US: UBS must release names of suspected tax cheats

No, that's not what happened.

 

You're right. You haven't followed the thread and it shows, making you look idiotic in the process.

In case you haven't noticed already, those bank accounts are located in Switzerland, where privacy of bank information IS THE LAW. And since those accounts are located in Switzerland, Swiss law takes precedence.

And unless the IRS provide evidence of crime against the United States, which it only has guilty pleas from a minority of the accounts, those accounts should legally remain private.

Also like I said, if the IRS wants to close the loophole, it could have perfectly fine went to the Swiss and say, "sorry guess we messed up. We didn't foresee this coming. Can we have a do-over?" Then offer a carrot and see what happens. But no, instead it is threatening legal action for its own incompetence.

Here is the bottom line. By the Dept of Treasury/IRS' own words, it suspects 17,000 accounts (a figure likely inflated to generate support) evading $20 billion worth of taxes. Yet it is seeking disclosure, and if not forthcoming, lawsuit to 52,000 accounts.

You are missing two key components. One, legal action including potential jail term is threatened against those account holders as long as they don't disclose. That by definition is presumption of guilt (unless of course, you were to assume that punishment without the crime is proper).

Furthermore, you are asking the Swiss to break their own banking law just because certain somebody with the tax authorities had a "gut-feeling."

And in general, my biggest dissent is actually how whimsically negotiated treaties can be tossed aside. It makes for a dangerous precedence.

 

Link please.

 

The Swiss have been getting reamed as of late for their secrecy laws by more than just the US. Germany in particular has also been pushing for reform - even asking for the swiss banks to be put on a "blacklist".

The long and short of it is that these "secret" accounts have long been an easy method for tax evasion. Pardon me if I'm not exactly sympathetic towards those involved, or the swiss laws that presumably facilitate the activites aforementioned.

 

The reason I haven't kept up too much with the thread is that you have kept denying the jurisdictional beatdown that you've been getting. The jurisdiction area was supposed to be taken care of, so I didn't address those issues. I addressed the criminal procedure instead to help you get a broader understanding.

Swiss law never takes precedence in our courts. As for the treaty... you do realize that American statutes can take precedence over a treaty and often do. . . don't you? It sounds like you are not aware of this likely possibility. I don't even know what treaty you are talking about or what it says, i most likely don't even need to know. So certainly Swiss law does not take precedence in our criminal courts, and treaties don't necessarily take precedence EVEN WHERE THE TREATY CONFLICTS WITH THE STATUTE. (So we've touched on criminal jurisdiction, criminal procedure, and now constitutional law.)


I thought the article would have clarified EVERYTHING on this, even the jurisdiction element. I feel like I'm spoon-feeding a baby that keeps spitting out his food.
Why don't you read the article again. Sometimes it takes a second try to let new concepts to sink in.

 

Beat down I've been getting? Guess you are too stupid to bother checking the facts. I actually find it hilarious that you didn't even get the jurisdiction right and yet you are here giving me a "jurisdiction beatdown." A joke of monumental scale.

The accounts in question are offshore accounts, specifically, located in Switzerland. Meaning that if a crime was committed, it occurred in Swiss territory, meaning Swiss law takes precedence over American law. The tax treaty is the only factor which gave the US government ANY SEMBLANCE of jurisdiction over these cases, allegedly crime committed in the country of Switzerland.

Except of course that tax evasion isn't a crime in Switzerland but revealing information of private bank accounts is.


Tax treaty doesn't take precedence over US courts but in this case, the cases will never see the US court because it has no jurisdiction in Switzerland. Hence in this case Swiss law > tax treaty > US law jurisdiction-wise. Get it? Got it? Good.

I assume that you either simply didn't read, or is too stupid to understand after reading the article.

The US has jurisdiction over Americans who cheat on their taxes (and in this case, on a presumption of guilt). But that is something entirely separate from ordering UBS to reveal information and violate Swiss law.

