The concepts and the practicalities
The distinction between avoidance, evasion and mitigation: an international comparison
The need for a clear distinction in theory and in practice
A theoretical framework
Some practical considerations.
The terms need to be precisely understood – especially by governments and inter-governmental bodies. Taxpayers are entitled to know their position. They need to have the benefits of the law relating to human rights. The growing view that money-laundering applies to foreign fiscal offences requires the individual to know exactly what these are. Politicians are confusing ‘evasion’ and ‘avoidance’. Taxpayers must supply information, but they will always act to reduce this cost – like any other cost. The managers in the Compaq case took steps to reduce tax; the scheme was struck down by the US Court. Did they cross the frontier of the morally permissible? Aggressive tax planning is self-defeating. Tax mitigation and avoidance lie in between the disinterested payer and the fraudulent one. The word “fraud” should be used in preference to “evasion”; it should always require intentional behaviour or actual knowledge. An absence of honest belief is sufficient; it is considered that negligent or even reckless behaviour should not suffice, but statutory provision should replace the common law concept. An attempt to introduce a distinction between “tax mitigation” and “tax avoidance” by reference to the intention of Parliament, in e.g. the Willoughby case is not helpful. A taxpayer is entitled to choose the more tax-efficient form of a commercial transaction. But some forms of avoidance are countered by legislation, or are abusive (as in New Zealand), or ill-advised. Tax mitigation should cover all matters which are not considered abusive or ill-advised tax avoidance.
The advantages of a foreign will for(i) foreign assets(ii) domestic assets
The treatment of foreign testamentary trusts: (i) fixed interest trusts(ii) discretionary trusts
Foreign wills as a medium of tax-free disposition of foreign assets to foreign entities
Many jurisdictions impose a tax on death. Even those which do not have an estate tax as such nevertheless impose a capital gains tax on death. Australia provides examples of cases where a foreign testamentary trust may be advantageous. The global citizen “G.C.” may, at death, be domiciled in one country and resident in another and hold assets in both countries. His death may trigger a tax liability in both countries – see Bath v British and Malaysian Trustees. The end result of that case was advantageous to the beneficiary, but the litigation could have been avoided if the deceased had made a separate will dealing with her New South Wales assets – see the South African case of Jones v Borland. A foreign executor may be liable for tax in the jurisdiction of the deceased’s domicile, but the liability may not be enforceable. Stype Trustees makes it clear that a foreign trustee may be liable for tax arising on the death of the settlor. In Australia, a grant of probate may be made to a syndic on behalf of a corporation. Canada is an example of a country which provides for a deemed disposal on death. A foreign executor may be liable for the tax, though enforceability may a different matter. In Australia, the general rule is that the executor inherits the base cost of the testator: a foreign executor disposing of assets not having the “necessary connection” with Australia (even disposing of them to beneficiaries) is not liable for tax. Land in Australia and shares in private companies incorporated in Australia have the necessary connection. Shares in a listed company (of less than 10%), shares in foreign companies, paintings and trademarks, copyrights etc. do not. A will trust may have tax advantages – e.g. where the trust income is to be attributed to the settlor or grantor. See e.g. s679 of the Internal Revenue Code and ss102AAL and 481(3b) of the Australian Income Tax Assessment Act.
Review of current status of OECD & EU tax harmonisation agendas
The Primarolo Report – next steps
UN “Offshore Forum”
Factors driving the various international initiatives
Reactions/responses to the perceived threats
Need for regulatory and fiscal reform
Polarisation of centres
The issue of tax harmonisation cannot be considered in isolation. Tax and confidentiality are what the wealthy are looking for in offshore centres. Offshore business is growing hugely, but threatened by the concept of the “harmful” in tax competition. The term “Offshore Centres” covers many kinds of jurisdictions – from the classic tax havens to the onshore jurisdictions themselves. Competition is generally accepted to be beneficial: tax “harmonisation” cannot mean equivalence. But even if it did, one cannot focus on business taxes and take no account of social security and other tax-related costs. Nevertheless, there is a fear that the tax base in high-tax countries may be eroded through the impact of technology and globalisation. The Primarolo Report gave Sweden and the UK a clean bill of health, but all other jurisdictions were listed. Member States are to cause dependant territories to comply, but only in accordance with their constitutional arrangement. Discussion on a savings tax directive continues, but agreement does not seem to be in sight. The OECD is also encountering difficulties: a first attempt to identify “harmful” features was riddled with inconsistencies, arbitrary values and political judgements. The Report was essentially rejected by Luxembourg and Switzerland – though they abstained, rather than vetoed. The Tax Havens themselves are of course opposed to the OECD initiative and are highly critical of the Report. There are cost implications to the UK Treasury in taking the dependent territories out of the offshore business. In 1998, the UN expressed the view that offshore banking is beneficial to the world economy. The EU code of conduct and OECD guidelines have some common strands – no discrimination, no zero rate, no ring-fenced regime, open administration, and so on. The US is introducing new withholding rules, which will furnish information to the Revenue authorities. Offshore centres are going to have to change if they are going to survive: they are going to have to reform their tax systems, establish regulatory standards and exchange information. There will in the future be fewer centres in business and global standards of regulation. This will provide even more business for the centres which survive.
