- advertisements -
The is the greatest fear of the Fed and by extension the US Government. The victims of the abuse finally abandon the abuser.
Wegelin's letter is trully bizarre. There was a letter this year by Ray Dalio or Lewitt of HCM much better, saying to be on guard for illegal violations of investors rights.
Wegelin tries to claim the developed world government started a cycle of lawbreaking, when their citizens who willfully refused to report income to the authorities started the cycle. He sounds like the extreme civil libertarians that came up with the exclusionary evidence rule that if the authorities get evidence through illegal means the evidence is kicked out of court. Guilty is guilty. If a crimnal breaks the law, he ought to be punished, and if a cop breaks the law to catch him, punish the cop too. They can share a cell.
Dalio's or Lewitt's letter was much better, in terms of discussing threats to creditors rights. Wegelin's is really empty rhetoric saying the road to hell is paved with shutting down tax havens. As opposed to seeing it as a sherriff being willing to fight in the dirt, if that's where the criminals choose to hide out.
You missed the point. Its a pragmatic decision. Nothing more , nothing less. Read it all. They did the math. The Swiss are the most pragmatic people in the World.
I read it all. It is an industry shill peice, to defend banks in the business of facilitating illegal activities. The purported rationale is that this leads to some parade of horribles in which governments have no respect for private property. It is one of Larry Summers "the world will end" unless you do what I want. I laugh at it.
To extend your analogy, Wegelin is merely stating that the sheriff is a hypocrite.
And Wegelin no longer wants to deal with this hypocrite. Pretty simple... hardly an industry shill piece, imo.
I agree with you.. greetings by chat
All tax grabs are self-defeating. Its stating the obvious and this company has just made a business decision. Swiss banks dont do ethical , moralistic hissy fits.
UBS was operating within the U.S. enabling U.S. citizens to hide from the IRS. So far, they and other banks have gotten off light. Saying its as simple as math is like saying robbery is simple math. Yes, it may pay, but its still illegal.
I can certainly see many banks recognize "the party os over". All I can say is "goodbye, and please don't come back".
Private banking is not an inalienable right.
The fuck it isn't you braying jackass.
I am Chumbawamba.
Correct me if I were wrong, I thought in a US Court, evidence obtained via illegal means is inadmissible.
If the US obtains evidence by breaking US law, then evidence is inadmissible. It wouldn't necessarily violate any US law for the IRS to demand information on US account holders, get an order by a US court ordering the banks to cough it up, and if the banks refuse, to get a court order seizing the banks US assets as punishment.
Please read it again, by..., sans agenda. It's the Swiss version of Fr. Guido Sarducci's "Arrivederci, America!" All Blackwater's drones won't save you now.
Completely off the topic of this letter, but in response to the idea that exclusionary rules of evidence are the product of extreme civil libertarians...
This notion is completely off base. The 4th amendment's exclusionary remedy is the only workable solution to the problem of guaranteeing our protections against unreasonable/warrantless search and seizure. I ask you this: if the end result of illegal activity by police is not the exclusion of evidence (thereby rendering all their work to that point fruitless), then what hedge do we have against this behavior. You planning on throwing half your police force in jail for doing stupid s*** in violation of the 4th/5th amendments? You know, a lot of the guys out there who commit policing blunders of constitutional magnitude aren't f'ing Vic Mackey or Dirty Harry... they're honest men and women who make mistakes, and often act fairly reasonably (though the appeals court may disagree some months later). All I'm saying is that, to crib some logic from the courts, exclusionary remedies are the best option for ensuring essential protections against state police powers.
Just... just thought I'd say that. Have a nice day.
Read very carefully, there is no 4th and 5th ammendment.
"It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government hasbeen dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1,Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt andinsolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 - JointResolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clausedissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the officialcapacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, andDepartments and is further evidence that the United States FederalGovernment exists today in name only."
"The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the InternationalBankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the InternationalMonetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are nowoperating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers.With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, thereceivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for theUnited States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being anestablished Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. Thisact was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Officeof the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the InternationalMonetary Fund. Public Law 94-564."
The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate anddistinct from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is amaritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal UnitedStates operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender orunderwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specificperformance in paying the interest, or premiums are the same.
We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in theguise of the Federal Reserve Bank.
"Wegelin's is really empty rhetoric saying the road to hell is paved with shutting down tax havens."
That wasn't my interpretation. I see it as an assertion that the US lacks moral high ground.
You also clearly don't understand the intent of the exclusionary rule. If illegally obtained evidence can be used in court, why should the authorities ever worry about the law?
