@gbalex

More or less the same treaty exists between Canada and many other countries does it not? It is based on what is basically an OECD template. The reserved right to levy taxes is not the same as a policy to levy taxes.

I'm curious why only the US levies these taxes and / or withholding taxes.

However there is another issue. The treaty you are quoting details the tax arrangements which exist between nations which have a treaty. It does not detail the arrangements which exist where there is no treaty.

I'm not arguing with you. Just saying that what you are quoting is not the full answer.

Finally. I wonder whether non treaty photographers would end up paying less than 30% if they actually submitted a US tax return c/w deductions, costs, offsets etc.

Yes Canada has a very similar tax treaty agreement and yes you are correct... most countries have the same wording in their tax treaties. This levels the playing field so that we can all do business together globally. 

I can not comment on the countries which have not signed the agreements.  However many small countries have.

If you talk to business leaders and owners who's businesses pay royalties you will find that governments do levy tax's on royalties that arise in their states or countries.  This is certainly not a new development.

It looks like microstock companies are/were unaware of these tax treaty requirements or they have decided to ignore them until the payees are/were forced to comply!

Quote from: gbalex on June 01, 2009, 14:10

The recent moves makes it much harder for companies who set up shell companies in various countries around the world to evade tax obligations.

For sure. But the main issue is that a company can now set up in any country which is on the OECD white list without some vested interest trying to insinuate that the country involved is somehow dodgy. Because all of the countries on the OECD white list have equal status. So countries can now much more fairly compete to provide good business environments. Which is a very positive result.

Seriously - who wouldn't move the business somewhere less bureaucratic ?

Do you know of any country which does not include Article XII in the most recent version of its tax treaty?  The issue at hand is that as internet business revenue expands and global tax bases continue to shrink, most countries are starting to become much more aggressive in enforcing and collecting tax's under their existing treaties. 

Royalties

1.  Royalties arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other State.

If you know of a country that does not include royalty considerations in their agreements with the countries who participate with them could you post those tax treaties?

Some misinformation and received opinion about, so called, Tax Havens is being subtly propagated on this thread by various posters. In some cases this seems almost like a sort of imperialism. In so much as it propagates the notion that countries with different tax regimes are somehow dodgy or shady.

Let's be absolutely clear about the facts. Switzerland is not tax haven. The UK is not a tax haven. The Netherlands is not a tax haven. Luxembourg is not a tax haven. Belgium is not a tax haven. Ireland is not a tax haven. I could go on. All of these countries and many others have variously been accused of being tax havens at different times.

The G20 countries have adopted the OECD standard. The OECD publishes lists of nations which do / do not meet international standards of transparency (and exchange of information). The OECD White List details countries which are not tax havens.

All of the nations on that list have been assessed against equivalent standards.

Recent developments at the G20

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/5090593/G20-summit-Sun-setting-on-tax-havens.html

"�More progress has been achieved in the fight against tax havens in the last few weeks than over the past decade,� OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurr�a said this week, adding that the economy should take the credit. �At a time when governments need every tax dollar legally due to combat the world recession, such practices can no longer be tolerated.�

Under mounting pressure, offending countries are finally being pulled into line. Six months ago, according to the OECD, 46 countries had no bilateral tax information exchange agreements � in other words complete banking secrecy. Now, there are only about 15. This �blacklist� has been given to the G20, which may name and shame the offenders on Thursday.

Switzerland may be on the list but, in a historic move last month, it promised to co-operate with countries investigating tax evasion. �Banking secrecy does not protect any form of tax offence,� the Swiss government said in an attempt to marry its historic banking principles with the climbdown.

Switzerland, Monaco, Jersey, Guernsey, the British Virgin Isles, the Cayman Islands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Singapore, and all the many offshore centres that have recently signed bilateral agreements are not doing so out of a sense of public spirit. �Victim� countries are fighting back.

According to Jeffrey Owens, director of the OECD�s centre for tax policy, countries are taking �defensive measures to protect their tax base�, which include the threat of rescinding existing treaties and denying the deductability of interest payments to non-co-operative jurisdictions. For countries like Singapore, which has 50 tax treaties with OECD countries, banking secrecy would be very expensive.

Stefan Jaecklin, a partner at Oliver Wyman, says: �There is a realisation that retaliation can go beyond the financial sector. As countries are more globalised now, there are areas where their economies are open to retaliation.�

Enforcement will be key. Seven years ago, 35 countries � including Switzerland � made a �commitment to implement the OECD�s standards of transparency and exchange of information�. �A lot of them did not act on their words,� a spokesman said. �G20 countries are now saying, 'Enough is enough � you made the commitment and now you have to live up to it�.� "

Quote from: luceluceluce on May 31, 2009, 14:55

Quote from: KiwiRob on May 31, 2009, 01:24

Quote from: Karimala on May 29, 2009, 10:00

I'm actually surprised more people weren't banned.  The level of outrage over something SS has no control over, plus the ensuing misinformation that was being spread, was pretty ridiculous and very unprofessional on the part of some of the contributors.  Thank goodness calmer heads prevailed over here at Microstockgroup where accurate information can be shared. 

SS do have control over it, Jon could move the company offshore like all his competition, then the problem would go away. This issus is probably the reason why the majority of MS agencies aren't located in the US. You have to feel for those who live in non treaty countries, loosing 30% of bugger all really would make one question the worth of joing SS.

From what i gather, and to the best of my knowledge of the information available, and conceding that i may be incorrect.... SS have confirmed in their forum that they are not considering the option of opening an offshore office. However, please check SS official policy with regard to this - I cannot make claims about the factual accuracy of this information.

Hi Lucy, sorry to see you were silenced at SS Is that permanent?

