Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Oct 15 is last day to report offshore accounts


A message from the IRS to those US taxpayers who have not disclosed offshore accounts...

Taxpayers Have Until Oct. 15 to File Extended 2008 Tax Returns; Offshore Voluntary Disclosures Also Due

IR-2009-87, Oct. 1, 2009

Listen to an Audio File for Podcast Watch a Video







Deadline nears for Special Offshore Voluntary Disclosures

Oct. 15 is the deadline for special voluntary disclosures by taxpayers with assets in previously undisclosed offshore financial accounts.

Under the special provisions issued in March, taxpayers with these accounts originally had until Sept. 23, 2009, to come forward. Those taxpayers who do not voluntarily disclose their accounts by Oct. 15 face harsh civil penalties, where applicable, and possible criminal prosecution.

Tax professionals or individuals who want to initiate a voluntary disclosure should call their local IRS Criminal Investigation office. Individuals or their representatives may either contact the nearest Special Agent in Charge, IRS Criminal Investigation, stating their wish to make a voluntary disclosure, or provide a letter outlining information needed to assist the IRS in determining their acceptance into the voluntary disclosure program.

See the Voluntary Disclosure page on IRS.gov for more details.

Taxpayers with questions on the offshore issue may also call the IRS Voluntary Disclosure Hotline (215-516-4777) .



On September 21, 2009, the IRS announced a one-time extension of the September 23, 2009 deadline for special voluntary disclosures by taxpayers with unreported income from hidden offshore accounts. Taxpayers now have until October 15, 2009. There will be no further extensions.
The September 23, 2009, deadline for certain FBAR filers and certain offshore-related information returns who have no unreported income is also extended to October 15, 2009. All other guidance included below may still be relied upon. For more specific information regarding the voluntary disclosure of offshore accounts and FBAR filings, see the related items below:

News Release IR-2009-84 and Overview of the Voluntary Disclosure Program





























News Release



English



Chinese





Korean



Russian



Spanish



Vietnamese



Overview



English



Chinese






Korean



Russian



Spanish



Vietnamese



Related Items:

Saturday, September 05, 2009

5 Panamanian banks with worst customer service

Considering that in other countries the Republic National Bank of New York was involved in money laundering and the list of failed banks keeps getting longer, Panama is known as a country with adequate financial supervision and a tough place where to open a bank account.
When it comes to customer service, Panamanians are very demanding. In a 3 million people country with 100 banks, customers swap stories about which banks have better or worst service.
A local survey finally came up with the list of the 5 banks with the largest number of customer service complaints. The winners (or losers) are
HSBC http://www.hsbc.com.pa/ (25,7% of those polled),
Citibank http://www.citibank.com/panama/
Banistmo http://www.banistmo.com/ (now acquired by HSBC, further increasing its lead)
Banco Nacional de Panamá http://www.banconal.com.pa/
Caja de Ahorros http://www.cajadeahorros.com.pa/ .
The common element in the worst 5 is that they are US-owned or Panama-government owned. Panama shareholder-owned banks such as Banco General, Credicorp, and Banvivienda are not among the top 5 and their e-banking systems are very good.

If a written complaint to the bank has not been anwered satisfactorily after 30 days, customer service complaints must be submitted to the Superintendencia de Bancos, which has in their website:
- New Guide for Claims in Spanish
- Recommendations for Customers in English
- Customer Complaint portal in Spanish

An acountholder is always free to:
- File a Criminal Complaint (if misappropiation or a felony occurred) before the Department of Judicial Investigations DIJ
- File a Civil Complaint in court through an attorney. If a complainant really wants to get even, a bond for 20% can be posted of the amount claimed in order to seize assets from the bank for the duration of the case.
A Spanish translator is always needed because complaints are only handled in Spanish.

Capital Financiero printed an article on the survey.


BANCOS Y CLIENTES
Evalúan sector bancario
La firma encuestadora Dichter & Neira realizó a solicitud de Capital una encuesta con la finalidad de conocer la penetración de productos y servicios bancarios en Panamá.
En tal sentido se realizaron entre vistas a 420 clientes y a 109 banqueros de la plaza. La investigación se hizo vía telefónica durante el período comprometido del 23 al 26 de junio de 2009.
En el estudio se preguntaba a los clientes si había hecho algún cambio en sus hábitos por la crisis y el 90 % dijo que no y un 9.1% que sí.
Un 28,3% de los encuestados dijo también que hizo cambios, principalmente en el sentido de gastar menos, 15,2% que usó menos su tarjeta de crédito y 8,7% dijo que eliminaría su tarjeta.
Sobre la preferencia para elegir entre un banco y otro, más del 50% de los clientes consultados respondió que elegía en base a los tipos de interés, gastos bancarios y la atención que brindara el banco.
En cuanto a cuál era el banco preferido para depositar su dinero, el 65,5% se enfocaba en bancos grandes y el 21,9% le era indiferente y el resto se enfocaba por los pequeños.
Dichter & Neira fue más allá y pidió a los encuestados que dijera en cuanto a tamaño cuál era de su preferencia. En tal sentido, el 65,5% se orientó a los bancos grandes, 12,6% pequeños y 21,9% le era indiferente.
Sobre la satisfacción con la atención y servicios, hay que tener presente aclara la firma encuestadora, que el panameño es condescendiente y por ende califica un poco más alto de lo que en realidad piensa.
En tal sentido de las 420 personas encuestadas un 7% calificó como excelente la atención de los bancos, un 49% la calificó como buena y un 38,9% como regular.
La misma pregunta, pero dirigida a los banqueros, reportó solo un 2,8% como excelente, 64.5% como buena y 32,7% como regular.
El estudio también se enfocó en los servicios en línea que ofrecen los bancos de la plaza. Un 21,7% de los clientes lo calificó como excelente, 57,1% como buena y 18,8% como regular.
Otras de las preguntas en esta investigación fue: ¿Ha interpuesto alguna queja o reclamo por los servicios del banco? Un 91,9% dijo que no y 8,1% dijo que sí. El banco HSBC, concentró el mayor número de quejas de los encuestados (25,7%); seguido de Citibank, Banistmo y Banco Nacional de Panamá.
Pero en qué consistían las quejas de los usuarios de los servicios bancarios, el estudio reveló que un 17,6% se relacionaban con transacciones mal hechas, 14,7% por problemas con su tarjeta y demora en la entrega de documentos y un 11,8% tuvo demoras en sus transacciones.
Al evaluar a los clientes sobre las tasas que cobran los bancos, la mayoría consideró que son razonables.
Capital también pidió a la empresa encuestadora que buscara reacciones en la banca en el sentido de conocer la situación del sector bancario panameño. El estudio realizado constató que los bancos filtran más los clientes que antes (64,6%).
Un 60,6% de los entrevistados vía telefónica dijo que los bancos ponen más dificultades en la solicitud de créditos que antes, también se respondió en mayoría que no se otorgan crédito como antes.
Sobre los productos que se impulsarán este año, los banqueros consultados dijeron en un 23,4% que los préstamos hipotecarios y un 20,6% los préstamos personales y 11,2% las cuentas de depósitos.
En cuanto a la percepción sobre los controles del sistema, el 76,6% de los banqueros consultados dijo que la banca panameña tiene algunos defectos en sus controles que permiten que haya lavado de dinero
.
Draft translation
BANKS AND CUSTOMERS Evaluate banking sector
The Dichter & Neira polling firm conducted a survey application for Capital in order to meet the penetration of banking products and services in Panama.
As such views were conducted among 420 clients and 109 bankers in the Square. The research was done by telephone during the commitment period from 23 to 26 June 2009.
The survey asked customers if they had made any change in habits by the crisis and 90% said no and 9.1% yes.
28.3% of respondents also said they made changes, mainly in the sense of spending less, 15.2% used less than credit card and 8.7% said they would remove your card.
On the preference to choose between a bank and another, over 50% of customers surveyed said they chose based on interest rates, bank charges and the care provided by the bank.
As for what the bank preferred to park their money, 65.5% focused on big banks and 21.9% was indifferent and the rest focused on the small.
Dichter & Neira went further and asked respondents to say about what size was his preference. In this regard, 65.5% was directed to large banks, 12.6% small and 21.9% was indifferent.
On satisfaction with the care and services, keep in mind clarifies the polling firm, that the Panamanian is condescending and thus slightly higher scores than they actually think.
In that sense the 420 people surveyed by 7% scored excellent attention from banks, 49% called it good and 38.9% as fair.
The same question, but addressed to the bankers, reported only 2.8% as excellent, 64.5% and 32.7% as good as regular.
The study also focused on the online services offered by banks in the market. 21.7% of clients described it as excellent, 57.1% and 18.8% as good as regular.
Other questions in this study was: Has a grievance filed by the bank's services? 91.9% said no and 8.1% said yes. The bank HSBC, the largest number of complaints of respondents (25.7%), followed by Citibank, Banistmo and National Bank of Panama.
But what the "complaints from users of banking services, the study revealed that 17.6% were associated with bad transactions made, 14.7% for problems with your card and delayed delivery of documents and 11, 8% had delays in their transactions.
In assessing clients about the fees banks charge, the majority considered reasonable.
Capital also asked the survey company to seek feedback on the bench in the sense of knowing the status of the Panamanian banking sector. The study found that the filter banks more customers than before (64.6%).
60.6% of those interviewed by telephone said the banks put more difficulties in the application of provisions previously, a majority also said they are not given credit as before.
On products will be promoted this year, bankers polled by 23.4% said that the mortgage loans and personal loans 20.6% and 11.2% of deposit accounts.
Regarding the perception of system controls, 76.6% of bankers surveyed said the local banking system has some flaws in their controls that let you have money laundering
.
.



