I just came out with an old article from the Daily Mail ,2006 ,titled "The Stones pay just 1.6% tax "

I have two questions & would be glad if somone could enlighten me .

- What is the political belonging of the Daily Mail ? Anyhow,if I am not mistaken ,it's a sort of tabloid ,isn't it ?

-Does someone knows if the Stones still use an offshore trust nowaday ?

In case some of you don't remember it, here is the article I am talking about :

[www.thisismoney.co.uk]


THE Rolling Stones have paid just 1.6% tax on their earnings of £242m over the past 20 years, it emerged yesterday.



GIMME SHELTER: Sir Mick Jagger and his Rolling Stones bandmates have benefited from massive tax breaks and paid just 1.6% of their earnings

Documents published in Holland show that Sir Mick Jagger, Charlie Watts and Keith Richards used offshore trusts and companies to ensure tax breaks.
Of the fortune they have accumulated since 1986 for royalties, they have paid just £3.9m in taxes.

The revelation emerged after the three set up a will to ensure that their beneficiaries do not end up squabbling over their money when they die.

The band appear to have been spurred into action after Richards had brain surgery following a fall from a coconut tree this year. Sabine Schuttgens, a lawyer who is involved in setting up the Stones' trusts, said: 'The foundations are to make sure that after the death of the rock stars, there would be no argument among their heirs.'

News of their money management emerged when 63-year-old vocalist Sir Mick, drummer Watts, 65, and 62-year-old guitarist Richards decided to hand over their estates to two foundations in Holland.

Their fortunes have been secretly invested in the country for the past 35 years. The trusts will control the rights to the Stones' music, performances, merchandise and films. Under Dutch law, certain information-must be made public – allowing details of their extraordinary tax break to emerge.

The band started banking in Holland in 1972 because, reportedly, they did not trust British finance houses.

Under Dutch law, there is no direct tax on royalties. They have been tax exiles ever since - meaning they cannot make Britain their main home. Their holding company, Promogroup, has offices in both Holland and the Caribbean, allowing them to reduce tax liabilities.

As a latecomer to the band, Ronnie Wood, 59 - who replaced Mick Taylor in 1975 - does not qualify to have his assets managed by the same group as the others. Watts is said to be worth £80m, and as main songwriters, Richards is worth £185m and Sir Mick's fortune is as much as £205m. There is no record of Bill Wyman, 69, who left the band in 1992, in the registration for the trust.

U2 were obviously so impressed by the Stones's fiscal arrangements that the Irish rock band now share the group's Dutch financial director, Jan Favie.



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

well, what to think of that ? I can't answer your questions

What they pay is ridiculous and a real shame !
all these rich people that absolutely want to spare as much money as they can by escaping their tax duty does not make a good impression to me.

- What is the political belonging of the Daily Mail ? Anyhow,if I am not mistaken ,it's a sort of tabloid ,isn't it ?

-Does someone knows if the Stones still use an offshore trust nowaday ?



- Very much to the right. Just because a newspaper is a tabloid, it doesnt automatically mean that they concoct everything.

- of course they do. The Stones have paid hardly any tax for a long time.

I wonder in what they invest their money.
African diamonds?

Quote
Amsterdamned
I wonder in what they invest their money.
African diamonds?

Booze & pills & powders.............................well maybe not anymore.

Quote
Edith Grove

Quote
Amsterdamned
I wonder in what they invest their money.
African diamonds?

Booze & pills & powders.............................well maybe not anymore.

You have a point here: That's what keeps the poor miners working.

Get over it....they are extremely high net worth.
They get good advice. They pay virtually no tax.
This is the world we live in, and if it was any one of you in the same situation, you would do the same thing.

My only problem with this, is that I think that given their situation they could create far more benevolent activities for themselves.

FOR EXAMPLE, the next tour, all proceeds raised goes to children with AIDS in Africa. They don't need the money, they say so themselves. They get to be self-aggrandizing in a major way, enjoy the music on tour, and actually help some very needy. Think of the positive press they would generate.

I see no downside, but sadly, I know I'm dreaming.

Agree 100%

Quote
Gazza
Agree 100%

Well, not only would it benefit a very deserving group (whoever they chose), it would also cut them a fair bit of slack, from IORR feedback on the tour.

