Board of Directors Meeting 2020-09-25

Board Discuss
#1

The Document Foundation
Board of Directors Meeting 2020-09-25
Meeting Minutes

Location: Jitsi

Session chair: Lothar Becker
Keeper of the minutes: Stephan Ficht

In the meeting:
Lothar Becker (Board Chair), Cor Nouws (Board Member), Thorsten Behrens (Board Member), Michael Meeks (Board Member), Emiliano Vavassori (Board Member)
Nicolas Christener (Board Deputy), Paolo Vecchi (Board Deputy)
Florian Effenberger (Executive Director), Ilmari Lauhakangas (Team), Sophie Gautier (Team), Italo Vignoli (Team), Stephan Ficht (Administrative Assistant)
Marina Latini (Membership Committee), Uwe Altmann (Membership Committee Deputy), Dennis Roczek (Membership Committee Deputy)
Jan Holesovsky

Representation: Nicolas Christener for Daniel Armando Rodriguez, Paolo Vecchi for Franklin Weng
(See https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ subject "Representation statements")

Chairman of the Board is in the meeting. One of the Chairman or Deputy Chairman is required to be present or represented for having a quorate call.

The Board of Directors at time of the call consists of 7 seat holders without deputies. In order to be quorate, the call needs to have 1/2 of the Board of Directors members, which gives 4. A total of 7 Board of Directors members are attending the call.

The board waives all formal statutory requirements, or requirements in the foundations articles, or other requirements regarding form and invitation, time limits, and for the topics discussed in this meeting.

The meeting is quorate and invitation happened in time. From now on, motions can be passed with the agreement of a simple majority of those remaining present. The majority threshold is currently 4.

The meeting commences at 13:02 Berlin time.

Agenda

Public Part

1. Q&A: Answering Questions from the community (All, max. 10 min)
    Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask questions to the board and about TDF.
   + some questions/remarks? (Lothar)
   + thing coming up causing friction (Ilmari)
      + between volunteers and commercial entities
      + regressions and how to handle them
      + volunteers have a confused view of how development works
      + some of them think developers should have a responsibility
        to fix all regressions - 1 week, 1 month, or years old
      + different companies have different approaches here
      + TDF should invest in automated testing to reduce this problem.
      + why does that help ? (Lothar)
         + people do a change, and it breaks something (Ilmari)
            + problem is 'when' - ideal time is when it is being developed
            + everyone can see then.
      + some frustration around specific regressions (Lothar)
         + it's a big topic, concerns whole history of LibreOffice (Ilmari)
      + fully agreed (Thorsten)
         + everyone including devs most happy to catch problems early.
         + an ~infinite effort to make it watertight
         + but some areas are under-tested right now.
         + proposal - prepare something in the ESC
      + perfect world is impossible but can do better (Cor)
      + Sophie (in chat): Just to second what Ilmari said,
        this is often discussed in the FR community too
      + Xisco is already writing many UI tests (Michael)
         + which is really good.
      + ESC gets to vote on ideas anyway (Michael)
         + can we get input on where to focus the work ?
         + which areas catch the most regressions ?
         + can we increase coverage cheaply ?
         + more complex integration testing good (Ilmari)
             + perhaps including databases etc.
      => collect ideas, and see what we can do in the ESC.
      + expect tooling is not a fix for communication issues (Lothar)
         + alternative is commercial companies (Ilmari)
            + can elaborate minute details of contracts with clients
      + getting investment into LibreOffice is hard (Michael)
         + there is a very long tail of risk here that is ~hard to price
      + a development mentor ? (Kendy)
         + when a patch is merged, something that should have a unit test
           and does not
         + can poke them and ask them to create a unit test for that.
         + even some senior developers don't do that.
      + setting realistic expectations & understanding with users (Michael)
         + also an important part of this.

