RSS Feed
Miami, FL - Swiss Bank Must Give Names of 52,000 Suspected Tax Cheats |
|
| |
Published on:
Jun 30, 2009 at 02:46 PM
News Source: AP
Text Size
|
Advertisement:
A court filing in Miami urges U.S. District Judge Alan S. Gold to enforce a summons against UBS seeking the identities of about 52,000 people. U.S. officials say those are mostly wealthy Americans who used secret UBS accounts to hide income from the Internal Revenue Service.
UBS has claimed it cannot disclose the names without violating Swiss law. But U.S. officials say foreign law and tax treaties do not shield U.S. taxpayers from liability. The court filing says UBS “systematically and deliberately violated” U.S. laws.
More of today's headlines
“Albany, NY - The sales tax increase the city needs to balance its budget hit a huge road block in the form of Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. The measure, which is being carried...”
Albany, NY - NYC Sales Tax Derailed; Sen. Diaz: Bloomberg Should Use His Own Money to Balance The Budget
Minnesota - State Supreme Court Rules for Al Franken In U.S. Senate Race
Total12
Read Comments (12) — Post Yours »
1
Jun 30, 2009 at 03:13 PM Anonymous Says:
I always thought that if they could just catch all the rich tax cheats, maybe they could lower everybody's taxes....
2
Jun 30, 2009 at 03:40 PM apples Says:
Thats not fair at all and the united states has to consider the policies of switzerlands banking which is to be private.some of my swiss friends are afraid of this since the entire swiss economy runs around the banking and this can seriously pull it down.why do we americans have TO take down the world with us?
3
Jun 30, 2009 at 04:41 PM A Says:
“ Thats not fair at all and the united states has to consider the policies of switzerlands banking which is to be private.some of my swiss friends are afraid of this since the entire swiss economy runs around the banking and this can seriously pull it down.why do we americans have TO take down the world with us? ”
If these tax-evading American citizens would be honest about their income this wouldn't be happening. They want to benefit from the advantages of living in this country but they don't want to pay for it. Instead they prefer to put the burden on the shoulders of middle-income citizens who don't have the wherewithal to hide their assets and therefore end up paying far more in taxes than they should.
4
Jun 30, 2009 at 05:50 PM Schweizer loelli Says:
Not to worry. The US prisons are not able to accommodate 52,000 new inmates.
5
Jun 30, 2009 at 08:05 PM Anonymous Says:
“ Thats not fair at all and the united states has to consider the policies of switzerlands banking which is to be private.some of my swiss friends are afraid of this since the entire swiss economy runs around the banking and this can seriously pull it down.why do we americans have TO take down the world with us? ”
You lost it, and you have Swiss friends who understand the countries economy and they discussed the issues with YOU, wow you must be former Senator Graham lobbyist for UBS the banks how profited handsomely from the Jewish plight during the Nazis era
6
Jun 30, 2009 at 09:33 PM poshite yid Says:
does this mean i'll get my zeidy's money back plus 65 years of interest?
7
Jul 01, 2009 at 12:30 AM me Says:
Let me understand this. When there is no doubt to the original ownership of Lubavitch seferim in Russia and an American court rules they must be returned, Russia says stick it where the sun don't shine, you ave no jurisdiction. But When the US courts infringe on the banking protocol of a foreign country the ruling must be upheld?
8
Jul 01, 2009 at 08:19 AM Anonymous Says:
“ Let me understand this. When there is no doubt to the original ownership of Lubavitch seferim in Russia and an American court rules they must be returned, Russia says stick it where the sun don't shine, you ave no jurisdiction. But When the US courts infringe on the banking protocol of a foreign country the ruling must be upheld? ”
Chuchem, Russia has no library here in America where those seforim books were deposited, so they can say "USA bud out". However, UBS has offices here, take deposits here, so they must abide by, and live up to US banking law or pack up and leave...............
