Tax Professional usually responds in minutes
Our tax advisers are all verified
Unlimited follow-up questions
A Virginia businessman has been sentenced for stealing nearly $4.5 million from the IRS and his clients, highlighting the risks of tax fraud and financial crime.
The case underscores how individuals and businesses attempt to exploit tax loopholes, and the aggressive enforcement actions taken by authorities to combat fraud.
The convicted individual, a Great Falls-based financial consultant, orchestrated a scheme involving fake investment opportunities and fraudulent tax returns, leading to substantial losses for both his clients and the federal government.
According to prosecutors, the businessman misled investors by:
The IRS began investigating after discrepancies were flagged in multiple tax filings.
By the time authorities intervened, millions had been siphoned off into offshore accounts and personal luxury assets.
The case is part of a broader IRS crackdown on tax fraud and investment scams, particularly targeting:
The businessman has been sentenced to 10 years in federal prison, with full restitution ordered to his victims and the IRS.
Tax fraud and investment scams continue to be a major enforcement priority, with authorities increasingly using AI and data analytics to detect suspicious transactions.
This case serves as a stark warning to individuals and businesses engaging in tax evasion: the risks far outweigh the rewards.
If you have any queries about this article on tax fraud enforcement, or tax matters in the US, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in the US and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then please get in touch. There is more information on membership here..
French lawmakers have thrown their weight behind a new 2% wealth tax targeting the country’s ultra-rich.
The bill, backed by 116 votes to 39, was championed by the Ecologist Party and supported by left-wing MPs in a late-night session on Thursday.
While the vote marks a significant moment in France’s ongoing debate about wealth and taxation, it’s unlikely to clear the next legislative hurdle which is the Senate.
Meanwhile, lawmakers from the far-right National Rally party chose to sit this one out, abstaining from the vote, and the government’s centrist bloc was notably absent.
Named after economist Gabriel Zucman, the proposed levy is aimed at France’s wealthiest 0.01% – about 4,000 individuals with assets exceeding €100 million.
If enacted, supporters estimate it could generate between €15 billion and €25 billion annually.
But it’s not just another blanket tax. The bill specifically targets those who, thanks to tax structuring, currently contribute less than what supporters believe is their ‘fair share’.
For example, trusts, holding companies, and other tax-minimisation tools would come under the microscope, with the goal of ensuring the ultra-wealthy pay at least a minimum effective tax rate.
Proponents argue that right now, the richest in France are, percentage-wise, paying less tax than the average citizen – and the bill would plug those holes in the financial dam.
For its supporters, the proposal is a matter of fairness. “Tax immunity for billionaires is over,” declared Éva Sas, an Ecologist MP, following the vote.
But the government isn’t convinced. Amélie de Montchalin, Budget Minister, dismissed the idea as “confiscatory and ineffective,” arguing that rather than boosting the economy, it could do the opposite.
“If we want investment, entrepreneurship, and corporate growth – the very things that create jobs and wealth – then we can’t afford to push capital away,” Montchalin told TF1 on Friday.
Instead, she hinted that the government is working on a different strategy to tackle tax optimisation.
President Emmanuel Macron has spent his tenure walking a fine line between pro-business policies and addressing public discontent over inequality.
Since taking office in 2017, he has cut corporate tax rates, reformed labour laws, and – perhaps most controversially—scrapped France’s old wealth tax (the ISF).
In its place, he introduced the IFI, a narrower tax that applies only to real estate, not broader investments.
The idea was to encourage high-net-worth individuals to invest in the economy, rather than seek tax havens or relocate abroad. But did it work?
A government review in 2023 found that the reform didn’t significantly shift investment away from real estate, raising questions about whether it achieved its intended goals.
Meanwhile, France remains home to some of the world’s wealthiest individuals, including LVMH CEO Bernard Arnault, whose fortune hovers around €186 billion ($195 billion).
While the National Assembly vote sends a strong political signal, the bill is unlikely to pass into law without Senate approval.
However, even if it fails, though, the conversation isn’t going away.
