Licencia Creative Commons

Wednesday, May 31, 2023

RATIFICACIÓN DE DOCTRINA DEL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO (STS 18-05-2023, REC. NÚM.4506/2021)

 

  • ECLI:ES:TS:2023:2017
  • Sala de lo Contencioso
  • Nº de Resolución: 638/2023
  • Municipio: Madrid
  • Ponente: MARIA DE LA ESPERANZA CORDOBA CASTROVERDE
  • Nº Recurso: 4506/2021

RESUMEN: IVA. Devolución de ingresos indebidos. Sujeto legitimado para obtener la devolución de ingresos indebidos en tributos que deben ser legalmente repercutidos.Se ratifica la doctrina jurisprudencial de esta Sala, recogida en sentencia de 13 de febrero de 2018, dictada en el recurso de casación núm. 284/2017, a la que le han seguido otras posteriores, consistente en que nuestro ordenamiento jurídico solo permite obtener la devolución a quien efectivamente soportó el gravamen mediante la repercusión, de forma que el sujeto repercutido es el único que se encuentra legitimado para obtener la devolución de ingresos indebidos en aquellos supuestos en los que el ingreso indebido se refiere a tributos que deben ser legalmente repercutidos a otras personas o entidades, como es el caso del IVA, y se derive de un procedimiento de rectificación de autoliquidaciones iniciado por parte del sujeto pasivo del impuesto.

https://www.poderjudicial.es/search/TS/openDocument/6d95f1701409a6bea0a8778d75e36f0d/20230525

1. La Sección Primera de la Sala Tercera del Tribunal Supremo, en auto de 18 de mayo de 2022, apreció que la cuestión que presenta interés casacional objetivo para la formación de la jurisprudencia consiste en:

"[...] Reforzar, reafirmar y, en su caso, matizar o completar la jurisprudencia sobre qué sujeto se encuentra legitimado para obtener la devolución de ingresos indebidos en aquellos supuestos en los que el ingreso indebido se refiere a tributos que deben ser legalmente repercutidos a otras personas o entidades, como es el caso del IVA, y se derive de un procedimiento de rectificación de autoliquidaciones iniciado por parte del sujeto pasivo del impuesto.
3º) Identificar como normas jurídicas que, en principio, habrán de ser objeto de interpretación el artículo 14.2.c) del RGRVA, en relación con el artículo 127.1.c) del RGAT y con los artículos 80, 89 y 114 de la LIVA.".

(...)

QUINTO. Respuesta a la cuestión interpretativa planteada en el auto de admisión.

Con las consideraciones efectuadas en los fundamentos anteriores estamos en disposición de dar respuesta a la incógnita que se nos plantea en el auto de admisión del recurso, en estos términos:

"Si el sujeto pasivo "repercutidor" de un impuesto, como el que gravaba las ventas minoristas de determinados hidrocarburos, declarado contrario al ordenamiento jurídico de la Unión Europea, puede pedir para sí y obtener la devolución de las cuotas indebidamente pagadas cuando, habiendo repercutido el tributo al consumidor final e ingresado el importe repercutido en las arcas públicas, este último no puede obtener el reintegro por
resultarle imposible acreditar la repercusión que soportó".


La respuesta ha de ser necesariamente negativa, conforme a lo que hemos razonado, pues nuestro ordenamiento jurídico (constituido por los preceptos más arriba citados de la Ley General Tributaria y por el artículo 14 del Real Decreto 520/2005) solo permite obtener la devolución a quien efectivamente soportó el gravamen mediante la repercusión".


4. Se ratifica, pues, la doctrina jurisprudencial recogida en nuestra sentencia de 13 de febrero de 2018, dictada en el recurso de casación núm. 284/2017, a la que le han seguido otras posteriores, doctrina que resulta plenamente aplicable en los casos, como el enjuiciado, en los que el ingreso indebido se refiere en generala tributos que deben ser legalmente repercutidos a otras personas o entidades, como es el caso del IVA, y se derive de un procedimiento de rectificación de autoliquidaciones iniciado por parte del sujeto pasivo del impuesto.

CUARTO. Respuesta a la cuestión interpretativa planteada en el auto de admisión.

