


Somalia: ASWJ says it will not recognise election results alleging a wide spread election conspiracy by President HSM’s Party (14.12.2016)







“Considering the strong democratic traditions in Europe, and the fact that taxation is considered an issue of great importance to national sovereignty, it seems rather odd that the EU has taken such a negative approach to the inclusion of developing countries in the setting of global tax standards” (Eurodad, P: 33, 2016)
There are in this world, lots of greedy people and states that want to earn on their own benefit and get the little extra without the second party. That is why the European States do what they can to keep as much benefit of businesses inside their own dominion, even as the businesses are earning their profits in developing countries, this is happening with sophisticated business transactions, sweetheart-deals, letter-box companies and stashing profits into tax-havens.
The ones that doesn’t this tactic, this way of earning higher profits and getting better rates on the production; the reality is that European States has worked coherent to avoid their thieving of funds as the taxation deals and openings of the multi-national companies in Europe. So with these possibilities, there comes also the reasoning that the companies do what they can to stifle the European states in their own scheme to keep them. Certainly the countries getting a point on the dollar instead of multiple points on it; they could get a fair trade out of, but when they are tricking the businesses there, the businesses will do what they can to trick out of them too. The Businesses are not in the country out of love, they are there to earn profits and doesn’t’ care how as long as they get. So long the States are having the set-up to be used, they will use them and the citizens will wonder why the sophisticated businesses pay so little why earning fortunes, while the citizens are paying fairly high tax on the dollar.
Just take a look!

Letter box companies:
“The setting up of letterbox companies is one of the practices used by multinational corporations to avoid paying taxes in countries where their economic activity takes place” (…) “Looking at global investment flows, it is clear that several European countries are major centres providing attractive tax regimes for letterbox companies and thus functioning as conduits for multinationals’ investments. By comparing the statistics of foreign direct investments (FDI), Dutch organisation SOMO shows that the Netherlands is by far the largest exporter of FDI in the world, ahead of much bigger economies such as the United States and China” (Eurodad, P:17, 2016).
Sweetheart deals:
“In November 2014, the LuxLeaks revelations exposed the secret world of Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs) – also known as sweetheart deals – which benefited multinational corporations, in some cases with tax rates lower than 1 per cent.89” (…) “Public insight into these kinds of deals is very rare indeed, since they are kept highly confidential. In fact, the LuxLeaks revelations were followed by legal charges against the two whistleblowers, as well as one of the key journalists, who brought the story to the public. The case is still ongoing in Luxembourg (see ‘Lack of whistleblower protection’)” (…) “Other examples of problematic APAs have been highlighted by the European Commission’s state aid cases. For example, APAs played a central role in the tax arrangements between Luxembourg and Fiat, the Netherlands and Starbucks, and Apple and Ireland. In these cases, the European Commission found the tax advantages given to the multinational corporations, through APAs, to be a violation of the EU’s State Aid rules” (Eurodad, P: 19, 2016).
Tax Treaties:
“Another key concern related to tax treaties is that they often include provisions to lower – or remove – withholding taxes on cross-boundary financial flows, and thus can lead to lower tax income in the countries signing on to such treaties, including developing countries. For example, research by ActionAid shows that a tax treaty between Uganda and the Netherlands, signed in 2004, completely takes away Uganda’s right to tax certain earnings paid to owners of Ugandan companies if the owners are resident in the Netherlands” (…) “The underlying problem in the international tax system today is that multinational companies are treated as a collection of ‘separate entities’ even though in reality they function as unified firms, with subsidiaries under the central control of the parent company. In today’s system, subsidiaries of the same company are expected to trade with each other ‘at arm’s length’, as if they did not have any connection to each other” (Eurodad, P: 21-24, 2016).

