Board index » The IRISH PROPERTY BUBBLE » The Republic of Property

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 348 posts ]  [Go to page]   1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 24  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Irish Section 110 SPV, Vultures, Tax Haven, Orphaning Scam
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 8:48 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Apr 30, 2013
Posts: 1648
Image

Relocated "Vulture Fund Irish Section 110 SPVs Tax Avoidance" posts to have a separate Apple Tax Primer 101 Thread:
[Apple IP Scam Irish tax avoidance 101 explained is here: http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=66347]
[Irish Commercial Property zero tax laws here: http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=897410#p897410]

This thread will explain how US vulture funds pay no Irish taxes on their Irish domestic investments (or comically, €250 tax), why it is the largest avoidance of taxes to the Irish Exchequer in State history (more than Ansbacher, Planning Tribunals, even Apple), how the scheme involves the help of the State, Irish Charities, NAMA and Irish Revenue - who have worked to keep this multi-billion Irish tax avoidance scheme ("orphaning" trick) going in the domestic Irish economy. And how three Dublin law firms - Matheson, A&L Goodbody & Dillon Eustace - developed it during the financial crises (via their "lobby group", the Irish Debt Securities Association). It will also explain why these structures would classify Ireland as a Tax Haven (OECD definition), and how they violate EU Competition law.

It happened as a result of fee-hungry IFSC law firms, meeting a State run by ex. school teachers, in the largest crash in Ireland's history, who were desperate to sell-off IBRC & NAMA assets quickly, in order to "win our economic sovereignty back" (i.e. get the Trokia off the ex. school teachers backs, so they could get back to their own agendas). In return for a contribution of c €50-100m p.a. in fees (paid to IFSC lawyers), Ireland looses c €20bn in Irish taxes.


The Irish Section 110 SPV tax scandal has been covered by the BBC, the Financial Times and the New York Times.

BBC: Apple Tax Case: Ireland's other taxing Issue - Section 110 Companies
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37287182

FINANCIAL TIMES: Ireland confronts another tax scandal closer to home
https://www.ft.com/content/619c9bde-74f3-11e6-bf48-b372cdb1043a

NEW YORK TIMES: Wall Street Is Europe’s Landlord. And Tenants Are Fighting Back
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/business/dealbook/goldman-sachs-cerberus-lonestar-europe-mortgages.html?_r=0

* * * * * *

First, our Primer on Irish Section 110 SPVs ("Special Purpose Vehicles", or "S110s") on this link:
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=886789#p886789

Second, you want to jump to the answer, read Stephen Donnelly's submission on fixing the Section 110 SPV scandal
http://stephendonnelly.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Closing-Down-Section-110-for-Vulture-Funds.pdf

* * * * * *

In summary (you can find these facts in the posts that follow):

1. Largest tax avoidance in State history. Distressed debt vultures target base case returns of 15% p.a. over a 10 year hold period (this is not PE or HY investing). When Cerberus, Lone Star, Apollo, OakTree, CarVal etc., invest €1bn, they expect it to be worth +€4bn after 10 years. An Irish corporate (say BOI or Ulster Bank), pays 12.5% Corporate Tax plus another 20% Withholding Tax on profits. Those two rates combine for an effective 30% tax rate. A vulture investing €1bn in Ireland, expects it to become €4bn after 10 years, and should incur €1bn in Irish taxes (30% x €3bn profit). The vulture should incur Irish taxes (€1bn) equal to the size of its Irish equity investment (€1bn). A small group of vultures who invested +€20bn, will avoid all Irish taxes.

Distressed Debt Vulture Base Case Returns - 15% over 10 years
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=886817#p886817

OakTree's Mars Capital Ireland SPV Case Study: €80m Equity Investment vs. €80m Irish Taxes Avoided
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=886799#p886799

OakTree's Mars Capital Ireland Case SPV Study: Avoiding Irish Corporate Tax, Irish Withholding Tax and Irish VAT/Duties
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=886801#p886801

Cerberus Project Eagle SPV: How the Irish taxpayer paid for Cerberus' acquisition of Project Eagle
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=891217#p891217

Cerberus Project Eagle SPV: 18 months on, Cerberus' running yield on Eagle now over 30% per annum
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/time-to-tax-vultures-like-the-rest-of-us-35266331.html

2. Dublin IFSC law firms, who "own" S110, make c €50m* in annual fees. Section 110 was set up in the 1997 TCA after lobbying from Dublin IFSC law firms for a tax-free SPV (or legal "shell"), to compete in the Global Securitization market. The State was wary of this leaking into the domestic market, but was assured by its anti-avoidance tax rules. Rather than spending 10 years writing up detailed tax legislation, Revenue set up S110 SPVs as a separate class of Irish Resident Company (S110 SPVs must be "Irish Resident" to shield from the US IRS), with crude legislation. Dublin IFSC lawyers could do whatever they wanted with the S110 SPV. Revenue's Irish anti-avoidance rules would protect the domestic corporate tax base (why no Irish corporate or plc - no matter how big / rich / powerful - tried S110 in domestic Irish economy). All updates and changes to Section 110, were from Dublin IFSC law firms (they drafted changes, the State stamped them). In the crisis, as the global securitization market collapsed, these IFSC law firms started winning vulture clients with "domestic versions" of S110s.

(*) Note. The entire Dublin IFSC SPV market generates about €100m in fees for lawyers and accountants, however about 50% of that are FCVs, which are a different class of SPV regulated by the Central Bank and not useful to Vulture Funds.

MATHESON: No. 1 Irish Tax Law Firm, and the leaders in Section 110 SPV development.
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=886819#p886819

IRISH TIMES: Matheson defends use of Irish Charities to help Hedge Funds cut Irish Tax bills
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/law-firm-defends-use-of-charities-to-help-hedge-funds-cut-tax-bills-1.2329919

IRISH TIMES: State scrutinising Matheson’s use of tax loopholes for Vulture Funds
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/state-scrutinising-matheson-s-use-of-tax-loopholes-1.2736631

How to find the vultures Section 110 SPVs - their Company Secretarial Firms
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=887028#p887028

How the Vultures pulled it off - their Dublin Tax Lawyers, Accountancy Firms and Secretarial Firms
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=887283#p887283

IRISH TIMES: Lawyers and accountants share in €100m fees from SPVs in IFSC
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/lawyers-and-accountants-share-in-100m-fees-from-spvs-in-ifsc-1.2816023

IRISH INDEPENDENT: Only lawyers and accountants gain from Irish 'SPVs' - Central Bank
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/only-lawyers-and-accountants-gain-from-irish-spvs-central-bank-35103770.html

3. It is avoidance, worldwide, and in Ireland. The SPVs the vultures are using (Section 110s "owned" by Irish Charities) are available, in different forms, all over the world. However, it is abuse (from a tax perspective), everywhere, to use these vehicles to take profits out of a domestic economy, without paying domestic taxes, and export gross to Cayman etc. Is it not tolerated in the US tax law, nor in Irish tax law. It if was, then every Irish corporate (i.e Kerry Group, Ryanair, Bank of Ireland), could securitize their business into a Section 110 (it's easy), and stop paying all Irish corporate taxes tomorrow. They don't, because they know it violates Irish anti-avoidance tax law. This is not a "loophole" (Section 110 is deliberately designed to be one big "loophole" to allow Global Securitization Deals be structured in whatever way they needed), or a consequence of our IFSC-economy. It is a violation of domestic Irish anti-avoidance tax rules that the State supports.

HUMOROUS EXAMPLE: Turning Strawberry Hill House, Vico Road, Dalkey, into a Section 110 (no tax, vat or stamp duty)
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=888842#p888842

HUMOROUS REALITY: Irish Central Bank landlord a Vulture Fund paying no tax
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/central-bank-landlord-a-vulture-fund-paying-no-irish-tax-says-sf-1.2771263

4. Irish Revenue changed its own anti-avoidance rules for Vultures. Section 110 SPVs are so "alien" to the Irish domestic Irish tax code that they trip off several Irish anti-avoidance tax laws (walking into Revenue's "mine field"). If an Irish citizen tried to use artificial internal high-interest loans to re-route their domestic Irish profits offshore, Revenue would prosecute as Tax Evasion. Vulture's get around this via the "orphaning" trick where a third party Irish resident "owns" the equity of the S110 SPV while the Vulture masquerades as a 3rd party financier. Again, if an Irish citizen still tried the "orphaning" trick, Revenue would still prosecute as Tax Avoidance. Irish Revenue however do not challenge S110s (despite knowing the "orphaning" trick backwards). Instead, Irish Revenue issued rulings to "protect" the Vulture's Section 110 SPVs from Revenue's own anti-avoidance rules (i.e. Revenue created "pathways" in their own "mine field"). From these "pathways", we now see improved Irish tax avoidance schemes (called "Super QIAIFs"). Unlike S110 SPVs, QIAIFs do not file public accounts, so you will never see them. Zero Irish tax with full secrecy.

Irish Revenue amending Irish Withholding Tax Anti-Avoidance Laws to fit Section 110 SPVs into Domestic Economy
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=886774#p886774

Irish Revenue amending Irish CG50 Tax Anti-Avoidance Laws to fit Section 110 SPVs into Domestic Economy
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=886774#p886774

Irish Revenue ignoring their own rules on capital gains taxes to fit Section 110 SPVs into Domestic Economy
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=886781#p886781

How the Irish Revenue's protection of Vulture Fund's Section 110 SPVs, has now spawned Orphaned Super QIFs
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=886779#p886779

Revenue's S110 rule changes, mean Noonan is loosing control of Domestic Tax Base
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=890652#p890652

5. NAMA (and IBRC) understand S110, and is selling to it today. NAMA (and IBRC) do detailed checks on all bidders (full legal structure of bidding company) to ensure that the distressed borrower is not involved. NAMA (and IBRC) have known for years, that almost all vulture bidders were using Section 110 SPVs ("owned" by an Irish Charity). NAMA is still conducting sales today where all bidders are Section 110 SPVs. Note from 1. above, if NAMA sold a loan to a vulture with a Section 110 for €1bn, we would be no worse then if NAMA sold to BOI (or AIB / UB) for €1. The Irish taxes BOI would pay, will equal the €1bn cheque the vulture hands to NAMA. When NAMA (and IBRC) say they take taxes into account when selling loans, they don't.

