There will be a new sticky fingers with unreleased songs!

Quote
TheflyingDutchman
Why are they questioning the Stones and U2? Many big money making companies do the same, all around the globe.

The stones were mentioned as an example on the public network NPO.
Politicians reacted to that.

The Stones are not guilty of tax evasion. Tax avoidance, which is legal and any smart person would take full advantage of any and all laws, would apply to the Stones organization. And why not? They got burned in the 70s plus the debacle with Mr. Klein. I'd take full advantage as well. Perhaps the NL are being pressured by Brussels or just more money hungry politicians are stirring up the pot.

Tax evasion? No. Tax avoidance? Yep.

It's not a "criminal investigation" as part of a court case.
It is only a political investigation to evaluate the Dutch laws.
So the question of "guilty or not guilty" is not at stake here.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

Part of the tax avoidance is that in the Netherlands tax is not paid over royalties earned outside of the Netherlands. So, the Stones and U2 do not pay any tax over 98+ % of their royalties.

Mathijs

Quote
StonedAsia
The Stones are not guilty of tax evasion. Tax avoidance, which is legal and any smart person would take full advantage of any and all laws, would apply to the Stones organization. And why not?

Tax evasion? No. Tax avoidance? Yep.

Basically you say "it's not moral but it's legal". That's the defense system of most crooks these days : "yeah what I did is shocking but it's perfectly legal...".
That's a very thin defense line in my book.

And logically you, I, gotta wonder : where is the money? Where is the Stones' money? On some offshore account "somewhere" in the Bermudas? In some opaque financial blackhole, next to Assad's or some arm dealer's "savings"?

Keef the old "pirate" should ask himself about the kind of arrangement with common decency and morality that was necessary to make him a very rich man from 1989 on.

I find all this rather nauseating. And more than the musical decline of recent years this is what drove me away from the band.

Honoré de Balzac once wrote : "behind every great fortune there is a great crime".
He would have loved the Stones...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-13 14:29 by dcba.

Leona helmsley once said that paying taxes is for the little people.

to now start looking into this is even sillier than trying to look into all the US companies that avoid taxes.

because the Stones havent done anything wrong. ( have they...? )

Quote
dcba

Quote
StonedAsia
The Stones are not guilty of tax evasion. Tax avoidance, which is legal and any smart person would take full advantage of any and all laws, would apply to the Stones organization. And why not?

Tax evasion? No. Tax avoidance? Yep.

Basically you say "it's not moral but it's legal". That's the defense system of most crooks these days : "yeah what I did is shocking but it's perfectly legal...".
That's a very thin defense line in my book.

And logically you, I, gotta wonder : where is the money? Where is the Stones' money? On some offshore account "somewhere" in the Bermudas? In some opaque financial blackhole, next to Assad's or some arm dealer's "savings"?

Keef the old "pirate" should ask himself about the kind of arrangement with common decency and morality that was necessary to make him a very rich man from 1989 on.

I find all this rather nauseating. And more than the musical decline of recent years this is what drove me away from the band.

Honoré de Balzac once wrote : "behind every great fortune there is a great crime".
He would have loved the Stones...

But why would the Stones and others not take advantage of tax loopholes to keep more of their money? If it is legal why are they immoral for using this to their advantage?

I can understand people being envious of the rich having having the ability to pay less taxes due to the loopholes but why get mad at the Stones as they did not make the laws?

If you are going to get mad it should be at the rich politicians who set up these laws allowing the rich to exploit the system at the expense of us common folks who now have to take on a higher tax burden.

And with all due respect I think you are being a bit unfair comparing the Stones to some illegal Arms dealer or Assad, who most likely stole his wealth from his country, who then funnel their ill gotten gains to some secret offshore account in an attempt to hide it.

If the Stones did anything illegal then the criticism is justified if they only used the laws to their advantage where's the beef?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-13 21:28 by oldschool.

Quote
dcba

Quote
StonedAsia
The Stones are not guilty of tax evasion. Tax avoidance, which is legal and any smart person would take full advantage of any and all laws, would apply to the Stones organization. And why not?

Tax evasion? No. Tax avoidance? Yep.

Basically you say "it's not moral but it's legal". That's the defense system of most crooks these days : "yeah what I did is shocking but it's perfectly legal...".
That's a very thin defense line in my book.

