Ecovis advises legal representatives, board members or company managers on how to meet compliance regulations in China.
While it had been very quiet for a long time to uncover possible tax savings models in former tax havens, this week the bad news for investors in these tax havens is piling up.
Belize, located in the southeast of the Yucatán Peninsula and popular with divers for its many coral reefs, has been considered a very discreet tax haven. Now, however, tax investigators from NRW are diving into a sea of offshore data records
Again and again, we have to defend cases in which the question has to be clarified who is responsible under tax and criminal tax law for tax evasion acts committed by a GmbH. This question becomes particularly important if the GmbH
The Federal Supreme Court has reversed and referred back to the appeal of the public prosecutor’s office a judgment for tax evasion amounting to millions as possibly too lenient.
After the EU member states lose up to 60 billion euros each year through VAT fraud, the EU Commission recently presented a new countermeasure. It is an analysis tool that gives tax administrations quick and easy access to information on cross-border transactions. It thus offers the possibility to react quickly to potential cases of VAT fraud.
On March 13, 2019, after intense analysis and dialogue, the finance ministers from the Europe- an Union removed Panama from the list of “tax haven” countries. This means that Panama is no longer categorized under the list of countries labelled “non coopera- tive on tax issues”.
In line with the EU directive on the obligation to report certain forms of fiscal cross-border transaction, Germany is also considering imposing such an obligation for purely domestic tax arrangements. On 25 June 2018, the EU Directive 2018/822 on the automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation with respect to notifiable cross-border transactions came into force.
The Director of Tax Research LLP and Professor of International Political Economy Practice at the University of London, Mr Richard Murphy, published a report in January 2019 according to which the tax loss from non-payment of taxes within the economies of the EU Member States could amount to 825 billion euros per year (reference year is 2015).
In the hearing of 12.12.2018 – B 12 R 15/18 R – the Federal Social Court reversed the judgment of the North Rhine Westphalia State Social Court of 30.08.2014 – L 8 R 822/14 – on the appeal of the defendant German pension insurance Westphalia and referred the matter back to the State Social Court for further hearing and decision.
The purchase of tax CDs by the tax authorities for the uncovering of tax evasions seems to fall somewhat into oblivion at present.
Employers regularly stumble across the example case described here. In the following, we will show what the risks are and what penalties can be imposed.
In criminal proceedings for accusations of tax evasion, the amount of the reduced taxes has a decisive effect on the sentencing. The statutory requirement of § 370 (3) no. 1 AO, the so-called „large scale“, is of particular indicative importance here. A penalty can only be reduced if there are mitigating grounds. This also applies if the perpetrator of a tax evasion was not economically favoured by his own actions.
The Federal Social Court (BSG) has decided in a trend-setting judgement (of 31.03.2017, Az. B 12 R 7/15 R) that an agreed fee, which lies clearly over the remuneration of a comparable employee liable for social security contributions, is an important indicator for an independent activity.
The Federal Court of Justice has decided, contrary to its established case-law, that input taxes must be taken into account when calculating the tax reduction and thus at the level of the facts, insofar as there is an economic connection between the outgoing invoice and the corresponding incoming invoice.
The FG Rhineland-Palatinate decided with judgement of 12.04.2018 (6 K 2254/17) that evasion interest cannot be subject of an actual communication.
In the underlying case, the plaintiff and operator of an ice cream parlour received a penalty order for withholding and embezzlement of wages in 37 factual majority cases with permission for a pub and food business, whereupon the responsible District Office revoked the permission under catering law. The decision was based on the order of punishment.
Reports from clients who are accused of prematurely criminal money laundering (§ 261 StGB) are increasing. This applies in particular to those clients who – mostly due to their business activities – make higher or regular cash deposits
We are often asked by our clients how much penalty they should expect for the accusation of tax evasion. For us, this is an absolutely understandable question, since everyone who is confronted with a criminal charge not only wants to know what the subsequent payment of the tax will cost him, including interest on evasion, but also whether he must expect a fine or even imprisonment.
