Why Vermont?
No other state even comes close for captives -- and only Bermuda and the Cayman Islands have more captives than we do. Vermont is the undisputed on-shore leader with over twenty-five years of experience working with the captive insurance industry. Vermont is home to 44 of the Fortune 100 and 19 of the companies that make up the Dow 30 have Vermont captives.
What this means to you is that we're experienced in working with companies like yours.
We know how to do it -- and our record stands for itself.
Vermont Responds to Your Needs
Our laws and regulations keep pace with industry needs. Our legislature listens and is responsive. We keep our captive environment up to date and friendly. And in Vermont getting a meeting with a key state official only takes a phone call. Vermont has a team of regulatory and promotional professionals ready to respond to your needs.
What this means to you is a customized and personal approach to making sure Vermont meets all of your captive insurance needs.
Vermont's Infrastructure is Second to None Vermont's professional support services are the best in the world. As a leader in the industry, Vermont is home to the nation's top captive insurance providers. When you're looking for world leading management companies, highly specialized banking and investment services, accountants or expert law firms -- we've got them. When you're looking for a supportive and influential trade association -- we've got it.
What this means to you is Vermont has the complete package to maximize the benefits of your company's captive insurance needs with a team of experienced and proven professionals.
For more information go to www.vermontcaptive.com and contact www.TaxRiskManagement.com for assistance.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
USA - Notes on offshore trusts
2010/04/19
1. COOK ISLANDS 2. ASSET PROTECTION NEUTERED 3. FOREIGN ASSET PROTECTION TRUST CASES
COOK ISLANDS Offshore trusts are receiving far more media attention than they did in the past. And much of the media attention is negative. Floyd Norris, writing in the January 22, 2010 New York Times, shines the spotlight very brightly on the Cook Islands. The Cook Islands (in the South Pacific) have a population of about 20,000 (which, as Mr. Norris points out, is less than some apartment complexes in New York City). The islands are known mostly for tourism. They contract their national defense to New Zealand, which is four hours away by plane. Yet the Cook Islands have a thriving international trust business.
Mr. Norris acknowledges that a Cook Islands trust can provide some significant asset protection. He notes that under Cook Islands law foreign court orders are frequently disregarded, which can be very helpful for someone trying to keep assets away from creditors. There must be a local trustee, so anyone setting up a Cook Islands trust for asset protection purposes must surrender at least some control over the assets in the trust.
Mr. Norris notes, however, that over the years a number of "less than upstanding Americans" have taken advantage of the protection offered by Cook Islands law. He explains that the latest among them is Jamie L. Solow. Mr. Solow was recently convicted by a jury in West Palm Beach, Florida of securities fraud. U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has ordered Mr. Solow to prison for failing to turn over assets from a Cook Islands trust. This case is yet another reminder that offshore trusts will not automatically result in foolproof asset protection. Judge Middlebrooks is not the first federal judge to order a defendant incarcerated for failure to turn over funds from an offshore trust. It is important to note that nearly all of the asset-moving activities in this particular case came after the Securities and Exchange Commission notified Mr. Solow that it intended to file suit. Many of the asset transfers occurred after the jury rendered its verdict. As I have explained in other posts, moving assets after you have a problem with creditors will usually be considered a fraudulent transfer.
An offshore trust can be an appropriate part of an asset protection plan. But the use of such trusts by "less than upstanding Americans" is putting these trusts in an increasingly unfavorable spotlight.
NEUTERED TRUSTS
Asset Protection Trusts Neutered
by 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Act
The 2005 changes to the Bankruptcy Code provide for what amounts to a 10-year clawback of transfers to self-settled trusts that are meant to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. Since most FAPTs are set up for this very reason, such clawbacks may be automatic in many cases. At the very least, all transfers to an asset protection trust will be susceptible to being set aside for up to 10 years prior to the date that a bankruptcy petition is filed.
