![]() |
| Send an Email Via Reply Form |
|
Write an Email Message Direct |


![]() |
Weekly
Update Bulletin On-Line.........
.. In The News and Readers Write In (with our answers to Questions).......... |
| IN
THE NEWS:
. A hot topic lately involves the news reports that an Office of Strategic Influence was recently created as part of the US Pentagon to disseminate misinformation to the press. Supporters claim it to be a necessary weapon in the so-called war on terrorism, while critics fear it to mean a department of official deceit, much of what went on with PRAVDA (the official news agency of the old Soviet Union government). . Regardless, it somehow reminds me of the government portrayed in George Orwell’s novel, 1984. However, considering many would say the US media especially is already extremely biased, one can argue what is the difference? More of concern is not the fact that this has been announced, but rather the lack of public debate on the matter. That is to say, Americans would seem to have become so complacent or take what liberties they have for granted, that they are not even concerned (only leading to more loss of liberties going forward). The recent news stories below highlight the issue. . . PENTAGON IS AN AWKARD FIT IN THE NEWS BUSINESS By Jennifer Harper, THE WASHINGTON TIMES (From the on-line story): . Dramatic news reports this week implied that the Department of Defense had created a "shadowy" office of propaganda with espionage trimmings and a taste for deceit. Talk of "white papers" and "black papers" surfaced, along with implications that the well-funded organization was already rife with turmoil. . http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020222-88146039.htm . . Greta Van Susteren (now with the Fox News Network) interviews Retired Major General Paul Vallely and Carl Berstein on the subject. Major General Paul Vallely has more or less said that misinformation is a practice put to use by the US government for some time, the only difference now is that they are being honest about the fact they will be (are) doing so. . http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,46200,00.html . . On a somewhat similar note, someone send this article in apparently written by the popular British comedian, John Cleese. I thought it worth a read (or in the least, some comic relief if no other reason): . Other Axis of Evil Wannabes, by John Cleese . Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the Axis of Evil, Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the “Axis of Just as Evil,” which they said would be more evil than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of in his State of the Union address. Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. “Right. They are Just as Evil... in their dreams!” declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. “Everybody knows we’re the best evils... best at being evil...we’re the best.” . Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil. “They told us it was full,” said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. “An Axis can’t have more than three countries,” explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. “This is not my rule, it’s tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So you can only have three, and a secret handshake. Ours is wicked cool.” . International reaction to Bush’s Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered. Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical chairs. Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the Axis of Somewhat Evil, forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the Axis of Occasionally Evil, while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally Disagreeable. . With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the Axis of Countries That Aren’t the Worst But Certainly Won’t Be Asked to Host the Olympics; Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Some Nasty Thoughts About America, while Scotland, New Zealand and Spain established the Axis of Countries That Be Allowed to Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick. . “That’s not a threat, really, just something we like to do,” said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell. While wondering if the other nations of the world weren’t perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axes, although he rejected the establishment of the Axis of Countries Whose Names End in “Guay,” accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges. Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn’t want to join any Axis, but privately, world leaders said that’s only because no one asked them. . . Readers Write In: . . Dear John - . First, let me say I enjoy your newsletter very much. You and your contributing readers provide interesting economical, political, and social commentary. Please see below a recent Q&A exchange I had with an offshore advisor. . Q: Is the formation of one offshore corporation sufficient to purchase and hold properties in various jurisdictions? For example, Can a Panamanian company buy property in France and the Caribbean? Or, is it necessary to establish separate corporations for each region. i.e. - a company incorporated in Panama to own Panama real estate, a Cyprus company to buy and hold Cyprus property, etc? . A: You can hold all property in one IBC as long as the IBC is not located in the country you are purchasing property in - ie a Panama corp can not buy in Panama. . Is this correct? I seem to recall reading (most likely on your site) that a Bahamas IBC was unique in this regard and that most jurisdictions allow (or require) locally incorporated companies to purchase property. If this "expert's" answer is incorrect would you mind answering my original question? Thanks for your help. . EDITORS REPLY: Well, I am somewhat curious who answered you, but I suppose in the long run it is irrelevant. The answer you received is correct when it comes to IBC legislation only and TOTALLY incorrect regarding Panama. Which leads me to believe the person answering you does not know the difference. To explain further: . The term IBC or International Business Company refers to special incorporation legislation, which really originated in the Bahamas, and was quickly copied and codified into law in many other English-speaking jurisdictions located in the Caribbean. Stated another way, an IBC from the Bahamas, Nevis, Belize, etc. is