And logically you, I, gotta wonder : where is the money? Where is the Stones' money? On some offshore account "somewhere" in the Bermudas? In some opaque financial blackhole, next to Assad's or some arm dealer's "savings"?

Keef the old "pirate" should ask himself about the kind of arrangement with common decency and morality that was necessary to make him a very rich man from 1989 on.

I find all this rather nauseating. And more than the musical decline of recent years this is what drove me away from the band.

Honoré de Balzac once wrote : "behind every great fortune there is a great crime".
He would have loved the Stones...

Come on, dcba!
Just get yourself some facts. Why did the Beatles write "Mr. Taxman" way back in 1966? Why did the Stones move to France in 1971?
The UK tax system (still) is very, very bad for British artists! Why do they punish people who entertain people like you and me. How would you feel to have to pay way over 90% (I'm not make a joke here!) over what you earn?
Why does the British tax system charge British bands/acts for playing in a foreign European country (where they already have to pay entertainment tax)? That is what you should call "stealing"! Don't blame the Stones, just put on a CD and enjoy their music

Dear Lord. They're not choir boys any more. Junkies and alcoholics make arrangements with common decency and morality. Men who cheat on their spouses or partners (even if they seek to be discreet) make arrangements with common decency and morality. Men who have sex with underage groupies make arrangements with common decency and morality. Men who pay for coke and sex or relax in a sex club for inspiration make arrangements with common decency and morality. This is the same band. They're not concerned with petty morals even if they are old men. They're rock stars. The biggest in the world. It's about greed and sex and drugs. These are guys who have moved with organized crime figures when it proved useful to do so. These are guys who John Phillips, another paragon of virtue, described primarily as gangsters more than musicians. To shame them for concert prices or tax avoidance is pointless. They are capitalists. They are driven by their appetites. They are hedonists. Look at the logo. Does the lapping tongue look like its worried about common decency and morality? What do you think is glistening on those lips and that tongue? Whatever it is, it's indecent, but their point is it tasted good.

As for Keith being a pirate, do you think pirates give a damn about their fair share of taxes? The only hypocrisy I see is when they attempt well-meaning public service announcements. Rock stars in mansions with walls and bodyguards should not pretend to be the common man. The rest makes perfect sense to me. They are successful, over-achieving degenerates. That's why It's Only Rock 'n' Roll.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-15 20:55 by Rocky Dijon.

Quote
StonedAsia
The Stones are not guilty of tax evasion. Tax avoidance, which is legal and any smart person would take full advantage of any and all laws

I think you mean any rich person. If you're working poor, which means the bottom ninety percent, you pay full taxes or else.

Say, while we're on the topic of... avoidance of civic obligation, both Mick and Keith have held U.S. citizenship for many years. How come neither have ever been summoned to report for jury duty? I get called every 3 years, for the past 30.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Dear Lord. They're not choir boys any more. Junkies and alcoholics make arrangements with common decency and morality. Men who cheat on their spouses or partners (even if they seek to be discreet) make arrangements with common decency and morality. Men who have sex with underage groupies make arrangements with common decency and morality. Men who pay for coke and sex or relax in a sex club for inspiration make arrangements with common decency and morality. This is the same band. They're not concerned with petty morals even if they are old men. They're rock stars. The biggest in the world. It's about greed and sex and drugs. These are guys who have moved with organized crime figures when it proved useful to do so. These are guys who John Phillips, another paragon of virtue, described primarily as gangsters more than musicians. To shame them for concert prices or tax avoidance is pointless. They are capitalists. They are driven by their appetites. They are hedonists. Look at the logo. Does the lapping tongue look like its worried about common decency and morality? What do you think is glistening on those lips and that tongue? Whatever it is, it's indecent, but their point is it tasted good.

As for Keith being a pirate, do you think pirates give a damn about their fair share of taxes? The only hypocrisy I see is when they attempt well-meaning public service announcements. Rock stars in mansions with walls and bodyguards should not pretend to be the common man. The rest makes perfect sense to me. They are successful, over-achieving degenerates. That's why It's Only Rock 'n' Roll.

Nice!
(writing, I meant Rocky)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-16 02:54 by 35love.

Quote
georgie48
Why did the Stones move to France in 1971?

Because of Allen Klein.

