Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Ways to Avoid/Reduce Paying Taxes

Ways to Avoid/Reduce Paying Taxes (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 12:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
if our governments wouldn't waste so much money; if they weren't so corrupt and absurd; if things like capital gain tax rates were sane... maybe less people would be compelled to set up shop in tax havens.
If CDs weren't so expensive...if there was more than one good song per album...if musicians weren't just going to blow it all on booze and drugs....etc. then maybe less people would be compelled to steal music.

It's all rationalizing.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 12:51 AM
 
Phil's setup is pretty standard, and SAFE. It's not really that complicated either from what my colleagues tell me. IOW, it's one I'd consider because it's one that I'd be able to manage on my own after some advice from a lawyer and accountant, and it's accepted enough that it doesn't generally warrant an audit (unless you do something really stupid).

The more "creative" the tax gymnastics you use, the more likely you're going to get audited. That's simply a fact. However, creative tax solutions aren't necessarily illegal. You just have to be prepared to defend yourself, because as soon as something happens that not necessarily is commonly seen legal tax practice, that's a big red flag for audits. Hell, even 100% accepted practice can be a red flag for audits if it's out of the norm. One example would be giving too much to charity.

The biggest problem with legal tax avoidance techniques that are very creative is that at least for Revenue Canada, it's tax first, ask questions later, and it's up to the person being audited to prove his position. As some have said, that can get really expensive really quickly in terms of lawyers' and accountants' fees, and on top of that you have to come up with all the tax owed up front, whether or not what you did was wrong or right. Only if you can prove you're right do you get the money back...

A guy I know was out 6-digit $ for several years, before Revenue Canada finally admitted his tax return was in fact legit.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 12:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
And it's a much easier setup than that described above by Phil.
Not in Canada it isn't. My business partner is married to a tax lawyer - who in return is a partner in one of the most respected firms in Canada. Needless to say he looks after our affairs, and his definition of his job is "to maximise your profits without landing you in jail". Sounds like a fair deal to me.

Anybody who thinks that you can just move your business offshore and avoid paying taxes is naive in the extreme - in Canada, I have no idea about the possibilites that might or might not exist in the UK.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 01:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Phil's setup is pretty standard, and SAFE. It's not really that complicated either from what my colleagues tell me. IOW, it's one I'd consider because it's one that I'd be able to manage on my own after some advice from a lawyer and accountant, and it's accepted enough that it doesn't generally warrant an audit (unless you do something really stupid).
You do NOT want to be audited. I've got friends who went through the process and it's not fun.

There are always people who think there's a magic tax bullet and there are always predators who are willing to take their cash. Make no mistake, governments are not stupid, despite the frequent evidence to the contrary, and when it comes to collecting tax dollars they can be ruthless in the extreme. These days, loopholes are few and far between.

Opening a virtual office in Bermuda and routing all your billings through a Bermuda bank account will earn you nothing but a amused snort from your local tax office. For as long as you're a resident of Canada, doing business in Canada you're liable to pay tax in Canada. Which, quite frankly, is just the way it should be.
( Last edited by Phileas; Dec 17, 2010 at 01:14 AM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 01:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
I'm not exactly sure how the US making it harder to use complicated tax shelters and various workarounds to game the system is taking away freedom.
A Canadian person goes to live in Monaco, they stop paying Canadian taxes.
A US person goes to live in Monaco, they continue to pay US taxes.

A Canadian person starts a company in the BVI, the company pays no taxes.
A US person starts a company in the BVI, they pay US taxes as if the company were on US soil.

The US owns you. If you don't own yourself, you have no freedom.

Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
I mean, I get that everyone wants to pay less taxes... but as members of a civilized society you are expected to do your share.
As a member of a so-called civilised society, since you now know that your tax dollar is being used to fund kiddie-fiddling sex slavery parties, I'd expect you to cease paying your taxes until the legal framework which allows this kind of thing to happen is fixed.

Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
At some point it stops being ethical.
No it doesn't. What's unethical is a body of people stealing money from you under threat of force and then using that money to blow up/sex up/bribe people you've never met on the other side of the planet.

Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
Setting up fake businesses overseas is definitely walking that line.
Who's talking about fake overseas companies? The OP is simply asking where best to put a real overseas company.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 01:17 AM
 
Yeah, US tax laws are ****ed up for sure.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 01:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
Not in Canada it isn't. My business partner is married to a tax lawyer - who in return is a partner in one of the most respected firms in Canada. Needless to say he looks after our affairs, and his definition of his job is "to maximise your profits without landing you in jail". Sounds like a fair deal to me.
You can't move your business offshore because it's not portable (not without a long commute, anyway). The OP's is.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 01:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
I'm not exactly sure how the US making it harder to use complicated tax shelters and various workarounds to game the system is taking away freedom.