The United Kingdom charity
The United Kingdom corporation
United Kingdom resident thin trusts
United Kingdom resident alchemist trusts
The UK has a number of tax advantages for resident non-domiciled individuals – which are advantages beyond the scope of this talk. There are, however, opportunities for non-residents to make use of the UK. They must bear in mind that the transaction has, and can demonstrate, substance. The UK charity has extensive exemptions from tax (though it is liable to VAT), and can take advantage of the UK’s tax treaties. It must be a genuinely philanthropic entity, concerned with poverty, religion or education (or with some other activities for the “public” benefit). Registration with the Charity Commissioners is generally required. A charity may take the form of a trust or company: the appropriate form may be decided upon, in the light of the consequences of insolvency and the applicability of any relevant tax treaty. A charitable corporation is undoubtedly the “beneficial owner” of its income; it is considered that a charitable trustee is also – for tax treaty purposes. A wholly-owned company, making payments to the parent charity, may be used for obtaining relief on trading profits or so as to obtain benefit of e.g. Art VI of the UK/German treaty. The UK-resident company (whether or not incorporated there) pays tax at a rate between 10% and 30%. There is no withholding tax on dividends and non-residents are in general exempt from capital gains tax. Interest and “annual payments” (e.g. royalties) are in principle deductible; if they are not to be taxed, they need to have a non-UK source or the benefit of a tax treaty. The “thin trust” is useful for eliminating the capital gains tax liabilities of resident but non-domiciled individuals. It may also be used to take advantage of the capital gains article in a tax treaty. The Alchemy Trust is used to convert UK taxable income into non-UK taxable income or income of a third state into non-taxable income. The outgoing income needs an appropriate treaty – e.g. with Austria, Barbados or Israel, but not the US.
New wealth – new estate plans
Civil law trusts – common law foundations
Substantial fortunes have been made in the last ten years. The newly wealthy do not necessarily plan to hand the whole of their wealth to the next generation: changes in family pattern has eroded the dynastic convention. At the same time, “forced heirship” rules constrain testators in civil law countries. The “disposal” portion varies from country to country. The anti-forced-heirship laws in some offshore jurisdictions have yet to be fully tested. Such a client may wish to consider charitable giving – not in the Carneigie style but more in the form of foundations run more on business lines. Some such charities are onshore, some offshore – enjoying fewer constraints than the onshore equivalent, e.g. in a purpose trust or Liechtenstein Foundation. The client wants to keep his hands on the levers of power: there are risks, here, of sham or invalidity, but a Protector or private trust company may be effective, and powers can be reserved to the settlor (an ability confirmed by statute in Cayman, Bahamas and Bermuda). Trust laws exist in civil law countries – in Panama (which also has a Foundation, modelled on the Liechtenstein Foundation) and in Liechtenstein (since 1926 – but shortly to be revised). Switzerland is expected to codify the law relating the Fiducie and ratify the Hague convention; the assets of the foreign trust of a new resident may be excluded for Swiss wealth tax purposes (a circumstance which may also be helpful in the Netherlands). The Stichting and Stiftung have proved useful in civil law countries: a similar vehicle is on its way in the Bahamas, and may be on its way in Anguilla. A “collapsible” company is one where the client retains control during his lifetime, but the shares held by the next generation acquire value on the death of the client. Such a structure may be a fraud on creditors or require probate on the grounds that the arrangement is testamentary. Probate is not generally available to an estate of a person not domiciled in the jurisdiction. But Jersey offers such a facility, as does Cayman, Bermuda and to some extent the UK. A joint bank account is a simple way of passing benefit without probate, though it will not override the interests of civil law heirs. A more interesting use of this feature is this. An offshore joint account with X Co., on which the client can sign solely. X Co. is settled on trust. When the client dies, the only signatory is X Ltd. The general trend is towards a reduction in estate tax; the Hague Succession convention is not yet in effect, but will in due course facilitate cross border inheritance planning: the wealthy are becoming more mobile – going to Verbier, Belgium and the UK.
