Newscast Media WASHINGTON—The United States has signed agreements with the Cayman Islands and Costa Rica to implement the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), the U.S. Treasury Department said November 29. The bilateral pacts represent the first FATCA agreements in the Caribbean and Central America.
The department said on its website November 19 that “FATCA is rapidly becoming the global model for combating offshore tax evasion and promoting transparency.”
“Today’s announcement marks a milestone in the effort to promote global tax transparency,” said Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Tax Affairs Robert B. Stack. “These agreements underscore growing international cooperation in the effort to end tax evasion everywhere.”
FATCA, enacted in 2010, seeks to obtain information on accounts held by U.S. taxpayers in other countries. It requires U.S. financial institutions to withhold a portion of payments made to foreign financial institutions that do not agree to report information on U.S. account holders. The foreign institutions have the option of entering into agreements directly with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the U.S. government agency responsible for tax collection and tax law enforcement, or through one of two alternative agreements signed by their home country.
The Cayman Islands signed a “Model 1B agreement” November 29, meaning that financial institutions there will be required to report tax information about U.S. account holders directly to the Cayman Islands Tax Information Authority, which is the sole channel in the Cayman Islands for sending tax-related information to other governments. The Cayman Islands Tax Information Authority will relay that information to the IRS. Additionally, the Treasury Department said, the United States and the Cayman Islands signed a new Tax Information Exchange Agreement to replace one signed in 2001.
“By working together to detect, deter and discourage offshore tax abuses through increased transparency and enhanced reporting, we can help build a stronger, more stable and accountable global financial system. We look forward to collaborating with the government of the Cayman Islands to further these objectives,” said Julie Nutter, minister-counselor for economic affairs at the U.S. Embassy in London, who signed on behalf of the United States.
The Costa Rica agreement was signed November 26 and is a “Model 1A agreement,” meaning that the United States will also provide tax information to the Costa Rican government on Costa Rican citizens with accounts in the United States.
“Today’s signing marks a significant step forward in our efforts to work collaboratively to combat offshore tax evasion — an objective that mutually benefits both our countries,” said Gonzalo R. Gallegos, chargé d’affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Costa Rica, who signed on behalf of the United States.
In addition to the 12 FATCA agreements that have been signed to date, the Treasury Department said, it has also reached 16 agreements in substance and is engaged in related conversations with many more jurisdictions.
Newscast Media HOUSTON, Texas—Before I conclude this series, I would like to explain what a forensic audit is. A true forensic audit on any property will tell you if the underlying debt obligation was securitized and who the “holder in due course” or holder of the debt obligation is. If a property was purchased in cash, a forensic audit can still be done, because banks are known to seize properties that were paid in cash due to a broken chain of assignments, that led to a broken chain of title. It is important therefore even with a paid off property to make sure you have what is referred to as a clear title. Read this story about how a court authorized the house sale of a man in Florida who had paid cash and had no mortgage.
A clear title has no encumbrance on it, because prior to the sale of the property, the lien was perfected, or there were absolutely no clouds on the title. A perfected lien is one where the person who holds the deed of trust, also holds the note. If by any chance the person who holds or held the deed of trust is or was different from the one who holds or held the note, then you have a defect in title that can never be cured, because both instruments traveled on divergent paths. Even if you paid cash for it, someone five or ten years down the road who knows about the Law of Mortgages and trust law, can come back and sue for a “fraudulent conveyance.” For now, I will just stick to the topic of the Department of Justice and the SEC, including what I discovered during a forensic audit on some property.
After my investigative research was complete, I demonstrated using charts, that several SEC violations happened and trust laws were broken, and that the true owner of the securitized debt obligation was the Depository Trust Company the nominee of whom is CEDE & Company. The judge got scared and immediately sealed the case. In the end the bank walked away from the property out of fear of being charged with fraud by the SEC under Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 that states:
“It shall be unlawful for any person in the offer or sale of any securities or security-based swap agreement to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact.”
The untrue statements in this case were the ones the bank’s attorneys uttered in the court record, claiming the bank owned the debt obligation, and using those statements to unlawfully obtain a piece a property, and legal fees (money) as a result of representing the banks.
Also 17 C.F.R section 240.10b-5 states: “It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.
Because the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission know that military agents ultimately have the last word in these cases, and because such cases are very sophisticated even for experienced judges, who last went to school in the 70s or 80s before the creation of the Collateralized Debt Obligations in form of mortgage-backed securities, the SEC and DOJ are laying out the fraud and violations before these multi-national corporations, and are succeeding in settling out of court.
You probably are thinking how these military Judge Advocate Generals can control the outcome of a case if it is a trial by jury. Before a case goes to trial, the judge will determine whether it is frivolous, whether you have standing, whether there is enough evidence, and if he or she dismisses it, and it never goes to trial, hasn’t the judge controlled the outcome? We see criminal charges being dropped everyday because there was a mishandling in the chain of evidence or a witness disappeared, and such criminal cases remain unsolved and untried. We also see civil cases being dismissed for failure to state a claim under which relief may be granted, or lack of subject matter or jurisdiction. Isn’t the judge controlling the outcome?