With inequality, tax fairness, and wealth redistribution taking centre stage globally, France’s approach to taxing the super-rich is bound to remain a hot topic.
If you have any queries about this article – France Moves to Tax the Super-Rich – or French taxes more generally, then please get in touch.
If you are a French tax adviser or a tax expert anywhere in the world and would be interested in joining our community as a member then please see here for more details.
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) has disclosed additional raids linked to its investigation into PwC’s tax scandal.
The scandal, which involves former PwC partners allegedly sharing confidential government tax briefings to benefit clients, has shaken Australia’s professional services sector and prompted significant regulatory scrutiny.
The controversy began when it was revealed that certain PwC executives had obtained privileged information from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) about impending tax policy changes and shared it with corporate clients to help them gain a competitive advantage.
This breach of confidentiality has raised serious concerns about the role of major accounting firms in tax planning and compliance.
AFP officials confirmed that additional search warrants were executed at multiple locations associated with the case.
The raids aim to uncover further evidence regarding the extent of PwC’s involvement and whether other firms or individuals played a role in leveraging government insights for private gain.
This case has prompted a reassessment of regulatory oversight on consultancy firms, particularly those advising on tax matters.
Some lawmakers have called for stricter penalties and increased transparency requirements for firms that handle sensitive government information.
The ongoing PwC scandal underscores the risks associated with regulatory breaches in professional services.
Authorities are expected to take a tougher stance on firms that misuse confidential government information for corporate advantage.
If you have any queries about this article on the PwC tax probe or tax matters in Australia, then please get in touch..
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in Australia and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then please get in touch. There is more information on membership here.
The IRS has issued a reminder to US taxpayers living and working abroad that their 2024 tax return deadline is approaching.
While most US taxpayers must file by April 15, expatriates have an automatic extension until June 15.
This reminder highlights important compliance issues for Americans earning income overseas.
US tax law requires citizens and permanent residents to report worldwide income, regardless of where they live.
Expatriates must also comply with additional reporting obligations, including the Foreign Bank Account Report (FBAR) for overseas financial accounts exceeding $10,000.
Expats may qualify for tax benefits such as the FEIE, which allows eligible individuals to exclude up to a certain amount of foreign-earned income from U.S. taxation.
The Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) also helps mitigate double taxation by granting credits for foreign taxes paid.
Taxpayers abroad should be aware of their obligations and ensure timely filing to avoid penalties.
The IRS encourages expats to use online tools or consult tax professionals for assistance.
If you have any queries about this article on U.S. expat tax obligations or tax matters in the U.S., then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in the U.S. and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then please get in touch. There is more information on membership here.
The recent national insurance hike introduced in the UK has been met with criticism, particularly from business leaders who see it as an indirect tax on skills and workforce development.
Halfords CEO Graham Stapleton is among the most vocal critics, arguing that the increase will lead to job cuts and reduced investment in employee training programs.
National insurance contributions are a significant cost for employers, particularly those in sectors that rely on skilled labour.
The latest hike adds further financial pressure on businesses already grappling with inflation and economic uncertainty.
Many fear that these changes will discourage companies from hiring or investing in upskilling employees, ultimately affecting economic growth.
Stapleton and other business leaders have urged the government to reconsider the hike or introduce exemptions for companies that invest in workforce training.
They argue that failing to do so could undermine the UK’s competitiveness and deter innovation-driven industries from expanding.
The debate over the national insurance hike highlights the delicate balance between generating government revenue and supporting business growth.
While the policy aims to fund public services, its unintended consequences could hinder long-term economic resilience.
If you have any queries about this article on the UK’s national insurance hike or tax matters in the UK, then please get in touch..
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in the UK and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then please get in touch. There is more information on membership here.
A surprising new tax debate has emerged in the US regarding the proposed issuance of $5,000 stimulus cheques in the form of Dogecoin (DOGE).
Dubbed the “DOGE dividend,” this initiative has sparked both excitement and skepticism.
Tax experts are now weighing in on the feasibility and tax implications of such a program.
