The Gov't Needs To Publish The Names Of All The UBS Clients Who Hid Cash

[Rage for Order]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/19/AR2009021903291.html

Am I the only person who would like to see a comprehensive list of every American citizen who attempted to evade taxes by stashing their money in a Swiss bank account through UBS's scheme? From the article linked above:

Yesterday, the Swiss president told reporters in Switzerland that UBS had given the U.S. government the identities of up to 300 clients -- a small fraction of the information the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service have been seeking.

The IRS underscored the enormous gap yesterday in a fresh lawsuit alleging that as many as 52,000 U.S. taxpayers used secret accounts at UBS to hide money from the tax agency. That number was more than double previous estimates, including a figure of 19,000 that a Senate investigative panel last year reported getting from UBS.

The lawsuit filed yesterday seeks to force UBS to do what it has so far refused to do: give up the names of all the suspected tax dodgers.

UBS said it plans to "vigorously contest" the new lawsuit. The information the IRS seeks "is protected from disclosure by Swiss financial privacy laws," the Swiss bank said in a statement.


They don't have to wait until all of the names have been discovered; they can release the names as they get them.

[Vinca]

1. I want to see the list and I want to see a copy of the check

they send for all the back taxes (with interest and penalties) they owe.

[kirby]

2. I'm not sure about this...

I value privacy and due process. Why should an organization be forced to turn over information without a search warrant / legal standing?

On the other hand, US Citizens need to provide their Soc Sec # when they open a bank account so that interest is reported to the IRS. However, if no interest is earned, nothing needs to be reported. Even that information submitted to the IRS is private and not allowed to be disclosed publicly.

This is kind of a catch-22. How do we know someone was trying to evade taxes unless we know who is using off shore accounts. Yet, just because someone is using an off-shore account does not mean they have not paid taxes on the money.

This is a not as black and white as it seems, for me.

I also am willing to bet there are a lot of CIA funded 'off book' accounts using off-shore accounts which could be another reason they would never release the list.

[Rage for Order]

3. I suppose I should clarify

I have no issue with people who use a Swiss bank account in a lawful manner. I want the names of the people who participated in this:

"UBS will pay $780 million in fines, penalties, interest and restitution for conspiring to create sham accounts to hide the assets of United States clients from the U.S. government."

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/02/18/ap6068150.html

[kirby]

5. That I agree with...

UBS even stated that their secrecy laws do not protect illegal activity.

[TahitiNut]

4. I find it interesting that Switzerland is a member of the World Trade Organization

... and still maintains non-transparent banking transactions in possible violation of the banking laws of their depositors conducting business with Swiss banks from their countries of residence.