Do you perhaps work for the US tax authorities?
Most American commentators here seem to miss the point of Wegelin's decision/client advice:
If you are a non-US citizen, living outside the US, the IRS can compel your bank to make you pay taxes on ALL your assets, be they in America or not, merely because you own SOME assets in the US, such as stocks or Treasuries. This is especially relevant in inheritance taxes.
The Wegelin piece goes on to say that, if the non-US residing, non-US citizen refuses to pay these taxes on non-US assets, then the American IRS can sequester a foreign bank's US assets—even if they are merely acting as custodians—in order to enforce their decision (which is not necessarily made with judicial review).
That would mean, for instance, that if a foreigner, Johann Suisse, living in Zurich with a net worth of ChFr 10 million and a mere $10,000 in US Treasuries with UBS dies, then the IRS can conceivably demand that his heirs pay 45% inheritance tax in the United States on all ChFr 10 million—and if his heirs refuse, then the IRS can seize UBS's assets in the United States, even if UBS is acting as a custodian of those assets and is not in fact their owner.
The Wegelin paper describes these issues in much more detail, explaining quite clearly what the implication of the UBS decision is—not for Americans, but for NON-Americans who are NOT residents in the US.
Therefore, in order to avoid this possibility—which is very real, after the UBS deal—Wegelin very prudently is telling it's non-US citizen, non-US residing clients to get out of all US assets.
Wegelin is smart—other banks will follow. This means that non-US capital will not want to invest in the United States for sound tax reasons—exactly when America needs foreign capital the most.
I think it reads that they tax non-resident aliens on US securities ONLY. The first $60K is exempt, but to get the exemption the non-resident alien must reveal all of global holdings.
On the other hand a US person can be taxed on all the global holdings, and the line for being a US person is murky.
So, in your case, unless Johann Suisse is considered a US person, he will either pay tax on the $10K of treasuries, or pay $0 if he reveals all ChFr 10M of his holdings to the IRS.
To Anonymous #56745: This is the way I understood it also.
That's the point: Why should Johann Suisse have to reveal ALL his assets—which are not in the US—so that the IRS can paw through them?
And furthermore, as the Wegelin comment explains, a non-resident, non-citizen who spends 180 days in the US over a five year period CAN BE taxed as if he were a resident alien.
Wegelin is simply showing that, with the UBS-IRS agreement, it is now not worth it for non-US individuals to own assets in the US.
If it wasn't for money laundering, Switzerland wouldn't exist.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out....
The elite will always want a place like Switzerland to hide their ill-gotten gains. You think this tax raid is really taking down anyone big? No chance. Another smokescreen for Main St to feel slightly better about their miserable , soon to be very miserable , existences. Bonus-gate is another.
It seems that Mexico wants some information from the US about the accounts of Mexican tax evaders in US bank accounts. Looks like the US is the favourite place for Mexican drug money.
white roads lead to the citi
I suppose the same could be said for modern day United States of America.
What ignorant smugitacity.
Agree. Next we go after the balance of the offenders, off shore accounts, and pseudo-American corporations.
you mean like Goldman Sachs with their Bermuda (or was it Bahamas?) corp earning the bulk of the profits?
Exactly. Their economy exists essentially by robbing their neighbors of their tax revenues. They are a parasite.
The only amazing thing about Switzerland is that they have been tolerated for so long. Any US citizen maintaining any relationship with a Swiss bank should be rewarded with an IRS flashlight up one's ass indefinitely.
Hiding income is a very, very big deal.
When I recieve a multiple choice tax return that allows direct allocation of my taxes to certain services, then I will stop hiding income from the hypocrite/corrupt US Govt. and their goon squad, the IRS.
Folks here defending the USA/IRS out of some sense of patriotism/nationalism are blind. TPTB will soon fleece you, too, and you will wish you were never born in the 'land of the free'.
Does tax preparation not take up enough of your time? Would you be willing to prepare, federal, state, and county budgets in addition to your tax return so you can be sure that your $3 to the fire department will be enough for them to function and save your house? Clearly you have the time, experience, and foresight to allocate $0.23 of your glorious tax contribution to levy repairs and maintenance or some such minutiae that keeps the US working. Do you have any idea how inefficient this would be and how poorly funds would be allocated? The idea of multiple choice tax returns is the dumbest thing I have heard in months. Congratulations.
You are a horse's ass. Please slap your mother across the face the next time you are within slapping proximity to her for bringing such a crasshole into the world.
