven" and he answered "No it is not".
I would rather believe someone at KPMG than some ubscure poster on nz >> >general
who continues to post unsubstantiated nonsense.
The whole interview was superbly handled by Mr. Bishop who addressed the
history and the affects of law changes.
However it won't stop the political beat-up of the PM which is what this
silly
piece of nonsense is really about.
Tony
Not concerning the typical tax haven stuff - trusts n' that in
particular, it *is* a tax haven, in that overseas folk (not gonna single >> out the Chinese :) - it applies to all) - purchase properties here, pay >> no tax on sale of - and get pretty damn good interest rate doing so, if >> they've purchased in the right spot - and it's not hard to do.
--
Duncan.
You don't have to use a foreign trust to do that - it applies to resident >Kiwis too, albeit now you need to hang onto the property for two years.
BUT... if the owners of the property are in a country with a tax treaty with
NZ, then they are liable for the tax in their own jurisdiction anyway, so
theagain, not a tax haven. The Australians have tidied this up with NZ hence
countryextra Australia related questions on our tax forms. But any tax partner
can come to the IRD here and ask for all the details they want.
Tax treaties with NZ:Shit - look at all those tax havens!
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
China
Czech Republic
Denmark
Fiji
Finland
France
Germany
Hong Kong
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Malaysia
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Poland
Russian Federation
Samoa
Singapore
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States of America
Viet Nam
Tony
On Friday, 6 May 2016 12:39:30 UTC+12, Dave Doe wrote:Kiwis too, albeit now you need to hang onto the property for two years.
In article <part1of1.1.vfzDpNLrGZlMLw@ue.ph>, Tony, Tony says...
Today on Mike Hosking's show (something I rarely hear) at 7.15am he interviewed
Greg Bishop of KPMG; at the end of the interview he was asked
"Is New Zealand a tax haven" and he answered "No it is not".
I would rather believe someone at KPMG than some ubscure poster on nz general
who continues to post unsubstantiated nonsense.
The whole interview was superbly handled by Mr. Bishop who addressed the >>> history and the affects of law changes.
However it won't stop the political beat-up of the PM which is what this silly
piece of nonsense is really about.
Tony
Not concerning the typical tax haven stuff - trusts n' that in
particular, it *is* a tax haven, in that overseas folk (not gonna single
out the Chinese :) - it applies to all) - purchase properties here, pay
no tax on sale of - and get pretty damn good interest rate doing so, if
they've purchased in the right spot - and it's not hard to do.
--
Duncan.
You don't have to use a foreign trust to do that - it applies to resident
BUT... if the owners of the property are in a country with a tax treaty withNZ, then they are liable for the tax in their own jurisdiction anyway, so once again, not a tax haven. The Australians have tidied this up with NZ hence the extra Australia
Tax treaties with NZ:
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
China
Czech Republic
Denmark
Fiji
Finland
France
Germany
Hong Kong
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Malaysia
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Poland
Russian Federation
Samoa
Singapore
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States of America
Viet Nam
On 6/05/2016 12:55 p.m., JohnO wrote:Yes I agree - I have had many years dealing with IRD and in recent times they have become much easier to deal with in respect of the way they treat people and fairness- but they are still tough as hell on people who try to break the rules and good on them I say!
On Friday, 6 May 2016 12:39:30 UTC+12, Dave Doe wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.vfzDpNLrGZlMLw@ue.ph>, Tony, Tony says...
Today on Mike Hosking's show (something I rarely hear) at 7.15am he >>>>interviewed
Greg Bishop of KPMG; at the end of the interview he was asked
"Is New Zealand a tax haven" and he answered "No it is not".
I would rather believe someone at KPMG than some ubscure poster on nz >>>>general
who continues to post unsubstantiated nonsense.
The whole interview was superbly handled by Mr. Bishop who addressed the >>>> history and the affects of law changes.
However it won't stop the political beat-up of the PM which is what this >>>>silly
piece of nonsense is really about.
Tony
Not concerning the typical tax haven stuff - trusts n' that in
particular, it *is* a tax haven, in that overseas folk (not gonna single >>> out the Chinese :) - it applies to all) - purchase properties here, pay
no tax on sale of - and get pretty damn good interest rate doing so, if
they've purchased in the right spot - and it's not hard to do.
--
Duncan.
You don't have to use a foreign trust to do that - it applies to resident >>Kiwis too, albeit now you need to hang onto the property for two years.
BUT... if the owners of the property are in a country with a tax treaty with >>NZ, then they are liable for the tax in their own jurisdiction anyway, so once
again, not a tax haven. The Australians have tidied this up with NZ hence the >>extra Australia related questions on our tax forms. But any tax partner country
can come to the IRD here and ask for all the details they want.
Tax treaties with NZ:
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
China
Czech Republic
Denmark
Fiji
Finland
France
Germany
Hong Kong
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Malaysia
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Poland
Russian Federation
Samoa
Singapore
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States of America
Viet Nam
Anyone classed as a trader by the IRD will be taxed whenever a property
is sold as a gain. 2 year rule doesn't apply. And you are right about
taxes paid overseas on property gains. Worldwide income generally
applies. It amazes me how often I hear complaints about 'the other guy >getting away with tax'. It's an area dominated by ignorance and envy and
the mistaken belief that the IRD are useless at collecting their dues.
On 6/05/2016 12:55 p.m., JohnO wrote:interviewed
On Friday, 6 May 2016 12:39:30 UTC+12, Dave Doe wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.vfzDpNLrGZlMLw@ue.ph>, Tony, Tony says...
Today on Mike Hosking's show (something I rarely hear) at 7.15am he
generalGreg Bishop of KPMG; at the end of the interview he was asked
"Is New Zealand a tax haven" and he answered "No it is not".
I would rather believe someone at KPMG than some ubscure poster on nz
sillywho continues to post unsubstantiated nonsense.
The whole interview was superbly handled by Mr. Bishop who addressed the >>> history and the affects of law changes.
However it won't stop the political beat-up of the PM which is what this
Kiwis too, albeit now you need to hang onto the property for two years.piece of nonsense is really about.
Tony
Not concerning the typical tax haven stuff - trusts n' that in
particular, it *is* a tax haven, in that overseas folk (not gonna single >> out the Chinese :) - it applies to all) - purchase properties here, pay
no tax on sale of - and get pretty damn good interest rate doing so, if
they've purchased in the right spot - and it's not hard to do.
--
Duncan.
You don't have to use a foreign trust to do that - it applies to resident
with NZ, then they are liable for the tax in their own jurisdiction anyway, so once again, not a tax haven. The Australians have tidied this up with NZ hence the extra AustraliaBUT... if the owners of the property are in a country with a tax treaty
Tax treaties with NZ:
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
China
Czech Republic
Denmark
Fiji
Finland
France
Germany
Hong Kong
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Malaysia
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Poland
Russian Federation
Samoa
Singapore
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States of America
Viet Nam
Anyone classed as a trader by the IRD will be taxed whenever a property
is sold as a gain. 2 year rule doesn't apply.
