Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Shuttleworth Loses $20m Battle With S. African Reserve Bank Over Expatriated Funds

Posted by timothy on from the house-like-to-win dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth has lost his long running battle with the South African Reserve Bank over a R250m exit charge ($20.5m) levied on his personal fortune when he tried to ex-patriate to his new home on the Isle of Man in 2009. The exit charge was part of a capital control system since abandoned by the South African government, which Shuttleworth had successfully argued at the Supreme Court of Appeal last year amounted to an unconstitutional tax. The Supreme Court ordered the Reserve Bank to pay Shuttleworth back.

While Shuttleworth had promised to leave the R250m in South Africa as a fund for helping others to press constitutional issues to the highest court in the land, the Reserve Bank appealed to the Constitutional Court for a final appeal — which it won this morning. The upshot being that the bank gets to hold onto the money after all. One judge did offer a dissenting opinion, however, in which he said he would have dismissed the final appeal with costs. The article notes that "The irony is that the exit charge at the heart of the matter is no longer levied on transfers going out of the country."

21 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. So rich guy loses court case with bank by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So why is this on slashdot exactly? This site is supposed to be about the tech itself, not the financial problems of the people behind it. Thats what The Economist is for.

    1. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by Stuarticus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tech is made out of people. Who live on the Isle of Man, for entirely legitimate reasons.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    2. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's on Slashdot because it's their own website not yours. So they make the rules and decide what gets posted. If you don't like it, start your own website and leave.

    3. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 4, Funny

      Many of the roads of have no speed limits. That's legitimate enough for me. Also, it is the sister isle to Thomas the Tank Engine's (fictional) Sodor, which might be reason enough for someone else.

    4. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Plenty of mental illnesses have been going on longer than civilisation. Doesn't make them normal

      Yes, yes it does. Try a dictionary. It might help.

      or that they should be tolerated in normal society

      As before, gays have been part of normal society for longer than it's been civilized.

      Its only in the last few decades with lots of gays in the media that the propaganda that its normal has been pumped out to this extent.

      Right, only in the last few decades have we permitted homosexual people to admit that they exist without persecution, which is how people like yourself can be so hilariously confused: willful ignorance.

      But don't worry, swings and roundabouts.

      Oh, I'm not worried. I'm confident that homosexual people will continue to gain the same human rights as the rest of us.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      I suggest you take a trip out of your comfort zone to countries away from the cuddly comfy west and see how "confused" I am.

      Your argument is that I should visit some regressive hellholes which are known to be poor on human rights as my comparison? They treat women like second-class citizens in those countries as well, I suppose you also support that wholeheartedly.

      Give your boyfriend a kiss and cuddle in the middle of a street almost anywhere in the middle east, africa, russia, central america or the more conservative parts of far east and see how long before you're beaten up or in prison.

      Yep, I was right. You ticked off a list of places it's shitty to be a woman without any apparent awareness that these places just don't get the whole "human rights" concept in general. Which, mind you, I don't think are natural; I think we have to fight for each one, and then go on to defend it.

      Hell, even do it in a lot of southern US states and see what happens.

      Yes, I already know the south is full of hicks in sticks. Until you get to ATL, perhaps, which is one of the gayest cities in the world. Dallas is also very very gay. Austin has (had? haven't checked) a gay bar called the "Rainbow Cattle Club" that you drive past most times you go downtown via the 35. So there's even places in the south where homosexuals are permitted to behave like all the other humans, most of the time anyway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most of those countries that condemn homosexuality aren't too hot on women's rights, people that aren't the same religion as them, or people with different colored skin or birth place living with or having the same rights as them.

      Intolerant people are intolerant, what a revelation.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    7. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      Does he even actually live on the Isle of Man, or is his "home" there a P.O. box that he just uses to avoid taxes?

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    8. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      I suspect that this sentence explains Shuttlesworth's REAL reason for "living" there:

      From the Wikipedia article:
      "The Isle of Man is a low-tax economy with no capital gains tax, wealth tax, stamp duty, or inheritance tax"

      Yeah, if I were a billionaire, I would sure want to "live" there too. I could put my P.O. Box "home" right next to Mark's.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    9. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 2

      So why is this on slashdot exactly? This site is supposed to be about the tech itself, not the financial problems of the people behind it.

      Treating this like "Shuttleworth's problem" is losing sight of the big picture. The SA government is desperate to prevent money leaving the country, because if it was easy to get out, a significant chunk of the population would (SA, particularly in the large cities, is not a fun place to live). They may have eliminated the apartheid-era controls, but they've introduced far stricter ones to prevent capital flight from the country. Shuttleworth's case is just one of the more visible ones, there are huge numbers of people who would leave if they could get their money out.

    10. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Hmm, seems like they're giving out extra mod points to bigots today. In no way is this a troll.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    11. Re:So rich guy loses court case with bank by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Secondly, outside of specialist usage (in statistics, measurements, sciences, etc) normal means "common", "not rare", etc.

      But the opposite of normal (abnormal) is derogatory, whereas the opposite of common (uncommon or rare) is not. "Normal" is a somewhat loaded term, that's all.

      No one is saying that half the world is homosexual, but the fact that it's (say) 5% is irrelevant.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  2. Once a government has your money, no give backs by Virtucon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've never seen a government that ever willingly gives you your money back. Once they have it they'll try every conceivable way to keep it. Whether or not it's legal or morally right to keep it, they don't care.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      Really? The HMRC in the UK is very quick at giving overpayments and corrections back - on a few occasions I have had cheques simply turn up without any requests or even knowing I was due one.

    2. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      You and your silly "facts". How dare you try to bring those into his narrative.

    3. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by Virtucon · · Score: 2

      willingly? so you forget all that business about tax returns, turbo tax, accountants. That's not willing.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    4. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stop and think about that for a second. A tax refund implies they are taxing you beyond what you owe, up front, and keeping the money as long as possible. Depending on your filing timing, some of that money could have been held by the government for nearly 18 months before you get money the government shouldn't have taken back.

      And they don't just "give it back" -- YOU have to follow their rules and their forms and justify to them that you deserve to get the money back.

      The system is really "we'll take this money from you now, a year later you can use our forms and tables to figure out if we've taken too much, and then we'll give it back, based on our criteria".

      You can't use the IRS tax refunds as a sign of the gentle benevolence of the government.

    5. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 2

      Really? The HMRC in the UK is very quick at giving overpayments and corrections back - on a few occasions I have had cheques simply turn up without any requests or even knowing I was due one.

      Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is THE ONLY goverment organization that after interacting with it i did not felt as raped - and it was about taking money from them... PLUS: i am a Greek - that i had to do some of my interactions with them by phone (i am terrible with writen English, and even worse when speaking them - they even offered me live translation services if i ever needed it!).

      As a Greek Nationalist, i now must ask from you: please stand up for the national anthem!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    6. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by Garfong · · Score: 2

      Don't pretend people aren't born into privilege in the US too. As far as I can tell (as a Canadian) the difference between Prince William and Paris Hilton is Prince William has class.

    7. Re:Once a government has your money, no give backs by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      In Russia, it's actually possible to be fined for paying too much taxes - I have personally witnessed that (naturally, they didn't return anything, either - the fine was on top of that).

  3. The fundamental problem is wealth redistribution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The fundamental problem is wealth redistribution. It sounds good to some people but it all comes back to robbing Peter to pay Paul; most people call it stealing.