What is the risk to incorporate offshore company?

[stuntbiker]

What is the risk to incorporate offshore company in Panama or BVI?

 

[JohnLocke]

There is no risk if you find the right Agent to incorporate the Panamanian or BVI offshore company for you! What risk are you nervous about?

 

[Propeller]

I would say no risk to incorporate a offshore company! You may simply assure you appoint nominees to avoid any tax complications later.

 

[dwilson]

Appointing nominees does NOT provide any protection against tax complications! It is important to discuss tax implications with a licensed tax professional in your domicile. I'm interested to find out what are the risks that this individual is concerned with...

 

[Propeller]

hmmm, but it helps to protect your identity if a request from the local auth. should get in!

 

[JohnBownine]

No risk only benefit or not?

 

[dwilson]

Nominees keep your name from being mentioned as an officer of the company, but the registered agent must record the identity of the true beneficial owner of the company - and this information is also requested during investigations.

 

[JohnBownine]

But the nominee will also be able to answer any request from the tax auth. if required on behalf of the company which can help to convenience them that the company isn't controlled by me or not?

 

[dwilson]

Certainly not! No professional (nominee service provider) will falsify or misguide an investigating authority as to the true identity of the beneficial owner. That will certainly lead to that professional's prosecution. The fact of the matter remains - seek legitimate tax advice from a qualified tax professional in your own country before getting involved in offshore services. Make sure it is in writing since you will then be able to demonstrate that you exercised fair due diligence - in the event that things go wrong.


The notion that nominee services protect against a tax investigation is absurd. Nominee services add a layer of confidentiality against civil action and other would be creditors. In addition, just because your country does not have a TIEA with your offshore jurisdiction does not mean that you are safe from tax investigations...there are always risks - but educating yourself and avoiding shortcuts is a good way to manage or mitigate those risks!

 

[JohnBownine]

So if you can't use the nominee to protect your identy and to prove the company is controlled and managed in the offshore country but you can only use it for creditor protection how comes that so many are using appointing them. My local tax adviser told me that only who that appoint a nominee director and shareholder can prove the company to be controlled and managed in the offshore country so I can avoid to pay the tax in my country of resident:s-confused:

 

[dwilson]

I cannot comment on the motives behind consumers using nominee services - or what they believe are the benefits. I can only comment on what I know to be true based on real-life experiences as a compliance officer in a real offshore jurisdiction. I have dealt with ML & tax related queries from different authorities. I am familiar with the pertinent legislation and regulations, as well as, maintain a thorough understanding of the risks and advantages of offshore products. As for the information that your tax consultant provided you with, I trust that you have it in writing and that it is based on the final offshore solution that you now use!


Any natural person/ corporate entity that disguises the identity of the beneficial owner(s) has serious liabilities to deal with, and I can assure you that sooner rather than later, that the real beneficial owners will be discovered. mg: Unfortunately there is a big difference between a marketing/ sales pitch and real, accurate consumer advice.


I'm just saying...

 

[JohnBownine]

Any natural person/ corporate entity that disguises the identity of the beneficial owner(s) has serious liabilities to deal with, and I can assure you that sooner rather than later, that the real beneficial owners will be discovered. Unfortunately there is a big difference between a marketing/ sales pitch and real, accurate consumer advice.

Sorry have to ask again... why will I wat to insert a nominee director an shareholder if it is only for creditor protection and I don't have creditors? I don't get it sorry :embarassed:

 

[clemens]

I don't understand your arguments to not appoint a nominee director and shareholder to avoid complications with the tax authorities!


1. When appointing nominees you will be able to appoint a PoA which will help you to proof the company to be controlled and managed in the offshore jurisdiction of it's location.


2. By appointing a nominee director and shareholder with a CSP who knows about the issues, pit falls and other complications in regards to tax that a offshore company may and can rise will make it way easier to deal with these matters.


We have been using nominees for the last 4 years for our vehicles in different offshore jurisdictions and never had any issues with them nor did we get troubles with the tax office when they requested audited fiscal reports and claimed that the company has to be taxed in the country of my residence.


Actually if we had not appointed a director but for instant I my self have been appointed we were forced to pay tax in my country and also got a penalty for trial of tax evasion.


So make up your on mind and do your own decision, for us a nominee director indispensable.

 

[SysOp]

The ability of authorities to obtain information on beneficial ownership and control must also be accompanied by a corrensonding capacity to share that information with other authorities domestically and internationally respecting each jurisdiction's owner fundamental legal prinicpiles. The ability to share information among domestic authorities, such as securities regulators, law enforcement agencies, banking regulators, and tax authorities, is imporant becaise certain authorities in a jurisdiction may posses, or have better access to, beneficial ownership and control information that is required by other domestic authorities for regulatory / supervisory or law enforcement purposes.


In addition, it is desirable that the authorities consider ways to make it possible to grant access to beneficial ownership and control information to agents with auhtority delegated by the government or the jurisdiciary (such as insolvency administrators) and financial instituions seeking such information in order to comply with customer identification and due diligence ("customer identification") requirements under anti-money laundering laws. The availability of mechanisms to share information domestically also facilitates the efficient use of scarce resources by ensuring that duplicate efforts to obtain beneficial ownership and control information are not undertaken.


Given that anonymity is often enhanced through the use of corporate vehicles incorporated in foreign jurisdictions, it is equally crictial that the authorities also have the ability to share information on beneficial ownership and control internationally. Recognising that there are often impediments to effective and efficiet exchange of information between jurisdictions, perpetrators often use groups of corporate vehicles, each established in a different high-secrecy jurisdiction, to frustrate any effort by the authorities to identify the beneficial owner.


This is all about Tax Safings and Anonymity or what do you think?

 

[dwilson]

There is an absolute distinction between the officers of a company (Director/ Shareholder/ Secretary) and the beneficial owner(s). When a company is incorporated, there is a record of names of the company officers and the beneficial owner(s). The company officers are recorded on company documents (normally the registers). The beneficial owner(s) remains on record with the registered agent. This is a legal requirement in the AML regulations of every offshore jurisdiction that regulates corporate services! I am not asking or suggesting this - This is a fact!


If your services provider is a third party that contracts directly with the local registered agent in your offshore jurisdiction and does not disclose that you are the beneficial owner of the company and suggests that the (nominee) shareholder is the beneficial owner. This is a significant issue.


In some instances - offshore revenue generated by a foreign entity does not constitute taxable income for the beneficial owner in their domicile, but this does not mean that it won't change. This is why I commented that nominee services does not protect against tax investigations.

 

[SysOp]

If your services provider is a third party that contracts directly with the local registered agent in your offshore jurisdiction and does not disclose that you are the beneficial owner of the company and suggests that the (nominee) shareholder is the beneficial owner. This is a significant issue.

It depends very much where you live and of the local applicable laws, otherwise it can be a significant issue, true.
As discussed above, a critical factor in misusing corporate vehicles is the potential for anonymity. Not surprisingly, therefore, the types of corporate vehicles that are misued most frequently are those that provide the greatest degree of anonymity, such as international business corporations (IBCs), excempt companies, trusts, and foundations established in jurisdictions that offer a high degree of secrecy and which do not maintain effective mechanisms that would enable their authorities to identify the true owners when illicit activity is suspected.


I don't recommend anyone to enter into any form of tax evasion, money laundering or even things worse, I just want to clarify that nominees have a high degree of protection when it comes to releasing beneficial owner data.

 

[webdriller]

I have been through all this for some years my problem was the tax authorities never accepted my offshore company not to be taxed in the UK because I was the director for it.