Lux Leaks II

My Orchids. Dendrobium "Transparency". Photo ET

Lux Leaks II

A promise is a promise. There is a Lux Leaks II, but of course. This one is special in many ways:

1. It destroys the perception that tax rulings in Luxembourg are over-generous.
2. It also shows that there must be a serious problem of discrimination, if not corruption, as the rulings in this case were not favorable, but rather quite harsh!
3. It is indeed my own application for a ruling to not pay taxes on moneys stolen from me. My quest for a favorable tax ruling was roundly rejected, but have a look at the background. I leak some of the essential documents hereafter. Though they are in French.

I need to pay Euros 7516.70 in arrears,
taxes on moneys stolen from me

The third paragraph explains why I can't win:
he doesn't care about the substance,
and  seeing who I was, I didn't make it into his circle of friends

The director signs with a smiley

The story:

In 2002-03 I was associated in business with other individuals in Luxembourg, but I reside in the US. As some associates left, I did too by the end of 2003, as things were not transparent. More than a year later, I was actually led to file criminal charges for embezzlement and misappropriation of corporate assets.

In 2007 the Tax Administration claimed tax arrears, on revenue I never saw, I never knew of, and that obviously was misappropriated by the former partners. As being forced to pay taxes on stolen money does not sound right, I was advised by the Tax agent to apply for a “RULING”! It is in this case called “une demande gracieuse”. It is available in cases of hardship and obvious unfairness.

My Ruling

I diligently applied, about 50 pages of documents in support of the hardship. It took about 5 months to get an answer, from a guy named Guy Heintz, the boss of the organization. Not by Marius or a similar  level of employee. My application to avoid taxation on moneys stolen from me, with criminal proceedings still going on against the perpetrators, was roundly rejected with the argument that “a remission is only possible if, objectively according to the matter under consideration, or subjectively in the person of the taxpayer, the collection of the tax appears to constitute a hardship incompatible with the principle of equity”. So Guy Heintz’s conclusion was that a tax levied on revenue stolen from the taxpayer before the taxpayer even knew of it is objectively is OK. He also has the right to discriminate personally, “subjectively”, depending on who the taxpayer is. Even a recourse to the Luxembourg Ombudsman could not sway his decision. I have to conclude that this was a vengeful malicious decision aimed at my person. I ended up paying more tax on zero revenue than the high net worth individuals and the international corporations catered by PwC, Marius, and Guy Heintz’s operation in general. As an insider of Luxembourg institutions, including 5 Ministries, I know exactly that these types of administrative “flexibility” can play both ways. It is the typical Luxembourg corruption, a corruption through influence. But you can lose and get lynched when you are on the wrong side of the equation. Corruption through influence doesn’t show up on Transparency International’s radar.

I still wait for the end of the criminal case that I filed more than 10 years ago. Though there is a final judgment on the substance: the two accused were found guilty on several counts and sentenced to 1 and 2 years in jail, but on probation, given the excessive but typical delays in the Luxembourg judiciary haven. They also have to return the misappropriated funds, estimated at 950,000 euros. Though yet another delay is going on: the convicted cannot return the moneys, because the sentencing language is not clear, according to them! However now I may be able to sue them in civil court, and hope for a conclusion in several years maybe. Madoff and Landsbanki victims, please make a note of this. You are not yet even halfway through.

Please find here the narrative of the criminal case, as reported by PaperJam:

Grande vie et business parallèle

Le «médecin de la finance» suspendu pour un an