9
Jul 01, 2009 at 09:29 AM Yossi Says:
Oy Vey....If i knew this 35 years ago i would of given all my surplus money for yeshivas,tzedukes,and Gemilas chasudim.....I stacked it all away for my grand children and yorshim....Now it will all be disclosed and Uncle Sam will take me to the cleaners......Misser Haskel....If you do NOT give your charity hashem takes it all back
10
Jul 01, 2009 at 10:00 AM Anonymous Says:
“ Chuchem, Russia has no library here in America where those seforim books were deposited, so they can say "USA bud out". However, UBS has offices here, take deposits here, so they must abide by, and live up to US banking law or pack up and leave............... ”
If you want to be "legal" about it, UBS doesn't have any offices here. Neither do Israeli Banks like Leumi (contrary to what all Israelis think when they show up at Bank Leumi in Manhattan and ask to write a US Dollar check, or withdraw money).
Banks in the USA, as per FDIC regulations and certification, are USA companies which are wholly owned subsidiaries, although not directly connected to any overseas "parent" institution. If you are the 52,000 people in the article, you definitely cannot withdraw or deposit to or from your account in the USA. If you can, then you are not those 52,000 people, and instead are a normal American customer of UBS USA LLC, which is a totally seperate financial institution.
Just like if you have a credit card issued by Barclays Delaware LLC (issuer of millions of Visa cards in the USA) you cannot show up in a Barclays Bank in London and make any deposit or withdrawl - you are not their customer and do not have a record in their system.
11
Jul 01, 2009 at 11:47 AM Anonymous Says:
“ If you want to be "legal" about it, UBS doesn't have any offices here. Neither do Israeli Banks like Leumi (contrary to what all Israelis think when they show up at Bank Leumi in Manhattan and ask to write a US Dollar check, or withdraw money).
Banks in the USA, as per FDIC regulations and certification, are USA companies which are wholly owned subsidiaries, although not directly connected to any overseas "parent" institution. If you are the 52,000 people in the article, you definitely cannot withdraw or deposit to or from your account in the USA. If you can, then you are not those 52,000 people, and instead are a normal American customer of UBS USA LLC, which is a totally seperate financial institution.
Just like if you have a credit card issued by Barclays Delaware LLC (issuer of millions of Visa cards in the USA) you cannot show up in a Barclays Bank in London and make any deposit or withdrawl - you are not their customer and do not have a record in their system. ”
You are missing the point the US could force the US subsidiary not to do any business with their own home office, or any US charter bank from doing business with USB in Switzerland that is the way they forced them to revel the accounts
12
Jul 01, 2009 at 02:33 PM Isaac R. Sacks Says:
“ You are missing the point the US could force the US subsidiary not to do any business with their own home office, or any US charter bank from doing business with USB in Switzerland that is the way they forced them to revel the accounts ”
Understand the law first. Then understand the US branches of government, and also read up on what the case is about.
You say "the US could force the US subsidiary not to do any business with their own home office.." First of all, the whole point of being an independently registered US Bank, and regulated by the FDIC, is that they do not do business with their "own home office". Get this correct - UBS in this country is its own bank. It's not a branch.
Also, you are implying Treasury Department and Federal Reserve and Clearing Bank rules - this is not connected to any of those, nor falls under those jurisdictions. It is not a concern of (nor being pursued by) the Department of the Treasury. It is a law suit brought (in a US court) by the Department of Justice, for violation of US Laws, since they accuse the bank in Switzerland of violating American Law.
Whether they (the US DOJ) even has jurisdiction to enforce such a ruling, is what the subject of the debate is, between the 2 governments. If the two countries didn't have diplomatic relations, Switzerland would simply say "ok, thanks for your opinion, how interesting for you" and tell them to take a hike.
That's what happened in cases brought in the USA regarding companies/organizations in Cuba, Iraq, and Libya - when each did not have diplomatic relations with the USA. There were no diplomats to expel, and no bi-lateral treaties to threaten to cancel or to revoke.
UBS maintains that an American court cannot tell a Swiss company what it can or cannot do, unless it is in violation of some international law, or global treaty, or UN regulation. Especially, if adhering to what the DOJ is asking would actually violate Swiss law itself.
Please grasp the underlying legal story, and comprehend what this is all about (and why it is being argued for months after a federal court already made a ruling) before saying "you are missing the point".