I mean, I get that everyone wants to pay less taxes... but as members of a civilized society you are expected to do your share. At some point it stops being ethical. Setting up fake businesses overseas is definitely walking that line.
Are you American? If so... I'll mention... your government is broke. It's spent trillions of dollars that it never had, and now you have to keep paying for it. We all get that tax dollars feed the economy: put jobs and food on the table. Money needs to be circulating for their to be a healthy economy, not sitting in some rich dude's bank account.

However, governments are by definition corrupt, irresponsible, and surreptitious. It's time they did their part for a change, rather than farming it out to people who have to watch their profits implode because of taxation.

Make no mistake. We're talking about income tax savings/avoidance... on a personal and business level, nothing else really. There's lots of people and businesses in the US for certain that are not paying income tax legally. Either because they don't make enough money, or for other reasons.

It's the people making money that can really feel the full impact of income tax.

But even if you aren't paying income tax, you're paying tax on most of everything you buy as a consumer. Computers, gas, alcohol, food, tickets to events, etc. Then there's property tax, highway tolls, and everything else.

No, people shouldn't feel guilty for legally setting up a business in a country outside their own. When I see news articles like "US loses $250 billion to tax havens annually" I just have to laugh. You only lose something if it was yours before, and then you lost it. That money was never the US governments, neither should it be. They're not entitled to it. Therefore, they're not losing anything. They're "missing out" is a much better term. And they're missing out because they're not competitive tax wise with countries with lower rates.

Too bad so sad, that's the free world. And this is what a free market should be. Imagine if every country charged the same income tax rate. It would be like a monopoly or some kind of price fixing situation. That wouldn't be good for citizens.
     
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 01:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
You do NOT want to be audited. I've got friends who went through the process and it's not fun.

There are always people who think there's a magic tax bullet and there are always predators who are willing to take their cash. Make no mistake, governments are not stupid, despite the frequent evidence to the contrary, and when it comes to collecting tax dollars they can be ruthless in the extreme. These days, loopholes are few and far between.

Opening a virtual office in Bermuda and routing all your billings through a Bermuda bank account will earn you nothing but a amused snort from your local tax office. For as long as you're a resident of Canada, doing business in Canada you're liable to pay tax in Canada. Which, quite frankly, is just the way it should be.
I appreciate your comments. However, you need to understand a few things about international business. Two terms that are key: business portability and tax treaties.

Businesses that are portable are well suited to be set up outside the country where the founders are from. Internet businesses are well suited for this, and, unfortunately for the tax agencies, there is not much they can do because the work is both virtual and portable. That is, the work doesn't have to be done, in say, the US or Canada.

Second, when a country has a tax treaty with another country, they can each get a share of your income for tax purposes. Canada has fewer tax treaties with countries compared to the US. In fact, many of the best tax havens have no treaty with Canada, and, in some cases, the US as well.

The point of setting up elsewhere is to save on paying low-to-zero taxes on a business's profits. But you'd still be paying tax in your home country on the income you draw from the business. This is a very important point in this conversation. There's nothing illegal about this.

Again, we are talking about a real company, with real business, that is portable. This conversation was never about a "fake" company or about "tax evasion". Saying so is just projecting your own bias onto this subject.

FYI, Microsoft, Google, perhaps Starbucks and many others have complex legal structures ending in tax havens...
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 01:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
Not in Canada it isn't. My business partner is married to a tax lawyer - who in return is a partner in one of the most respected firms in Canada. Needless to say he looks after our affairs, and his definition of his job is "to maximise your profits without landing you in jail".
Hang on a min Phil. Isn't the definition of the lawyer-in-law's job to maximise his profits?

Ask yer boy if there's any law preventing foreign companies from employing Canadian freelancers/homeworkers/agents.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 08:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
The way it looks, I don't think we'll need to do anything this complicated. It's more about being an employee and paying yourself an income from an offshore company. We'll claim all the income we get, and pay taxes on that to our own governments. However, the profits from the company will not be taxed.
It's not this easy. Again, unless of course you're making enough money that it's still lucrative after you pay extensive lawyer fees, and someone in another country to manage your company for you.

Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
A Canadian person goes to live in Monaco, they stop paying Canadian taxes.
A US person goes to live in Monaco, they continue to pay US taxes.
The difference between resident and citizenship basis of taxation, as I pointed out to freudling earlier. Yet it's not exactly true - it depends on where the Canadian's income is coming from (if it's Canada, you'll still pay various taxes), not to mention that they'll probably get hit with exit taxes when they leave (another "expense").

A Canadian person starts a company in the BVI, the company pays no taxes.
A US person starts a company in the BVI, they pay US taxes as if the company were on US soil.
Again, not necessarily. Our tax act treats a foreign corporation as resident when its seat of management and control is found in Canada. You can't recreate your corporation in the Bahamas and sit back in Canada and laugh to the bank - management and control has to be legitimately outside the country. (Again, possibly with exceptions.) There are also rare instances where foreign subsidiaries of Canadian corps have been considered to be a sham, and their income computed to the Canadian corp.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 08:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
But of course, we live in an information age if you haven't been paying attention, which means it's easy, appropriate, etc. to garner important information from people about topics, and things... which is what I'm doing.
My advice is that you also ask about frivolous lawsuits as well...a lot of people will give you good legal advice on how the McDonald's hot-coffee case was so incorrect.