Sunday Business Post: NAMA did know that Vultures used Section 110 Vehicles
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=886776#p886776

Noonan lying to a Dail Question on whether NAMA knew Vultures used Section 110 SPVs
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=886777#p886777

Frank Daly (Chairman of NAMA) at a Mason Hayes & Curran presentation in London on using Section 110 SPVs
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=886968#p886968

RTE: Revenue aware that NAMA was selling to Section 110 Vehicles
http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0906/814471-revenue-nama-foi/

SUNDAY BUSINESS POST: NAMA aware that it was selling to Section 110s
https://www.businesspost.ie/revealed-nama-the-vultures-and-the-section-110-tax-dodge/

IRISH INDEPENDENT: State now appears to have delivered the "Sale of the Century" to Vultures
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/vultures-minimise-their-tax-bills-as-state-now-appears-to-have-delivered-the-sale-of-the-century-34981270.html

POSTSCRIPT - and the ultimate irony when it turned out NAMA itself was invested in Section 110 SPVs

SUNDAY BUSINESS POST: Nama set to be caught in new tax avoidance net
https://www.businesspost.ie/news/nama-set-caught-new-tax-avoidance-net-controversial-property-vehicles-main-target-372679

6. Section 110 SPVs are easy to take-down. While Section 110 SPVs are powerful Irish tax avoidance vehicles (no Irish corp tax, no Irish withholding tax, no Irish VAT or Duty), they are fragile. Their legislation is crude and simple (costs €40 to set up on CRO). The vulture S110 SPV accounts in this thread, are no more complex than SME accounts (with more zeros). The only wrinkle is to separate out the SPV's real bank loans, from the artificial internal ones (called PPNs) used to "export" Irish domestic profits offshore. The Section 110 SPV has to be maintained for the full decade for the vulture to get the full tax avoidance benefit (i.e. the €20bn). Both US and Irish anti-avoidance tax laws prohibit using artificial high interest internal loans (the PPNs in the Section 110 SPVs), to "export" domestic profits to offshore tax havens. Vulture Funds get around this via the "orphaning" trick, where a particular type of third party Irish resident entity "owns" the S110 SPV equity, and the Vulture Fund masquerades as a 3rd party financier. Irish Charities (and certain other Irish trusts) are unique in being able to "square this circle" properly (can't use an Irish Corporate or person). Stop "orphaning" and it collapses.

Can the Vulture Fund Section 110 Schemes survive without the help of Irish Charities
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=886939#p886939

7. .... but Government won't touch them. The amounts of Irish taxes the vultures have at risk are huge. As per 1. above, a €1bn vulture investment in Ireland, should avoid over €1bn of Irish taxes over its ten year life. Therefore, even if the Government instructed NAMA to stop selling to Section 110s, it would be enough for the vultures to start litigating to protect their financial interests (they wouldn't care about being barred from NAMA sales). The vultures would start waiving the Revenue letters sent to their Dublin tax advisers (per Apple), as well as their own minutes of meetings with the Dept of Finance. The public would not be happy at what they would see (neither would the EU, who could interpret as Illegal State Aid). In addition, the State plans using Section 110 SPVs to help US MNCs that have been forced "on-shore" in Ireland due to BEPS (i.e. Apple's "Leprechaun Economics" moment), to continue paying c 0% Irish tax.

Wilbur Ross Cardinal Capital: Another clear EU Illegal State Subsidy case in Ireland
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=890888#p890888

How the Iish Media missed the real scandal of Cerberus €1.6bn Project Eagle Deal - Irish taxpayer paid for it
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=891217#p891217

8. .... hence Government's strategy to "deal" with it. Fine Gael Minister Michael Noonan (and ex. leader of Fine Gael) has been on a mission since re-elected in 2011 to turn Ireland into the EU's leading Tax Haven. Noonan has dramatically increased the range of vehicles that can used in Ireland to avoid all Irish (and therefore EU) taxes. Section 110 SPVs can be used for any type of Irish asset which can be securitized, which is almost everything (and as full Irish Companies, get the full benefit of the US EU Master Tax Treaty). QIAIFs (and ICAVs) are similar to SPVs but can used for any asset and don't have to file public accounts (more secret). These vehicles alone have made (1) all Vulture Funds tax free in Ireland, (2) all Commercial Property tax free in Ireland (see link above on Commercial Property), and (3) most US Multi-National's also tax free (paying effective tax rates of well under 1%) (see link above on Apple). To keep the EU off his back, Noonan will write new legislation to "clampdown" on these vehicles, however the legislation will include the new "loopholes" needed to keep the schemes going. The world however, is waking up to how extreme a Tax Haven Ireland has become under Fine Gael.

IRISH TIMES: Ireland branded 6th of world’s 15 worst tax havens
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-branded-one-of-world-s-worst-tax-havens-1.2901822

IRISH TIMES: The US new view of Ireland as a major Tax Haven
http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/abroad/the-united-states-new-view-of-ireland-tax-haven-1.2896469

MOTLEY FOOL: Worlds Top 10 Tax Havens
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/03/10-best-tax-havens-in-the-world.aspx

* * * * * * *

That is how mad this whole thing is. Small number of foreign vultures operating in Ireland, using an even smaller group of specific Dublin IFSC tax law firms, with State and Revenue actively helping, avoiding €bns in Irish taxes.

The posts below address various "plant" articles that the Government, and certain Dublin professional firms, have put out. (many Dublin professionals I know are disgusted at what has gone on, but are too afraid to speak out on it).

They also add extra information on filed SPV accounts (and the Dublin IFSC tax law firms and accounting firms behind them) provided by grumpy, as well as brochures on how the vehicles work (and the new Super QIF & Orphaned Super QIFs).

Enjoy (but if you are an Irish tax-payer, you may get a bit queasy).

* * * * * * *

POSTSCRIPT I:

Finally, Noonan publicly admitted that Vultures are using Section 110 SPVs for a purpose that they were not intended for. Regardless of his proposed solutions, this is an important fact to note in the timeline of this scandal.

RTE: Government moves to amend Section 110 to close tax loophole used by vulture fund SPVs
http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0906/814471-revenue-nama-foi/

Unfortunately, any doubt you will have regarding what side of the fence Noonan is protecting, will be dispelled when you read his proposed Section 110 "loophole closing" Amendment (i.e. it is a mostly cosmetic act, to deflect global media attention, from a growing understanding that Ireland has lost control of its own tax laws to Dublin IFSC lawyers, and is well on its way to becoming a full blown "Tax Haven", but sitting, INSIDE the EU). €20bn in Irish taxes will now walk out the door to the Cayman Islands, and other "tax havens", over then next decade from Noonan's works.

Charity Regulator to investigate abuses of Charity Regulation
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=889836#p889836

How the Vultures will pay no tax as a result of Noonan's Amendment (hint: it was written by their Big 4 advisors).
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=890585#p890585

How Noonan's Amendment ensures the Irish Taxpayer funded Cerberus' acquisition of Project Eagle.
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=891217#p891217

* * * * * *

POSTSCRIPT II:

The irony of the State loosing control of its domestic tax system to Dublin tax lawyers, is that other States are now starting to wonder if Ireland is not a "tax-haven". Among the various definitions of a "tax-haven", this is one of our favorites:

OECD Report in Global Tax Avoidance wrote:
A "tax-haven" is also loosely defined as a country where, for fee based advice, all taxes from that country can be avoided
And now, we get this:

IRISH TIMES: Brazilian Airlines [using Irish Section 110 SPVs] furious as Brazil lists Ireland as tax haven
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/airlines-furious-as-brazil-lists-ireland-as-tax-haven-1.2796924

Irish Section 110 SPVs, when combined with secretive Irish QIAIF vehicle (the "Super QIFs"), meet the more technical OECD's "3 Criteria for a Tax Haven" definition - as pointed out by Stephen Donnelly TD in his excellent budget submission to Minister Noonan on fixing the Section 110 scandal (which Minister Noonan declined to do). Not even Luxembourg or Holland has a full tax, VAT and duty free vehicle (which can be made secret via QIAIF) inside their domestic economy, which also has the full shelter under the US and EU Master Tax Treaty (holy grail of Vulture Find and US tech and US pharma tax avoidance strategies). As the market realises the impact of Minister Michael Noonan's actions, it will see that Ireland is the most aggressive Tax Haven INSIDE the EU.

NOTE - when you get labelled a "Tax Haven", you loose access to the full tax treaties that you have with those countries. You lose the reason why Apple, Microsoft, Google etc. are in Ireland. There is a reason why these MNCs are not in the Isle of Man etc. Without access to full UNRESTRICTED tax treaties (especially EU Master Tax Treaties), Ireland is useless to MNCs.

Stephen Donnelly TD Submits €20BN Proposal on Vulture Funds using Section 110 SPVs for Irish Tax Avoidance
http://stephendonnelly.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Closing-Down-Section-110-for-Vulture-Funds.pdf
http://stephendonnelly.ie/donnelly-submits-e20bn-proposal-on-vulture-funds/


Last edited by observer35 on Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:16 pm, edited 60 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Section 110, Irish Charities, Vultures, NAMA, Tax Evasio
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 8:51 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Apr 30, 2013
Posts: 1648
Example of Revenue publically admitting they knew what the Vultures were doing, AND that they were prepared to break their own domestic anti-avoidance tax rules to help them.

Image


IRISH TIMES: Revenue warns firms over sale of loans to Vulture Funds, March 2016
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/revenue-warns-firms-over-sale-of-loans-to-vulture-funds-1.2587382

This is basically an Irish tax advisor (from a smaller Dublin firm, of course, Big 4 would never do,this) pointing out that that the Section 110 SPVs (owned by Irish Charities), which the vultures use to avoid all Irish domestic taxes (in contravention of all Irish domestic tax law), are so out of place in the domestic economy, that the Irish borrowers themselves should be incurring the 20% Irish withholding tax, before paying any interest into the vulture's SPV.

