?????? ??? ??
????
a so re e
???
?????? ??? ??
wada sha hana ka chocho ka no ni ka
??? ??? ???
??? ???? ????????
a wa re mi mo yo mo a ra yo u mo no ka
????? ????
??????? ???? ???
pe ni no ka wa ri ni sa su no wa yai ba jia
???? ????
?????? ?????? ?
ko n do ho me de gu da sha n se e
??????
????? ??? ??? ???
a so re ba ba re na ma re a ba re la
??? ??? ??? ???
Rogers Promo Plan – $35 – 150min + Unlimited IM/Social/Browsing/Txt/Eve
Went to check Rogers to see if they had the white 9780 and they currently have a promo…
http://www.rogers.com/web/content/pp…_WIR_PRE_slot1
150 MINUTES
UNLIMITED Evenings & weekends from 6pm to 7am
UNLIMITED Extreme Text Messaging
UNLIMITED Picture & Video Messaging
UNLIMITED MobileMail Email
UNLIMITED Instant Messaging
UNLIMITED Social Networking
UNLIMITED Internet Access
PLUS:
Group Calling, Call Forwarding6, Call Waiting, Call Manager™, WhoCalled™
All for $35 + GRRF and tax!
You might be able to add a retention value pack for Caller ID and Voicemail.
Looks like a decent plan, considering the competiton with the zone-networks right now.
It says it’s only for 3 year new activations but might be eligible for upgrades or even plan changes?
Did a search but not sure if I could find anything on RFD, sorry if it’s re-post!
NOTE: Promo ends Dec 31, 2010.
If only they had the white 9780…I’d be all over this.
IRS Commish: There’s a Big Difference Between Hiding Money Offshore and Sophisticated International Tax Planning
In a speech before the 23rd Annual Institute on Current Issues in International Taxation, Washington, DC, Doug Shulman (link not yet available on the website) explained how rich dudes schlepping money to Switzerland (but not any more!) or Hong Kong is not even close to the same thing as “Google’s Irrationally Exuberant Tax Strategy.”
[quote]As I have said before, I draw a sharp distinction between rooting out individuals hiding their money in foreign tax havens and the IRS and Treasury creating ground rules for multinational corporations operating in a global environment.
It’s no secret that multinational corporations engage in sophisticated international tax planning. We recognize that much of this is perfectly legal and many businesses are trying to get it right. Of course, some are pushing the envelope too far and it’s here that we have issues. Our goal is to differentiate between the two; to be on top of our game in this analysis; and to ensure corporations are compliant with the tax law and stay compliant.[/quote]
EU Agrees to Move to Automatic Info Exchange in 2015
it is not a good news for some small company, however, we know this day will be coming and prepare for it. so unit 2015, maybe our business will be need to pay more. oh, Gov how can I do not hate you.
[quote]The European Union Economic and Financial Affairs Council has reached a political agreement on a draft directive aimed at strengthening administrative cooperation in the field of direct taxation between EU member states.
The text of the new law provides for an overhaul of directive 77/799/EEC, on which administrative cooperation in the field of taxation has been based since 1977 and will extend cooperation between member states to cover taxes of any kind.
The directive will ensure that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) model tax convention on income and capital is implemented in the EU as regards the exchange of information on request. It will thus prevent a member state from refusing to supply information concerning a taxpayer of another member state on the sole grounds that the information is held by a bank or other financial institution.
“In the light of greater taxpayer mobility and a growing volume of cross-border transactions, the directive sets out to fulfil the member states’ growing need for mutual assistance – especially via the exchange of information – so as to enable them to better assess taxes due,” the Council stated.
In order to allay the risk of member states making imprecise requests aimed at detecting irregularities (“fishing expeditions”), the Council agreed to identify in the directive certain details that must be specified in requests for information, namely the identity of the person under investigation and the tax purpose for which the information is sought. These details are however less stringent than in the OECD convention, thus allowing for more scope for information exchange.