More about the worst 5 in:
Google: 54,500 results for "HSBC sucks"
http://pa.banquejas.com/: Website for bank complaints (guess which is the leader in comlaints)
Forospanama.com: Forum on worst customer service in Panama (U.S. Consular Section is a favorite)

Friday, August 07, 2009

New Panama legislature enacts tax moratorium

The new tax moratorium gives an amnesty on fines on overdue taxes when paid before 2010

The new Panama administration of President Ricardo Martinelli has taken its first major tax initiative by enacting Law 45 of 2009 whereby a moratorium is granted for payment of national taxes collected by Directorate General of Revenue (www.dgi.gob.pa). Under the law, taxpayers are exempt from paying surcharges, interest and fines on unpaid taxes due by June 30, 2009, if they pay at least 30% of said taxes and agree to pay the rest before September 1 within a period of 6 monhts. Tax payment plans signed after September 1 but before December 31 still would qualify for a exemption of fines and 75% discounts on surcharges and/or interest.

Such a tax plan would benefit owners of corporations and private interest foundations formed in Panama who must pay a US$300 annual tax called "Tasa Unica". While Panama corporations and private interest foundations doing business outside of Panama do not have to pay Panama income tax, they still have to pay the US$300 annual tax. Article 318A of the Tax Code also imposes a US$50 fine for every annual tax paid late and a US$300 surcharge after 2 years of delay in payments. Article 3 of the 2001 Supreme Court of Justice Schedule for Legal Services further provides every year for a US$250 Resident Agent Fee and a US$150 nominee director fee.

Lombardi Aguilar & Garcia (www.laglex.com) partner Alvaro Aguilar Alfú finds the moratorium to be useful for investors using Panama entities. "Even if the names of corporate shareholders and private foundation beneficiaries are disclosed to their resident agents under privacy rules, changes in the charter and board of directors must be registered with the public registry. Local laws require that all annual tax payments be up to date when filing said changes, so the moratorium would allow owners of these entities to save on the fines and surcharges which would otherwise have to be paid after 2010," said Aguilar.

The moratorium also covers property taxes due for ownership of real estate at rates of up to 2.1% of the registered value. "Unlike other countries, Panama authorities do not mail or deliver tax statements so property taxes - along with surcharges, fines and interest - may be accumulating without the owner knowing," Aguilar points out. "Many foreign buyers have purchased real estate in Panama, either directly or by purchasing shares of landholding companies or foundations, so this is a good time to ask the local Panama tax office for a statement to pay taxes due without fines and ask counsel in their country of origin about other tax compliance and filing requirements".

About Lombardi Aguilar & Garcia
Lombardi Aguilar & Garcia was created as an alternative for clients worldwide who seek fast, innovative and effective solutions to their legal problems. The firm currently provides services to individual and corporate clients in Panama as well in the Americas, Europe and Asia. Its partners maintain a commitment with professional ethics and social responsibility by participating in the board of directors of groups such as the Panama Bar Association, the German and the American Chambers of Commerce (AMCHAM) of Panama, and the Association of Chinese-Panamanian Professionals (APROCHIPA).

The firm centers its law practice in private client services and asset protection (Private Interest Foundations, Trusts), business structures (Offshore Corporations), tax planning, real estate and e-commerce. It also advices in areas of Law such as Corporate, Commercial, Intellectual Property, Maritime, Tax, and Immigration Law as well as related litigation that may arise.

This release has been prepared for information purposes only. It is not intended to be nor do they constitute legal advice, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

For more information, contact +507 340-6444, e-mail aaguilar (at) nysbar.com, or see: Lombardi Aguilar & Garcia http://www.laglex.com/

###



Receive press releases from Lombardi Aguilar & Garcia: By Email
RSS Feeds:




See also Property tax exemption for 20 years #3 property tax.

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

NY Assistant DA: “U.S. financial transparency: trying to catch up to Panama.”

