Tarrif averted, thousands sold!
Someone figured out it was cheaper then to import unprocessed meat from Spain to Norway, turn the truck around as soon as they were customs cleared and drive the 3000 km or so back to Spain for curing.
Once cured they'd re-import the processed meat, which now has a different tariff due to being "Norwegian" ham processed abroad, while still being proper Spanish dry-cured ham.
So a ~6000 km (3700 miles) detour to save on import taxes, yay...
The name comes from the E6 route[2] the trucks drive through Sweden and into Norway.
Ahh, those Norwegians and their customs evasions. https://youtu.be/oP1Oq3JLNbc (do note that I'm ascribing this to Norwegians completely in jest - tone is difficult to get across in text)
... Which recently had an update. https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/asc-gets-green-li...
In a slightly less illogical EU you could just go to the appropriate EU committe, and get an exception where you send the ham on a "virtual trip". Just proove that you payed the cost of shipment. The ham benefits, the environment benefits, everybody wins.
I would even go further and introduce a legal principle. Every law that can be circumvented by a ridiculous trick is either void, or the loophole has to be closed.
California did something like this with window tint violations. It's illegal to have your windows tinted darker than some amount. In the old days, if you were ticketed for this, it would be a "Fix It" ticket. You get the tint removed, have a cop sign off that the violation was corrected, and pay some nominal fine. ($25, I think)
Almost everyone who got one of these tickets would have the tint peeled off, the ticket cleared, and be back at the tint shop the next day to get it put back on. If you like your tint, then true cost of the ticket was $225 or whatever.
Now the ticket gives you an option! You can still correct the violation, have it signed off, and pay the fee, or you can pay a larger fine and not have to demonstrate that you've cured the violation. They probably figured if the driver was going to go through the expense of removing and reapplying the tint, the state might as well see that money.
Wasn't really a loophole, per se, but it was a circumvention that the state decided to eliminate buy allowing you to buy an indulgence :)
This has approximately nothing to do with the EU. Norway is not in the EU and not in the EU Customs Union.
.. then one day in 1999 ministry of education announced a huge contracts for school computerization program, and specifically requested "no VAT" prices (22%) from all bidders. The only way to achieve this was exporting/re-importing Polish build computers, something Ministry itself not only suggested, but was publicly proud of securing.
Year later local prosecutor accused Optimus of evading $2m VAT, froze all assets (~$100mil company in 2000) and arranged SWAT to arrest CEO, leading to inability to pay wages/service debt. 3 years and multiple appeals later investigation was closed without so much as "sorry". This wasnt even the only company destroyed same way. Another one was JTT, mayor PC hardware distributor https://pl-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/JTT_Computer?...
In 2011 CD Project reverse merger with corpse of Optimus SA to get on the stock exchange. https://pl-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/CD_Projekt?_x...
11 years later (2014) CD Project managed to "win" ~$300K settlement for court mistake https://crn-pl.translate.goog/aktualnosci/cd-projekt-dostal-...
Same year mayor shareholder of defunct JTT received ~$10mil settlement, which was immediately overturned. It only took them another 7 years to finally get ~$1mil just last year https://www-pb-pl.translate.goog/mci-otrzyma-5-mln-zl-odszko... for the destruction of a company worth ~$20mil in 2000.
Translated: https://www-nrk-no.translate.goog/norge/ellevill-skinkereise...
He said the drivers who haven't done it before gets quite confused when ordered back to Spain just as they've crossed the border, without unloading.
Then you sell the uncured hams you needed for the stamps to a pet-food factory or for German “salami” or whatever.
And I guess they aren’t fungible because they get tested for health reasons and protein content.
In the EU, tracking is needed. If people get ill from eating ham, it’s important to exactly know where the meat came from (factory, farm, sometimes even the specific pig. Conversely, if animals get ill, it’s important to know where their milk went. https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/traces_en)
a) You bring two sets of high quality hams from Spain, one cured and the other raw
b) You cross the border in and out with the raw hams, and tell the customs clerk "I'll come back the processed product"
c) You cross the border again with the cured hams "that was quick, eh?"
d) You dispose of the raw hams selling them at a high discount on a roadside stand
I guess you can do it even more efficiently changing slightly the first two steps:
a) You bring a thousand cured hams and a single raw ham
b) You cross the border in and out a thousand times with the (only) raw ham you have
That improves the economics of the scheme, but makes it look even more fishy.
