3 ms·

No, it isn't. Your statement is wrong and based on a flawed interpretation of Dodge v. Ford that makes the rounds on the Internet and refuses to die.

notacoward 10y ago
Thank you. Actions that are deemed to have been taken solely for their tax effects are clearly and explicitly deemed tax evasion by the IRS, and are prosecuted as such. I believe other countries have similar standards. There's a lot of room to give people the benefit of the doubt, e.g. by counting the good will from charitable activities as a credible alternate reason, but there's no license and certainly no requirement to cheat.
- ryanl0l 10y ago
  >Actions that are deemed to have been taken solely for their tax effects are clearly and explicitly deemed tax evasion by the IRS This is just not true.
  - notacoward 10y ago
    Here are some citations. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-58.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-58.pdf https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Guidance-for-Examiners-and-Managers-on-the-Codified-Economic-Substance-Doctrine-and-Related-Penalties https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Guidance-for-Examiners-and-Ma... Just look up "sham transaction" for plenty more. It's a very well established concept and doctrine. Nobody should be splitting hairs about avoiding vs. evading taxes, or generally pontificating about fiduciary duty, without understanding it.
    - ryanl0l 10y ago
      That's not what you said though. >Actions that are deemed to have been taken solely for their tax effects are clearly and explicitly deemed tax evasion by the IRS What you said would make almost all tax avoidance into tax evasion. Hell, even claiming deductions would by your logic be tax evasion.
      - notacoward 10y ago
        You didn't read the citations before saying that, did you?
        ryanl0l 10y ago
        The citations do not support your original claim.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
ryanl0l 10y ago
No? Could you expand on that a little please. Based on my reading there certainly exists such a duty when it's beneficial, obviously tax avoidance isn't explicitly beneficial though. Potential law changes or even bad press could cost more than the amount of money saved.

notacoward 10y ago

Thank you. Actions that are deemed to have been taken solely for their tax effects are clearly and explicitly deemed tax evasion by the IRS, and are prosecuted as such. I believe other countries have similar standards. There's a lot of room to give people the benefit of the doubt, e.g. by counting the good will from charitable activities as a credible alternate reason, but there's no license and certainly no requirement to cheat.

ryanl0l 10y ago
>Actions that are deemed to have been taken solely for their tax effects are clearly and explicitly deemed tax evasion by the IRS This is just not true.
- notacoward 10y ago
  Here are some citations. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-58.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-58.pdf https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Guidance-for-Examiners-and-Managers-on-the-Codified-Economic-Substance-Doctrine-and-Related-Penalties https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Guidance-for-Examiners-and-Ma... Just look up "sham transaction" for plenty more. It's a very well established concept and doctrine. Nobody should be splitting hairs about avoiding vs. evading taxes, or generally pontificating about fiduciary duty, without understanding it.
  - ryanl0l 10y ago
    That's not what you said though. >Actions that are deemed to have been taken solely for their tax effects are clearly and explicitly deemed tax evasion by the IRS What you said would make almost all tax avoidance into tax evasion. Hell, even claiming deductions would by your logic be tax evasion.
    - notacoward 10y ago
      You didn't read the citations before saying that, did you?
      - ryanl0l 10y ago
        The citations do not support your original claim.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

ryanl0l 10y ago

No? Could you expand on that a little please. Based on my reading there certainly exists such a duty when it's beneficial, obviously tax avoidance isn't explicitly beneficial though. Potential law changes or even bad press could cost more than the amount of money saved.