If you permit me to give you an example:

"Just saw them in Boston last night. Mick's vocals sucked, way too nasally, and Blondie sounds better than Keith, they should just have him stand beside Mick and move Keith to the background, and I think Ronnie was drunk...Charlie sounded good mind you, but whatever, it all goes to charity anyway!"

All the same venom as we've seen before, but with a positive spin!

You know how the rich stay rich? They don't spend money.

Quote
Amsterdamned
I wonder in what they invest their money.
African diamonds?

Well, no joke, they did (or do?!): I have a magazine clipping from the 1970s that says that the band are shareholders of a diamond mine in Botswana (comment by me: no dictator, democracy par excellence since independency).

Quote
Bliss
You know how the rich stay rich? They don't spend money.

Or, perhaps, they make more than they spend.

Quote
treaclefingers
Get over it....they are extremely high net worth.
They get good advice. They pay virtually no tax.
This is the world we live in, and if it was any one of you in the same situation, you would do the same thing.

It's fortunate that all of us do not think that way otherwise it would be a disaster for a country.
I don't pay much taxes cos I'm not that rich but I pay them.
In France, lost of artists choose to live in Switzerland to pay far less taxes than here. They can negotiate a tax contract which sounds unacceptable to me.
They have lots of privileges as artists but this one is too much !

of course George had the answer...

if you drive a car, car - I’ll tax the street;
(if you try to sit, sit - I’ll tax your seat;
(if you get too cold, cold - I’ll tax the heat;
(if you take a walk, walk - I'll tax your feet.




2 1 2 0

Well, we know Richards, a US Resident spends less than 162 days a year in the US, otherwise his tax bill would be a lot higher.

There is nothing wrong with legally taking advantage of a system.

oh I see that lots of you here are pretty much into the system
It's not very rock'n'roll spirit !

Quote
Come On
of course George had the answer...

if you drive a car, car - I’ll tax the street;
(if you try to sit, sit - I’ll tax your seat;
(if you get too cold, cold - I’ll tax the heat;
(if you take a walk, walk - I'll tax your feet.

I like this version:

Quote
jpasc95

Quote
treaclefingers
Get over it....they are extremely high net worth.
They get good advice. They pay virtually no tax.
This is the world we live in, and if it was any one of you in the same situation, you would do the same thing.

It's fortunate that all of us do not think that way otherwise it would be a disaster for a country.
I don't pay much taxes cos I'm not that rich but I pay them.
In France, lost of artists choose to live in Switzerland to pay far less taxes than here. They can negotiate a tax contract which sounds unacceptable to me.
They have lots of privileges as artists but this one is too much !

If all of us were this rich we wouldn't need taxes, because we'd need no governments, because we'd all pay private companies employing robots to do all the work.

Please don't be a dufus, and understand what I'm saying rather than try and paint me as something that I'm not, by only quoting part of my quote.

Maybe you're too dull to understand what I am saying...the system is @#$%& and most people would take advantage of that, perhaps yourself excepted.

My quibble is given that situation, a bunch of middle/working class guys from London who've become incredibly wealthy don't do that much to make a difference to people that need help. Strike that, I just read a post that says Keith is selling T-shirts for Japan. All is good now.

Yep, SRV is very good, and here's slowhand and George...





2 1 2 0

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
jpasc95

Quote
treaclefingers
Get over it....they are extremely high net worth.
They get good advice. They pay virtually no tax.
This is the world we live in, and if it was any one of you in the same situation, you would do the same thing.

It's fortunate that all of us do not think that way otherwise it would be a disaster for a country.
I don't pay much taxes cos I'm not that rich but I pay them.
In France, lost of artists choose to live in Switzerland to pay far less taxes than here. They can negotiate a tax contract which sounds unacceptable to me.
They have lots of privileges as artists but this one is too much !

If all of us were this rich we wouldn't need taxes, because we'd need no governments, because we'd all pay private companies employing robots to do all the work.

Please don't be a dufus, and understand what I'm saying rather than try and paint me as something that I'm not, by only quoting part of my quote.

Maybe you're too dull to understand what I am saying...the system is @#$%& and most people would take advantage of that, perhaps yourself excepted.

My quibble is given that situation, a bunch of middle/working class guys from London who've become incredibly wealthy don't do that much to make a difference to people that need help. Strike that, I just read a post that says Keith is selling T-shirts for Japan. All is good now.

Hey treaclefingers !

You cannot say jpasc is dull ,may be you didn't get exactly his point since you're not French .
No offense meant but using the word "dufus" doesn't help ..I don't know if it's an English word or whatever - I had never heard of this word before you wrote it - I say "dummy" but it might be an American thing .