Even when it does finally go to trial, we always hear about “mistrials” happening because of a “procedural” defect, technicality or one side files a “voluntary withdrawal” because the evidence is questionable. It only takes one stubborn juror to create a hung jury even when there is clear and convincing evidence that a crime was committed. If conviction requires a 10-2 vote and it is 9-2, that one juror can make the case go one way or the other, resulting in a mistrial or conviction.
In his farewell speech in January 1961 President Eisenhower warned us of the military industrial complex because of the potential of misplaced powers. Watch:
In the very last sentence, Eisenhower was talking about the military that secretly controls the outcome of every case: “The total influence, economic, political, even spiritual, is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal government. We must never let the weight of this combination
(Military Industrial Complex) endanger our liberties or democratic processes.”
Obama knows what is going on in the courts, being a lawyer himself. He knows the military flag is in every courtroom and church for a reason. He, together with the SEC are not taking any chances so they are winning cases outside court, before they even enter the courts. I believe the only reason John G. Roberts flipped and voted for Obamacare was maybe Obama had some dirt on him, like a tape or photos.
Secondly, companies are willing to settle outside court because they know that the shareholders and investors might start filing class action lawsuits and the prolonged litigation would definitely damage the company’s bottom line. The third and perhaps most important reason is the corporations do not want the IRS breathing down their necks. It would be hard to succeed against these federal alphabet agencies namely: the DOJ, SEC, IRS and risk also having the FBI join the party and start investigating criminal behavior of corporate executives. Right there you are going into RICO territory, and who wants that?
Above all, Obama’s Department of Justice and the SEC have succeeded in winning outside the courts, by getting off-the-record confessions after doing internal investigations with the help of whistleblowers, and offering immunity to corporations and executives who acknowledge that violations were made, but don’t have to admit to any wrongdoing.
How come you never hear the media tell people that every court is a profit-making business whose primary function is to sell securites in form of bundled up surety bonds on the secondary market? Because the corporate media is owned by the very corporations that trade the bonds and securities.
by Napp Nazworth
Newscast Media AUSTIN, Texas—The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill last week that seeks to end the practice of illegal immigrants getting child tax credit refunds. Attention was brought to the issue after an investigative report by a local television news station went viral on the Internet.
Illegal immigrants are fraudulently taking advantage of the federal income tax’s child tax credit to the tune of $4.2 billion per year, reported Bob Segall of WTHR, an NBC affiliate in Indianapolis, Ind., on April 26. Since even those who do not pay takes can receive the credit, illegal immigrants have found that they are able to receive $1,000 per child from the federal government by filing taxes.
In some cases, though, the fraud goes even further. Segall found cases in which undocumented immigrants were taking the tax credit for nieces and nephews for whom they are not legal guardians and do not live in the United States. Some received more than $10,000 from the federal government.
Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas) sponsored the measure that would no longer allow undocumented immigrants to take the credit. It was added to a bill passed Thursday that seeks to offset planned cuts to defense spending with cuts to other parts of the federal budget. Johnson’s measure would contribute $7.6 billion to the over $300 billion bill.
Johnson credited Segall’s reporting for bringing attention to the issue in his public remarks on the House floor.
“Right now those who are here illegally can get cash from Uncle Sam by providing an IRS-provided tax payer ID number to claim this refundable credit. Illegal immigrants have gone so far as to file tax returns claiming children who do not live in America, according to a recent report by NBC Indianapolis’ WTHR,” Johnson said.
The Internal Revenue Service sent a letter to WTHR explaining that it had no authority to deny the credit to undocumented workers because they are allowed to receive the credit under current law. Johnson’s measure would require a Social Security number in order to receive the credit.
Categories: News Tags: department of homeland security, ICE, immigration and customs enforcement, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Immigration law, immigration lawyers, INS, internal revenue service, irs, us citizenship, US green card, US temporary work visa, US work visa
Newscast Media — In yet another endeavor to discourage the practice, the Internal Revenue Service has changed the rules regarding whistleblowing. When whistleblowers furnish the IRS with information that enables them to recover tax funds, the whistleblower is entitled to up to 30 percent of the money. However, some whistleblowers have complained that even after the IRS recovers these monies, they are given the cold shoulder by the agency.
Congress has called on the agency to reward whistleblowers on the premise that this is their greatest hope of infiltrating tax-evasion schemes, but a new change in the IRS manual may do more to discourage informants than encourage them. It was whistleblowers who helped the U.S. government get a $780 million settlement from Switzerland’s largest bank UBS, which admitted to helping U.S. citizens hide money from the IRS.
The updated manual says that a whistleblower gets nothing if instead of yielding a payment to the IRS, the tip stops a refund or reduces a credit. This has prompted Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, to call on the Treasury Department to delay implementation of the updated manual.
In a June 21, letter to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, whose department includes the IRS, Grassley said, “I have serious concerns that the new Internal Revenue Manual provisions will deter whistleblowers from filing claims. The decision to overrule the independent whistleblower office was contrary to law.”
The IRS refuses to answer questions about the updated manual, but in a two sentence response said, “The senior leadership of the Internal Revenue Service believes that the Whistleblower provisions are an important and valuable tax administration tool that can help to improve tax compliance. We are fully committed to using these provisions for the benefit of all taxpayers in this country who pay the taxes they owe.” http://newscastmedia.com/irs.htm