/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-16 03:18 by stonehearted.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
StonedAsia
The Stones are not guilty of tax evasion. Tax avoidance, which is legal and any smart person would take full advantage of any and all laws

I think you mean any rich person. If you're working poor, which means the bottom ninety percent, you pay full taxes or else.

Say, while we're on the topic of... avoidance of civic obligation, both Mick and Keith have held U.S. citizenship for many years. How come neither have ever been summoned to report for jury duty? I get called every 3 years, for the past 30.

Source? Never heard this. Always assumed Keith had PR but not citizenship. Having citizenship, even PR, makes one subject to the IRS on all worldwide income. I simply can't see Mick putting himself in that position!

This has been a long time coming. I don't mean The Stones case specifically.
The 'arrangements' whereby rich individuals and powerful organisations can avoid paying a fair share of tax should not be acceptable in this day and age.
Most members of the Forum will probably, after Allowances be paying 33% combined insurance and tax deductions. Some even more.
It was revealed many years ago that The Stones Companies had paid around 3% per annum for the last 40 or so years.
It staggers me that a founding member of the EC (I was a 'Remainer' by the way) such as the Netherlands has allowed this situation for so long. Does it help the Dutch infrastructure? Or their Social/Care budgets?
I have slightly more sympathy with the likes of Amazon who at least provide considerable employment to many people. Mr Favie was being very economical with the truth. He should be a politician!
So Mick pays his due taxes? But on what income and where?
I can see why they were attracted to Mr Klein. He was not keen on paying tax either...or ensuring his 'clients' had money aside to pay theirs.

Quote
StonedAsia

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
StonedAsia
The Stones are not guilty of tax evasion. Tax avoidance, which is legal and any smart person would take full advantage of any and all laws

I think you mean any rich person. If you're working poor, which means the bottom ninety percent, you pay full taxes or else.

Say, while we're on the topic of... avoidance of civic obligation, both Mick and Keith have held U.S. citizenship for many years. How come neither have ever been summoned to report for jury duty? I get called every 3 years, for the past 30.

Source? Never heard this. Always assumed Keith had PR but not citizenship. Having citizenship, even PR, makes one subject to the IRS on all worldwide income. I simply can't see Mick putting himself in that position!

Dual US/UK citizenship. There was even a thread about this on IORR a while back: [www.iorr.org]

Rocky, that was a great description of the Stones. Should be on their plaque at the rock and roll hall of fame.
...
Glad I happened to open this threat to read that. Dutch accounting didn't get my attention.
...
How can they stop once they start.

Why is this such a shocking thing?

We are all Stones who follow the bands every move.

Mick Jagger invented the term "tax evasion"...and rightfully so.

As Charlie Watts pointed out...Mick is never in the same city more than 2 weeks
and is never in the same country more than 4 months a year so to avoid paying taxes and never qualifying as a sitting citizen of any country.

Some may call that a ta avoider...some may call that smart.

Here in the states...tons of companies incorporate in the state of Delaware to avoid taxes like The Stones have done to avoid taxes by incorporating in the Netherlands.

Like people have pointed out...our heroes are no saints...they've turned the tide to the point that they are respectable for not being respectable.

Pecman

Promogroup published its annual report 2015 at the Chamber of Commerce in Amsterdam.
I checked the account.
Apparently the year 2015 was not a very succesful one for Promogroup. In US dollars
they made a gross margin of $ 4.4 million, but the costs of exploitation were $ 5.6 million.
They would have had a loss of $ 1.2 million, if it weren't for interests and results
on stocks and other financial assets of $ 1.7 million.
So, their positive result was $ 0.5 million.
From this they paid $ 129.781 taxes. That is about 25 %.

So it is a kind of urban myth that The Stones don't pay taxes.
They do and the people of The Netherlands are grateful for it (at least, I am).

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

Quote
marcovandereijk
Promogroup published its annual report 2015 at the Chamber of Commerce in Amsterdam.
I checked the account.
Apparently the year 2015 was not a very succesful one for Promogroup. In US dollars
they made a gross margin of $ 4.4 million, but the costs of exploitation were $ 5.6 million.
They would have had a loss of $ 1.2 million, if it weren't for interests and results
on stocks and other financial assets of $ 1.7 million.
So, their positive result was $ 0.5 million.
From this they paid $ 129.781 taxes. That is about 25 %.