To get an idea of what is going on here... :

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601208&sid=aQpGpEVnxz0E

May 7 (Bloomberg) -- A federal judge ordered Attorney General Eric Holder to “respond directly” to claims by the Swiss government that a U.S. lawsuit seeking the names of 52,000 UBS AG account holders would jeopardize a new tax treaty.

U.S. District Judge Alan Gold in Miami made the comments today in a telephone conference on a U.S. lawsuit against UBS, the largest Swiss bank. In a court filing and a diplomatic note last week, the Swiss government said the lawsuit would “seriously jeopardize” efforts to revise a 1996 tax treaty.

Gold told Justice Department attorneys to have Holder explain whether the lawsuit on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service represents the position of the entire U.S. government.

“If the attorney general doesn’t respond, I will take it that the IRS speaks on this matter both for the executive branch and the United States government,” Gold said in federal court.

Consider yourself educated.

 

Yes, this may jeopardize future treaty negotiations now taking place. It also may not. But it doesn't have to do with us preempting the treaty. The current negotiations don't matter in the court's decision, that's a political matter.

If the attorney general doesn't respond .. . . it'll assume that the IRS speaks for them, wow. A damning statement.

As I mentioned in my last post, there is a possibility that the treaty has been overturned by statute. This is done if the statute directly conflicts with the treaty and if the statute comes later in time. Congress can destroy the treaty that easily.
Now that I have looked up this treaty you talk about, this is NOT what happened here. It seems as if the treaty is not even being denied here. You heard me right, the treaty is not being violated.

I have a strong feeling that your friends at UBS will lose this one, considering the case law in the 11th Circuit (as well as cases from other circuits). I'm not too sad about it, since most of the people I've met at UBS' NYC office were huge pricks (though the guys at the Houston office are cool). Back to the matter at hand, this does not violate the treaty and is fully allowed in American law. In fact, this is not the first time a bank has tried to hide behind the treaty: they get thoroughly taken apart with only expensive contempt charges to show for it.

Check it out yourself, use the table of contents to find your treaty discussion:

http://www.mainjustice.com/wp-conte...s-memo-in-support-of-enforcement-as-filed.pdf

While I realize this is the brief from the IRS, they are required to discuss all cases on point, even if the case conflicts with their position. So whatever cases they cite, you can be sure that they are there and there is no lying involved. That's one hell of a brief isn't it? I thought it was sexy too.

I think this will be the last post I make regarding this subject. I can't believe I actually went to get the brief for you, as if you couldn't do this yourself. I think this covers this subject extensively. I got a lot of work to do this month, so unless you come up with some real gem, I'm not going to confront your old and tired arguments anymore.

I am semi-retired from the D&D.

But don't be surprised if I come back, wearing the four-five.

 

Wow, FINMA February 2009. Seriously, did you bother looking up Swiss banking law before you went on your little bit of rant. Swiss banking law is not entirely secret and the bank is allowed to disclose information in certain cases, such as tax fraud (not evasion, but that's another story).

That is why UBS was able to turn over 250 names under the $780 million court settlement, which incidently is the one your little rant concerned.

Statute that overturned the treaty? Sure. Kindly show me where it is. The article which you so idiotically dismissed above pretty much sums up though that hadn't been a new Statute, hence the judge is seeking clarification whether the position of the IRS represent that of the US government. Essentially what's going on here is the IRS is trying to certain terms of the treaty without negotiating a new one, i.e. having its cake and eating it too.

And even if a new Statute is written, there will still be that little issue of whether it is retroactive.

As for UBS, they are not my friends. Nor does it matter whether they're a-holes or saints. It's only a business to me. It's not personal.

 

I may have missed it but did you ever address the fact that the banks have branches in the U.S. and are therefore subject to U.S. laws?

 

It doesn't matter. If you want to look up the relavant regs with regards to the tax home of those accounts (and any potential income from them), you are welcome to look it up. The business involving those accounts are not carried out here even if the rest of UBS has certain branchese here.

Or you can take my word for it and accept that it is Switzerland.

Finally, let me remind you against that I am not against closing a tax loophole. What I am against is violating to accepted international agreements instead of renegotiating. I don't like the fact that after threatening domestic banks, the US government has moved onto international ones.

