Can you avoid extra taxes by making your children the owners of your new business? My father wants my brother and I to be the owners of his new business in my home city. The reason behind this is to avoid paying extra taxes, as my father already has many businesses in his name and the revenue from this new business would force him to pay 30% of his total income in taxes (instead of a lower amount unknown to me). He told us that first we would need to be registered as self-employed workers, then this business would be put in our name and every month each of us would have to send to a bank account (local to my home country) 95% of the revenue. My brother and I would each keep the remaining 5%. I am basically clueless about the laws in this regard, while he is a lawyer. The main issue to me is that I don't live in my home country anymore and, for the time being, I have no intention to return. So in this regard my intuition tells me that this is not a good idea. As I see it, best case scenario I would have to declare (yearly I believe) the total revenue of this business in my home country plus my earnings from my current job abroad (as usual). I would most probably have to pay some taxes (while currently I end up receiving money from the state in the country I am working in), in both my home country and the country where I am currently living in due to this supposedly huge increase in income. Worst case scenario, at some point we get caught trying to avoid taxes and suffer the consequences from my home country's legal system (unknown to me). In case this information is relevant: My home country is Spain and I'm working in another EU country. Is this a legal way to avoid extra taxes or is this a way for seeking legal trouble? Thank you. Edit to clarify: My father's new business is not yet active nor registered (as per my knowledge). His plan is to make my brother and I owners of the space where this business would take place, and then we would register and start this business without legally involving my father.
TL;DR Yes, but there are very important side effects you might want to know. [Next three paragraphs are obsolete because further case detailing, but are relevant as the original case is still readable]. He has to either sell shares to you1 or give away shares to you2. There might be, however, family business law applicable, making an exemption from taxes quoted in the footnotes detailing the previous paragraph. Ask your father whether he knows anyone or not. And from then on you might be responsible for taxes imposed on the company (go ahead with the TS;DR). That’s a side consequence. If the workshop or office is free from VAT, I don't know why would anyone have to pay taxes from the place's acquisition. You would normally pay ITP-AJD from that transaction, but it certainly [(article 6)] looks like nonresident nationals are free from it. The important bit is that, as wrote in the previous answer's version, you can be called co-responsible for company's taxes if things go wrong. 1: Then you pay ITP-AJD taxes for that, because of its article 6.1 A) if you came back to Spain (or you appear in census fiscally in Spain). I don't say you're not subject to some other tax or some other case of this tax. Not to mention maybe you are not subject to this, but your brother might be. 2: Then you are subject to ISD taxes because of its article 3.1 b), read article 20.2 c) too as a confirmation that LLC shares are subject to this tax. TS;DR He told us that first we would need to be registered as self-employed workers, then this business would be put in our name and every month each of us would have to send to a bank account (local to my home country) 95% of the revenue. My brother and I would each keep the remaining 5%. &nbsp; [Next two paragraphs are obsolete because further case detailing, but are relevant as the original case is readable]. All of this is known as simulation, at least in the Spanish legal framework. That's something you might want to search about. Ask your father how is he going to sell [which percent shares?] of his company to you and your brother, and for which price (of course don't tell here). &nbsp; [...] every month each of us would have to send to a bank account (local to my home country) 95% of the revenue. My brother and I would each keep the remaining 5%. My father's new business is not yet active nor registered (as per my knowledge). His plan is to make my brother and I owners of the space where this business would take place, and then we would register and start this business without legally involving my father. You would be owner of a company, and its office or workshop, but not of its revenue. That could be argued as a case of absolute(resource in Spanish language) simulation. You want to read article 43.1 g) and h) of Law 58/2003. Your Spanish income might be subject to IRNR, maybe not. If a very large income, then most likely. We're discussing percentages, so nobody can know for sure. But that's better, for too large quantities could even make enough bulk for a criminal offence (in case not declared). So if it feels like a lot of money (what you earn in clear numbers, not what you de facto keep), then you might want to make sure you tax pay it3 (probably making sure your father knows altogether this plan of yours). You could eventually [my guess] even be charged with ISD for that revenue transfer back to Spain (if the receiver misses to pay them), if you're not co-owner of the bank account. 3: So you might end up with net loss! Depending on tax rates [am not familiar with]. I am basically clueless about the laws in this regard, while he is a lawyer. [...] Then make him teach you whatever necessary until you trust him more than Stack Exchange. Is this a legal way to avoid extra taxes or is this a way for seeking legal trouble? Possibly both. I think you shouldn't approve este negocio if you don't know (1) what's the current accounting situation of that company, (2) the current taxes situation of that company, and specially (3) what's your participation (and your brother's, and your father's) quota at any point in the company's life, from which some of the legal responsibilities might be derived. In general, you want to read section 3.a "responsibles" of chapter II "taxpayers" of title II "taxes" of Law 58/2003. That's only for the truly worst of cases. In a wonderful world it's an overcautious baseline. But if things go wrong; and this could not necessarily be caused by your father, but by partners/associates/co-managers/co-de-facto-owners of him, or even mid-tier managers or high profile employees; it would be the appropriate base line (only tax related, not considering other kind of civil responsibilities that could apply). If the company does its taxes alright, there should be however nothing to worry about. For me all of this can be narrowed down to two-three essential things: (1) trust in your father (and his future employees and his future potential partners/associates/co-managers/co-de-facto-owners), (2) how much are you wanting to play things safe or risky on your side, and (depending on earnings volume) (3) how likely are you going to be subject of IRNR investigations, or your money transfers out of your account be investigated because missed ISD duty (if whoever receives misses a large ISD duty). DISCLAIMER: This is not your legal advisory, it's a vague, yet somewhat informed, entry level reference in order to guide you. Here's no responsibility for any damages caused. If on doubt, always choose to go hire a lawyer.