Con las consideraciones efectuadas en los fundamentos anteriores estamos en disposición de dar respuesta a la cuestión que se nos plantea en el auto de admisión del recurso.
La respuesta a dicha cuestión, conforme a lo que hemos razonado, debe ser que se ratifica la doctrina jurisprudencial de esta Sala, recogida en nuestra sentencia de 13 de febrero de 2018, dictada en el recurso de casación núm. 284/2017, a la que le han seguido otras posteriores, consistente en que nuestro ordenamiento jurídico solo permite obtener la devolución a quien efectivamente soportó el gravamen mediante la repercusión,de forma que el sujeto repercutido es el único que se encuentra legitimado para obtener la devolución de ingresos indebidos en aquellos supuestos en los que el ingreso indebido se refiere a tributos que deben ser legalmente repercutidos a otras personas o entidades, como es el caso del IVA, y se derive de un procedimiento de rectificación de autoliquidaciones iniciado por parte del sujeto pasivo del impuesto.

QUINTO. Resolución de las pretensiones deducidas en el proceso.
La lógica consecuencia de lo hasta aquí expuesto no puede ser otra que la estimación del recurso de casación deducido por el Abogado del Estado, pues la sentencia impugnada en casación resulta contraria a esta doctrina jurisprudencial reiterada, al considerar que el artículo 14 del Real Decreto 520/2005 autoriza al sujeto pasivo-repercutidor a obtener la devolución de las cuotas del IVA ingresadas en el Tesoro Público y que habían sido repercutidas a otra entidad, por lo que hemos de casar y anular la sentencia recurrida y desestimar el recurso contencioso-administrativo

Friday, May 26, 2023

LA ADAPTACIÓN AL NUEVO ORDEN MUNDIAL (ZOLTAN POZSAR, 26-04-2023 (IGWT REPORT))

We are moving into a multipolar reserve-currency world where the dollar will be challenged by the renminbi and the euro for reserve currency status.


• These currencies, especially the renminbi, would not necessarily be used as a reserve currency, but rather to settle trade. Gold could play an increased role here.


• The fact that China is running current account surpluses does not exclude their currency from becoming a global reserve currency. In fact, the US ran surpluses post-WW2, and this led the dollar on its global reserve currency path.


• The Chinese are using swap lines to settle international trade accounts. This is a fundamentally different approach from the dollar reserve framework and would mean that trade can occur in renminbi without nations needing to hold vast reserves of the currency.

 • The various crises that today’s financial market participants have witnessed were easily solved by throwing money at whatever problem arose. The current inflation problem is different.


• This situation is also vastly different from the late 1970s, when Paul Volcker curbed inflation by prolonged high interest rates. Chronic underinvestment in the resource sector and labor issues will cause inflation to remain sticky.


• The traditional 60/40 portfolio allocation will struggle in this environment. Zoltan recommends a 20/40/20/20 (cash, stocks, bonds, and commodities).

 

 

 

Wednesday, May 24, 2023

EL G7 DEBE ACEPTAR QUE NO PUEDE DIRIGIR EL MUNDO (MARTIN WOLF)

  “Goodbye G7, hello G20.” That was the headline on an article in The Economist on the first summit of the Group of 20 in Washington in 2008 which argued that this represented “a decisive shift in the old order”. Today, hopes of a co-operative global economic order, which reached their zenith at the G20’s London summit of April 2009, have evaporated. Yet it is hardly a case of “Goodbye G20, hello G7”. The earlier world of G7 domination is even more remote than that of G20 co-operation. Neither global co-operation nor western domination look feasible. What might follow? Alas, “division” might be one answer and “anarchy” another.

 
At 19,000 words, this reads like a manifesto for a world government. In contrast, the communiqué of the London G20 summit in April 2009 was just over 3,000 words. This comparison is unfair, given the focus at that time on the economic crisis. But an unfocused wish list cannot be useful: when everything is a priority, nothing is.


Moreover, both the “unipolar” moment of the US and the economic dominance of the G7 are history. True, the latter is still the most powerful and cohesive economic bloc in the world. It continues, for example, to produce all the world’s leading reserve currencies. Yet, between 2000 and 2023, its share in global output (at purchasing power) will have fallen from 44 to 30 per cent, while that of all high-income countries will have fallen from 57 to 41 per cent. Meanwhile, China’s share will have risen from 7 to 19 per cent. China is now an economic superpower. Via its Belt and Road Initiative it has become a huge investor in (and creditor of) developing countries, though, predictably, it is having to deal with the consequent bad debts so familiar to G7 countries. For some emerging and developing countries, China is a more important economic partner than the G7: Brazil is one example. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva may have attended the G7, but he cannot sensibly ignore China’s heft.

