A question I have not seen but think is critical;
How can the IRS go after anyone for taxes owed between 10 and 20 years ago?
Is there no statute of limitations?
IRS says Microsoft owes an additional $29B in back taxes
21–30 of 36 posts
Re: IRS says Microsoft owes an additional $29B in back taxes
#22So send the majority shareholders and directors to jail until everything is paid in full, including interest on it. Corporations are people after all
I’m baffled by your comment. This wouldn’t benefit the government at all. They just want their money and wouldn’t want to collapse a major American enterprise over money they will collect by any means necessary.
It might encourage other companies to pay their taxes though.
Re: IRS says Microsoft owes an additional $29B in back taxes
#23A question I have not seen but think is critical; How can the IRS go after anyone for taxes owed between 10 and 20 years ago? Is there no statute of limitations?
IMHO it doesn't make it a less of a crime if it happened 10+ years ago.
Tax fraud is robbing society, and no matter who they are, everyone should pay a fair share if they wish to participate with said society.
Re: IRS says Microsoft owes an additional $29B in back taxes
#24A question I have not seen but think is critical; How can the IRS go after anyone for taxes owed between 10 and 20 years ago? Is there no statute of limitations?
IMHO it doesn't make it a less of a crime if it happened 10+ years ago. Tax fraud is robbing society, and no matter who they are, everyone should pay a fair share if they wish to participate with said society.
Especially considering the amounts involved. Going after an individual because they made a mistake in their taxes 20 years ago is one thing. Going after one of the biggest company in the world because they have 29B to give it’s another.
Re: IRS says Microsoft owes an additional $29B in back taxes
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m baffled by your comment. This wouldn’t benefit the government at all. They just want their money and wouldn’t want to collapse a major American enterprise over money they will collect by any means necessary.
It's just a classic social media hot take with no thought behind it, designed to get that instant sweet dopamine from upvotes rather than advance the discussion. 30 years of the web and we still haven't worked out how to discourage this (HN does a better job than most though)
It's a sign of people's discontent with corporation blatantly avoiding laws - especially taxation - when they get punished due to smallest mistakes.
Hiding it from online discourse does not change that.
I'm not disputing it that it's completely useless to do so online.
Re: IRS says Microsoft owes an additional $29B in back taxes
#26A question I have not seen but think is critical; How can the IRS go after anyone for taxes owed between 10 and 20 years ago? Is there no statute of limitations?
Generally the limitation on back taxes is 10 years according to this source[1], but there is no limitation in the case of filing a fraudulent or false return or willfully attempting to evade tax. [2] is the official source. I dug around a bit and it looks like it is the same for businesses as individuals although I haven't got a source that says that crisply.
[1] https://www.findlaw.com/tax/tax-problems-audits/what-is-the-.... [2] https://www.irs.gov/filing/statutes-of-limitations-for-asses...
Re: IRS says Microsoft owes an additional $29B in back taxes
#27So send the majority shareholders and directors to jail until everything is paid in full, including interest on it. Corporations are people after all
1. Corporations aren't people in every possible sense. Consider most of what you might read random sources say on the internet about corporate personhood to be probably nonsense.
2. Shareholders aren't officers (in the general case), so won't have been part of the decision-making or execution processes that led to this fraud (if that's what it is). So my understanding is they can be deemed to have been "unjustly enriched" by it (and so have stuff taken away from them that they shouldn't have) but can't be held personally liable in the sense that they would be jailed. To do that would be grossly unfair.
Consider that the biggest shareholders of any major corporation are going to be pension funds and the like. So you've got say the California State Teachers Pension (Picking one at random to be specific). You think they should go to jail because their mandate says they have to track the S&P500 to within some % and so they bought MSFT because it's part of the S&P500?
Re: IRS says Microsoft owes an additional $29B in back taxes
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m baffled by your comment. This wouldn’t benefit the government at all. They just want their money and wouldn’t want to collapse a major American enterprise over money they will collect by any means necessary.
It might encourage other companies to pay their taxes though.
Why would it? The people who made the decision not to pay are the executives not the shareholders. It's the same situation as if you ask if you can borrow 10 dollars so I lend you 10 dollars, then you don't pay your taxes and they put me in jail for it.
By all means hold executives accountable. If some of them did criminal things they should face criminal consequences - I'm all for that. Up to and including jail time. But sending shareholders to jail for something a company does is crazy unless they are also somehow complicit in it.
Re: IRS says Microsoft owes an additional $29B in back taxes
#29So send the majority shareholders and directors to jail until everything is paid in full, including interest on it. Corporations are people after all
[deleted]
Re: IRS says Microsoft owes an additional $29B in back taxes
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m baffled by your comment. This wouldn’t benefit the government at all. They just want their money and wouldn’t want to collapse a major American enterprise over money they will collect by any means necessary.
It's just a classic social media hot take with no thought behind it, designed to get that instant sweet dopamine from upvotes rather than advance the discussion. 30 years of the web and we still haven't worked out how to discourage this (HN does a better job than most though)
I read it as simple satire.
(Not simple in a judgmental sense, just, as plain old satire.)