Neither of those clauses has anything to do with whether a tax on the use of Whatsapp is legal: The first clause tells users that they are responsible for any taxes that may be owed. It says nothing about whether such a tax is or is not legal. The second clause says that users may not charge for Whatsapp services. It says nothing about whether the government may impose a tax for the use of the services. That is all beside the point, though. Even if the TOS explicitly said, "No one may tax the use of our services," that would have no legal effect. Saying that you're exempt from taxation does not make you exempt from taxation.
There are two models for citizenship, by location of birth and by the nationality of the parent. The US chiefly follows the first model, which is why only your grandma's father is American, and your grandma is not. By the same logic, you are not. Countries like Spain are far more lenient, and do allow you to request Spanish citizenship if you can show any of your direct ancestors are Spanish. That's possible because each country can make its own laws within reason. The international norm is that everybody should get at least a citizenship at birth; statelessness should not happen.
The tax man always wins. You can make mistakes to your own detriment, but not to the detriment to the state. Forgot to take a deduction that was available to you? Perfectly legal. You're not required to “optimize” your taxes. Forgot to declare taxable income? That is a problem, and you would need to amend your filings. You are required to accurately disclose all of your taxable income. Of course, not all income is taxable income. For example, occasionally selling personal items for less than their original value (i.e. at a loss) is not taxable.
Don't even think of going there. If you refuse to pay taxes with this argument, the IRS will take this as a "frivolous tax return", and give you a fine of up to $5,000. If you are trying to argue that this is illegal, you only make things worse. The IRS gets about 20,000 to 30,000 frivolous tax returns every year, so every argument you could come up with they have heard a dozen times.
It depends on whether your tax accounting is on an accrual basis or cash basis. The UK government (at least) refers to the former as traditional accounting. In that method of accounting, whatever it's called, you book the income when you invoice the work (that is, when it accrues). If you're paid in the next year, your balance sheet will show the outstanding balance in accounts receivable. Similarly, you book expenses when you incur them, not when you pay them. So if you bought a new computer for your business with a deferred payment plan, you book the entire expense at the time of the purchase, not the time of payment. Cash accounting is simpler. You can only use it if your total turnover from all of your businesses is less than £150,000 annually. You also cannot use cash accounting if your business is a limited company or limited liability partnership, or is on a list of certain types of businesses: Lloyd’s underwriters farming businesses with a current herd basis election farming and creative businesses with a section 221 ITTOIA profit averaging election businesses that have claimed business premises renovation allowance businesses that carry on a mineral extraction trade businesses that have claimed research and development allowance dealers in securities relief for mineral royalties lease premiums ministers of religion pool betting duty intermediaries treated as making employment payments managed service companies waste disposal cemeteries and crematoria For more information about traditional accounting, see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-to-calculate-your-taxable-profits-hs222-self-assessment-helpsheet.
Please note that I can't provide legal advice and consider the following as suggestions you can and should discuss with a lawyer of your choice: You are probably member of a tax-advisory association (Lohnsteuerhilfeverein). These associations can only advise its members on their tax declarations. Therefore you are indeed a member, not a "member". As a member you are presumably obliged to pay a yearly membership fee, and from your initial question I infer that the membership cannot be terminated before three years have passed. That and when you have to pay your fee is most likely provided for in the association's constitution. Payment of the fee does not depend on an invoice, because the requirements of § 14 UStG are most likely not met: the association is not a trader (Unternehmer), nor is a membership a performance (Leistung). Whether you have to pay a penalty depends on the wording of the section regarding the fee in the constitution. If your membership rights have been infringed by not giving you notice of the annual general meeting, this would not give you a defence or objection against the payment of the fee. You could report this matter to the competent watchdog (Aufsichtsbehörde) under § 27(1) StBerG, though: Aufsichtsbehörde ist die Oberfinanzdirektion oder die durch die Landesregierung bestimmte Landesfinanzbehörde. 2 Sie führt die Aufsicht über die Lohnsteuerhilfevereine, die ihren Sitz im Bezirk der Aufsichtsbehörde haben. That is either the Oberfinanzdirektion or the Landesfinanzbehörde in the German state where the association has its statutory seat.
Not going to hold up. Dutch Supreme Court confirmed 2012-09-21 in LJN BW6135 that arbitration is still covered by the the right to an independent judge, as established in Golder v UK, ECHR 1975-02-21, nr. 4451/70. Stack Exchange can't decide the rules themselves. (The Dutch case confirms that sector-wide arbitration is in fact legal, with regard to a standard arbitration clause commonly used in the Dutch building sector. The arbiter was found to be independent in that case precisely because they weren't picked by the builder involved.) The GDPR is only indirectly relevant, but the fact that it's mentioned does mean that there is an indisputable intent to provide services to EU consumers. (See section 23 of the GDPR, or its national equivalents). As such, you can't hide behind a US business address. If you intend to do business in the EU, it's under EU laws - all of them. You can't say that only the GDPR applies, and not other rules. I'm having a bit of a problem finding a source, but I'm fairly confident that consumers have the right to sue at their own, local court, overruling the default of suing in the court where the counterparty is located. Finally, I have the right under national law (Dutch: BW 6:236 start and sub-n) to strike the arbitration clause up to 30 days after the conflict arises, and demand a court decision. That's not 30 days after I accept the "Public Network Terms", that's 30 days after the arbitration is invoked. Dutch law explicitly allows arbitration abroad, and arbiters may apply foreign law, but as written the arbitration clause has no legal basis in the Netherlands, and any arbitration resolution would therefore not be considered valid. You may wonder if it matters to Stack Exchange that the arbitration decision would not hold in the EU. Well, consider a clause like Indemnification, which demands the user indemnifies Stack Exchange. That's a pretty empty demand if it's not enforceable.