 

 



Yes, the G7 must defend its values and its interests. But it cannot run the world, even though the world’s fate will also be that of its members. A path to co-operation must be found, once again

 

martin.wolf@ft.com

Follow Martin Wolf with myFT and on Twitter

Sunday, May 21, 2023

SP 1929 vs 2023 (@FINANCELOT)

Saturday, May 20, 2023

EL TRIBUNAL SUPREMO (USA) DECIDE EN FAVOR DE TWITTER, GOOGLE Y FACEBOOK (RESPONSABILIDAD POR CONTENIDO DE USUARIOS)

The Supreme Court unanimously sided with Twitter, Google, and Facebook, finding in a pair of decisions on May 18 that the Silicon Valley giants are shielded from liability for content posted by users. 
 
The lawsuits arose after deadly Islamic terrorist attacks overseas. Victims’ families argued that the Big Tech companies were liable because they allowed terrorist videos to be posted online or failed to do enough to police the terrorist accounts posting the videos. 
 
 Big Tech and its supporters had been deeply concerned that the court could eviscerate Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996, which generally prevents internet platforms and internet service providers from being held liable for what users say on them. They say the legal provision, sometimes called “the 26 words that created the internet,” has fostered a climate online in which free speech has flourished.
 
 The Supreme Court’s new 38-page decision (pdf) in Twitter Inc. v. Taamneh, court file 21-1496, was written by Justice Clarence Thomas.
 
 
 
 

Tuesday, May 16, 2023

EL INFORME DURHAM (ACTUACIONES DE INTELIGENCIA (ELECCIONES PRESIDENCIALES USA);12-05-2023)

 

 

 

 May 12, 2023 TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK B. GARLAND 

FROM: H. DURHAM PECIAL COUNSEL 

SUBJECT: REPORT ON MATTERS RELATED TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND INVESTIGATIONS ARISING OUT OF THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS 

The attached report is submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c), which states that, "[a]t the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he ... shall provide the Attorney General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel." In addition to the confidential report required by section 600.8(c), the Attorney General has directed that the Special Counsel, "to the maximum extent possible and consistent with the law and the policies and practices of the Department of Justice, shall submit to the Attorney General a final report . .. in a form that will permit public dissemination."1 This two-part report (Unclassified Report and Classified Appendix) is presented in fulfillment of these requirements and sets forth our principal findings and recommendations concerning the matters that were the subject of our review. The principal report is confidential, but contains no classified information based on thorough, coordinated reviews of the information contained therein by the appropriate authorities within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. The Classified Appendix likewise has been coordinated with those same agencies for classification purposes.

 Our review and investigation, in turn has focused on separate but related questions, including the following:

 •
Was the opening of Crossfire Hurricane as a full investigation on July 31, 2016 consistent with how the FBI handled other intelligence it had received prior to July 31, 2016 concerning attempts by foreign interests to influence the Clinton and other campaigns?


• Was there adequate predication for the FBI to open the Crossfire Hurricane investigation from its inception on July 31, 2016 as a full counterintelligence and Foreign Agents

Similarly, did the FBI properly consider other highly significant intelligence it received at virtually the same time as that used to predicate Crossfire Hurricane, but which related not to the Trump campaign, but rather to a purported Clinton campaign plan "to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services," which might have shed light on some of the Russia information the FBI was receiving from third parties, including the Steele Dossier, the Alfa Bank allegations and confidential human source ("CHS") reporting? If not, were any provable federal crimes committed in failing to do so?

Was there evidence that the actions of any FBI personnel or third parties relating to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation violated any federal criminal statutes, including the prohibition against making false statements to federal officials? If so, was that evidence sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Was there evidence that the actions of the FBI or Department personnei in providing false or incomplete information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ("FISC") violated any federal criminal statutes? If so, was there evidence sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

 
Our findings and conclusions regarding these and related questions are sobering.

 

Monday, May 15, 2023

WIDE AWAKE MEDIA: RUTTE, SCHWAB, van MEIJEREN (CORONA CRISIS AND SPINOZA)

(6) The crime of treason can be committed only by subjects or citizens, people who have—either tacitly or through an explicit contract—transferred all their right to the State. A subject is said to have committed treason if he has in any way tried to seize the right of the supreme power for himself or to transfer it to someone else Why do I say ‘has tried’? Because if the traitor succeeds, it’s then too late for the State to charge him with treason because by then it has lost its power to do anything about it. ·That’s why nearly all active prosecutions for treason concern attempts, not successes·. Why do I say so strongly ‘has tried in any way’ to seize the right of the supreme power? I want the definition of treason to cover both attempted power-grabs that •harm the State and ones that perfectly clearly •work to the advantage of the State. Even in a case of the latter kind, the person has committed treason and is rightly condemned. 