Bank Secrecy:
“In order to deal with the tax evasion and avoidance risks related to banking secrecy, some developed countries, such as the EU Member States, have agreed to start exchanging information on financial accounts automatically amongst each other” (…) “This means that, for example, the Belgian tax authorities will, automatically and on a periodic basis, receive information on any bank accounts or assets held by Belgians in other EU Member States. The aim of this automatic information exchange is to improve the efficiency of tax collection and prevent taxpayers from hiding capital or assets abroad” (Eurodad, P: 27, 2016).
Interesting findings from European Countries:
“The Austrian government is against full public country by country reporting, and even the European Commission’s proposal for partially public country by country reporting” (Eurodad, P: 41, 2016).
“Belgium generally has a relatively high number of tax treaties with developing countries, but the average reduction in developing country tax rates through these treaties is low. However, that the average does not show is that several of Belgium’s tax treaties with developing countries are ‘very restrictive’. There are also clear indications that Belgium’s tax treaties have significant negative impacts on the developing countries that sign them. A conservative estimate puts the fiscal cost to 28 developing countries at €35 million in 2012”(Eurodad, P: 41 , 2016). “The Belgian tax treaty system is also an issue of concern. A conservative estimate suggests that 28 developing countries lost €35 million in 2012 due to tax treaties with Belgium” (Eurodad, P: 57, 2016).
“The position of the Czech government on the issue of ownership transparency is ambiguous. On the one hand, the new Czech law is very restrictive in terms of access to information in the Czech beneficial ownership register (in fact, it seems that the definition of the “legitimate interest” is so narrow that in practice it will be inaccessible for the public, no matter if they have a legitimate interest or not)” (Eurodad, P: 42, 2016).
“The Danish government does not support full public country by country reporting. Instead, Denmark supports the proposal from the European Commission, which would only allow the public to get a partial picture of the activities and tax payments of multinational corporations” (Eurodad, P: 42 , 2016).
“Although the French tax treaties with developing countries on average reduce the tax rates less than most other countries covered in this report, France has eight ‘very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries. In total, France also has the highest number of treaties with developing countries among all countries covered by this report” (Eurodad, P: 43, 2016).
“The German government has previously worked very actively against the adoption of full public country by country reporting at EU level. Germany remains very sceptical, even towards the proposal from the European Commission, which would only introduce partially public country by country reporting” (…) “Germany’s tax treaties with developing countries are a cause of concern due to the high number of very restrictive treaties. Also of concern is the fact that Germany’s total number of treaties with developing countries is significantly above average” (Eurodad, P: 44, 2016).

“Of all the countries covered by this report, the Irish tax treaties with developing countries introduce the highest average reductions on the tax rates of their developing country treaty partners. Among the Irish tax treaties with developing countries are three ’very restrictive’ treaties” (Eurodad, P: 44, 2016).
“Although the Italian tax treaties with developing countries on average reduce the tax rates less than most other countries covered in this report, Italy and the UK are the countries that have the highest number of ’very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries” (Eurodad, P: 45, 2016). “An Italian investigation is also ongoing into Credit Suisse Ag. The Switzerland-based group’s parent company is charged with systematically having helped 13,000 Italian clients to hide their assets of more than €14 billion abroad” (Eurodad, P: 73, 2016).
“According to the Financial Secrecy Index, Luxembourg has the highest level of financial secrecy of all the countries covered by this report (and ranks at number 6 at the global level). The government’s position on the issue of public registers of beneficial owners is unclear” (Eurodad, P: 46, 2016). “In spite of the LuxLeaks scandal, Luxembourg has continued to issue a very high number of advance pricing agreements (or ‘sweetheart deals’) to multinational corporations – with a 50 per cent increase during the year following the scandal. This, as well as the fact that Luxembourg generally has a significant amount of indicators of aggressive tax planning, is highly concerning. Also, on the issue of financial secrecy, Luxembourg remains a high concern – currently placed as number 6 at the list of the world’s most secretive countries” (Eurodad, P: 79, 2016).
“Netherlands currently has some extremely restrictive tax treaties with developing countries, which make it difficult for those developing countries to collect taxes. Netherlands generally also has more tax treaties with developing countries, and is more aggressive in negotiating the lowering of tax rates in developing countries, than the average among the countries covered in this report. In addition, the government does not levy withholding taxes on outgoing payments to tax havens, which would be an effective anti-abuse measure that would not require lengthy treaty renegotiations” (Eurodad, P: 46, 2016). “Leaked EU documents show that the Netherlands is attempting to undermine EU plans to tackle harmful tax practices by introducing a minimum tax rate of 10 per cent for royalties and interest payments. They reveal that the Netherlands has proposed exceptions in the plans for its patent box provision, which can reduce taxation on revenues resulting from research and development to 5 per cent. This provision, which is a key component of the Dutch tax system, would be threatened by a 10 per cent minimum rate” (Eurodad, P: 82, 2016).