So it is a kind of urban myth that The Stones don't pay taxes.
They do and the people of The Netherlands are grateful for it (at least, I am).

Thanx for the intel, Marco!
Obviously, the hair to split here, is "costs of exploitation"...

Quote
RoughJusticeOnYa
Obviously, the hair to split here, is "costs of exploitation"...

You're right. There are no specifications in the published reports. One can not rule
out the possibility that some of these costs are benificiary to the shareholders of
Promogroup or the board of directors...

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

Thanks for the Accounts! (never thought I would ever say that). Just a few thoughts.
1. I've never thought of The Netherlands as a tax haven in the sense the Cayman Isles are, for example. It would not sit well with the European Community membership surely.
2. Promogroup is ONE ...there are around six other Stones related companies.......eg Promopub, Promotone. Their Accounts?
3. Are there Subsiduary companies (often used as a tax doge), also "income from foreign based enterprises" complicates the picture.
4.In 2006 the UK's Independent ( a reliable paper) quoted the Stones as paying on average 1.6% tax on earnings of £240 million (royalties, I recall).

I recommend keeping your money in or under a mattress.

"I'm going to walk before they me run."

Quote
Chris Fountain
I recommend keeping your money in or under a mattress.

"I'm going to walk before they me run."

But only if it's a waterbed... In case of a fire, the freezer is more likely to survive than the mattress... I used to love my "cold" money... Then I got married... and kids... I haven't needed a location to "stash cash" in years!

Peace,
Mr DJA

It seems that the Stones financial deals are often in the media. Google shows countless articles in the last 20 years centered specifically around the bands tax aversion tactics. Fortune Magazine even made a cover story of it in 2001. With that, I ask, is what the Stones are doing with Dutch banking really all that unique? Why is it a constant Stones story if anyone can do it? Wouldn't any number of hugely successful actors or music artists (or their business managers) making tens of millions of $$$ each year such as Tom Cruise, Green Day, or Taylor Swift also have access to and be thoroughly well versed in these same tax havens? Yet we never see similar articles about their financials at all.

Just one of many examples:

[www.theage.com.au]

Gimme Tax Shelter!

Quote
Jbeckerfan

Just one of many examples:

Old article from 2006 .... and paywalled.

See also here about 2005 and "The Stones pay just 1.6% tax" - [iorr.org] .

- · - · - · -

The 2006 article text from the paywalled TheAge.com.au:

"Stones rolling in it, thanks to Dutch firm, tax havens

August 2, 2006 — 10.00am

The Rolling Stones paid just 1.6 per cent in tax on earnings of US-$ 152 million last year, thanks to slick management of their fortunes. Details have leaked out because the Stones' finances are managed by a Dutch company; they are making their wills and Dutch law requires certain information to be made public. Germany's Die Welt newspaper reported on the tax break that Mick Jagger, guitarist Keith Richards and drummer Charlie Watts enjoyed through the use of offshore trusts and companies. According to the newspaper, the trio went to a Dutch finance house in 1972 to have their millions managed from Amsterdam because they didn't trust British finance houses. Now they are making wills to ensure that beneficiaries don't end up squabbling. Details of the tax break were revealed in the country's trade registry, according to Die Welt. A Dutch holding company called Promogroup is the umbrella organisation that has been managing the finances of the three original Stones for the past 35 years. Ron Wood's assets are not managed by the Dutch group. With just £70 million in the bank, he is the poor relation to the others in the band. The Stones' Dutch advisers use branch offices in the Dutch Antilles in the Caribbean to reduce tax liabilities. The registry also pinpoints a European blueblood as the Stones' finance manager, a German-Austrian prince who the band reportedly refer to as Ruppie the Groupie. Promogroup runs 10 subsidiary companies and has roots stretching back to the 17th century when rich merchants rather than rockers were its clients. Sabine Schuttgens, a lawyer 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 arguments among their heirs'."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2024-05-26 12:45 by Irix.

Quote
Jbeckerfan

Why is it a constant Stones story if anyone can do it?

In 2017 (as part of the 'Panama Papers' investigations), Jan Favié of Promogroup B.V. and U2 Limited vehemently denied that the two settled in the Netherlands to pay as little tax as possible - [iorr.org] , [NLTimes.nl] .