I do know about which artists jpasc refers ,IMO the problem in France isn't that ONE artist tries to escape from the tax office ,the problem is that too many people DON'T pay taxes in France ,while hard working people pay for the " other ones"

treaclefingers, I am just trying to turn a thing understandable to one group of people to a thing understandable to another & yes, I DO think - I am sure that" if I were in the same situation",I'll do the same thing ....I am a capitalist ,you know .

Cheers,
Sway



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

no problem SwayStones
i won't lose my time answering to agressive people like treaclefingers.

Quote
SwayStones

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
jpasc95

Quote
treaclefingers
Get over it....they are extremely high net worth.
They get good advice. They pay virtually no tax.
This is the world we live in, and if it was any one of you in the same situation, you would do the same thing.

It's fortunate that all of us do not think that way otherwise it would be a disaster for a country.
I don't pay much taxes cos I'm not that rich but I pay them.
In France, lost of artists choose to live in Switzerland to pay far less taxes than here. They can negotiate a tax contract which sounds unacceptable to me.
They have lots of privileges as artists but this one is too much !

If all of us were this rich we wouldn't need taxes, because we'd need no governments, because we'd all pay private companies employing robots to do all the work.

Please don't be a dufus, and understand what I'm saying rather than try and paint me as something that I'm not, by only quoting part of my quote.

Maybe you're too dull to understand what I am saying...the system is @#$%& and most people would take advantage of that, perhaps yourself excepted.

My quibble is given that situation, a bunch of middle/working class guys from London who've become incredibly wealthy don't do that much to make a difference to people that need help. Strike that, I just read a post that says Keith is selling T-shirts for Japan. All is good now.

Hey treaclefingers !

You cannot say jpasc is dull ,may be you didn't get exactly his point since you're not French .
No offense meant but using the word "dufus" doesn't help ..I don't know if it's an English word or whatever - I had never heard of this word before you wrote it - I say "dummy" but it might be an American thing .

I do know about which artists jpasc refers ,IMO the problem in France isn't that ONE artist tries to escape from the tax office ,the problem is that too many people DON'T pay taxes in France ,while hard working people pay for the " other ones"

treaclefingers, I am just trying to turn a thing understandable to one group of people to a thing understandable to another & yes, I DO think - I am sure that" if I were in the same situation",I'll do the same thing ....I am a capitalist ,you know .

Cheers,
Sway

Thanks for trying to help out swaystones. My problem with your french bretheren was that in his post, he insinuated that I support people not paying taxes, and said specifically: "It's fortunate that all of us do not think that way otherwise it would be a disaster for a country."

He's in effect 'bashing me', without even understanding what I was saying, which is if the system is set up this way, we shouldn't be surprised that people take advantage of it. So, if language is a barrier, I have no problem with that, but as we're speaking in English on this board, it would be helpful if he wouldn't jump to an incorrect conclusion, take a partial quote from me, simply to take a shot at me.

And finally, I would agree with your assertion that dufus=dummy

Quote
jpasc95
no problem SwayStones
i won't lose my time answering to agressive people like treaclefingers.

That's a relief!

Poor little touchy boy !

Quote
jpasc95
Poor little touchy boy !

That's hysterical!

Quote
SwayStones
U2 were obviously so impressed by the Stones's fiscal arrangements that the Irish rock band now share the group's Dutch financial director, Jan Favie.

Brings to mind all the criticism U2 got for their "Live 8" concert they spearheaded for the West to forgive billions in African debt (billions got largely from the pockets of Western tax payers) at the same time they were dodging taxes in Holland. So of course they didn't mind the forgiveness of such debt!

Quote
Title5Take1

Quote
SwayStones
U2 were obviously so impressed by the Stones's fiscal arrangements that the Irish rock band now share the group's Dutch financial director, Jan Favie.

Brings to mind all the criticism U2 got for their "Live 8" concert they spearheaded for the West to forgive billions in African debt (billions got largely from the pockets of Western tax payers) at the same time they were dodging taxes in Holland. So of course they didn't mind the forgiveness of such debt!

Well said, sir.