And you are right about
taxes paid overseas on property gains. Worldwide income generally
applies. It amazes me how often I hear complaints about 'the other guy getting away with tax'. It's an area dominated by ignorance and envy and
the mistaken belief that the IRD are useless at collecting their dues.
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 6 May 2016 07:53:24 UTC+12, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:I already pointed out the IRD issue but just received abuse.
Today on Mike Hosking's show (something I rarely hear) at 7.15am he
interviewed
Greg Bishop of KPMG; at the end of the interview he was asked
"Is New Zealand a tax haven" and he answered "No it is not".
I would rather believe someone at KPMG than some ubscure poster on nz
general
who continues to post unsubstantiated nonsense.
The whole interview was superbly handled by Mr. Bishop who addressed the >>> history and the affects of law changes.
However it won't stop the political beat-up of the PM which is what this >>> silly
piece of nonsense is really about.
Tony
Never mind KPMG - the even IRD say NZ is not a tax haven. If *anyone* would >> have a problem about NZ being a tax haven it would be the IRD!
The only people who claim NZ is a tax haven are left wing types who naturally
wouldn't make a peep about it when their mob is in office. Such is their
infinite hypocrisy.
This time however I expect to be ignored - par for the course.
Tony
On 6/05/2016 10:52 a.m., Tony wrote:The issue is simple. What exactly is the problem - only the political bloggers and media seem to think there is one.
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 6 May 2016 07:53:24 UTC+12, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:I already pointed out the IRD issue but just received abuse.
Today on Mike Hosking's show (something I rarely hear) at 7.15am he
interviewed
Greg Bishop of KPMG; at the end of the interview he was asked
"Is New Zealand a tax haven" and he answered "No it is not".
I would rather believe someone at KPMG than some ubscure poster on nz
general
who continues to post unsubstantiated nonsense.
The whole interview was superbly handled by Mr. Bishop who addressed the >>>> history and the affects of law changes.
However it won't stop the political beat-up of the PM which is what this >>>> silly
piece of nonsense is really about.
Tony
Never mind KPMG - the even IRD say NZ is not a tax haven. If *anyone* would >>> have a problem about NZ being a tax haven it would be the IRD!
The only people who claim NZ is a tax haven are left wing types who >>>naturally
wouldn't make a peep about it when their mob is in office. Such is their >>> infinite hypocrisy.
This time however I expect to be ignored - par for the course.
Tony
I expect the tax authorities in other countries will be asking more
questions when the rest of the MF documents are released.
Bankster John has already got the domestic smokescreen narrative on the
way, talking about hackers as if that's the problem.
The only people who claim NZ is a tax haven are left wing types
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
The only people who claim NZ is a tax haven are left wing types
The Australian Financial Review has described how NZ is used as a tax
haven - see below.
Poor JohnO. JohnO could claim the AFR are a bunch of left wing types and
look like a complete idiot. Or JohnO could backpedal. JohnO will do
neither, such is his two-faced hypocrisy.
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/world/the-panama-papers-behind-mossack-fonsecas-secret-new-zealand-deals-20160506-gonstp
Mossack Fonseca offered two New Zealand products to its overseas
clients: an NZ foreign trust, and a Look Through Company (LTC).
As long as the trust and the LTC had no income in New Zealand and
had no New Zealand beneficiaries, then they paid no New Zealand tax.
But there was another advantage because technically the LTC was
taxed, it's just that the tax rate was set at zero.
One French investor who moved his holding company from Luxembourg
to a New Zealand LTC knew he would pay no tax.
But New Zealand has a double-tax treaty with France, which meant
that he could repatriate the profit to France where it was not
taxable because it had already been "taxed" in New Zealand.
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The left are getting desperate.
The only people who claim NZ is a tax haven are left wing types
The Australian Financial Review has described how NZ is used as a tax
haven - see below.
Poor JohnO. JohnO could claim the AFR are a bunch of left wing types and
look like a complete idiot. Or JohnO could backpedal. JohnO will do
neither, such is his two-faced hypocrisy.
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
The only people who claim NZ is a tax haven are left wing types
The Australian Financial Review has described how NZ is used as a tax
haven - see below.
Poor JohnO. JohnO could claim the AFR are a bunch of left wing types and
look like a complete idiot. Or JohnO could backpedal. JohnO will do
neither, such is his two-faced hypocrisy.
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/world/the-panama-papers-behind-mossack-fonsecas-secret-new-zealand-deals-20160506-gonstp
Mossack Fonseca offered two New Zealand products to its overseas
clients: an NZ foreign trust, and a Look Through Company (LTC).
As long as the trust and the LTC had no income in New Zealand and
had no New Zealand beneficiaries, then they paid no New Zealand tax.
But there was another advantage because technically the LTC was
taxed, it's just that the tax rate was set at zero.
One French investor who moved his holding company from Luxembourg
to a New Zealand LTC knew he would pay no tax.
But New Zealand has a double-tax treaty with France, which meant
that he could repatriate the profit to France where it was not
taxable because it had already been "taxed" in New Zealand.
On Friday, 6 May 2016 23:25:17 UTC+12, Euall B. Tode wrote:in a newspaper (gasp!)
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
The only people who claim NZ is a tax haven are left wing types
The Australian Financial Review has described how NZ is used as a tax
haven - see below.
Poor JohnO. JohnO could claim the AFR are a bunch of left wing types and look like a complete idiot. Or JohnO could backpedal. JohnO will do neither, such is his two-faced hypocrisy.
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/world/the-panama-papers-behind-mossack-fonsecas-secret-new-zealand-deals-20160506-gonstp
Mossack Fonseca offered two New Zealand products to its overseas
clients: an NZ foreign trust, and a Look Through Company (LTC).
As long as the trust and the LTC had no income in New Zealand and
had no New Zealand beneficiaries, then they paid no New Zealand tax.
But there was another advantage because technically the LTC was
taxed, it's just that the tax rate was set at zero.
One French investor who moved his holding company from Luxembourg
to a New Zealand LTC knew he would pay no tax.
But New Zealand has a double-tax treaty with France, which meant
that he could repatriate the profit to France where it was not
taxable because it had already been "taxed" in New Zealand.
Well, Morrissey, that just goes to show you can't believe everything you read
When two companies have a tax treaty it simply means a business is not
double taxed. In the case cited, the company will be able to claim any taxpaid in NZ off their own tax to pay on worldwide earnings.
Now Luxembourg doesn't currently have a DTA with NZ but it is currently beingnegotiated in a process that started in 2011.
So it is under control, Morrissey. No need to wet your pants.