If you're not interested in the topic, move along...
So far, not sure if you've noticed, but Phileas/Eug/myself have been giving you the only advice grounded in the "real world," unless you've got an especially individual circumstance (which you might).
Anyway, tax havens...

What I have been seeing is that laws become very thorny and cloudy. For example, there are some countries that are tax havens, in addition to being non-cooperative. That means they won't disclose anything about the businesses and accounts to other countries, and they are not involved in any tax treaties.

Thus, even if the IRS or CRA wanted to pull records from x place, they wouldn't get very far. And even though they may have some entitlement to collecting tax from your income derived from offshore business, they wouldn't have the legal ground to obtain any company records whatever.
You're aware that hiding income in a tax-haven country in an offence under Canadian tax law, right?

I suppose you haven't been following the bank leaks in Europe lately, where x number of formerly extremely private Canadian-owned bank accounts "suddenly" became public? Yeah. Wait until that happens in the Bahamas.

I'm not saying to break the law. We should all be claiming personal income. I'm just pointing out how tax havens can create legally challenging situations for countries in different jurisdictions.
I'll repeat: in Canada, "willfully evading" tax (other than in specific named exceptions) is an offence. Possible penalties include 50%-200% of tax evaded plus imprisonment.

Go open your tax act.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 09:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Our tax act treats a foreign corporation as resident when its seat of management and control is found in Canada.
It's a good job I've given him a way around that then, isn't it?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 09:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
So far, not sure if you've noticed, but Phileas/Eug/myself have been giving you the only advice grounded in the "real world,"
No offence Greg, but you guys are completely out of your league on this one. I'll wager that none of you even has a numbered account.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 10:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
No offence Greg, but you guys are completely out of your league on this one. I'll wager that none of you even has a numbered account.
Perhaps you haven't been reading my posts?


Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
You're aware that hiding income in a tax-haven country in an offence under Canadian tax law, right?

I suppose you haven't been following the bank leaks in Europe lately, where x number of formerly extremely private Canadian-owned bank accounts "suddenly" became public? Yeah. Wait until that happens in the Bahamas.
...
I'll repeat: in Canada, "willfully evading" tax (other than in specific named exceptions) is an offence. Possible penalties include 50%-200% of tax evaded plus imprisonment.

Go open your tax act.
CBC News - Canada - Swiss bank accounts will be probed: Harper

To clarify: I'm not saying that you can't do it. I'm saying that isn't "worth it" for 90-odd percent of people, considering both the money and possible risks involved.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 11:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
No offence Greg, but you guys are completely out of your league on this one. I'll wager that none of you even has a numbered account.
No offence Doofy, but you know bugger all about the kind of leagues I am playing in. One thing I do know is that, unless there is a very sizeable Doofy Corp in existence, you would not be able to pay for the advice I am getting for free.

A numbered account as a symbol of understanding tax laws? Don't make me laugh.

Moncton is absolutely correct in saying that here in Canada it is illegal to engage in activities designed to wilfully evade taxation, with severe penalties. The judicial system is littered with idiots who thought they were smarter than the law. The only way for Freudling to evade Canadian taxes legally and safely is to move.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 11:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Perhaps you haven't been reading my posts?
More likely that you haven't been reading the OP's situation correctly.

If you think that he'd be in trouble if the Bahamas suddenly bent over for Revenue Canada, then (1) you haven't read his situation properly and (2) are completely out of your league and don't know how the proper offshore world operates.

These idiots getting hammered by fishing expeditions into Switzerland are exactly that: Idiots.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 11:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
No offence Doofy, but you know bugger all about the kind of leagues I am playing in. One thing I do know is that, unless there is a very sizeable Doofy Corp in existence, you would not be able to pay for the advice I am getting for free.

That statement alone tells me you have no idea what leagues lie above you.

Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
A numbered account as a symbol of understanding tax laws? Don't make me laugh.
Note the smiley at the end of that line.

Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
Moncton is absolutely correct in saying that here in Canada it is illegal to engage in activities designed to wilfully evade taxation, with severe penalties.
Go and ask your lawyer-in-law whether it's legal for a Canadian to have shares in a foreign company. And whether it's legal for a Canadian to take dividends from said company.

If it isn't, then fine, you've got me.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 11:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy
More likely that you haven't been reading the OP's situation correctly.
Oh really? I could have sworn he said:
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
Make no mistake. We're talking about income tax savings/avoidance... on a personal and business level, nothing else really.
...which is not allowed by our Income Tax Act. Interesting that he specifically wrote this after I had already, clearly, pointed out that "tax avoidance" can't be the primary purpose - you'd think he wasn't listening, or something.