(...) 

 [203] This lets us conceive the right and authority of the State to be pretty broad, but it will never be broad enough to give the government power to do absolutely anything that it wants to do. I have already shown this clearly enough, I think. And I’ve said that it’s not part of my plan to show how, ·despite this limit on State power·, a State could be formed that would be securely preserved for ever. Still, my plan does require me to discuss ·a part of that large topic, namely· what the main things are that supreme powers ought to grant to subjects, in the interests of the greater security and advantage of the State 

 (...) That’s how it comes about that the people can often change tyrants but can’t ever destroy tyranny, changing a monarchic State into one of a different form. The English people have given us a deadly example of this truth, when they tried to find reasons to justify deposing their king [Charles I]. When they had removed him, they were utterly unable to change the form of the State. After much blood had been spilled, they reached the point where they hailed a new monarch under another name [Oliver Cromwell, whose title as a ruler was ‘Lord Protector’], as if the whole issue had only been about the name! The new monarch could survive only if he •wiped out the royal family, •killed the king’s friends and anyone suspected of friendship, and •launched a war ·against the Dutch·. He needed the war so as to •disturb the tranquillity of peace that is so conducive to murmurings of discontent, and to •confront the common people with urgent new crises that would steer their thoughts away from royal slaughter. The people didn’t realize until it was too late that in trying to further the well-being of their country they had achieved nothing except to violate the right of a legitimate king and make things worse than ever. So as soon as they could, they decided to retrace their steps, and didn’t rest until they saw things restored to their original condition.

 (...)

 As for the Estates of Holland, so far as we know they never had kings, but only counts, who were never given the rights of government. . . . [..228] They always reserved for themselves the authority to advise the counts of their duty, and held onto the power to •defend this authority of theirs and the freedom of the citizens, to •punish the counts if they degenerated into tyrants, and to •keep them under control in such a way that they couldn’t get anything done without the permission and approval of the Estates [= governing committees, not elected democratically but representative of the people as a whole.] Thus, the Estates always held the right of sovereignty—a right that the last count tried to usurp. So there was nothing wrong with their ·getting rid of him and· restoring their original State, which had almost been lost. These examples completely confirm my thesis that the form of each State must necessarily be retained, and that it can’t be changed without risking ruin for the whole State.

Treatise on Theology and Politics Showing that piety and civil peace are not harmed by allowing freedom of thought, but are destroyed by the abolition of freedom of thought. Benedict (or Baruch) Spinoza

 


 

Thursday, May 11, 2023

PROPUESTA PARA UNA DIGITALIZACIÓN SOBERANA Y DEMOCRÁTICA EN EUROPA

NATURALEZA SANCIONADORA DE LA DECLARACIÓN DE RESPONSABILIDAD TRIBUTARIA SUBSIDIARIA


“La cuestión que presenta interés casacional objetivo para la formación de la jurisprudencia consiste en:

 2.1. Reafirmar, concretar o, en su caso, modificar la jurisprudencia existente sobre si la responsabilidad tributaria subsidiara contemplada en el artículo 43.1.a) de la LGT posee naturaleza sancionadora, en lo relativo a la deuda tributaria objeto de derivación. 

2.2. En el caso de que se confirme la naturaleza sancionadora de la responsabilidad subsidiaria referida, y, en atención a la misma, determinar si el inciso del artículo 212.3 de la LGT que impide la suspensión automática de la deuda tributaria objeto de derivación es compatible con el principio constitucional de igualdad. 

3º) Identificar como normas jurídicas que, en principio, habrán de ser objeto de interpretación los artículos 43.1.a) y 212.3 de la Ley 58/2003, de 17 de diciembre, General Tributaria (BOE de 18 de diciembre) a la luz de los artículos 14 y 31.1 de la Constitución española (BOE del 29 de diciembre).” Ello sin perjuicio de que la sentencia haya de extenderse a otras si así lo exigiere el debate finalmente trabado en el recurso, ex artículo 90.4 de la LJCA.”