On Friday, 6 May 2016 23:25:17 UTC+12, Euall B. Tode wrote:That's the trouble with failed wannabe journalist hacks - no self control!
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
The only people who claim NZ is a tax haven are left wing types
The Australian Financial Review has described how NZ is used as a tax
haven - see below.
Poor JohnO. JohnO could claim the AFR are a bunch of left wing types and
look like a complete idiot. Or JohnO could backpedal. JohnO will do
neither, such is his two-faced hypocrisy.
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/world/the-panama-papers-behind-mossack-fonsecas-secret-new-zealand-deals-20160506-gonstp
Mossack Fonseca offered two New Zealand products to its overseas
clients: an NZ foreign trust, and a Look Through Company (LTC).
As long as the trust and the LTC had no income in New Zealand and
had no New Zealand beneficiaries, then they paid no New Zealand tax.
But there was another advantage because technically the LTC was
taxed, it's just that the tax rate was set at zero.
One French investor who moved his holding company from Luxembourg
to a New Zealand LTC knew he would pay no tax.
But New Zealand has a double-tax treaty with France, which meant
that he could repatriate the profit to France where it was not
taxable because it had already been "taxed" in New Zealand.
Well, Morrissey, that just goes to show you can't believe everything you read >in a newspaper (gasp!)
When two companies have a tax treaty it simply means a business is not double >taxed. In the case cited, the company will be able to claim any tax paid in NZ >off their own tax to pay on worldwide earnings.
Now Luxembourg doesn't currently have a DTA with NZ but it is currently being >negotiated in a process that started in 2011.
So it is under control, Morrissey. No need to wet your pants.
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:bloggers
The issue is simple. What exactly is the problem - only the political
I expect the tax authorities in other countries will be asking more
questions when the rest of the MF documents are released.
Bankster John has already got the domestic smokescreen narrative on the
way, talking about hackers as if that's the problem.
and media seem to think there is one.
IRD and the professionals do not think so.
Tony
On 6/05/2016 8:02 p.m., Tony wrote:Good idea , let's call it what it is.
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
The issue is simple. What exactly is the problem - only the political >>bloggers
I expect the tax authorities in other countries will be asking more
questions when the rest of the MF documents are released.
Bankster John has already got the domestic smokescreen narrative on the
way, talking about hackers as if that's the problem.
and media seem to think there is one.
IRD and the professionals do not think so.
Tony
Lets not call it a tax haven.
It is a hideout for tax cheats and thieves.
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 6/05/2016 10:52 a.m., Tony wrote:The issue is simple. What exactly is the problem - only the political bloggers
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, 6 May 2016 07:53:24 UTC+12, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote: >>>>> Today on Mike Hosking's show (something I rarely hear) at 7.15am heI already pointed out the IRD issue but just received abuse.
interviewed
Greg Bishop of KPMG; at the end of the interview he was asked
"Is New Zealand a tax haven" and he answered "No it is not".
I would rather believe someone at KPMG than some ubscure poster on nz >>>>> general
who continues to post unsubstantiated nonsense.
The whole interview was superbly handled by Mr. Bishop who addressed >>>>> the
history and the affects of law changes.
However it won't stop the political beat-up of the PM which is what
this
silly
piece of nonsense is really about.
Tony
Never mind KPMG - the even IRD say NZ is not a tax haven. If *anyone*
would
have a problem about NZ being a tax haven it would be the IRD!
The only people who claim NZ is a tax haven are left wing types who >>>>naturally
wouldn't make a peep about it when their mob is in office. Such is
their
infinite hypocrisy.
This time however I expect to be ignored - par for the course.
Tony
I expect the tax authorities in other countries will be asking more >>questions when the rest of the MF documents are released.
Bankster John has already got the domestic smokescreen narrative on the >>way, talking about hackers as if that's the problem.
and media seem to think there is one.
IRD and the professionals do not think so.
Tony
On Sat, 07 May 2016 02:11:32 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netWhat? Did I say someone had been or hadn't been slurred?
dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 6/05/2016 8:02 p.m., Tony wrote:Good idea , let's call it what it is.
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
The issue is simple. What exactly is the problem - only the political >>>>bloggers
I expect the tax authorities in other countries will be asking more
questions when the rest of the MF documents are released.
Bankster John has already got the domestic smokescreen narrative on the >>>>> way, talking about hackers as if that's the problem.
and media seem to think there is one.
IRD and the professionals do not think so.
Tony
Lets not call it a tax haven.
It is a hideout for tax cheats and thieves.
A beat up of the PM by people who have no idea how to be an opposition in >>parliament other than through personality assassination.
Let's call it what it is; an opportunity for sensationalist journalists, >>which
includes just about all of them, to achieve imaginary fame.
Let's call it what it is; an unsubstantiated slur on this country by >>politically inept New Zealanders who have got their priorities firmly stuck >>in
their imagined past! You know - the "worker's utopia" that has never existed >>and who's proponents have failed every time and everywhere in the world that >>they have attempted to introduce it! Defined perfectly as people who do not >>give a shit about this country.
Tony
So who is slurred by this, Tony?: >http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/79640610/Republic-of-Macedonia-takes-Dunedin-based-trust-to-court-to-recover-1-6-million?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 6/05/2016 8:02 p.m., Tony wrote:Good idea , let's call it what it is.
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
The issue is simple. What exactly is the problem - only the political >>>bloggers
I expect the tax authorities in other countries will be asking more
questions when the rest of the MF documents are released.
Bankster John has already got the domestic smokescreen narrative on the >>>> way, talking about hackers as if that's the problem.
and media seem to think there is one.
IRD and the professionals do not think so.
Tony
Lets not call it a tax haven.
It is a hideout for tax cheats and thieves.
A beat up of the PM by people who have no idea how to be an opposition in >parliament other than through personality assassination.
Let's call it what it is; an opportunity for sensationalist journalists, which >includes just about all of them, to achieve imaginary fame.
Let's call it what it is; an unsubstantiated slur on this country by >politically inept New Zealanders who have got their priorities firmly stuck in >their imagined past! You know - the "worker's utopia" that has never existed >and who's proponents have failed every time and everywhere in the world that >they have attempted to introduce it! Defined perfectly as people who do not >give a shit about this country.
Tony
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2016 02:11:32 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netWhat? Did I say someone had been or hadn't been slurred?
dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 6/05/2016 8:02 p.m., Tony wrote:Good idea , let's call it what it is.
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
The issue is simple. What exactly is the problem - only the political >>>>>bloggers
I expect the tax authorities in other countries will be asking more >>>>>> questions when the rest of the MF documents are released.
Bankster John has already got the domestic smokescreen narrative on the >>>>>> way, talking about hackers as if that's the problem.
and media seem to think there is one.
IRD and the professionals do not think so.
Tony
Lets not call it a tax haven.
