US: UBS must release names of suspected tax cheats

Just start with the Obama appointees...

 

What due process are you talking about. They have proven that UBS has been doing something illegal. Now they just want the names of the people using their illegal service?

 

Leave it to the most patriotic among us to question the practice of running after suspected wealthy tax evaders.

Even if it was illegal (which it shouldn't be from what I'm reading of the highlighted quote below), I prefer this over warrentless wiretaps by a long shot. The new Adminstration has been wrong on a certain number of issues but on this one, it's squarely on the right side of things.

 

I read the same article Space Ghost posted and possibly read, and I don't get what's wrong here.

 

Actually, what UBS is doing ISN'T illegal per Swiss law. What it is though, is a disguised attempt by the US government to rescind/renegotiate a tax treaty, a tax treaty that they agreed with to start off.

The US government can punish its own tax cheats but has no right, under current agreements to demand UBS to hand over anything without resorting to blackmail. And blackmail is precisely what it is doing right tnow.

 

Looks like a bunch of non-lawyers on the BBS need a little lesson in jurisdiction.

I suggest you consult the University of Phoenix.

 

Too bad international financial institutions that operate in the US also have to follow US law.

 

I'm confused and surprised by all the people reproaching the US government for enforcing US law. Especially considering the criminal in this case is a foreign bank stealing money from our coffers. I'm guessing not many here are taking advantage of Swiss banks to evade US taxes, so your self-interest lies with the prosecution.

 

Which has a big giant building on Park Avenue, among other places.

 

Spaceghost, this has been going on for a while, even back during the previous administration/

They got busted for helping clinets evade taxes.

Basically, they can cooperate and still do business in the U.S.A (a big market for them).

Or they can not give up the information and be banned in the US.

Tough choice for them, but laws are a b****

 

There is a difference if a guy shows up at UBS in Switzerland and opens an account as their laws allow them privacy in that respect.

But when an organization up to the top has a concerted effort to have its agents suggest and employ tactics that are illegal in the US in order to profit. Well I think it may go beyond jurisdiction and into the realms of an effort to help individuals defraud the USA out of tax revenue.

But that boils down to was it a few people or a corporate effort to go after Americans in America to help them evade taxes or just people overseas making deposits and not disclosing their personal information per Swiss banking law.

 

surely UBS doesn't need to do business in the US. I mean they could keep their client's name private if they just pull out of the US. lol

 

Doing what the US law would also violate Swiss law, UBS' home country. So US law takes precedence because...? That's why they have that little thing called a tax treaty in the first place.

But of course, the best part of all this is the presumption of guilt on the part of the IRS. You have a Swiss bank account, you are guilty...

 

US law takes precedence, because they were violated in the US by a company doing business in the US......not that hard to figure out even if one has no concept of criminal jurisdiction, which some apparently do not.

 

The accounts are located in Switzerland, not the US. It would be as if saying a Beligian opening a bank account should follow Belgian banking law instead of American banking law, along with the Patriot Act and all that good stuff. Or did you tiny brain fail to realize this?

And let me come back to the presumption of guilt part, because this is very interesting. By violating US law, you really mean allegedly violated US law right? Because while it is possible, even probable that those accounts are tax cheats, you really have no evidence as to such for most of accounts, do you?

What the US government essentially is asking is a violation of Swiss banking laws without providing credible evidence of guilt with exception of a select view cases, extending and presuming the rest are also guilty.

 

I don't see there could be any question of jurisdiction. Even if the accounts are in Switzerland, if the money came in a transaction on US soil, taken out of US banks, it is American business.

The right to a presumption of innocence is for trials. If people with money in Swiss bank accounts are prosecuted, then it might become relevant.

Finally, why do we care about Swiss law? If they want to business here, they should abide by our law in doing it.

And, I am completely befuddled why some posters want to compromise US sovereignty and drain US coffers to enrich a foreign bank. Do you do business with or own stock in UBS? If not (and likely even if you do), you're shooting yourself in the foot.

 

LMFAO - ok, thanks for this. When I walk by UBS big-ass building on Park Avenue on my way home today, I'll be sure to let them know that some netizen with zero legal training thinks that the US has no jurisdiction over them - they will surely forward this to their legal counsel, who appear to have missed this critical legal distinction.

No - I mean ADMITTEDLY violating US Law - UBS acknowledged wrongdoing as part of its deferred prosecution agreement last Feberuary and some of its executives have already pleaded guilty -

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/February/09-tax-136.html

Please figure out 1) the facts, and 2) the law before you go spouting off about this in the future to avoid such embarrassing mishaps.

 

Corrections. They solicited business in the US. Much like Citigroup/BoA/JP Morgan Chase/whatever can perfectly solicit business in Switzerland and have the Swiss/Belgians/Dutch/whatever open a bank account in the US.

As for the presumption of guilt, I guess you haven't followed the event. The IRS/Dept of Treasury is threatening lawsuits/other legal actions for both those account holders as well as UBS. Hence I no longer think presumption of guilt/innocence is irrelevant.

As for me personally, no I don't own UBS stock. However, I do have a second or third brother in law (or whatever you call it) who just happens to be Swiss. He's got a Swiss bank account, his wife has a Swiss bank account, and for convenience's sake, yours truly...

I mean Sam, I'm no sh1tty lawyer or anything, but this matter is quite simple even to me. And as usual, your aim is as sh1tty as your logic.

UBS does have business in the US, but those accounts aren't located here. Hence the term "offshore accounts."

If the accounts are located here, there would even be an issue now would there? They'd have to file a Form 1099-INT (or something like that) just like everybody else.

And why do I say your aim is awful? Because once again you generalized specific cases. UBS pleaded guilty in the case of some a couple of hundred accounts. The IRS wants disclosure of SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND ACCOUNTS. And if information of those accounts are disclosed, the Dept of Treasury is threatening legal action.

Go ahead, tell me again how presumption of guilt. Or perhaps it is not your aim that is the matter but rather you didn't know the underlying details hmmmm?

But you know, I'm actually not against closing this potential loophole but am in favour. What the Treasury should have done is go to the Swiss and renegotiate the treaty instead of hiding under the disguise of law.