• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.

Name and shame state sponsored tax avoidance schemes

captain obvious

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
1,884
I think the time has come to start collecting in one spot all of those schemes that have the states blessing to benefit the few at the expense of the many. This has incensed me, the sale by Nama of the project Eagle property portfolio (i.e. at a discount from the state bank IBRC) that yielded the grand total of EUR 1,947 tax on a net property rental income of EUR 49,985,632 for the year ending Dec 2014.

https://namawinelake.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/pel2014.pdf

(With thanks to Namawinelake and HereWeGoAgain for links)

Please feel free to merge this with a more appropriate thread and/or forum.
 


GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,847
I think the time has come to start collecting in one spot all of those schemes that have the states blessing to benefit the few at the expense of the many. This has incensed me, the sale by Nama of the project Eagle property portfolio (i.e. at a discount from the state bank IBRC) that yielded the grand total of EUR 1,947 tax on a net property rental income of EUR 49,985,632 for the year ending Dec 2014.

https://namawinelake.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/pel2014.pdf

(With thanks to Namawinelake and HereWeGoAgain for links)

Please feel free to merge this with a more appropriate thread and/or forum.
The tax paid would normally be a reflection of the profit made, not of the income generated.
 

captain obvious

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
1,884
The tax paid would normally be a reflection of the profit made, not of the income generated.
If you look at the returns, the profit was EUR 7,768 after impairment charge and derivatives of just short of EUR 8,000,000, and a massive EUR 43,000,000 in "other operating expenses".

Further, the operating expenses breakdown involved asset management fees of EUR 31,000,000. The company has no employees.
 
Last edited:

good dog

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
2,443
Not quite to the scale of the Nama making others rich projects but this one 'stinks' as well even if it is only a couple of hundred thousand euro. Clearplas Limited, Padraig shine, an 'Entrepreneur'?

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/the-fg-activist-the-200k-grant-and-a-waste-pile-34943127.html&ved=0ahUKEwjj0sjXlK_OAhXqA8AKHflDAnEQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNEdbOrFokC78YrFqXv6S0bILZ2QMA&sig2=ELmBW5Z7Jl18Jm-YMzAelg

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://blog.connectireland.com/meath-gaeltacht-area-to-benefit-from-jobs-boost-as-clearplas-establish-operations/&ved=0ahUKEwiyn_H_k6_OAhUJI8AKHSRUAY4QFggvMAY&usg=AFQjCNFh2HZStMhNZa5kzIdW4OZx975XGA&sig2=QX2apJGCJ-HDoUyO6eZsaw

Supposed to be an international company to benefit from connect Ireland but registered office is a restaurant in England and they have no facility there.

The likes of these people are detrimental to legitimate businesses.
 

captain obvious

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
1,884
It all counts, it is all money lost to the exchequer and it is all a slap in the face for everybody else here trying to make their way in a rigged system.
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,377
If you look at the returns, the profit was EUR 7,768 after impairment charge and derivatives of just short of EUR 8,000,000, and a massive EUR 43,000,000 in "other operating expenses".

Further, the operating expenses breakdown involved asset management fees of EUR 31,000,000. The company has no employees.
Asset management fees are taxable in the hands of whoever receives the fees.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
26,222
Twitter
No
Asset management fees are taxable in the hands of whoever receives the fees.
Unless they are only surfaced in no-tax jurisdictions. Which is why certain funds exist and are registered offshore. There is the 'official' picture and the actual picture and when it comes to tax the actual trumps the official every time

Which brings me to the largest tax avoidance scheme in Ireland- the IFSC. Tax avoidance is the only reason the IFSC exists and is precisely why it was set up.
 

Eire1976

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
13,764
If you look at the returns, the profit was EUR 7,768 after impairment charge and derivatives of just short of EUR 8,000,000, and a massive EUR 43,000,000 in "other operating expenses".

Further, the operating expenses breakdown involved asset management fees of EUR 31,000,000. The company has no employees.
That sould be investigated by the Garda Fraud Squad.
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,377
Unless they are only surfaced in no-tax jurisdictions. Which is why certain funds exist and are registered offshore.
It says in the report that the asset managers are Dutch, which means that they ultimately pay tax in Holland. It is not clear from the report whether the fees are initially paid to the Dutch entity or an Irish branch/subsidiary.
 

captain obvious

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
1,884
It says in the report that the asset managers are Dutch, which means that they ultimately pay tax in Holland. It is not clear from the report whether the fees are initially paid to the Dutch entity or an Irish branch/subsidiary.
The dutch entity is Promontoria Holdings BV whereas the Irish entity is Promontoria Eagle limited. So the whole thing looks like it has been set up with a view to minimise any tax exposure in Ireland. Which is bad enough, but given that this company has already paid for loans in which the taxpayer has taken a loss is just sickening.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
26,222
Twitter
No
Deals by individuals and companies on which the Irish taxpayer has already taken a haircut will be structure in such a way that any fees will not be surfaced in the Irish tax jurisdiction.