It is a hideout for tax cheats and thieves.
A beat up of the PM by people who have no idea how to be an opposition in >>>parliament other than through personality assassination.
Let's call it what it is; an opportunity for sensationalist journalists, >>>which
includes just about all of them, to achieve imaginary fame.
Let's call it what it is; an unsubstantiated slur on this country by >>>politically inept New Zealanders who have got their priorities firmly stuck >>>in
their imagined past! You know - the "worker's utopia" that has never existed
and who's proponents have failed every time and everywhere in the world that >>>they have attempted to introduce it! Defined perfectly as people who do not >>>give a shit about this country.
Tony
So who is slurred by this, Tony?: >>http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/79640610/Republic-of-Macedonia-takes-Dunedin-based-trust-to-court-to-recover-1-6-million?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Tony
Let's call it what it is; an unsubstantiated slur on this country by >>>politically inept New Zealanders who have got their priorities firmly stuck >>>in
their imagined past!
On Sun, 08 May 2016 00:52:52 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netNobody, you idiot!
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2016 02:11:32 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netWhat? Did I say someone had been or hadn't been slurred?
dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 6/05/2016 8:02 p.m., Tony wrote:Good idea , let's call it what it is.
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
The issue is simple. What exactly is the problem - only the political >>>>>>bloggers
I expect the tax authorities in other countries will be asking more >>>>>>> questions when the rest of the MF documents are released.
Bankster John has already got the domestic smokescreen narrative on the >>>>>>> way, talking about hackers as if that's the problem.
and media seem to think there is one.
IRD and the professionals do not think so.
Tony
Lets not call it a tax haven.
It is a hideout for tax cheats and thieves.
A beat up of the PM by people who have no idea how to be an opposition in >>>>parliament other than through personality assassination.
Let's call it what it is; an opportunity for sensationalist journalists, >>>>which
includes just about all of them, to achieve imaginary fame.
Let's call it what it is; an unsubstantiated slur on this country by >>>>politically inept New Zealanders who have got their priorities firmly stuck >>>>in
their imagined past! You know - the "worker's utopia" that has never >>>>existed
and who's proponents have failed every time and everywhere in the world >>>>that
they have attempted to introduce it! Defined perfectly as people who do not >>>>give a shit about this country.
Tony
So who is slurred by this, Tony?: >>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/79640610/Republic-of-Macedonia-takes-Dunedin-based-trust-to-court-to-recover-1-6-million?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Tony
From above:
Let's call it what it is; an unsubstantiated slur on this country by >>>>politically inept New Zealanders who have got their priorities firmly stuck >>>>in
their imagined past!
So talking about NZ being a tax haven is a slur on the country - who
is being slurred by the article I referred to, Tony?
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2016 00:52:52 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netNobody, you idiot!
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2016 02:11:32 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>dot nz> wrote:What? Did I say someone had been or hadn't been slurred?
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 6/05/2016 8:02 p.m., Tony wrote:Good idea , let's call it what it is.
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
The issue is simple. What exactly is the problem - only the political >>>>>>>bloggers
I expect the tax authorities in other countries will be asking more >>>>>>>> questions when the rest of the MF documents are released.
Bankster John has already got the domestic smokescreen narrative on the
way, talking about hackers as if that's the problem.
and media seem to think there is one.
IRD and the professionals do not think so.
Tony
Lets not call it a tax haven.
It is a hideout for tax cheats and thieves.
A beat up of the PM by people who have no idea how to be an opposition in >>>>>parliament other than through personality assassination.
Let's call it what it is; an opportunity for sensationalist journalists, >>>>>which
includes just about all of them, to achieve imaginary fame.
Let's call it what it is; an unsubstantiated slur on this country by >>>>>politically inept New Zealanders who have got their priorities firmly stuck
in
their imagined past! You know - the "worker's utopia" that has never >>>>>existed
and who's proponents have failed every time and everywhere in the world >>>>>that
they have attempted to introduce it! Defined perfectly as people who do not
give a shit about this country.
Tony
So who is slurred by this, Tony?: >>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/79640610/Republic-of-Macedonia-takes-Dunedin-based-trust-to-court-to-recover-1-6-million?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Tony
From above:
Let's call it what it is; an unsubstantiated slur on this country by >>>>>politically inept New Zealanders who have got their priorities firmly stuck
in
their imagined past!
So talking about NZ being a tax haven is a slur on the country - who
is being slurred by the article I referred to, Tony?
The slur is, as I said, by politically inept New Zealanders who have got their >priorities firmly stuck
in their imagined past!
Nothing whatsoever to do with the irrelevant article you referred to.
Tony
that just goes to show you can't believe everything you read in a newspaper(gasp!)
On 5/6/2016 11:08 PM, Euall B. Tode wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The left are getting desperate.
The only people who claim NZ is a tax haven are left wing types
The Australian Financial Review has described how NZ is used as a tax
haven - see below.
Poor JohnO. JohnO could claim the AFR are a bunch of left wing types and
look like a complete idiot.
Their 'hit job' on Key didn't work.
Then they libeled his lawyer and now they're awaiting a solicitors letter.
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:(gasp!)
that just goes to show you can't believe everything you read in a newspaper
Whether I believe the Australian Financial Review or not, it clearly
gives the lie to your bald assertion "the only people who claim NZ is a
tax haven are left wing types".
On Monday, 9 May 2016 07:32:38 UTC+12, george wrote:
On 5/8/2016 5:52 PM, Tony wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2016 02:11:32 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netWhat? Did I say someone had been or hadn't been slurred?
dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 6/05/2016 8:02 p.m., Tony wrote:Good idea , let's call it what it is.
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
The issue is simple. What exactly is the problem - only the political >> >>>>> bloggers
I expect the tax authorities in other countries will be asking more >> >>>>>> questions when the rest of the MF documents are released.
Bankster John has already got the domestic smokescreen narrative on the
way, talking about hackers as if that's the problem.
and media seem to think there is one.
IRD and the professionals do not think so.
Tony
Lets not call it a tax haven.
It is a hideout for tax cheats and thieves.
A beat up of the PM by people who have no idea how to be an opposition in
parliament other than through personality assassination.
Let's call it what it is; an opportunity for sensationalist journalists, >> >>> which
includes just about all of them, to achieve imaginary fame.
Let's call it what it is; an unsubstantiated slur on this country by
politically inept New Zealanders who have got their priorities firmly stuck
in
their imagined past! You know - the "worker's utopia" that has never existed
and who's proponents have failed every time and everywhere in the world that
they have attempted to introduce it! Defined perfectly as people who do not
give a shit about this country.
Tony
So who is slurred by this, Tony?:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/79640610/Republic-of-Macedonia-takes-Dunedin-based-trust-to-court-to-recover-1-6-million?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Tony
Another load of a gotcha attempt by Liebor.
