A Press investigation?
October 31st, 2006 at 6:26 am by David FarrarI am somewhat bemused with this article in The Press about how some drug dealers pay tax to thr IRD, but the IRD doesn’t pass their info onto the Police.
We are told:
A Press investigation has revealed a “secrecy provision” in tax laws prevents the disclosure of taxpayer information, whether income is legal or not
Well I’ve been aware of this secrecy provision for 25 years or so, as have most NZers I suspect. Claiming this is somehow new information found as part of an investigation is a bit like claiming an investigation has found that doctors are bound by patient confidentialy obligations.
Related posts:
- The Press on ACC
- SFO announces SCF now under investigation
- The nonsense about prejudicing a police investigation
- The PM can not open a Police investigation!
October 31st, 2006 at 7:47 am
The IRD has an illegal business untit that deals with these types of people. The Crown considers it more in the public interest to get the money than to administer justice. I find this extraordinary frankly. They can always disgorge money from these people in due course.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 7:59 am
DPF,
Just quickly off-topic.
There is a new Tui billboard down Taranaki street (just past the bypass roadworks).
Changing the law makes it okay.
Yeah right.
Nice one!!
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 8:12 am
“The Crown considers it more in the public interest to get the money than to administer justice”
The problem is, of course, that it’s getting easier to take tax money from NZers because sucessive governments have demonstrably got better through practice. By contrast they’ve got progressively worse at limiting crime and dealing with criminals
Tax payers are a profit centre (actually a bottomless pit of plunderable wealth). Criminals are a cost centre. The government’s focus reflect this.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 8:45 am
No doubt there are reasons for the IRD being indifferent to legality of operations they tax. For example:
1. personal safety – IRD staff who are not trained to defend themselves are not put in a position of being legal arbiters and can focus simply on doing their job.
2. The task of deciding what operation is legal and what is not is in the hands of the police. They have the expertise and the training while IRD staff do not and may wrongly identify.
IRD staff probably have as much power to deal with an illegal operation as you or I, unless of course it has to do with tax legislation.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 9:11 am
…all of which was frontpage news, numerous times, already in 1999, with the FEC special inquiry into the powers and operations of the IRD….
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 9:14 am
Laws that allow drug dealers to file tax returns are only on the statutes for one reason – so that the legal profession can have a good laugh at us!
Bit like “concurrent sentencing” – it started as a joke in the boys club and now its standard practice.
Are we a pack of sub-protozoan noddys or what?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 10:02 am
What a joke. Bust them and take it all under the proceeds of crimes act.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 10:17 am
The Tui billboard is hillarious. More so because it can apply to both election overspending and New Zealand’s binge drinking culture. I wonder which meaning was intended by the author. Any thoughts?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 10:23 am
Thoss poor hard working drug dealers having their hard earned profits stolen by Helen Clark and her cronies, perhaps they should all donate some cash to National to get a tax cut?
Don’t worry lads, they can assure you that your name will never be revealed (nudge nudge)
s
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 10:29 am
What about that Whitakers advert they were too PC to play much during the last election. You know the one where the candidate comes to the door and promises to screw you for the next 3 years?
I’d pay for an mp3 of that one if anyone’s got it – please
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:02 am
The crown is earning income from crime. Were I to do this I would become an accessory to crime and rightly suffer the consequences. Should the government (any government) be treated differently? Any government of integrity would abandon this source of income and double it’s attempts to curb the crime itself.
Sonic – your ‘abolish anonymity’ crusade is rather like “flogging a dead horse” (oh dear… foxes, sharks and now horses. Call the SPCA!).
All the bitching about so-called big business attempting to influence the way this country is run is breathtakingly hypocritical. Our government is the biggest business by a factor of ten? twenty?.
It enjoys, and changes at its leisure, the rules by which it can operate and compete for income. Its income is generated via legislating taxation on the earnings of ordinary hard-working NZers together with tax-sourced income from drugs (alcohol, tobacco, illicit) and gambling. The latter two create income today and medical & social chaos tomorrow.
So… income and power today in exchange for chaos tomorrow that can be spun as reasons for increasing taxation. Man, we’ve all been sucked in badly!
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:03 am
Sounds like one of those stories that tend to happen on slow news days.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:25 am
Good to see Andrew sticking up for hard working, middle New Zealand, drug pushers and their god-given right to donate as much money as they wish to National without their names being disclosed.
A man of principle!
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:35 am
sonic fires from the hip again and shoots himself in the foot.
Sonic, do you know there is a connection between unemployment, low income, drug use and drug sales. How many times do we hear about tinnie houses being busted in Epsom compared to Otara.
So it’s more likely that Labour is the one who is receiving anon donations from drug dealers.