Ending the Relationship but Keeping the Assets
Transfer pricing rules and related customs rules
Definition of related parties
Avoiding organisations “owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the same interests”
Using trust declarations to destroy ownership and control
Using employment and/or management agreements, as well as retirement plans, to retain the economic benefits
Variation on a Theme
Transferring intellectual property out of the wrong jurisdiction tax-free
One Old Problem: One New Solution
Selling U.S. Real Property Interests Tax-free
Where goods are manufactured outside a high-tax jurisdiction but sold inside such jurisdiction, how can the taxable profits be minimised? The use of a local subsidiary will involve transfer pricing problems. One approach is to use an offshore trust to control the manufacturing company through a holding company which remunerates the client: the link of common control is broken and the parties cease to be related for transfer pricing purposes. A variant is to place the intellectual property in the hands of an offshore employees’ trust, but giving the clients remuneration as consultants. Again, ownership is replaced by contract. The United States imposes capital gains tax on disposal of US real property. This may be avoided by standing an anti-avoidance rule on its head. The vehicle is the charitable remainder trust.
Identifying the problem
Locating the treaty benefit
Exemptions and credits
Distribution: dividends, interest, liquidation
The starting point of this topic is a company located in Bermuda or other zero-tax location, which plans to acquire a significant shareholding in an operating company located in a high-tax country, and needs to consider whether it should invest directly into the operating company or should interpose a holding company. This is an exercise in treaty shopping, but does not appear to be regarded by the European Union as abusive. First, the holding company needs to be able to get dividends out of the operating company free of withholding tax or at a lower rate of withholding tax, by virtue of a tax treaty or under the European Parent/Subsidiary Directive and to be able to dispose of its investment in the operating company without any liability to capital tax or its equivalent in the operating country. Secondly, there needs to be in the domestic laws of the holding company jurisdiction some provision which wholly or largely exempts such dividends and capital gains from local tax. And thirdly, the zero-tax company needs to have the ability – and this, traditionally, has been the most difficult step – to take dividends out of the holding company without giving rise to any charge to tax at the holding company level. These features are to be found, to a greater or lesser extent, in Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Hungary, Luxembourg, Madeira, Malaysia, Mauritius, the Netherlands, Singapore, Spain and the United Kingdom.
International Tax and the Fashion Model
US tax issues
Employee or self-employed status
Treatment as artiste
Employment via UK company
International Tax and the IT contractor Global employer leasing company
Social security contributions
International Tax and the Entertainer
OECD model treaty article 17
Locally incorporated companies
Intermediary conduit companies
VAT and other taxes
Other Members of Entourage
Successful tax planning nowadays calls for a degree of “substance”. A mere name or label is not sufficient: artificial transactions will not do, and management must actually be exercised. Sara is a model. She is resident in the UK but not domiciled there. She has a contract of employment with a Danish company. Is the Danish company entitled to receive its US fees free of US tax? One must look first at Sara’s position and the UK/US treaty: if she is self-employed, she is not exempt from US tax, and the US model agency is liable for the tax. If she is employed, and does not stay in the US for more than 183 days, she will be exempt from US tax. It would be different if she were an “artiste” – which she probably is not. And she will only be an “employee” if the company determines her movement and pays a fixed salary. Exemption from US tax on self-employed profits requires remittance to the UK. Suppose a UK company under an offshore trust is the employer – with the attributes of a true employer: the company takes advantage of the business profits article and UK tax applies to its profits – after payment of Sara’s salary and contribution to her pension scheme. A global employee-leasing company can present a more “substantial” option; single-employee companies have problems in many countries – e.g. Germany and the UK. Entertainers and sportsmen generally have a special – and disadvantageous – treatment. A cancellation fee is generally not taxed, but the presence of an individual for even a few days can give rise to a tax charge on gross earnings – even though he will not usually benefit from the social security etc. which the tax pays for. An entertainer earns income of many types – from performances, endorsement, sponsorship, merchandising, recording etc., and design logos and trade marks. Art. 17 of the OECD Model extends to income from personal services as such : this will cover a bonus, profit participation, prize, sponsorship and “up-front” fees. A locally incorporated company can generally receive the income without withholding tax and can reduce its profits by providing pensions, charging expenses – e.g. for providing a fully equipped show. Other income may not fall within the “as such” category – endorsement, some kinds of sponsorship, merchandising and royalties from intellectual property rights. (Royalties may be passed through an intermediary licensing company). The earnings of other members of the entourage do not fall within Art. 17.