Or put another way, Irish domestic tax law is robust enough to ensure that Irish profits cannot "leave the system" (as it does when they are paid into the fully tax-free Section 110, on their way to their final home in the Cayman Islands) without incurring Irish withholding tax. The last Irish entity inside the "system", before it goes to an Irish withholding (and all other) tax free zone, is therefore the Irish borrower. Therefore they Irish borrower owes the Irish withholding tax.

What is interesting in this Irish Times article, is the direct quote from the Irish Revenue effectively stating that they understand the Section 110 domastic Irish tax avoidance scheme the vultures are using in Ireland, and that Revenue are considering amending the rules in the next budget to remove the liability for all borrowers to pay such withholding taxes, so as to preserve their tax avoidance schemes of the vulture.

Irish Times Report wrote:
Gerry Howard, assistant secretary in the business taxes policy and legislation division of the Revenue Commissioners, said the body was aware of the issue. “This is a relatively new situation that has arisen and we are working on resolving it [.....] we’re looking at coming up with a broad solution,” he said.

Or put another way, the Irish Revenue are going to drive a major breech into core Irish tax law, to preserve the tax avoidance schemes of the vultures. i.e. Any Irish corporate paying Irish taxes (corporate or withholding) on their Irish profits can now stop. It takes an afternoon to re-structure yourself into a Section 110 (owned by Irish Charity), and all profits can be remitted gross to the Cayman Islands without any Irish taxes.

Image

The reason why this is not an issue with Bank of Ireland (or other Irish lenders), is that they have to pay Irish taxes (Corporate & Withholding) on their Irish profits (per posts above). Ulster Bank for example will pay 20% Irish Withholding Tax when it remits dividends back to its UK parent, RBS plc. Similiary, Bank of Ireland will (eventually) pay +20% Irish Withholding Tax on all future dividends it makes to shareholders. Irish banks cannot escape or breech the Irish Withholding Tax net as they are in it. However, the vulture's Section 110 is outside it. Section 110s are free of all Irish Withholding tax.

And lo and behold, one month after the Irish Times article, here is Revenue issuing a new ruling (section 3e) to make it okay to not pay Irish withholding tax to a Section 110 vehicle (April 2016). Revenue have not breached their own Irish withholding tax "fence", to protect the vultures tax avoidance scheme. Others will follow through it.

Revenue April 2016 [8.3.6] Payment and receipt of interest without deduction of income tax
http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/foi/s16/income-tax-capital-gains-tax...tax/.../08-03-06.pdf

(note, if the above link does not work, just type the heading into your browser and the PDF will appear).

The Revenue above change to the S110 withholding tax anti-avoidance rules has now also opened up a new source of tax-free lending to non-property money lenders like Cardinal Capital, who have their own S110s Irish tax (and VAT free) money lending machine set up.

How Cardinal Capital are using S110s to avoid all Irish taxes in their domestic lending business
Margrethe Vestager please take note of another Irish Illegal State Aid case
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=890888#p890888

* * * * * *

POSTSCRIPT

Michael Noonan's Amendment to close the Vulture Funds using Section 110 effectively "blesses" the use of Section 110 in Ireland for all non-property related activities. It is quite easy to re-structure a situation into a "Section 110 Ready" state (by replacing it's equity capital with debt capital). As Section 110 is exempt of not only Irish taxes but all Irish VAT/Duties, this opens up a wide range of options for Irish taxpayers to .... avoid all Taxes.

Noonan loosing control of the Domestic Corporate Tax Base via Section 110
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=890652#p890652


Last edited by observer35 on Tue Sep 13, 2016 3:06 pm, edited 11 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Section 110, Irish Charities, Vultures, NAMA, Tax Evasio
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 8:53 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Apr 30, 2013
Posts: 1648
RTE prime time special tonight on vultures and their Section 110 tax avoidance schemes.
http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/prime-time-extras-30003379/10603680/

Again, great to see this being elevated and, most importantly for resolving this, FF seem to have copped it.

Couple of points on RTE's piece:

1. Prof Eamonn Walsh was a low point, and clearly does not understand this area (or worse, is trying to help Noonan).

He reminded me so much of this blast from the past .......
Image

Anyway, just to cover his sheer stupidity (his points in bold).....

- These vehicles are common all over the world. They are, but not for what the vultures have done with Irish distressed loans. I would love to see Eamonn try to use a Section 110-type vehicle to suck US sourced domestic profits out of the US and route them to the Cayman Islands. He would end up in jail (as you would expect, as it is evasion of US domestic taxes). Not for any class of investor (pension fund or other). You would see all domestic corporate taxation systems collapse in almost every jurisdiction, if Eamonn was right.

- The vulture investors are US pension funds who don't pay tax. If a US pension fund (or any US investor) invests in an Irish company (like Bank of Ireland), they will incur 12.5% tax inside the Irish company AND 20% withholding taxes on the dividends that the Irish company pays to them. There is no way around this. If the California State Teachers Pension Fund (Calpers) but bought Kerry Group shares, Kerry incurs 12.5% corporate tax on Irish profits, plus Kerry deducts 20% Irish withholding tax on dividends. That is Irish tax law.

- This is all to do with avoiding being double taxed. Double tax treaties mean the investors' home Revenue will give a tax credit for the valid taxes they paid in other locations. When an Irish pension fund (or any Irish investor) invests in a US business, they pay US corporate taxation inside the business (35% rate) PLUS US withholding taxes (at the 15% or 30% rate) on all after-tax profits before bringing the cash back to Ireland. The Irish double tax treaty will prevent them from paying any more taxes in Ireland on top of this, however there is no "clawback" of these US taxes paid. You must pay them. Basic tax law.

- The vultures will pay tax in their home country. Walsh's "highbrow" backstop argument is that vultures will ultimately pay tax in their own home country and that this normal double taxation avoidance. Per above, it is not. The double tax law is that you pay all valid corporate taxes in the country you are investing in, and then get credit for them against your home country's taxes. However, as Donnelly has shown with Mars Capital, vulture Section 110 profits go to offshore locations (and not back to the US). Irish Revenue fixed it so that vultures can not only avoid all Irish taxes (incl. VAT), but also US taxes (just like Apple).

- Sure, they will find a way to avoid taxes regardless. Walsh's "lowbrow" backstop argument is that the vultures will ultimately find a way around paying Irish taxes and duties anyway. They are rich and can afford the lawyers to do it. There are many large - and much richer than any vulture - companies in Ireland - Ryanair, Kerry Group, Bank of Ireland - earning billions p.a. in cash profits, who cannot find a way to get out of paying Irish Corporation tax of 12.5% and core Irish dividend withholding tax of +20% (and Michael O'Leary uses every legal loophole possible). The Irish tax code is not a piece of fiction.

The naive part of Eamonn's "apologia for vultures" is that Walsh does not make the basic connection that if a vulture can legally avoid all Irish taxes (and VAT) on Irish domestically generated profits, then every Irish corporation can do same. Bank of Ireland, or Tesco Ireland, could all convert to Section 110 status (just re-structure their equity into debt, and then sell this debt into a Section 110 company). That is the end of all tax/VAT for Irish corporates.

I hope it is the last we hear or Walsh, putting on the "green jersey" - not for Ireland, but for his pal Noonan.

2. There was nobody there from the Irish Government (and certainly no main Dublin tax partner was going to appear on to defend this). This is too toxic (giving people who are evicting Irish families zero-tax status). The paper trail of Revenue Guidance notes issued over the last 4 years, explicitly amending core Irish tax law, to fit the vultures Section 110 schemes, into the Irish domestic tax system, is there for all to see.

3. Donnelly was good again. I love the way the interviewer had no interest on engaging with him on his point that this would run to tens of billions? Donnelly needed to clarify that he wants to shut down the Section 110 schemes that the vultures are doing in Ireland, and not all past valid international securitization Section 110s.

4. Michael McGrath was also very good. FF clearly get this. FF have a deep network in the Dublin law and accounting firms and no doubt have been briefed privately on the inside story on what exactly has been going on here (there are many senior law and accounting people in Dublin who are FF and are disgusted by this abuse of Section 110 for domestic tax evasion by vultures). McGrath understands the difference between legit Section 110 firms (i.e. GE aircraft leasing), and not-legit firms (i.e. vultures with Irish sourced profits).

* * * * * *

In a strange way, the lack of a full majority by any political block ("New Politics") is probably what might get this large tax evasion scheme shut down. In the past, Noonan's stonewalling would have worked, and the Prof Eamonn Walsh's "green jersey comical ali" would have killed it. Perhaps our current system of no majority, is not so bad after all?


Last edited by observer35 on Tue Sep 13, 2016 3:17 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Section 110, Irish Charities, Vultures, NAMA, Tax Evasio
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 8:54 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 17312
Location: To the right of the decimal place
A question on Irish charities not being able to go bankrupt -- do you mean involuntary liquidation only? Surely they can go into voluntary liquidation (as Console did).

_________________
— Try, fail, understand, win. —


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Section 110, Irish Charities, Vultures, NAMA, Tax Evasio
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 8:54 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Apr 30, 2013
Posts: 1648
Another example of Revenue, helping vultures to by-pass Irish domestic anti-avoidance laws with CG50 Certs

Image

An interesting note written by a partner in Maples and Calder re Revenue helping Section 110s (owned by Irish Charities), to get around Irish anti-avoidance laws for CG50. What makes it especially noteworthy is how Revenue leverage the ownership of the Section 110, by the Irish Charity, to help the Section 110 get around the anti-avoidance laws.

(Maples and Calder is the Dublin office of law firm who do lots of international structuring and have offices in offshore locations).

Go to the section titled Irish Loan Sales – Capital Gains Tax in the article:
http://www.maplesandcalder.com/news/article/international-and-irish-tax-update-march-2016-1259/

In this section you will see another of Revenue's domestic anti-avoidance laws - CG50 certs for sale of Irish land - becoming a problem for the vulture fund's Section 110 vehicles. Buyers of Irish assets / loans off the vultures which relate to Irish land would have to hold back 15% and give it to the Revenue (it is like Revenue's "schmuck insurance" to at least get some tax back from Irish land sales that they might not pick up in any audit / or other database.).