Originally Posted by our Income Tax Act
General anti-avoidance provision

(2) Where a transaction is an avoidance transaction, the tax consequences to a person shall be determined as is reasonable in the circumstances in order to deny a tax benefit that, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, from that transaction or from a series of transactions that includes that transaction.

Avoidance transaction

(3) An avoidance transaction means any transaction

(a) that, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit, unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit; or

(b) that is part of a series of transactions, which series, but for this section, would result, directly or indirectly, in a tax benefit, unless the transaction may reasonably be considered to have been undertaken or arranged primarily for bona fide purposes other than to obtain the tax benefit.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 12:00 PM
 
Doofy, what I think they are getting at is that the government (in the U.S., at least, and from what they are saying it appears to be similar in Canada) can aggressively "pierce the corporate veil" and treat the liabilities of the corporation as synonymous with the liabilities of the individual owner/shareholder if it is obvious that the only function of the corporation is to avoid paying taxes. Therefore if you have set up an offshore corporation to pay you a salary or dividends, but it's clear that you are the "seat of management and control" residing in Canada, then it doesn't matter where the corporation is, they will still go after its income (through your personal assets). Perhaps this is treated differently in British law. I don't know.

Is it more complicated than what I outlined above? Probably. That's way it's a good idea to pay for a tax lawyer (and also pay for a second opinion) and not trust tax advice from anonymous internet posters.
( Last edited by SpaceMonkey; Dec 17, 2010 at 12:09 PM. )

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 12:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Go and ask your lawyer-in-law whether it's legal for a Canadian to have shares in a foreign company. And whether it's legal for a Canadian to take dividends from said company.
Both are fine.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 12:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Doofy, what I think they are getting at is that the government (in the U.S., at least, and from what they are saying it appears to be similar in Canada) can aggressively "pierce the corporate veil" and treat the liabilities of the corporation as synonymous with the liabilities of the individual owner/shareholder if it is obvious that the only function of the corporation is to avoid paying taxes. Therefore if you have set up an offshore corporation to pay you a salary or dividends, but it's clear that you are the "seat of management and control" residing in Canada, then it doesn't matter where the corporation is, they will still go after its income. Perhaps this is treated differently in British law. I don't know.
Look, I know what they're saying. But they don't know how to prevent that. I do.
The OP will confirm that in my PM to him I warn him about not being seen to be offshore simply for tax avoidance purposes.

Note at the start of the thread I asked the OP where he was and what nationality. That's because there's a difference in how to handle it depending on status. Do you guys think I mentioned that it's all but impossible in the US but slightly less impossible in Canuckistan because I don't know what I'm talking about?


Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Is it more complicated than what I outlined above? Probably. That's way it's a good idea to pay for a tax lawyer (and also pay for a second opinion) and not trust tax advice from anonymous internet posters.
Yes, that's why I directed him to one of the best international tax planners on the planet, via PM.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 12:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Both are fine.
Well shut up then.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 12:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Look, I know what they're saying. But they don't know how to prevent that. I do.
The OP will confirm that in my PM to him I warn him about not being seen to be offshore simply for tax avoidance purposes.

Note at the start of the thread I asked the OP where he was and what nationality. That's because there's a difference in how to handle it depending on status. Do you guys think I mentioned that it's all but impossible in the US but slightly less impossible in Canuckistan because I don't know what I'm talking about?
No, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you have some firsthand knowledge about this. In general we agree, it seems, about the difficulties here for Americans and Canadians. But your public posts, specifically:

"Go and ask your lawyer-in-law whether it's legal for a Canadian to have shares in a foreign company. And whether it's legal for a Canadian to take dividends from said company."

Seemed to ignore the fact (which you now acknowledge) that this obscures the real issue: whether the corporation is exercising legitimate functions other than sheltering income, and therefore whether there is any reason to treat the corporation as distinct from its "center of control."

I'm glad that it turns out we generally agree, though.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 12:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
But your public posts, specifically:

"Go and ask your lawyer-in-law whether it's legal for a Canadian to have shares in a foreign company. And whether it's legal for a Canadian to take dividends from said company."

Seemed to ignore the fact (which you now acknowledge) that this obscures the real issue: whether the corporation is exercising legitimate functions other than sheltering personal income, and therefore whether there is any reason to treat the corporation as distinct from its "center of control."
Thing is, the way it's done removes all possibility of the centre of control being in Canuckistan. This is what the peeps up there don't realise. It wouldn't be the OP's company, nor would it be officially under his control.
The US problem, IIRC, isn't a centre of control thing but rather it relates to beneficiaries and QI controls. And the fact that nobody offshore will entertain having an American in their premises due to the IRS accompanying them everywhere.

The OP has made it clear that the company will be the generator, so of course it serves a function other than sheltering.

And it's not like he didn't mention "expatriation" in the very first post, indicating that he's prepared to physically leave Canada.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Well shut up then.
I will direct you to my earlier point: residents of Canada are taxed on their worldwide income.