2. Discuss & Organize: Status & further steps in the subgroups with: a) marketing plan b) tender streamlining c)app store offering TDF d) TM licensing (All 15 min)
    Rationale: Discuss and identify the next steps
    Redmine ticket(s):

  a) LibreOffice 7.0/7.1 marketing plan
     URL: https://redmine.documentfoundation.org/issues/3206
     Status: Paolo, Franklin, Michael, Thorsten, Mike, Italo continue working on this, Follow-on meeting was done, information/what is uncontroversial and could be decided to be done now
       + shared an updated version (Italo)
          + has not changed that much
          + a few pages with action items.
          + now shorter and easier to read, and a ver. with just AIs
          + plan to move quickly on bits that are not controversial
             + ingredient brand, spread across the website.
          + announce this before the conference, will be discussed there
          + some action items related to legal issues - not touching.
          + some need discussing with the community.
          + idea: label for LibreOffice release managed by TDF
              + Personal vs. Community and/or others ...
              + we should start discussing this
                 + agenda for next marketing call -
                 + scheduled for week before the conference
                    + October 8th.
                    + have as a 1st step of discussion.
          + reduce the number of places the discussion happens:
             + no bugzilla, redmine - all on mailing lists.
             + restrict the vote to TDF members here - to
               avoid making it an endless discussion.
             + avoid mascot-style problems
       + summary (Lothar)
          1. marketing bits can be decided / uncontroversial
             do we need here a vote ?
                + what is planned not so clear (Michael)
                + may need decision on use of LibreOffice Technology (Italo)
AI: + can you write a paragraph on the decision (Lothar)
                   + what should we vote on ?
                   + if no veto in a reasonable time - just act.
                + have some feedback to share (Marina)
                   + how do you prefer to get that ?
                   + before the next marketing call or ?
                   + asking for the overall plan ? (Lothar)
                      + or for the Technology bits ?
                      + includes this (Marina)
                         + would like to understand where to share feedback.
          2. needs a defined way to provide feedback (Lothar)
             where to send this (Marina)
                + either board-discuss or public marketing list (Italo)
                + lets use the public marketing discuss list (Florian)
                   + send an E-mail to board-discuss & send it all to marketing.
                + we should have some moderation here (Lothar)
                   + should have clear questions / opinion from membership

                       + Probably a good idea starting with AI in MarCom Plan (emiliano)

     + We will clarify AI in the next Marketing Call (Italo)

                   + is that Italo ? and when does the process end ?
                   + when will we definitely decide ?
                       + not later than end of Nov. (Italo)
                + we expect heavy public discussion (Lothar)
                   + should make it clear that group that
                     decides is members so we get to a decision (Italo)

  b) KG22.01 - Streamline Tendering Process in 24 months
     URL: https://redmine.documentfoundation.org/issues/3107
     Status: Nicolas, Lothar and Florian had first call. Documents and process description in the works.
     * last call skipped, todos are the same (Lothar)
     * need to schedule another call
     * Can we have minutes of the meetings? (Emiliano)
     * Yes, will send you, Nicolas took some notes (Lothar)
     * Marina (in chat): for the various subgroups, e.g. tender, could be possible to share the minutes with the MC?

     KG22.01.1 - Two more tenders signed in 6 months
     URL: https://redmine.documentfoundation.org/issues/3108
     Status: X-ray debugger in review/evaluation; ODF 1.3 awaits publication wrt. KG22.01

  c) form sub-group to work out and publish business entity proposals
     URL: https://redmine.documentfoundation.org/issues/3294
     Status: Criteria list (Lothar) Draft proposal for Luxemburg entity (Paolo), next meeting orga(Thorsten) - https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/NeBWm25cd2LHyoq
     Thorsten, Michael, Nicolas, Paolo, Lothar: due to holidays a part of the subgroup did coordinate, Lothar will update his criteria list/problem statement with feedback, Paolo to follow-up with ministry for clarification of details
     * had various meetings with ministries (Paolo)
        * need to check possible limitations around the kind of entity,
          follow-up meeting next week
        * no serious objections - From Board or community (Paolo)
        * quite some silence after initial discussion, not much is happening - From the Board or community (Paolo)
        * waiting for input, vacation times, previous proposal was not liked (Thorsten)
     * there was an action for Florian to get a German proposal? (Michael)
        * also on Thorsten's plate.

  d) from subgroup to work out proposal for handling outrunning TM licenses End of September
     URL: https://redmine.documentfoundation.org/issues/3319 (not public, I think this was a fault from me, should be public ticket?)
     Status: Subgroup came up with a proposal
     * text seems fine (Paolo)
     * investigating other alternatives like new entity, TDF going to app stores itself etc.
     * proposal to extend the existing agreement for 3 months, then see where we stand
     * cancellation clause when alternative is available
     * like to help in the sub-group (Emiliano)
        * renewed already for 3 months, since we saw the end of the tunnel
        * perhaps wise to extend for six months not three.
        * not worried as long as terminates when alternative is there (Paolo)
AI => produce text to prolongate this for E-mail vote (Paolo, Cor, Emiliano)