"Kutoka kwa ""Ukimbizi"" na ""Ukimbizi wa Uharibifu"" ni tofauti ya kimataifa na ya kitaaluma, na inahitajika kuunganisha na kuunganisha na kuunganisha na kuunganisha na kuunganisha." Maneno yanahitaji kueleweka kwa usahihi - hasa na serikali na mashirika ya kati ya serikali. Walipa kodi wana haki ya kujua msimamo wao. Wanahitaji kuwa na faida za sheria zinazohusiana na haki za binadamu. Maoni yanayokua kwamba uvujaji wa fedha unatumika kwa makosa ya kifedha ya kigeni inahitaji mtu kujua hasa nini ni. Wanasiasa wanachanganya "kuepuka" na "kuepuka". Walipa kodi lazima kutoa taarifa, lakini wao daima kutenda ili kupunguza gharama hii <unk> kama gharama nyingine yoyote. Msimamizi wa kampuni ya Compaq alishindwa na mahakama ya Marekani. Je, walivuka mpaka wa kuruhusiwa kiadili? Mipango ya kodi yenye jeuri hujiangamiza yenyewe. Kupunguza kodi na kuepuka kodi ziko kati ya mlipaji asiye na nia na mlipaji wa udanganyifu. Neno "udanganyifu" linapaswa kutumiwa badala ya "kuepuka"; inapaswa daima kuhitaji tabia ya makusudi au maarifa halisi. Kutokuwa na imani ya uaminifu ni ya kutosha; ni kuchukuliwa kwamba uzembe au hata tabia reckless haipaswi kutosha, lakini utoaji wa kisheria inapaswa kuchukua nafasi ya dhana ya sheria ya kawaida. Jaribio la kuanzisha tofauti kati ya "kupunguza kodi" na "kuepuka kodi" kwa rejea ya nia ya Bunge, kwa mfano. Kesi ya Willoughby haisaidii. Mlipa kodi ana haki ya kuchagua fomu ya ushuru ufanisi zaidi ya shughuli ya kibiashara. Lakini aina fulani za kuepuka zinapingwa na sheria, au ni zenye kudhulumu (kama ilivyo katika New Zealand), au hazipendekezi. Kupunguza kodi inapaswa kufunika mambo yote ambayo hayachukui kuwa udanganyifu wa kodi au udanganyifu wa kodi. Uhakika wa Uhakika wa Uhamiaji kwa Mali za Nje (I) Mali za Nje (II) Mali za Nje (II) Uhakika wa Uhamiaji kwa Mali za Nje (II) Uhakika wa Uhamiaji kwa Mali za Nje (II) Uhakika wa Uhamiaji kwa Mali za Nje (II) Uhamiaji wa Nje (II) Uhamiaji wa Nje (II) Uhamiaji wa Nje (II) Hata wale ambao hawana kodi ya mali kama vile hata hivyo kuweka kodi ya faida ya mtaji juu ya kifo. Australia hutoa mifano ya kesi ambapo amana ya hati ya kigeni inaweza kuwa na faida. Raia wa ulimwengu <unk>G.C.<unk> anaweza, wakati wa kifo, kuwa na makazi katika nchi moja na makazi katika nyingine na kushikilia mali katika nchi zote mbili. Kifo chake kinaweza kusababisha dhima ya kodi katika nchi zote mbili <unk> angalia Bath v British na Malaysian Trustees. Matokeo ya kesi hiyo yalikuwa mazuri kwa mteja, lakini kesi hiyo ingeweza kuepukwa ikiwa marehemu angefanya mapenzi tofauti yanayohusu mali zake za New South Wales - angalia kesi ya Afrika Kusini ya Jones v Borland. Mtekelezaji wa kigeni anaweza kuwa na wajibu wa kodi katika mamlaka ya makazi ya marehemu, lakini wajibu hauwezi kutekelezwa. Stype Trustees hufanya wazi kwamba mdhamini wa kigeni anaweza kuwa na wajibu wa kodi inayotokana na kifo cha settlor. Katika Australia, ruzuku ya probate inaweza kufanywa kwa syndic kwa niaba ya shirika. Canada ni mfano wa nchi ambayo hutoa kwa ajili ya kuonwa kuondolewa juu ya kifo. Mtekelezaji wa kigeni anaweza kuwa na wajibu wa kodi, ingawa kutekelezwa kunaweza kuwa suala tofauti. Katika Australia, sheria ya jumla ni kwamba mtekelezaji urithi gharama ya msingi ya mrithi: mtekelezaji wa kigeni kuondoa mali ambayo haina <unk> uhusiano muhimu <unk> na Australia (hata kuondoa yao kwa