The idea of providing stimulus payments in cryptocurrency was floated by members of the Trump administration as a way to stimulate economic activity and increase digital asset adoption.
However, the logistics of implementing such a plan remain highly uncertain.
Experts warn that distributing government payments in cryptocurrency raises complex tax issues.
The IRS currently treats cryptocurrencies as property, meaning recipients of DOGE stimulus payments would need to calculate gains or losses each time they spend their tokens.
This could lead to an administrative nightmare for taxpayers and increase compliance burdens.
While the proposal has gained traction among crypto enthusiasts, many financial analysts believe it is unlikely to materialize.
Nonetheless, the discussion has contributed to increased volatility in the price of DOGE and other digital assets.
The concept of a DOGE stimulus check is an intriguing example of how cryptocurrency is increasingly intersecting with public policy.
However, the tax and logistical challenges involved make it an unlikely reality in the near future.
If you have any queries about this article on DOGE dividend stimulus cheques or tax matters in the US, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in the US and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then please get in touch. There is more information on membership here.
Tax authorities in Italy have accused Amazon of evading €1.2 billion in Value Added Tax (VAT) on sales from China and other non-EU countries between 2019 and 2021.
The claim suggests that goods sold via Amazon’s platform avoided proper VAT reporting, allowing sellers to underpay tax or avoid it entirely.
This case is part of a larger crackdown on digital platforms suspected of facilitating tax avoidance through complex supply chains and offshore structures.
This isn’t the first time tech giants have clashed with European tax authorities.
The EU has been tightening VAT compliance rules in response to concerns that e-commerce giants give an unfair advantage to overseas sellers by allowing them to avoid local tax obligations.
If Amazon is found guilty, the case could have major implications for online marketplaces operating in the region.
The Italian Guardia di Finanza (tax police) and the Agenzia delle Entrate (Revenue Agency) claim that between 2019 and 2021, Amazon acted as an intermediary for thousands of non-EU sellers, predominantly from China, who were not properly registered for VAT in Italy.
This allegedly allowed sellers to undercut local competitors, as they were selling goods at VAT-free prices.
Amazon has denied wrongdoing, stating that it complies with all applicable laws and has invested in systems to identify and block non-compliant sellers.
However, tax authorities argue that the company should have done more to ensure sellers were VAT-registered before listing their products.
Italy has previously targeted other e-commerce giants, including Alibaba and eBay, for similar VAT issues.
In 2019, it was estimated that VAT fraud in the e-commerce sector cost EU governments over €5 billion annually.
VAT fraud in e-commerce is a significant issue across Europe, as platforms like Amazon have allowed non-EU sellers to access the market without the same tax burdens as domestic businesses.
The EU has introduced new VAT rules, including the One Stop Shop (OSS) system and Marketplaces as Deemed Suppliers regulations, to prevent platforms from facilitating VAT avoidance.
If Italy succeeds in its case, Amazon could be held liable for the unpaid VAT, which might force other countries to take similar legal action.
The case also highlights broader tax policy challenges in the digital economy, particularly who should be responsible for ensuring VAT compliance—the seller or the platform.
If Amazon is found guilty of VAT evasion in Italy, the consequences could be significant for the entire e-commerce industry.
More platforms may face pressure to enforce stricter tax compliance rules, and non-compliant sellers could be blocked from EU markets altogether.
For businesses and consumers, this case serves as a reminder that tax compliance in the digital economy is becoming more scrutinised.
If you have any queries about this article on Amazon VAT Evasion Allegations in Italy, or tax matters in Italy more generally, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in Italy and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then please get in touch. There is more information on membership here.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has revealed that the implementation of the global minimum tax could actually lead to a significant increase in tax revenues for low-tax financial jurisdictions such as Ireland, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.
While the global minimum tax was originally designed to curb tax avoidance and reduce the appeal of low-tax jurisdictions, the OECD’s latest report suggests that these very jurisdictions could become unexpected winners.
This revelation raises intriguing questions: How can tax havens benefit from a policy meant to reduce their attractiveness?
