Connect with us

News

Iranian bombings that killed 2 Pakistanis are condemned by Pakistan

Published

on

Iranian bombings that killed 2 Pakistanis are condemned by Pakistan

(VORNews) – Pakistan criticized Iran on Wednesday for airstrikes that it allegedly carried out the day before to target the strongholds of a violent Sunni separatist group. Islamabad vehemently condemned the strike as a “blatant violation” of its airspace and cited the deaths of two children as the cause.

Diplomatic ties between Iran and nuclear-armed North Korea were jeopardized by Tuesday’s strike in Pakistan’s volatile southeastern Baluchistan region. As a result of militant strikes, Pakistan and India have always looked down on each other. Neither side, though, seemed eager to provoke the other.

In the already tense Middle East due to Israel’s continuing conflict with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the incident also had the potential to spark further violence. Iran carried out strikes in Iraq and Syria late Monday in retaliation for a suicide attack earlier this month that the Islamic State claimed was its own and killed more than 90 people.

The Iranian government’s official news outlets reported—and then mysteriously withdrew—that the Revolutionary Guard, a paramilitary force, had attacked Jaish al-Adl, also known as the “Army of Justice.”

The attack was confirmed in an online statement by the organization, which has expanded across Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan in pursuit of an independent Baluchistan.

6 bomb-carrying drones and missiles targeted the homes

According to the insurgents, six bomb-carrying drones and missiles targeted the homes of militants’ spouses and children. Two girls and two women were murdered in the incident, according to Jaish al-Adl.

A teenage girl was wounded as well. The Baluch activist organization HalVash uploaded videos that seemed to be from the location. The videos showed a structure on fire and two tiny bodies with severe burns.

An Iranian envoy was called to Islamabad “to convey our strongest condemnation of this blatant violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty,” according to Pakistan’s foreign ministry, which claimed it submitted a strong complaint with Iran’s foreign ministry late Tuesday. It stated that Iran would be fully responsible for the repercussions.

Speaking to The Associated Press anonymously because he was not allowed to speak with the media, a senior Pakistani security official stated that Iran had not supplied any intelligence before the strike.

According to him, Pakistan may reply whenever it wants, wherever it wants, and whatever strike it launches will be proportional to public expectations and measured. A senior diplomat expressed concern about the destabilizing and reciprocal ramifications of Iran’s hazardous precedent.

Pakistan seemed to be making an effort to downplay its outrage about the hit, though. The typically ferocious and patriotic media on Wednesday covered the shocking incident with a surprising lack of emotion.

The Iranian government attributes most of Jaish al-Adl’s activities in Pakistan to the fact that it was established in 2012. Members of Iran’s border police have been abducted, and the organization has claimed responsibility for explosions. In December, suspected Jaish al-Adl members killed 11 people and wounded eight others in a nighttime attack on a police station in southeastern Iran. Another local police officer was slain in a recent incident.

In 2019, Jaish al-Adl claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing targeting a bus that killed 27 members of Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard. Iran has suspected that Sunni-majority Pakistan is hosting insurgents, possibly at the behest of its regional arch-rival Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan blames Iran for terrorist strikes

However, Iran and Saudi Arabia reached a Chinese-mediated détente last March, easing tensions. Meanwhile, Pakistan has already placed the blame on Iran for terrorist strikes on its security personnel.

Iran has fought in border areas against militants, but a missile-and-drone attack on Pakistan is unprecedented. It remains unclear why Iran launched the attack now, particularly as its foreign minister had met Pakistan’s caretaker prime minister the same day at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

After the Islamic State bombings this month, Iran’s Intelligence Ministry alleged the two bombers involved in the attack had traveled from Afghanistan into Iran through its southeastern border at the Jalg crossing, meaning they had traveled through Baluchistan.

Pakistan’s Baluchistan province, as well as Iran’s neighboring Sistan and Baluchestan province, have faced a low-level insurgency by Baluch nationalists for more than two decades.

They initially wanted a share of provincial resources but later initiated an insurgency for independence. Iran’s attack on Pakistan came less than a day after Iranian strikes on northern Iraq killed several civilians.

Iraq recalled its ambassador from Tehran for consultations and summoned Iran’s chargé d’affaires in Baghdad on Tuesday in protest. Iran separately struck Syria as well.

Trending News:

Iran Warns the U.S. Not to “tie its Fate” to that of Israel’s Netanyahu

Iran Warns the U.S. Not to “tie its Fate” to that of Israel’s Netanyahu

Abdul Rayuf is a seasoned freelance writer who contributes insightful articles to VORNews. With years of experience in journalism, he possesses a knack for crafting compelling narratives that resonate with readers. Abdul's writing style strikes a balance between depth and accessibility, allowing him to tackle complex topics while maintaining clarity. His commitment to thorough research ensures his pieces are well-informed and thought-provoking. Abdul's contributions enrich VORNews' content, offering readers a fresh perspective on current events and pressing issues.