Mentioned a couple of thousand times in 11 million documents.
I think about half the mentions were about a single trust.
And if there really was anything there Ratface would have been crowing
about it in the 2 years that he's been 'working' with the documents.
Give up the gotcha stuff Liebor and try presenting policy like a
government in waiting would be doing..
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2016 02:11:32 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netWhat? Did I say someone had been or hadn't been slurred?
dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 6/05/2016 8:02 p.m., Tony wrote:Good idea , let's call it what it is.
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
The issue is simple. What exactly is the problem - only the political >>>>> bloggers
I expect the tax authorities in other countries will be asking more >>>>>> questions when the rest of the MF documents are released.
Bankster John has already got the domestic smokescreen narrative on the >>>>>> way, talking about hackers as if that's the problem.
and media seem to think there is one.
IRD and the professionals do not think so.
Tony
Lets not call it a tax haven.
It is a hideout for tax cheats and thieves.
A beat up of the PM by people who have no idea how to be an opposition in >>> parliament other than through personality assassination.
Let's call it what it is; an opportunity for sensationalist journalists, >>> which
includes just about all of them, to achieve imaginary fame.
Let's call it what it is; an unsubstantiated slur on this country by
politically inept New Zealanders who have got their priorities firmly stuck >>> in
their imagined past! You know - the "worker's utopia" that has never existed
and who's proponents have failed every time and everywhere in the world that
they have attempted to introduce it! Defined perfectly as people who do not >>> give a shit about this country.
Tony
So who is slurred by this, Tony?:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/79640610/Republic-of-Macedonia-takes-Dunedin-based-trust-to-court-to-recover-1-6-million?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Tony
On 5/8/2016 5:52 PM, Tony wrote:the
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2016 02:11:32 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 6/05/2016 8:02 p.m., Tony wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
I expect the tax authorities in other countries will be asking more >>>>>> questions when the rest of the MF documents are released.
Bankster John has already got the domestic smokescreen narrative on
stuckGood idea , let's call it what it is.way, talking about hackers as if that's the problem.The issue is simple. What exactly is the problem - only the political >>>>> bloggers
and media seem to think there is one.
IRD and the professionals do not think so.
Tony
Lets not call it a tax haven.
It is a hideout for tax cheats and thieves.
A beat up of the PM by people who have no idea how to be an opposition in >>> parliament other than through personality assassination.
Let's call it what it is; an opportunity for sensationalist journalists, >>> which
includes just about all of them, to achieve imaginary fame.
Let's call it what it is; an unsubstantiated slur on this country by
politically inept New Zealanders who have got their priorities firmly
existedin
their imagined past! You know - the "worker's utopia" that has never
thatand who's proponents have failed every time and everywhere in the world
notthey have attempted to introduce it! Defined perfectly as people who do
What? Did I say someone had been or hadn't been slurred?give a shit about this country.
Tony
So who is slurred by this, Tony?:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/79640610/Republic-of-Macedonia-takes-Dunedin-based-trust-to-court-to-recover-1-6-million?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Tony
Another load of a gotcha attempt by Liebor.
Mentioned a couple of thousand times in 11 million documents.
And if there really was anything there Ratface would have been crowing
about it in the 2 years that he's been 'working' with the documents.
Give up the gotcha stuff Liebor and try presenting policy like a
government in waiting would be doing..
george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
On 5/6/2016 11:08 PM, Euall B. Tode wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:The left are getting desperate.
The only people who claim NZ is a tax haven are left wing types
The Australian Financial Review has described how NZ is used as a tax
haven - see below.
Poor JohnO. JohnO could claim the AFR are a bunch of left wing types and >>> look like a complete idiot.
The commentary is from the Australian Financial Review, which no
conscious human with half a brain cell would call "the left."
George-bot's programming does not allow it the consciousness to see this.
Their 'hit job' on Key didn't work.
Then they libeled his lawyer and now they're awaiting a solicitors letter.
More canned rant from the robotic george-bot. There was no mention of
John Key's lawyer in the quoted excerpt from the Australian Financial
Review.
This george-bot is of similar design to the patrick-bot which used to
be in nz.general, cranking out the same canned phrases again and again.
On Sun, 08 May 2016 02:23:43 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netAs are you, the difference being that you lie - often.
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2016 00:52:52 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netNobody, you idiot!
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2016 02:11:32 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>dot nz> wrote:What? Did I say someone had been or hadn't been slurred?
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 6/05/2016 8:02 p.m., Tony wrote:Good idea , let's call it what it is.
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
The issue is simple. What exactly is the problem - only the political >>>>>>>>bloggers
I expect the tax authorities in other countries will be asking more >>>>>>>>> questions when the rest of the MF documents are released.
Bankster John has already got the domestic smokescreen narrative on >>>>>>>>>the
way, talking about hackers as if that's the problem.
and media seem to think there is one.
IRD and the professionals do not think so.
Tony
Lets not call it a tax haven.
It is a hideout for tax cheats and thieves.
A beat up of the PM by people who have no idea how to be an opposition in >>>>>>parliament other than through personality assassination.
Let's call it what it is; an opportunity for sensationalist journalists, >>>>>>which
includes just about all of them, to achieve imaginary fame.
Let's call it what it is; an unsubstantiated slur on this country by >>>>>>politically inept New Zealanders who have got their priorities firmly >>>>>>stuck
in
their imagined past! You know - the "worker's utopia" that has never >>>>>>existed
and who's proponents have failed every time and everywhere in the world >>>>>>that
they have attempted to introduce it! Defined perfectly as people who do >>>>>>not
give a shit about this country.
Tony
So who is slurred by this, Tony?: >>>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/79640610/Republic-of-Macedonia-takes-Dunedin-based-trust-to-court-to-recover-1-6-million?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Tony
From above:
Let's call it what it is; an unsubstantiated slur on this country by >>>>>>politically inept New Zealanders who have got their priorities firmly >>>>>>stuck
in
their imagined past!
So talking about NZ being a tax haven is a slur on the country - who
is being slurred by the article I referred to, Tony?
The slur is, as I said, by politically inept New Zealanders who have got >>their
priorities firmly stuck
in their imagined past!
Nothing whatsoever to do with the irrelevant article you referred to.
Tony
You are of course entitled to your unsupported opinions, your wild >accusations, and your wilful misunderstanding of anything else.
On 5/8/2016 5:52 PM, Tony wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2016 02:11:32 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netWhat? Did I say someone had been or hadn't been slurred?
dot nz> wrote:
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 6/05/2016 8:02 p.m., Tony wrote:Good idea , let's call it what it is.
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
The issue is simple. What exactly is the problem - only the political >>>>>> bloggers
I expect the tax authorities in other countries will be asking more >>>>>>> questions when the rest of the MF documents are released.
Bankster John has already got the domestic smokescreen narrative on >>>>>>> the
way, talking about hackers as if that's the problem.
and media seem to think there is one.