All foreign interest, dividends or any other investment income received by a resident of Canada is taxable in Canada, and must be reported as income in Canadian dollars. It doesn't matter how the foreign country treats the amount (although foreign tax credits might be available).
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 02:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
I will direct you to my earlier point: residents of Canada are taxed on their worldwide income.
I will direct you to my earlier point: You are way out of your league.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 02:14 PM
 
Psst, Greg. </whispers>

Originally Posted by freudling View Post
The point of setting up elsewhere is to save on paying low-to-zero taxes on a business's profits. But you'd still be paying tax in your home country on the income you draw from the business. This is a very important point in this conversation.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 02:20 PM
 
Yes, I saw that. Again, depending on the situation, there's an awful lot that could go sideways there - in particular when factual management & control has been given up to a non-resident, or at the end of this venture, when that money has to get back to the right persons.

Anyway, that's about all I can say, I think. I'm just pointing out that whatever the advice given here, at the end of the day he might as well stop wasting his time and go see a tax lawyer - and then I'd be interested in hearing what he has to say about his options.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 02:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Yes, i saw that. Again, depending on the situation, there's an awful lot that could go sideways there - in particular when factual management & control has been given up to a non-resident, or at the end of this venture, when that money has to get back to the right persons.
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
I will direct you to my earlier point: You are way out of your league.
IF Doof IS IN United States THEN transfer assets to structure B.
IF Doof eats cake more than twice per week THEN open membership with x gym.
IF inflation > 3.281% IN Outer Mongolia THEN raise sales price AD4X by 4%.
Etc., etc., etc.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Anyway, that's about all I can say, I think. I'm just pointing out that whatever the advice given here, at the end of the day he might as well stop wasting his time and go see a tax lawyer
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Yes, that's why I directed him to one of the best international tax planners on the planet, via PM.

Caps
( Last edited by Doofy; Dec 17, 2010 at 02:37 PM. )
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 03:54 PM
 
We are in agreement then - although I will note that he'll need to make sure he's dealing with an entity that's governed by Canadian law in some way.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 03:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
We are in agreement then - although I will note that he'll need to make sure he's dealing with an entity that's governed by Canadian law in some way.
Why, don't they let you speak to foreigners without asking mom first?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 05:18 PM
 
Would you trust an American/Brit/whomever to advise you on Canadian tax law?
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 05:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Would you trust an American/Brit/whomever to advise you on Canadian tax law?
I really think you are oversimplifying this. Through a more complex legal structure, by having an offshore business not controlled by me, from what I understand, there's nothing really at all, legally, wrong with working for it and getting paid a salary/dividends, etc.

When I said tax avoidance I really meant tax savings. It's more about tax savings for a business than tax avoidance. We're talking about a legal corporation, with people other than me in control, in a place that has zero tax.

I'll claim any income I draw from it in Canuckistan, but the rest should be legally untouchable. And by the way, it's not easy for countries to just pull records, etc. from tax havens. In fact, in some tax heavens, it would be next door to impossible for the ones that are non-cooperative that are devoid of tax treaties with Canada.

They're requests for information would be denied. But even if you willfully disclosed the balance sheet of the foreign company, etc., there would be nothing illegal about it.

Did you even read that article about Google funnelling their revenues into Bermuda? It's not like I'm the first person in the world to try to set up a company in a tax heaven. And whether you agree with doing it or not, it's perfectly legal what they're doing. Anybody who just waves their hands and says you can't save on tax for business in tax havens has no basis in reality. And by the way, Switzerland is the last place I would ever set up in a tax haven. There are way better places than that. All the sheep go to Switzerland. "Swiss bank account". LOL. There's about 5 or 6 other tax havens that are locked tight rock solid. But it doesn't matter anyway, because again, from what I understand, and from businesses who are actually doing this in the real world, there's nothing illegal about it.

One way of thinking of this is, it's like an RSP account on steroids. You can trade stocks from a brokerage account and you'll be paying zero dollars in capital gains. There's not tax on the total profits. It will all just sit there. Of course, if you get to a point where the business pays you out, you'll be taxed on it in your home country, but through various avenues, when you're older, that can be minimized very much.

So ShortcutToMoncton, does this make sense? I do appreciate your input, BTW.
( Last edited by freudling; Dec 17, 2010 at 06:01 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 06:09 PM
 
You seem to think I'm not familiar with this tax system. I understand it. If you're willing to take those necessary steps - in particular giving up management and control - then it's certainly viable. Again, you're still going to pay taxes on your salary/dividends, and at some point, presumably, the "rest" of the money will have to make its way back to you - unless you plan to leave the country?