En relación con la derivación de responsabilidad solidaria a los administradores al amparo del artículo42.1.a) LGT, así como su precedente normativo contenido en el artículo 38.1 de la Ley General Tributaria de 1963, la Sección Segunda de esta Sala Tercera del Tribunal Supremo se ha pronunciado, de manera recurrente, reconociendo que posee una naturaleza sancionadora, en consonancia con las sentencias del Tribunal Constitucional de 26 de abril de 1990 ( STC 76/1990, ECLI:ES:TC:1990:76) y de 27 de marzo de 2006(STC 85/2006, ECLI:ES:TC:2006:85). Así se declaró, entre otras, en las sentencias del Tribunal Supremo de 10de diciembre de 2008, FJ 3º, (rec. 3941/2006, ECLI:ES:TS:2008:7359), de 8 de diciembre de 2010, FJ 2º, (rec.4941/2007, ECLI:ES:TS:2010:6125), de 6 de julio de 2015, FJ 3º, (rec. 3418/2013, ECLI:ES:TS:2015:3318), de20 de septiembre de 2016, FJ 4º, (rec. 3521/2015, ECLI:ES:TS:2016:4144) y 5 de noviembre de 2020, FJ 5º,(rec. 1569/2018, ECLI:ES:TS:2020:3742).

No existen pronunciamientos del Tribunal Supremo sobre la naturaleza sancionadora o no del artículo 43.1.a) LGT. Y, así, debemos destacar que mientras que el artículo 42.1.a) LGT establece la derivación de responsabilidad solidaria a los administradores que tiene una conducta activa en la comisión de la infracción tributaria por parte de la sociedad, el artículo 43.1.a) LGT posibilita la derivación de responsabilidad subsidiaria a los administradores que con su conducta omisiva o pasiva posibilitan la comisión de la infracción. Se gradúala responsabilidad en solidaria o en subsidiaria en función de la conducta activa o pasiva del administrador en relación con la comisión de la infracción tributaria por parte de la sociedad.
Como consecuencia del reconocimiento de la naturaleza sancionadora, se ha declarado que resultan de aplicación a los supuestos de responsabilidad tributaria ex artículo 42.1.a) LGT las reglas, exigencias y principios del derecho sancionador, como, por ejemplo, el principio de tipicidad, el principio de culpabilidad o el principio non bis in idem. Y, respecto de la particular cuestión de la suspensión de la ejecutividad de actos de derivación de la responsabilidad tributaria hoy controvertida, la sentencia de 10 de diciembre de 2008, FJ3º, (rec. 3941/2006, ECLI:ES:TS:2008:7359) declaró lo siguiente:
(...)
Pues bien, este Tribunal Supremo en el reciente auto de 2 de febrero de 2022 (RCA/ 109/2021;ECLI:ES:TS:2022:992A) ha señalado lo siguiente:

"De la dicción literal de este precepto se desprende que aquellos actos de derivación de la responsabilidad dictados al amparo del artículo 42.1.a) LGT y que poseen, según la jurisprudencia citada anteriormente,naturaleza sancionadora, son ejecutivos desde que se dictan y, en lo relativo a la deuda tributaria derivada,no son susceptibles de ser suspendidos automáticamente por la interposición de recursos antes de adquirir firmeza en vía administrativa, constituyendo, de este modo, una excepción a la regla general de suspensión automática de las sanciones prevista en el artículo 212.3 de la LGT.

A la vista de lo expuesto, se plantean dudas sobre si la actual redacción del artículo 212.3 LGT afecta a la vigencia de la doctrina legal fijada por este Tribunal Supremo en lo concerniente a la naturaleza sancionadora del supuesto de responsabilidad del artículo 42.1.a) LGT, en relación con la deuda tributaria derivada y los efectos que la misma despliega.

Adicionalmente, si se confirmara la naturaleza sancionadora de la responsabilidad tributaria controvertida,cabría apreciar, también, la existencia de dudas sobre la compatibilidad de la redacción actualmente vigente del artículo 212.3 LGT con el principio constitucional de igualdad reconocido en el artículo 14 CE y, en el específico ámbito tributario, en el artículo 31.1 CE, todo ello en atención al diferente trato dispensado por aquella disposición ante situaciones que pueden considerarse semejantes. Por consiguiente, no es descartable la posibilidad de que, en su caso, resulte oportuno el planteamiento de una cuestión de inconstitucionalidad ante el Tribunal Constitucional".
Procede, pues, admitir el presente recurso de casación con el fin de que el Tribunal Supremo profundice en su labor de creación de la jurisprudencia y complete la misma en relación con la derivación de responsabilidad a los administradores por el supuesto previsto en el artículo 43.1.a) LGT.

El Auto reproducido debería poder invocarse como fumus boni iuris o apariencia de buen derecho en los recursos que se interpongan con solicitud de suspensión de la "sanción" (deuda derivada)

Wednesday, May 10, 2023

STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER (MAY 2023)

 


"...when you have free money, people do stupid things. When you have free money for 11 years, people do really stupid things. So there's stuff under the hood, it's starting to emerge. Obviously the regional banks recently, we had Bed Bath and Beyond.