What does this mean for the future of global tax competition?
The global minimum tax, part of the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0 initiative, establishes a minimum corporate tax rate of 15% for large multinational companies with annual revenues exceeding €750 million. The goal is to:
Under the new rules, if a multinational pays less than 15% tax in a particular jurisdiction, its home country can apply a “top-up tax” to make up the difference. This mechanism was expected to reduce the incentive for companies to funnel profits through tax havens.
According to the OECD’s latest analysis, several factors explain why tax havens might actually gain from the global minimum tax:
Rather than shifting profits to jurisdictions where the parent company will impose a top-up tax, many multinationals may choose to keep profits in traditional tax havens like Ireland and Luxembourg.
Since these countries will now apply the 15% minimum tax themselves, companies can avoid additional taxes imposed by other countries.
The new rules discourage the use of “paper” companies with no real economic activity.
To comply, multinationals are likely to establish more substantial operations in tax-friendly jurisdictions—creating jobs, infrastructure, and, crucially, taxable profits.
While jurisdictions with 0% tax rates (like Bermuda or the Cayman Islands) will lose their appeal, countries offering moderate tax rates (like Ireland’s 12.5%) can simply adjust to the 15% minimum without losing their competitive edge.
This shift may lead companies to relocate from zero-tax jurisdictions to low-but-compliant tax havens.
For multinational corporations, dealing with complex top-up tax rules across multiple jurisdictions can be a compliance nightmare.
Many may prefer to consolidate operations in jurisdictions that have already implemented the global minimum tax, simplifying tax reporting and reducing legal risks.
Despite agreeing to raise its corporate tax rate from 12.5% to 15% for large companies, Ireland is expected to see an increase in tax revenues.
Many U.S. tech giants, such as Apple, Google, and Facebook, have significant operations in Ireland.
Instead of relocating, these companies are likely to maintain their Irish presence, now generating higher taxable income for the Irish government.
Known for its role in complex financial structures, Luxembourg has been quick to adapt to the new rules.
By offering tax certainty within the global minimum framework, it remains an attractive hub for multinational corporations, particularly in finance and real estate.
Long used as a conduit for shifting profits through the so-called “Dutch Sandwich” structure, the Netherlands is repositioning itself as a compliant yet attractive jurisdiction, thanks to its strong legal system, infrastructure, and now, globally accepted tax rates.
While the global minimum tax was designed to reduce harmful tax competition, it may inadvertently trigger a new form of competition:
Instead of competing solely on tax rates, countries will now compete on the efficiency and simplicity of their tax systems. Jurisdictions offering clear rules, minimal red tape, and robust legal protections will have the edge.
With tax rates more standardised, countries will shift focus to non-tax incentives—such as grants, research subsidies, and infrastructure investments—to attract businesses.
Countries like Ireland, Luxembourg, and Singapore could become “compliance-friendly” hubs, offering not the lowest taxes, but the most business-friendly environment within the new global tax framework.
While the OECD’s findings are economically sound, the situation raises several concerns:
The OECD’s global minimum tax was intended to curb tax avoidance and reduce the appeal of tax havens. However, in an unexpected twist, it may actually benefit traditional low-tax jurisdictions, especially those that adapt quickly and offer strong legal and business infrastructures.
While this outcome might seem counterintuitive, it reflects the complex reality of global tax dynamics. The global minimum tax is not the end of tax competition—it’s simply the beginning of a new chapter where compliance, transparency, and strategic adaptation are the new battlegrounds.
If you have any queries about this article on the global minimum tax’s impact on tax havens, or tax matters in Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, or other jurisdictions, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser specialising in international tax planning and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
In a dramatic escalation of global economic tensions, President Donald Trump has taken steps that many experts believe could steer the world towards a global tax war.
Following his decision to withdraw the United States from the OECD-led global minimum tax agreement, Trump’s new administration hinted at imposing retaliatory tax measures against countries that have introduced taxes targeting American multinational corporations, especially big tech firms like Apple, Google, and Amazon.
