Garden of Eden Escorts

Is a Canada Revenue Agency landlord avoiding taxes via offshore havens?

twizz

Banned
Mar 8, 2014
1,974
0
0
(Hey bigots, they're Muslim :eyebrows:)

Is a Canada Revenue Agency landlord avoiding taxes via offshore havens?

By Bruce Livesey in News October 15th 2015

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) rents office space from a Vancouver-based property developer – a company that exploits offshore tax havens in Lichtenstein, the British Virgin Islands and Channel Islands.

Larco Investments Ltd. owns three buildings in Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton where they rent office space to the CRA. Larco purchased the buildings from the federal government in 2007.

Yet evidence has emerged that Larco takes advantage of offshore tax havens.

“It's interesting to us that as a government landlord, that’s also the landlord of the CRA, when the CRA is supposed to be going after this (offshore) stuff… it just raises questions about whether the CRA is aware,” says Michelle Travis, research co-ordinator of UNITE HERE Canada, a retail sector union which represents workers employed by Larco.

Left: Canada Place building in Alberta. Right: Harry Hayes building in Calgary

UNITE HERE stumbled upon Larco’s use of offshore tax havens while researching the company.

The Larco-CRA case is symbolic of the Harper government’s track record of allowing billions of dollars of potentially taxable corporate monies to flee to offshore tax havens. In 1990, only $11-billion was flowing from Canadian corporations to offshore tax havens: today this sum is almost $200-billion a year and growing. An estimated $8-billion is also lost annually through tax evasion.

These sums suggest that if the Harper government was more diligent in tracking offshore money or plugging holes in the tax code, they would not have to run deficits, impose austerity measures, raid the EI surplus or sell its shares in General Motors — while also funding health care, education and infrastructure.

“It’s a horrendous problem,” says Senator Percy Downe, Jean Chrétien’s former chief of staff, who has spent the past nine years pursuing the offshore tax haven issue.

“If we collected what we’re owed to the government… there’d be additional money to fund programs that are being cut. And taxes could be lower or remain lower.”

In fact, Alain Deneault, a sociologist at the Université du Québec and author of the recent book**Canada: A New Tax Haven, maintains “[The Conservatives] are offshore-friendly actually. They don't see it as something wrong officially.”

Lalji family and their offshore tax structures

Larco is a privately-held company owned by the Lalji family, one of Canada’s wealthiest clans, sitting on a fortune estimated at $2.6-billion. Run by three brothers – Amin, Mansoor and Shiraz – the Laljis are Ismaili Muslims who fled Uganda in the 1970s during the dictatorship of Idi Amin, settling in BC.

There they founded a burgeoning real estate empire, owning hotels and retail outlets such as the Park Royal Shopping Centre in West Vancouver.

The Laljis are notoriously private and media shy – the**Globe and Mail’s business magazine once listed them among Canada’s “hermit kings” – although they haven’t escaped controversy entirely.

Right: Mansoor Lalji. Left: Michael Fortier, then minister of Public Works, left, and Amin Lalji

In 2007, Shiraz Lalji was criticized for destroying one of architect Arthur Erickson’s earliest single-family dwellings in BC – the David Graham house.

“We were upset,” says Philip Boname, president of the Arthur Erickson Foundation, who said Shiraz never responded to appeals to change his mind.

In 2007, the Laljis paid $1.4-billion to buy seven federal buildings the Harper government had put up for sale – and then rented them back to the government with 25-year leases. The CRA has offices in three of the buildings.

By then, though, the Laljis had been using offshore tax havens for years. In 2003, Larco appeared before two Nevada gaming agencies when it wanted to change its financial arrangement with one of the casinos it owns in Las Vegas. The Nevada authorities wanted more information about who exactly controlled the casino.

At hearings in Carson City, Nevada, Thad Alston, Larco’s senior vice-president, gave an explanation, noting that “this [corporate] structure was created really with legal, tax and estate planning considerations for the Lalji family.”

The structure is complex: The Laljis had created a company called Hotspur Resorts Nevada Inc. to bid for casino assets in Nevada. Hotspur’s ownership was structured through a series of offshore companies based in the British Virgin Islands, a notorious offshore tax haven.

The chain ended with a foundation called Hilfreich Stiftung located in Liechtenstein, the tiny European offshore tax haven. Also involved was the Lalji Family Trust, and the HSBC bank, a British global banking giant.