CG50 is also liability of the solicitor doing the sale (they should really withhold the cash).

This is obviously a problem for vultures. Can't have them loosing 15% to normal Irish taxation.

Revenue therefore issued new guidance that "investment vehicles" would not need CG50 certs. However a vulture's Section 110 is not an "investment vehicle" (not regulated). Therefore, you will see from the article, that Revenue also included "charities" as also being exempt from needing CG50 certs. That was the back door Revenue used.

Any Irish tax advisor will tell you that the reason why charities have never lobbied for this exemption from CG50 is that they don't care (CG50 certs have been around for a while). Charities don't pay Irish taxes (period), and therefore they can claim it back (plus, they are very sporadic sellers of assets so very infrequently encounter this).

Revenue added the "charities" to CG50 clearance institutions, because the vulture's Section 110 vehicles are all "owned" by Irish Charities (and therefore can avoid the CG50 15% charge through this exemption).

This is how detailed - and devious - Revenue's support for the vultures Section 110 vehicles has been for 4 years.

* * * * * *

Many of the rulings that the Irish Revenue has issued over the past 4 years to protect the vultures Section 110 tax avoidance schemes from Irish anti-avoidance tax laws, leverage the fact that the Section 110 is "owned" by an Irish Charity. Revenue issue a ruling that only effects "Irish Charities", which is a back door way to helping the vultures.

Take away the ability for a Section 110, invested in Irish originated distressed loans, from being owned by an Irish Resident Charity, and you immediately unwind many of the rulings that Revenue have made to protect Section 110s from Irish anti-avoidance tax laws when trying to avoid Irish domestic taxes.


Last edited by observer35 on Sat Sep 17, 2016 9:26 am, edited 6 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Section 110, Irish Charities, Vultures, NAMA, Tax Evasio
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 8:56 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Apr 30, 2013
Posts: 1648
John McManus of the Irish Times comes out with the answer - it is our fault?

Last week, we had Professor Eamonn Walsh doing his best "Comical Ali" impression to mislead the Irish public on RTE's primetime covering vulture fund tax evasion, that nothing was wrong with how vultures use Section 110s in Ireland.

Sure it is all high-finance IFSC type stuff (you just can't stop it), according to Prof. Eamonn (covered on this post).
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=885807#p885807

Anyway, you know this is really starting to blow up when we have John McManus, Business Editor of the Irish Times, also called on to "wear the green jersey" by the Dept of Finance:

IRISH TIMES: Outrage over Vulture Fund tax avoidance rings a little hollow
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/john-mcmanus-outrage-over-vulture-fund-tax-avoidance-rings-a-little-hollow-1.2739431

John McManus goes for the "A Few Good Men" routine i.e. we are are country built on global tax evasion, so we can't complain when it comes back on us; these poor Dublin Law firms are "on that wall", doing what we asked them to do in 1997 (actually John, it was the Law firms who lobbied for S110), and now that it has come back on us, "we can't handle the truth."

Image

Spin aside, let's go through the facts of John's article:

1. Plant Article. First, you can always spot the "plant" articles by the inclusion of lines such as "......we get investment, jobs, downstream tax revenues such as income tax and VAT". I don't think the term "downstream tax" and such a high awareness of VAT as a contribution, would normally be associated with John's writings. Article was drafted with someone else.

2. Warning to FF. Of course, in a plea (or threat) to FF / Michael McGrath, is the line "high level of buy-in right across the political spectrum". i.e. we will take FF down as well. Unfortunately (and surprisingly, in this case), FF did not direct Revenue to bend Revenue's own anti-avoidance rules to help the vultures evade domestic Irish tax via Section 110s. Nor did FF direct NAMA (and IBRC) to sell tens of billions in distressed Irish loans to vultures with the zero-tax Section 110 schemes. As we saw on RTE primetime, FF have woken up to this scandal (with Noonan's fingers all over it), and are starting to mobilise.

3. Core Fallacy of John McManus Argument. John's core argument is that this is IFSC type structuring, and while distasteful, is the quid-pro-quo for having an IFSC empire. This is false. Section 110 type structures are available all over the world (one of the few true lines in Professor Eamonn Walsh's RTE piece). However, they are NEVER (ever) allowed to suck domestic profits, gross, out of any economy (without paying domestic corporate or withholding taxes) to re-route elsewhere. That is tax law everywhere. It is the law in Ireland too (until Revenue issued rulings to help vultures S110s get around anti-avoidance laws.

4. Fallacy of the Icelandic Angle. John alludes to Irish Section 110s being used to house Icelandic bank loans in the GFC. What John (or more correctly, the writer of John's plant article), forgets to mention, IS THAT THE ICELANDIC REVENUE WOULD BE TAKING ALL VALID ICELANDIC DOMESTIC TAXES DUE OFF THE PAYMENTS OWNED ON THOSE BONDS BEFORE THE CASH IS ROUTED TO IRELAND. Again, that is the law John. Perhaps you can't handle the truth of it?

Just to re-iterate the simple truth that shows how stupid John McManus and Professor Eamonn Walsh (a.k.a. "Comical Ali's") arguments are. If you can use a Section 110-type vehicle (and these are available all over the world), to extract domestic profits - gross - out of a country, and re-route to the Cayman (per the Oaktree / Mars Capital / Matheson Charity Structure), then all domestic corporation taxation will cease all over the world. It takes c 5 days to "securitise" an Irish business (i.e. replace its equity with debt securities) so it can be backed into Section 110.

5. Why John McManus side-steps the Irish Charity angle. There is a very subtle point regarding the use of Irish Charities in owning the Section 110s (the vulture never "owns" their own Section 110) that John (and his ghost writer) forgets to mention. Irish Charities give the vulture additional protection from Irish anti-avoidance tax laws (as per my earlier posts on CG50 certs), but more importantly, they shield the vulture from the US IRS. If they lost their ability to use Irish Charities to hold all their equity, then their scheme collapses. They either face Uncle Sam (whose tax rate starts at 35% and rises), or Ireland (where the worst case is a 30% tax take).

* * * * * * *

This is not IFSC-type business coming back to haunt us. It is domestic tax evasion aided and abetted by the Irish Government / Dept of Finance who directed the Irish Revenue to allow a small group of Dublin IFSC lawyers abuse an IFSC type structure (set up for a different purpose of administering global securitised loans), to enable the vultures to do it. IFSC-type structuring is available all over the world, but cannot suck domestic profits out of any economy with it. That is the law. In this case, the Irish Revenue is are the heart of breaking our own domestic tax laws and NAMA (and IBRC) has consciously, and with full visibility, sold tens of billions of Irish loans to it.

Contrast the John McManus with where the Independent finally got to a few weeks later:

IRISH INDEPENDENT: State now appears to have delivered the "Sale of the Century" to Vultures
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/vultures-minimise-their-tax-bills-as-state-now-appears-to-have-delivered-the-sale-of-the-century-34981270.html


Last edited by observer35 on Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:46 pm, edited 8 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Section 110, Irish Charities, Vultures, NAMA, Tax Evasio
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 8:56 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Apr 30, 2013
Posts: 1648
Jack Horgan / Sunday Business Post leads the media in understanding this issue.

Image

SUNDAY BUSINESS POST: What did Noonan know about vultures’ tax?
http://www.businesspost.ie/what-did-noonan-know-about-vultures-tax/

SBP are following the NAMA / IBRC paper trail (NAMA sold, and is currently selling today, loans to vulture bidders with Irish tax avoidance Section 110 schemes). The great thing about the NAMA / IBRC trail, is that it is truly rich in paper. All NAMA / IBRC bidders have to give full disclosure on the structure of their bidding vehicle. NAMA / IBRC has complete visibility into the Section 110 status and that the equity owner is an Irish Charity. This is to vet and police any conflicts or links with the source borrower, who is not allowed to be involved in any way with the vultures bid. And of course NAMA Chairman, Frank Daly, is the ex. head of Irish Revenue? And of course the IBRC Liquidator, Kieran Wallace, was a KPMG partner, the Irish tax gurus (key advisors to vultures on Section 110 to CarVal and Cerberus)

Sunday Business Post wrote:
A person familiar with several loan sales by state agencies said: "Vendors of loan portfolios would have been fully aware of structures being used by acquirers, and it is highly likely that all potential buyers proposed using S110, or structures with similar outcomes.

Sunday Business Post wrote:
A second source with knowledge of the bidding process said: "In the sale process with NAMA and others, it's generally been assumed that everyone would use the same structure - Section 110s. Critically, the bids would have to include who the purchasing entity is and its shareholding [sic ... the Irish Charity as equity owner] so it's hard to see how all parties wouldn't be aware of the structure of the purchasing entity."

Pity SBP failed to do the sums here. They would see that when NAMA sells to a vulture with Section 110 status, the Irish taxes the vulture will avoid, will equate to the full equity cheque paid to NAMA (Irish media often struggle with sums - hence why they were so easily mis-lead in the run up to the Apple ruling (despite JPMorgan's / Seamus Coffey estimates) by the Fine Gael press office with ("sources say the Apple fine will be less than €1bn").

Also, from mid 2013, Bank of Ireland began to appear in all IBRC / NAMA loan bids. From late 2013 onwards, Bank of Ireland, AIB and even Ulster Bank and KBC Bank, have been bidders on almost all NAMA / IBRC loan bids. If NAMA / IBRC had checked the tax structuring in assessing bids, they could have sold to any of BOI, AIB, UB, KBC for €1 (one euro), and the State would still been better off financially. How can NAMA / IBRC claim they were ignorant to this angle (given Frank Daly is ex. Head of Revenue and Kieran Wallace is KMPG)?


