Mediaboss Marketing

The international human rights organization Freedom House says Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych of systematically eliminating any opposition before parliamentary elections scheduled for October 2012.

"In 2011, Yanukovych launched a systematic campaign to eliminate any viable opposition to the ruling Party of the Regions ahead of parliamentary elections set for 2012. Most importantly, prosecutors brought a series of charges against Tymoshenko, Yanukovych's strongest opponent, in a bid to secure a criminal conviction," stated a Freedom House report, cited by RIA Novosti.

The document reminds readers that in October 2011 Tymoshenko was sentenced to seven years in prison for abuse of authority for signing gas contracts with Russia, a decission the opposition says was politically motivated, although the Ukrainian authorities deny this. Currently Tymoshenko is serving the sentence in a women's prison of Kharkov.

President of the European People's Party (EPP) Wilfried Martens said on Friday that the EPP demands the immediate implementation of a European Court of Human Rights decision, which called for Yulia Tymoshenko's release.

The report also reads that other political prisoners were placed or remained behind bars in 2011, including nine leaders of protests against the administration's tax policies and 14 or more nationalists involved in the beheading of a Stalin monument.

Freedom House also noted that the attempts to mount street protests against the persecution of Tymoshenko and other former government officials, including former Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko, were met with a heavy police crackdown.

Lutsenko, an ally of jailed opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko, was arrested in December 2010. In late February he was sentenced to four years in prison for illegally employing and giving an apartment and pension to his former driver, as well as of overspending government funds during Police Day celebrations in 2008 and 2009, when he was in office.

In addition international human rights organization Freedom House noted that working conditions for media in Ukraine got worse. "The constitution guarantees freedoms of speech and expression, and libel is not a criminal offense. Business magnates with varying political interests own and influence many outlets, while local governments often control the local media. Conditions for the media have worsened since Yanukovych's election."

Some 69% of Ukrainians get their news from television and the medium now features fewer alternative points of view, open discussions, and expert opinions, says the report of Freedom House.

The rest is here:
Freedom House: Ukraine President Yanukovych Eliminates Opposition

In January 1999, the world witnessed the end of a century of cheap oil. It then cost less than $20 per barrel. Few predicted it would reach the $100+ levels of today. Some are predicting $500 oil by 2020. This would be devastating for Mauritius, not only for tourism but for most of our industries and our quality of life. Well before this level is reached, it will be cost effective to convert coal into oil, as South Africa has done for decades, causing coal prices to increase too. Is it possible to avoid catastrophe and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? Mauritius: Island of Dreamers (MID) In contrast to the propaganda trumpeting our green credentials, in reality, our dependence on fossil fuels continues its inexorable rise. Offering generous feed-in-tariffs for the rich to install expensive photovoltaic panels is effectively a tax on the poor. Why not simply wait until they become affordable? Rodrigues already has more wind turbines than its network can cope with and the main island is not so far behind. Extracting significant geothermal energy from extinct volcanoes is unlikely; the geological hotspot moved to Reunion long ago. Despite years of talk, we are still not utilising cold, deep ocean water for air conditioning let alone electricity production. Back to the drawing board? Simple substitutes Fossil fuels, which are essentially stored ancient sunlight, take three forms: solid, liquid and gas; predominantly coal, oil and methane. Mauritius has substitutes for all three. Instead of coal, when the settlers arrived they burned wood from our once ubiquitous forests. Now we burn what replaced them - waste from the sugar industry - bagasse. During the second world war, we used ethanol in our cars but we have been incomprehensibly reticent to recommence. Methane produced in the St Martin treatment plant and at the Mare Chicose landfill is now used to make electricity. However, these substitutes have little impact on our consumption of fossil fuels. Can we do better? Efficient and flexible electricity When fuels burn they release heat as they oxidise into carbon dioxide and water vapour. When internally combusted in car engines, expansion of the hot gases drives pistons, while in aircraft engines the expansion drives a turbine. In a power station, this motive power is converted into electricity by a generator - effectively an electric motor in reverse. In a solid fuel power station, however, the expansion of the gases is wasted and the heat is used to boil water into pressurised steam whose expansion in turn drives a turbine. Because of this intermediate step, steam-based systems are less efficient and less flexible than internal combustion engines, which explains why they are no longer used in ships and trains. Combined-cycle engines that harness gas expansion and residual heat are more efficient still, albeit at the expense of some flexibility. Fuel cells that produce electricity directly from the transfer of electrons during the oxidation reaction have the potential to be even more efficient, but they are still in development. Mauritius has the natural resources to generate an abundance of electricity from wind and solar power, however, these sources are intrinsically variable. Hence, we must either store electricity, which is currently too expensive, or balance variable sources with very flexible ones. Coal/bagasse power stations are simply not up to the task, and oil and methane are destined to become prohibitively expensive. We could ferment all our sugar into ethanol, but a lot of energy is wasted in distillation. Is there an alternative? Grass is greener While sugar-cane is very efficient in utilising sunlight, other plants are even better. Energy grasses are being hybridised to maximise their photosynthetic yield and can produce four times more than sugar-cane. By utilising the same process harnessed at St Marting and Mare Chicose (anaerobic digestion), freshly cut green grass can be biologically converted into methane to produce electricity. Moreover, the residue from the conversion process is an ideal amendment to help restore the fertility of our soils that have been exhausted by centuries of non-stop mono-cropping. Methane can power the most flexible and efficient engines and while it can be stored in tanks, the best approach is to leave the grass growing in the fields and harvest it on an as needed basis. Unlike sugar-cane, the crop can be cut throughout the year. There are currently over 10,000 hectares of abandoned sugar-cane fields which could be utilised to generate income for their owners and electricity for the nation. Modular power plants can be placed throughout the country to minimise the transport of the grass and help balance the grid. Is there a better way to democratise electricity production? As the other small planters see their colleagues realising a better return on investment, they will also convert their cane fields to energy grasses. In a short time, Mauritius can have significant flexible capacity, permitting the integration of a high proportion of wind and solar power. We can become a leader in renewable energy, setting an example to the world. What a story to tell at Rio+20 in June? Freedom from fossils Fossils are not only found in the ground. With a few world-class exceptions, Mauritius has been lamentable at preserving endangered species. However, reserves protecting fossilised thinking are everywhere: within the government, CEB, the university, sugar estates and quasi-religious cults. We can set ourselves free from fossil fuels but not before the dinosaurs become extinct.