wanastahili) si wajibu wa kodi. Hifadhi ya ardhi ya Australia na hifadhi ya hifadhi ya hifadhi ya hifadhi ya hifadhi ya hifadhi ya hifadhi ya hifadhi ya hifadhi ya hifadhi ya hifadhi ya hifadhi ya hifadhi ya hifadhi ya hifadhi ya hifadhi ya hifadhi ya hifadhi ya hifadhi. Hisa katika kampuni iliyoorodheshwa (chini ya 10%), hisa katika kampuni za kigeni, michoro na alama za biashara, haki za uchapaji, nk. usifanye hivyo. Uaminifu wa mapenzi unaweza kuwa na faida za kodi <unk> kwa mfano Mapato ya amana yanapaswa kuhusishwa na mtoaji au mtoaji. Angalia kwa mfano. Sheria ya kodi ya ndani (IRA) ya Australia (Section 10A, Section 10A, Section 48A, Section 48A, Section 48A, Section 48A) inahusu ushuru wa mapato. "Mtazamo wa ""mfano wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba Usalama wa kifedha na uaminifu wa kifedha ni vitu ambavyo watu tajiri wanatafuta katika vituo vya nje ya nchi. Biashara ya pwani inakua sana, lakini inatishwa na dhana ya "kuumiza" katika ushindani wa kodi. Neno "Vituo vya Offshore" inashughulikia aina nyingi za mamlaka <unk> kutoka paradiso za kodi ya kawaida kwa mamlaka ya pwani wenyewe. Ushindani ni kwa ujumla kukubaliwa kuwa na manufaa: kodi <unk>harmonization<unk> haiwezi maana usawa. Lakini hata kama ilifanya hivyo, mtu hawezi kuzingatia kodi za biashara na kutochukua akaunti ya usalama wa kijamii na gharama nyingine zinazohusiana na kodi. Hata hivyo, kuna hofu kwamba msingi wa kodi katika nchi zenye kodi ya juu inaweza kuharibiwa kupitia athari ya teknolojia na utandawazi. Ripoti ya Primorlo ilitoa Sweden na Uingereza hati safi ya afya, lakini mamlaka nyingine zote ziliorodheshwa. Nchi wanachama zinapaswa kusababisha maeneo yanayohusiana kufuata, lakini tu kwa mujibu wa mpangilio wao wa kikatiba. Mazungumzo juu ya agizo la kodi ya akiba yanaendelea, lakini makubaliano hayaonekani kuwa karibu. OECD pia inakabiliwa na matatizo: jaribio la kwanza la kutambua sifa "zenye madhara" lilikuwa na kutoelewana, maadili ya kimakusudi na hukumu za kisiasa. Ripoti hiyo ilikataliwa kimsingi na Luxembourg na Uswisi <unk> ingawa walijizuia, badala ya kupiga kura ya kupinga. "Tunaona kuwa nchi za ""tax havens"" zinapinga mpango wa OECD na zinashutumu sana ripoti hiyo." Kwa mujibu wa taarifa ya Wizara ya Fedha ya Uingereza, nchi hizo mbili zimeamua kuondoa maeneo hayo katika biashara ya kibiashara. Mwaka 1998, Umoja wa Mataifa ulisema kuwa biashara ya benki ya nje ya nchi ni muhimu kwa uchumi wa dunia. Mfumo wa EU wa tabia na miongozo ya OECD ina baadhi ya safu ya kawaida - hakuna ubaguzi, hakuna kiwango cha sifuri, hakuna mfumo wa ring-fenced, utawala wa wazi, na kadhalika. Marekani imeanzisha sheria mpya za kukamata fedha, ambazo zitatoa habari kwa mamlaka za mapato. "Kama ""offshore centers"" zinataka kuishi, zinahitaji kubadilika: zinahitaji kurekebisha mifumo yao ya kodi, kuanzisha viwango vya udhibiti na kubadilishana habari." Kutakuwa na katika siku zijazo vituo vichache katika biashara na viwango vya kimataifa vya udhibiti. Hii itatoa biashara zaidi kwa vituo ambavyo vinaendelea kuishi. Alchemist Trust (UK) ni shirika la misaada la Uingereza, shirika la Uingereza, shirika la Uingereza, shirika la Uingereza, shirika la Uingereza, shirika la Uingereza, shirika la Uingereza, shirika la Uingereza, shirika la Uingereza, shirika la Uingereza. Hata hivyo, kuna fursa kwa ajili ya wasio wakazi kutumia