But I would assume there's a lot more bodies coming."

He also criticized US fiscal policy.

“We wasted all our bullets” in an economic expansion, he said, worrying about the fiscal situation.

“It’s a scary cocktail that we’re being presented with.”

He added that he wouldn’t be surprised if the “bean counters” a year from now find that the recession started in the second quarter.

“I don’t know that, but I do this for a living and I’ve got to have a forecast,” he says.

Druckenmiller took a shot at the talking heads endlessly repeating that this is nothing like 2008, pointing out that he doesn’t remember them predicting the crash then either.

“It’s naïve not to be open-minded to something really bad happening,” Druckenmiller says.

 

 

Tuesday, May 9, 2023

Monetary Tightening and U.S. Bank Fragility in 2023 (II)

Monetary Tightening and U.S. Bank Fragility in 2023 (I)

 Monetary Tightening and U.S. Bank Fragility in 2023:
Mark-to-Market Losses and Uninsured Depositor Runs?

Abstract

We analyze U.S. banks’ asset exposure to a recent rise in the interest rates with implications for financial stability. The U.S. banking system’s market value of assets is $2.2 trillion lower than suggested by their book value of assets accounting for loan portfolios held to maturity. Marked-to-market bank assets have declined by an average of 10% across all the banks, with the bottom 5th percentile experiencing a decline of 20%. Most of these asset declines were not hedged by banks with use of interest rate derivatives. We illustrate in a simple model that uninsured leverage (i.e., Uninsured Debt/Assets) is the key to understanding whether these losses would lead to some banks in the U.S. becoming insolvent-- unlike insured depositors, uninsured depositors stand to lose a part of their deposits if the bank fails, potentially giving them incentives to run. We show that a bank’s survival depends on the market beliefs about the share of uninsured depositors who will withdraw money following a decline in the market value of bank assets. If interest rate increases are small such that the bank’s decline in asset values is relatively small, there is no risk of a run equilibrium. However, for sufficiently high increases in interest rates, we have multiple equilibria in which uninsured depositor run making banks insolvent (i.e., a “bad” run equilibrium) becomes a possibility. Banks with smaller initial capitalization and higher uninsured leverage have a smaller range of beliefs supporting a “good” no run equilibrium, increasing their fragility to uninsured depositor runs. A case study of the recently failed Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) is illustrative. 10 percent of banks have larger unrecognized losses than those at SVB. Nor was SVB the worst capitalized bank, with 10 percent of banks having lower capitalization than SVB. On the other hand, SVB had a disproportional share of uninsured funding: only 1 percent of banks had higher uninsured leverage. Combined, losses and uninsured leverage provide incentives for an SVB uninsured depositor run. We compute similar incentives for the sample of all U.S. banks. Even if only half of uninsured depositors decide to withdraw, almost 190 banks with assets of $300 billion are at a potential risk of impairment, meaning that the mark-to-market value of their remaining assets after these withdrawals will be insufficient to repay all insured deposits. If uninsured deposit withdrawals cause even small fire sales, substantially more banks are at risk. Regions with lower household incomes and large shares of minorities are more exposed to the bank risk. We also show that decline in banks’ asset values eroded the ability of banks to withstand adverse credit events – focusing on commercial real estate loans. Overall, these calculations suggest that recent declines in bank asset values very significantly increased the fragility of the US banking system to uninsured depositor runs.

Keywords: Monetary Tightening, Uninsured Depositors, Runs

JEL Classification: G2, L5

Jiang, Erica Xuewei and Matvos, Gregor and Piskorski, Tomasz and Seru, Amit, Monetary Tightening and U.S. Bank Fragility in 2023: Mark-to-Market Losses and Uninsured Depositor Runs? (March 13, 2023). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4387676 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4387676

Monday, May 8, 2023

ANÁLISIS DE LAS VACUNAS mRNA COVID-19 LOTE A LOTE (SASHA LATYPOVA, 8-05-2023)

 

Analysis of mRNA Injections Lot-to-Lot

Republishing vax lot analyses from VAERS data 



Note: this is a summary of my historical analyses of vax batches. Batches or lots of pharmaceutical products are supposed to be single production runs with traceability of all intermediate steps and raw materials all the way back to specific production lines and suppliers.