Some critics of foreign asset protection trusts might contend that this change was unnecessary, since foreign asset protection trusts had always failed in bankruptcy anyway. FAPTs may still be useful in very limited circumstances, such as for planning with international families or pre-immigration planning.
Caution that to avoid the stigma of the numerous cases where FAPTs have failed, some promoters have started giving them different names to try to disguise their character. Whether this disguise is meant for the court or their prospective customers is not clear.
FOREIGN ASSET PROTECTION TRUST CASES
The litigation history of the Foreign Asset Protection Trust is often intentionally or negligently misrepresented by promoters selling their cookie-cutter offshore trust structures. Follows are a list of the cases in chronological order (based on the date of the most important decision in the case), and a summary of their results. Additional and substantial information relating to each case is available by clicking on the links.
* In re Colburn, 145 B.R. 851 (Bkrpt E.D.Va. 1992), did not involve incarceration for contempt, but the bankruptcy debtor who did not disclose his interest in a Bahamas trust was denied his discharge and the court suggested that the debtor had engaged in fraud.
* Brown v. Higashi (Bkrpt Ak. 1995), involved an Alaska CPA who with his wife set up a Belize trust and then later was hit with a tort judgment. Although the case didn’t involve incarceration for contempt, it did consider whether the assets of the Belize trusts should have been included in the bankruptcy estate, and the court ruled that those assets were in fact included. The court included the following unflattering language about FAPTs: “The fact that the trusts were established in Belize, a country notorious for its anti-creditor policies, rather than Alaska or Washington, indicates an intent to hinder, delay or defraud on the part of the defendants.”
1. COOK ISLANDS 2. ASSET PROTECTION NEUTERED 3. FOREIGN ASSET PROTECTION TRUST CASES
COOK ISLANDS Offshore trusts are receiving far more media attention than they did in the past. And much of the media attention is negative. Floyd Norris, writing in the January 22, 2010 New York Times, shines the spotlight very brightly on the Cook Islands. The Cook Islands (in the South Pacific) have a population of about 20,000 (which, as Mr. Norris points out, is less than some apartment complexes in New York City). The islands are known mostly for tourism. They contract their national defense to New Zealand, which is four hours away by plane. Yet the Cook Islands have a thriving international trust business.
Mr. Norris acknowledges that a Cook Islands trust can provide some significant asset protection. He notes that under Cook Islands law foreign court orders are frequently disregarded, which can be very helpful for someone trying to keep assets away from creditors. There must be a local trustee, so anyone setting up a Cook Islands trust for asset protection purposes must surrender at least some control over the assets in the trust.
Mr. Norris notes, however, that over the years a number of "less than upstanding Americans" have taken advantage of the protection offered by Cook Islands law. He explains that the latest among them is Jamie L. Solow. Mr. Solow was recently convicted by a jury in West Palm Beach, Florida of securities fraud. U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has ordered Mr. Solow to prison for failing to turn over assets from a Cook Islands trust. This case is yet another reminder that offshore trusts will not automatically result in foolproof asset protection. Judge Middlebrooks is not the first federal judge to order a defendant incarcerated for failure to turn over funds from an offshore trust. It is important to note that nearly all of the asset-moving activities in this particular case came after the Securities and Exchange Commission notified Mr. Solow that it intended to file suit. Many of the asset transfers occurred after the jury rendered its verdict. As I have explained in other posts, moving assets after you have a problem with creditors will usually be considered a fraudulent transfer.
An offshore trust can be an appropriate part of an asset protection plan. But the use of such trusts by "less than upstanding Americans" is putting these trusts in an increasingly unfavorable spotlight.
NEUTERED TRUSTS
Asset Protection Trusts Neutered
by 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Act
The 2005 changes to the Bankruptcy Code provide for what amounts to a 10-year clawback of transfers to self-settled trusts that are meant to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. Since most FAPTs are set up for this very reason, such clawbacks may be automatic in many cases. At the very least, all transfers to an asset protection trust will be susceptible to being set aside for up to 10 years prior to the date that a bankruptcy petition is filed.