Uingereza. Ni lazima kukumbuka kwamba shughuli ina, na inaweza kuonyesha, msingi. Charity ya Uingereza ina msamaha mkubwa kutoka kwa kodi (ingawa ni chini ya VAT), na inaweza kutumia faida ya mikataba ya kodi ya Uingereza. Ni lazima iwe ni chombo halisi cha hisani, kinachohusika na umaskini, dini au elimu (au na shughuli zingine kwa manufaa ya "jamii"). Usajili na Kamishna wa Charity kwa ujumla inahitajika. Mfuko wa misaada unaweza kuwa na fomu ya uaminifu au kampuni: fomu inayofaa inaweza kuamuliwa, kwa kuzingatia matokeo ya kufilisika na matumizi ya mkataba wowote wa kodi unaohusiana. Shirika la hisani bila shaka ni <unk>mmiliki wa faida<unk> wa mapato yake; inachukuliwa kwamba mdhamini wa hisani pia ni <unk> kwa madhumuni ya mkataba wa kodi. Kampuni inayomilikiwa kabisa, inayolipa kwa shirika la misaada la mzazi, inaweza kutumika kwa kupata misaada juu ya faida za biashara au ili kupata faida ya, kwa mfano, Art. 6 ya Mkataba wa Uingereza na Ujerumani. Kampuni ya Uingereza (au kuanzishwa huko) hulipa kodi kwa kiwango cha kati ya 10% na 30%. Hakuna kodi ya kusimamishwa juu ya gawio na wasio wakazi kwa ujumla ni huru kutoka kodi ya faida ya mtaji. Faida na <unk>malipo ya kila mwaka<unk> (kwa mfano Royalties ni deductible, kama wao si kuwa na kodi, wao haja ya kuwa na chanzo nje ya Uingereza au faida ya mkataba wa kodi. "Tumaini nyembamba" ni muhimu kwa ajili ya kuondoa malipo ya kodi ya faida ya mtaji ya wakazi lakini watu wasio na makazi. Inaweza pia kutumika kuchukua faida ya kifungu cha faida ya mtaji katika mkataba wa kodi. Alchemy Trust ni fedha ya Uingereza inayotumika kugeuza mapato ya Uingereza ya kodi katika mapato ya nje ya Uingereza ya kodi au mapato ya nchi ya tatu katika mapato yasiyo ya kodi. Mapato ya nje inahitaji mkataba sahihi <unk> kwa mfano "Kama ilivyo kwa nchi kama vile Barbados, Israel na Austria, ""mwisho wa siku"" haujatoka." Utajiri mpya <unk> mipango mpya ya mali <unk> Uaminifu wa sheria ya kiraia <unk> misingi ya sheria ya kawaida Mali kubwa zimetengenezwa katika miaka kumi iliyopita. Watu waliopata utajiri mpya hawapangi kuipa kizazi kijacho utajiri wao wote, kwa sababu mabadiliko katika muundo wa familia yameharibu desturi za kifalme. Wakati huo huo, sheria za "urithi wa kulazimishwa" zinawazuia wathibitishaji katika nchi za sheria za kiraia. Sehemu ya "kuondolewa" hutofautiana kutoka nchi moja hadi nyingine. Sheria za kupambana na urithi wa kulazimishwa katika mamlaka fulani za nje ya nchi bado hazijapimwa kikamili. Mteja kama huyo anaweza kutaka kuzingatia kutoa misaada - si katika mtindo wa Carneigie lakini zaidi katika fomu ya misingi inayoendeshwa zaidi kwenye mistari ya biashara. Baadhi ya misaada kama hiyo ni onshore, baadhi ya offshore <unk> kufurahia vikwazo chache kuliko sawa onshore, kwa mfano. Usimamizi wa mali ya Liechtenstein Mteja anataka kuweka mikono yake juu ya levers ya nguvu: kuna hatari, hapa, ya udanganyifu au ukosefu wa haki, lakini mlinzi au kampuni ya kibinafsi ya uaminifu inaweza kuwa na ufanisi, na mamlaka inaweza kuhifadhiwa kwa settler (uwezo uliothibitishwa na sheria katika Cayman, Bahamas na Bermuda). Sheria za uaminifu zipo katika nchi za sheria za kiraia - katika Panama (ambayo pia ina Msingi, iliyoundwa na Msingi wa Liechtenstein) na katika Liechtenstein (tangu 1926 - lakini hivi karibuni itarekebishwa). Uswisi inatarajiwa kuunda sheria inayohusiana na