While it’s not illegal to park money offshore as long as you declare it to the CRA, these offshore havens are used because they charge little to no taxes for companies and wealthy families – which is why the money is deposited there. “There are so many loopholes available to companies that companies can do it legally,” says Dennis Howlett, executive director of Canadians for Tax Fairness, which lobbies against the use of such havens. “Unless you really flagrantly violate the laws, the CRA doesn’t have time or money to come after you.”

In his 2003 testimony, Alston indicated that the ultimate control of the family’s companies was held by the Lalji Family Trust. He said the trust was scheduled to be dissolved in 2005, whereby the Laljis would have to pay taxes to the CRA.

Thus, Alston said they decided to move some of this money offshore before 2005 “for estate planning and tax efficiency purposes, with the idea that you'd end up with a sum of funds offshore in a tax-free jurisdiction with the idea that with the funds under the control of essentially a bank, trust company, you would then have a way to manage those assets, those funds for the benefit of the families (for) generations to come. So that was the idea.”

He indicated that the sums moved offshore amounted to between $300-million and $500-million.

Ultimately, the offshore funds were managed by Hilfreich Stiftung, the Lichtenstein-based foundation created by the Laljis, which in turn was overseen by HSBC – a bank notorious for its offshore tax haven shenanigans. Media exposés earlier this year revealed how the bank’s Swiss arm helped wealthy customers dodge taxes and conceal tens of millions in assets.

During his testimony, Alston said: “We had a long-standing relationship with HSBC. They had been a primary lender of the Canadian operating company for over 15 years, and actually, we ended up spending a substantial amount of time with the HSBC people in Zurich, which is where they are set up to manage the Lichtenstein foundations that they manage.

"We also looked at their experience in managing funds for other wealthy families and were convinced that as these things go, HSBC would be the ideal candidate for managing these funds.”

The Hilfreich Stiftung, while run by HSBC employees, was to act on recommendations made by Alston and Shiraz Lalji.

At another point in his testimony, Alston revealed the Laljis make use of another notorious offshore haven – the Channel Islands, just off the coast of England, and the island of Jersey specifically. And there, the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) was involved. “So if you look at the [family’s] hotels that are in London, those are owned by ultimately a [foundation] administered in Jersey,” explained Alston, noting that RBC’s managing director in Jersey manages those assets.

Despite this elaborate offshore structure, no evidence has emerged the Laljis and Larco are engaged in illegal tax evasion.

“I'm sure that setting up of the [Lalji family] trust was related to tax avoidance,” surmises Howlett. “We don't have enough evidence to say whether it was evasion or not. But why would you go to all that trouble unless there was some tax reason involved?... When something like this comes to a light it's important that the CRA investigate.”

This is not the only controversy swirling around the Laljis. At the time of the sale of the seven buildings to Larco in 2007, there was criticism over whether the family received a sweetheart deal from the Harper government.

Indeed, the NDP, Liberals and the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) trade union, claimed the buildings were sold for a song. A study commissioned by PSAC suggested that the buildings were unloaded for almost $800-million less than they were really worth.

“The federal government has established a cloak of secrecy so dense [about this sale] that even MPs are being kept in the dark,” noted John Gordon, PSAC’s president at the time. “According to our calculations, Canadians could pay as much as $2 in rent for every $1 received in proceeds from the sale.”

Moreover, a CBC investigation last year found relations between Larco and the federal government had soured over management of the buildings, with bureaucrats at Public Works and Government Services Canada claiming that Larco was a poor landlord, overcharging for services and potentially engaging in fraudulent activity. In 2009, the department even sued Larco, which was settled two years later. The government's bureaucrats believed the leases with Larco were a bad deal for taxpayers.

Mansoor Lalji, on the other hand, claimed that Public Works had erected too many hurdles for them to operate properly.

Messages and an email from theObserver**were sent to Thad Alston seeking comment on these issues but were not replied to.

While other countries crack down on tax avoidance, Harper lays off thousands of CRA staff

If the Laljis are using offshore havens to chop their tax bill, they have plenty of company among Canada’s wealthiest families and the corporate sector.

In fact, the tax haven of Barbados is the second-largest recipient of Canadian foreign investment after the US – with $71-billion in 2014, up from $50-billion in 2010, while the Cayman Islands are ranked fourth, receiving $36-billion.

