USA ( i shire) je nekima raj na zemlji...

[vbo man]

Da li ste chuli za new inheritance tax ...

American inheritance tax is levied on the "estate"; that is, the physical goods, such as property, goods and chattels, and securities. If they are US securities, then they are liable to tax, regardless of the final domicile or main place of residence of the deceased. US securities are basically defined as securities issued in the United States, such as the stock of American companies like Apple, General Electric or Pfizer and US funds and US bonds, in particular Treasury bills. American inheritance tax law makes specific reference to both US citizens (including, particularly, US citizens resident abroad) and "non-resident aliens". These latter are foreigners with no permanent residence in the United States; in other words, all non-Americans in possession of US securities.

But there are also losers, of course. These are the people affected, who must now expect legal proceedings against them as suspected tax cheats, and who had, until relatively recently, been promised that precisely this would not happen. Promised by whom? By the bank concerned (among others), which had generously interpreted and intensively exploited an explicit gap in the 2001 "Qualified Intermediary" (QI) agreement; by the supervisory authorities, which were fully cognizant of all this activity, but never questioned it; by the Swiss government, which only a few months ago had spoken of the "brick wall" that foreign authorities would encounter, were they to attack Swiss banking secrecy - for example through fishing expeditions, such as an application for administrative assistance against several thousand clients. Promises, connivance, a pretence of resolute behaviour - and now collapse. The appearance of success conceals the reality of a breach of trust.

American inheritance tax rates are variable, with the top rate at 45 percent. Significant exemptions, of over 1 million US dollars, are allowed for US citizens; the limit for non-Americans is 60,000 US dollars, unless there is a double taxation agreement setting a higher limit. For Switzerland, the limit is calculated on the basis of the double taxation agreement of 1951, based on the proportion of the entire estate represented by the assets in the United States. To claim the allowance, the "estate" - that is, in continental terms, the heirs - must disclose the entire, global legacy to the IRS. On account of the IBM shares that he was so attached to, the children of the late Hans Rüdisühli of Melchnau must file with the IRS and present a valuation of all other family assets. There is a remarkable lack of double taxation agreements with the countries of Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. Mr Abdullah of Dubai, let's say, a typical owner of treasuries, industrial bonds and GM shares, is liable to American inheritance tax on his decease. Not his problem, but it may well become one for his 12 sons, Omar, Yakub and all.

    Or maybe not? For he had placed his securities in an institutional structure, a trust or a company domiciled on one of the Caribbean islands - and institutions cannot die, can they? Indeed not. However, the Americans are increasingly going over to regarding such structures as look-through entities, and trying to get access to the beneficiaries and their tax liabilities.

Another common objection: it's impossible anyway. How on earth can the IRS make the connection between a US security and a deceased foreigner? The USA is not even capable of registering its own residents, so how should it be able to control the rest of the world? Simple answer: it doesn't have to. Rather, American inheritance tax law focuses on the executor. If there is no executor, the role is fulfilled by the custodian bank, which is liable for the tax due. In order to exclude this liability, the American custodians of foreign banks will go over to requiring their partners abroad to freeze the estate when one of their clients dies.

Final objection: it was a dead letter for foreigners anyway. Yes indeed. But with the revised provisions of the Qualified Intermediary agreement, the USA will require the signatory banks to enable an American auditor to control their compliance with the agreement, which entails giving such auditors access to all files, including client data. This will create the means of directly linking US securities with non-American owners. Anyone who believes that this will not soon result in obligatory reporting by the US auditor is as naive as those who failed to realize that "fraud and the like" would eventually be interpreted to the almost unlimited advantage of the tax authorities.

An act passed in 2001 by the previous President Bush envisaged a "sunset clause" for the then controversial but reintroduced inheritance tax. Unless extended, the Estate Tax would expire in 2010 and, if not reformed, come into effect again on 1 January 2011. The Obama administration is currently working not merely on an extension, but on making the law stricter with regard to recognized loopholes. The possibility of further unpleasant surprises can certainly not be ruled out.

Guess they are not "Death Taxes" if they apply to "non-resident aliens! Since the US Government cannot raise taxes on wealthy US citizens, it appears that they will try to increase the take by going after hapless foreigners. And even if you have never been a US citizen and don't have any US securities, it would be most inopportune to die while an heir is attending or has recently attended a US University.

There are three definitions in this QI agreement that are of decisive importance: that of a US person, that of a US security, and that of a legal entity belonging wholly or in part to a US person. The definition of a US security is fairly unproblematic, in that it is effectively determined by the retention of the withholding tax by the custodian. The other two definitions, however, have caused, and continue to cause, almost insurmountable problems for QIs, and thus generate considerable legal uncertainty.

