are variation of the liar paradox.
The test scenario is the inheritance “Rosemarie Meyer-Stoll”.
The assets are in Germany, the executor is in Germany, the valuation is in Germany, the inheritance tax payment is in Germany.
Now the heiress, me, was a dual citizen, now only citizen of the United States.
The United States of America now claims jurisdiction over the inheritance in Germany. This violates the double taxation agreement.
Now let us assume there is a valid double taxation. Let us assume it is not only legal to double tax but it is also correct.
Then for an asset in Germany, the state of Germany is entitled to collect inheritance tax and the United States of America is entitled to collect inheritance tax, Germany collects 30% of its estimated value and the United States of America another 25% of its estimated value, the estimated values are different, since both countries don’t accept each others jurisdiction to establish the value.
Now we apply the concept of “no taxation without representation”, that means from taxation follows representation.
In this case the inherited assets are represented by Germany through 30% inheritance tax and by the United States of America through 25% additional inheritance tax. This leaves only 45% to the heir.
The taxation leads to a representation dilemma and therefore deadlocks in the liar paradox.
Now if the heir resides in US the combined percentages are 70%, if the heir resides in Germany the combined percentages are 75%.
heir <> air.
Erbe <> Luft.
The greed of the double taxation doesn’t resolve the representation dilemma. This deserves today’s “Computer Detectives Intercouse-Stupid Certificate”.
the “cum-ex” scenario only worked because fraudulent computer systems allowed a scenario that a stock had two owners at the same point of time. This is of course objectively wrong in a sales scenario. The point of sale determines the transfer of ownership from the seller to the buyer. The point of sale can only be a one time event defined by date, time, timezone and location.
Insurance companies know this concept since they give date time and location in their contracts.
In the Rosemarie Meyer-Stoll inheritance, the death occured in 2017, valuation and taxation was processed by Germany and finished in 2021. In 2024 the United States of America declares jurisdiction and applies 25% with due date 12/31/2017. Now, how do you tell individuals in Germany in the year 2024 that they had no jurisdiction in the year 2017. Tell this to the time travel department they have to deliver the message in the past.
What shall I say, it’s time to bullshit the bullshiters.
The similarly between the cum-ex fraud scheme and the inheritance double taxation are obvious: cum-ex fraud was possible since a stock had two owners at a given point of time during a sale ; the transfer of inherited assets is in two jurisdiction at the same point of time: in Germany since the asset is in Germany and in the US since the owner is an US citizen. The asset is in Germany and the owner of the asset is an asset (=citizen) of the US, therefore the asset in Germany is an asset of the US. In math it applies A>B and B>C, therefore A>C. Right. The ownership of land by a foreigner, doesn’t make the land nor its use part of the foreigners home country. Any such logic is flawed, shortening the kill chain is also an aspect here, shortening the kill chain by disrespecting jurisdictions. Ambiguousness for deniability.
The ownership of land in Germany for me, a US citizen, doesn’t make this land US territory under US jurisdiction.
Now let’s make a simple example, I prefer the automobile industry : you buy a car and the point of sale is undefined or a time range instead of a discrete point of time : who is in charge and responsible to drive the car, which ownership applies to the chauffer?
Ambiguous bullshit doesn’t work in human logic nor propper computer science.
The discrete point of time is here and now.
Volksverblödung.
People stupidification.
double bind scenario through the false labeling in the European Parliament: e. g. CDU or EPP, SPD or S&D. double bind and liar paradox through two parallel party memberships, which one is true the European level party statement or the national level party statement.
Disclaimer.
125811's Blog 