See the rest here:
FREEDOM FROM FOSSILS: Fuelling the Future

California's Gov. Jerry Brown has just signed on to a labor-backed ballot initiative to raise tax income tax rates to as high as 13.3%, and so far the voters seem to approve. A new Los Angeles Times poll puts public support for the plan at 64%. If the measure wins in November, California will hold the prize for the highest income tax rates in the nation.

That is, if some other state doesn't jump past it before then.

In recent years, the country has seen something of a tax-the-rich derby among states enacting so-called "millionaires' taxes" on top earners. Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Maryland all raised rates on high earners during in the 2000s. California's rates were high already.

In some cases the taxes were temporary, in others, not. And you didn't always have to be earning a million dollars to feel the bite. As of January 2012, according to data from the Tax Foundation, Hawaii was the top taxer with a rate of 11% on incomes over $200,000 (for single filers). California was close behind with 10.3% on incomes over $1 million. New Jersey has let a 10.75% tax lapse, but its top rate was still a relatively high 8.97%. Oregon's temporary 11% tax was history, but the top rate was still 9.9%. In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo resisted pressure to keep a top rate of 8.97% in effect, but the state ended up with a tax only slightly lower 8.82% on incomes over $1 million.

If Brown's initiative succeeds in California, taxes will rise to 12.3% for single filers at $500,000 and for joint filers at $680,000. Another 1% a tax approved voters in 2004 for mental health programs kicks in at $1 million. The total top rate of 13.3% would put California ahead of New York City, where state and city income taxes top out at just below 12.5%. California also would raise already-high sales tax rates.

What would happen then? In the short term, the state would get some new revenue. In the longer term, the impact gets murkier because a new question arises: What will this tax do to the state's economy

This is where the real arguments start. States that hike taxes sharply on the rich are, in effect, conducting an experiment in taxpayer behavior. They are testing just how much people are willing to pay to stay in one state before the tax burden makes them relocate to states with a low income tax or none at all.

Wealth is mobile enough to have at least some people worried. As Calif. GOP State Sen. Bob Huff has put it, "There's nothing more portable than a millionaire and his money.

Even among the more tax-friendly Democrats, there are murmurs of concern. California State Treasurer Bill Lockyer in 2011 told the Sacramento Press Club he was worried about tax flight: "The risk is (the rich) may decide to live and work out of one of their other houses (in another state)," he said. "And then very quickly we lose a substantial source of income.

In California, one of those "other houses" might be in Nevada, which has no income tax at all. In a high-tax Eastern state such as New Jersey, it might be in neighboring Pennsylvania, where the top rate is just 3.07%. Or it might be in more distant Florida, with no income tax at all.