Adam S. Kaufmann, Assistant District Attorney for New York County State of New York, explained at a hearing why a U.S. company is as good as an offshore company for hiding the identity of its non-U.S. owners:

We regularly speak to law enforcement agents and prosecutors around the world. It is difficult to speak with moral authority in criticizing offshore bank secrecy jurisdictions when they can point an accusing finger back at us. The British Virgin Islands is a well-known (in law enforcement circles) bastion for dirty shell companies, but even the British Virgin Islands can level criticism at the lack of transparency in the incorporation processes in our states. That we were deemed “non-compliant” by the Financial Action Task Force is an embarrassment. That we have made no progress in the three years since then is absurd. Our statement of national transparency standards should be something more than: “U.S. financial transparency: Better than Lichtenstein and trying to catch up to Panama.” Simply put, we lag behind many other countries in the world in this regard, and it makes our statements concerning transparency and tax evasion ring hollow and hypocritical.
Foreign law enforcement authorities even refer to certain states as “offshore U.S. jurisdictions.” And when asked, I am hard-pressed to define why these well-known states are any different from Cayman or the British Virgin Islands. The Committee should also know the imprimatur of respectability that a certificate of incorporation from a U.S. state carries with it, and the access it gives a foreign citizen to open bank accounts and engage in all manner of business, both legitimate and otherwise. And, for many foreign persons wishing to hide their income in an “offshore jurisdiction,” there is no need to turn to a Caribbean hide-away. In one case where we rendered assistance to foreign prosecutors, we were able to connect the head of a foreign central bank to an “offshore” Delaware corporation. He used the corporate entity to open a bank account in Florida. He used black market money systems (prosecuted in New York) to move funds to this secret account he held in Florida. By obtaining a corporate entity, this corrupt official could rest assured that his funds would be safe in the United States, and his name would not easily be linked to the corporation. I am hard-pressed to find a difference between his use of a Delaware corporation to open a Florida bank account and the use by a U.S. taxpayer of a Lichtenstein corporation to open a Swiss bank account. At the end of the day, both systems provide a security blanket of anonymity for those who seek it
.




Examining State Business Incorporation Practices: A Discussion of the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act
Thursday, June 18, 2009 02:30 PM Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 342 The hearing will examine the impact of the "Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act," S. 569, which would create a minimum standard--and greater transparency--for the ownership information businesses have to provide to states when they form a business.
Member Statements
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman [View PDF]
Witnesses
Panel 1
Janice Ayala [view testimony] Deputy Assistant Director, Office of Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Jennifer Shasky Calvery [view testimony] Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice
The Honorable Elaine F. Marshall [view testimony] Secretary of State State of North Carolina
Adam S. Kaufmann [view testimony] Assistant District Attorney for New York County State of New York
Harry J. Haynsworth [view testimony] Chair, Drafting Committee on Uniform Law Enforcement Access to Entity Information Act Uniform Law Commission
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=ef10e125-2c1d-4344-baf1-07f6061611c1

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Decree allows easier entry for EU, US and UK residents

Executive Decree 248 of 2009 has been issued which eliminates the requirement of a visa for any permanent resident of the U.S., Australia, Canada, UK, and any of the European Union members. They will be able to enter the country with a US$30.00 tourist card, just like citizens of said countries currently do.

This decree resumably eliminates the need for citizens from Cuba, Middle East, most of Asia and all of Africa of a visa approved by the National Security Council before their entry.

The final text of the Decree can be downloaded in PDF files* from :


The full list of countries such as Cuba, Middle East, India, Pakistan, China, most of Asia and all of Africa which citizens require the National Security Council approval when they are not residents of U.S., Australia, Canada, UK, and any of the European Union members, appear in the PDF file* under the section LISTADO DE PAISES QE REQUIEREN VISAS AUTORIZADAS PARA INGRESAR AL TERRITORIO NACIONAL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Live_in_Panama/files/Immigration/listado_paises_visa.pdf
* (Yahoo registration required)

Monday, July 20, 2009

Retirement: Why Panama Is the New Florida

Murdock and Johnson on the beach near their home in San Carlos Jeffrey Salter/Redux


Michelle Conlin


Prospective retirees: Panama wants you. The pitch? A plane ride just 21/2 hours from Miami enables the newly poor to swap a wretched retirement in the U.S. for one befitting a royal in the balmy Central American nation. Cash out! Emigrate! Feel rich! Panama—the new Florida.
Spin aside, Panama is increasingly popular among retirement-age types looking to hedge against—or skip out on—the recession. The Migration Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank that studies the movement of people around the world, says the chief factors prodding professional-class Americans to flock to Panama include its First World health care available at Third World prices and the country's pensioner program, which offers some of the deepest retiree discounts in Latin America. Seniors get up to half off on nearly everything, including movies, motels, doctors' visits, plane tickets, professional services, and electric bills. Expats also pay no tax in Panama on foreign income. Nor are they required to pay property tax for the first 20 years.
The fact that a luxe beachfront manse can be had for the same price as a dump in Daytona doesn't hurt, either. "We would have been looking at $3 million in Miami," says Jon Nickel of his 3,000-square-foot oceanfront penthouse in Panama City. Nickel and his wife, Gretchen, bought the place in late 2007 for $250,000, right after Nickel retired from his corporate law job in Portland, Ore., and sold the family's mortgage-free home for $800,000.
The skinny isthmus—nearly all coastline, with a mountain range slicing through the middle—boasts some of the best weather and lowest crime rates in Latin America. Other draws include guilt-free conspicuous consumption, with laughably low prices—by gringo standards—on splurges such as a day of beauty ($10) and a maid ($15 a day).

...

That's not to say life there suits everyone. Things in Panama movereallyslowly. A repairman who says he will be right over might show up days later. Water and electricity service can be spotty. In Panama City, drivers treat stop signs as a mild suggestion. "It takes a little bit of balls to retire here," says Matt Landau, a New Jersey native who is the founder of Panama City-based online portal The Panama Report. "This is not for type As. It's not your turnkey Florida retirement."
Still, boomers who have recently relocated to Panama say they feel as if they have figured out a successful geographic arbitrage. When Stephen Johnson and Linda Murdock were living in Aromas, Calif., they used to moan half-jokingly about how they'd have to retire to Barstow—the armpit of the Mojave Desert, with summers in excess of 100 degrees and winters that can dip below freezing.
Stephen, 63, retired as an executive of the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority in June 2008. His wife, Linda, 57, owned a dog-food business.

