Microsoft SEC 8-K: IRS is seeking an additional tax payment of $29B • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft SEC 8-K: IRS is seeking an additional tax payment of $29B

#131

Post by dgellow » Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 10:21 AM UTC

not_your_vase wrote: post #96

> Not reflected in the proposed adjustments are taxes paid by Microsoft under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which could decrease the final tax owed under the audit by up to $10 billion. So even by Microsoft's own admission they owe around $20B (instead of $30B) which they "forgot" to pay. I 100% believe that it was a good faith mistake, and it still is.

They aren’t admitting, they are saying that if the proposed adjustment would be agreed upon they would end up paying less than the $30B mentioned.

Re: Microsoft SEC 8-K: IRS is seeking an additional tax payment of $29B

#132

Post by IshKebab » Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 10:24 AM UTC

realusername wrote: post #110

c0pium wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they are, it’s a contractual agreement that is within the law. The fact that you don’t like it could not be less relevant, you don’t matter. If the government doesn’t like the law, they can (try) to change it but that has to go through the actual process. They are welcome to be as mad as they want that their law is poorly written but it is still their law.

Every law is judged with the intent behind the action... except for taxes which is the single exception I know of. And here the intent is pretty clear.

No it's definitely true for taxes as well. Even on a tiny individual level you can argue with the tax authorities about whether something was purchased for business or personal use for example.

Re: Microsoft SEC 8-K: IRS is seeking an additional tax payment of $29B

#133

Post by Ylpertnodi » Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 10:34 AM UTC

xctr94 wrote: post #107

yieldcrv wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Why is it bad that corporations pay taxes? Ignoring your use of sexual language to that effect, I don’t see why companies get to use tax havens to avoid paying for the Common Good that serves everyone (regardless of how much % you think it should be).

[flagged]

Re: Microsoft SEC 8-K: IRS is seeking an additional tax payment of $29B

#134

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 10:35 AM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #119

realusername wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every law is judged with the intent behind the action... except for taxes which is the single exception I know of. And here the intent is pretty clear.

I hope (and think) that laws are judged primarily by their text and entirely so when it can be determined that the facts match the text even if many of us wish the text was different in light of these specific facts. Criminal trials carefully lay out how the state believes the actions of the accused meet each required element of the crime. They don’t get to say “Foo definitely killed Bar. The law intends for people t…

> If you rear-end me while I’m stopped at a light, your intent doesn’t matter, only your actions.

Bullshit. If you intended to do it, it’s something like assault or attempted murder. If you didn’t, it’s likely a civil traffic ticket and an insurance claim.

SCOTUS precedent permits use of legislative intent to resolve ambiguously worded legislation, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Southern_Pacific_Co...>

> The rule that penal statutes are to be construed strictly does not permit such a construction as defeats the obvious intention of the legislature.

Re: Microsoft SEC 8-K: IRS is seeking an additional tax payment of $29B

#135

Post by germandiago » Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 10:35 AM UTC

queuebert wrote: post #8

spandextwins wrote: post #3

Wow. “The IRS says Microsoft owes an additional $28.9 billion in tax for 2004 to 2013, plus penalties and interest.” No wonder why they’re talking about charging for windows 12 features, has to come from somewhere!

They have ~$35 billion in cash per their cash flow statement: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MSFT/cash-flow?p=MSFT They could in effect write a check today for it.

I know I am in the minority but I cannot understand how mercilessly taxing providers of services that improve our lives is not... theft, honestly.

It is not about how much money they make but about about a third party appropriating what a company that provides such a big value does because, hey, you are "stealing me because I exist"...

Now people will vote me negative, I know...

Re: Microsoft SEC 8-K: IRS is seeking an additional tax payment of $29B

#136

Post by test77777 » Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 10:35 AM UTC

When was the last time a major corporation went bankrupt for failing to pay its taxes?

Re: Microsoft SEC 8-K: IRS is seeking an additional tax payment of $29B

#137

Post by quickthrower2 » Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 10:42 AM UTC

swatcoder wrote: post #34

us0r wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have over 115 Billion cash on hand.

Yeah, and if that takes a $30B hit to settle past accounting issues, that’s still $30B no longer poised for an acquisition or on hand to settle some EU action next year. Losing a quarter of your cash reserves for no gain isn’t going to ruin today’s business but it sure will frustrate existing strategies for the future.

You can acquire with shares though. They or they could raise 30Bn pretty easy.

Re: Microsoft SEC 8-K: IRS is seeking an additional tax payment of $29B

#138

Post by tw04 » Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 10:43 AM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #119

realusername wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every law is judged with the intent behind the action... except for taxes which is the single exception I know of. And here the intent is pretty clear.

I hope (and think) that laws are judged primarily by their text and entirely so when it can be determined that the facts match the text even if many of us wish the text was different in light of these specific facts. Criminal trials carefully lay out how the state believes the actions of the accused meet each required element of the crime. They don’t get to say “Foo definitely killed Bar. The law intends for people t…

> If you rear-end me while I’m stopped at a light, your intent doesn’t matter, only your actions. If you fail to stop for a school bus displaying red stop lights, your intent doesn’t matter.

Huh? In both of these examples, intent 100% matters. If I rear ended you because I had a medical emergency vs I was texting on my phone vs I had a bout of road rage and wanted to kill you vs I know who you are and you’re sleeping with my wife so I followed you from work to try to kill you:

All VERY different levels of potential punishment based entirely on my intent.

Re: Microsoft SEC 8-K: IRS is seeking an additional tax payment of $29B

#139

Post by mathgeek » Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 10:48 AM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #119

realusername wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every law is judged with the intent behind the action... except for taxes which is the single exception I know of. And here the intent is pretty clear.

I hope (and think) that laws are judged primarily by their text and entirely so when it can be determined that the facts match the text even if many of us wish the text was different in light of these specific facts. Criminal trials carefully lay out how the state believes the actions of the accused meet each required element of the crime. They don’t get to say “Foo definitely killed Bar. The law intends for people t…

You should probably clarify that intent doesn’t matter in terms of baseline fault, as it definitely matters in terms of punishment and charges.

Re: Microsoft SEC 8-K: IRS is seeking an additional tax payment of $29B

#140

Post by spockz » Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 10:48 AM UTC

realusername wrote: post #110

c0pium wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they are, it’s a contractual agreement that is within the law. The fact that you don’t like it could not be less relevant, you don’t matter. If the government doesn’t like the law, they can (try) to change it but that has to go through the actual process. They are welcome to be as mad as they want that their law is poorly written but it is still their law.

Every law is judged with the intent behind the action... except for taxes which is the single exception I know of. And here the intent is pretty clear.

I think this is more of an Anglo-Saxon vs rest of Europe distinction. In UK (and presumably US) the letter of the law is more important than the intent. In the rest of Europe the intent is more important than the exact letter.

In both cases it is up to the judiciary to make the trade-off/judgement.