4 ms·

Tax dodging is also against the spirit of the law, which is a direct result of companies lobbying for loopholes they can use. Said companies are the initiators,

by Aoyagi 11y ago

Tax dodging is also against the spirit of the law, which is a direct result of companies lobbying for loopholes they can use. Said companies are the initiators, not the corrupt/dumb politicians (who are, of course, also to blame).

crusso 11y ago
It's not "tax dodging", it's "tax avoidance", since what they've done is not only legal, but it's the expected and allowed behavior under tax law adjudication in the USA. You misunderstand how tax laws work to think that there is some "spirit of the law" that individuals or corporate entities should be attempting to follow. There are simply the rules that must be followed and some wiggle room in how those rules are interpreted. A "spirit" implies that there is some sort of equality between parties and a mutual understanding of something not quite written down. That's not the way that a judge views tax law. If the IRS can't clearly show how rules have been broken, then the IRS has no claim. The government/IRS write the rules and they're expected to write rules in a watertight fashion, not some vague "spirit of the agreement" fashion. If the government or IRS fails to do so, it's not viewed as the tax avoider's problem. At the end of the day, tax accountants and tax attorneys are trained and paid to ensure that you (or your company) don't pay a penny more of taxes than are explicitly required by the law and it would be unethical for them to do otherwise.
- Aoyagi 11y ago
  >It's not "tax dodging", it's "tax avoidance" Ah, I see why someone like you would think it's completely acceptable. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dodge http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dodge >dodge >1 - Avoid (someone or something) by a sudden quick movement: ... I know the US judiciary system works with the laws by the letter. And I know that examples like this prove again and again that it's not always the optimal way to do things. Sometimes I wonder why people think USA is that different from Russia. Ethics are non-existent in both countries.
  - crusso 11y ago
    Go for a dictionary that defines dodge wrt to taxation: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/tax-dodge http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/ta... It's a technique that can be illegal. That's not what Google has done. Google has used tax avoidance. More info on Tax Avoidance vs Evasion (which is what a Tax Dodge commonly refers to): https://www.translegal.com/legal-english-lessons/tax-avoidance https://www.translegal.com/legal-english-lessons/tax-avoidan... Sometimes I wonder why people think USA is that different from Russia. Ethics are non-existent in both countries. You're confused about the greater ethical question here. The ethical question of whether or not a company should pay its "fair share" of taxes is below the ethical question of "How should laws be enforced by a Government that can use deadly force and incarceration to achieve its aims?" The Government writes the laws and has all the power. It is absolutely incumbent upon the Government to make the laws clear and not try to enforce their whims based upon flimsy unwritten "spirit of the law" arguments.
    - Aoyagi 11y ago
      Yes, it can be illegal. But it also can be legal. Therefore it's exactly what's Google done. I'm talking in normal English, not in American lawyers' English. But sure, keep being an apologist and call people who blame, among other things, the actual source of the problems "confused". Oh wait, you don't seem to consider that a problem. You just shift the entirety of the blame on some theoretical "Government" entity, because that entity didn't think of every imaginable and unimaginable way one could circumvent a law, while still keeping the laws clear. Then I'm sorry, we have nothing more to talk about.
      - crusso 11y ago
        "that entity didn't think of every imaginable and unimaginable way one could circumvent a law" That is factually untrue of the loopholes exploited. Many of these loopholes were put in place explicitly to benefit the cronyists. Others have been in place for some time, but the lawmakers and the IRS don't want to fix them. Government has the power. They write the laws. They even make the rules regarding legal lobbying. Blaming the corporations that legally lobby and follow the tax laws is like blaming a child who acts like a brat because his parents are crappy parents. You blame the rule makers and those in power a great deal more than you blame those who are just following the rules.

by Aoyagi 11y ago

crusso 11y ago

It's not "tax dodging", it's "tax avoidance", since what they've done is not only legal, but it's the expected and allowed behavior under tax law adjudication in the USA. You misunderstand how tax laws work to think that there is some "spirit of the law" that individuals or corporate entities should be attempting to follow. There are simply the rules that must be followed and some wiggle room in how those rules are interpreted. A "spirit" implies that there is some sort of equality between parties and a mutual understanding of something not quite written down. That's not the way that a judge views tax law. If the IRS can't clearly show how rules have been broken, then the IRS has no claim. The government/IRS write the rules and they're expected to write rules in a watertight fashion, not some vague "spirit of the agreement" fashion. If the government or IRS fails to do so, it's not viewed as the tax avoider's problem. At the end of the day, tax accountants and tax attorneys are trained and paid to ensure that you (or your company) don't pay a penny more of taxes than are explicitly required by the law and it would be unethical for them to do otherwise.

Aoyagi 11y ago
>It's not "tax dodging", it's "tax avoidance" Ah, I see why someone like you would think it's completely acceptable. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dodge http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dodge >dodge >1 - Avoid (someone or something) by a sudden quick movement: ... I know the US judiciary system works with the laws by the letter. And I know that examples like this prove again and again that it's not always the optimal way to do things. Sometimes I wonder why people think USA is that different from Russia. Ethics are non-existent in both countries.
- crusso 11y ago
  Go for a dictionary that defines dodge wrt to taxation: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/tax-dodge http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/ta... It's a technique that can be illegal. That's not what Google has done. Google has used tax avoidance. More info on Tax Avoidance vs Evasion (which is what a Tax Dodge commonly refers to): https://www.translegal.com/legal-english-lessons/tax-avoidance https://www.translegal.com/legal-english-lessons/tax-avoidan... Sometimes I wonder why people think USA is that different from Russia. Ethics are non-existent in both countries. You're confused about the greater ethical question here. The ethical question of whether or not a company should pay its "fair share" of taxes is below the ethical question of "How should laws be enforced by a Government that can use deadly force and incarceration to achieve its aims?" The Government writes the laws and has all the power. It is absolutely incumbent upon the Government to make the laws clear and not try to enforce their whims based upon flimsy unwritten "spirit of the law" arguments.
  - Aoyagi 11y ago
    Yes, it can be illegal. But it also can be legal. Therefore it's exactly what's Google done. I'm talking in normal English, not in American lawyers' English. But sure, keep being an apologist and call people who blame, among other things, the actual source of the problems "confused". Oh wait, you don't seem to consider that a problem. You just shift the entirety of the blame on some theoretical "Government" entity, because that entity didn't think of every imaginable and unimaginable way one could circumvent a law, while still keeping the laws clear. Then I'm sorry, we have nothing more to talk about.
    - crusso 11y ago
      "that entity didn't think of every imaginable and unimaginable way one could circumvent a law" That is factually untrue of the loopholes exploited. Many of these loopholes were put in place explicitly to benefit the cronyists. Others have been in place for some time, but the lawmakers and the IRS don't want to fix them. Government has the power. They write the laws. They even make the rules regarding legal lobbying. Blaming the corporations that legally lobby and follow the tax laws is like blaming a child who acts like a brat because his parents are crappy parents. You blame the rule makers and those in power a great deal more than you blame those who are just following the rules.