“When Canadian corporations invest $71 billion in the Barbados we know it’s not about investment – it's about tax avoidance,” says Deneault.

Of course, using offshore havens for evading taxes is a time-honoured tradition among Canada’s political and business elites. Former prime minister Brian Mulroney received cash payments from German arms wheeler-dealer Karlheinz Schreiber totaling $300,000—though Mulroney claimed it was $225,000— in 1993 and 1994, which he didn’t bother declaring to the CRA until 1999. For a period of time much of this money sat in a safety deposit box in a New York bank.

Canada Steamship Lines Inc. (CSL), the family business of former prime minister Paul Martin Jr., has an international division registered in the Barbados. The Barbadian corporation is owned by a holding company in Bermuda, another offshore haven. This complicated setup allows CSL to escape paying millions in Canadian taxes.

Meanwhile, prominent business families such as the Irvings, Bronfmans and Stronachs use offshore havens to cut their tax bill, as do the chartered banks and corporations like Cameco, Gildan Activewear, Eldorado Gold, Cirque du Soleil and Québecor, among many others.

KPMG and banks like RBC have been investigated by the CRA for helping wealthy Canadians set up offshore tax structures.

And how has the Harper government responded? In 2012-13, the government chopped $259-million from the CRA’s budget over five years – the largest single cut to any department, making it harder to investigate tax evasion.

“They laid off three thousand CRA staff, totally decimating capacity and losing many experienced auditors,” says Howlett. “What's happening now is while other countries are beginning to crack down, Canada is lagging behind.”

Meanwhile, the number of people convicted of tax evasion in Canada has dropped by more than half since 2009, according to the CRA’s own figures. In 2013, it was discovered that Jim Love, chairman of the Royal Canadian Mint, and a good friend of former finance minister Jim Flaherty’s, helped a wealthy Canadian family move millions through offshore havens to avoid paying taxes.

Today, Senator Downe is appalled at how little political will there is to collect monies owed to the government.

“There is a lot of money out there,” he says, “a lot of money is owed and a lot of money is not being collected…. Why are you and I paying taxes when other people are avoiding them? We should not have to make up the shortfall.”


http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/10/15/news/canada-revenue-agency-landlord-avoiding-taxes-offshore-havens
 

saxon

Well-known member
Dec 2, 2009
4,759
520
113
No different than the Liberals who allowed the Desmarais family to move hundreds of millions offshore tax free, not to mention Paul Martin who moved his shipping company out of Canada to avoid paying taxes.
 

TeasePlease

Cockasian Brother
Aug 3, 2010
7,738
5
38
So here goes the fundamental question of whether we should be obligated to pay taxes forever and always, or are entitled to structure our affairs to minimize taxes?

Put another way, let's say I earned $2mm of income this year and I'll pay my full share of $800,000 in taxes. I have $1.2mm left over. Why can't I invest that offshore, in a "tax haven" if I have otherwise followed all the other rules prescribed in our tax laws (including paying taxes on any capital gains triggered by moving my investments outside of Canada)?
 

Avatar

Sr Member
Apr 25, 2004
324
0
0
So here goes the fundamental question of whether we should be obligated to pay taxes forever and always, or are entitled to structure our affairs to minimize taxes?

Put another way, let's say I earned $2mm of income this year and I'll pay my full share of $800,000 in taxes. I have $1.2mm left over. Why can't I invest that offshore, in a "tax haven" if I have otherwise followed all the other rules prescribed in our tax laws (including paying taxes on any capital gains triggered by moving my investments outside of Canada)?
How is that different than me asking my employer to pay half of my salary under the table so I don't have to declare it ?
 

GPIDEAL

Prolific User
Jun 27, 2010
23,359
12
38
How is that different than me asking my employer to pay half of my salary under the table so I don't have to declare it ?
Night and day. TeasePlease just gave an example where he pays $800K in taxes out of $2Mil. In your example, you want to evade taxes by hiding half of your income. He's 'hiding' the net or after-tax capital (see my next post).
 

GPIDEAL

Prolific User
Jun 27, 2010
23,359
12
38
So here goes the fundamental question of whether we should be obligated to pay taxes forever and always, or are entitled to structure our affairs to minimize taxes?