Some critics of foreign asset protection trusts might contend that this change was unnecessary, since foreign asset protection trusts had always failed in bankruptcy anyway. FAPTs may still be useful in very limited circumstances, such as for planning with international families or pre-immigration planning.
Caution that to avoid the stigma of the numerous cases where FAPTs have failed, some promoters have started giving them different names to try to disguise their character. Whether this disguise is meant for the court or their prospective customers is not clear.
FOREIGN ASSET PROTECTION TRUST CASES
The litigation history of the Foreign Asset Protection Trust is often intentionally or negligently misrepresented by promoters selling their cookie-cutter offshore trust structures. Follows are a list of the cases in chronological order (based on the date of the most important decision in the case), and a summary of their results. Additional and substantial information relating to each case is available by clicking on the links.
* In re Colburn, 145 B.R. 851 (Bkrpt E.D.Va. 1992), did not involve incarceration for contempt, but the bankruptcy debtor who did not disclose his interest in a Bahamas trust was denied his discharge and the court suggested that the debtor had engaged in fraud.
* Brown v. Higashi (Bkrpt Ak. 1995), involved an Alaska CPA who with his wife set up a Belize trust and then later was hit with a tort judgment. Although the case didn’t involve incarceration for contempt, it did consider whether the assets of the Belize trusts should have been included in the bankruptcy estate, and the court ruled that those assets were in fact included. The court included the following unflattering language about FAPTs: “The fact that the trusts were established in Belize, a country notorious for its anti-creditor policies, rather than Alaska or Washington, indicates an intent to hinder, delay or defraud on the part of the defendants.”
Why Malta?
Prof D N Erasmus
2010/04/19
Apart from the basic information below, one of our associate Professors have done quite a bit of research into Malta. If you would like to participate in the Malta Tax Benefits lecture, please contact Professor D N Erasmus daniel@dnerasmus.com to book a seat. The lecture is in the process of being arranged.
Why MALTA?
Why register a company in Malta?
The benefits of registering a company in Malta are:
• the tax advantages (5% for non-resident shareholders).
• membership of the European Union.
• excellent telecommunications.
• legislative framework in line with EU directives.
• Malta has a robust yet flexible legal and regulatory framework, with all company law and regulations published in English.
• Operational costs are low, including regulatory, registrar, listing fees, cost of lease or rent, staff costs etc.
• English and Maltese are the official languages but Italian and French are widely spoken.
• Professional Investor Funds are exempt from Maltese capital gains and income taxes, so non-resident investors do not have to pay income tax in Malta.
• Malta has double taxation treaties with 60 countries including most EU and OECD member states.
• Malta can boast of a high standard of education and there are highly qualified specialist professionals from all fields.
By exploiting the tax advantages and other facilities in Malta, companies and individuals who are involved in international trade, could derive great benefits by relocating their trading activities to originate from Malta.
2010/04/19
Apart from the basic information below, one of our associate Professors have done quite a bit of research into Malta. If you would like to participate in the Malta Tax Benefits lecture, please contact Professor D N Erasmus daniel@dnerasmus.com to book a seat. The lecture is in the process of being arranged.
Why MALTA?
Why register a company in Malta?
The benefits of registering a company in Malta are:
• the tax advantages (5% for non-resident shareholders).
• membership of the European Union.
• excellent telecommunications.
• legislative framework in line with EU directives.
• Malta has a robust yet flexible legal and regulatory framework, with all company law and regulations published in English.
• Operational costs are low, including regulatory, registrar, listing fees, cost of lease or rent, staff costs etc.
• English and Maltese are the official languages but Italian and French are widely spoken.
• Professional Investor Funds are exempt from Maltese capital gains and income taxes, so non-resident investors do not have to pay income tax in Malta.