3. Inform & Discuss: Status of redmine tickets of last board meetings (Lothar, Stephan/Florian, All 10 min)
    Rationale: Clarifying what is pending, questions to reports in redmine tickets, and what todo, who is caring, until when, it is not the intention to speak about all, but the important or urgent ones

    Just to be discussed if any news on:

    Membership Committee election (Florian)
    URL: https://redmine.documentfoundation.org/issues/803
    Status: done, first meeting was hold, information about it
      + all accepted roles, members filed with authorities
      + MC first meeting yesterday (Marina)
         + nothing very special, caught up with filing.
         + will start to work on other topics soon, just 1 meeting.
      + for technical reasons on MC list to help if some tech. issue (Sophie)

    coordination of LibOCon internal meetings (Sophie)
    URL: https://redmine.documentfoundation.org/issues/3293
    Status: are communicated, clarifying what will be the agenda especially for the joined body meetings
AI * agenda will be drafted by Lothar, Franklin and Florian
    * shared via board pad or Nextcloud, to be edited by all board members

    Digital tool for participation improvement
    URL: https://redmine.documentfoundation.org/issues/3251
    Status: how are tests running? See last discussion about Open letter MC with the issue to have a better tooling for members involvement in discussions and decisions

Public meeting ends at 13:44 Berlin time.

Agenda items of Private Part

4. Discuss & Decide how to proceed: grandfathering/change clauses for future TM agreements (Florian, all 5min)
    Reason why in private: confidential information about legal clauses
    Rationale: clarify status quo and pending questions/trademark grants, evaluation and further steps

5. Discuss & Decide how to proceed: Pending questions wrt. the license inquiry of an Italian Company about LibreOffice online (Florian/Lothar, all 10min)
    Reason why in private: confidential information about trademark inquiry
    Rationale: clarify pending questions/trademark grants, evaluation and further steps, see started email discussion

Private meeting ends at 14:00 Berlin time.

Lothar Becker (Session chair)
Stephan Ficht (Keeper of the minutes)

#2

Hi,

The Document Foundation
Board of Directors Meeting 2020-09-25
Meeting Minutes

(...)

c) form sub-group to work out and publish business entity proposals
    URL: https://redmine.documentfoundation.org/issues/3294
    Status: Criteria list (Lothar) Draft proposal for Luxemburg entity
(Paolo), next meeting orga(Thorsten)  -
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/NeBWm25cd2LHyoq
    Thorsten, Michael, Nicolas, Paolo, Lothar: due to holidays a part
of the subgroup did coordinate, Lothar will update his criteria
list/problem statement with feedback, Paolo to follow-up with ministry
for clarification of details
    * had various meetings with ministries (Paolo)
       * need to check possible limitations around the kind of entity,
         follow-up meeting next week
       * no serious objections - From Board or community (Paolo)
       * quite some silence after initial discussion, not much is
happening - From the Board or community (Paolo)
       * waiting for input, vacation times, previous proposal was not
liked (Thorsten)

it's not a really appropriate behavior of a German charity to create a
business entity in a  country, which is known as a legal tax shelter.

Regards,
Andreas

#3

Hi Andreas,

thank you for your feedback.

Before moving to Luxembourg a couple of years ago I had the same feeling
about it but, as written in my proposal, I discovered that few EU
countries didn't like to have Luxembourg as a competitor in tax
efficiency so they pushed for and obtained huge changes in local tax laws.

As you may know since a few years countries like UK, Holland and Ireland
offer much better opportunities for tax "efficiency".

The reasons that pushed me to propose Luxembourg, as written in the
document, are more related to the fact that there is, IMHO, a good
incorporation model and that it would be local to many EU institutions
with which we could cooperate to promote LibreOffice in their own
offices and across Europe.

Belgium also offers something similar through the AISBL but I feel that
Brussels is already saturated with lobbyists which would make our life
impossible.

Let me know if you have other questions.

Paolo

#4

that's an euphemistic description for a tax shelter!

And for such reason companies like e.g. IKEA moved their profit to such
country in the European Union.

And one remark: Holland is only a part of the Netherlands if I remember
correctly.