“Norway has a high number of ‘very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries” (Eurodad, P: 47, 2016). “Norway’s tax treaty with Benin completely prevents Benin from taxing royalty payments to Norway. This is problematic since multinational corporations can use royalty payments between subsidiaries to minimize their profits and thereby avoid taxes in the countries where they have business activities” (…) “Norway does not have a patent box. It does however have a very favourable tax regime for shipping companies, albeit in line with EU countries’ legislation. Shipping income is tax-exempt and qualifying companies instead pay a small tax based on the tonnage of its vessels” (Eurodad, P: 84, 2016).
“Poland has a significant number of ‘very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries” (Eurodad, P: 47, 2016).
“Spain has on average been the second most aggressive negotiator when it comes to lowering developing country tax rates through tax treaties. Spain also has a relatively high number of tax treaties with developing countries, which gives even more reason for concern” (Eurodad, P: 48, 2016). “Wealthy Spanish people have doubled their money stashed in Luxembourg (more than €13 billion) – afraid of uncertainty and looking for lower tax rates” (…) “Inside Spain, the Canary Islands (located close to the African Atlantic coast) have a special economic and tax regime that make them “one of the most profitable tax regimes in Europe”, according to PwC. A tax rate of 4 per cent for companies located there is one of the several tax benefits. Special incentives also are applied in Ceuta and Melill” (Eurodad, P: 90-91, 2016).
“Sweden has four ‘very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries” (Eurodad, P: 49, 2016).
“Together with Italy, the UK has the highest number of ‘very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries. On average, the UK’s tax treaties with developing countries contain relatively high reductions in developing country tax rates. The fact that the UK at the same time has the second highest number of treaties with developing countries gives even more reason for concern” (Eurodad, P: 49, 2016).
If this isn’t eye-opening, than I don’t know, but it shows the systematic state of easy taxation to benefit big-business, the multi-national companies, so they can set-up show and get grander profits, while the states works the perks between them to settle score. The negotiations and the tax-havens gives more space for the companies to fuel money out of Europe and of the Developing Countries, which hurts all sort of government operations as the end-game is that the government doesn’t get the supposed tax-base as that flee to offshore or overseas where the taxations is lax or non-compliance with the place the business actually operates. We all should get our MPs, Senators, MEPs, Governors and all other Elected Representatives, to take action against this sophisticated thieving from the Multi-National Companies and the Representatives who opens the gates for this activity. Peace.
Reference:
EURODAD – ‘Survival of the Richest – Europe’s role in supporting an unjust global tax system 2016’ (15.11.2016).








“Kilifi Governor Amason Kingi is at this hour being interrogated by the ethics and anti-corruption officials over claims of embezzlement of millions of shillings of public funds in his county. Kingi who arrived at the integrity centre an hour ago is accompanied by a host of ODM leaders and is expected to shed light on the spending of 51 million shillings in unexplained expenditure as well as 308 million shillings meant to acquire an 11 acre land for a bus park in Kilifi. Sam Gituku is at the integrity centre and Sam, what should we expect from the grilling session?” (Kenya Citizen TV, 2016)

There are one of these days the President Jacob Zuma, the man with 700 counts of corrupt activity, the man with close knitted connected to enterprises who deals with the government and with the past-control of the government has to step down. The initial evidence are overbearing, the reason for his succession not to arrive in time, is because of greed and hope that the new Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane will put the case into oblivion.
Even it by all kinds of laws and all kinds of court verdicts, he can still not save his face as His Excellency, that time has sailed away into utter boundaries non-existence to mankind. The reality is that the Presidency under Zuma is so flawed that a line in the sand would only be crooked and never straight. The pathway is always to control, gain access to public funds and eat of the plate of government contracts without putting in the governance or transparent agreement between set-public company and set-de-facto government entity. Something that has been Modus Operandi under Zuma!
Put any Company Name and any Government Entity name, and somehow you could find the connection between the giant Zuma family tree and the foreign investors who are interconnected with the Zuma clan. This is not just loose talk, it is a reality and this is the ANC reality of our current day. The DA and others showed the paperwork and the justifiable evidence of these connections. It is just that the President doesn’t want to realize how this put him in caged room instead of a free-space to move as he pleases.
The lies, the deception, the power-struggle that he used to tarnish Mbeki is long gone, his fellow ally Malema is now an arch-enemy with his EFF, and the DA has no interest in keeping a crony-infested government so that the two turn President can fester in extravagant lavish living conditions and shelf away monies inside and around his fire-pool at Nkandla. That gravy-train should have fallen into pieces besides a lion on the hills of Kwa-Zulu Natal.
That the Tourist Minister Derek Hanekom sent a motion where he asked for the resignation sends clear signals that the ANC leadership is fatigued of the continues pressure of inactive behaviour and corrupt dances of the Presidency during this tenure. The Public Funds used on defending and embezzle for the President has been a giant toll on a strained economy that has flatten and lost its spark. Cyril Ramaphosa of ANC has now big questions to ask himself how much he wants to save his fellow ANC comrade and to what effect would he suffer from the dipping confidence in the President. This is something that should be very-low for every relevant leak of evidence of the conspiracy of graft and embezzlement from the highest office.