• Malta has double taxation treaties with 60 countries including most EU and OECD member states.
• Malta can boast of a high standard of education and there are highly qualified specialist professionals from all fields.
By exploiting the tax advantages and other facilities in Malta, companies and individuals who are involved in international trade, could derive great benefits by relocating their trading activities to originate from Malta.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
USA - Shulman acknowledges IRS has "changed the game" on compliance
Erin Kelechava in Washington, DC
2010/04/13
"While I believe our approach is reasonable, let me be clear – I also understand that it is a "game-changer" with respect to our relationships with and responsibility to our large corporate taxpayers," he said. "We are moving away from what I would describe as a contentious relationship where we spend too much of our time identifying issues, to one where we know the issues from the outset and spend our time engaging on appropriate issues."
Doug Shulman, Commissioner of the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS), spent much of his speech at Tax Executive Institute's mid-year meeting yesterday time reassuring the audience that he appreciated their concerns over new IRS compliance proposals.
Shulman referred to announcement 2010-9, released in January, as a big step towards fostering transparency in the tax system. The announcement describes changes to how corporate taxpayers will be required to report uncertain tax positions. These new reporting requirements are causing serious concern among large corporate taxpayers about the amount of information the IRS will now have about potential tax liabilities.
"While I believe our approach is reasonable, let me be clear – I also understand that it is a "game-changer" with respect to our relationships with and responsibility to our large corporate taxpayers," he said. "We are moving away from what I would describe as a contentious relationship where we spend too much of our time identifying issues, to one where we know the issues from the outset and spend our time engaging on appropriate issues."
The commissioner stressed that in developing the programme, the IRS tried to craft a proposal that provides the Service with the information it needs, without forcing taxpayers to divulge its opinions about the strengths and weaknesses of their uncertain tax positions.
He acknowledged that although "some friction in the system in healthy" , he also believes that the new proposals will allow both parties to assure that time is efficiently spent discussing the law rather than searching for facts, and would allow the examiners to prioritise issues, resulting in a more timely and less fraught resolution process.
The IRS chief also tried to provide some reassurance about litigation that is of serious concern to taxpayers. He said that the Service is maintaining its policy of restraint about tax accrual workpapers. This has been the subject of a recent case in the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, US v Textron.
Shulman also addressed concerns about the redundancy of information taxpayers file with the IRS. He announced that the IRS is planning to consider the reporting of uncertain tax positions as adequate disclosure for purposes of penalty provisions in other tax statutes.
In response to a question from the audience as to how the IRS would train its examiners to use the information contained in the new schedule of uncertain positions properly, Shulman was candid.
"This proposal has laid bare the distrust on both sides of the audit table," he said.
For the IRS' part, Shulman noted that "with more information comes more responsibility".
Changes to CAP and increased published guidance
Shulman also announced the expansion of the Compliance Assurance Program (CAP) initiative, which he referred to as "the most successful foray to date into enhancing transparency". The IRS is now trying to make the CAP pilot programme permanent, and is working on developing a pre-CAP process to allow taxpayers an easier path to enrolment in the programme.
The Service is also developing a CAP maintenance programme so that when issues arise between tax seasons, taxpayers that are involved in the program will be able to gain more benefit from the greater certainty that the program affords.
The commissioner said that the use of published guidance will be front and centre in the government's efforts to eliminate uncertainty. "We won't hesitate to go to Congress with issues that are ambiguous and require clarification," he said.
2010/04/13
"While I believe our approach is reasonable, let me be clear – I also understand that it is a "game-changer" with respect to our relationships with and responsibility to our large corporate taxpayers," he said. "We are moving away from what I would describe as a contentious relationship where we spend too much of our time identifying issues, to one where we know the issues from the outset and spend our time engaging on appropriate issues."
Doug Shulman, Commissioner of the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS), spent much of his speech at Tax Executive Institute's mid-year meeting yesterday time reassuring the audience that he appreciated their concerns over new IRS compliance proposals.