Regards,
Andreas

#5

Hi Andreas,

c) form sub-group to work out and publish business entity proposals
    URL: https://redmine.documentfoundation.org/issues/3294
    Status: Criteria list (Lothar) Draft proposal for Luxemburg entity
(Paolo), next meeting orga(Thorsten)  ->> https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/NeBWm25cd2LHyoq

...

it's not a really appropriate behavior of a German charity to create a
business entity in a country, which is known as a legal tax shelter.

  I'm sure no-one would want us to search the world for a jurisdiction
that is maximally burdensome to incorporate and run in =)

  For my part Luxembourg has the major benefit that Paolo wants to be
involved and help get something done. It is hard to over-state how
important it is to have not only a concrete proposal but good people on
the ground. Incidentally this is why I was -so- dismayed to see the UK
option discarded on what I felt were poor grounds.

  Either way - another advantage of Luxembourg is that we are blessed
with having Lionel (CC'd) based there - at a professional accountancy
that (if we're really nice) may kindly offer us the benefit of their
accounting experience & help with oversight. That combination of long
term understanding of FLOSS, LibreOffice as well as local company / tax
issues would be an incredible plus.

  Beyond that - having a concrete proposal from any other jurisdiction
would be fine - but we should get moving.

  Andreas - if you want to get involved - I believe Florian is working on
a German entity proposal as another option - hopefully we see that soon.
Personally I think there may be merit in a UK option still - if Simon is
interested in engaging.

  I think we've discussed a few tests (perhaps there are more) for an
entity to sell things in the app-store:

  * protect TDF by some effective separation ie. a
    different entity.
  * have an corporate'y structure ie. no
    unexpected restriction on activity
  * provide for effective control by TDF
  * provide for operational isolation from the BoD
    + though I'm still hopeful we can de-stress
      the BoD relationships over time.
  * have low running costs, risks, and overheads
  * have local people willing to file forms / documents
  * have English Gov't interaction so all is transparent

  Perhaps something else ?

  One of the wider problems we have I think is a lack of decisiveness.
Also some sort of steady stream of people arriving late to a discussion
and re-starting it =) perhaps that is inevitable as discussions ripple
outwards through the community as they get more concrete.

  From a process perspective I think we'd want to get a deadline for
short, summary proposals - perhaps under some agreed grid / headings
(cf. above) - that we can present to the membership as a simple poll (we
have a great ranked / voting method to handle this sort of thing).

  With the membership's views in hand, the board could perhaps vote to
give confidence to the teams involved to get on with final preparation
and the actual formation.

  Again - it would be lovely to help out by build a constructive,
detailed alternative proposal if you can Andreas, and I imagine that
would be welcome.

  My 2 cents,

    Michael.

#6

Hi Michael,

On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 9:11 AM Michael Meeks <michael.meeks@collabora.com> wrote:

Personally I think there may be merit in a UK option still - if Simon is
interested in engaging.

I’d be happy to be involved in such an entity, sure. The problem last time was that, having taken all the steps necessary to get started with a project that would have actually occupied my working time to the exclusion of other income, the project was placed on indefinite hold at the last moment, and in a way that showed no respect.

Simon

#7

Thanks Michael for your kind support for my proposal and to introduce me
to Lionel.

Hi Lionel! Let's get in touch to check together my proposal.

In regards to the previous proposal I'm still of the idea that it
presents as number of issues which have been discussed at lenght but not
resolved and that the UK isn't at present a place where I would open a
new company that will need to trade with the EU and the rest of the world.

Ciao

Paolo

#8

Sure. My office is rue Aldringen, right next to the Royal-Hamilius
buildings. Are you in the area?

#9

Hi All,

UK out of the question only because of Brexit?
Yes, it has to taken into in account, but isn't a disqualification in advance
A major contributor has been located there. And Brexit isn't the end of the world.

Luxembourg being seen as a tax haven. Are we talking about a multi-national or a SME  :slight_smile:
Makes sense for Amazon with 42 billion turn over a year.
Netherlands being a tax haven is also depending on the perspective. Don't think the Dutch SME's agree.
And it's not a stable constant either; things tend to shift a lot. So people might still have impression of a tax having; will it not the case anymore.
Or a country becoming a tax haven, but without public knowledge..
So I personally don't attribute much weight to it.