Never let the facts stand in the way of a good partisan rant eh sonic. A man of no principal, no intelligence and no concern for reality.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:37 am
Sonic, a rebuttal and attempted topic shift of lower quality than usual. Shame on you!
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:38 am
Well Burt there is an easy solution to irresponsible blog commentators questioning the source of National’s millions.
Open the books.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:48 am
Great idea sonic, I think it’s outrageous that we don’t know how much tax payer money has been swept under the rug by the corrupt validating legislation. I’m not too concerned about who donated what, but it would be interesting.
The unions might have a fit about it though, their members don’t all know and most likely didn’t agree to pay their hard earned money to labour in the form of taxes and union fees.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:52 am
The fact that drug dealers exist confirms that their taxes are wasted, just like ours are – poured into the political/judicial elite’s feeding trough instead of fighting crime.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Lets open all the books then Burt, then everyone would know what was going on.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 12:09 pm
porcupine said
“The fact that drug dealers exist confirms that their taxes are wasted”
I disagree, it shows that Govt policy makes certain people rich. Folk like drugs, there is nothing new here. It takes no more effort to grow a good crop of hooch than a good crop of Tomatoes. One sells for a few dollars a kilo and the other for a few thousand. This is Govt policy in action.
The most noticable effect from prohabition is the wealth it gives to the gangs and the amount of Police/Court time it consumes.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 12:12 pm
To: All Counter-Rightwing Blog Staff
From: Spin Central – Helengrad
Date 31-Oct-2006 09:00am
Subject: Daily Tactics
Our strategists believe that the public have a morbid fear of big business. To feed this fear, and to bolster our flagging public support, we have decided to start suggesting to the public at large that National is somehow accepting money in return for policy.
We want the nation to cry out for an ‘opening of the books’ on party political funding. God forbid that this should actually happen! Can you imagine the outcry if Unions were forced to disclose to their members how their subs were spent. And we have a raft of anonymous donations that we never want exposed to public scrutiny — ever!
This said, beating the drums a bit might help divert attention from many of the real issues that those patsy right wing bloggers seem unwilling to let go.
Sonic will take the lead while the rest keep a measured distance. We don’t want our co-ordinated efforts exposed as such.
Our glorious leader has expressed personal interest in this activity… so get to it.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Oh yes, from the governments point of view the taxes are not wasted at all – it creates massive employment – that was my point; and unemployment kills governments faster than a homicidal maniac can get out on bail.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Bugger the drug dealers. How about the prostitutes and pimps?
I’m sure its six of one/half dozen of the other, with prostitutes only earning $18K a year and paying tax on only that.
Vote:YEAH RIGHT!
October 31st, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Andrew is pulling the “it is a vast conspiracy theme” truly, truly desperate stuff. Indeed so desperate he has now posted it twice!
Anyway while we are on the subject of taxation, does anyone know if donations to “trusts” are tax deductable?
ie is the New Zealand taxpayer helping to fund these anonymous donations via tax breaks?
That would be interesting wouldn’t it.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 12:59 pm
speaking of tax sonic,
Section CB 28 of the Income Tax Act 2004 (corresponding provision CD 6 Income Tax Act 1994) to ensure victims’ rights to restitution are not jeopardised.
This section provides that if a person obtains property without claim of right, the market value of that property is income of the person.
There you go, not only did the retrospective legislation keep the corrupt parties from facing Darnton in court, it probably saved them a massive tax bill as well.
Huh, shot in the foot again sonic. Do you wear shoes or is it just a bugger to get them washed when they are covered in blood all the time.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Burt, why are you so desperate to change the subject?
It is not as of we have not discussed the whole pledge card issue before now is it?
You seem to be scared stiff of discussing the source of National’s millions, so scared you are embarrassing yourself with crude attempts to talk about something, anything else.
Why is that Burt?
What have National got to hide Burt?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:39 pm
No idea sonic, I don’t support National.
National can’t introduce and pass retrospective legislation to hide the full extent of their activities so it should be easy for you to do something about it.
If you set up a web site;
sonic vs Brash – I’ll chip the same size donation I gave to Darnton.
Unlike yourself it’s not a partisan issue for me. I do agree with you that it’s interesting
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Sonic said: Anyway while we are on the subject of taxation, does anyone know if donations to “trusts” are tax deductible? ie is the New Zealand taxpayer helping to fund these anonymous donations via tax breaks
No idea but, I’m sure a tax specialist could offer advice on this. The wording of your second question suggests an assumption that everything should be taxed, and therefore anything that does not generate income for the state business is somehow subsidised by it. Odd.
You only have one type of bullet today Sonic. You’ve fired it so many times that it’s well worn out. Get a new one.
As for anyone attempting to change the subject, I’d venture that we have learned from the master – you!