They have a history of - - - -money laundering investigations for Russian gangsters and Colombian drug dealers ...... who cares
...and don't forget collaborating with Hitler.
Friends, did you get some silver? Did you get a little gold? What did you bring me, my dear friends, to keep me from the gallows pole?
WRONG; Swiss banks did not directly collaborate with Hitler, but Bank for International Settlements ordered them to accept the money coming from Germany in order to finance the BIS itself. And BIS was a synergy of Schacht's idea and WS money. Swiss banks at the time did not accept direct money from Germany but via BIS. BIS was run, at the time, by Schacht ( till his departure as Reichsbank chairman ) and French, American, British and Italian bankers. Furthermore IG Farben ( US subsidiary ) and SONJ,IBM, GM and FORD mandated that the loans coming for Germanys re-armament are to be held first with the BIS and then distributed to Swiss banks and then channeled to German banks, who would then channeled it to industrial complexes ( so the money could gain interest many times and not just one ). The part of collaboration you speak of is when German officers and individuals deposited gold and paintings into vaults of Swiss banks, but that was an individual act, not a standard mechanism.
Fine, so they weren't the direct bankers for Hitler, just the German officers and Nazi party members. You stay classy, Switzerland.
Welcome back. Where have you been? Can you warn us before you take a leave? I know it would help my productivity to know when you were taking off... No need to read the messages if you arent around to ride herd on these guys.
Good comment, btw.
Whatever, you're missing the forest for the trees. The Nazi party came to power via blood, violence and theft. Nazis by the thousands, suddenly wealthy, squirreled away their loot in Swiss banks, and Swiss banks were only too happy to help.
You're ironically playing the "official / unofficial" distinction for a violent group who laughed at the distinction themselves.
when someone writes the word " whatever " in the beginning of the sentence it is my impression that i am talking to a 17 yo cheerleader; but never mind my assumption i will give you an answer to your question. I do not defend the NSDAP or Germany in this case, what i am saying is that some historical accuracy must be achieved when talking about Swiss banks and NSDAP and Germany. It was not a plan by the Swiss banks to collaborate with Germany in the 30s and 40s. They had no official business and that needs to be known. Second of all; if private individuals commit an illegal act and profit from that act and deposit the illegal profits from that act into a bank; the bank does no officially collaborate with individuals or institutions which/who have committed the act. And another important parameter that should be taken into regard is the historical neutrality of Switzerland and its private and public institutions. And it is one thing when something is official and something is unofficial. The difference is important when it comes to many legal issues; but i will not go into that area with my response. And Germany's officials did not only put their loot into Swiss banks, but also in Argentinian ones, Italian ones and particularly Spanish banks; and also in vast number of banks in south America. Historical accuracy is important and should not be fogged by someone who has prejudices towards someone/something. Facts are neutral; it is individuals who paint them.
Any entity, whether a country or a banking system or other, who undermines and thwarts the power of the IRS has got my undying support.
How the f*** would you know? Even if you were alive then, you would only know what was official if you were making Nazi policy.
And furthermore, plenty of 17 year olds make better arguments than you do. So I say, whatever!
quote: " How the f*** would you know? Even if you were alive then, you would only know what was official if you were making Nazi policy. "
wow !!!! either you have actually nuked the entire epistemology OR you are just plain and simply wrong
don't guess; it the later; and i will not go into epystemological discussion with you
How can i know; well there is this thing called a book; and if that thing ( further mentioned simply as: BOOK ) is any good; it is written based on factual evidence and supported either by observation, experiment or mathematical proof; since we are talking about a historic occurrence here; then it must be that the BOOK is well based on observation collected by reading the documents from that time and with talking to witnesses from that particular time. I DON'T KNOW nothing per se; I GAIN KNOWLEDGE; you should try to do the same.
Oh; and you might want to learn what a priori and a posteriori mean and represent in the general theory of knowledge ( epistemology ) before you draw your toddler argument ( i point to the fact that you have based you critique on the false assumption that i; or any other being; can not know anything that has happened before i was born; and thus that i have no knowledge about the events which took place before i was born ) about what i do know, what i don't know, what i can know, and what i can not know.
Hi Cheeky...I MISSED YOU..X
"...according to reliable sources, the tentacles of the narcotics mafia now reach well into political circles..."
Stings too hard, does it, anonymous? Or should I call you DENNIS HASTERT!?
Hey ZH - not that I am a blog monitor but it would be nice if you at least acknowledged your alter-ego in this story, she posted same earlier on her own site and referenced it here a couple of threads ago.