The pair had watched several friends retire on depleted cash cushions. Many weren't fully eligible for Medicare and wound up spending 50% of their income on health care. The couple's retirement agita was worsened by the fact that they got a late start building equity. "We bought our first house when I was 40 and Steve was 46," says Linda. "We knew we would never have our house paid for by retirement."
Over late-night pinot noir on their patio, they started talking about moving to a developing nation to stretch their money further. They had discovered Panama on a trip there in 2004 and saw it as a bargain-basement paradise. The low cost of living appealed to Steve, whose pension amounted to 40% of his pre-retirement income of $150,000. The surf-perfect weather lured Linda, who took up the sport on her 50th birthday.
CRACKS IN PARADISE
Johnson and Murdock are now known as the gringos who live in the house with the red door. They bought their newly remodeled 1890 hacienda near the beach in San Carlos for $100,000 cash. They moved in last year and rented out their California ranch house. The rent covers the carrying costs on that house.
But Panama isn't only about the beach. The Boquete region in the mountains—Panama's answer to Boulder, Colo.—boasts loads of U.S.-style gated retirement compounds. The big draws of the area are tennis and golf. For those who are more interested in urban amenities, Panama City, which is by the sea, is sprouting yoga studios, bohemian boutiques, health-food stores, and artsy coffee houses.
Still, there are tradeoffs in this seemingly easy life. "Paradise is just a place you visit," says Johnson. "If you live here, you begin to see the cracks." Those include the three months it took them to get their driver's licenses—a process that involved blood tests, a hearing exam, and lines that make a U.S. Motor Vehicles Dept. seem like a fast-food joint.
But Johnson and Murdock have no major complaints, and Panama is certainly better than the Mojave. Murdock surfs—every single day—and says Johnson looks 20 years younger since retiring. They both love the way their dog can run on the beach without a leash and the fact that their doctors, many of them schooled in the U.S., happily give out their cell-phone numbers and actually answer when called. And their social life is far more active than it was in Aromas. They go out with new friends, a blend of expats and natives, almost daily, often for evenings of fish tacos and endless margaritas—for $20. "We have more time," says Johnson. "And apparently we have more money."

Conlin is the editor of the Working Life Dept. at BusinessWeek.
Full text at businessweek.com ...

UBS wins court stay: justice made or election payback?

Offshore providers elsewhere take note: big checks at election time may give relief from anti-tax haven measures...

.

Obama’s Double-Edged Sword
Guest Column By Paul R. Hollrah July 16, 2009
In a July 14th editorial titled "Picking on the Swiss," the Wall Street Journal criticizes the Obama Administration for attempting to require the Swiss Bank, UBS, to turn over to the IRS the names of some 52,000 US taxpayers who currently maintain secret accounts with the bank.
According to the Journal, "This sort of fishing expedition expressly violates the U.S.-Swiss treaty on sharing tax information. The original treaty dates back 30 years, and under the pact the Swiss regularly provide the IRS with information on specific cases. But what the IRS is attempting here is a mass search of U.S. taxpayers merely for banking in Switzerland."
In response, the Justice Department argues that "UBS systematically marketed its private banking services in order to avoid U.S. taxation," which, in fact, they did.
The Journal concludes, "Apart from the diplomatic ramifications, the government's request for so broad a swath of information could well run afoul of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search. The Obama Administration should use the court reprieve to rethink the whole case."
Actually, it is surprising that the IRS, currently supervised by Obama's tax-cheating Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, would actually pursue such information. The last thing that Obama needs is for U.S. authorities to have the names of UBS's American clients, a list that could then be compared with Obama's Federal Election Commission filings from the 2008 election.
Here's a bit of background, and why it represents a double-edged sword for Obama.
In a July 22, 2008 article in The Nation magazine, titled, "Attack of the Global Pirate Bankers," it was disclosed that Robert Wolf, CEO of UBS Americas, had been "outed" in six months of hearings conducted by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, then chaired by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI).
So, aside from being CEO of UBS's North American subsidiary, exactly who is Robert Wolf? Wolf is, along with the world's most evil man, George Soros, one of Obama's two top financial backers. He is also a highly influential member of Obama's Council of Economic Advisors.
In it's article, The Nation tells us, "Last week in Washington we got a rare look inside the global private banking industry, whose high purpose it is to gather up the assets of the world's wealthiest people and many of its worst villains, and shelter them from tax collectors, prosecutors, creditors, disgruntled business associates, family members, and each other."
According to a Statement of Facts in the June 2008 criminal trial of former UBS executive Bradley Birkenfeld, UBS took significant steps to help American clients manage their Swiss accounts without alerting U.S. government authorities. For example, the Statement of Facts described how UBS advised American clients to withdraw funds from their accounts using Swiss
credit cards that "could not be discovered by U.S. authorities," to "destroy all off-shore banking records existing in the U.S.," and to "misrepresent the receipt of funds from their Swiss accounts... as loans from the Swiss bank."
The Nation reported that, "To achieve these results, UBS established an elaborate formal training program," which coached UBS bankers on how to avoid surveillance by U.S. Customs and law enforcement, how to falsify visas, how to encrypt communications, and how to secretly move money into and out of the U.S. undetected. It was, as I suggested in a July 28, 2008 column titled, "Who Owns Barack Obama," the perfect instrument for funneling illegal foreign contributions into the coffers of an ambitious and unscrupulous American politician.
I suggested, just for the sake of argument, that a billionaire international financier who wished to influence the outcome of the American presidential elections, could transfer unlimited sums of money through this device. A U.S. recipient, such as the Obama campaign, could receive hundreds of thousands of individual contributions via Swiss credit card transfers, with fictitious payees being entered by teams of paid staffers working in a "boiler room" setting. The owners of the Swiss accounts would receive periodic statements indicating: a) debits of varying amounts, up to $2,300 each, and b) offsetting credits provided by the wealthy, but unnamed, "international financier."
...

If some American taxpayers are hiding taxable income from the IRS through the use of a Swiss bank account, it's only fair that they be identified and punished. Every American taxpayer who pays his/her taxes in full would agree with that. However, if the United Bank of Switzerland is ultimately forced to turn over the names of its 52,000 American depositors, and those names are then compared with UBS credit card receipts received by the Obama campaign, there'll be hell to pay. It's a double-edged sword for Obama and it couldn't happen to a better guy.
Given the newsworthiness of the underlying story, the Wall Street Journal may wish to reevaluate its editorial stance. The uncovering of a few thousand tax cheats is small potatoes compared to the unearthing of the largest electoral
fraud in history... a fraud that facilitated the purchase of the presidency of the United States.
...

Full text in http://www.aim.org/guest-column/obamas-double-edged-sword/


President Barack Obama shakes hands with Robert Wolf, Chairman & CEO, UBS Group Americas, after signing an executive order establishing the new Economic Recovery Advisory Board as members of the Board gather around him in the East Room of the White House in Washington on February 6, 2009.



The skeleton in Obama’s money closet
By Judi McLeod Thursday, July 24, 2008
Robert Wolf, CEO of UBS Americas, who has bundled more than $370,850 for Barack Obama so far this year, is one of the most embarrassing skeletons in BO’s money closet, now that the financial institution Wolf heads up in America has been outed in The Nation’s Attack of the Global Pirate Bankers.

“…This crowded docket, combined with the UBS mea culpa, almost distracted us from the sordid details of the Levin Committee’s actual findings,” investigative journalist James S. Henry, wrote in The Nation on Tuesday.

It’s not as if Wolf is just another number in the contribution side of the ledger paying for Obama’s race to the White House.

Among the groupies pushing Obama’s rock star-status, Wolf stands at the front of the line.