An interesting-very very long - article from the New York Times ,in 2007 .
For those who wouldn't have read it yet,it worth while -I am not done yet -

The Netherlands, the New Tax Shelter Hot Spot - New York Times

[www.taxresearch.org.uk]

February 4, 2007
The Netherlands, the New Tax Shelter Hot Spot
By LYNNLEY BROWNING
Oh, a storm is threat’ning
My very life today
If I don’t get some shelter
Oh yeah, I’m gonna fade away
“Gimme Shelter,” The Rolling Stones

Amsterdam

LAST spring, Keith Richards, the craggy-faced and hard-partying lead guitarist for the Rolling Stones, fell from a tree at a beach resort in Fiji, slamming his head against the trunk on his way down. Mr. Richards was flown to New Zealand, where a surgeon provided emergency care to treat swelling in his brain. While the accident forced the Rolling Stones to cancel part of their summer tour, Mr. Richards, 62, handily survived his plunge.
“It’s not the first brush with death I’ve had,” Mr. Richards later told Rolling Stone magaz ine. “I guess what I learned is, don’t sit in trees anymore.”
What two of the other three Rolling Stones apparently learned, including Mick Jagger and CharlieWatts, was that Mr. Richards’s near-death experience meant that it was time to think about their heirs.

For that, the aging rockers turned to a reclusive Dutch accountant, Johannes Favie, whose company, Promogroup, has helped them minimize their tax bills for more than 30 years. (The fourth Rolling Stone, RonWood, handles
his finances apart from Promogroup.)
And so, last August, according to details disclosed in documents maintained by the Handelsregister, the trade registry of the Netherlands, Promogroup helped the three performers set up a pair of private Dutch
foundations that will allow them to transfer assets tax-free to heirs when they die. Other Dutch shelters that Promogroup has arranged for the three have already paid off handsomely; over the last 20 years, according to Dutch documents, the three musicians have paid just $7.2 million in taxes on earnings of $450 million that they have channeled through Amsterdam — a tax rate of about 1.5 percent, well below the British rate of 40 percent.
The Rolling Stones are not the only celebrities sheltering income in the land of tulips, windmills and Rembrandt. The rock powerhouse U2 has transferred lucrative assets to Amsterdam, as have other pop singers and well-known athletes, all of whom have used or continue to take advantage of the Netherlands’ tax
shelters, according to a Dutch tax lawyer who requested anonymity because of client confidentiality agreements.
Entertainment companies and others that benefit handsomely from the Dutch shelters include EMI, the giant record label, and CKX Inc., the entertainment company that owns stakes in “American Idol,” the Elvis Presley
estate and the soccer pin-up idol David Beckham.
When it comes to attracting celebrity wealth seeking shelter from taxes, the Cayman Islands and other classic Caribbean tax havens are receding in favor like so many waves on the beach, according to tax experts here
and overseas.While old-school, offshore tax havens — the warm ones with tropical fish, off-the-shelf holding companies sporting post-office-box addresses, and scant regulation or transparency — still attract money,
they are largely patronized, tax lawyers and entertainment bankers say, by hedge funds and private equity firms looking to protect lush trading profits from taxes.
But for earnings derived from intellectual property such as royalties, the Netherlands has become a tax shelter of choice.With celebrities lending their names and images to clothing lines, licensing their hit songs
to corporate sponsors, seeking roles in Hollywood and engaging in other ventures that generate significant taxable income, the Dutch system, which does not tax royalties, offers a nifty shelter.
As they flock to Amsterdam, celebrities are taking a leaf out of the playbook of major corporations that also use Dutch tax shelters to help reduce or eliminate the royalty taxes on patents, another form of intellectual
property.
“The Caribbeans are thinking about trading profits, not royalties, so the smaller European countries like Holland have had to be creative, tax-wise,” said David Pullman, an investment banker in New York who
caters to entertainers and athletes. “They are going for the high-end stuff and don’t want to be seen as shady like some Caribbean haven.”
Many of the world’s multinational corporations, like Coca-Cola, Nike, Ikea and Gucci, have set up holding companies here in recent years to take advantage of tax shelters nearly identical to the ones that the Rolling
Stones and U2 use. An additional draw is the Dutch FinanceMinistry’s recent willingness to issue advance rulings that effectively bless the tax shelters, a fast-track process that has lured in companies and individuals
seeking to use the Netherlands as a tax shelter. Sun Microsystems, the giant American software and computer manufacturer, operates Dutch holding
companies and is candid about why it does so. Until recently, on theWeb site of the Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency, www.nfia.com, Sun offered the following blurb about the country’s accommodating tax
laws: “Let’s face it: ask foreign companies why they’re really located here, and nearly everyone will reply that it’s because of the favorable tax ruling. The combination of this with the country’s political stability, welltrained
labor force, their linguistic skills and international attitude as well as the stable infrastructure for roads and telecommunications — this is why we’re here.” (A Sun spokeswoman declined to comment.)
The Netherlands is home to almost 20,000 “mailbox companies,” Dutch shorthand for corporate shells set up by foreign companies and wealthy foreigners who use them to relieve taxes on royalties, dividends and
interest payments, according to a report last November by SOMO, the Center for Research on Multinational Corporations, a nonprofit group in Amsterdam that monitors the business practices of large companies.
Globally, some 1,165 companies use Dutch tax shelters to reduce or eliminate taxes on royalties and patents, according to SOMO.
The report, which is critical of the emergence of the Netherlands as a tax haven, says that the number of mailbox companies “has been increasing rapidly in recent years” and that the shelters undermine efforts by
governments worldwide to “ensure that a level playing field is created where each country receives the fair taxation due to it as a result of the commercial activities undertaken within its borders.”
OFTEN mentioned as a candidate to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, or, perhaps less seriously, to run the World Bank, U2’s 46-year-old lead singer, Bono, has toured Africa with senior American officials to campaign
against AIDS, and hobnobbed with financiers and policymakers while speaking out on global poverty issues at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. He even mugged for the cameras in 2000 with Pope
John Paul II, who tried on his sunglasses.
U2’s riches are equally well-traveled and, like the Rolling Stones, the band has become sophisticated about
finding overseas shelters for its money. When Ireland announced last spring that it would sharply curtail a
lucrative tax break for musicians, painters, writers and sculptors, the shift posed a financial threat to U2,
which has made the Emerald Isle its financial power base for nearly three decades. The Dublin-born-andbred
rockers built their fortune on hit songs and, in part, on Irish laws that forgive taxes due on royalties.
As of last year, U2 had amassed a net worth of 629million euros — around $908 million — according to the
annual “Rich List” of top earners in The Sunday Times of Britain. Royalties are the income that artists and
athletes earn from recordings, performances, trademarks, brands, patents, copyrights, film rights, product
endorsements, videos, films and the ever-extending commercialization of those assets — in short, the major
portion of an artist’s or an athlete’s income.
Last June, with the Irish tax break about to shrink, U2 heeded the advice of its longtime business manager,
Paul McGuinness, and moved its most lucrative asset — a song-publishing catalog with hits like “Where the
Streets Have No Name” and “It’s A Beautiful Day” — from Mr. McGuinness’s firm, located near the LiffeyRiver in Dublin, to Promogroup, which operates beside the elegant Herengracht canal in the heart of elegant,
old Amsterdam....................