IRD and the professionals do not think so.
Tony
Lets not call it a tax haven.
It is a hideout for tax cheats and thieves.
A beat up of the PM by people who have no idea how to be an opposition >>>> in
parliament other than through personality assassination.
Let's call it what it is; an opportunity for sensationalist
journalists,
which
includes just about all of them, to achieve imaginary fame.
Let's call it what it is; an unsubstantiated slur on this country by
politically inept New Zealanders who have got their priorities firmly
stuck
in
their imagined past! You know - the "worker's utopia" that has never
existed
and who's proponents have failed every time and everywhere in the world >>>> that
they have attempted to introduce it! Defined perfectly as people who do >>>> not
give a shit about this country.
Tony
So who is slurred by this, Tony?:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/79640610/Republic-of-Macedonia-takes-Dunedin-based-trust-to-court-to-recover-1-6-million?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Tony
Another load of a gotcha attempt by Liebor.
Mentioned a couple of thousand times in 11 million documents.
And if there really was anything there Ratface would have been crowing
about it in the 2 years that he's been 'working' with the documents.
Give up the gotcha stuff Liebor and try presenting policy like a
government in waiting would be doing..
On Sun, 08 May 2016 02:23:43 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2016 00:52:52 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot netNobody, you idiot!
dot nz> wrote:
Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2016 02:11:32 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>dot nz> wrote:What? Did I say someone had been or hadn't been slurred?
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
On 6/05/2016 8:02 p.m., Tony wrote:Good idea , let's call it what it is.
victor <user1@example.net> wrote:
The issue is simple. What exactly is the problem - only the
I expect the tax authorities in other countries will be asking >>>>>>>>> more
questions when the rest of the MF documents are released.
Bankster John has already got the domestic smokescreen narrative >>>>>>>>> on the
way, talking about hackers as if that's the problem.
political
bloggers
and media seem to think there is one.
IRD and the professionals do not think so.
Tony
Lets not call it a tax haven.
It is a hideout for tax cheats and thieves.
A beat up of the PM by people who have no idea how to be an opposition >>>>>>in
parliament other than through personality assassination.
Let's call it what it is; an opportunity for sensationalist >>>>>>journalists,
which
includes just about all of them, to achieve imaginary fame.
Let's call it what it is; an unsubstantiated slur on this country by >>>>>>politically inept New Zealanders who have got their priorities firmly >>>>>>stuck
in
their imagined past! You know - the "worker's utopia" that has never >>>>>>existed
and who's proponents have failed every time and everywhere in the >>>>>>world
that
they have attempted to introduce it! Defined perfectly as people who >>>>>>do not
give a shit about this country.
Tony
So who is slurred by this, Tony?: >>>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/79640610/Republic-of-Macedonia-takes-Dunedin-based-trust-to-court-to-recover-1-6-million?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Tony
From above:
Let's call it what it is; an unsubstantiated slur on this country by >>>>>>politically inept New Zealanders who have got their priorities firmly >>>>>>stuck
in
their imagined past!
So talking about NZ being a tax haven is a slur on the country - who
is being slurred by the article I referred to, Tony?
The slur is, as I said, by politically inept New Zealanders who have got >>their
priorities firmly stuck
in their imagined past!
Nothing whatsoever to do with the irrelevant article you referred to.
Tony
You are of course entitled to your unsupported opinions, your wild accusations, and your wilful misunderstanding of anything else.
I admire your resilience but you are trying to use logic with a cretin, not just any old cretrin but alos a failed hack therefore a cretin without integrity.JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
that just goes to show you can't believe everything you read in a
newspaper (gasp!)
Whether I believe the Australian Financial Review or not, it clearly
gives the lie to your bald assertion "the only people who claim NZ is a
tax haven are left wing types".
Dickbot posted an article by Deborah Russell, failed Labour candidate and tax >lecturer: >http://thespinoff.co.nz/10-05-2016/foreign-trusts-101-a-plain-english-introduction-amid-the-panama-paper-haze/
In the comments, somebody raised the AFR article. Russell duly dismissed it >for the same reasons I did:
"I don't think that the explanation in the AFR is quite right. It's true that >the French person would pay no tax in NZ on income earned via a look through >company, but I'm not sure that would also eliminate his tax obligations in >France. I think that under our Double Tax Agreement (DTA) with France, he would
be able to claim a credit for the tax paid in New Zealand (which happens to be >nothing), but he would still have to pay tax under French law."
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:(gasp!)
that just goes to show you can't believe everything you read in a newspaper
Whether I believe the Australian Financial Review or not, it clearly
gives the lie to your bald assertion "the only people who claim NZ is a
tax haven are left wing types".
On Monday, 9 May 2016 00:03:53 UTC+12, Euall B. Tode wrote:under our Double Tax Agreement (DTA) with France, he would be able to claim a credit for the tax paid in New Zealand (which happens to be nothing), but he would still have to pay tax under French law."
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
that just goes to show you can't believe everything you read in a newspaper (gasp!)
Whether I believe the Australian Financial Review or not, it clearly
gives the lie to your bald assertion "the only people who claim NZ is a
tax haven are left wing types".
Dickbot posted an article by Deborah Russell, failed Labour candidate and tax lecturer: >http://thespinoff.co.nz/10-05-2016/foreign-trusts-101-a-plain-english-introduction-amid-the-panama-paper-haze/
In the comments, somebody raised the AFR article. Russell duly dismissed it for the same reasons I did:
"I don't think that the explanation in the AFR is quite right. It's true that the French person would pay no tax in NZ on income earned via a look through company, but I'm not sure that would also eliminate his tax obligations in France. I think that
On Tue, 10 May 2016 21:23:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>newspaper (gasp!)
wrote:
On Monday, 9 May 2016 00:03:53 UTC+12, Euall B. Tode wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
that just goes to show you can't believe everything you read in a
tax lecturer:
Whether I believe the Australian Financial Review or not, it clearly
gives the lie to your bald assertion "the only people who claim NZ is a >> tax haven are left wing types".
Dickbot posted an article by Deborah Russell, failed Labour candidate and
for the same reasons I did:http://thespinoff.co.nz/10-05-2016/foreign-trusts-101-a-plain-english-introduction-amid-the-panama-paper-haze/
In the comments, somebody raised the AFR article. Russell duly dismissed it
that the French person would pay no tax in NZ on income earned via a look through company, but I'm not sure that would also eliminate his tax obligations"I don't think that the explanation in the AFR is quite right. It's true
Yes she is correct - and on the assumption that everyone complies with
the law, there is no problem. What happens if the French person
forgets to tell the French tax authorities about the trust? There are
at least two possibilities:
1. The French tax authorities think some money and income may have
been hidden from them, so they seek information from all the countries
they have a tax information sharing agreement with. They ask New
Zealand about the individual; NZ IRD reply that they have no
information about that person in their files, but if the Fremch know
the name of the Trust they can ask for more information - and the
French of course don't know the name of the trust. New Zealand has met
its legal obligations, just as John Key keeps saying they do.