Had no idea it was posted elsewhere. Here is the original link: http://www.wegelin.ch/download/medien/presse/kom_265en.pdf
ZeroHedge I hope you find this write up worthwhile.
Unequal taxes, unequal accountability for crime, unequal influence, unequal privacy, and unequal access to natural resources and our commons…this sounds like a trailer for ShowTime’s “Tudors”.
What was once ridiculed and ignored months ago is now mainstream news. But what is happening that no one is talking about? What is the most important thing that corporations do not want us to engage with?
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is arguably more important than healthcare, more important than the stealing of our 401ks, pensions and the lack of meaningful change promised during our last election. This court case will be the death blow to our Republic by opening the gates for corporations to steal what is left of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Once opened to further manipulation our world will change forever. “I for one say not on my watch!”
The following links should be reviewed now or after reading my commentary.
Fast forward to 1 hour: 6 min: 40 seconds. The following 7 minutes of video will give greater details. This is beyond right and left politics.
This article gives a brief historical over view of specific cases past and present regarding Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
We went from less than 300 lobbyists before Reagan’s administration to over 35,000 lobbyists currently servicing us and showering our elected representatives with campaign contributions and golden parachutes on Capitol Hill? (See Goldman Sachs or Tom Dashel for recent examples)
Prior to 1886, corporations were referred to in U.S. law as "artificial persons." but in 1886, after a series of cases brought by lawyers representing the expanding railroad interests, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were "persons" and entitled to the same rights granted to people under the Bill of Rights.
Lawyers representing corporate interests to extend additional rights to businesses have abused the Fourteenth Amendment originally passed after the Civil War to grant all persons including freed slaves (not corporations) equal rights.
To sum it up we have lost the legal structures to keep corporate influence in check.
As a result, instead of kings and queens today we the people must rein in the power of the multinational corporations. They have the power to influence our lives financially (ask the grandpa working at McDonalds), mentally (all media controlled by less than 10 corps.), physically (healthcare or lack thereof) and emotionally (see all the above) on a daily basis.
The CEOs and their politicians have taken from a generation past, present and the future. Like a school yard bully they are flaunting this power in our collective faces.
The CEO of UBS for example last week played a round of golf with our president!
Despite contributing $ 250,000.00 dollars to his campaign I cannot help but think that in some way President Obama paid for that round of golf. Regardless of what the founding fathers would have thought “that pisses me off!”
Our constitutional protection has been methodically stripped away. Since 1886 the courts have either given away or the corporations have taken the power to engage the average citizen in a new kind of slavery. They have shifted not only an unfair share of taxes to the man of the house but his wife as well. Oh yeah, the kids could be next if we as individuals don’t draw the line regarding Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That ladies and gents is a third world country.
The founding fathers fought to keep power in the hands of the people and prevent institutions similar to the multinational of their time the East India Company from gaining unlimited economic and political power. It has been argued to be the real igniter to the Boston Tea Party. For many years corporations played in the sandbox responsible to the people and governments that granted them the right to exist.
By the courts legally recognizing corporations as persons we have come full circle to facilitate and reward the types of actions and behaviors of the East India Company that this country originally fought so hard to get away from.
If we do not collectively take action to have our voices heard concerning Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission our Republic will be replaced by a new 'Third Reich' of corporate tyranny.
This court case will determine whether corporations seize complete control of the regulatory process for their own purposes and to our demise as U.S. Citizens.
In conclusion I would like to state that I am not a writer, or blogger. I just realize that if I do not participate or engage I am just as guilty as any in the den of thieves. All I ask of those who post to please state what they will do right now to have their voice heard regarding Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Any suggestions would be appreciated as to how we can impact a court case. This case will be heard September 9th. The judges past decisions appear to favor corporations. “If this passes it will blow up all restrictions regarding corporate bribery.”
I big step in reducing the influence of corporations is to eliminate all corporate taxes (which consumers eventually pay). Taxes should only be waged on individuals - "entities" that cast a ballot - vote. Then you will have transparency as to what the real tax burden is on citizens and they can vote to change it if they don't like it. Instead of the army of corporate lobbyists swarming on directing tax law.
Sure, sounds great. Let's just shred the rest of the Constitution while we're at it.
Tips: tips [ at ] zerohedge.com
General: info [ at ] zerohedge.com
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertising: ads [ at ] zerohedge.com
Abuse/Complaints: abuse [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertise With Us
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
How to report offensive comments
Notice on Racial Discrimination.