The Council agreed on a step-by-step approach aimed at eventually ensuring unconditional exchange of information for eight categories of income and capital. From 2015, member states will communicate automatically information for a maximum of five categories, provided that that information is readily available (they will however not be required to send more information than they receive in return). By July 1, 2017, the Commission will provide a report and, if need be, a proposal. When examining that proposal, the Council will examine the possibilities for removing the condition of availability and extending the number of categories from five to eight.
The Council will adopt the directive without further discussion at a forthcoming meeting, once the text has been finalized.[/quote]
Differences between Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion
Tax avoidance is generally the legal exploitation of the tax regime to one’s own advantage, to attempt to reduce the amount of tax that is payable by means that are within the law whilst making a full disclosure of the material information to the tax authorities. Examples of tax avoidance involve using tax deductions, changing one’s business structure through incorporation or establishing an offshore company in a tax haven.
By contrast tax evasion is the general term for efforts by individuals, firms, trusts and other entities to evade the payment of taxes by illegal means. Tax evasion usually entails taxpayers deliberately misrepresenting or concealing the true state of their affairs to the tax authorities to reduce their tax liability, and includes, in particular, dishonest tax reporting (such as underdeclaring income, profits or gains; or overstating deductions).
Tax avoidance may be considered as either the amoral dodging of one’s duties to society, part of a strategy of not supporting violent government activities or just the right of every citizen to find all the legal ways to avoid paying too much tax. Tax evasion, on the other hand, is a crime in almost all countries and subjects the guilty party to fines or even imprisonment. Switzerland is one notable exception: tax fraud (forging documents, for example) is considered a crime, tax evasion (like underdeclaring assets) is not.
Some tax evaders see their efforts to evade taxation as based upon novel legal theories: these individuals and groups are sometimes called tax protesters. U.S. tax protesters are an example of this kind of approach to tax evasion that has generally ended in failure for those making such claims.
Tax resistance is the refusal to pay the tax for conscientious reasons (because they do not want to support the government or some of its activities), sometimes breaking the law to do so. Some donate their unpaid taxes to charity, while others (at least in the US) take creative “deductions” such as not paying a percentage of tax equal to the defense budget. In either case, they typically do not take the position that the tax laws are themselves illegal or do not apply to them (as tax protesters do) and they are more concerned with not paying for what they oppose than they are motivated by the desire to keep more of their money (as tax evaders typically are). Some have suggested the term tax avoision for people who adopt the techniques of tax avoidance in the service of tax resistance, thereby doing tax resistance legally.
In the UK, there is no General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR), but certain provisions of the tax legislation (known as “anti-avoidance” provisions) apply to prevent tax avoidance where the main object (or purpose), or one of the main objects (or purposes), of a transaction is to enable tax advantages to be obtained. Judicial doctrines, relying on a purposive construction of tax legislation, are being evolved to prevent tax avoidance involving circular, self-cancelling transactions (IRC v. Ramsey), or where steps with no commercial purpose other than the avoidance of tax are inserted into a transaction (Furniss v. Dawson). Controversially, in the 2004 Budget, it was announced that ‘promoters’ and users of certain tax avoidance schemes would be required to disclose details of the schemes to the Inland Revenue.
The UK authorities use the term tax mitigation to refer to acceptable tax planning, minimising tax liabilities in ways expressly endorsed by Parliament. As set out above, on this view tax avoidance flouts the spirit of the law while following the letter and is therefore thought by some to be unacceptable, albeit not criminal in the way that evasion is. Upholding a difference between mitigation and avoidance relies on a purposive reading of legislation, and commentators disagree as to the extent to which this is permissible.
In the United States, thieves are required to report their stolen money as income when they file for taxes, but they usually do not do so, because doing so would serve as a confession of theft. For this reason, suspected thieves are sometimes charged with tax evasion when there is insufficient evidence to try them for theft.