Continue Reading

News

Heatwave in Delhi Claims 200 Homeless Lives in One Week

Published

on

Heatwave in Delhi Claims 200 Homeless Lives in One Week

Around 200 homeless people have died in the Indian capital in the last week as a result of the country’s ongoing heatwave, according to a group committed to assisting homeless people.

The Times of India reported on Thursday that 52 bodies had been brought to hospitals in the previous two days, with the majority of them being poor people who lived and worked outside.

Delhi Heatwave

According to the Centre for Holistic Development, 192 homeless individuals died in New Delhi between June 11 and June 19, which is more than the number reported in prior years.

“The poorest people face the brunt of such climate change. Most of these folks live beneath flyovers and in the open, with no protection from the heat. According to Sunil Kumar Aledia, the head of CHD, heatwaves were primarily to blame for these deaths.

VOR News

This summer, India reported over 40,000 suspected heatstroke cases and at least 110 verified deaths between March 1 and June 18, when northwest and eastern India had more than double the typical number of heatwave days.

“A prolonged summer should be classified as a natural disaster,” the Hindu newspaper wrote in an editorial on Thursday, citing water shortages and record power demand.

VOR News

The health ministry asked federal and state institutions to provide rapid care to patients, while hospitals were told to make more beds available.

The meteorological office has anticipated above-normal temperatures for this month as well, and Delhi experienced its warmest night in over 50 years on Wednesday, with a minimum temperature of 35.2°C (95°F), according to weather department data.

Temperatures in the capital fell nearly 6°C to 37°C (98.6°F) on Thursday as rain provided relief from the heat, according to weather service data.

 

Continue Reading

News

UAE Predicted to Become World’s Top Wealth-Attracting Country for Third Consecutive Year

Published

on

UAE Predicted to Become World's Top Wealth-Attracting Country for Third Consecutive Year

(CTN News) – The Henley Private Wealth Migration Report predicts that the UAE will become the world’s top wealth-attracting country for the third year in a row.

The survey, which was released earlier this week, expects an extraordinary inflow of 6,700 millionaires from all over the world by the end of 2024, CNBC reported.

The United States is trailing behind the UAE in second place, with an expected inflow of 3,800 millionaires by year end.

According to Henley, the analysis projects that 128,000 millionaires, or high-net-worth individuals with one million dollars or more, will relocate in 2024, breaking the previous record of 120,000 millionaires set last year, signaling a watershed moment in global wealth migration.

The analysis is based on data provided by the global wealth intelligence business, New World Wealth. It provides information on millionaires’ inflows and outflows, as well as their global mobility trends.

Why the UAE is a Top Choice for Millionaires

“This great millionaire migration is a canary in the coal mine, signaling a profound shift in the global landscape and tectonic plates of wealth and power, with far-reaching implications for the future trajectory of the nations they leave behind or those which they make their new home,” said Dominic Volek, director of private client services at Henley & Partners, an international law firm.

The UAE is becoming a popular choice for high-net-worth individuals worldwide, thanks to its favorable tax regulations, strategic location, and modern infrastructure.

The country offers a “golden visa” to attract foreign talent, intending to “provide long-term residence to investors, entrepreneurs, specialists, students, and researchers who make a significant investment in the country,” according to Henley & Partners.

People from the Middle East, India, Russia, Africa, and most recently, the anticipated migration from the United Kingdom and Europe, are driving an increase in migration to the UAE.

According to Henley & Partners, the top ten countries expecting the biggest net inflows of millionaires this year are listed below.

  • United Arab Emirates: +6,700
  • United States of America: +3,800
  • Singapore: +3,500
  • Canada: +3,200
  • Australia: +2,500
  • Italy: +2,200
  • Switzerland: +1,500
  • Greece: +1,200
  • Portugal: +800
  • Japan: +400
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court Upholds Trump-Era Foreign Earnings TAX

Published

on

US Supreme Court Upholds Trump- Era Tax

On Thursday, the US Supreme Court upheld an obscure tax established as part of Trump’s big 2017 reform package that targets U.S. taxpayers who own shares in certain foreign firms.

The Supreme Court concluded 7-2 that the so-called mandatory repatriation tax, or MRT, is constitutional under Article I and the 16th Amendment, rejecting a lawsuit by a Washington couple, Charles and Kathleen Moore, who claimed the provision violated the Constitution. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The Supreme Court’s decision was narrow, but by declining to overturn the tax, the justices avoided closing the door on Democrats’ proposals to levy taxes on the nation’s richest earnings. Kavanaugh emphasized that the court’s analysis ignores the difficulties created by holdings, wealth, or net worth taxes, as well as appreciation taxes.

“Those are potential issues for another day, and we do not address or resolve any of those issues here,” the Supreme Court judge’s counsel wrote. “In the Moores’ instance, Congress has long taxed an entity’s shareholders on its undistributed revenue, as it did with the MRT. This Court has long sustained such taxes, and we continue to do so with the MRT.