People being able to do the paper work. And enough replacements to do they job is important. IMHO.
Having connections with people in the area. And knowledge about local law (contracts/ fiscal) is also useful.
Which from my perspective would mean around they current bastions of people (UK/DE). And even more specific in the region
of the current bases. UK/DE are pretty big country's. FWIW: nothing against LU..
Every country has it own particularity's, but overall pretty the same if you ask me. Principles, idea's.
A lawyers like comparing different systems a lot, which in the end mostly ends up with more similar structure (as it is seen as the best way of doing things)
Even cross border mergers are possible (which to some extend illustrates how harmonic those actually are)
If one country would be superior all the way, every enterprise would move/locate itself to single country.

BTW, I assume all proposals use the same format? Ideally even the same headings/ topics.
So everybody is doing investigating the same thing (asking the same questions).
Don't like to see 3 country options, with total different approaches etc.
Would probably feel like comparing apples with oranges.

Best,
Telesto

#10

I'm aware that (some) German (and French, and Belgian) politicians
like to deflect from domestic problems by blaming Luxembourg, and that
they have some success doing that, but that doesn't make their dreams
true.

They like to announce big sweeping "we will investigate this-and-this
behaviour by Luxembourg"... the press echoes the big announcement, but
when the investigation silently peters out, nobody reads about it.
Recent examples include the Belgian "investigation" of Luxembourg tax
rulings (the Belgian tax office probably "reminded" the minister that
they issue far more...). Some press, e.g.
https://www.icij.org/investigations/luxembourg-leaks/luxembourg-falls-further-behind-eu-aml-rules-as-companies-fail-to-disclose-ownership/
like to announce when Luxembourg faces delays in the nitty gritty
implementation of a particular transparency measure required by EU
legislation, but is mum when France flat out refuses to implement it
fully (with some help of its top courts, which seem to think it is not
obviously wentirely compatible with fundamental human rights), or
Poland has (at the time of the article) not even begun a draft law to
implement it (Poland has since have not only drafted that law, but
passed it).

From the times of Francis Bacon and before, "calomniez, calomniez, il
en restera toujours quelque chose" (I wish I knew the English
original, not only the canonical French translation) has been a
principle of statehood.

Bullying small Luxembourg is obviously easier, and safer, than even
small but somewhat bigger neighbours, like the Netherlands (ever heard
about the "Dutch Sandwich"?), Belgium ("tax shelter" for many French
or Dutch "rich people"... no taxation of "capital income", as long as
it is not a professional activity) or France (where whole city/town
districts are tax-exempt... how's that for a "tax shelter"?), or small
jurisdictions under the protection of e.g. the United Kingdom.

If you want to take the discussion on the moral level, you have to
decide whether it is "proper" for "a German charity" to join in this
bullying, or whether it should stand as a beam of light and virtue in
refusing to do so.

If you want to have the discussion on factual bases of where and how
it would work best, like Michael seems to try to do, then we can
forget about this whole subdiscussion.

#11

I took a look at the above document. My general impression is that any
CIC / SIS / ... like structure will have to be carefully considered to
see whether the inherent limitations thereof are something that can be
lived with, or whether they will lead to similar/same problems as with
TDF money, which is what we try to avoid!

The Luxembourg SIS has the clear advantage over (my understanding of)
the previous UK CIC proposal that it would be clearly owned by TDF,
the management has to present its report (at least once per year) to
the shareholder (TDF), and the shareholder (TDF) approves... or not!
of the management's past actions. Just like in any company. In a
Luxembourg SIS, that report is not only on the general management of
the company and its accounts, but also specifically on the "social
purpose" of the SIS, and must measurably demonstrate whether the goals
(which must be quantifiable) have been met, or not, and "how much"
they have been met.

Another approach, which was my first thought before reading the above
linked document, is to make a straight commercial company, fully owned
by TDF. This will clearly allow "any" commercial activity, while
ensuring that any profits, if not tendered out, are ploughed back into
the community by way of TDF.

I'm a big believer in the "theory" of incentives. A taxable structure
also comes with an incentive to spend the money (tender it out), since
the tenders will count as expenses, and reduce the income tax owed.
I'm not saying that is in itself a reason to choose a taxable
structure.

In all cases (CIC/SIS-like structure or straight commercial company),
we have to delineate clearly the functioning of the company, and its
governance. In order to allow the company to be focused, and so that
it is not just an echo chamber of TDF processes, we could consider
that, while economically fully owned by TDF, the governance is such
that a group of "well-chosen" people (initially formally
chosen/approved by the TDF as incorporator of the company; in practice
can be chosen by the TDF BoD, by "the community at large" according to
some process, ...) will be able to run the company (or choose the
people that will). If we choose for that, there are company types that
allow it.

