As I said in my original post only very stupid people think that tax authorities are stupid, so there is a need to be sensible when choosing not to be a taxpayer.

On the subject of Canada....is it likely they would 'sell' a province? ..would probably be worth asking, but if they do then put me down to relocate there! 

On election day...tick the LIBERTARIANZ box...

are like ass holes. Everyone seems to have one and none of them smell too pretty.

Seriously, the IRS tax code calls income tax voluntary. Right there, in black and white in the code.

Know what happens to everyone who refuses to pay the voluntary tax? That's right. Jail. Fines. Penalties. Seizure of property. Freezing of all assets. Raids by Federal agents.

These are angry hogs feeding at the trough and they are not going to let a little thing like the law get in the way. That's why there needs to be an entirely new system.

A new start. A fresh nation, conceived in Liberty and Dedicated to the ideal that all men are equal in the eyes of the law.

Where the values and rights of all men, enshrined in the Constitution, may never be infringed. Where small government and smaller taxes reign. Where indivduals are left to enjoy their profit.

Where honesty, integrity, hard work and talent are revered and the social safety nets amount to a mere life preserver for those who are legitimately in danger of drowning.

NZ is lost. USA is lost. There are no refuges, no safe havens from the tyrrany of the Statists and Socialists and collectivists. We must make one.

Canada strikes me as maybe the only nation in the world apt to sell a fledgling nation some land and leave it alone. Generally cold, but close enough for Americans to get to easily. It has to be less desirable land to get reasonably and to ensure we are not invaded virtually immediately.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

My thoughts on 'tax evasion' are that it is rather like describing the installation of a burglar alarm as "Burglar Evasion".

To do something just because it is legal is silly...gassing Jews was legal about 65 years ago in Poland.

I am inclined to think that if someone moved to another Country....Australia or the UK for instance, and made use of modern technology; and simply did not fill out any forms to register with Government agencies, then in the computer age if you do not appear on the Government's computers then you do not exist (if that makes sense).

I believe you could move to Sydney tomorrow, make yourself millions and not appear on any radar except foolishly/voluntarily.

Even if you did voluntarily (and it amounts to that) did decide to fill out a lot of forms you still have nothing to worry about.

I say that because a good friend of mine works for the ATO in Sydney and unlike the New Zealand IRD they only employ about a dozen tax inspectors to cover the entire State! ... therefore the chances of ever being audited are (effectively) nil and businessmen can simply write down whatever they like on company and personal tax returns as no one will ever read them, let alone check.

The reason there are so few tax inspectors is because the Sydney business community has been very proactive for years....whenever some corporate is audited they simply offer the auditor a job at a much larger salary! ..(and his mates, too!)...therefore every few months there is a complete cleanout of tax inspectors in Sydney and the ATO has to go through the hassle of employing new staff and going back to uncompleted audits, whereby the new staff are offered jobs....etc...etc

Apparently it is a foolproof system and has worked splendidly for about 10 years.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

Very long story on the $30k trust. I certainly feel the concurrent large capital gain I got from the sale of some other property had something to do with the size of the bill. At that time I was involved in so many disputes that starting to argue with the 3rd lawyer (got rid of first two) seemed too depressing a prospect.

The fact that I've felt it necessary to get legally qualified just to avoid those sharks is an indictment on the "profession".

Still, the sun is shining in Sumner today so life's not all bad.

I'm suggesting the optimum level of tax avoidance aimed at the IRD by "legal" cross-border arrangements.

Tax forces the hand.

On a different track, I bet there are bloodstock investors making a lot of money thanks to Winston Peters allowing them to write down stock over two years, down from (I think) six. Suddenly they would have landed a windfall. The horses are still earning and effectively become gifts?

Anyway, you're the accountant - not me. (No idea)

Um, Gregster, how does that actually change the dollar profit you pay tax on?

All you've done is put yourself in front of the SFO for fraud vis a vis your shareholders, although if talking about inflated assets, your creditors and most certainly your banks. Deceiving your business partners like this is unethical and completely shabby. I certainly wouldn't do business with you. Or Elijah.

The minute you leave what is legal, you're out on a very, very stupid limb; in relation to both criminal charges to destroy your life with, and with a punitive tax penalty system (150% of the tax amount as penalty, plus interest currently at 14.28%), the prospect of certain ruination of your business. Dumb way to run a business, good way to become an insomniac, and a ward of the State. The only reasonable solution, for those that want to live by reason, is political change. Bucking the system in ways suggested here is not 'brave', it's just bloody stupid (in that it is self-destructive ultimately).

