101–110 of 219 posts
The title of the original article actually includes a prepended "How", which illustrates that it is primarily about the specific mechanisms of tax avoidance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Few people do. Most people attempt to fill out their returns in a rather straightforward manner as laid out by the forms. The loopholes are not published in the tax forms.
I don’t think it’s a few. Did you put money in a 401k? Did you buy a house and calculate the tax deduction? Did you hold onto a stock so you’d get the lower long term capital gains rate? Did you contribute to an HSA or FSA? The majority of people make decisions that optimize their tax rate.
Not by a long shot.
It's downright ridiculous to complain about companies taking perfectly legal steps to reduce their tax burden. As the oft-quoted US judge Learned Hand said: > Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is…
Often with complex tax schemes we don't know if they're legal or not because they haven't been tested in courts. Some governments focus on low-hanging fruit or on flagrant tax evasion. They don't want a long running court case costing millions with an uncertain outcome. So we never get to find out whether this scheme is legal avoidance or illegal evasion. But, even if it's legal avoidance: I pay my tax. Why shouldn't…
It wouldn’t be hard for the lawmakers to eliminate this uncertainty, they just want to remain competitive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really, it's simply indicative of a disagreement. wrong tends to suggest tax fraud.
I think you're being a little consciously naive. Choosing not to prosecute (especially because prosecuting tax fraud requires proof of willfulness) and simply collecting a tax deficit is pretty common, especially in cases of corporate tax evasion. The disagreement in this case is called a tax deficit, and is what I meant by wrong. It's also the first necessary part of tax fraud. EDIT: Also, if you read about the sour…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The company is currently under investigation by tax authorities in the UK, Sweden and France over alleged transfer pricing irregularities and is is facing a potential bill of over $1.1bn in back taxes and penalties. > In the United States, Activision Blizzard has recently settled a transfer pricing dispute with tax authorities for $345m. Maybe not so legal?
Hard to say before the courts decide. I've personally been through such disputes with tax authorities and prevailed.
Seems like you favour your own opinion before legal opinion.
F!ck you you little mercenary.
It's downright ridiculous to complain about companies taking perfectly legal steps to reduce their tax burden. As the oft-quoted US judge Learned Hand said: > Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is…
No it's not. That's how change happens. It's still perfectly legal to destroy the environment in many ways, it doesn't mean we can't complain about it. If we don't talk about it, nothing happens.
Now sometimes you have tax laws that are poorly designed, where we don't like what happens when people follow the incentives they create. Or other times you have tax laws where people debated about what things to incentivize, and one side won the debate, and you might be on the other side. It's perfectly fair to want to change them. But it doesn't really make sense to criticize people for responding to incentives per se.
It's downright ridiculous to complain about companies taking perfectly legal steps to reduce their tax burden. As the oft-quoted US judge Learned Hand said: > Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is…
No it's not. That's how change happens. It's still perfectly legal to destroy the environment in many ways, it doesn't mean we can't complain about it. If we don't talk about it, nothing happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem isn't with the corporations, the problem (if it exists at all!) may be with the legislation. Complain about the law. E: CogitoCogito is absolutely right, there are companies spending lots of money around the world to push these regulations. I just seriously doubt that Activision Blizzard is one of these.
Who do you think lobbies for such laws?
It's downright ridiculous to complain about companies taking perfectly legal steps to reduce their tax burden. As the oft-quoted US judge Learned Hand said: > Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is…
I say, if players are right to complain about rewarding the wrong skill in the games, the public is right to complain about business being rewarded for their tax evasion skills.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're being a little consciously naive. Choosing not to prosecute (especially because prosecuting tax fraud requires proof of willfulness) and simply collecting a tax deficit is pretty common, especially in cases of corporate tax evasion. The disagreement in this case is called a tax deficit, and is what I meant by wrong. It's also the first necessary part of tax fraud. EDIT: Also, if you read about the sour…
If it was a problem with “clear phrasing” it’d be called tax fraud, no?