I understand that "the TDF BoD runs the company" is emphatically not
a governance model we want for the company. So the question is: what
governance model do we want? Once that question is answered, we can
start to think technically to choose a structure type that will match
that.

Just to give me an impression of scale, what would be the order of
magnitude of the expected cashflow (turnover) in the "expected average
success" scenario? What would be the order of magnitude of the
turnover in the "sky high, we never thought we would be so successful
financially" scenario?

#12

Hi Michael, all,

Hi Andreas,

c) form sub-group to work out and publish business entity proposals
    URL: https://redmine.documentfoundation.org/issues/3294
    Status: Criteria list (Lothar) Draft proposal for Luxemburg entity
(Paolo), next meeting orga(Thorsten)  ->> https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/NeBWm25cd2LHyoq

...

it's not a really appropriate behavior of a German charity to create a
business entity in a country, which is known as a legal tax shelter.

  I'm sure no-one would want us to search the world for a jurisdiction
that is maximally burdensome to incorporate and run in =)

it's not about searching for the maximally burdensome, but a one that
are in accordance with the mindset of the foundation and its status as a
charity.

And if that is not in the requirements list, TDF will loose it's
reputation very quick.

(..)
  Andreas - if you want to get involved - I believe Florian is working on
a German entity proposal as another option - hopefully we see that soon.

Sorry, but I got no positive feedback for work with regulations etc. in
the past. Thus I concentrate here only on my payed full time job.

Personally I think there may be merit in a UK option still - if Simon is
interested in engaging.

My 2 Euro cents: I wouldn't go for Great Brittan, if I want to do
business with the European Union or one of its members.

(...)

  Again - it would be lovely to help out by build a constructive,
detailed alternative proposal if you can Andreas, and I imagine that
would be welcome.

See above. I doesn't share your view here, sorry.

Regards,
Andreas

#13

Hi Andreas,

it's not about searching for the maximally burdensome, but a one that
are in accordance with the mindset of the foundation and its status as a
charity.

I agree with you that it is an important topic to keep in mind. On the
other hand, a far from easy one.
The Netherlands, for example, is criticized by one of the national
agencies as a huge tax saving opportunity for multinationals operating
in developing countries. (Not sure how much of that is published in
other countries :slight_smile: )
Yet changes are slow. And with every step, the companies involved flow
somewhere else. Like water, seeing the lowest spot.

Again: not that the topic does not deserve our attention. Just trying to
express my expectations about how perfect or not the situation is.

Cheers,
Cor

#14

Andreas, (nearly?) every country is another country's tax
shelter. Germany, for example, from 1997 to 2019 was, if one looked
only at taxation numbers, an effective tax shelter for wealthy low
income French people (who can have an effective taxation rate of 75%,
and before the Sarkozy area, effectively unlimited, including above
100%). The main reason their exodus was more directed to (Southern /
Brussels) Belgium and Romandy (French-speaking Switzerland) is that
they speak the language.

Similarly, high net worth Dutch residents tend to flock to (Northern)
Belgium, rather than Germany, because of common language, but Germany
is, and remains to this day, an efficient tax shelter for them.

And, if some government coalition members in Luxembourg get their way,
Germany will instantaneously become a good tax shelter for high net
asset Luxembourg residents, and many Luxembourgers speak the
language. One can even commute every day to Luxembourg and continue to
work in Luxembourg.

Czech Republic until quite recently was a low tax country for high
income people.

France was, and still is, a good tax shelter for people whose main
income is from pensions. Why do you think there are so many UK
retirees in France?

One can make this list very long...

#15

Hi,

Not sure that the situation of happy UK retirees in Dordogne is the best…parity Euros/Pound, rise of local taxes, lack of doctors aren’t probably what they bet years ago. I suggest respectfully to not believe the Economist magazine stereotypes and check carefully if a local program couldn’t be interesting in the case of a young entreprise .(tax exemption, cheap/shared office, etc…). (and may think beyond of the german spoken zone, respectfully again, that’s Europe, all different !)

(may be Sophie G in Paris can help a little)

Regards.

Régis Perdreau

Impressum (Legal Info) | Datenschutzerklärung (Privacy Policy)   Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.