My understanding is that Napoleon's Continental System caused a shortage of cocoa in continental Europe, so chocolatiers had to substitute in hazelnuts. This became Gianduja[0], which later were modified to become Nutella.
Now looks like they are in trouble for this scheme.
https://jalopnik.com/ford-faces-potential-1-3-billion-fine-f...
(And why it's called Chicken Tax is another fascinating story...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Biz%2C_Inc._v._United_Stat...
The irony is that in the X-Men universe, the X-Men fight for a unification of mutants and humans.
[0]: https://www.autoblog.com/2021/06/03/ford-transit-connect-imp...
I mean, that's the whole point of the import tariff law, so if the CBP has jurisdiction to enforce tariff law, surely how the item is used (or at least how the item is intended to be used or how the item can reasonably be expected to be used) is the primary factor to consider.
Imagine Coca-Cola getting clearance for importing coca leaves for flavoring but then instead sells it to a third party who processes it for something else.
Why SHOULD a cargo van have higher import taxes than a passenger van, other than to serve the needs of some random private company?
Even moreso, I wouldn’t be surprised if Ford lobbied FOR those laws before changing its mind in where to produce a particular sku
Ford would have been fine if they had kept the seats in the car until they were sold and left it up to the customer to remove the seats. (This would not have affected the customer, tax-wise, since the import duty is paid by Ford, and by the time the customer has removed the seats, they have already paid the sales tax on the vehicle.)
The Subaru case probably violates the intent as well but maybe that would be a lot harder to prove. But the Ford case they clearly conspired to violate the intent. Which, if "intent" really is the important thing, I suppose should have lead to criminal charges too.
I suppose intent probably matters a bit more when it's the little guy on the receiving end of it.
I'm beyond tired of massive corporations sending jobs to other countries, pretending to care about their own country and lying about being made locally, and dodging taxes. Ford hit all three here.
[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/01/25/511663527/epis...
Although I suppose van buyers are slightly more likely to know someone with a welding torch and some steel sheets than the average person, so perhaps they missed a trick...
All these cheats will never be accepted for working individuals. Corporations get a different flavor of justice. Even then they push it to the limits and dinner times find a burocrat in the pertinent agency willing to push forward a rightful punishment.
https://www.adn.com/business-economy/2021/09/15/feds-accuse-...
We should never encourage ignoring certain laws or it undermines the whole system. It’s why I don’t support states legalizing weed under the federal government’s nose/while they turn a blind eye. Sure, we like it for weed, but what happens when a super conservative state does something less popular like, say, functionally bans gay marriage and goes, “well you aren’t enforcing drug laws, why should they get a pass but not us?”
I’m sure there are better examples but hopefully I’m getting my point across. Exceptions = weakening of the established structure. I don’t know about you, but I like that “the law is king” in the US. Mostly because we can change them.
[0] https://www.google.com/maps/@45.1583297,-67.1396882,3a,75y,3...
Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser to fit the NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the average fuel efficiency of the company’s light truck fleet into compliance with CAFE standards.
The differences could be huge
> Footwear with open toes or open heels; footwear of the slip-on type, that is held to the foot without the use of laces or buckles or other fasteners, the foregoing except footwear of subheading 6402.99.33 and except footwear having a foxing or a foxing-like band wholly or almost wholly of rubber or plastics applied or molded at the sole and overlapping the upper:
>> Having outer soles with textile materials having the greatest surface area in contact with the ground, but not taken into account under the terms of additional U.S. note 5 to this chapter 12.5%
>> Other 37.5%
> Sandals and similar footwear of plastics, produced in one piece by molding. 3%
Pity, as I kinda like the Jimny even if it makes no sense at all for me to own one.
Anyway here’s a popular video of a 660cc Jimny towing a large truck that’s stuck in snow during the great Tokyo Blizzard of 2014.
> And if it's true to say, "a Jaffa Cake is a cake" (or "a Jaffa Cake is a biscuit") then that also tells us something about the world, i.e. about the properties of a Jaffa Cake, as well as about the meaning of the word "cake".
And of course it's even more fun because I have to mentally substitute "cookie" every time I read "biscuit".
When I was young, I dipped my biscuits in Milo.
Isn't that tariff still in place?