Recently, the FDA "authorized" (fake-authorized as they do not regulate countermeasures) the continuous (non-batched) mRNA products. I noted that Pfizer have been producing non-batched “batches” even in 2022, such as lot FL0007 was produced over 6 months, has several expiration dates and 12+ million doses. That’s not a batch, that’s a production that is operating for several months where everything is labeled with the same number. Therefore, going forward we will not have the batch analysis method of finding manufacturing fraud anymore. The FDA has destroyed the consumer protections and nobody should trust them ever again with any product, until we can hold them accountable for their actions.

While I no longer focus on CDC VAERS database, I did a lot of data analyses in 2021 and 2022 identifying manufacturing inconsistency and lack of compliance with the current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) observable immediately post the mRNA/DNA injections rollout. I used VAERS database to study variability of serious adverse events (life-threatening, disability, miscarriages, hospitalizations, ER visits or doctor visits) and deaths based on lot numbers. Lot or batch numbers represent vials produced and filled in a single production run (batch) and are printed on vials, and are supposed to be recorded on the vax cards and in vax injury reports. People do not always have the vax card when filling VAERS reports, so often they are missing. In many cases they appear to be mistyped. I say “appear” because many investigators, including myself detected algorithmic manipulation of VAERS data and it is likely that CDC changes the lot numbers to further obfuscate the detection of safety signals.

 

Around that time, I met Craig Paardekooper a pharmacy student from the UK who had to leave the university due to the vax mandates. We collaborated with a few other database/software/data analysts under the name “Team Enigma”. Our work focused on trying to understand the relationship between the adverse event data and manufacturing lots of the injections being deployed worldwide.

We now know it is a weaponized tech in a vial, but back in 2021 we were still naive and thinking this was supposed to be a pharmaceutical product. Craig put up a website How Bad Is Your Batch (www.howbad.info) to present the data to the public. It has since grown to a very successful educational and data resource, with a record 13 million visits in January 2023 and over 110 million visits since inception. The website presents a huge amount of collective research and record of the worldwide genocide unfolding.

 

BACKGROUND:

CPG Sec. 420.100 Adulteration of Drugs Under Section 501(b) and 501(c) of the Act. *Direct Reference Seizure Authority for Adulterated Drugs Under Section 501(b)*

Section 501(b) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) deems an official drug (i.e., a drug purported to be or represented as a drug the name of which is recognized in an official compendium) to be adulterated if it fails to conform to compendial standards of quality, strength or purity. Compendial tests or assay methods are used when determining such conformance under 501(b); the standards are stated in individual monographs as well as portions of the General Notices section of the USP/NF. Standards and test methods have been established for such characteristics as potency, sterility, *dissolution*, weight variation and content uniformity.

If an official drug fails to conform to one or more compendial standards of strength, quality or purity, but plainly states on the label how it differs from the standard, then the drug is not deemed to be adulterated under Section 501(b).

Section 501(c) of the Act deems *a drug that is not recognized in an official compendium to be adulterated if it fails to meet the strength, purity or quality which it purports or is represented to possess. The applicable quality standards for a drug not recognized in an official compendium can be determined from such sources as the labeling of the drug (or drug product), the manufacturer’s written specifications, and new drug applications. (Test methods are usually contained in the written specifications or new drug application).*

POLICY:

Any official drug which, when tested by compendial methods, fails to conform to compendial standards for quality, strength, or purity, is adulterated unless the differences from such standards are plainly stated on the drug’s label.

Any *drug which is not recognized in an official compendium is adulterated if its strength differs from, or its purity or quality falls below that which it purports or is represented to possess, when tested by scientifically sound methods.*

RELEVANT CASES:

FDA Warning Letters for Batch Variability / Deviations from Good Manufacturing Practices – Adulterated Drug

Firm in question failed to thoroughly investigate any unexplained discrepancy or failure of a batch or any of its components to meet any of its specifications, whether or not the batch has already been distributed (21 CFR 211.192).

https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/aurolife-pharma-llc-607087-10162020

https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/pfizer-healthcare-india-private-limited-594972-03252020

Charges of Conspiracy to Defraud the FDA due to Adulterated Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/pr/bucks-county-drug-manufacturer-and-two-executives-charged-conspiracy-defraud-fda

Settlement of $600M Civil Settlement Plus $150M in Criminal Fines from GlaxoSmithKline Due to Adulterated Drug Product from Issues Related to cGMP:

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/financial-crimes-report-2010-2011

Lot-to-lot analyses of Covid-19 Injections:

The dataset was downloaded from the VAERS website (as of December 10, 2021), limited to the reports submitted from the United States only. Summary of findings:

  1. The total number of adverse events, serious adverse events and deaths reported in lots of COVID-19 vaccines over the period of <12 months were much higher than the total number of these events reported in lots of seasonal flu vaccines over the total available time (approx. 30 years). A very large difference exists for every assessed category: total as well as maximum and average per lot adverse events, serious adverse events, and deaths.