pretty much identical to each other in scope, nature, requirements and restrictions. In addition, most passed such legislation around or about the same time as well (within a few years of each other) trying to compete for such incorporation business. However, it is very important to note that in essence, it has created two classes of incorporated companies then in these English-speaking jurisdictions. One being a regular locally incorporated company, and the other the IBC or International Business Company. I highlight this because it is actually part of the problem. That is to say, when the US pressures started in, it was very easy to sell out, as IBC’s really only pertain to foreigners and apart from perhaps having a local bank account in that same jurisdiction, the IBC has no business activity in the local economy (it is not permitted as part of the restriction). So, for example, if the regulations or laws are changed regarding an IBC, it has no bearing on a locally incorporated company and no immediate or direct effect on local citizens (remember we are talking about the existence of two classes of companies in these places). This is NOT the case in Panama, as there is ONLY one class of company incorporation. So, by default any changes made to whatever regulations or laws exist in Panama effect everyone, including Panamanians as well. . There are of course a number of advantages of an IBC (or at least there was until the US started going after all these English speaking islands). Such benefits include (or included, past tense) confidentiality of beneficial shareowners, limited or no reporting of company activities, no taxation on profits, etc. However, the restrictions include that such companies cannot engage in local commercial activities within that jurisdiction (a company owned bank account is NOT defined as a commercial activity) and CANNOT own local real estate either. Again, in contrast to Panama, a Panama Company is a Panama Company, equal and the same for foreigners and Panamanians alike. So, it is foolish to say a Panama Company cannot own local real estate (in Panama) if you think about it logically. . With regards to what I think is your other question, while it certainly might be an interesting or smart idea own real estate from one jurisdiction with an incorporated company from another (asset protection and some types of capital gains tax strategies), it also depends. As an example, while a Dominican Company is certainly not on equal footing with regards to all the advantages of a Panama Company (all things considered or factored in with respect to taxation issues), owning local real estate in the DR with a Dominican Company (and using it as a holding company) does offer some tax advantages over a non-local company. Also, while individual foreign persons may certainly own real estate in the Dominican Republic, this is not the case in other places, such as Mexico (with respect to beachfront property). So, for example, if you want to buy beachfront in Mexico, you must turn yourself into a local Mexican citizen to do so. How? By forming a Mexican Company and have it buy the real estate. A local incorporated company in all countries is what might be called a juridical person or local juridical citizen under the law. By creating a local incorporated company, you are in essence creating a new local citizen under the law, so to speak. With regards to Costa Rica, for example, they have something cute (this is sarcasm) called a Presidential Letter, which I will not go into, but lets just say it is better for a local citizen to own property in Costa Rica than a foreigner. So the final answer is, it depends. It depends on the jurisdiction, it depends if you might be buying (or want to buy) beachfront property (and if there is a restriction for foreigners to do so), and it depends if there are any superior property tax advantages when a local incorporated company is the owner rather than a foreign person or entity. . . Another Reader Writes: . Dear Sir, . My main concern is that you have a branch office in the U.S. At some point in time, businesses in you area will be audited (if located in the U.S.) and clients’ names and very possibly their affairs may be disclosed. It would be unfortunate to unexpectedly be contacted by the IRS while sitting happily in the tropics and have to go back to the U.S. for an audit. How can you assure that this will not happen with a branch office in Miami? . Personally I would never want my name attached to anything having to do with offshore activities on someone's hard drive or in a file cabinet in the U.S. Talking about it in an e-mail is one thing but recorded transactions are completely different. Why should I go through all the time and expense of concealing my affairs when something so simple could bite me in the butt - pardon the expression. . EDITORS REPLY: I appreciate the letter and your comments, and let me say that I agree with you 1000% (not 100%, but 1000%), which is why we do NOT have an office in Miami, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico or any other territory of the US. Who told you we have an office in Miami? Perhaps you assumed this to be the case because we maintain a mail forwarding service for the convenience of clients (and indicate a Miami address for this purpose), although most of our clients send mail directly to our office in Santo Domingo via courier (regular mail to the DR can take two months, if you are lucky). That is to say, some clients prefer to use our Miami address for regular mail and our outbound regular mail also gets sent via mail service from Miami to save on postage and time, but we do not have an office or keep any records of any kind in Miami. Never assume anything. I practice what I preach. I try not to do anything stupid or that which would possibly hurt my clients in any way, which includes putting their information at risk. . . Another Reader Writes: . Dear Sir, . I worked in the DR for over five years as a Facility Engineer for seven Plants in San Pedro until the company I worked for closed. It is a great place. Where can one find out more about employment in Free Zone corporations? I have been looking to go back for over two years now. . EDITORS REPLY: Thank you for your letter. Many people that have worked for a company on assignment both in the Dominican Republic and Panama have tried desperately to stay after their contract ended or