It seems like they're smarter with the enforcement, so tricks like that don't work anymore:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
> The U.S. Customs Service changed vehicle classifications in 1989, automatically relegating two-door SUVs to light-truck status.[4] Toyota Motor Corp., Nissan Motor Co., Suzuki (through a joint venture with GM), and Honda Motor Co. eventually built assembly plants in the U.S. and Canada in response to the tariff.[1]...
> Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ruled in 2013 that Transit Connects imported by Ford as passenger wagons and later converted into cargo vans should be subject to the 25% duty rate applicable to vans and not to the 2.5% rate applicable to passenger vehicles. Ford sued and finally, in 2020, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case which confirmed the position of CBP.[22]
[1]https://web.archive.org/web/20210609082852/https://www.nytim...
They would import from Europe with seats, but remove the seats at the port and ship them right back.
For instance, dumping positions at loss before new years eve might help you with your tax bill since you have losses.
And of course, setting up a company in a country where you did buy a lot of spectrum and you have huge losses, effectively creating a tax credit ( https://www.reuters.com/article/telefonica-germany/update-2-... )
The other problem is that we probably had time for a carbon tax when the idea was first advanced decades ago. It's not clear to me that we can afford a gradual approach now when we really need to be doing things like saying you just can't buy new coal burning equipment at any price, for example.
I don't think there's any reasonable solution that will appease those people.
like what, wasting our effort banning flavor-of-the-day things like plastic straws or whatever?
there are ETFs created for the sole purpose of circumventing this, by providing exposure to the same asset or market forces
the wash sale regulation has amendment aimed at preventing this by prohibiting trades of "substantially similar securities", but I don't think it passes muster or has any teeth. you report all the trades to the IRS its up to them to figure out if your UltraShares 3x Inverse Pez Dispenser ETF is substantially similar to the Direxion one
I have never seen an ETF of a single security. Got an example? It would be hard for me to fathom that one could be made and remain economically viable but who knows.
ETFs however, do currently provide some loopholes with wash sales. While selling/buying AAPL within 30 days is a wash sale... selling VOO and buying IVV (both which track the S&P 500) within 30 days is currently not considered a wash sale.
You see some explanations as to why that currently is (technically those two ETFs are from different asset managers... so they have some different risks, etc). But it looks like the rule just hasn't been amended and maybe the IRS doesn't see this as prevalent enough of a case to change the tax code.
But it's not exactly the case you could pull this off with, say, Tesla, unless there's some ETF that's 99% TSLA (is there?)
For instance, I could sell my losses in a growth fund only to buy a different growth fund (not the same index though) and I get to stay in the market.
Ideally you would do this on day 364 of losses to maximize the tax incentive.
If someone followed your advice exactly and sold on day 364 vs staying in they'd lose even more, as by the time the initial investment goes back up (after day 365) you'd be in long-term capital gains territory, which is a lower tax rate.
That's why I said it only works in the short term - eventually the gov't is gonna get it's money.
Columbia will add an extra pocket below the waistline on a women's shirt so it gets classified as a utility/work garment and they can price it 10% cheaper. https://www.marketplace.org/2019/05/29/theres-a-reason-your-...
Converse will line the rim/bottom of a shoe with felt so it can be classified as a slipper. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-is-why-your-c...
Canon will choose to make an insufficiently sized heatsink on its DSLR so that in video mode it has to shut down after 20 minutes so it can be classified as a camera and not a video recorder. https://www.cined.com/canon-eos-r5-heatsink-mod-improves-rec...
The camera will record indefinitely in 4K line-skipping mode, so that's not actually the reason they didn't put the heatsink on.
That reason is either incompetence or market segmentation.
Yes
Or simply because most people don't record longer videos. Or because that heat has to go somewhere and a bigger heatsink might heat some areas (or the user).
Or the current heatsink is an existing part and it was "good enough"
It's almost 100% using unique parts, too.
That's false. They slide all over the place on tile and polished floors. They're terrible. I've abandoned them for Vans. Maybe they've improved in recent years but they lost me long time ago.
I can hardly think of anything more ridiculously overpriced than some canvas, rubber, and eyelets for $60. Then they have the gall to add extra crap that wrecks the shoe to pinch a few more pennies.