2. The French tax authorities know nothing about the trust
arrangement, so don't ask anyone anything. New Zealand aren't asked
and so don't have to answer. Again New Zealand has met its legal
obligations, just as John Key keeps saying they do.
In either situation, the French person does not declare the income and
so does not pay tax on the income. Of course that is a mistake, isn';t
it - because in planet Key everyone always strictly obeys the law, and
that is all that is required of anyone in any circumstance -
"right", JohnO?
Can you think of anpother scenario, JohnO?
On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 19:36:57 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:for the same reasons I did:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 21:23:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, 9 May 2016 00:03:53 UTC+12, Euall B. Tode wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
that just goes to show you can't believe everything you read in a newspaper (gasp!)
Whether I believe the Australian Financial Review or not, it clearly
gives the lie to your bald assertion "the only people who claim NZ is a >> >> tax haven are left wing types".
Dickbot posted an article by Deborah Russell, failed Labour candidate and tax lecturer:
http://thespinoff.co.nz/10-05-2016/foreign-trusts-101-a-plain-english-introduction-amid-the-panama-paper-haze/
In the comments, somebody raised the AFR article. Russell duly dismissed it
in France. I think that"I don't think that the explanation in the AFR is quite right. It's true that the French person would pay no tax in NZ on income earned via a look through company, but I'm not sure that would also eliminate his tax obligations
Yes she is correct - and on the assumption that everyone complies with
the law, there is no problem. What happens if the French person
forgets to tell the French tax authorities about the trust? There are
Your argument is stupid. The situation is exactly the same as if they omitted any other in country income.
at least two possibilities:
1. The French tax authorities think some money and income may have
been hidden from them, so they seek information from all the countries
they have a tax information sharing agreement with. They ask New
Zealand about the individual; NZ IRD reply that they have no
information about that person in their files, but if the Fremch know
the name of the Trust they can ask for more information - and the
French of course don't know the name of the trust. New Zealand has met
its legal obligations, just as John Key keeps saying they do.
2. The French tax authorities know nothing about the trust
arrangement, so don't ask anyone anything. New Zealand aren't asked
and so don't have to answer. Again New Zealand has met its legal
obligations, just as John Key keeps saying they do.
In either situation, the French person does not declare the income and
so does not pay tax on the income. Of course that is a mistake, isn';t
it - because in planet Key everyone always strictly obeys the law, and
that is all that is required of anyone in any circumstance -
"right", JohnO?
Can you think of anpother scenario, JohnO?
The obvious scenario is that you are very stupid and have no fucking clue.
On Wed, 11 May 2016 12:02:20 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>and moot.
wrote:
Can't you read? I already explained why your silly scenarios are pointless
Pressure getting to you? Just like John Key, who threw his toys out of
the cot and deliberately ran away from questions he was too embarassed
to answer . . .
Can't you read? I already explained why your silly scenarios are pointless andmoot.
On Wed, 11 May 2016 15:10:51 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>pointless and moot.
wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 09:38:08 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 12:02:20 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
Can't you read? I already explained why your silly scenarios are
for still talking (laughing at the hapless James Shaw) when the speaker was standing. Hardly "throwing toys".Pressure getting to you? Just like John Key, who threw his toys out of
the cot and deliberately ran away from questions he was too embarassed
to answer . . .
I guess the answer to my question is yes - you can't actually read, Dickbot.
Sad to see your compulsive lying problem is still present. Key was ejected
The repeated denials are increasingly seen as evidence of an uncaring
and yes corrupt government, and the articles continue: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/opinion-nothing-see-here-government-in-denial-over-panama-papers
Meanwhile, Judith "Oravida" Collins represents New Zealand at an anti-corruption conference - the Nats just don't have any morals, do
they!
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 09:38:08 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:still talking (laughing at the hapless James Shaw) when the speaker was standing. Hardly "throwing toys".
On Wed, 11 May 2016 12:02:20 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
Can't you read? I already explained why your silly scenarios are pointless and moot.Pressure getting to you? Just like John Key, who threw his toys out of
the cot and deliberately ran away from questions he was too embarassed
to answer . . .
I guess the answer to my question is yes - you can't actually read, Dickbot.
Sad to see your compulsive lying problem is still present. Key was ejected for
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 12:44:48 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 15:10:51 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 09:38:08 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 12:02:20 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
Can't you read? I already explained why your silly scenarios are pointless and moot.Pressure getting to you? Just like John Key, who threw his toys out of
the cot and deliberately ran away from questions he was too embarassed
to answer . . .
I guess the answer to my question is yes - you can't actually read, Dickbot.
Sad to see your compulsive lying problem is still present. Key was ejected for still talking (laughing at the hapless James Shaw) when the speaker was standing. Hardly "throwing toys".
The repeated denials are increasingly seen as evidence of an uncaring
and yes corrupt government, and the articles continue:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/opinion-nothing-see-here-government-in-denial-over-panama-papers
Meanwhile, Judith "Oravida" Collins represents New Zealand at an
anti-corruption conference - the Nats just don't have any morals, do
they!
Yawn. As usual, leftie trolls have nothing of value, and continue with the personality politics that has since 2007 driven their electability ever downwards.
Slow learners, these lefties.
On Wed, 11 May 2016 17:53:13 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 12:44:48 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 15:10:51 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 09:38:08 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 12:02:20 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>> >> wrote:
Can't you read? I already explained why your silly scenarios arePressure getting to you? Just like John Key, who threw his toys out
pointless and moot.
of
the cot and deliberately ran away from questions he was too
embarassed
to answer . . .
I guess the answer to my question is yes - you can't actually read,
Dickbot.
Sad to see your compulsive lying problem is still present. Key was
ejected for still talking (laughing at the hapless James Shaw) when the >>> >speaker was standing. Hardly "throwing toys".
The repeated denials are increasingly seen as evidence of an uncaring
and yes corrupt government, and the articles continue:
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/opinion-nothing-see-here-government-in-denial-over-panama-papers
Meanwhile, Judith "Oravida" Collins represents New Zealand at an
anti-corruption conference - the Nats just don't have any morals, do
they!
Yawn. As usual, leftie trolls have nothing of value, and continue with the >>personality politics that has since 2007 driven their electability ever >>downwards.
Slow learners, these lefties.
Your personal attacks must make you a rightie troll then?
You appear to not have read the article: (it does miss the NAtional government in 2011 dropping the tax for many of these trusts from 28%
to 0%, but is generally a good summary:
Kudos to the journalists involved in trawling through the 11 million
plus documents that make up the Panama Papers dump this week,
including Nicky Hager, RNZ journos, and my own excellent TVNZ
colleagues Andrea Vance and Jessica Mutch.
