Ikea founder leaves fortune to no one, structures it to ensure it lasts forever

Post by pc86 » Fri, Feb 02, 2018, 3:20 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #154

saosebastiao wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you kidding me? Loopholes like that don't exist. The tax code starts from the assumption that you owe them money, but for very specific reasons allows you to deduct or credit from that amount owed. They simply do not naively put in deductions that shouldn't be there. The idea that "loopholes" are unintentional vulnerabilities is completely disconnected from reality.

The legislators intended that via a complex web of shell companies obscuring ultimate ownership no taxes would be owed? I call shenanigans.

Post by Scarblac » Fri, Feb 02, 2018, 3:21 PM UTC

Arnt wrote: post #87

viraptor wrote: post #45

> The foundation owns itself, so no Kamprad family members hold shares. Late stage capitalism... Anyway, I don't really get why the article claims he didn't care about money. It's known for a while that IKEA avoids taxes in many dodgy ways. If he really didn't care, the connected companies could pay a reasonable amount.

What is the reasonable amount for a company that pays its "owner" no dividend and apparently never will? This isn't empty rhetoric. Most countries extract tax as x% of turnover plus y% of dividend plus many smaller taxes. Kamprad structured his company to pay its "owner" nothing, which leaves VAT and the smaller taxes, and apparently the structure prevented his heirs from ever getting any financial benefit from Ikea.…

Post by Scarblac » Fri, Feb 02, 2018, 3:23 PM UTC

hjnilsson wrote: post #10

TorKlingberg wrote: post #8

So, who ultimately appoints the directors? It sounds like it is Kamprad's heirs, but through some layers of indirection that prevents them from meddling directly.

There have been many inquires into this by Swedish journalists over the years, but it's a very dense structure of companies with unclear ownership and structure. So who controls it is unknown. It is also a great tax evasion schema since the ownership is a charity (that donates money to "product design"), allowing IKEA to escape vast sums of taxation globally.

Post by bjourne » Fri, Feb 02, 2018, 3:28 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #134

bmelton wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you aren't seeking out the loopholes that apply to you, then you are paying more in taxes than you are legally required to. "legally required to" does not incur a balancing test between what is practicable vs the time it takes. If you're a regular, mid-income citizen, then there isn't likely to be a good ROI on hiring a dedicated accountant to find you loopholes. If you're making $200k a year, and you save 10%, ho…

If you aren't seeking out the loopholes that apply to you, then you are paying more in taxes than you are legally required to. Complete nonsense. Finding a loophole in the tax code is no different to finding a flaw in some computer code that gives you some access you were never intended to have. Should we all hire professional hackers too?

Post by grenoire » Fri, Feb 02, 2018, 3:32 PM UTC

kylnew wrote: post #152

Am I missing something or couldn’t a big enough company just buy out 51% of the owning companies and take over/shut down IKEA? This way his family still could get a fast payout if they all work together.