Wolf was “wowed” by the Senator from Illinois when he first met in December 2006. “He handed Obama his card and said, “I’d like to get to know you more.” (John Heilemann, New York Magazine, April 16, 2007). Obama phoned the next day. “When we hung up, he said, `I’ll call you after the holidays,’ and I’m thinking, Yeah, right, he’s gonna call me,” Wolf says. But call Obama did. The next week they had dinner in Washington, just the two of them, on the night that George W. Bush gave his speech announcing the surge of additional troops into Iraq. “I felt so honored to be sitting down with him for two hours on an occasion like that,” Wolf recalls, “knowing that he was going off to be interviewed on television later.”

“Within ten days, Obama had announced his intention to run and Clinton was officially in. A story in the Times reported that Obama had nailed two A-list New York donors: Soros and Wolf. But though Soros’s backing was a symbolic coup, it’s Wolf who has emerged as Obama’s most copious cash collector in the city so far—hosting two high-dollar cocktail parties, making countless calls, harvesting more than $500,000.

“As Wolf tells me about the soirees he’s hosted, he reaches into a meticulously organized scrapbook, takes out a photograph of him and Obama grinning madly, and tells me that I can keep it. “The way Barack has taken this nation with his rock-star status,” he says, “it’s very exciting!”

But Obama’s biggest New York groupie was nowhere around in last Thursday’s standing-room only hearing on tax haven banks and tax compliance held by the US Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Michigan Senator Carl Levin.

Wolf’s financial institution’s parent company UBS, Switzerland’s largest bank and the world’s largest private wealth manager, with $1.9 trillion in client assets and nearly 84,000 employees in fifty countries, including 32,000 in the United States, was one of two exposed in the results of the Congressional Committee’s six-month investigation.

It was not UBS’s most honorable corporate moment.

“The Statement of Facts in the Birkenfeld criminal case describes additional actions taken by UBS bankers to help U.S. clients manage their Swiss accounts without alerting U.S. authorities. It states, for example, that UBS bankers advised U.S. clients to withdraw funds from their accounts using Swiss credit cards that “could not be discovered by the United States authorities”, to “destroy all off-shore banking records existing in the United States”; and to “misrepresent the receipt of funds from the Swiss bank account in the United States as loans from the Swiss Bank.”440. The Statement of facts also discloses that, on one occasion, “at the request of a U.S. client, defendant Birkenfeld purchased diamonds using that U.S. client’s Swiss bank account funds and smuggled the diamonds into the United States in a toothpaste tube,” presumably so that the U.S. client could obtain possession of his Swiss assets without alerting U.S. authorities.441. It also states that Mr. Birkenfeld and his business associate Mario Staggl “accepted bundles of checks from U.S. clients and facilitated the deposit of those checks into accounts at the Swiss bank” and elsewhere, presumably to assist the clients in making transfers to their Swiss accounts, again without alerting U.S. authorities.442.

But wait a minute, didn’t Obama tell AP last April, “We’re proud of the fact that we were able to do this (collecting just $1 million less than rival Hillary Rodham Clinton’s record haul) without any money from federal lobbyists or PACs”?

And does find it mind boggling that Obama was one of three congressional sponsors of the new “bundling disclosure” provision in the Disclosure of Contributions “Bundled” by Lobbyists as a key provision in new Lobbying Disclosure Law to be interpreted and implemented by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC)?
...

From Attack of the Global Pirate Bankers, ˆ”In 2001, UBS had signed a formal “qualified intermediary” agreement with the US Treasury. Under this program, it agreed either to withhold taxes against American clients who had Swiss accounts and owned US stocks, or disclose their identities. However, when UBS’s American clients refused to go along with these arrangements, the bank just caved in and lied to the U.S. government. Eventually, it concealed 19,000 such clients, partly by helping to form hundreds of offshore companies. This cost the US Treasury an estimated $200 million per hear in lost taxes.”

Of the high fliers in the “utterly unprincipled global private banking industry”, Henry concludes: “They wield enormous political influence even without paying taxes, merely by making contributions, threatening to withhold them—or better yet, threatening to abscond with their capital unless certain conditions are met. In a sense, this is the ultimate libertarian pipe dream: representation without taxation. But it is a nightmare for the rest of us, and we must design and organize our way around it.”
...


Full text in http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4088

Thursday, July 16, 2009

2009 PWC Global Private Banking / Wealth Management Survey is now available

The 2009 PricewaterhouseCoopers Global Private Banking / Wealth Management Survey is now available:
www.pwc.com/wealth

The Global Private Banking and Wealth Management Survey 2009 was completed by 238 companies in 40 countries and gives a fascinating insight into the themes and trends impacting the world of wealth management as well as practical suggestions for actions wealth managers should be taking.

Reflecting the different aspects of a wealth management business, our Survey is split into six underlying sections covering: performance, client service, products and services, talent, operations and technology and risk management.

In our view, there are three underlying themes that will define the future of the private banking and wealth management industries:
The emergence of "Nouveau Classic" banking
Adaptation of business models, specifically the drive for process efficiency and improved service; and
Increasing political, fiscal and regulatory pressures.

This report will be followed by supplementary reports looking at specific aspects of the survey findings in more detail.

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Birdwatching online in the Panama Canal

One of the Panama Canal inhabitants had a cameo appearance in the Canal webcam which can be seen in the At Panama - Soluciones' Home Page to Panama links http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/4245.

The webcam faces the ships crossing Miraflores locks and occasionally we get to see a gem such as a bird peeking into the camera lens. While Panama is known as the home of the harpy eagle which also crowns the national coat of arms, the harrier (or gavilan Circus buffoni) is very prevalent.

Support by private individuals and businesses is crucial to keeping these and other animals alive when faced with the end of their environment from increased construction. The following NGOs are recognized by the Panama Ministry of Economy as non-profit organizations and donations to them are tax-deductible when listed in https://www.dgi.gob.pa/ttd_ong_fundaciones.asp :


8-NT-1-22532 2 PATRONATO PARQUE NATURAL METROPOLITANO http://www.parquemetropolitano.org/en/donaciones/index.html
4362-2-15019 74 PATRONATO AMIGOS DEL AGUILA ARPIA http://www.aguilaharpia.org/
541-25-2179 71 SOCIEDAD AUDOBON DE PANAMA http://www.panamaaudubon.org/
171473-1-16952 35 FUNDACION FONDO PEREGRINO PANAMA http://www.fondoperegrino.org/

3032-2-11346 26 FUNDACION HUMANITAS http://www.fundacionhumanitas.org/
536332-1-19943 5 FUNDACION SAN FRANCISCO DE ASIS http://www.facebook.com/pages/Panama-Panama/FUNDACION-SAN-FRANCISCO-DE-ASIS/39042932048 http://www.fundasis.org/







Soluciones Home Page is part of the Panama Webring http://www.webring.com/hub?ring=panama;id=15;prvw which also serves as a "collection of sites with information about Panama, everything from tourism, history, FAQs, photos, about our beautiful country in Central America."
Webring was bought back by its founders from the jaws of Yahoo! Geocities sites such as Soluciones are not so lucky, with Yahoo! deciding to turn off the sites on October 26, 2009.
More about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocities


Congressman criticizes offshore centers, fails to disclose $75K foreign income

Edith Castillo in the local media quoted a press release by Charles Rangel (D-NY) where according to the Representative, “It will be difficult to adopt the trade protection treaty with the United States until Panama decides to eliminate its 'excessive practices in banking secrecy, regulate the financial sector and require banks and multinational subsidiaries to pay their fair share of taxes'." (See also SummaNews)

Now The New York Times reports that the congressman failed to disclose US$75,000 in income earned from a villa he owns in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. An audit is also looking into how the villa purchase was financed.