Put another way, let's say I earned $2mm of income this year and I'll pay my full share of $800,000 in taxes. I have $1.2mm left over. Why can't I invest that offshore, in a "tax haven" if I have otherwise followed all the other rules prescribed in our tax laws (including paying taxes on any capital gains triggered by moving my investments outside of Canada)?

As long as you're a resident of this country (as you know), you'll have to continue paying tax on income from the $1.2 million dollar investment, no?
 

Ref

Committee Member
Oct 29, 2002
5,116
1,041
113
web.archive.org
Canada Steamship Lines Inc. (CSL), the family business of former prime minister Paul Martin Jr., has an international division registered in the Barbados. The Barbadian corporation is owned by a holding company in Bermuda, another offshore haven. This complicated setup allows CSL to escape paying millions in Canadian taxes.
Not to mention that good old Paul lied about the amount of business his Liberal government handed over to his steamship company - At first he thought it was $137,000 but upon further investigation it was revealed to be over 162 million. Oops, a littlle mistake, but don't worry, I'm Liberal.

"On December 12, 2003, Martin became the 21st Prime Minister of Canada. On January 28, 2004, the federal government, in response to opposition party and media enquiries, revealed that CSL Group Inc. had received $162 million in federal government contracts, grants and loans since Paul Martin became Minister of Finance in 1993. Earlier figures released in 2003 had suggested CSL Group Inc. had only earned $137,000 in federal government contracts during this time period.

Flag of convenience controversy - Throughout the 1990s, CSL Group Inc. oversaw the reflagging of several former Canadian-registered vessels which were placed under the shipping registries of nations commonly referred to as flags of convenience, where safety and labour laws were relaxed to be more business-friendly."

Liberal, Conservative, NDP...They are all crooked. It is time for all taxpayers to drop the partisanship politics and force laws to be in place to protect the taxpayer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Steamship_Lines
 

SkyRider

Banned
Mar 31, 2009
17,572
2
0
Liberal, Conservative, NDP...They are all crooked.
This is too sweeping a statement. I personally know some people who entered politics or government out of a sense of civic duty. Some actually took a pay cut. Allan Rock took a pay cut. I also know a senior partner at a major accounting firm making $600,000 a year took a government job at 1/3 the pay. There are others.
 

twizz

Banned
Mar 8, 2014
1,974
0
0
If you don't want to pay your fair share of taxes (that means the same percentage as everyone else), then move to a different country, or better yet the government should put a limit on what public services/property that you can and can't use based on the percentage you pay.

It is undemocratic to have a two tier tax system, especially when those in the upper income brackets play a larger role in causing externalities. If certain segments only want to pay let's say 15 percent of their income, everyone else should be able to as well.
 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
12,907
6,386
113
twizz;5373733[B said:
]If you don't want to pay your fair share of taxes (that means the same percentage as everyone else),[/B] then move to a different country, or better yet the government should put a limit on what public services/property that you can and can't use based on the percentage you pay.

It is undemocratic to have a two tier tax system, especially when those in the upper income brackets play a larger role in causing externalities. If certain segments only want to pay let's say 15 percent of their income, everyone else should be able to as well.

Hear hear! Bravo!

I agree wholeheartedly.

I want to pay 15% income tax. That means I would pay $80k a year in taxes... instead of $200k a year (after spending $10k a year on accounting and lawyers) to find "loopholes" so I don't pay $240k in taxes.

But why is my "fair share" $200k when others "fair share" is maybe only $4,000?


Oh, and what do you mean by "causing externalities"? :confused:
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
30,370
4,570
113
If you don't want to pay your fair share of taxes (that means the same percentage as everyone else), then move to a different country, or better yet the government should put a limit on what public services/property that you can and can't use based on the percentage you pay.

It is undemocratic to have a two tier tax system, especially when those in the upper income brackets play a larger role in causing externalities. If certain segments only want to pay let's say 15 percent of their income, everyone else should be able to as well.
Twizz.....you do realize that Junior wants to increase taxes overall and to make people who make more money pay a greate percentage don't you?

Have you actually looked at any platforms?
 

SkyRider

Banned
Mar 31, 2009
17,572
2
0
I think in the U.S. they capped the salary tax deduction at $1mm for the payor but they tax the full amount of the salary for the payee. Sounds like a two tier tax system to me.

To paraphrase the late great Jack Layton: "Tax cuts don't benefit people who don't pay taxes."
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts