It was determined in this particular case. But in many other cases, it was not, and this scheme was approved, for example, by PWC.
>>> This isn't a case of a company honestly trying to follow the law
First of all, this is not the case that we were discussing - it has very little to do with financial law. Secondly, in current climate, where companies can be sued for basically anything, given they have enough money to be attractive targets, of course that makes executives to try and minimize the exposure. Even though company is supposed to be able to choose their worker's pay as they please, obviously it is not so - the populist politicians want to mess with it to get themselves elected. And thus a savvy executive would certainly not want to make it too easy for them. It turns into an adversarial game, and the results are not good for anyone.
>>> If these companies think the laws are bad, it's not like large corporations have no political power. They're free to buy as many votes as they always do and get them changed.
That's what they are doing. That's where the regulatory capture comes from. As a result, the law becomes more and more complex, as each company and each interest group carves a loophole in the law for themselves and pours millions into buying off politicians. As a result, we get completely corrupt politicians, the law that is trying to serve a thousand of special interests and no longer has any connection to what was the original purpose of the law - to protect people's rights, huge barriers of entry to the competition, billions spent on political squabbles instead of doing something productive (think about how many people one could feed and clothe for the cost of one election campaign) and ultimately the consumers and taxpayers paying for all this baloney. And you response essentially is - if you don't like how we do it in America, GTFO? Is this really the best you can do?