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Sonic:
Donations for individuals are not tax deductible but an individual can claim a rebate up to a value of $630 under section KC5 as long as the donation is made for a charitable purpose etc. There is a list of approved organisations in the Income Tax Act that have donee status, thus allowing an individual to claim a rebate. I have had a quick look through the list and political parties are not listed and neither are the so called secret trusts such as the Waitemata (?) Trust.
Companies that are not close companies (unless listed) can claim a deduction for donations as long as they are of the same type where an individual can claim a rebate.
So to me it would appear donors to political parties won’t get a rebate or a deduction. Sonic, the NZ taxpayer won’t be funding the donations.
Cheers!
Marcus
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 2:14 pm
It’s a simple question Andrew. If donating through a trust gives businesses a tax advantage that might explain why 92% of National’s funding comes via that source.
Is anyone a tax lawer?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 2:30 pm
sonic
You clearly don’t like the facts. Even if a company did get a tax benefit from a donation to a political party, effectively 1/3 of the donation would be being paid by the tax payer, which is 2/3 less than Labour’s (previously illegal) funding mechanism.
Don’t be silly now sonic, understand how tax works before you say it’s OK to steal it, but not OK to minimise how much you pay using knowledge of the law.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Yeah I am Sonic. If you want more detailed advice flick me an email and I will be happy to bill you for it. Money up front of course!
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 2:51 pm
“if a company did get a tax benefit from a donation to a political party, effectively 1/3 of the donation would be being paid by the tax payer”
Thanks Burt, that is going to make a great point. I can see the story now
“It was revealed yesterday New Zealand taxpayers spent (insert large $ figure here) to pay for National’s billboards at the last election.
An embattled Don Brash has so far not responded to demands that his party pay it back.”
Thanks for the offer Marcus but it looks like Burt has answered the question for free!
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Believe it or not there is actually a network of ethical dealers out there who grow to supply people who are responsible users (or even medicinal users) who are over 18. These people believe that they should pay taxes on their income and are happy to do so. Their only problem is that the government has a dumb ass law that favours the global alcohol industry…
Personally I think the people who actually declare illegal income so they can pay tax on it should be applauded. But I guess not many people here would agree with me.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Sonic – you have completely missed the point. Under the Income Tax Act I do not believe donations to political parties will qualify as either a rebate for an individual or a deduction for a company. The legislation looks pretty clear to me.
Conversely if we take your argument the same applys to Labour (and other political parties):
“It was revealed yesterday New Zealand taxpayers spent (insert large $ figure here) to pay for Labours’s billboards at the last election.
An embattled Helen Clark has so far not responded to demands that his party pay it back.”
Hold on, didn’t that happen with the bus shelter ads already?
Cheers!
Marcus
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Thanks Marcus, however these donations were not made dierctly to a political party but to a “Trust”
Does that change the picture at all?
As for Labour, if they have done the same thing then nail them as well I say.
Here are the trust figures
Buddle Findlay Trust Account $25,000
Jones Young Trust Account $100,000
Russell McVeagh Trust Account $50,000.00
The Ruahine Trust $249,948
The Waitemata Trust $1,254,845
Toll Holdings Ltd $25,000
A total of $1,704,793
Interesting round numbers from the first three.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Oh BTW Labour figure from anonyous donations was $315,000 however no “Trusts” are listed.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Please don’t feed the troll. Sonic is either Helen Clark or her stalker.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Sonic, I don’t actually think you read my first post properly as I did comment on this. To the best of my knowledge none of those “trusts” are listed as donee organisations in the Income Tax Act, meaning that an inidividual would not be able to claim a rebate on any donation to them. The Waitemata Trust is certainly not listed as a charity in the charities list either.
So my opinion doesn’t change.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 3:27 pm
Thanks again Marcus, I’ve been looking online for that list but so far no luck.
I assume it is public?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Should be. Try the IRD website.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Sonic – there are also a number of cases that state a political purpose is not charitable. I just can’t see the argument you are trying to run re taxpayers funding donations made to political parties is going to fly here.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Perhaps not Marcus, I’ll have to do a bit of digging.
The big issue is still the sheer volume of anonymous donations.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Is it just me or does anyone else think it’s ridiculous for SONIC to say that anonymity is a bad thing and then sign his posts with a non de plume?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 4:47 pm
I have my reasons to remain nameless spector, good reasons. Surely that does not stop me from wondering what good reason to remain nameless National party donors have now does it?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 4:59 pm
I think you’ll find that National party donors want to stay anonymous for the same reasons that you do sonic. That’s my point.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 5:01 pm
You have not the slightest idea why I need to stay anonymous Spector, so no I do not see your point at all.
Tell you what though, next time I spend a million bucks trying to buy an election, as opposed to posting comments on a blog, I’ll be sure to do it under my own name.
