I was replying to Michael as he must be very busy with all that money laundering and drug trafficking. I find it hard enough just to stagger through the day.
Ah, but as a signatory I don’t get statements etc. The account owner does. And what about company accounts? Regarding dormant accounts I’ve no idea how many I’ve acumulated over the years in different places I’ve lived. There has to be some common sense applied to this.
Mike I couldn't resist, but did you see the reports yesterday (Daily Telegraph) detailing how the UK Taxpayers support Tony Blair's Business Empire?
I also read recently of how Australian Taxpayers still shell out megabucks for FIVE past Prime Ministers - all of whom are on the public payroll at close to their original salaries plus other accrued benefits long after they left office. This is not exactly unheard of in other places I am sure.
If you or I tried to get away with this we would be taxed to the hilt on any benefits.
You wonder why I have such a low opinion of those creating laws to penalise us?
John S.
it could be one of those things buried in the small print. How often do we either read or understand even all this guff when we accept or even buy something we want? Most is there to protect the company from being caught up in any mischief anyway, and is a Disclaimer on any Responsibility of actions taken by the User. Quite honestly in a dishonest world who can blame them? Ever read a Hospital Agreement for an Operation? Same thing.
I have learned to romp through most of this stuff as it is almost always the same except in differing words from different parts of the world - although mainly from the USA (surely the most litigious country in the world?).
Just about any and every online transaction is covered by such a Disclaimer, but PayPal in my book is an excellent accounting system apart from anything else as you can get FULL printout of evey transaction you make - buying and selling, which in the past I have used to provide information to French tax authorities and it was accepted. I don't trade on PayPal now, but I do use it for online purchases it as a payment system with an in-built security insurance against being ripped off by dodgy dealers. I have only had to use this once in the more than ten years of having an account and it worked like a dream.
Quite simply if an online company doesn't accept PayPal, I don't trade with them. One exception is Amazon/Kindle with whom I do publish and receive such Royalties as I now accrue. Incidentally Amazon also provide details of such revenues to me which can also be used for the French tax authorities. I have opted for French taxation liability which obviates any withholding tax in the USA.
One thing with many online deals is the blatant but hidden little boxes that obscurely idicate that you should tick NOT to get 'messages from our associated companies' or words to that effect, when the net effect is to do precisely the opposite.
Anything promoted as FREE eg Hotmail, gMail etc., is never as clear as we might imagine, although mostly benign in simply creating an increase in spam, we should at least not be naive enough to think anything if free in this world. There is always a quid pro quo which we either accept or we don't.
It is not as simple as that John. That is pure media hype. All drug dealers and money launderers really moving goods and money about do not use a few thousand here and there. The recent discovery of a 386kg of cocaine worth over €15m among bananas from Colombia delivered to 14 Aldi stores in Berlin epitomises that. In January 2014 there had been 140kg worth €6m similarly logistically sent to Aldi there. If these two misdirected consignments have been discovered, then when it has gone right just how many millions worth have gone through? Yet the statistics on drug dealing busts worldwide only show one sizeable arrest of a group of apparently respectable businessmen in California, the rest of the world nothing anything like that scale. Their money is treated like other business. Money launderers, often in the drugs trade but also a big part of the illegal arms trade, are very seldom caught. The estimates for drugs and arms goes into the tens of billions of US$ per year. We have heard plenty about tax evasion and avoidance over recent months to know by now that revenue services are fighting against the wind.
Because I professionally keep my eye on such issues as human trafficking, I also keep it open very wide indeed, so keep abreast of human rights publications, journals, human rights and academic articles and actually the banking crackdown is implicated in two things. Firstly, banks are trying to make themselves appear whiter than white by imposing more controls on people who can be caught since the corporate financial world cannot afford to have people moving large amounts of money around the world caught. Money is their bread and butter. So there we little fish are the first line. Secondly, they are playing along with the revenue services to keep governments sweet so that their deepest secrets are not delved into. Then the revenue services have a brief from their governments to clamp down on 'leakage' without apparent exception being made according to wealth or status. So they go for the easiest targets.
Human rights experts in the finance field are looking at that and criticising the increasing control on how people can use their own money. An example of a man who won over £30,000 in cash in a card game who was shopped by his bank for trying to pay it in, the money confiscated by the Inland Revenue as unknown to them thus taxable if proven to be legitimate was taken up. The press never got to have the story because it turned into pure embarrassment. The prince from an oil rich nation who lost most of it told the police that was the case. Moreover he said he rarely has less than £200,000 cash at hand because he does not trust UK banks. Gambling privately falls outside the remit of the IR who had to return the money. Nobody asked how and from where the prince's cash in several currencies came to be in his possession unknown given that there are supposed to be limits on cash carried in and out of countries and extraordinary withdrawals are now reported. Obvious a member of a royal family from an oil producing nation does not count. That is possibly exactly the same nature of person as those who pay cash for illegal arms, but untouchable. The opportunist card player who got lucky but is 'ordinary' nearly got turned over by the law.