I came to it from the beginning you have to, on these business matters, follow the rules of the land, but just be very outspoken. And even that can bring trouble on your head.

[Tim, $30,000 for a Trust set up? What were you thinking?]

By the way, NZ's Agenda program this morning; Bruce Sheppard, and his crossing of swords with Chris Trotter, was superb, and a great example of what I mean above: follow the rules, be outspoken ... I'll put a link up when it becomes available on TVOnDemand.

to having read the Winebox book. Have you read that Eli? (take Wishart's word at your own risk). Many loopholes will have been closed but with the advice from private experts, who would be more agile than the Govt's men, there will still be schemes surely?

What comes to mind would be to artificially inflate one's investments (over-value them) through companies, in concert, to reduce the apparent profitability.

It is possible to hold bearer shares rather than registered shares in some countries. Only problem being that you're in trouble if you lose the paper.

The problem with the advice is that is doesn't solve the issue of avoiding tax. It is perhaps a nicer way of evading tax. Evasion is a very risky proposition albeit morally justified. As a chartered accountant I would be risking more than the fines.

If I was in the position of having a lot of capital and really didn't want to pay tax I would spread it around the globe into different Trusts (which are usually seen as completely separate to the Settlor). I would also own a few cash businesses as it looks to me that most such operators take about 20% of the top - which causes valuation problems when they come to sell!

I did set up a trust once and the lawyers charged me $30,000 for the job. Someone else I know paid $600 for an essentially similar thing. Point is: keep your schemes simple because the tax department aren't the only guys that want a piece of the action.

Not so much spitballing Elijah, as spewing forth patronising bullshit.

".. I simply do not believe the company formation documents don’t include shareholder information, or similar.."

I, of course, have absolutely no knowledge of Delaware company law...but if I did...(which I do not)...it is possible it is like that...the one question which is not asked, which is why a Delaware Limited Liability Company is the investment entity of choice for rich British, Europeans and Russians.

Splendid chaps in Delaware.

"..The NZ Income Tax Act leaves nowhere to hide.."

Oh dear...gosh...no one tells me anything

Forgive me for suggesting this, Mark, but...is it vaguely possible...(and I am just spitballing here)...your clients are..ummmm..."sit up straight, do as you are told, fill out forms and if you don't you are gonna get a massive walloping" sort of chaps?

Chaps without the imagination or balls to simply do as they please in life without ticking boxes or volunteering information as required. In triplicate.

The sort of chaps you could pass a law saying they had to root a possum every Tuesday at precisely 11:32am and they would do it?

(Just a thought)

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

Well, I had a look Elijah. Note to self: never take tax advice from Elijah, for I will end up in tax prison.

Surely you are forgetting here that NZ has one of the most aggressive international tax regimes in the OECD?

For a NZ tax resident (individual) there is no such thing as a ‘tax haven’, so we can cross off the Cayman Island, et al route, regardless. NZ tax residents must return their worldwide income to Inland Revenue, whether it is repatriated to this country or not. Various double tax agreements decide which country has the ultimate right to tax, the other country allowing, often, credits for tax if paid overseas, but you having to then pay any difference if NZ has the higher personal rates. The only way to avoid this legally is to become a tax exile, which includes being out of the country for the day counting rules (325 days), plus having no ‘permanent place of abode’ left in NZ: a permanent place of abode is most surely a house, but could be something as simple as an enduring presence via a series of bank accounts.

Regarding the company as you describe it, that would most certainly be a Controlled Foreign Company (CFC), and as such must elect one of four methods to account for all profits back in NZ, basically as if it was doing business in NZ. Your interests in such a company would easily be determined, I would imagine, by a market value circumstance; I simply do not believe the company formation documents don’t include shareholder information, or similar. There must be some way to determine ownership, or if you’re saying no, why would you want to invest in company when you couldn’t prove ownership, thus any right to profits, or company assets on liquidation?

I’m no NZ international tax expert, I refer all such queries on to Deloittes, but can assure you this one ain’t gonna be a runner. The NZ Income Tax Act leaves nowhere to hide, with the only change possible being political; that’s if you value the limited freedom we are still allowed.