The fallout from this decision could reshape the global tax landscape, strain diplomatic relations, and trigger economic consequences far beyond corporate boardrooms.
But what exactly is happening, and what might the future hold as tensions rise?
A good question!
A tax war occurs when countries engage in aggressive tax policies that harm each other’s economic interests. This can take the form of:
While tax competition has been around for decades, the current situation is unique because it involves major economic powers clashing over how to tax multinational corporations in the digital economy.
The seeds of this conflict were sown during global efforts to reform international tax rules.
The OECD’s global minimum tax agreement was designed to prevent multinational corporations from shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions—a practice known as base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS).
The agreement had two key pillars:
While over 140 countries supported the framework, Trump’s administration saw it as an attack on U.S. sovereignty and an unfair targeting of American companies.
His withdrawal from the agreement set the stage for unilateral actions by both the U.S. and its trading partners.
Following the withdrawal, Trump’s administration announced plans to:
These aggressive moves risk igniting a full-scale tax war, with countries retaliating against U.S. measures, leading to higher costs for businesses and economic uncertainty worldwide.
Trump’s actions have triggered a range of reactions from the international community:
For multinational corporations, the prospect of a tax war creates serious challenges:
While a tax war alone may not trigger a global recession, it could amplify existing economic risks, especially if combined with:
A prolonged tax war could erode business confidence, stifle economic growth, and reduce government revenues at a time when many countries are still recovering from the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
While the situation looks tense, there are potential pathways to de-escalation:
Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the global minimum tax agreement and his threats of retaliatory measures have pushed the world to the brink of a tax war.
The stakes are high—not just for multinational corporations, but for the global economy as a whole.
If you have any queries about this article on the global tax war, or tax matters in international jurisdictions, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser specialising in international tax policy and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.
The global tax landscape was thrown into turmoil recently when former US President Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the OECD-led global minimum tax agreement.
This ambitious framework, aimed at imposing a 15% minimum tax rate on large multinational corporations, was designed to curb tax avoidance and level the playing field for global businesses.
Trump’s decision raises concerns about the potential for a new tax war and poses questions about the future of international tax cooperation.
The global minimum tax agreement, championed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), is an initiative to prevent multinational corporations from exploiting low-tax jurisdictions.
By imposing a baseline tax rate of 15% worldwide, the deal sought to ensure that all companies pay a fair share of taxes, regardless of where they operate.
Over 140 countries initially supported this agreement, signaling a major step toward global tax fairness.
President Trump cited concerns about the agreement’s impact on American businesses, particularly tech giants like Google and Apple, which generate substantial revenue globally.
Trump argued that the deal unfairly targeted US firms while benefiting foreign competitors.
Additionally, he expressed opposition to the agreement’s provision that would allow other nations to tax profits earned within their borders.
This decision has left allies like the EU, Japan, and Canada frustrated, as they had anticipated US leadership in implementing the deal.
Without the participation of the world’s largest economy, the agreement’s effectiveness is now under scrutiny.
The withdrawal raises the risk of retaliatory tax measures between countries.
For example, the EU and the UK have already implemented or proposed digital services taxes that disproportionately affect US-based companies.
In response, Trump hinted at doubling taxes on foreign nationals and companies operating in the United States. Such moves could escalate into a full-blown tax war, disrupting global trade and economic stability.
On the other hand, countries like Ireland and Switzerland, known for their low corporate tax rates, may continue to attract multinational corporations looking to minimise their tax burdens.
This could further fragment the global tax landscape and create competition among jurisdictions.
The US withdrawal from the global minimum tax deal marks a significant setback for international tax reform.
Without US participation, the agreement’s implementation faces serious hurdles, and the likelihood of unilateral tax measures increases.
While some countries are committed to moving forward, the absence of a global consensus could lead to fragmented policies and heightened tensions.
If you have any queries about this article on the global minimum tax, or tax matters in the United States, then please get in touch.
Alternatively, if you are a tax adviser in the United States and would be interested in sharing your knowledge and becoming a tax native, then there is more information on membership here.