The banks, it would seem, are using us as their patsies. The anonymity and security once so revered appears to count for the very rich, for the rest of us no longer. The likes of Pat who raised the topic are the ones expediency allows to be caught because examples must be made. A man with a big smile who keeps his money from his vast corporate empire of the same name as the islands he keeps his money in keeps on smiling. The rest of the world pay for what he does not.
I haven’t made accusations about anybody, I’ve just stated the facts as I understand them. Unfortunately drug dealers and money launderers don’t go around wearing badges advertising their profession, they mix in with the crowd. The law enforcement agencies put a lot of time and effort into tracking down these criminals and unexplained large cash transactions are often a clue. Unfortunately for all the upstanding, law abiding citizens out there that means that your paper trails have to be whiter than white, belts and braces. Small bore target shooting died out in the UK due to a clampdown on gun ownership but I doubt the criminal fraternity took much notice, it was the innocent who suffered. The latest clampdown is using cash, we now have to be accountable and anyone who does not follow the simple rules laid down for tax returns, bank accounts etc will be viewed with suspicion. That’s not me accusing anybody but a fact of life in the 21st Century.
My pension is paid into my French bank account, I am not sure what the benefits of an intermediary one are. Well, apart from contributing a few bob to their coffers.
Good info Simon. But since Paypal do that with out my knowledge, consent or signature and just for their purposes I reckon I’m kosher. It’s all geting too bloody complicated. I think I’ll move to bitcoins:-)
I'm having a large Grants before making any rash decisions :)
No worries! I'm not upset at all - I just didn't want the discussion to come across as too judgemental but I should probably have added a smiley face at the end of my comment just to show that I was not being entirely serious!
But thanks for your apologies. Much appreciated! Now as it is Friday night, I suggest we all have a large G&T. Who's for a virtual round? I'm buying....
Don't worry Simon, it is easy to do on and in these discussions, we all do it, and for the most part get pulled up as well.
Anyway you have proved that you are human anyway - and apparently a nice guy - can't see you in the Civil Servant mould any more!
(Now wait and see me get pulled up by ex-civil servants!) :-D !!
Catharine / Norman - I'm so sorry if I've upset you - it honestly wasn't my intention. I was simply trying to help by providing factual information that will possibly mean that others will not find themselves in the same situation as Michael. I realise that some of the information is 'unpalatable' but...there it is, that's really not my fault.
Anyway, my sincere apologies for upsetting anyone - I feel terrible :-(
Simon, why do you have a such a problem with people being human and making an error? You sound as if you are a perfect Civil Servant, and God forbid they could EVER make a mistake?
Pity us poor humans from Planet Earth.
Simon we did miss it. It is a boring detail but we had assistance from the tax office to complete our first return. They then photocopied the completed returns and said to do the same every year. The form is slightly larger than A4 format and box 8UU does not copy. You can justly accuse me of idleness and cutting corners but the fact is I filled in all the boxes that I could see which had been previously completed but not that one. I did not ignore it. Nor did my friends. They declared all their income from overseas accounts but did not spot that they had to tick a box to say they had those accounts or see the note to say they had to supply a list. But why, when income is declared, couldn't the tax office just ask for details of the accounts? And at least two of my friends had been told by their tax office that it was only necessary to resubmit the list if there had been changes.
Thanks to Pat's post and the numerous helpful and informative comments, I have just been able to modify my declaration on line, now compliant and hopefully redressing my innocent oversight.
@ Simon - are you a plant from HMRC??!!
John - by opening a Paypal account in the EU, you automatically have a numbered 'bank' account in Luxembourg (their registered base) i.e. an overseas account as far as the French fisc are concerned.
Michael....you said....
'I don't know many expatriates in France but a straw poll of those that I do know suggests, if they are a representative sample, that 80 per cent of expatriates are not aware of this requirement and could be similarly fined'
Whether they are aware of this requirement or not is irrelevant - it's a standard question on the standard French Income Tax returns (paper or on-line) and has been for many years. You can't miss it but, you can of course, choose to ignore it.
I wonder if the same expats in your straw poll would ignore the same type of question on their HMRC income tax returns?
Doreen, I have to admit to having quite enough problems balancing one account not to want to complicate my life with more. Maths were never my strong suit.
John, same point please. This old fart can't follow the conversation without some identifcation as to who the recipient should be. Who is 'You'?