Cosatu and Sadtu the Unions has already endorces Cyril Ramaphosa as a successor to Zuma, so the ones that built Zuma are now turning away; it was the unions and ANC-Youth League that we’re able to shelve the former President Thabo Mbeki. The history could repeat itself as the new PP could still file in a case against her former PP, but that would only serve her loyalty to Zuma and not to the Republic.
Also the ANC Secretary General Gwede Mantashe has issues to tackle as the Motion arrives while he is running the political party and all their branches. The issues remaining if the ANC can handle this sort of pressure while the President uses the Hawkes, PP and others to send message to his “enemies” that they can be put into submission, not only him. The problem is that if the ANC NEC doesn’t act swift, their reputation as other than public cronies for Zuma will be evident, that the President and his Company Men has taken control of the fearless Anti-Apartheid Movement and used it as a tool to progress their own pockets instead of the people. That is not the legacy the founders of this historical party wished to see, neither the ANC Stalwarts nor Historicals that seen their built up party has turned sour instead of sweet.
We can Question if the ANC NEC own self-interest or their own pay-check mentality will save the President, or if they will some sort of pride to actually act as men and woman of the same Republic who created faith in Institutions and Procedure over Big-Men mentality. This has lead the way for the cases and courtship of the President as he has had a massive amount of counts of corruption put on him during his long time serving as President.

What can happen out of all this that hasn’t occurred already? The Supreme Court and the High Court of Gauteng has put Court Orders and levied fines against the Executive Zuma, but he has still walked like the proud self-righteous man he is. Though not deservingly as the timing and acceptance of his inability to keep his hands out of the cookie jar hasn’t been well enough thought off. Because the repercussions and added stress on the system takes a toll on his Party and that legacy they want to leave behind.
Though the Civil Servant portrayal of him is dying breed together with the work for the common man, as his battles is for the wealth attributed while he was in public-service and wanted to be the next man to eat. This proves the pivotal shift that needs to be at the ANC NEC and their cronies, who has to have a paradigm shift, a walk to Jericho moment; where the ANC seems to want to redeem their ill-will and their attitude towards cronyism and corruption. While willingly get rid of the arch-king of the tricks and trades, the President Zuma who has steered the ship into this harbour where the sails only set when greased enough.
We can ask, if they have the courage or if this political charade, what the outcome will be and if the ANC will act with real change. In the meantime we can question the will and power to make a change. If this will be fall of Zuma, part of me hope so, the other doubt it; because the trials and tribulations has occurred now for years without any real consequence for the President Zuma. Peace.

Chosen by an independent jury, the award winners reflect a nuanced view of Africa and encourage people to get more involved with the continent and its People.
BERLIN, Germany, November 24, 2016 – Foreign Minister Steinmeier issued the following statement today (23 November) on the awarding of the German Africa Award to Thulisile Madonsela:
“Thulisile Madonsela is being honoured today with the German Africa Foundation’s 2016 German Africa Award. This is a good choice and sends an important message!
In her role as Public Protector, she rendered outstanding services to democracy and the rule of law in South Africa for many years. But not only did she bring renown and prestige to the position, she always listened to people’s concerns, including and indeed especially as someone in the political spotlight. Her elegant modesty and calmness created trust and encouraged people. And she is certainly courageous. As the first woman in this position, she revealed what many people had suspected, gave a voice to the individual and was an advocate for the poor. This was not without conflict, but even death threats could not stop Ms Madonsela from fighting for what she believes in. She stood up boldly for what civil societies around the world rightfully demand, namely functioning democracies, the separation of powers, and reliable and trustworthy statehood.
Ms Madonsela is also renowned and admired for her work far beyond her own country. Today’s prize pays tribute to a courageous woman and puts the spotlight on what counts. My warmest congratulations!”
Background information:
Since 1993, the German Africa Foundation has awarded the German Africa Award to honour outstanding individuals for their long-standing endeavours to foster democracy, peace, human rights, art, culture, the social market economy and social concerns. Chosen by an independent jury, the award winners reflect a nuanced view of Africa and encourage people to get more involved with the continent and its people.
Since being awarded for the first time by former German Federal President Richard von Weizsäcker over 20 years ago, the prize has always been awarded by leading German politicians, including Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel and former Federal President Horst Köhler. From the beginning, it has been very highly regarded in both Germany and Africa, receiving wide coverage in the media. In 2015, Federal President Joachim Gauck awarded the German Africa Award to Nobel Peace Prize laureate Houcine Abassi of Tunisia.
This year’s prize has been awarded to lawyer Thulisile Madonsela for her role as Public Protector in South Africa. The award ceremony will take place today at the Allianz office at the Brandenburg Gate. The prize will be awarded by Norbert Lammert, President of the German Bundestag.
Thulisile Madonsela is being honoured for her exceptional endeavours to defend the constitution and for her work in fighting corruption in South Africa. She served as Public Protector until October 2016, working tirelessly to uphold the principles of the rule of law in South Africa. Thulisile Madonsela was the first woman in this position, which was established to investigate corruption and abuse of power in the administration and government. As Public Protector, she took on many difficult cases, for which she also achieved international renown.