Last edited by observer35 on Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:12 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Section 110, Irish Charities, Vultures, NAMA, Tax Evasio
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 8:57 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Apr 30, 2013
Posts: 1648
Noonan caught lying in the Dail (again) to protect NAMA (who we all know, are selling to Section 110s)

Stephen Donnelly asked this question of Michael Noonan on July 21, 2016
Stephen Donnelly, Question 136 wrote:
To ask the Minister for Finance the list of the purchasers of loan books from NAMA, IBRC, or any other source; to indicate which of these entities had section 110 status; the nature of the loan book, the sales value in each case, if available; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Michael Noonan gave this formal answer:
Michael Noonan, Answer to 136 wrote:
NAMA's market activities mean that it competes on an ongoing basis with banks and other financial institutions to attract investors and competitive bids for its loans and for the assets securing them. In that context, and in line with its competitors, I am advised that NAMA does not identify the counterparties with which it transacts, as to do so would discourage potential buyers from participating in NAMA loan and other asset sales and would place NAMA and by extension Irish taxpayers at a competitive disadvantage relative to its competitors.

This is the link to the official answer on the Dail questions site - look for Q 136
https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2016-07-21a.353

Every bidder who has dealt with NAMA knows this answer is a lie.
The sources from the SBP article (above), also agree that this is a lie.
Why is Noonan lying at such an early stage in this scandal?


Image

* * * * * * *

POSTSCRIPT:

Sunday Business Post nails NAMA with even more explicit evidence that NAMA knew it was selling to Section 110s:

SUNDAY BUSINESS POST: Revealed: Nama, the vultures and the Section 110 tax dodge
https://www.businesspost.ie/revealed-nama-the-vultures-and-the-section-110-tax-dodge/


Last edited by observer35 on Tue Sep 13, 2016 1:22 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Section 110, Irish Charities, Vultures, NAMA, Tax Evasio
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 8:58 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Apr 30, 2013
Posts: 1648
Another Irish Times "plant" article, this time from Cliff Taylor

First we had UCD Professor Eamonn Walsh doing his "Comical Ali" routine on RTE Primetime of "No Scandal Here".
http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/prime-time-extras-30003379/10603680/

His points shown to be false here. http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=885807#p885807
Image

Then we had Irish Times John McManus doing his "You Can't Handle the Truth" routine.
His points also exposed here. http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=885941#p885941
Image

Now we also get Irish Times Cliff Taylor, with a tried and tested routine in Irish journalism - "Waiting for Godot"

IRISH TIMES: How to get vulture funds to pay tax, Cliff Taylor (odd title, given conclusions Cliff comes to)
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/how-to-get-vulture-funds-to-pay-tax-1.2740830

There was a scandal, there is a scandal, there will always be a scandal. I must go on. You must go on. We all go on.

Image

"Waiting for Godot" is reserved for the end of Irish scandals, when Irish Justice (a.k.a. Godot), yet again, fails to arrive. Irish media run the "Waiting for Godot" routine to give the Irish public "new hope" that Godot's (i.e. Justice) no-show was not because of any cronyism / corruption (it was). It was due to something else. Keep the faith. It will come in the future. It is an appeal to the most reliable instincts of the Irish public .... apathy towards cronyism & corruption (all deja vu)

i.e.
Bank Inquiry. Godot Defense = "sure, didn't we all go mad with property".
Moriarty Tribunal (+spin offs). Godot Defense = "sure, didn't we elect them".
Beef Tribunal. Godot Defense = "sure, wouldn't you have done the same in his position".

Before we get to the people who inspired Cliff's article, some comments on the article itself:

1. Laced with Godot Defense. ".... it is the classic Irish tax battle". I cannot remember any "classic" Irish tax battles Cliff, involving Dublin law and accounting firms helping foreigners to avoid billions in Irish taxes from the Irish domestic economy? Again, we never see "classic" business vs. politicians battles, instead, we see business + politicians vs. public. Article is laced with "Godot" touch-points "... it was always going to be controversial...." (eh, not if they paid their Irish taxes Cliff)?

2. Irish Banks used Section 110. Despite Cliff (or John McManus) doing no research on the scandal (i.e. downloading the freely available accounts of vultures to check amounts, and Dublin law + accounting firms who built their S110s etc.), there is a reference to Irish banks using Section 110. Cliff forgets to add that Irish banks have NEVER (ever) tried Section 110 to avoid Irish taxes (corporate+withholding) on Irish mortgages. Ever. It is avoidance Cliff.

3. The Punchline. 2nd last paragraph reveals the intent of Cliff's article. "Tax industry sources say that changing the laws to apply retrospectively would be difficult. The question is whether the vulture funds and their advisers stick to the letter of the law in establishing these companies and channeling funds in this way." This is a lie. But this paragraph needs more explanation as to why some Dublin tax partners are now sweating bullets (and why they got Cliff involved).

* * * * * *

Department of Finance terrified of being sued by Vultures

Irish Revenue (almost) never issues rulings / clarifications to individual clients. Revenue instead writes to the partners of the Dublin accounting firms. It is these partners who ask for the rulings / clarifications (and even draft the wording for Revenue). These partners then "interpret" Revenue's letter and issue tax advice to their clients, who pay large amounts of money for it. As per my earlier posts, the amounts of tax avoidance here are huge. On a typical €100m investment, the vulture will expect to avoid - in the base-case - €100m in Irish taxes over life of the investment (and this will be exceeded in most cases).

This scandal has become so twisted, that the Dept of Finance is terrified to even tell NAMA to stop selling to Section 110s (as it is doing today), in case the vultures take it as a sign that Revenue is coming after them, and act first.

The DOF is terrified the vultures will start suing their Dublin tax advisers in Irish Courts (vultures are litigious). When vultures (and their advisers) start waiving Revenue "comfort letters" in Irish court, it will become clear to the Irish public (and EU Commission) what happened.

So, that is why nothing is going to happen (i.e. the Godot Defense needs to be played early).

* * * * * *

Cronyism of John McManus and Cliff Taylor

We now have the two most senior business editors of the Irish Times, writing Section 110 articles, but never mentioning;

1. That this scandal runs to tens of billions (hundreds of millions already avoided).
2. That avoiding all domestic taxes is wrong - everywhere (incl. Ireland) - under anti-avoidance (regardless of structure).
3. That no Irish corporate (from Bank of Ireland, to Ulster Bank to Ryanair) has ever attempted this with domestic revenues.
4. That NAMA is selling loans (today), where all vulture bidders are Section 110s.
5. That Irish Revenue have issued several rulings to help the vultures Section 110s by-pass domestic anti-avoidance rules.
6. That these structures would collapse (US IRS would attack them) if the Charities were banned from helping them.

(note, despite offering no research, both articles "threw out" specific "facts" to try and discredit / soften the scandal).

Read Cliff's article again with the above in mind (and re-read John McManus' as well).
(and the threat of major litigation specific Dublin tax partners face - who most likely wrote Cliff's article for him).

Beckett may not have been a businessman, but he understood Ireland and the Irish psyche.


Last edited by observer35 on Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:13 pm, edited 7 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Section 110, Irish Charities, Vultures, NAMA, Tax Evasio
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 8:59 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Apr 30, 2013
Posts: 1648
Revenue's anti-avoidance rule changes for Vultures, pave way for new classes of tax avoidance schemes

Image

IRISH INDEPENDENT: Kennedy Wilson here to stay as vultures fly
http://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/kennedy-wilson-here-to-stay-as-vultures-fly-34944209.html

Plant article in the Irish Independent re Kennedy Wilson to distance themselves from Vultures.

Key points being (1) we are not a vulture fund, and (2) we don't use Section 110s.

Of course KW doesn't use Section 110s in Ireland, as most of its Irish staff are ex. Bank of Ireland. They would know from their Bank of Ireland days, that using a Section 110 to suck profits out of Ireland gross, is not right. They would not try it as they would consider it potentially illegal (which it probably is). In hindsight, they were too cautious.

The article does refer to KWs use of QIFs, and that these are also tax free vehicles.

QIF is Irish tax deferment, not avoidance. Imagine Ireland is a big warehouse, and the Irish economy is like a big bath tub of water in the middle of it. A QIF is where you can put your tax-free bucket into the bath tub and scoop out water. You don't pay Irish taxes on the stuff in your bucket. However at the maturity of the QIF (c. 5-7 years), you must walk with your bucket to the Revenue's cash register at the door to the warehouse, to settle all valid Irish taxes. Ultimately, there is no real tax benefit to QIFs as any extra return you make during your QIF period, only results in extra taxes at the cash register on exit. It is tax deferment, not tax avoidance. It doesn't mean it can't be abused. We saw in earlier posts how Irish Revenue have issued rulings to help the vultures Section 110 overcome Revenue's own anti-avoidance laws. Therefore, we could still see the Irish Revenue shut down their cash register on the day that KW walks their bucket out the front of the Irish warehouse.

Section 110, in Ireland, is Irish tax avoidance. Section 110 is like having a hose pipe connected into the bath tub, and then running it out the door of the warehouse (right under the Revenue's cash register) and into another warehouse across the road (i.e. the Cayman Islands warehouse). Where as the QIF guys have to "sweat it" to see what they can lobby FG to let them off on when they walk their bucket to the Revenue cash register, the Section 110 guys can run their water out the door in real time with no taxes. Because these guys are so heavily overseen by the US IRS (who know their form), they get an Irish Charity to "own" the hose-pipe and put their name on it ("nothing to do with us"). The Section 110 is therefore a very different animal from a QIF, and why using it inside the Irish warehouse (it was never mean to be used "inside" the Irish warehouse - only outside) to suck water out of the Irish bath tub, is tax avoidance on an unprecedented scale.

NOTE - This analogy would have any reader asking why Revenue doesn't lean over their cash register and notice a whole load of hose-pipes running along the floor out the Irish warehouse door. This is the real scandal of this whole vulture tax avoidance mess. Irish Revenue can stop this today. Instead, we have evidence (see earlier posts) of Irish Revenue issuing constant rulings to protect these hose pipes from Revenue's own anti-avoidance laws.

* * * * *

There is one BIG (BIG) PROBLEM with Section 110s. As with all Irish Companies, all Section 110s have to publically publish their accounts on the CRO website, which any citizen can download for €1.50. QIFs do not - they file no public accounts.

This is why the "next generation" of Irish tax avoidance will focus on QIFs ..... and here are two of the most popular


* * * * *

Next Generation Tax Avoidance for Irish High Net Worths: Section 110 Super QIF

Here is a guide from Davys on using QIFs and Section 110s (and the difference).