    Sadly, it is entirely unclear who actually counts as a US person and who does not. In addition to the clear case of US citizens resident in the USA, the American understanding of the category also includes foreigners living in the USA, those in possession of a social security card, holders of a "green card", US citizens not resident in the USA, and also those who pass the so-called "Substantial Physical Presence Test". This "Presence Test" has a particularly delightful design: it is passed when someone has been in the USA for at least 31 days in the current year and a total of 183 days over a period of three years; in the first year the days count for 1/6, in the second for 1/3, and in the third year they are counted full. By this definition, a student, perhaps Muhammad Abdullah's son Omar, who is doing an MBA at Harvard, very probably counts as a US person. The problem is that the QI has to know whether he does or not. For the agreement has turned the QI into the extended arm of the American tax authorities.

    Even trickier is the question of how far the beneficiaries of legal entities are liable to withholding tax. Clearly liable, according to the text, are active businesses; an American company holding securities in Switzerland, for example. Trusts, institutions and foundations are exempt if they meet certain - naturally highly complex - conditions. This was probably the trap in which the UBS
    clients were caught. Once the trap had closed, the American tax authorities shouted "Abuse, fraud (and the like...)!" They set the trap themselves.

    Matters become really awkward when an impeccably non-American legal entity suddenly becomes "contaminated" by a US person. Let's assume that Mr Abdullah has named his son Omar, as well as some of his other adult sons, as a beneficiary of his trust. As American tax law has turned him into a US person, Omar renders the trust liable to tax, and when Mr Abdullah dies, this may mean that the entire inheritance becomes liable to US estate tax, possibly at 45 percent, for Mr Abdullah was extremely wealthy. Perhaps, and then again, perhaps not. But that
    doesn't matter - the QI should have known.

Jimmy Carter famously called the US income tax system "a disgrace to the human race." It shares with the estate tax system the delightful feature of co-opting the taxpayer as an agent of the tax collector. It appears that the US Government is in the process of extending the benefits of that system to the entire world, via the broad definition of the reach and scope of the code.  It would seem that the European Union should be attempting to protect the estates of its citizens from unwarranted intrusion and taxation by the USA. But perhaps there are other considerations that can be brought forward in the comments. Security uber alles?

Looks like the Bundesrat ordered the German government to veto.

Well, there goes the US plan for closing its budget deficit.

We all live in AmeriKa...
Shta imate da kazete vi tamo na ovo?

[Hate mail]

Best government money can buy?

[vbo man]

Yeah right! ::)

[iDemo]

[vbo man]

Do skoro su glumili , shatro shire demokratiju kad upadnu chizmom gde im se prohte.Sad valjda to skupo pa nema vishe potrebe da glume ludilo.Prosto narede ovim muchenicima po Rimskim provincijama da otvore knjige i da im isplate lovu od nasledstva (i od stranih drzavljana ) a narodu su objasnili da je to zato da pohvataju ove shto zahvaljujuci globalizaciji taje porez ( koje bih i ja rado vatala a kamoli mucheni narod trenutno bez posla a rapidno i bez kuca).
Tako vodite rachuna da ne umrete dok vam je sin na studijama u Americi.
Reshili da seku kese bez milosti.

[Pareski do]

 ;D

;D ;D ;D

[Hate mail]

Od ova tri ja bih zadrzao Liberté... ovo ostalo morete si zavuc, komunjare...

[Tromotorac]

(evo sad radi, 193kb)

Kliknite na sliku za normalnu velicinu.

PS. Ovo je generic podela, moze se tu sto sta komentarisati/zameriti, ali 60-70% OK primera radi... Napravljeno u UK, mozda vise oslikava njihov spektrum?

[vbo man]

Pa da chini mi se dosta dobra podela...
E sad gde smo mi po ovom pitanju sada pojedinacno.
Za sebe mogu da kazem da sam nekad bila (valjda zbog iskustva u socijalizmu) prilicno desno od centra ( valjda sam zato i bila kod Koshtunice.
Danas s godinama provedenim u tkz. demokratiji i shirim uvidom u to shta se deshava a valjda i sa godinama starosti ( ovo bash ne zvuchi logichno jer obichno su mladi progresivniji...znate ono pre i posle 30-e...) mogu da vam saopshtim da sam sa stavovima LEVO od centra.
U stvari poshto ne verujem ni levima ni desnima i ne glasam vishe uopshte onda sam valjda vishe za anarhiju ;D ??? :o

[slawen]

Јипи-ју?