Obama Cracks Down on Tax Havens

Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, proposed a similar measure to limit the deductions of U.S. multinationals in 2007. But Rangel, a Democrat from New York, tied his proposal to lowering the overall corporate tax rate.
On Monday, he welcomed Obama's plan.
"For too long, our tax laws have rewarded companies that invest and keep their money overseas and turned a blind eye to the use of tax havens by the wealthy," Rangel said.
Full text in http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/04/obama-cracks-down-on-tax_n_195523.html





Rangel Owes U.S. Back Taxes, Lawyer Says

By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
Published: September 9, 2008
Representative Charles B. Rangel, chairman of the Congressional committee that writes the nation’s tax code, failed to pay an unspecified amount in federal taxes during the past five years on rental income from a villa he owns in the Dominican Republic, his lawyer said on Tuesday.


Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Representative Charles B. Rangel is head of the House tax-writing committee.
Mr. Rangel, a Harlem Democrat who is chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, has owned the beachfront house at the Punta Cana resort and club since 1988, but never declared the $75,000 in rental income he has
earned either on his tax returns or on his Congressional financial disclosure form.
In a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the minority leader, said the accumulation of ethical concerns involving Mr. Rangel had grown to a point where he “cannot effectively carry out his duties as chairman.”
“You, as the speaker of the House, must insist that Representative Rangel step down from his Ways and Means chairmanship pending an investigation of his ethical lapses,” Mr. Boehner said.

Full text in http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/nyregion/10rangel.html?fta=y
.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Former FINCEN agent says : US shell companies - It's time to end the hypocrisy


John Cassara is an expert in anti-money laundering and former FINCEN agent. In his blog he points out that finding beneficial owners of U.S. companies can be as difficult as in more famous offshore jurisdictions.

Bill S. 659 Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act is meant to improve record keeping of beneficial owners by State Divisions of Corporations, even though forming corporations is a state - not federal - power. Secretaries of State of Wyoming and other states have pointed out that they already complied with federal wishes to eliminate bearer shares and now they and small businesses are being asked to spend even more money in compliance.





Over the last few years, I have worked in approximately one dozen developing countries helping police, customs, and security services recognize and investigate money laundering and terror finance. During discussion periods, I am inevitably asked the following question. "Mr. John, my agency has a financial crimes investigation and the money trail leads to the American state of Delaware. We can't get any further information and don't know what to do. Can you help us?" As a former criminal investigator representing the United States, this question is, frankly, embarrassing.

From a money laundering and tax evasion standpoint, Delaware is not the only American state that has troubling incorporation and limited liability company (LLC) structures. In 2006, the US General Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report, "Company Formations: Minimal Ownership Information Is Collected and Available." (pdf) The report reviewed the legal requirements in all 50 states to set up corporations and LLCs, and found that most states failed to request beneficial ownership information. The GAO found that the absence of ownership information impeded law enforcement investigations of suspect corporations.

Some states seemingly compete against each other to see which can offer less accountability, less transparency, the most secrecy and, as a result, attract the most business and fees. Websites that offer incorporation services worldwide are touting US corporate secrecy. In transactions that can be completed over the internet in a few hours and for a few hundred dollars, corporations and LLCs can be formed in the US that provide many of the same secrecy provisions featured in traditional international tax and offshore havens.

US Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan) has followed the issue closely. According to Senator Levin, "States allow persons to form nearly two million corporations and LLCs each year in this country without knowing – or even asking – who the beneficial owners are behind those corporations. Right now, a person forming a US corporation or LLC provides less information to the state than is required to open a bank account or obtain a driver's license."

The United States routinely points to other countries' anti-money laundering/counter-terrorist finance (AML/CFT) shortcomings. It has played a major role over the years in identifying "uncooperative" countries and jurisdictions and placing these countries on formal and informal "blacklists." Yet the proliferation of defacto shell corporations on American soil spotlights hypocrisy and undermines US policy.

For example, as noted in the recently released 2009 State Department International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) Volume II on Money Laundering, the British Virgin Islands and Hong Kong each have nearly 500,000 international business companies (IBCs) registered in their jurisdictions. The INCSR states the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago plan to open "international financial centers," most of which offer the same services as offshore financial centers. In Panama, approximately 46,178 IBCs were registered in Panama in 2007. The INCSR continues that, "Panama has no requirement to disclose the beneficial owners of any corporation or trust; bearer shares are permitted for corporations; and nominee directors and trustees are allowed. The result is that illicit funds can be laundered and taxes evaded with little fear of detection and prosecution."

I am not an attorney skilled in the intricacies of international law, taxes, or finance. I don't understand the differences between LLCs, IBCs, IFCs, off shores, shell companies, and taxhavens. Maybe I am missing something. However, I know as a criminal investigator that following a dirty money trail to Delaware is about as difficult as following it to those jurisdictions criticized above by the US State Department.

When I was assigned to Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), I witnessed many requests for assistance from Egmont Group partner international Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) that had investigations focusing on Delaware. There was not much we could do.

Domestic law enforcement agencies are equally stymied. For example, according to 2006 Congressional testimony, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reported that a Nevada-based corporation received more than 3,700 suspicious wire transfers totaling $81m over two years. However, the case was not prosecuted because investigators could not identify the corporation's owners.

In 2008, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff wrote to a Senate Subcommittee, "In countless investigations, where criminal targets utilize shell corporations, the lack of law enforcement's ability to gain access to true beneficial ownership information, slows, confuses, or impedes the efforts by investigators to follow criminal proceeds."

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has repeatedly criticized the United States for failing to comply with a FATF standard requiring beneficial ownership information.

Undoubtedly because company formations can be lucrative, nothing has been done. Perhaps things are about to change.

In March 2009, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., Sen. Chuck Grassley, R.-Iowa, and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., introduced the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act to help law enforcement stop the misuse of U.S. corporations. Among its provisions, the bi-partisan Act (S.569) would require states to obtain a list of the beneficial owners of each corporation or LLC formed under their laws, ensure this information is updated annually, and provide the information to civil or criminal law enforcement upon receipt of a subpoena or summons. The Act would also require corporations and LLCs with non-US beneficial owners to provide a certification from an in-state formation agent that the agent has verified the identity of those owners.