Remember, as a public document, Davy can't "spell out" the tax implications in neon lights. You will just have to read between the lines of what Davys say to understand what is going on here.

However, you will see that at the end of the document, Davy's have created a new hybrid - the Super QIF. This is a QIF but with a Section 110 vehicle between the asset and the QIF (i.e. In the above analogy, like getting the hose pipe stuck into your bucket.

As I pointed out in earlier posts, the new rulings that Revenue have being putting in place to protect the vulture's Section 110 domestic Irish tax avoidance schemes, are now going to be exploited by others. When you break down the integrity of Irish corporate taxation at such a fundamental level, you open the floodgates.

DAVY STOCKBROKERS: Ireland as a location for Distressed Debt Funds
http://www.davy.ie/binaries/content/assets/davypublic/fund-services/briefings/ireland-as-a-location-for-distressed-debt-funds-web.pdf

* * * * * *

Next Generation Tax Avoidance for REITs : Section 110 "Orphaned" Super QIF.

The Davy note ends with a tweak called the Orphaned Super QIF, which is the above structure but with an Irish Charity as the owner of the Section 110 equity.

The Orphaned Super QIF is not for Irish HNWs (they have their Super QIF vehicle), instead, it is for foreign REITs (like KW), who missed out on what the vultures achieved, and want in on it.

It would take about 5 days of structuring to turn Kennedy Wilson's legitimate non-tax evasion QIF structure (where they settle their Irish taxes at maturity), into a Davy's Orphaned Super QIF. KW would need a little help from Revenue to avoid tripping a specific QIF anti-avoidance measure on doing this, but as we have seen in earlier posts, Irish Revenue have bent over backwards when it comes to helping foreign funds in Ireland evade Irish taxes.

This is what KW could do, when they finally liquidate their Irish assets.

Image


Last edited by observer35 on Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:14 pm, edited 9 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Section 110, Irish Charities, Vultures, NAMA, Tax Evasio
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 9:17 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Apr 30, 2013
Posts: 1648
Example of Revenue (again) issuing a ruling to help the Vulture's Section 110 avoid Irish CGT

Image

As mentioned earlier, the Section 110 vehicle is a crude legal instrument. Because the Irish Revenue expected no Irish taxes from it (in its role as a genuine global securitization vehicle), they had no interest in writing reams of new tax leglislation for it. They let the main Dublin IFSC firms draft the Section 110 rule changes, it and Revenue stamped them.

Revenue's own Irish anti-avoidance rules, would prevent these S110s operating in the domestic Irish economy.
(until, the Dublin IFSC law firms got the Fine Gael Government to change their minds, and all hell broke loose).

* * * * * *

As we saw earlier, when a Section 110 gets involved in a land transaction, CG50 certs (and a 15% prepayment of land capital gains taxes) are required. We saw what a problem this is for Section 110s (they have no way to offset the CG50 taxes, and re-coup them), and how Revenue amended their own Irish anti-avoidance rules for CG50's, to fix it for them.

Another example of Revenue, helping vultures to by-pass Irish domestic anti-avoidance laws with CG50 Certs
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=886774#p886774

However, CG50 aside on land deals, what happens in the following scenario:

(i) Vulture's S110 owns a €5m par loan that it bought for €1m off IBRC.

(ii) Vulture's S110 forecloses on the loan, and seizes the underlying property backing the loan.

(iii) Vulture's S110 sells this property for €3m in the open market, making a €2m capital gain on the loan.

Even the "crude" S110 rules, don't allow them to hold Irish real estate (the Irish rich, use QIFs to "defer"(*) their Irish taxes on Irish real estate). And the concept of "capital gains" is much less common in securitization (which is all about income gains). Therefore, in Irish Revenue terms, the SALE of the above property (step (iii)), was a taxable capital gain that is not exempt from all Irish taxes. Fear not Vulture, the Revenue came to the rescue (again).

(*) note: as we discuss later on, new hybrid combinations of QIFs + S110s, called Super QIFs (Orphan Super QIFs), allow Irish high net worths (and Irish REITs), to convert their tax deferal vehicle (ordinary QIF), into a permanent tax avoidance vehicle.

In 2012/13, Revenue issued "private rulings" to the Dublin advisors of Vultures, effectively telling them that where they foreclose, the gain on the asset can be made INSIDE the Section 110 (therefore free of Irish taxe), but that they are to do this reasonably quickly (i.e. don't hold the property inside the Section 110 for a long period; you are not to take the p**s).

These Revenue letters to the Dublin advisors contain the following wording:

Irish Revenue Commissioners wrote:
.... in the past, Revenue have not enforced the strict provisions of Section 110, where in a mortgage backed securitization, a debtor defaults on a mortgage, which is included in the portfolio of mortgages held by the Section 110 Company, and it becomes necessary for the Section 110 Company to sell or arrange to have sold to collateral [i.e. underlying property] for that mortgage.

And there you have it, Revenue admitting (in writing, again) that it was doing "whatever it takes" to make the Section 110s work for the Vultures in the domestic Irish economy. Forget about anti-avoidance rules, we have Revenue admitting, it simply ignores its own rules and just doesn't apply the appropriate Irish tax rules, when it comes to vultures.

Subsequent letters from Revenue remind Vultures not to take the p**s out of the above, and not to try and hold the properties long-term inside the Section 110 (i.e. dont' sell but rent out tax-free). Some of the letters discretely remind the Vulture that there are other vehicles (i.e. hint hint QIFs), that would be more suitable for holding physical property.


Last edited by observer35 on Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:15 am, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Section 110, Irish Charities, Vultures, NAMA, Tax Evasio
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 9:40 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 17312
Location: To the right of the decimal place
I'm not sure I get it still -- what protection does a charity have that a non-charity (e.g. a standard company limited by guarantee) doesn't have in terms of bankruptcy protection in this situation?

_________________
— Try, fail, understand, win. —


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Section 110, Irish Charities, Vultures, NAMA, Tax Evasio
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 9:46 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Apr 30, 2013
Posts: 1648
Irish Section 110 SPV Companies - 101 Guide for Dummies

1. What is an Irish Section 110 Company (a.k.a Irish SPV, or "special purpose vehicle") used for?

Section 110 SPVs were set up under the 1997 Tax Consolidation Act ("TCA") to help a handful of Dublin IFSC law firms (mainly MOP, now called Matheson, and A&L Goodbody), compete to administer global securitization deals ("GSD"). GSDs can be used for raising bank and bond financing for any type of assets, but the "classic" use is the financing of aircraft purchases.

Example of a Classic Aircraft GSD:

- Delta Airlines wants to buy $10bn of planes from Boeing, but doesn't have $10bn in spare cash.
- Delta could buy the planes by borrowing $10bn from RBS plc (secured only on the planes i.e. non-recourse debt).
- There are two reasons why Delta might not (or cannot) do this:
(a) Delta may already have too much debt on it's balance sheet, and is not allowed to borrow more; and, or
(b) RBS is wary that Delta's other debt, could hamper them seizing the planes, in an event of a default.
- The solution to both is a GSD, with Boeing's planes + RBS's finance, housed in a Special Purpose Vehicle ("SPV").
- The Irish Resident Section 110 Company is the SPV.

2. How is the Irish Section 110 SPV Structured?

Banks lead in structuring the S110 SPVs for clients like Delta (and earn big fees for it). The big global wholesale banks like Deutsche Bank, Barlcays, RBS, Citibank, JPM etc. dominate GSD. They have the all-important balance sheet power to "warehouse" the deal, until they can sell it down to 3rd party bond holder investors (takes c 6 months). Sometimes they act in groups.
s
- RBS (or a bank group), pay Boeing the $10bn with their own money, and put the planes into the Irish S110 SPV.
- Delta enters into a long-term lease agreement with the S110 SPV to "rent" these planes for c $1bn per annum.
- RBS then "sells-down" their $10bn investment to 3rd party long-term bond investors (earn big fees doing so).
- The S110 SPV now has $10bn of planes as an asset, and $10bn of bonds as a liability (i.e. its net asset value is zero(*))
- The interest on the bonds is set to equal to the $1bn "rent" Delta pays, so there is no spare cash left in S110 (**).
- RBS effectively "exits" the deal, and leaves Delta and it's bond investors alone together.
- A Dublin law firm (Matheson or A&L Goodbody), act a lawyers to the S110 SPV, and draft the rent and bond documents.
- However, once all the legal documents are done and bond investors brought on, there is little more work to be done (***).
- Secretarial firms like TMF and SFM, provide the S110 SPV Directors, while a Big 4 does the accounts (****)

(*) note: aircraft leasing deals in Ireland do not create much GDP "value", as their NAV is close to zero. Noonan disguised Apple's "Leprechaun Economics" moment (when Apple moved it's "stateless" IP tax avoidance scheme onshore to Ireland, thus increasing GDP by 26%), by saying that its was a "mix of factors" including aircraft leasing. he did this to divert attention from the extra €380m per annum in EU GDP levies that the Irish Exchequer must pay for housing Apple's IP on the Irish National Balance Sheet. those who are familiar with aircraft GSDs knew how mis-leading this was, and that something must be up for Noonan to lie.

(**) note: as we will see later, SPVs occupy a "grey area" of acceptance by international tax authorities. a key part of this acceptance is not deliberately looking like a "tax haven" type investment (even through Irish S110s are). therefore the Irish S110s, technically, pay 25% tax on all net profits. however, the S110s leglislation is loose enough that ANY FORM of bond structuring is allowed. the banks always put in a few Profit Participating Notes (or PPNs), whose "variable interest" is effectively designed to mop up any unforeseen extra cash or profits that might arise, so no Irish taxes are paid. discussed more here:

Why Vultures pay no Irish Taxes, even though the Section 110 1997 TCA Irish Tax Rate is 25%
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=886930#p886930

(***) note: despite Noonan's ridiculous assertion that S110 SPVs provide over 38,000 jobs in Ireland (discussed later), once the Asset Rental Agreement is done, and the Bond Investor documents are done, there is little other work needed in the S110. their accounts are very simple (quarterly rent in vs. quarterly interest out), and are done in a day. the ongoing Dublin professional services support for S110 SPVs, post their set-up, is tiny (which was a big driver as to why the Dublin law firms started abusing the S110 system for vulture funds in the GFC, when the flow of new Irish Section 110 from GSDs dried up).