ONE News Columnist Dita DeBoni
Source: ONE News
Whereas most people might consider a story that involves tax avoidance
on a global scale, fraud, money laundering and other shenanigans that directly implicate New Zealand, a rather large story, our own
Government has dismissed it as nothing whatsoever.
Astonishingly, a number of prominent journalists are in complete
agreement.
One thing's for sure: the spin machine's been hard at work. A brief
list:
1. Nicky Hager is a left-wing loony and conspiracy theorist.
The spin is that this is a concerted campaign by left wing activists
around the world, motivated by the politics of envy, to attack the
wealthy and bring down governments it doesn't like.
The Government successfully used this line against Nicky Hager on the
release of Dirty Politics, and has sought to discredit him and anyone
with views like him repeatedly over many years.
The reality is that Nicky Hager works with almost 200 of the world's
top journalists from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, a project of the Center for Public Integrity run out of Washington.
It has been set up to provide information to people around the world
where a time and cash-strapped media cannot (and sometimes, will not).
Nicky Hager brought on board some of the country's most stringent
reporting teams in his efforts to weigh up how 60,000 mentions of New
Zealand in the Panama Papers stack up.
Their findings are poured over by lawyers to meet strict requirements
for balance and accuracy. It's no beat up, either here - or in the
dozens of other countries where other excellent journalists are doing
exactly the same thing.
2. New Zealand is not a tax haven (instead, "it's a high quality
jurisdiction for trusts with a benign tax system in certain
circumstances").
Our Prime Minister, for reasons never fully explained, has long wanted
New Zealand to act as a financial services hub, like Switzerland or
Ireland.
Like those countries, we have a stable legal and political regime, and
a tax regime with a massive loophole that allows people from overseas
to store their money here virtually invisibly.
Despite many stories over the years that New Zealand Trusts were being
used as tax havens, the Government has repeatedly refused to do
anything about it, and in fact, stopped the IRD looking further into
this regime only recently after being lobbied by Trust industry
figures.
Which in any other language is corruption, plain and simple.
3. We're looking into it.
In other words, we will do the bare minimum required to meet OECD
standards, but continue to try and keep this business going.
After all, if there's no wrong-doing, there's no need to change much,
is there?
4. It's Labour's fault.
It's true that the loophole developed out of law passed in 2007, under
the Labour Government, which was designed to stop New Zealanders
hiding their wealth from our own IRD.
But National has been in government as the loophole has been
increasingly exploited. It's been warned about it, and done nothing.
In addition, in 2010, it added the ability for Trusts to own Look
Through Companies (LTCs) - an entity that passes all profits through
to shareholders without paying any corporate tax. Again, exploitation
of this vehicle has been ignored.
5. What's happening is legal/there's no morality to tax.
A grain of truth here to be sure.
The practice that allows people from around the world, often from some
of the poorest countries on earth, to stash cash in New Zealand made
either legitimately or not, is indeed legal.
But we are helping facilitate the outflow of tax money from countries
where people suffer from lack of health, education and basic
infrastructure.
We are suffering reputational damage because the rest of the world understands that to encourage this practice is wrong.
When even Donald Trump is saying the wealthy of America will be taxed
more, it's clear even hard-core capitalists have reached a tipping
point where it's acknowledged the global elite do not pay enough tax
and ordinary people are suffering.
Why is New Zealand so keen to perpetuate this imbalance?
Finally, I would say there's a definite double standard at play.
The Government is very quick to exploit the idea of beneficiaries,
student loan defaulters or ACC recipients gaming the system when it
suits them.
But as for the wealthy? We apparently accept, in a docile fashion,
they'll always try to avoid paying their fair share of tax - and the Government smiles benignly on.
On Wed, 11 May 2016 02:06:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 May 2016 19:36:57 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:So as I thought you cannot outline any other scenario. Do you now
On Tue, 10 May 2016 21:23:30 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, 9 May 2016 00:03:53 UTC+12, Euall B. Tode wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
that just goes to show you can't believe everything you read in a
newspaper (gasp!)
Whether I believe the Australian Financial Review or not, it clearly
gives the lie to your bald assertion "the only people who claim NZ is >>> >> a
tax haven are left wing types".
Dickbot posted an article by Deborah Russell, failed Labour candidate
and tax lecturer:
http://thespinoff.co.nz/10-05-2016/foreign-trusts-101-a-plain-english-introduction-amid-the-panama-paper-haze/
In the comments, somebody raised the AFR article. Russell duly
dismissed it for the same reasons I did:
"I don't think that the explanation in the AFR is quite right. It's
true that the French person would pay no tax in NZ on income earned via >>> >a look through company, but I'm not sure that would also eliminate his
tax obligations in France. I think that under our Double Tax Agreement
(DTA) with France, he would be able to claim a credit for the tax paid
in New Zealand (which happens to be nothing), but he would still have
to pay tax under French law."
Yes she is correct - and on the assumption that everyone complies with
the law, there is no problem. What happens if the French person
forgets to tell the French tax authorities about the trust? There are
Your argument is stupid. The situation is exactly the same as if they >>omitted any other in country income.
at least two possibilities:
1. The French tax authorities think some money and income may have
been hidden from them, so they seek information from all the countries
they have a tax information sharing agreement with. They ask New
Zealand about the individual; NZ IRD reply that they have no
information about that person in their files, but if the Fremch know
the name of the Trust they can ask for more information - and the
French of course don't know the name of the trust. New Zealand has met
its legal obligations, just as John Key keeps saying they do.
2. The French tax authorities know nothing about the trust
arrangement, so don't ask anyone anything. New Zealand aren't asked
and so don't have to answer. Again New Zealand has met its legal
obligations, just as John Key keeps saying they do.
In either situation, the French person does not declare the income and
so does not pay tax on the income. Of course that is a mistake, isn';t
it - because in planet Key everyone always strictly obeys the law, and
that is all that is required of anyone in any circumstance -
"right", JohnO?
Can you think of anpother scenario, JohnO?
The obvious scenario is that you are very stupid and have no fucking clue.
accept those are the only two possible scenarios?
On Thursday, 12 May 2016 09:38:08 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 12:02:20 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
Can't you read? I already explained why your silly scenarios arePressure getting to you? Just like John Key, who threw his toys out of
pointless and moot.
the cot and deliberately ran away from questions he was too embarassed
to answer . . .
I guess the answer to my question is yes - you can't actually read,
Dickbot.
Sad to see your compulsive lying problem is still present. Key was ejected for still talking (laughing at the hapless James Shaw) when the speaker
was standing. Hardly "throwing toys".
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 189:40:38 |
| Calls: | 2,082 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 11,137 |
| Messages: | 947,684 |