Also, your faith in the "untouchableness" of foreign records is rather overly strong IMO. Considering the way these "tax loopholes" have been both investigated and legislatively closing over the past short while, I wouldn't be quite so complacent.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 06:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
You seem to think I'm not familiar with this tax system. I understand it. If you're willing to take those necessary steps - in particular giving up management and control - then it's certainly viable. Again, you're still going to pay taxes on your salary/dividends, and at some point, presumably, the "rest" of the money will have to make its way back to you - unless you plan to leave the country?

Also, your faith in the "untouchableness" of foreign records is rather overly strong IMO. Considering the way these "tax loopholes" have been both investigated and legislatively closing over the past short while, I wouldn't be quite so complacent.

greg
Ummmm, I don't know that I have a faith in non-cooperative countries. I do understand what you are saying. I don't really plan to leave the country, no. But the point here is to do everything legally, and structure it in such a way as it will be legal, yet it will save us the most in taxes. Insulating company profits is really what's it's all about, and this looks to be a legal way of doing it.

Sure, there are risks... but like many others, we're willing to take them. And ya, eventually there will be a transfer of assets and those would be taxed. But you have to admit that not having to pay taxes on company profits, as well as paying zero dollars in capital gains, is attractive.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 07:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Why, don't they let you speak to foreigners without asking mom first?


As freudling acknowledged, I think some are getting all twitter-pated over the notion of "avoiding" taxes. What freudling, you, and others are referring to is legally working the tax code in such a way as to maximize profits. If you're not growing, you're dying. There is nothing shady, illegal, or greedy about wanting to maximize profits by hedging against wholly unnecessary expenditures. If the IRS wants to audit you, they'll audit you regardless of the simplicity of your business model. You'll get audited for criticizing the IRS on the radio.

The US government (and others such as Canada) have had ample opportunity to look at and simplify their tax codes and they've chosen not to do so. What we have in the US as a result is a hodge-podge of patchwork "compromises" that have produced a Federal Tax code exceeding 3400 pages of legalese they're hoping no one would actually peruse. It is not the fault of shrewd entrepreneurs to actually avail themselves of the necessary information to take advantage of the loopholes created by their government. It's their sandbox, we're just playing in it.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 07:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Also, your faith in the "untouchableness" of foreign records is rather overly strong IMO.
No it's not. He doesn't have to have records. No record of who set the thing up, no record of the beneficiary, etc.. It's very hard for a government to get info on a company if none exists.

I'll say it yet again Greg: You're out of your depth here.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 07:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
As freudling acknowledged, I think some are getting all twitter-pated over the notion of "avoiding" taxes. What freudling, you, and others are referring to is legally working the tax code in such a way as to maximize profits. If you're not growing, you're dying. There is nothing shady, illegal, or greedy about wanting to maximize profits by hedging against wholly unnecessary expenditures.

The US government (and others such as Canada) have had ample opportunity to look at and simplify their tax codes and they've chosen not to do so. What we have in the US as a result is a hodge-podge of patchwork "compromises" that have produced a Federal Tax code exceeding 3400 pages of legalese they're hoping no one would actually peruse. It is not the fault of shrewd entrepreneurs to actually avail themselves of the necessary information to take advantage of the loopholes created by their government. It's their sandbox, we're just playing in it.
Exactly.

And you know why the governments don't close down all the loopholes? Because the people who really pull Barry's strings need somewhere to put their money. Or else.

- Actual process -
Scene: Barry is in campaign mode before election...
Barry: We're gonna close tax havens down! (x eleventy zillion)
Gordon Brown: Hurrah!

Scene: Barry and Gordon meet after Barry is elected.
Gordon Brown: So, we're going to close those tax havens down!
Barry: Ummm. Umm. Ummm. Hey, look at that pretty birdie!

Conjecture: In between the scenes? The people who really run things took Barry into a little room a few days after his election and explained how things work to him. And then showed him a video of who really shot JFK.

Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 08:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post


As freudling acknowledged, I think some are getting all twitter-pated over the notion of "avoiding" taxes. What freudling, you, and others are referring to is legally working the tax code in such a way as to maximize profits. If you're not growing, you're dying. There is nothing shady, illegal, or greedy about wanting to maximize profits by hedging against wholly unnecessary expenditures. If the IRS wants to audit you, they'll audit you regardless of the simplicity of your business model. You'll get audited for criticizing the IRS on the radio.

The US government (and others such as Canada) have had ample opportunity to look at and simplify their tax codes and they've chosen not to do so. What we have in the US as a result is a hodge-podge of patchwork "compromises" that have produced a Federal Tax code exceeding 3400 pages of legalese they're hoping no one would actually peruse. It is not the fault of shrewd entrepreneurs to actually avail themselves of the necessary information to take advantage of the loopholes created by their government. It's their sandbox, we're just playing in it.
Well said.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 09:44 PM
 
Or maybe they are needlessly complicated because of decades of companies doing shady things to try and get out of paying their fair share. It's a cat and mouse game.

Or maybe the system ends up that way because it's in the huge companies and the governments best interest to keep everything as complicated as possible to make sure that normal people will never be able to have the same advantages someone who can hire an team of accountants can.