When news of the Rolling Stones’ Dutch tax shelter first emerged last summer in Dutch and German
newspapers, it did not particularly roil fans or the British tax authorities. After all, the Rolling Stones are
widely regarded as one of the world’s most commercial bands, with hundreds of officially licensed products
ranging from Mick Jagger “quality resin” bobble-head dolls, Rolling Stones “Classic Rock” twin-bell alarm
clocks, and “It’s Only Rock and Roll” lava lamps to Rolling Stones Zippo lighters, Rolling Stones lounge pants
and lingerie, leather jackets, diamond-encrusted gold and silver jewelry, and the band’s ubiquitous trademark
and calling card, the thick red Rolling Stones tongue.
But critics say that U2’s tax move to Holland is threatening to tarnish the halo surrounding the well-regarded,
affable and articulate Bono, by lending him a whiff of hypocrisy. After all, unlike Bono, Mr. Jagger is not out
campaigning against third-world debt, or writing a foreword for “The End of Poverty,” the most recent book
by the prominent economist Jeffrey D. Sachs.
“Bono is a worldwide advocate for greater aid to the developing world, and I applaud him for that,” said Joan
Burton, the spokesperson for the Irish Labor Party’s finance unit and a former cabinet minister, in a
telephone interview. “But obviously the money for that comes from taxation, so it’s very difficult to ask other
people to pay tax to contribute to something very worthwhile while at the same time not paying taxes in a
very modest environment.”




I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

I maintain that this system is unfair and should be "cleaned up" by the authorities by making those "tax fugitives" outlaw !
let them go to the cash desk so that they can pay their dues and then become real citizens !