 

Banks are not embassies. If they are on U.S. soil they are obliged to follow U.S. laws. It's not like an embassy that is still considered foreign territory.

If the business they do here violates law here, then they need to abide the law or face consequences. If they business they do in in Switzerland is ok by Swiss law, then that is fine.

 

Look man, it annoyed me to no end that you didn't get the message from my posts. Perhaps my it was hidden in my long verbiage. I'll make it simple:

We have jurisdiction over UBS. They have an office in NYC, go meet the jerkoffs working there and you'll know that I speak the truth. Where the accounts are held does not matter, READ THE BRIEF to find out why.

Swiss law doesn't matter. Your FINMA doesn't matter because it is a Swiss authority. They have no precedence in the American criminal system. Ask Bahama how THEIR tax laws to keep accounts private held up when trying to protect off-shore accounts from the U.S. courts. Ask Canada how their tax laws to keep accounts private held up when trying to protect against off-shore accounts from U.S. courts. Americans can no longer hide behind the laws of another country in order to avoid taxes: just because a country decides to encourage Americans from placing off-shore accounts in their country with their useless privacy laws. That just defies COMMON SENSE man! We now have the legal tools to reach them.

Yes, this may affect further treaty negotiations. The Swiss like their off-shore accounts. They have LOVED having these off-shore accounts that evaded the American tax system: it brought a LOT of money to their banking system. They are trying to add more transparency to these accounts in treaty negotiations that are currently going on, because they see the writing on the wall: the U.S. is not allowing this protection anymore. They also don't want any company in their country to be required by American courts to violate Swiss laws. This, perhaps, is there best argument. but it is dealt with quite firmly IN THE BRIEF. But make no mistake, the Swiss loved having those off-shore bank accounts. In that sense, they were purposefully taking a dump on our tax system. It's not going to happen anymore.

The negotiations make this an interesting matter, whether we try to get to off-shore accounts through our criminal system, or whether we want to do it through treaty negotiations that may not even be ratified by the Swiss when it goes for a vote. I say, lets get them now with the court system rather thank risk the new treaty not being ratified. If it is done with the treaty negotiations, then these past tax evaders never get their judgement for illegal activity.

U.S. -Swiss Treaty does matter. You are correct that what DOES matter is the U.S.-Swiss Treaty. Let me say this again so you don't get confused.

U.S.-Swiss Treaty does matter to American law. I raised the possibility that it may have been undone by a statute. But you are right, the treaty has NOT been undone. Congrats, you are correct on one minor point because I didn't care to do extra research and I merely raised this possibility. I've been dancing around this subject because 1) i didn't want to read this whole thread; and 2) I couldn't understand what the hell you were exactly saying all this time. You really screwed up on this jurisdiction argument. Now take your lickin' on your argument as a whole. Now that I've delved into the matter I know why you are ultimately wrong.

BECAUSE, the Treaty is NOT being violated. READ THE BRIEF to see why.

http://www.mainjustice.com/wp-conte...nt-as-filed.pdf

PLEASE, PLEASE, READ THE BRIEF. It explains EVERYTHING. Every caveat that you are getting confused on in your articles. Start at Secion C of the FACTS and keep reading. It's actually a brilliant piece of work. The IRS has been picking their battles to build case law precedent in the 11th Circuit, all to culminate into this final epic battle. It reminds me of Brown v. Board. They've taken down the Bahamas, they've taken down Canada and now they're *likely* going to take down the big fish, the Swiss. I don't like to make predictions on individual cases because you can never know the outcome how one will go, but all existing precedent (in the 11th Circuit) points to UBS going down on this one, and it'll be done legally without violating the treaty.