Shulman referred to announcement 2010-9, released in January, as a big step towards fostering transparency in the tax system. The announcement describes changes to how corporate taxpayers will be required to report uncertain tax positions. These new reporting requirements are causing serious concern among large corporate taxpayers about the amount of information the IRS will now have about potential tax liabilities.
"While I believe our approach is reasonable, let me be clear – I also understand that it is a "game-changer" with respect to our relationships with and responsibility to our large corporate taxpayers," he said. "We are moving away from what I would describe as a contentious relationship where we spend too much of our time identifying issues, to one where we know the issues from the outset and spend our time engaging on appropriate issues."
The commissioner stressed that in developing the programme, the IRS tried to craft a proposal that provides the Service with the information it needs, without forcing taxpayers to divulge its opinions about the strengths and weaknesses of their uncertain tax positions.
He acknowledged that although "some friction in the system in healthy" , he also believes that the new proposals will allow both parties to assure that time is efficiently spent discussing the law rather than searching for facts, and would allow the examiners to prioritise issues, resulting in a more timely and less fraught resolution process.
The IRS chief also tried to provide some reassurance about litigation that is of serious concern to taxpayers. He said that the Service is maintaining its policy of restraint about tax accrual workpapers. This has been the subject of a recent case in the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, US v Textron.
Shulman also addressed concerns about the redundancy of information taxpayers file with the IRS. He announced that the IRS is planning to consider the reporting of uncertain tax positions as adequate disclosure for purposes of penalty provisions in other tax statutes.
In response to a question from the audience as to how the IRS would train its examiners to use the information contained in the new schedule of uncertain positions properly, Shulman was candid.
"This proposal has laid bare the distrust on both sides of the audit table," he said.
For the IRS' part, Shulman noted that "with more information comes more responsibility".
Changes to CAP and increased published guidance
Shulman also announced the expansion of the Compliance Assurance Program (CAP) initiative, which he referred to as "the most successful foray to date into enhancing transparency". The IRS is now trying to make the CAP pilot programme permanent, and is working on developing a pre-CAP process to allow taxpayers an easier path to enrolment in the programme.
The Service is also developing a CAP maintenance programme so that when issues arise between tax seasons, taxpayers that are involved in the program will be able to gain more benefit from the greater certainty that the program affords.
The commissioner said that the use of published guidance will be front and centre in the government's efforts to eliminate uncertainty. "We won't hesitate to go to Congress with issues that are ambiguous and require clarification," he said.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
10 MOST FAMOUS TAX EVADERS OF ALL TIME
As soon as you receive your first real paycheck, you experience the bittersweet moment when you understand income tax withdrawals. The more you make, the more the government takes out in taxes, but there’s nothing you can do about it, at least not legally. If you’re ever tempted to stiff the government on taxes, though, check out the stories of these 10 famous tax evaders. Let’s hope they convince you to keep it legal.
1. Judy Garland: Movie star Judy Garland played dreamy, optimistic characters in some of her best films, but she famously struggled with drugs, self image problems and depression. She was divorced four times, and after a failed suicide attempt, died of a drug overdose when she was only 47 years old. In addition to her prescription drug problem, the Wizard of Oz star and Golden Globe, Grammy and Special Tony Award-winning actress did not pay taxes between 1951 and 1952. She was audited by the IRS and had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in back taxes, during a time in which she was already struggling financially.
2. William Bud Abbott and Lou Costello: The iconic comedy stars Abbott and Costello were immensely popular in the 1940s and 50s and developed the now infamous act "Who’s on First?" They were featured on the radio, on TV and in movies, but due to overexposure in the 1950s, the public began to lose interest and their act suffered. Both men were ordered by the IRS to pay such a large amount of back taxes that they had to sell their homes and declare bankruptcy.