The high court opinion is also expected to allay fears about the impact of a sweeping decision rejecting the required repatriation tax on other elements of the tax legislation. Kavanaugh acknowledged the potential repercussions of such a finding, stating that if the Moores’ argument is adopted, “vast swaths” of the Internal Revenue Code may be declared unconstitutional.

“And those tax provisions, if suddenly eliminated, would deprive the U. S. government and the American people of trillions in lost tax revenue,” he wrote on behalf of the coalition. “The logical ramifications of the Moores’ thesis would thus oblige Congress to either dramatically slash important national programs or significantly increase taxes on the remaining sources available to it—including, of course, ordinary Americans. The Constitution does not need such a fiscal disaster.”

Dan Greenberg, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which represented the Moores, expressed disappointment with the verdict, which allows the government to collect income taxes on overseas stockholders who have never earned income.

“We think that is unfair, because the Constitution authorizes Congress to tax people on their income, not the income of foreign businesses that they do not control,” according to a press release.

US Supreme Court

Supreme Court Moore v. U.S.

The tax at the center of the case, known as Moore v. U.S., is imposed one time on U.S. taxpayers who hold shares of certain foreign corporations. The Moores challenged the measure after they were hit with a nearly $15,000 tax bill for 2017 as a result of the law, which required them to pay levies on their share of reinvested lifetime earnings from an India-based company called KisanKraft Tools.

The Moores had invested $40,000 in the company in 2006 in exchange for a 13% stake, and did not receive any distributions, dividends or other payments from it.

But the mandatory repatriation tax, enacted through the Tax Cut and Jobs Act that was signed into law by former President Donald Trump, taxed U.S. taxpayers who owned at least 10% of a foreign company on their proportionate share of that company’s earnings after 1986. The tax was projected to generate roughly $340 billion in revenue over 10 years.

Though KisanKraft reinvested its earnings in the years after its founding, rather than distributing dividends to shareholders, the tax still applied to the Moores.

The Moores paid, but filed a lawsuit against the federal government to obtain a refund and challenge the constitutionality of the mandatory repatriation tax.

A federal district court ruled for the government and dismissed the case, finding that the mandatory repatriation tax is permitted under the 16th Amendment, which grants Congress the authority to tax “incomes, from whatever source derived.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision, ruling that nothing in the Constitution prohibits Congress from “attributing a corporation’s income pro-rata to its shareholders.” The 9th Circuit noted that courts have consistently upheld other similar taxes, and warned that finding the measure unconstitutional would call into question many other long-standing tax provisions.

The Supreme Court affirmed the 9th Circuit’s ruling and found that by 1938, its precedents had established a rule that contradicted the Moores’ argument in their case. That line of prior decisions, Kavanaugh wrote for the court, “remains good law to this day.”

Citing those earlier rulings and the similarities between the mandatory repatriation tax and other tax provisions, the court concluded that the measure “falls squarely within Congress’s constitutional authority to tax.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, in which she agreed with the outcome of the case, but split with the majority’s reasoning. Addressing the question that was before the court, Barrett said that the 16th Amendment does not authorize Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment to the states.

In a dissenting opinion joined by Gorsuch, Thomas said the Moores were correct in challenging the mandatory repatriation tax as unconstitutional. Because the couple never actually received gains from their investment, those unrealized gains couldn’t be taxed as income under the 16th Amendment, he wrote.

“The fact that the MRT has novel features does not mean that it is unconstitutional. But, the MRT is undeniably novel when compared to older income taxes, and many of those differences are constitutionally relevant,” he wrote. “Because the MRT is imposed merely based on ownership of shares in a corporation, it does not operate as a tax on income.”

Thomas criticized the majority over its concerns about the impact a broad decision would have on other longstanding taxes, writing that “if Congress invites calamity by building the tax base on constitutional quicksand, ‘the judicial power’ afforded to this court does not include the power to fashion an emergency escape.”

He also rebuffed the majority’s contention that its ruling does not speak to the constitutionality of other taxes that may be passed by Congress, such as a wealth tax.

“Sensing that upholding the MRT cedes additional ground to Congress, the majority arms itself with dicta to tell Congress ‘no’ in the future,” Thomas wrote. “But, if the court is not willing to uphold limitations on the taxing power in expensive cases, cheap dicta will make no difference.”

During oral arguments in December, the justices seemed sympathetic to concerns about how a sweeping ruling would reverberate across the U.S. tax system and threaten existing tax laws.

But some of the justices sought clarity on the limits of Congress’ taxing power. Lawyers for the Moores had warned the court that allowing a tax on income that has not yet been realized, or received, would pave the way for lawmakers to levy taxes on all manner of things, such as retirement accounts or gains in the value of real estate.

Justice Samuel Alito had faced pressure from some congressional Democrats to recuse himself from the case because of interviews he participated in with an editor at the Wall Street Journal and David Rivkin, a lawyer who represented the Moores.

The justice declined to step aside from the case, arguing there was “no valid reason” for him to do so.

Source: CBS News

 

 

Continue Reading

Download Our App

vornews app

Advertise Here

Volunteering at Soi Dog

People Reading

Trending