Fiduciary na kuridhia Mkataba wa Hague; mali ya amana ya kigeni ya mkazi mpya inaweza kutengwa kwa madhumuni ya ushuru wa utajiri wa Uswisi (hali ambayo inaweza pia kuwa na manufaa nchini Uholanzi). Stichting na Stiftung wamethibitika kuwa muhimu katika nchi za sheria za kiraia: gari kama hilo liko njiani huko Bahamas, na linaweza kuwa njiani huko Anguilla. Kampuni ya "collapsible" ni moja ambapo mteja anaendelea kudhibiti wakati wa maisha yake, lakini hisa zilizoshikiliwa na kizazi kifuatacho kupata thamani juu ya kifo cha mteja. Muundo kama huo unaweza kuwa udanganyifu kwa wakopeshaji au kuhitaji uthibitisho kwa misingi ya kwamba mpangilio ni testamentary. Kwa kawaida hati ya urithi haipatikani kwa mali ya mtu asiye na makao katika mamlaka hiyo. Jersey ni moja ya maeneo ya kusafiri ya kawaida katika Bermuda, Cayman Islands na Uingereza. Akaunti ya pamoja ya benki ni njia rahisi ya kupitisha faida bila probate, ingawa haitabadili maslahi ya warithi wa sheria za kiraia. Matumizi ya kuvutia zaidi ya kipengele hiki ni hii. Akaunti ya pamoja ya pwani na X Co., ambayo mteja anaweza kusaini peke yake. X Co. ni kukabiliana na uaminifu. Wakati mteja anakufa, saini pekee ni X Ltd. Mwelekeo wa jumla ni kuelekea kupunguzwa kwa kodi ya mali; Mkataba wa Urithi wa Hague bado haujatumika, lakini wakati unaofaa utawezesha mipango ya urithi wa mpakani: matajiri wanakuwa na uhamaji zaidi - kwenda Verbier, Ubelgiji na Uingereza. "Kupunguza ""malipo ya mali"" ni suala la kisheria, na sheria za mahusiano ya biashara ni muhimu kwa kuepuka ""malipo ya mali"" na ""malipo ya mali"" kama vile ""malipo ya mali"" na ""malipo ya mali"" kama vile ""malipo ya mali"" na ""malipo ya mali"" kama vile ""malipo ya mali"" kama vile ""malipo ya mali"" na ""malipo ya mali"" kama vile ""malipo ya mali"" kama vile ""malipo ya mali"" na ""malipo ya mali"" kama vile." Matumizi ya kampuni tanzu ya ndani itajumuisha matatizo ya bei ya uhamisho. Njia moja ni kutumia offshore trust kudhibiti kampuni ya utengenezaji kupitia kampuni ya kushikilia ambayo inatoza mteja: kiungo cha udhibiti wa pamoja ni kuvunjwa na pande kuacha kuwa na uhusiano kwa madhumuni ya bei ya uhamisho. Tofauti ni kuweka mali ya akili katika mikono ya offshore wafanyakazi 'uaminifu, lakini kutoa wateja malipo kama washauri. Kwa mara nyingine tena, umiliki umebadilishwa na mkataba. Marekani inatoza kodi ya faida ya mtaji juu ya kuondolewa kwa mali isiyohamishika ya Marekani. Hii inaweza kuepukwa kwa kusimama sheria ya kupambana na kuepukwa juu ya kichwa chake. Gari ni amana ya mabaki ya misaada. "Kuweka ""msaada wa mkataba"" (Utoaji: gawio, riba, uharibifu) ni suala la msingi la mada hii: Kampuni iliyoko Bermuda au eneo lingine la ushuru wa sifuri, ambayo inapanga kupata hisa kubwa katika kampuni ya uendeshaji iliyoko katika nchi ya ushuru wa juu, na inahitaji kuzingatia ikiwa inapaswa kuwekeza moja kwa moja katika kampuni ya uendeshaji au inapaswa kuingilia kampuni ya kushikilia." Hii ni zoezi katika mkataba ununuzi, lakini haionekani kuwa kuchukuliwa na Umoja wa Ulaya kama unyanyasaji. Kampuni ya kushikilia inahitaji kuwa na uwezo wa kupata gawio kutoka kwa kampuni ya uendeshaji bila ushuru wa kuachiliwa au kwa kiwango cha chini cha ushuru wa kuachiliwa, kwa sababu ya mkataba wa kodi au chini ya Maagizo ya Mama ya Ulaya ya Kampuni ya Uendeshaji, na kuweza kuachilia uwekezaji wake katika kampuni