Happy now?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 5:26 pm
And you don’t have the slightest idea why National party donors want to stay anonymous either Sonic.
To suggest that their anonymity hides evil intent is as ludicrous as suggesting that your own anonymity hides the fact that you’re actually Helen Clark. It could be true but it probably isn’t.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 6:53 pm
By the way what is the name of the Bill Gates Trust? . I bet its not ” Seattle Trust”.
Vote:The real reason the large amounts are anon or secret is that it serves the interest of the political party.
They can say we didnt do such and such because of a donation when wwe dont know the name of the donor to link to the action.
Labour obviously does things for the Unions and National would do the reverse for big employers.
October 31st, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Funny that left always have good reasons for anonymity but right never do; left never have conspiracies but right always do.
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Just out of interest… who exactly are the “Big Businesses” that some people are worried about? And what exactly do they have to gain from National?
Is it Foodtown? Is it Fletchers? 42 Below? The Warehouse?
I be interested to know what people think the pay off is. It must be more than just tax breaks because even Labour are offering those now, so what is it?
Vote:October 31st, 2006 at 11:48 pm
They’ve shown themselves completely incapable of identifying these mythical “big businesses” or “wealthy capitalists” that they love to hate. See their blogs for confirmation. They can’t tackle many of the elite in this country because they rely on them for votes. The proof of the pudding is who do they tax ths shit out of? Middle-kiwi of course. My father always told me we’d get hammered. Dont you just hate it when your father is right?
PS: PC speak for wealthy business types that ore on their side is “venture capitalists” and “entrepeunueruueureres”.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 12:13 am
I also saw that the government has dropped some legislation to seize more criminal assetts. This government doesn’t seem to want to do anything constructive about law enforcement unless a coalition partner forces them to.
They should have a look at the Irish Criminal Assets Bureau that has draws staff from the An Gardai Siochana (the Irish police), the Irish tax department, Social Welfare and Customs Service to draw info from every possible source and then use it to go after criminal money. From memory they seized over 100 million euros in their first 10 years of operations.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 8:26 am
This just goes to show that what’s legal and what’s right need have no relationship when you’re a govt and there’s money to be had. You people agruing left and right politics are missing the point but Sonic in particular sucks – he? defends anything left. Jesus spent time with tax collectors as they were seen as a particularly low form of life needing redemption. There’s a great story about Jesus selecting a tax collector for a conversion experience. That he did so isn’t surprising as you get the biggest impact by selecting someone seen (by Jesus as well) as needing particular attention because of their job.
Vote:This should tell us something.
IRD. Its our job to be fair.
Yeah, right.
November 1st, 2006 at 8:49 am
“these mythical “big businesses” or “wealthy capitalists”
Oh I see, the peoplem who donated a couple of million bucks to National are mythical?
It would be easy for National to settle the question, just open the books.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 9:11 am
This just goes to show that what’s legal and what’s right need have no relationship when you’re a govt and there’s money to be had. You people agruing left and right politics are missing the point but Sonic in particular sucks – he? defends anything left. Jesus spent time with tax collectors as they were seen as a particularly low form of life needing redemption. There’s a great story about Jesus selecting a tax collector for a conversion experience. That he did so isn’t surprising as you get the biggest impact by selecting someone seen (by Jesus as well) as needing particular attention because of their job.
Vote:This should tell us something.
IRD. Its our job to be fair.
Yeah, right.
November 1st, 2006 at 9:20 am
John Boy said: … but in particular Sonic sucks
Pretty much everything Sonic says is left. He’s good at shifting on to non-issues so that he’s in a better position to neutralise any discussion that threatens to present the current government in a poor light.
I don’t know how much personal conviction he has about his statements or how much this forum is just bit of paid intellectual sport. His ‘party line’ is so strong at times that other observers – including me! – have suggested that Sonic may be a paid Labour lackie. He had denied this on one occasion, but it could be seen as a ‘sporting success’ to be so tagged if he is sincerely left.
For my part I’m 100% behind what I say but will confess to enjoying – in a sporting sense – the banter that goes on.
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 10:37 am
Andrew, no-one pays me for posting here, and I am not a member of the Labour party.
Happy now?
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 10:40 am
Absolutely — Thanks for that
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 11:18 am
Im sure everyone has noticed the Maori name for the IRD.
Te Tari Taake
Is that right on or what?
Vote:November 1st, 2006 at 11:28 am
Yes – have made the same observation.
They never tarry when it comes to taking
Vote:May 24th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
free downloads t mobile ringtones
Vote:http://idisk.mac.com/ringtonesforyou/Public/index.html
June 10th, 2007 at 10:52 am
nice site!
Vote:http://idisk.mac.com/dtd4/Public/
http://pumacartshoes.iespana.es