(****) To copperfasten the "Irish Residency" of the S110 SPV, it is important that its Directors are all living in Ireland. Specialist corporate secretarial firms like SFM Ireland and TMF Global provide this service for under €25k per annum. S110 SPVs are very simple accounts (rent money in, bond payment out), so the Big 4 accounts / audit also cost no more than €25k per annum. It would be extreme for an S110 SPV to have running costs in excess of €100k per annum.

3. Why do Irish Section 110 SPV Companies pay no Irish taxes?

The S110 SPV pays effectively no Irish taxes (there is a "headline" 25% rate for the cosmetic purposes for the US IRS), no Irish VAT and no Irish duties of any type (often described in the brochures as "tax neutral"). This makes Ireland a very competitive place to structure GSDs. The logic from the Government side was that these GSDs would never have come to Ireland without these benefits, so there was no "net loss" to the Irish Exchequer from this. The benefit was the total legal fees that would drop into the Irish economy from administering these S110 SPVs (see below, is about €55m per annum in legal, plus Secretarial + Big 4 fees of under that).

4. Are the users of Irish Section 110 SPV Companies therefore avoiding legitimate taxes elsewhere?

In theory, no. Take the example above:
(a) Delta gets tax relief from the US IRS on its S110 SPV "rental" payments. The US IRS logic is that Delta would have gotten US tax relief on debt interest anyway, had Delta just borrowed the money direct itself (vs. using a S110 SPV).
(b) Bond investors will be paid the "rental" income as interest, but they will pay taxes in the country in which they are domiciled, so again, the US IRS (and any other tax authority), should be no worse off from this structure either.

In reality, increasingly yes. Bond investors are finding ways to "house" their bonds offshore permanently (Cayman Islands, BVI etc.), and thus while the US IRS is giving Delta a tax credit, no tax authority is recovering this credit through taxing the bond interest (Double Tax Treaties assume that as long as one of the parties is getting the taxes, it should "net-out" long-term).

We saw the vultures using Section 110s in the domestic Irish economy, had their PPN bonds (how they funded their S110), domiciled in Cayman Islands etc. Thus the Irish domestic profits went offshore, without any Irish (or other) taxation.

Moving domestically generated profits - untaxed - to offshore locations, is a "no-no" in every OECD country.

5. Is this global crack-down on SPVs bad for Ireland's Section 110 industry?

The dynamic in 4. has actually helped Ireland's S110 industry. As brochures like Matheson's (below) point out, Ireland is not an "offshore tax haven", but an "onshore" legitimate EU country sitting inside the EU (with full access to the EU tax treaties and transfer pricing systems). This is why Ireland has become such a big GSD hub in recent years (vs. Cayman etc.)

MATHESON: Ireland as the SPV jurisdiction of choice for Structured Finance Transactions
http://www.matheson.com/images/uploads/documents/Matheson2__Ireland_-_The_SPV_Jurisdiction_of_Choice_for_Structured_Finance_Transactions.pdf

Most changes to S110 legislation since 1997, was from two main law firms (Matheson, A&L Goodbody), looking to put "meat on the bones" of the S110 rules (*), so that the US IRS will not consider them as "sham" tax avoidance vehicles. In particular, underpinning the S110 is "Irish Resident". The US IRS has powers to ignore such "sham" structures for calculating US taxes.

(*) note: the GSD sector is very complex and diverse. when the Dublin IFSC law firms successfully lobbied for S110s in 1997, the Irish Revenue, given that S110s pay no Irish taxes, refused to spend 10 years writing detailed GSD tax legislation. instead, Revenue wrote crude rules to allow whatever "structuring" that was needed to avoid the 25% tax to happen. this caused problems with tax authorities like the US IRS who suspected them as "sham" vehicles. The US IRS was also able to challenge the fact that while S110s were "Irish Resident" (so they could be shielded under Irish tax law from US IRS), "protections" in the 1997 TCA against using S110s in the domestic Irish economy, they meant they were not truly "Irish Resident". the Dublin IFSC law firms successfully lobbied to have these "protections" dropped.

In fact, every time you hear Michael Noonan refer to Irish S110s throughout the vulture fund scandal, he mentions the 25% Irish tax rate that applies to S110s (even though it is 0% in practice), and that they are fully Irish Resident Companies (even though real domestic Irish corporates can't use them in Ireland). He is doing this knowing the US IRS is watching him.

6. How big a contributor are Irish Section 110 Companies to the Irish Economy?

The Department of Finance / Noonan quote 38,000 jobs in the Irish securitization industry. 4 major Dublin IFSC law firms are responsible +80% of Irish S110 deals. Within these law firms, c 25% of their business is S110s (max). This equates to one full major Dublin IFSC law firm (i.e. 4 x 25%), equating to the total economic contribution to Ireland from S110s (max).

With 265 solicitors (not just partners, but every qualified lawyer per law society records), and c. 55 partners in the biggest (i.e. Mathesons), that is a gross fee revenue base of c €55m per annum (the leading main Dublin professional services firms - law and accounting - average about €1m in gross fees per annum). Makes the legal S110s industry worth c €1bn to Ireland.

The corporate secretarial and accounting fees from S110s probably add another €50m per annum in fees (€50k annual fees on c 1,000 real SPVs). Adding this to the legal fees gives c €100m per annum in total S110 fees, or c €2bn in economic worth to Ireland (*)

(*) using the total gross fee income of €100m per annum, is the most generous way to calculate the economic worth. obviously a chunk of these fees will not fall into the Irish economy (state or private), as it may be spent on foreign assets / expenditure (i.e. Villas in Portugal for Tax Partners etc.). however, it is useful to scale the maximum contribution.

NOTE - Stephen Donnelly TD has used Central Bank figures to do a "bottom up" version of this calculation. He also zones in on the Section 110 SPVs that vultures use, and excludes the FCVs that the Central Bank regulates. This gives a fee base of c €50m per annum.

Stephen Donnelly TD Submits €20BN Proposal on Vulture Funds using Section 110 SPVs for Irish Tax Avoidance
http://stephendonnelly.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Closing-Down-Section-110-for-Vulture-Funds.pdf
http://stephendonnelly.ie/donnelly-submits-e20bn-proposal-on-vulture-funds/

When you compare this fee base, with the c €20,000m in lost Irish taxes from the Section 110 SPV Vulture Fund scandal, you can see why the DOF / Noonan, need to use the 38,000 jobs figure. The Irish taxes that Dublin Irish law firms have helped their vulture fund clients avoid, will cancel out their contribution to Irish society, for the next two centuries.

It is important to note, that stamping out the abuses of Section 110s by vulture funds in the domestic Irish economy, does not mean passing up on the €50-100m per annum in fees. On the contrary, it prevents Ireland attracting the international label of a "tax-haven", which would kill the Section 110 SPV industry in Ireland (the US IRS would label the S110s a "sham").

7. When did Irish Section 110 Company's start appearing in the domestic Irish economy?

From 1997 to c 2011, no Section 110s appeared in the Irish domestic economy. While Dublin IFSC law firms had amended S110 legislation continuously, to make S110s look more "Irish Resident", Revenue had anti-avoidance laws. No Irish corporate (even Irish banks, who did mad things in this era), used a S110 in the domestic Irish economy to avoid domestic Irish taxes.

However, as mentioned above, pretty much all of the legal fees that the likes of Matheson or A&L Goodbody earn from S110s comes from the S110 set up (lease agreement, bondholder documents etc.). In the GFC, the global securitization market died. Billions was lost by SPV bondholders (remember Depfa Bank in the IFSC). There were few new S110s in the GFC.

This was the time when vulture funds started using S110s in the domestic Irish economy. They were all being advised by the same Dublin IFSC law firms that lobbied to set up the S110s in 1997, and wrote all of the subsequent S110s leglislation.

8. What about the Irish Revenue's Anti-Avoidance Laws?

Irish Revenue has anti-avoidance laws to stop S110s operating in the domestic Irish economy (why S110s never appeared pre 2011). This is the mis-conception of the vulture fund S110 scandal. This was not a "loophole". This was the Irish Government, directing Irish Revenue, to ignore their own tax avoidance rules to help the vultures S110s fit into the domestic economy.

If you or I tried to tell Revenue that the profits of our Irish business are zero because of interest payments the business made on artificial internal loans which we happened to own, and which we had domiciled in Cayman, Revenue would class as "tax evasion". Vultures use the "orphaning" trick where a third party "owns" the equity and the Vulture masquerades as a 3rd party lender to their own vehicle. If you or I tried the "orphaning" trick (get our cousin to "own" the equity), Revenue would also prosecute as tax avoidance (and would win). For some reason however Revenue turn a "blind eye" to the Vulture's use of the "orphaning" scam.

It is now so crazy that we have numerous examples of Revenue having to issue subsequent rulings to continuously stop the vulture's S110s running foul of Revenue's domestic anti-avoidance rules (some documented on this thread).

* * * * * *

POSTSCRIPT

The confluence of Section 110 + Apple Tax has shown the world that Ireland has the key trait of a "tax haven", which is for an amount of money, a domestic Irish law firm can structure you to achieve zero Irish domestic taxes.