As the Group of 20 prepares for a meeting in early April to try to improve global financial rules, there are reports that financial and tax havens of all sorts may receive scrutiny. As part of the process, I hope the United States is called to lift the veil of states' secrecy when it comes to corporate beneficial owners.

The current financial meltdown and a dangerous laxity in financial crimes enforcement should have taught us that we can no longer afford business as usual.

I suggest the American delegation at the Group of 20 headed by President Barack Obama should be guided by the following quote from then Senator Obama; "It's time for the United States to meet its international anti-money laundering commitments, and that means getting beneficial ownership information for US corporations."

Published in Complinet





S. 569, The Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act
S. 569 would ensure that persons who form corporations in the United States disclose the beneficial owners of those corporations, in order to prevent wrongdoers from exploiting United States corporations for criminal gain, to assist law enforcement in detecting, preventing, and punishing terrorism, money laundering, and other misconduct involving United States corporations.
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_SN_569.html

National Association of Secretaries of State Congressional Activity: News Release: North Carolina Secretary Elaine Marshall Testifies Before U.S. Senate on State Business Incorporation Practices (06/18/09) * Testimony * More Testimony: Kansas Nevada Wyoming * NASS Company Formation Task Force

Concerns About 5.569 by Max Maxfield Wyoming Secretary of State: While we understand the premise of S.569; and while we applaud Senator Levin for his desire to better protect our country, we have serious concerns that the passage of S.569 will set Wyoming back in our efforts to fight fraud. We have the following serious concerns.
1. Our greatest concern is that if the federal law passes, there will be serious attempts to rescind Wyoming's laws. The argument will be that as long as a company meets the federal law that should be enough.
2. IfWyoming's laws were to be rescinded, we would lose the key component of requiring a human being in our State TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPRESENTING THE COMPANIES THEY SERVE. We would be back to registered agents just being there for service of process, taking an otherwise hands off approach to the responsibility which they should shoulder.
3. If Wyoming's laws were to be rescinded, we would also lose the requirement that the registered agent have a contact person for each company they represent. We FIRMLY BELIEVE that a person leading you to another person is infinitely better than having paper on file. Fraudulent people file fraudulent paper; but a person face to face being held responsible generally knows of another person who can be contacted.
4. Whatever information is determined to be kept, it should be kept by the registered agent, not by government. This is a responsibility issue. States should not be taking the responsibility to know the players for each company; states are not forming these companies or using them for potential ill. Formation agents and the registered agents who are forming and making money off these companies (or the individuals themselves if the owner acts as his own registered agent) should be responsible for retaining and providing all required information. Without personal responsibility for the paper, the paper has very little value, except to make it APPEAR AS IF government is trying to locate the bad actors.

See also Levin - Obama Bill seeks to end confidentiality of US corporations

.


To form your own Delaware company click here

Letter criticizes bearer instruments in Panama, not in Wyoming or UK

Reporter Rafael Berrocal writes about the letter sent to the American Chamber of Commerce and the U.S.-Panama Business Council by the current U.S. Ambassador Barbara Stephenson (Anonymity in Corporations is Criticized, La Prensa http://mensual.prensa.com/mensual/contenido/2009/06/25/hoy/panorama/ 1832992.asp). According to the report, the Ambassador wrote that bearer shares ensure anonymity of the owners of a Panama corporation. “The damage to the reputation for lack of transparency is higher than the speculative damage of maintaining a public practice”, when justifying the pressure by US Democrats on Panama to shut down its financial center and sign a tax information exchange agreement. She said that the US also faced this problem when prohibiting bearer shares.

Panama has a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty for Criminal Matters which allows US authorities to demand cooperation from Panama judicial authorities in criminal cases (even if Panama authorities complain that US assistance to Panama requests is close to null). This includes requesting Panama authorities to demand from Panama lawyers to provide client records despite attorney-client privilege rules. However, this has proven to be insufficient for competitors of the Panama financial center. Doubts are prevalent among local practitioners that ending Panama bearer shares will even take the country out of the OECD gray list, where British Virgin Islands (BVI) and Bahamas are still listed after discouraging or eliminating bearer shares.

Bearer shares have proven to be like a gun with no bullets: banks do not open accounts for them, lenders demand that those bearer shares be pledged before disbursement and an “anonymous” shareholders loses his anonymity when he tries to enforce his rights in a Panama court (a “John Doe” shareholder cannot sue).

The bright side of the letter is that it shows the willingness of foreign diplomats to tackle issues which were considered meddling into another country's affairs. We just hope the same effort is displayed when tackling CORRUPTION by Panama judges used against US investors.

Those that still want bearer instruments can find them in the heart of the countries which criticize them: the Wyoming bearer scripts and the England LLC bearer shares.

Even though bearer shares are null in Wyoming after October 1, 2007, shares do not need to be issued and the Wyoming Business Corporation Act provides:

17-16-604.� Fractional shares.

(a)� A corporation may:

(i)� Issue fractions of a share or pay in money the value of fractions of a share;

(ii)� Arrange for disposition of fractional shares by the shareholders; or

(iii)� Issue scrip in registered or bearer form entitling the holder to receive a full share upon surrendering enough scrip to equal a full share.

(b)� Each certificate representing scrip shall be conspicuously labeled "scrip" and shall contain the information required by W.S. 17-16-625(b).

(c)� The holder of a fractional share is entitled to exercise the rights of a shareholder, including the right to vote, to receive dividends, and to participate in the assets of the corporation upon liquidation.� The holder of scrip is not entitled to any of these rights unless the scrip provides for them.

(d)� The board of directors may authorize the issuance of scrip subject to any condition considered desirable, including:

(i)� That the scrip will become void if not exchanged for full shares before a specified date; and

(ii)� That the shares for which the scrip is exchangeable may be sold and the proceeds paid to the scripholders.


This is similar to the blank transfer of suscription rights document, which Panama corporation founders sign in blank form to clients purchasing bearer shares.


Several Wyoming and UK incorporators advertise:

Wyoming Corporations
Why Use Wyoming Corporations?
There are many reasons why a Wyoming Corporation can be useful. The following is a list of some of these reasons.

Wyoming is a tax-free state, there is:
No corporate tax
No franchise tax
No inventory tax
No stock tax
No inventory tax
No personal income tax
No estate tax
No inheritance tax
No gift tax

Wyoming Does Not Share Information:
Wyoming is one of two states in the Union that do not voluntarily share information with the IRS or with any other state.

Wyoming Allows Bearer Shares:
It is one of two states that allows for bearer shares. Whoever holds bearer shares owns them. The stock does not need to be registered in anyone's name. In fact, in Wyoming it is not necessary to issue stock.

The names of owners or stockholders of Wyoming corporations are not a matter of public record. Only the officer’s names are made public. However, with creative planning you can remove your name as an officer or director. See Nominee Officer Services

Wyoming Allows Bearer Script:
A client can hold Bearer Script which can be redeemed for shares but the client is never required to own stock in the corporation. If asked if they own stock in a corporation, the client could state under oath that they did not.