How did I end up defending the IRS in this one. Jeez. I'm going to go take a shower now.

I mean, yeah, government sucks, taxes suck, cheating the little guy, blah blah blah... So why does practically every major country use progressive tax rates?

If a simple small government, flat tax/no tax, free market solutions would work so well, why isn't anyone doing it? Is there an example of a country that has found a better way?

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 10:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
Or maybe the system ends up that way because it's in the huge companies and the governments best interest to keep everything as complicated as possible to make sure that normal people will never be able to have the same advantages someone who can hire an team of accountants can.
It doesn't take a team of accountants. Simply stop taking your soma for a couple of days and turn the idiot lantern off. Use resulting time to better yourself.
Most people dread turning the TV off and studying when they don't have to, thus remain (and it's an overused but highly appropriate term) sheeple.

Oppressing the poor is the easiest job in the world... ...because the poor mostly manage to do it themselves without any assistance.

Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
I mean, yeah, government sucks, taxes suck, cheating the little guy, blah blah blah... So why does practically every major country use progressive tax rates?


Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
If a simple small government, flat tax/no tax, free market solutions would work so well, why isn't anyone doing it?
It's like this. The countries who've tried communism are generally now on flat rates (e.g. Russia flat 13%, Czech flat 15%, Poland flat 19%, Romania flat 16%, Ukraine flat 15%). The countries who haven't tried communism (and as such are full of idealistic freakos who haven't lived their dream) play around with communist philosophies (which include progressive tax rates).
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 17, 2010, 11:54 PM
 
Doofy has it right IMO.

Anyway, there's always the two sides: people for income tax and those against. Income tax is good and it's bad. It's good because it enables a country to better supply public goods. Without much tax money to play with, roads, school systems, etc. could and, in reality, do suffer.

But the major problem is what developed nations do with that money. And they've demonstrated time and again that they are irresponsible and operate with outright impunity in most cases. It's very hard for citizens to hold the government as a whole accountable. After 4 years, a new government comes in free to make as many mistakes as they want. In this way, they're sort of monolithic.

This is what makes it a cat and mouse game between the people and the government. Gross overspending on things that cause massive national debt at the expense of citizens. I'm not a freak left-winger. I'm pro-capitalism. I'm on the side of people and businesses.

So when I ask myself a question about paying taxes, first off, I don't feel good about some of the things that has landed our governments in such debt. For instance, let's take the US... and their occupation of Afghanistan. That war has sucked literally trillions of dollars from your country. Sure, industry benefited. But now taxpayers are left to clean up the mess. As always.

In Canada, we have an emerging national health care crisis because of increasing costs. As you know, Canada has a public healthcare system. Based on some of the data I have seen, part of the reason it's becoming a crisis is because of our lax immigration and citizenship laws. That is, it's very easy for immigrants, and even non-residents, to get expensive health care here. And the taxpayers pay for it. In addition, immigrants work the system, in some cases, they only hold passports to milk the system, but live in other countries most of the time.

We're talking in some cases millions of dollars per individual.

So my point is, while taxes serve a purpose, they've been terribly abused and mishandled by our governments since the beginning of time.

The sad reality is, the more money you give the government, the more they spend. And they're inefficient by definition.

You have a choice to reduce the amount of taxes you pay. You can choose to be a tax slave or you can do what you can to reduce the amount that you have to pay.

I strongly believe that if our governments weren't as irresponsible as they are, we'd all be more accommodating when it comes to taxation.

It's like a Mafioso coming around to collect money from you every year. You may not agree with what he does, but you perceive that you don't have a whole lot of choice but to pay up.

Well, with a few backflips, you can somewhat free yourself from this.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2010, 01:05 PM
 
In the USA, have questions about incorporating to reduce tax burden, practical suggestions please, less theory.

Friends with a medical practice, currently sole proprietorship. Considering incorporating as C, S, or LLC, whichever provides the most tax advantages in their situation. I understand that as a C corporation, it would be classified as a PSC and subject to 35% flat rate tax -- unless 6 % of the C corp were owned by someone who is not an employee or retired employee, then it gets 15% tax rate up to a point.

From what I can tell, the main advantage to a C corporation is its ability to pay for and fully deduct health premiums and expenses. In the private health insurance market, owner-employees would pay $12k or more in premiums, not tax deductible. The C corp however could pay for it all, which would be like compensation to the owner-employee but never recorded as such (S corps, however, must record it as gross income to the employee).

Anything else that would put it incorporation in one camp or the other?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 06:53 PM
 
Interesting expose in a Canadian national newspaper:

How I learned to avoid the taxman in the British Virgin Islands
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 10:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
In the USA, have questions about incorporating to reduce tax burden, practical suggestions please, less theory.