Read more from the original source:
Calif. Eyes Tax Hike To Top In Nation; Will Wealthy Flee?

New Delhi, March 30: The government will not go after P-note holders but can tax foreign institutional investors (FIIs) issuing promissory notes in case they are not genuine residents of tax-free havens.

However banks and FIIs with actual operations in tax-free havens will be allowed to operate in the stock markets without attracting taxes.

Indian tax authorities would examine the tax liability of the said financial institutional investors. However, the tax authorities would not go beyond the FIIs to check any further detail about the participatory notes holders, finance minister Pranab Mukherjee clarified here today.

Accordingly, the question of liability for tax in India of participatory note (P-note) holders would not arise.

The statement came after a week of market turbulence with stock market punters reacting negatively to new tax provisions which sought to impose taxes on investors who routed money through shell firms in tax havens.

Finance ministry officials said they wanted to allay fears of P-note holders who have as much as $20 billion of Indian stock assets in their portfolios. Many investors who want to invest in the Indian stock market or who wish to play without the bother of registering themselves with Sebi use these participatory notes which are certificates with underlying Indian shares. Its estimated that FIIs have invested about 10 per cent of their approximately Rs 10,00,000-crore portfolio in India through P-notes.

Mukherjees statement is being read to mean that the government will not try to check on the persons who hold the P-notes. We are not out to uncover the seven veils of P-note holders, provided the bank or FI certifies that know your customer norms have been followed, said a top revenue official.

The 30-share Sensex ended up 312 points at 17370 and the 50-share Nifty ended up 103 points at 5282 after this announcement. However, independent tax consultant Sudatto Sen said FIIs remained liable to taxation on earnings from P-notes, unless they could prove genuine residence in tax havens.

Top finance ministry officials agreed on this analysis but pointed out that most FIIs playing in India were actually operating out of tax free jurisdictions such as Singapore, Mauritius and Luxembourg.

Taxes will be due from persons or firms who are operating through shells in tax havens, say from a lawyers office or from an address where twenty firms are registered in one single small flat! any sane person will agree these are shady operations and need to be investigated and taxed, they said.

Read this article:
Pranab puts P-note worry to rest

By Lynnley Browning

(Reuters) - The case of a wealthy U.S. businessman who pleaded guilty to evading taxes but then sued the Swiss bank where he hid his money is scheduled to go to trial on May 8, the first major test of civil legal challenges to Swiss banks that sold offshore private banking services to help Americans evade taxes.

The civil suit, filed against UBS AG in federal court in Santa Ana, California - and another filed against UBS in federal court in Chicago - will probe whether clients can legally rely on their private bankers' assertions there is no need to disclose the accounts on their tax returns or sign required disclosures.

Tax lawyers describe the suits, emerging from a crackdown by federal authorities on Swiss banks, as the first of their kind in the United States to assert that Swiss bankers made improper assertions to their U.S. clients about the tax implications of their offshore accounts.

In the California case filed in 2008, Russia-born American billionaire Igor Olenicoff accuses UBS of fraud in handling some $200 million he kept in offshore accounts and wrongfully advising him he did not have to report them to the tax-collecting IRS. Olenicoff pleaded guilty to tax evasion in 2007 and to lying on his tax returns by failing to disclose his offshore accounts, and paid $52 million in back taxes. His suit seeks $500 million in damages.

The Chicago case, which seeks class-action status, was filed in June 2011 on behalf of former UBS clients Matthew Thomas of California and Himanshu Patel of Arizona. Thomas and Patel previously paid back taxes, interest and penalties to the IRS related to their Swiss accounts. They accuse UBS of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty for allegedly telling them that their accounts, opened when the two worked overseas during the last two decades, did not have to be disclosed to the IRS.

UBS argues in both cases that its clients have a duty to know what to declare on their U.S. tax returns. A UBS spokeswoman in New York, Karina Byrne, declined to comment specifically on the lawsuits, but said the bank "does not give any tax advice to our clients, and we encourage clients to seek third-party tax advice."

U.S. INVESTIGATION UNDER WAY

The two cases are unfolding at a time when U.S. authorities are conducting a major investigation into the Swiss banking industry. The U.S. Justice Department has indicted one Swiss private bank, Wegelin, and charged scores of Swiss bankers and their American clients with tax evasion.

In 2009, UBS averted indictment and paid a $780 million fine to the U.S. Justice Department as part of a deferred-prosecution agreement in which it admitted to fraud and conspiracy in helping about 19,000 wealthy Americans hide up to $20 billion in secret bank accounts.

Read the original post:
Lawsuits test UBS advice on offshore bank accounts