  2. Excessive variation of adverse events, serious adverse events, and deaths between lots of COVID-19 vaccines appears to stand in stark contrast to much lower variation of adverse events associated with the lots of the seasonal flu vaccines reported over a 30-year period. This finding indicated that the manufacturing process for Covid 19 vaccines is not compliant with the current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) laws.

These results indicate unusual and alarming data patterns in the adverse event and deaths reporting from covid vaccines associated with specific lot numbers.  These findings are easy to detect and obvious, yet no regulatory or public health agency have “detected” these signals to date.  This willful inaction speaks even louder than my numbers do. 

Results:

The datasets after data downloaded from VAERS.

*Unvalidated – i.e. lots that are present in VAERS database, raw output which contains many apparently mistyped lots. This does not matter when comparing with the flu vaccine datasets that have the same signal/noise issue - apparently large percentage of “mistyped” lot numbers. This issue does not affect the lot numbers that are associated with high numbers of adverse events and deaths.

**Numbers of events reported to VAERS in each category. Remove “unknown”, “none”, reports with missing data and some obvious typos. 

As of December 3, 2021, the data comparing COVID-19 vaccine lots to seasonal flu vaccine lots from over 30 years showed the following. This data was included in Senator Johnson’s oversight letter sent to the FDA and CDC officials in December 2021 (he subsequently sent 40+ letters which were mostly ignored or given dishonest, gaslighting responses):

I found that over 30 years, the seasonal flu vaccine has never had more than 137 total (including non-serious) adverse events reported for a single lot.  However, according to VAERS data, in less than one year, 5,297 adverse events were associated with one lot of the COVID-19 vaccines (Moderna 039K20A).  The analysis further shows that approximately 80% of U.S.-only adverse events reported on VAERS for COVID-19 vaccines are associated with approximately only 1% of vaccine lot numbers, and approximately 80% of serious adverse events (those involving emergency room visits, hospitalization, or death) are associated with approximately only 5% of vaccine lot numbers. 

Lot-to-Lot Variability for Covid-19 Injections vs Seasonal Flu Vaccines

This part of my analysis was primarily concerned with manufacturing quality, stability, reproducibility, and other factors that relate to the consistency of the manufactured product lot-to-lot. 

Vaccine manufacturing is a regulated industry.  It is nonetheless expected that the products are manufactured in a high-quality manufacturing environment with conformity of the product lot-to-lot. 

Pharmaceutical product batches are expected to fall within certain narrow limits of variability on a set of controlled parameters between production lots. There is expectation and assurance from the manufacturers and regulators that the product sampled from different production lots will be essentially the same.  In addition, there is assurance from manufacturers and public health authorities that Covid-19 vaccines can be used interchangeably from different manufacturers. There are no clinical studies demonstrating this, however, the public is expected to take the manufacturers’ and health authorities’ word for it.

To investigate the lot-to-lot variability for Covid-19 vaccines in comparison to the seasonal flu vaccines, I first plotted Serious Adverse Events for all manufacturing lot numbers in the Seasonal Flu dataset, sorted alphabetically:

Seasonal Flu Vaccines, All Lots with Non-Zero Serious Adverse Events

Next, I created the same plot for the Covid-19 Vaccine dataset, looking at the Serious Adverse Events/manufacturing lot, sorted alphabetically.

Covid-19 Injections Dataset Lot-to-Lot:

To summarize the differences in manufacturing lot-to-lot variability between these datasets, I compared coefficient of variation for each dataset. The coefficient of variation (CV) is a relative measure of variability that indicates the size of a standard deviation in relation to its mean. It is a standardized, unitless measure that allows one to compare variability between disparate groups and characteristics. It is often expressed in percentages.  The results demonstrate that the Covid-19 dataset the CV is up to 12 times greater that that for the seasonal flu vaccines dataset.

In conclusion, the Covid-19 vaccines do not demonstrate consistency in manufacturing lot-to-lot.  This result puts in question whether manufacturing for these products that are being injected into millions of people, including young healthy adults, children and pregnant women are compliant or consistent with manufacturing quality standards expected from medicines.  The public is under assumption that these vaccines are safe, effective, and produced with the highest standards of quality.  My analysis demonstrates that this is not the case based on the real-world outcomes data.  These findings are very alarming and require investigation.  

Sasha Latypova