the company closed. That is to say, trying to find another job, so they could stay or go back as you are attempting to do. I cannot help with your job search other than to suggest you contact the local American Chamber of Commerce and or the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Such organizations usually have a member’s directory (which they will allow you to purchase for a fee – usually about US$35 or so). By doing so, you will have a target contact list (address, telephone fax and email) of American companies doing business there, and you have a way to paper the world (intelligently) with your resume. With regards to the Free Zones, there is also a directory of companies published by the Free Zone council and the same idea applies. Good luck with your job hunting. . . Another Reader Writes: . Dear Mr. Schroder: . I spent six months in the Dominican Republic last year, and had a great time touring the country and in particular living in the Capital (Santo Domingo). I agreed whole-heartedly with the majority of your comments in relation to living in the DR. I rented a 3-bedroom apartment in Gazcue with all the amenities of home for approximately $700 US/per month. . I love Santo Domingo, and I am now looking at the possibility of purchasing an apartment there for permanent relocation in a year or so. I did feel safer in Santo Domingo, in general, than any other city I had ever visited. However, I cannot tell you that I would have walked on Ave. Duarte at night, for instance. Dominicans are extremely friendly, and generally courteous to tourists, however, they are not without their faults. . In reference to your comments about Jamaica, and I quote: . " Look, tourism is one of the current mainstays of the local economy. From my experience, Dominicans generally go out of their way to make sure that tourists are well treated. This is in stark contrast to Jamaica. If any country should be flushed off the map, it is Jamaica. Of all the countries in the world I have been to, Jamaica has got to be the worst place with regards to crime against tourists and the general treatment you receive. " . Having lived in Jamaica for many years, and knowing what I know about Jamaican tourism, let me clarify a few points for you. . 1. I agree that Jamaica, in general, is a country that is burdened with an inordinately high crime rate, and that on occasion this seeps out even to the tourists that visit the country. However, this is less common than one can imagine. One of my closest friends manages one of the largest hotels in Jamaica where guests have returned to the same hotel more than 11 times. You would be amazed at the number of repeat visitors to Jamaica. This is not to say that Jamaica does not have its problems . 2. There are tourists to Jamaica, who contrast to yourself, find the people the most friendliest and easygoing people that they have ever met. . 3. My personal experience is that there is very little difference between the ways tourists are treated in Jamaican vs. the Dominican Republic. Last year I visited Punta Cana/Bavaro, La Romana/Casa de Campo, Higuey, Samana, Puerto Plata, Boca Chica, Juan Dolio, to name just a few "tourist traps". . EDITORS REPLY: First and foremost, thank you for your letter. I would agree that my criticism of Jamaica perhaps a bit too bombastic, however my negative experience started with government employees (immigration) at the airport and went straight down hill from there. I generally found the population to be generally hostile towards white tourists especially and not some place I would even want to visit again, never mind live there. I visited a few times just to see if my first impression was a fluke, but I encountered the same thing each time. . On the other hand, I had no problems in Antigua other than I thought the real estate was over priced, while a client of mine strongly disagrees and absolutely hates the place. So, all in all, you are correct in that two people can visit the same place and walk away with completely different impressions. . However, I would take the Dominican Republic over Jamaica in a minute without rehashing all the reasons why. I do find it interesting that you say you lived in both the Dominican Republic AND Jamaica, and that you PREFER the Dominican Republic to Jamaica as a place to live. So, I guess I am trying to understand something. I am a bad guy, or shall we say not fair with my comments about Jamaica, but after actually living there for a few years, YOU are telling me you also do NOT want to live there either (and would prefer to live in the Dominican Republic). I do not care how many people get suckered into a cheap one week vacation at Ocho Rios or Montego Bay, the biggest complement is saying you would want to live there, or NOT (as a prominent negative comment). So, which is it? Jamaica’s not so bad, but you would not want to live there again and feel SAFER in the Dominican Republic? Other tourists keep going back and think Jamaica is a swell place, but you would not want to live there again? With all due respect, I am trying to wrap my mind around this, but am having trouble understanding your point. As for me, come back to Jamaica? I don’t think so. . . Another Reader Writes: . Hi John: . Thought you'd enjoy this: . Casino Windsor ads draw ire of IRS Cross-border rivalry: Billboards saying winnings are tax-free are 'misleading,' says U.S. tax authority. By Tom Blackwell, National Post . U.S. tax authorities are accusing a Canadian casino of inciting Americans to avoid paying taxes, adding an unusual twist to a growing gambling rivalry between Windsor and neighboring Detroit. The U.S. city's three new casinos recently fired a few shots over the Detroit River with billboards that said, "Play in the USA," "Fun without Borders" and "More excitement, fewer miles." Fighting to regain cross-border customers
lost in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, Casino Windsor posted its own
billboards throughout Detroit and Ohio that remind U.S. residents of "tax-
free winnings in Canada." Casino winnings in the United States are subject
to income tax. But now the Internal Revenue Service is noting that
U.S. citizens must pay income tax on their gambling profits, even if they
are reaped in Canada. The Casino Windsor ad campaign implies that
Americans can take home tax-free winnings and never mention it to the IRS,
Sarah Wreford, a service spokeswoman, said yesterday.
|