4 ms·
But the point remains that their tax liability shouldn't decrease because of a fine due to wrongdoing. This is money that would have gone to the taxpayer in th
by athenot 11y ago
But the point remains that their tax liability shouldn't decrease because of a fine due to wrongdoing.
This is money that would have gone to the taxpayer in the form of benefits like security, education, infrastructure.
Contrast the corporation with the individual: any fines you may get from convictions don't reduce your own income tax liability…
- jonknee 11y agoThis was a negotiated settlement and apparently the government preferred getting a higher total and more money for relief than a lower total that was not tax deductible. It's not hard to see why.
- Vraxx 11y agoThey don't deduct the fine from their tax liability, they deduct the restitution payments from their tax liability. They are essentially being forced to "donate" $1.8B to those they wronged by their actions. Imagine if an individual were forced to make a charitable donation (in addition to being fined a certain amount) as a part of the the ruling. Despite being forced, it's still a tax deductable donation.