The result is that, unlike the hope in 5. (above), even 2nd world countries label us a "tax haven"

IRISH TIMES: Airlines furious as Brazil lists Ireland as tax haven for Section 110
[url]http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/airlines-furious-as-brazil-lists-ireland-as-tax-haven-1.2796924[/ur]

NOT ONLY DO WE LOOSE THE €20BN IN IRISH TAX, WE MIGHT ALSO NOW LOOSE THE €100M IN FEES TOO


Last edited by observer35 on Sun Dec 11, 2016 2:19 pm, edited 19 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Section 110, Irish Charities, Vultures, NAMA, Tax Avoida
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 12:58 am 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Apr 30, 2013
Posts: 1648
Mars Capital Ireland Case Study: How the Irish Exchequer Will Fund OakTree's Investment in Ireland

(i.e. OakTree's €80m Irish Investment = Irish Taxes Avoided by OakTree of €80m)


Image

DAIL SPEECH: Stephen Donnelly Dail Eireann July 8th 2016 on Mars Capital Ireland (one of OakTrees S110 vehicles)
https://www.facebook.com/DonnellyforWicklow/posts/1313240468715965

Seamus Coffey (Economic Incentives) tweeted calling Donnelly out for mis-leading people re the accounts of Mars Capital. Now that Mars Capital's accounts are on SCRIBD (thanks grumpy), let's check who was right:

Mars Capital Ireland Limited (Annual Return 30th June 2015)
Mars Capital Ireland Accounts https://www.scribd.com/document/321034865/Mars-Capital-Ireland-Limited-2016-Annual-Return
Mars Capital Ireland B1 https://www.scribd.com/document/321034864/Mars-Capital-Ireland-Form-B1-2016

As we will see below, issue is Coffey does not understand distressed debt economics (and Donnelly was conservative).

* * * * * *

STEPHEN DONNELLY WAS CORRECT

Mars Capital has a liquidity statement in the back of their accounts (note 14c). This statement is there because Citibank, who lent money to Mars Capital, would require it as part of their loan facility. It shows Mars Capital will generate about €400m, net of their Citibank loan and interest repayments. This projection was made one year after OakTree's €80m acquisition, so the €400m is a base-case (i.e. it will grow as Mars get to work on portfolio).

It is not hard to generate this €400m figure from first principals.

Mars Capital's mortgage book generates c €14m in interest income (per 2015 filed accounts). The portfolio was originated in 2005-2007 (yikes), and it is all effectively +100% interest only variable rate 30-35 year mortgages. By 2015, they would have a weighted term of c. 20 years left (maybe slightly shorter, but this portfolio was in such deep negative equity that borrowers had (and will have) little incentive to repay principal early). US vultures were surprised at the high levels of interest payments on Irish books (vs. their deep negative equity rates), however they were not familiar with the fact that Irish mortgages are "personally guaranteed" (and Irish bankruptcy is torture), vs. US mortgages where "jingle mail" / "strategic defaults" are more common (the interest repayment rate can mirror the negative equity rate).

The vulture gets a nice dynamic in Ireland where they are almost guaranteed their stream of interest payments for a long time (particularly when the portfolio has been "seasoned" for a few years), unless the value of the collateral (i.e. the house) rises above the mortgage, in which case Mars Capital's recovery rate will rise dramatically (i.e. the vulture wins either way).

So, 20 years @ €14m = €280m in interest income alone.

Oaktree paid €155m for the €360m in mortgage principal (or 42 cents in euro), so getting paid back principal at same rate, brings it to €435m (€155m + €280m). However, Oaktree, at bidding, would have assumed that its recovery rate would be 25% better than bid (a standard, 52 cents in euro recovery), which is another €40m, and brings it up to €475m.

This is close to what the accounts of Mars Capital almost show in their 14(c) liquidity statement.
(they might have had slightly different assumptions, but you can see, the math is simple enough).

* * * * * *

STEPHEN DONNELLY WAS TOO CONSERVATIVE

Coffey got confused with the 2049 term of the Mars Loan Notes, but let me explain the 101 of distressed debt investing:

(a) Buy at a running yield that equals base case hurdle rate.

Mars Capital is getting €11m of net income (€14m from mortgagees less €3m in Citibank interest) on their €80m of equity (€155m price, less €75m Citibank loan). That is a starting yield of c 14% (€11m divided by €80m). This is just below Oaktree's hurdle rate for their distressed debt funds of 15% p.a. over 10-11 years, on a portfolio that is almost a decade old (i.e. well seasoned)

OAKTREE HURDLE RATE: Distressed Debt Q1 2016 Investor Presentation
(see page 5 for their 18.9% historical distressed debt return over +20 years of investing)
(see page 18 for their target 10-11 year distressed debt hold term)

http://ir.oaktreecapital.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=212597&p=irol-irhome

(b) with (a) locked-in, extend, extend extend.

Once you have the cushion of knowing that your running yield is at your hurdle rate, you then extend the terms of the most distressed mortgages. This is when the distressed debt magic happens (why the 2049 term).

It is amazing what happens to a distressed situation when another 10 years is given (either to the borrower's financial condition, or to the underlying collateral / house value). US distressed debt funds, in the worst cases, can turn a 50% portfolio recovery rate, into a +85% portfolio recovery rate with term extensions. This is why the Mars Capital Ireland Loan Notes (the financial instrument that Oaktree to suck their Irish profits out to another jurisdiction) have been given terms to 2049. It does not mean Oaktree are going to hold these notes to 2049, but they are willing to extend mortgage terms to 2049 (another 15 years beyond the 20 year weighted term). Oaktree can then sell / list these Loan Notes as part of their exit before year 10. So if Oaktree extend their forecasted recovery rate (which they will get a specialist rating agency in to validate if they are listing etc.) from 52 cents in euro (bidding assumption) to 85 cents in euro, then that is another €120m in recovery, and the €475m figure above, goes to €595m. Of course, their extra term means more years of 15% running yield an so on.

This is why, we will see Mars Capital Ireland's liquidity statement rise from €400m (net of Citibank debt+interest), to well over +€500m in the next 3-5 years (as they get into the portfolio and get a better handle on it). After that, who knows.

* * * * * *

RECONCILING THE ABOVE RESULTS

- Oaktree invested €80m of equity in Mars Capital (it has re-packaged it as a Loan Note for tax purposes), on which it will expect, as a base case, to turn it into €323m in total after 10 years. (€80m @ 15% IRR).

- This would be similar as the €400m above (from their 14c liquidity statement), net of the Citibank loan & interest, but with a c 5% deduction for debt servicing fees / management (standard assumption) and timing.

- OakTree will be expect to get another +€100m on this (with term extensions and holding the running yield level), to bring its IRR to 20%, in line with its historic average (almost all the vultures are going to earn +20% per annum in IRR in Ireland).

- At a 30% effective tax rate (12.5% corporate tax + 20% withholding tax), Mars Capital Ireland will avoid more than €80m of Irish taxes over the term of its investment.

* * * * * *

I think people / media struggle to understand the quantum of Irish taxes that the vultures are going to avoid in Ireland over the next decade. Hopefully the above example for a small deal, and pointing out Coffey's mistakes in this area, will help.

A typical vulture who invests €1bn of equity in an Irish distressed debt portfolio from NAMA / IBRC, is typically going to avoid well over €1bn in total Irish taxes, over the 10 year term of its investment, via their Irish Section 110 vehicle.

It's unpleasant, but that is the math of it.

Image


Last edited by observer35 on Tue Sep 13, 2016 5:53 pm, edited 13 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Section 110, Irish Charities, Vultures, NAMA, Tax Avoida
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 1:48 am 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Apr 30, 2013
Posts: 1648
Mars Capital Ireland Case Study: Structure to Avoid Irish Corporate Tax, Irish Withholding Tax and Irish VAT

If you want help understanding Mars Capital Ireland's legal structure (with the Irish Charity owning all its equity), then check out this presentation from Mars Capital Ireland's accountants, Grant Thornton.

Irish SPV Taxation, Grant Thornton
http://www.grantthornton.ie/globalassets/1.-member-firms/ireland/insights/publications/grant-thornton---spv-taxation.pdf

Shows the structure and technique to avoid Irish Withholding Tax, which at 20%, is more onerous than Irish Corporate Tax (and ironically has stronger Irish anti-avoidance rules). Note, Section 110s are also exempt from all Irish VAT and all other Irish Stamp Duties (like the Cherry-on-Top for the vultures).

Withholding tax is a core tax in all developed economies, and must be paid. If a European vulture fund invests in the US, not only will it pay 35% on all US profits, but it will pay another 15-30% (depending on status) in US withholding tax as it repatriates its profits back home. Withholding tax is a core protection for any society when capital leaves its shores. Even a European tax-exempt pension fund, will pay 15% US withholding tax on all capital profits that makes in the US and takes home. Same laws in Ireland. Same laws everywhere.

Page 8 includes detail on 'Conditions of Deductability' (a.k.a how to use Loan Notes to transfer Irish profits in the S110 vehicle to Caymam), that it cannot be used for a 'specified person' (another Irish Revenue domestic Irish anti-avoidance law), however having an Irish Charity "own" the Section 110 equity (vs. Irish Resident Person), gets around this anti-avoidance issue.

Remember, to protect against US IRS (and avoid other Irish anti-avoidance laws), Oaktree cannot "own" the equity of its own Section 110 company, Mars Capital Ireland. Oaktree must have a "separate" 3rd party, who must be Irish resident, owning Mars Capital Ireland. However as I have covered in posts above, Citibank (bankers to Mars Capital) are not going to tolerate anything other then an Irish Charity owning it (as is cannot go bankrupt). Convenient that the Revenue's own Irish anti-avoidance rules, only cover people and not Irish Charities? Which Grant Thornton are happy to help you navigate through.

The "Irish Charity" structure has become so common, that when Revenue have changed Irish anti-avoidance rules to help the vulture's Section 110 schemes work, they often do it via the "charity angle" to try and minimize the damage they do to other Irish domestic tax laws. We saw this on an earlier posts with how Revenue resolved the anti-avoidance CG50 rules for the vulture Section 110 schemes by making them exempt for Irish Charities.

Again, prohibit Irish Charities from owning equity in Section 110s that are focused on domestic Irish profits (not the valid IFSC securitization Section 110s), and it is very likely the whole Section 110 domestic Irish tax avoidance scheme collapses.

Image


Last edited by observer35 on Tue Sep 13, 2016 6:01 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 348 posts ]  [Go to page]   1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 24  Next

    Board index » The IRISH PROPERTY BUBBLE » The Republic of Property

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

Follow, Retweet @dailypinster



Pyramid Built, Is Better Built! - Latest Property Discussions www.thepropertypin.com