3. Tom Coughlin: The Wal-Mart family and their partners are known for being extremely wealthy, but the former vice chairman of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Thomas Coughlin nearly went to prison for tax evasion and fraud. Coughlin, who had worked for Wal-Mart for 28 years, was sentenced to home detention and probation in 2008, plus fines and restitutions in 2006.
4. Annie Liebovitz: Photographer Annie Leibovitz has photographed celebrities, presidents and other public figures for distinguished magazines and publications, as well as for private clients, but in 2009, she went public with her surprising financial troubles. She apparently had a damaging spending problem, was sued for $15 million by a neighbor, and had to put up as collateral several of her houses and rights to photographs. Luxist.com reports that Leibovitz "was also late in paying $1.8 million in federal taxes in 2007 and 2008."
5. Pete Rose: Former baseball star and manager Pete Rose is also one of the most famous tax evaders of all time. He actually had to plead guilty to filing two false income returns. Rose neglected to tell the IRS of any income he received selling memorabilia and autographs or from horse racing. He spent July, 1990 – January 1991 in jail, and paid $366,041 in back taxes.
6. Wesley Snipes: Hollywood actor and producer Wesley Snipes is famous for starring in movies like Blade and U.S. Marshals, but he was slapped with a serious fraud charge in 2006. Along with Eddie Ray Kahn and Douglas P. Rosile, Snipes was charged with conspiring to defraud the United States, and Snipes alone was charged with six counts of willingly failing to file federal income tax returns. The charges involved claims going back 10 years. In 2008, he was sentenced to three years in prison, but he is still appealing the sentence and works freely around the world, though he is only out on bail.
7. Richard Hatch: Survivor star Richard Hatch won the first season of the reality TV show, earning him $1 million, plus another $10,000 for appearing on the reunion show. Hatch never reported the extra income to the IRS, or the $321,000 he received from appearing on a Boston radio show. In 2005, he was found guilty on 10 counts, and in 2006, he was found guilty of tax evasion. Hatch began serving his 51-month sentence in May 2006, but he was released three years later to home confinement.
8. Nicholas Cage: Movie star Nicholas Cage has an Academy Award and was once in the top blockbusters in the 1990s, but his career has been dwindling lately. The City of Angels, Con Air and It Could Happen to You star was the subject of an IRS investigation involving the sale of a home in Louisiana, as well as failed federal income taxes amounting to over $6.5 million. In October 2009, he sued his business manager for $20 million.
9. Sophia Loren: Italian movie star Sophia Loren is still considered one of the most beautiful actresses of all time. Loren appeared in movies like Houseboat, The Fall of the Roman Empire and Man of La Mancha, and is the second most awarded actress in movie history. In 1982, however, Loren was imprisoned for tax evasion, and she spent 18 days in jail. Remarkably, her time in prison never seemed to hurt her reputation, and she continues to be one of the most celebrated women in Hollywood.
10. Al Capone: Infamous gangster Al Capone was a successful bootlegger and liquor smuggler in the 1920s and 1930s. The Brooklyn-born, Chicago-based criminal used the cover of a used furniture salesman, but he ran one of the biggest crime rings in history and was wanted by the FBI for a number of crimes, including the 1929 St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. That same year, the Bureau of Prohibition began to shut down some of Capone’s breweries, and two years later, he was indicted for income tax evasion and was sentenced to eleven years in jail.
Provided by: http://www.careeroverview.com/blog/2010/10-most-famous-tax-evaders-of-all-time/
1. Judy Garland: Movie star Judy Garland played dreamy, optimistic characters in some of her best films, but she famously struggled with drugs, self image problems and depression. She was divorced four times, and after a failed suicide attempt, died of a drug overdose when she was only 47 years old. In addition to her prescription drug problem, the Wizard of Oz star and Golden Globe, Grammy and Special Tony Award-winning actress did not pay taxes between 1951 and 1952. She was audited by the IRS and had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in back taxes, during a time in which she was already struggling financially.