ya uendeshaji bila dhima yoyote ya kodi ya mtaji au sawa katika nchi ya uendeshaji. Kwa upande mwingine, sheria za ndani za mamlaka ya kampuni ya kushikilia zinahitaji kuwa na kifungu ambacho kikamilifu au kwa kiasi kikubwa kinatoa faida kama hizo na faida za mtaji kutoka kwa kodi ya ndani. Na tatu, kampuni ya zero-kodi inahitaji kuwa na uwezo - na hii, kwa kawaida, imekuwa hatua ngumu zaidi - kuchukua gawio nje ya kampuni ya kushikilia bila kutoa malipo yoyote ya kodi katika ngazi ya kampuni ya kushikilia. Sifa hizi zinapatikana, kwa kiwango kikubwa au kidogo, nchini Ubelgiji, Cyprus, Denmark, Hungary, Luxembourg, Madeira, Malaysia, Mauritius, Uholanzi, Singapore, Hispania na Uingereza. Mfumo wa kodi ya kimataifa na mtindo wa mkataba wa mkataba wa OECD wa kimataifa wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba wa mkataba Jina tu au lebo haitoshi: shughuli bandia hazitakuwa na kazi, na usimamizi lazima ufanye kazi kweli. Sara ni mwanamitindo. Yeye ni mkazi katika Uingereza lakini si domiciled huko. Ana mkataba wa kazi na kampuni ya Denmark. Kampuni ya Denmark ina haki ya kupokea ushuru wake wa Marekani bila kodi ya Marekani? "Mtu lazima kwanza kuangalia nafasi ya Sara na mkataba wa Uingereza na Marekani: kama yeye ni kujiajiri, yeye si msamaha kutoka kodi ya Marekani, na shirika la mfano wa Marekani ni wajibu kwa ajili ya kodi.""" Ikiwa unafanya kazi na haukaa nchini Marekani kwa zaidi ya siku 183, utapunguzwa kodi ya Marekani. Ingekuwa tofauti kama yeye alikuwa <unk>artiste<unk> <unk> ambayo yeye pengine si. Na yeye itakuwa tu "mfanyakazi" kama kampuni huamua harakati yake na hulipa mshahara wa kudumu. Msaada wa kodi ya Marekani juu ya faida ya kujitegemea inahitaji uhamisho wa fedha kwa Uingereza. "Kama kampuni ya Uingereza chini ya amana ya nje ya nchi ni mwajiri na sifa za mwajiri wa kweli: kampuni inachukua faida ya ""mafao ya biashara"" na kodi ya Uingereza inatumika kwa faida yake baada ya malipo ya mshahara wa Sara na mchango kwa mpango wake wa pensheni." Kampuni ya kimataifa ya kukodisha wafanyakazi inaweza kuwasilisha chaguo zaidi <unk>substantial<unk>; makampuni ya mfanyakazi mmoja wana matatizo katika nchi nyingi <unk> kwa mfano Ujerumani na Uingereza. Waigizaji na wanariadha kwa ujumla wana matibabu maalum <unk> na yasiyofaa <unk>. Ada ya kufuta kwa ujumla haitozwi kodi, lakini uwepo wa mtu binafsi hata kwa siku chache unaweza kusababisha malipo ya kodi juu ya mapato ya jumla <unk> hata ingawa kwa kawaida hatapata faida kutoka kwa usalama wa kijamii nk. ambayo kodi hulipa. Mtunzi anapata mapato ya aina nyingi <unk> kutoka kwa maonyesho, idhini, udhamini, uuzaji, kurekodi nk, na alama za kubuni na alama za biashara. Sanaa. "Mfano wa OECD 17 unataja ""mapato kutoka kwa huduma za kibinafsi"" kama vile: hii itashughulikia bonasi, ushiriki wa faida, tuzo, udhamini na ada za ""up-front.""" Kampuni iliyoanzishwa ndani ya nchi kwa ujumla inaweza kupokea mapato bila kukamata kodi na inaweza kupunguza faida yake kwa kutoa pensheni, malipo ya gharama <unk> kwa mfano. kwa kutoa show vifaa kikamilifu. Mapato mengine yanaweza kuwa si ndani ya <unk>kama vile<unk> jamii <unk> idhini, baadhi ya aina ya udhamini, biashara na royalties kutoka haki za mali ya akili. (Royalties inaweza kupitishwa kupitia kampuni ya leseni ya kati). Mapato ya wanachama wengine wa msafara hayaingii chini ya Art. 17. (a) Kwa nini?