I hope this is comprehensive and that you'll stop with your blabbering. You have really tried to ignore this jurisdiction argument. JUST ACCEPT IT FINALLY: we have jurisdiction over UBS and that's all that matters. Not that UBS hid these accounts in Switzerland. All you have to do is read the brief. It deals with every point you raise, even with Swiss banking law not covering tax evasion but only tax fraud Yes, I know all about that . . . BECAUSE I READY THE BRIEF. REally, it is quite fun. I enjoyed it at least. Please do your homework before writing again. Swiss law doesn't matter, the treaty does and the treaty is not being violated! I understand if you have distrust about the IRS and their analysis. But the cases they cite are pretty clear. And they destroy UBS' argument. It's quite convincing. (like I said, they have been building up case law precedent in the 11th circuit to finally bend UBS over and screw them). No foreign country's laws are going to save American tax evaders.


Now look what you've made me do. I came out of semi-retirment for this? for THIS?! This wasn't the gem that I said I would come out of retirement for, but I have . . . Because I pity you Jar-Jar.

But from now on, I am officially RETIRED from the D&D.

But don't be suprised if I come back, one day. . .


For now, I'm done. SWISH.

 

That's perfectly fine. They can say with a straight face that their American business did not violate any US laws, except the case of solicitation of business in America, carried out on US territories, with regards to 250 accounts, in which UBS pleaded guilty and already settled.

And let me remind you that the settlement is for 250 accounts, the other 51,750 or whatever may or may not be perfectly legit.

In fact, they are likely able to show that their American business followed the law to the letter in most cases. Rules set in stone are so easy to circumvent now aren't they?

Holy ****. It's like I'm talking to a brick wall. Nothing gets through that thick skull of yours. It bounces right back.

Why just NYC? They also have offices in Rochester, Albany, White Plains, Buffalo, etc etc etc. Read my response to FranchaiseBlade above. Having offices in the US only implies that the US branch of their business, carried out in the US, is subject to American law.

Which is why UBS pleaded guilty to soliciting business to evade American taxes, in the US. It was done on US territory. Hence the US have the right to jurisdiction because UBS knowingly violated American law, PRIOR to the establishment of the Swiss bank accounts. That and of course the guilty plea ensured that in those cases Swiss bank secrecy laws DON'T APPLY.

On the other hand, those account holders that volunteerly went overseas to Switzerland, hence a crime is not conducted on US territory, by UBS, that's a whole different animal.

In this case the crime is carried out on Swiss territory, under Swiss jurisdiction, hence follows Swiss law. Attempts by the IRS to force disclosure by UBS IS AN ATTEMPT TO RENEGOTIATE THE TAX TREATY.

And let me remind you that UBS pleaded guilty with regards to 250 accounts. Your article makes it VERY VERY CLEAR that the admission of guilt by UBS refers only to those accounts. The judge tried to broaden the horizen but quite frankly, did a very lousy job, because UBS did not plead guilty with regards to the rest of the 52,000 accounts.

The only stickler is whether UBS solicited business from the rest of the account holders on US territory. But in that case, the IRS bears the burden of proof, which it didn't provide, hence exactly as I said, presumption of guilt.

Swish? The ball didn't go through the hoop. It hit the bottom of the net. But your vision is so blurred you couldn't tell.

 

UBS to give over 4450 names.

 

LOL @ the amateurs over here trying to make an argument that the US doesn't have jurisdiction over a foreign entity that conducts business with Americans on American soil.

Hmmm ... as a non-American citizen, I shouldn't bother paying my taxes then ... right?

Sometimes the prospect of espousing blatant stupidity does nothing to stop wingnuts from attacking the administration as a matter of principle.

 

The IRS is the most powerful dept. Who brought down al capone and balco?

 

yeah, i mean i guess i understand where they were coming from, but it does nothing to remedy the fact that they were blatantly wrong and thusly quite moronic.

 

He's not our president.

 

I want them to start with the executives of banks that received TARP. It's time go after them personally and take back the stolen tax dollars.

 

Do you want to exclude the banks that repaid TARP with interest netting a decent little profit for the government?

I'll trust that the legal system in the US is well developed enough that it allows the US government to apply its laws to entities that do business in their country. And I am incredibly happy to see loopholes get closed so that tax laws can be applied fairly. Enforce the laws we have and get the tax money from the people that are cheating the system before raising taxes.