2. William Bud Abbott and Lou Costello: The iconic comedy stars Abbott and Costello were immensely popular in the 1940s and 50s and developed the now infamous act "Who’s on First?" They were featured on the radio, on TV and in movies, but due to overexposure in the 1950s, the public began to lose interest and their act suffered. Both men were ordered by the IRS to pay such a large amount of back taxes that they had to sell their homes and declare bankruptcy.
3. Tom Coughlin: The Wal-Mart family and their partners are known for being extremely wealthy, but the former vice chairman of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Thomas Coughlin nearly went to prison for tax evasion and fraud. Coughlin, who had worked for Wal-Mart for 28 years, was sentenced to home detention and probation in 2008, plus fines and restitutions in 2006.
4. Annie Liebovitz: Photographer Annie Leibovitz has photographed celebrities, presidents and other public figures for distinguished magazines and publications, as well as for private clients, but in 2009, she went public with her surprising financial troubles. She apparently had a damaging spending problem, was sued for $15 million by a neighbor, and had to put up as collateral several of her houses and rights to photographs. Luxist.com reports that Leibovitz "was also late in paying $1.8 million in federal taxes in 2007 and 2008."
5. Pete Rose: Former baseball star and manager Pete Rose is also one of the most famous tax evaders of all time. He actually had to plead guilty to filing two false income returns. Rose neglected to tell the IRS of any income he received selling memorabilia and autographs or from horse racing. He spent July, 1990 – January 1991 in jail, and paid $366,041 in back taxes.
6. Wesley Snipes: Hollywood actor and producer Wesley Snipes is famous for starring in movies like Blade and U.S. Marshals, but he was slapped with a serious fraud charge in 2006. Along with Eddie Ray Kahn and Douglas P. Rosile, Snipes was charged with conspiring to defraud the United States, and Snipes alone was charged with six counts of willingly failing to file federal income tax returns. The charges involved claims going back 10 years. In 2008, he was sentenced to three years in prison, but he is still appealing the sentence and works freely around the world, though he is only out on bail.
7. Richard Hatch: Survivor star Richard Hatch won the first season of the reality TV show, earning him $1 million, plus another $10,000 for appearing on the reunion show. Hatch never reported the extra income to the IRS, or the $321,000 he received from appearing on a Boston radio show. In 2005, he was found guilty on 10 counts, and in 2006, he was found guilty of tax evasion. Hatch began serving his 51-month sentence in May 2006, but he was released three years later to home confinement.
8. Nicholas Cage: Movie star Nicholas Cage has an Academy Award and was once in the top blockbusters in the 1990s, but his career has been dwindling lately. The City of Angels, Con Air and It Could Happen to You star was the subject of an IRS investigation involving the sale of a home in Louisiana, as well as failed federal income taxes amounting to over $6.5 million. In October 2009, he sued his business manager for $20 million.
9. Sophia Loren: Italian movie star Sophia Loren is still considered one of the most beautiful actresses of all time. Loren appeared in movies like Houseboat, The Fall of the Roman Empire and Man of La Mancha, and is the second most awarded actress in movie history. In 1982, however, Loren was imprisoned for tax evasion, and she spent 18 days in jail. Remarkably, her time in prison never seemed to hurt her reputation, and she continues to be one of the most celebrated women in Hollywood.
10. Al Capone: Infamous gangster Al Capone was a successful bootlegger and liquor smuggler in the 1920s and 1930s. The Brooklyn-born, Chicago-based criminal used the cover of a used furniture salesman, but he ran one of the biggest crime rings in history and was wanted by the FBI for a number of crimes, including the 1929 St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. That same year, the Bureau of Prohibition began to shut down some of Capone’s breweries, and two years later, he was indicted for income tax evasion and was sentenced to eleven years in jail.
Provided by: http://www.careeroverview.com/blog/2010/10-most-famous-tax-evaders-of-all-time/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