One has to wonder how much this innocent-looking levy contributed to the overall global warming situation, by never having the US automakers to be incentivized to manufacture more efficient commercial fleet, and, as such, inbreeding the culture of buying the overly big pick ups and SUVs with massive engines for private use, too.
https://www.marketplace.org/2019/05/29/theres-a-reason-your-...
Example from the article:
Certain women’s garments with “pockets below the waist” get lower duty rates than those without. Because of that, a number of the women’s shirts Columbia Sportswear makes are intentionally designed with tiny pockets near the waistline, which lowers the cost of importing them. One of the company’s shorthands for “pockets below the waist” is “nurse’s pocket.”
https://www.theregister.com/2000/11/07/sony_adds_basic_to_pl...
"In 2006, the European Union created a law that added an import duty of 5-12% to any video camera. What determined whether a camera was a video camera? In short, the ability to record longer than 30 minutes. Thus, companies like Canon and Nikon decided to cap their video clip lengths, preventing their enthusiast and prosumer cameras from being considered video cameras."
https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-1985-18847 (Google translation below)
From here: https://www.zonadepruebas.com/viewtopic.php?t=1830
It's funny that they explicitly set the number of RAM KB for machines. I wonder what was the logic?
---
BY ROYAL DECREE 1215/1985, OF JULY 17, A MODIFICATION HAS BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE TARIFF DUTY ASSIGNED TO SUBHEADING 84.53.B.II OF THE CUSTOMS TARIFF, CONSISTING OF SETTING A SPECIFIC MINIMUM DUTY OF 15,000 PESETAS PER UNIT.
THE BROAD CONTENT OF THE REFERENCE SUBHEADING, IN WHICH DIFFERENT ELECTRONIC COMPUTER PRODUCTS ARE CLASSIFIED AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE MENTIONED SPECIFIC MINIMUM SHOULD ONLY AFFECT A CERTAIN TYPE OF AUTOMATIC MACHINES FOR THE PROCESSING OF INFORMATION, KNOWN SECTORALLY UNDER THE THE NAME OF "MICROCOMPUTERS", MAKES IT ADVISABLE TO COMPLEMENT THE CITED MODIFICATION WITH THE TIMELY CLARIFICATION LIMITING ITS SCOPE.
BY VIRTUE OF IT, AND IN USE OF THE POWER RECOGNIZED TO THE GOVERNMENT BY ARTICLE 6 SECTION 4 OF THE CURRENT TARIFF LAW, AT THE PROPOSAL OF THE MINISTER OF ECONOMY AND FINANCE, AND PRIOR APPROVAL BY THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF AUGUST 28, 1985, I HAVE :
ARTICLE 1. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE APPLICATION OF THE SPECIFIC MINIMUM RIGHT OF 15,000 PESETAS PER UNIT INTRODUCED IN SUBHEADING 84.53.B.II OF THE CUSTOMS TARIFF BY ROYAL DECREE 1215/1985, OF JULY 17, IT SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD BY TAXABLE UNIT AFFECTED BY THE CITED RIGHT THOSE AUTOMATIC MACHINES FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION THAT CONSIST OF INTEGRATED OPERATIONAL UNITS, WHICH COMPRISE IN A SINGLE ENVELOPE AT LEAST ONE CENTRAL UNIT AND ONE INPUT UNIT, WHETHER OR NOT PROVIDED WITH AN OUTPUT UNIT, AND WHICH HAVE RAM MEMORY WITH CAPACITY NOT EXCEEDING 64 KB.
ART. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ITS EFFECTIVENESS FROM JULY 25, DATE OF PUBLICATION OF ROYAL DECREE 1215/1985, THIS ROYAL DECREE WILL ENTER INTO FORCE THE SAME DAY OF ITS PUBLICATION IN THE "OFFICIAL STATE GAZETTE".
GIVEN IN PALMA DE MALLORCA ON AUGUST 28, 1985.-JUAN CARLOS R.-THE MINISTER OF ECONOMY AND TREASURY, CARLOS SOLCHAGA CATALAN.
As far as I can remember, the CPC472 was sold for the same price as the CPC464. It was never marketed as an actual improvement over the 464 and competition in the market was hard enough to be able to justify a higher price without a clear justification.
Then again my memory is not that good now so anyone feel free to correct me.
If a nonsensical action helps one remain in compliance with the rule, it is the rule (not the action) that is nonsensical.
Amazing how many examples exist.