Wyoming Protects Officers And Directors:
There is no personal liability. Wyoming indemnifies directors and officers from personal liability for act committed on behalf of the corporation or by the corporation.

Wyoming Annual Reports:
In Wyoming, as in Nevada, a corporation is required to list the names and addresses of Officers and director(s) when they file their annual report With the Secretary of State. All of these positions may be held by one person. International Registration Services, LC can provide a nominee to fill all of these positions, ensuring your complete privacy.

Wyoming does not require stockholders to register with the state. Because of this, you can own all the shares in the Corporation, maintain complete control of operations and designate representatives as your officers and directors. Your identity will be kept completely confidential.

Avoid Some Of Your Home State Taxes:
Have your Wyoming Corporation bill you for the services provided. The Wyoming Corporation will generally add some amount to the bill for its service costs and overhead. By doing this, you are able to transfer some of your profits to tax free Wyoming!

Example 1:
Have your supplier provide an invoice to your Wyoming Corporation for the products that you normally purchase. Let's say that the invoice is for $100,000. Your Wyoming corporation will pay the bill and bill your local company $150,000. You have just transferred $50,000 of your profits to tax free Wyoming. Major US corporations have used these tactics for years. Not only within the United States but worldwide.

Protect Your Substantial Assets:
When someone comes snooping around make sure there is no equity in your real estate.

Example 2:
Have the Wyoming Corporation put a lien on major assets such as your home, rental property, or business property.


International Registration Services, LC



WYOMING CORPORATIONS and LLCs have a tax haven within the United States with no income taxation,anonymous ownership and bearer shares. The annual upkeep costs less and you can issue as many shares as you want with no extra filing fee. We can help you set up banking for your Wyoming LLC or Wyoming corporation from your home state. Did you know that Wyoming invented the LLC? Numerous European companies as well as US companies have used the State of Wyoming for their Wyoming LLCs as well as for corporations. If you call we can tell you all of the similarities and differences between a Wyoming LLC and Nevada LLC. Click for details and pricing at $69 plus state filing fee. Please call us for any assistance or ideas.

Corp95.com



+ Wyoming protects corporations with the strongest laws and protects your privacy.
+ Wyoming requires only one person to form a corporation. You have total control.
+ Wyoming has close corporations with less rules and paperwork for small family run companies.
+ Wyoming was the first state to offer LLC's. Close LLC's are available. Perfect for a family LLC
+ Wyoming allows Bearer Shares, Nominee Officers and Lifetime Proxies. These can make you invisible.
+ Wyoming allows corporations to be transferred in from other states and still retain original incorporation date.

Wyoming EZ Corp





A Side by Side Comparison of Wyoming and Nevada and Delaware

Benefits

Nevada

Wyoming

Delaware

No state corporate income tax

No tax on corporate shares

No franchise tax

Minimal annual fees

One-person corporation is allowed

Stockholders are not revealed to the State

No annual report is required until the anniversary of the incorporation date

Unlimited stock is allowed, of any par value

Nominee shareholders are allowed

Share certificates are not required

Minimal initial filing fees

No minimum capital requirements

Meetings may be held anywhere

Officers, directors, employees and agents are statutorily indemnified

Continuance procedure (allows Wyoming to adopt a corporation formed in another state)

Doesn't collect corporate income tax information to share with the IRS



Nevada vs Wyoming

Perhaps you’re one of those who have read all the web sites that promote incorporating your business in Nevada. The reasons given usually are:

1. Nevada does not share information with the IRS.

Wyoming Answer: Nevada makes the IRS mad. Wyoming does share information with the IRS, but only the information given by companies with real assets inside the state. So you have the best of both worlds, the IRS is not targeting you because you are in a non friendly state (like they may in Nevada), and yet there is no information that is shared because most businesses do not have real assets inside the state of Wyoming.

Corporations Today, Inc.



UK COMPANY INCORPORATION WITH BEARER SHARES

British Companies with the Bearer Shares. Bearer Share Basics:

In addition to incorporating an ordinary company limited by shares we can provide formation & management of companies with bearer shares! Bearer shares can be converted into registered shares and vice versa.

Bearer shares are legal instruments denoting company ownership. They are not the same as stock certificates, however. Usually, the legal shareholders of a limited company are those persons whose names appear on the corporation's official shareholders list, or register. These shareholders may or may not be issued a tangible stock certificate which they may possess.

A common stock certificate will bear the name of the shareholder, and how many shares of stock the certificate represents. It will contain other information such as the name of the company, any par value the shares have, and most importantly, whether there are restrictions on the transfer of the shares.

Many UK residents have never heard of bearer shares. The trick behind Bearer Shares, however, is that they must be issued properly by a qualified and knowledgeable corporate director. As long as you do not have them in your possession at the time you are questioned, you can legally and truthfully say under oath, "I am not the owner of that corporation." It's always recommended that people keep their bearer shares.

This way, if your nominee officer is ever questioned about your corporation, he can say the same thing: "Bearer shares were issued, I don't know who owns the company, and I can prove it."

In contrast to ordinary stock certificates, bearer shares do not list the name of a shareholder. Instead, they state that shares of stock in the corporation are owned by the "bearer" of the certificate. Therefore, whoever has physical possession of the certificate can exercise the rights of a shareholder of the company. The advantage of bearer shares is privacy and ease of transfer. A company with only bearer shares has no shareholders list or register.

Therefore it is impossible to know for certain who the shareholders of the company are. Because a transfer of the shares can be made by simply handing them to another person, bearer shares can be transferred more easily than non-bearer shares.

How Bearer Shares are Suppose to Work:

Normally, when you fill out the back of a stock certificate, you must print the name or the company name of who owns that stock. Then you must record in the stock ledger the shareholder, address, date, number of shares, and if it was an original issue or a transfer. Obviously whomever the stock is issued to is the owner of the company. If it is to the bearer, then whoever holds that certificate, at a particular moment, will thereby be considered the owner of the company.

DO YOU WANT TO INCORPORATE OR REGISTER A COMPANY WITH BEARER SHARES? CODDAN OFFERS ENGLAND, WALES, SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND BEARER SHARES COMPANY FORMATIONS FROM - £ 142.00!

Ukincorp.co.uk

Tax Haven UK - 2 - Bearer Shares

August 2nd, 2007

Alistair Darling has said the UK is not a tax haven. That is not true. It is, using any reasonable definition, including that which I proposed recently. I’ve already suggested one obvious reason why it is, which is the existence of the domicile rule, so let’s take a second example that is less obvious.

This is the fact that the UK allows the issue of bearer shares. This is deliberate. The right survived into section 779 of the Companies Act 2006. As one formation agent who seems to specialise in the more esoteric end of the market has noted, UK companies with bearer shares are ‘our most popular package with UK residents’

taxreasearch.org.uk