Yes, I read somewhere that SS won't be setting up off-shore offices. The problem is, if the IRS perceives that a new office was set up to avoid taxation, they will charge SS with tax evasion. Which would probably put SS out of business. If SS had opened an office somewhere else BEFORE all this mess, then it would not have the "appearance" of evading taxes. But it's too late now.

The days of using tax havens is becoming riskier.  Most countries have anti treaty shopping rules written into their tax treaties so they can prosecute and fine companies which try to set up shop in another country to avoid having their payees pay taxes on royalty income. The US in particular is taking strong actions to clamp down on countries which serve as tax havens. 

http://www.law.com/jsp/law/international/LawArticleIntl.jsp?id=1202430980122

Maybe Jon would prefer to stay out of jail, so that we can all continue to make the money we have enjoyed by working with a US company over the years.

I am surprised that most people do not grasp the concept that most industrialized countries have tax treaties and each of those countries has the right to exercise their rights under those treaties to charge tax's on the royalty payments which arise in their country. 

It looks like the time has come for microstock to pay the tax piper.

What a useless and confused piece of writing.

He starts off by referring to Microstock, a bit of its history and what it is. Then he switches to a review of Laurin's CD. Then he finishes off with:

Again, I know nothing of micrtostock and leave it to you to figure out if it makes sense for you. I hear there are plenty of full-time pros who do it.

So why write this rambling rubbish in the first place? A complete waste of screen space. And doesn't inspire confidence in the other stuff on his site.

That is easy, his pal pressured him into it.  The only bad press is NO press

I have not noticed any change and I am still getting almost 99.9% accepted.

Knock on wood, hope this does not change when/if I run into a new reviewer.

This is true, he made the same offer to a close friend.  And he mentioned to her that he made the same offer to Robert who also turned him down. 

This is a true story I swear on my children !!

2 years ago I was on the phone with a photographer whom everyone on this forum knows.
He said he admired my work. He proposed to me this arrangement:

He would send me his photographs (he's a pro for many many years) over the net.
I would receive them.
Then I would make concept images out of all he sent me using my photoshop talents.
He then proposed we opened up another account together on SS and sell the images there.
We would split the earnings 50 - 50.

I turned him down.
6 months later he posted a thread on SS about people who use photoshop do so only because they lack photographic skills.
He began ranting and raving against my concepts images. Always referring to me, but never saying my name.
Needles to say, he never has had anything nice to say about me or my work since.
I wont tell you his name, but rest assured he reads and writes in this forum, and he is a professional photog.

I can almost guarantee he wont reply to this thread because if he does I will reveal his name.

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason 

That won't happen much anymore, though, as we were all reminded a short while ago not to be nasty and opinionated and keep it nice and civil and not say things that others might find offensive by any stretch of imagination.  It's going to get much more boring - but on the bright side: I won't be distracted by the latest post about Sarah P. and might finally finish that 100 page presentation for my client.

good luck with that report, the new rules have not changed much
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46297

steve got booted for the F word and dicey use of cilantro, the B word and more must be cool
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46465

Mostly I drop in and read DT, IS and SS

I visit SS more than any of them.  I was happy to see that they are reining in some of the questionable threads.  I was beginning to think the next world war was going to start on the SS boards

I used to enjoy that site, however as RT mentioned the resident bully/b**sh**er has run off many of the intelligent posters   Anyone smart or experienced enough to figure out the game has been banned if they mention it, you have to wonder why SS allows this

I have never understood why they let the certain people on those boards use it to troll for paying customers.  I can not even go to the critique forum any more it is painful to watch new comers being stalked

So more and more MSG is the place to be

Rinderart,

I am confused here.  I have read your posts on various boards where you have communicated many times that you think microstock is not a profitable business for 99.7 percent of submitters and that MS is a business model doomed to failure.

Why would you want to add more microstock photographers into an already completive mix and thereby make it decidedly more difficult for those already struggling in the market place.

And why would you sell workshops and books that teach new photographers to compete in a market you have stated many times you do not believe in?

I think this is an honest question.


Sales Suck

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=542719&highlight=deeply+wrong#542719

Quote Rinder99

Since this thread is about over, I wanna thank everyone that posted Including Jon. I had written a 6 paragraph Open letter to Jon and was one click away from Sending it and decided not to.Im very happy That Business here is better than it's ever been But.........This thread and the one previous is proof that there is something deeply wrong, This thread proves that the normal whiners and complainers that are here all the time that never get taken seriously NOW have something to say along with some pretty big time players that add credence to the claims. If 95% of us are down, Who Is Up??? and why Is this the biggest month. What makes April/May Your biggest month. What are the types of work that sell best? We surely Dont know anymore. The communication between Admin and us is seriously lacking and always has been, If you work on one thing with the wealth you've recieved because of us, This would be Im sure #1 on most peoples mind.just simple little updates every now and then, Im sure a few words would go far and actually stop some of these threads. Thanks again everyone for your input.

Shutterstock  Up 20% last two months to date

Stockxpert  Up 10% last two months to date

iStockphoto  Normal

Dreamstime  Normal

Bigstockphoto: Sales have been lower than LO for months thinking of dropping this site, it is not worth my time to upload

LOL a.k.a.-tom

You prove my point exactly.

You are starting to sound like Rinder  
   

I hope you are kidding

I have heard that you are not alone, others employ your methods.  They have ways of routing out cloaked reviewer identities. 

Inside stool pigeons etc. Then they make life hell for the hapless reviewers. This cuts way down on rejections

I don't tolerate any reviewers rejections.....I find out who they are and threaten their lives.
I tell them I just got out of prison on parole, and say "Don't make me have another body"

God  reviewers. making bubble gum wages.