Should the President of the United States have a Swiss bank account?

OUTING ALERT: YankeeFan is the new basketball coach at SMU!

 

Yeah, peopl put their money in Cayman Island banks because the ATMs are a lot nicer

 

I posted this earlier, but here's a Bloomberg story from yesterday about Rand Paul stepping in to stop a long-negotiated treaty between the U.S. and Switzerland about handing over data regarding possible American tax dodgers.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-29/rand-paul-seeks-to-block-tax-treaty-change-on-swiss-accounts.html

Senator Rand Paul is blocking an amendment to a U.S.-Swiss tax treaty, slowing Switzerland’s handover of data on thousands of Americans with bank accounts hidden from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

The protocol, negotiated in September 2009, would amend a 1996 treaty and make it more difficult for Switzerland to refuse requests from the IRS for tax information about U.S. customers of Swiss banks. The U.S. is cracking down on secret accounts held by its citizens at UBS AG (UBSN), Credit Suisse AG (CSGN), Wegelin & Co. and other financial institutions.

...

Under the current treaty, the Swiss can grant a U.S. request seeking data on a taxpayer suspected of “tax fraud and the like,” which involves acts such as using false documents or third parties to disguise account ownership. The Swiss won’t hand over data if taxpayers are suspected of evasion, a view upheld April 5 by the Swiss Federal Administrative Court.

The new U.S.-Swiss protocol includes language that would prevent Swiss officials from denying an information request on the grounds that it would violate domestic bank-secrecy laws. The protocol would allow the U.S. to request account data without specifying taxpayers by name.


Ragu is arguing that these accounts are illegal and therefore not worth considering. I am arguing that regardless of the literal definition of their legality, they are not being investigated or prosecuted, which makes them in effect legal. And that's why people do it.

 

I thought "dishonorable" was the Tebow/Orton line.

 

I've posted the article about Swiss banks twice now. Read it or don't. Your choice.

Regarding the Cayman Islands, here is an article from the New York Times in February:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/politics/romneys-returns-revive-scrutiny-of-offshore-tax-shelters.html?pagewanted=all

The technique in question allows nonprofit institutions and large retirement funds to exploit the advantages of shell companies set up in tax havens like the Cayman Islands by investing money with private equity firms like Bain Capital, which Mr. Romney ran. Ordinarily, such private equity investments are frequently subject to something called the unrelated business income tax. But by going offshore, pension funds, universities, foundations and even large individual retirement accounts can structure those investments to avoid that heavy tax.

The technique has drawn bipartisan scrutiny from the Senate Finance Committee, complicating the confirmation of one of President Obama’s nominees, drawing negative attention to a Republican Treasury official and eliciting scathing criticism of a well-known charity, the Boys & Girls Clubs of America. The committee’s chairman, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, and its former ranking Republican, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, have moved to make it illegal.

Tax experts and former Finance Committee staff members say that Mr. Romney’s I.R.A. appears to have used the technique, and that he may have benefited personally.

I don't know. It's a common technique that is the subject of a Congressional investigation. Sounds pretty well-known to me.

 

I was just thinking, Obama does have some money, and in probably far more easily accessible accounts. How come Malia and Sasha haven't asked to borrow some to start a business?

 

http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=156395,00.html

 

No, Ragu's arguing that that's not availing oneself of obvious tax advantages, that's breaking the law. You're arguing -- or at least implying -- that because such accounts can be used to circumvent tax law, it must be the case that anyone using such an account would be doing so for that reason.

 

So you're right and the New York Times and those Republican and Democratic senators are wrong. OK.

I said nothing about morality or even legality. You asked what the tax advantages are. The advantages are many. Unless the Times article -- specifically the part saying Mr. Romney’s I.R.A. appears to have used the technique, and that he may have benefited personally -- is wrong.

 

I think Mitt needs to come clean and show how much of his money is in American banks and how much of it rests offshore. Same goes for his wife.

He also needs to list the organizations these offshore accounts are representing.

He wants to be the POTUS. The people have the right to know this.