It will always be carried out by a subsidiary company which is one leg of an offshore series of companies that means the Irish taxpayer will get naff all out of it. After taking the loss on the writedown of the value of the underlying asset in the first place.

If there is value in an asset after a writedown then it should not be handed away for some foreign company to sell it on at a profit.

Essentially the Irish taxpayer is being haircut on these assets as they went into a special purpose vehicle and is losing out both on the reduced sale price of the asset a it is sold to vulture funders or distressed debt specialists and it is extremely unlikely that the taxpayer will see anything from the fees involved either.

The offshore tax avoidance system is parasitical to onshore tax jurisdictions. That is the very nature of the system.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
26,222
Twitter
No
It says in the report that the asset managers are Dutch, which means that they ultimately pay tax in Holland. It is not clear from the report whether the fees are initially paid to the Dutch entity or an Irish branch/subsidiary.
The 'Dutch' entity for all you know could be owned by a company offshored in Bermuda. One company invoices the other and hey presto the fees are only surfaced in Bermuda- where no tax is payable.

The point being of course that the Irish taxpayer sees nothing of it.

For all we know the ultimate owner of the offshore companies could be the same companies that were bondholders in Anglo Irish Bank- behind a nominee company in Austria, Liechtenstein or Luxembourg.

It is even plausible that people in Ireland are the ultimate beneficiaries of such deals if they have a holding in, for example, the nominee company in Austria.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
26,222
Twitter
No
There is a reason U2 were running their accounts in and out of the Dutch jurisdiction and it isn't because they had taken to wearing clogs.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
26,222
Twitter
No
Couple of lads on this thread appearing to push the idea that the Irish taxpayer benefits from all this activity.

That would be the official story of course and about as accurate as the assumption carefully and repeatedly placed before Paddy that all corporates in Ireland pay 12.5% corporation tax each year.

Which is also complete balls.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
26,222
Twitter
No
The whole con depends on Noonan and the Dept of Finance making Paddy think that the tapayer is benefitting from NAMA and its firesales to vulture funders and distressed debt funds.

And on Paddy forgetting that the taxpayer took the writedown on those overpriced assets taken into NAMA.

In the end it will all be presented as a profit to Ireland by Noonan and the Dept of Finance for political reason and many a palm will be greased along the way.

Ultimately the Irish taxpayer will have been taken for a ride. An expensive one.
 

HereWeGoAgain

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
14,579
NAMA sells Project Aspen, but just look at the bells-and-whistles

Project Aspen is the portfolio of loans relating to Dublin property developer, David Courtney and relate to a number of properties in and around Dublin. The loans have a par value of €810m. NAMA doesn’t say this morning how much the loans have fetched – sources here last week credibly claimed it was €180m. I see the old media is today claiming it is €200m. Eastdil marketed the loans from January 2013, and there were 60 interested parties.

Who is the buyer? As expected Starwood Capital is the buyer. Or more accurately, one of the buyers. The NAMA statement says that the buyer is a consortium and “other members of the consortium include Key Capital Real Estate and Catalyst Capital” It is not clear if there are other members.

Timeframe:

NAMA will provide a senior secured loan (vendor finance) to the joint venture, with an initial loan to value of less than 60%. The loan will carry a commercial rate of interest, and is expected to be repaid within five years.
(1) The buyers are receiving staple finance from NAMA to purchase the loans. Remember “staple finance” is where NAMA provides the buyer with the funding to buy assets.

(2) NAMA is entering into a joint venture with the consortium to manage the portfolio! NAMA says this morning “Under the terms of the agreement, NAMA will sell the loan portfolio to the new joint venture entity, which will be 20% owned by NAMA and 80% owned by a consortium led by Starwood.”

So, NAMA is getting €57.6m in cash now on my source’s information on the sale value – being €180m at 80% at 40% – , or €64m based on what the old media says today, so it is getting 7c in the euro on the par value of the loans today and an overall total of less than 25c in five years.
Link:
https://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/nama-sells-project-aspen-but-just-look-at-the-bells-and-whistles/
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,377
The dutch entity is Promontoria Holdings BV whereas the Irish entity is Promontoria Eagle limited. So the whole thing looks like it has been set up with a view to minimise any tax exposure in Ireland. Which is bad enough, but given that this company has already paid for loans in which the taxpayer has taken a loss is just sickening.
On what legal basis should any entity have tax exposure in Ireland? An Irish asset was acquired. If that asset is sold at a profit, then Irish tax will be payable. Rental income is chargeable to tax to the extent that it exceeds expenses. Asset management expenses are chargeable to tax in the jurisdiction where the service is provided. So what taxes are being avoided?
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top