Friends with a medical practice, currently sole proprietorship. Considering incorporating as C, S, or LLC, whichever provides the most tax advantages in their situation. I understand that as a C corporation, it would be classified as a PSC and subject to 35% flat rate tax -- unless 6 % of the C corp were owned by someone who is not an employee or retired employee, then it gets 15% tax rate up to a point.

From what I can tell, the main advantage to a C corporation is its ability to pay for and fully deduct health premiums and expenses. In the private health insurance market, owner-employees would pay $12k or more in premiums, not tax deductible. The C corp however could pay for it all, which would be like compensation to the owner-employee but never recorded as such (S corps, however, must record it as gross income to the employee).

Anything else that would put it incorporation in one camp or the other?
Cold Warrior in the house!:

I think you answered your own question.
     
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2011, 10:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Interesting expose in a Canadian national newspaper:

How I learned to avoid the taxman in the British Virgin Islands
Really good article. However, that guy has too much time on his hands, and shouldn't be baiting people like he did. He's got some nerve...

The funny thing was that bit about Richard Branson. Obviously these really rich guys hide out there. It's a no brainer.

Why do people make such a big deal about this stuff, like some big secret or something?

Anyway, learned a bit from it, but I knew most of what was in there. By the way, BVI isn't the best place to be
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2011, 10:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
In the USA, have questions about incorporating to reduce tax burden, practical suggestions please, less theory.

Friends with a medical practice, currently sole proprietorship. Considering incorporating as C, S, or LLC, whichever provides the most tax advantages in their situation. I understand that as a C corporation, it would be classified as a PSC and subject to 35% flat rate tax -- unless 6 % of the C corp were owned by someone who is not an employee or retired employee, then it gets 15% tax rate up to a point.

From what I can tell, the main advantage to a C corporation is its ability to pay for and fully deduct health premiums and expenses. In the private health insurance market, owner-employees would pay $12k or more in premiums, not tax deductible. The C corp however could pay for it all, which would be like compensation to the owner-employee but never recorded as such (S corps, however, must record it as gross income to the employee).

Anything else that would put it incorporation in one camp or the other?
Folks would likely need more information to give you sound advice. For example, there are aspects of incorporation that vary from State to State such as filing fees. (usually less for C and S corps than LLCs) Then, there are personal preferences and/or longterm goals that might sway your friends into one direction over another such as who the shareholders will be, how many, number of stock class offerings, etc...

The most practical advice I could give as a non-expert would be to start by contacting the SBA (Small Business Administration) for whichever State your friend is interested in start-up. Otherwise, you're left with theories of incorporation such as:
  • C corps are most familiar, but subject you to double-taxation. The company's profits are taxed originally at the Corporate level, then taxed again at the individual level at shareholder distribution. If you have a wealth of shareholders and want to offer more than one class of stock, need ease/simplicity of stock sales and transferability, this may be preferable. This may also be preferable to someone who is concerned with their own or employees' medical expenses as C corps offer a far more generous and wider range of IRS-approved deductions and expenses.
  • S corps are much like C corps, but may be preferred for smaller entities/less shareholders. In fact, you'll originally file as a C corp with the Secretary of State, then with the IRS to become an S corp. S corps allow you to avoid taxation at the individual/shareholder level, but the caveat is more stringent ownership requirements and limitations to the percent of gross corporate income that can come from passive income (other, regular income), among several other limitations including few to none of the same medical expense IRS deduction protections afforded by C corps.
  • LLCs also allow you to avoid double-taxation, but it works the other way around from S corps through a slightly more complex process. While LLCs are generally more expensive to form initially, are not subject to the ownership limitations of S and C corps, they can offer more than one class of stock to an unlimited number of shareholders that can include other LLCs, S corps, or C corps unlike S and C corps. The caveat is less ease/simplicity of stock sales and transfer in that they are subject to more requirements than S corps. Some states allow single member LLCs, others don't.

Medical practice? I can see why he's interested in incorporation. So... I've only scratched the surface and you can already see there are a lot of details and few things less complex than the US tax code and the pros and cons between the choices above. Check with the local SBA and a trusted cpa and hell, while you're at it - a good tax attorney.
ebuddy
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2011, 11:06 AM
 
Thanks.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2011, 12:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
Really good article. However, that guy has too much time on his hands, and shouldn't be baiting people like he did. He's got some nerve...
He's a journalist. Isn't this the kind of thing that most people would like journalists to do - put themselves in the middle of an area that's murky or poorly understood by most people, and let us know how it works "on the ground"???

Why do people make such a big deal about this stuff, like some big secret or something?
I'm trying to figure out if you fully read the article. If so, you would have picked up on the fact that, several times, he was essentially told that it was "okay" to do things that other parties then told him was either illegal, or legally dangerous.

It's a "big deal" because it's skirting a very, very fine line.

Anyway, learned a bit from it, but I knew most of what was in there.
For the record, from what I could see, what was in there was almost exactly what I've already argued in this thread - that to truly enjoy any significant tax benefits from using this method, you're probably going to have to move out of Canada in order to do so.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:42 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2