4 ms·

I heard someone related to the Paris office raid comment when that happened. She was saying that multinational corporations always say that their organization a

I heard someone related to the Paris office raid comment when that happened. She was saying that multinational corporations always say that their organization and tax schemes are legal but that in reality it's so complex and spread in multiple countries that nobody really knows for sure and so it's only legal by default.

adrianN 10y ago
Isn't that true for almost everything though? The laws are so complex that no normal citizen can understand them. Even lawyers seem to disagree now and then.
- Trombone12 10y ago
  No, the laws are complex when dealing with complex situations and ownership graphs of companies can be basically any finite directed graph. But obviously most ownership is a simple two node thing with a single directed edge connecting the nodes. These are simple to decide if they are legal.
  - tvanantwerp 10y ago
    Unfortunately, law can still be complex in what seems like a simple situation. Statutes aren't exactly written with strongly-typed languages or run against integration tests before being passed. Laws are often vague and difficult to precisely interpret, and they usually have unintended consequences. This is true regardless of the complexity of the situation to which the law is applied.
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      Add to this words attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte: "A Constitution should be short and obscure." Tax raids are often a symptom of such legislative tradition where laws are written so as to allow authorities to apply loopholes to get their way (as opposed to loopholes for citizens or companies). In my country (Finland) there are practically none, and the tax collection procedure is very effective. This amount of control comes at a price, of course; regulation is predictable but there's a lot of it (and recently the development has been towards more and more rapid and unpredictable changes, often somewhat to do with how to apply EU regulations).
    - flukus 10y ago
      Integration/unit test would be great for law, we could easily see the intended scope and limits of legal changes.
- dluan 10y ago
  Tax law is a math problem. Google is a company run by math nerds. Of course they are going to solve for X.
  - collyw 10y ago
    Its also a law problem, so I would have expected Apple to have solved it first.
    - jldugger 10y ago
      Well, the Double Irish was invented by Apple...
axlee 10y ago
Every company says what they are doing is legal until someone figures out it's actually not...
- ptaipale 10y ago
  And typically, when some non-government organisation campaigning for higher taxes claims that company X is doing tax evasion for Y billion €, and the matter is investigated by tax authorities and arbitrated by courts, then in the end the outcome is that some decisions and definitions done by X are not according to the interpretation of law, but the final impact is about 0.001 Y, and this is just a matter of reasonably differing views on interpretation of law, and no crime has been committed.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
> so it's only legal by default. The idea that bureaucrats can make enough laws that we know exactly what action ever taken in the future is "illegal or not" is pure Orwellian. Most things in life are legal by default. This is no different.
- collyw 10y ago
  Actually I read somewhere that it differs by country. I think the UK is legal by default unless the law specifically makes it illegal. While in Germany its illegal by default unless it is specifically made legal. (I am no expert, it was probably a comment I read on here).
  - pherq 10y ago
    It's part of an old joke (crops up in Yes Minister, may go back further): in Germany, everything is prohibited except that which is allowed; in the UK, everything is allowed except that which is prohibited; in Russia, everything is prohibited including that which is allowed, while in Italy everything is allowed especially that which is prohibited.
    - collyw 10y ago
      Wikipidia says it is partially true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbid...
jimmywanger 10y ago
Tax laws are NP-complete systems. Every time you pass a new law you have to think about how it interacts with all other current laws, and how it affects how current laws affect each other. Passing more laws just inhibits small businesses. As said before, big businesses are able to afford the small army of accountants and lawyers to navigate the lawyers, whereas small businesses just kind of have to take it. Sort of how the super rich are able to pay a lower tax rate than a solidly middle class family.

adrianN 10y ago

Isn't that true for almost everything though? The laws are so complex that no normal citizen can understand them. Even lawyers seem to disagree now and then.

Trombone12 10y ago
No, the laws are complex when dealing with complex situations and ownership graphs of companies can be basically any finite directed graph. But obviously most ownership is a simple two node thing with a single directed edge connecting the nodes. These are simple to decide if they are legal.
- tvanantwerp 10y ago
  Unfortunately, law can still be complex in what seems like a simple situation. Statutes aren't exactly written with strongly-typed languages or run against integration tests before being passed. Laws are often vague and difficult to precisely interpret, and they usually have unintended consequences. This is true regardless of the complexity of the situation to which the law is applied.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Add to this words attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte: "A Constitution should be short and obscure." Tax raids are often a symptom of such legislative tradition where laws are written so as to allow authorities to apply loopholes to get their way (as opposed to loopholes for citizens or companies). In my country (Finland) there are practically none, and the tax collection procedure is very effective. This amount of control comes at a price, of course; regulation is predictable but there's a lot of it (and recently the development has been towards more and more rapid and unpredictable changes, often somewhat to do with how to apply EU regulations).
  - flukus 10y ago
    Integration/unit test would be great for law, we could easily see the intended scope and limits of legal changes.
dluan 10y ago
Tax law is a math problem. Google is a company run by math nerds. Of course they are going to solve for X.
- collyw 10y ago
  Its also a law problem, so I would have expected Apple to have solved it first.
  - jldugger 10y ago
    Well, the Double Irish was invented by Apple...

axlee 10y ago

Every company says what they are doing is legal until someone figures out it's actually not...

ptaipale 10y ago
And typically, when some non-government organisation campaigning for higher taxes claims that company X is doing tax evasion for Y billion €, and the matter is investigated by tax authorities and arbitrated by courts, then in the end the outcome is that some decisions and definitions done by X are not according to the interpretation of law, but the final impact is about 0.001 Y, and this is just a matter of reasonably differing views on interpretation of law, and no crime has been committed.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

> so it's only legal by default. The idea that bureaucrats can make enough laws that we know exactly what action ever taken in the future is "illegal or not" is pure Orwellian. Most things in life are legal by default. This is no different.

collyw 10y ago
Actually I read somewhere that it differs by country. I think the UK is legal by default unless the law specifically makes it illegal. While in Germany its illegal by default unless it is specifically made legal. (I am no expert, it was probably a comment I read on here).
- pherq 10y ago
  It's part of an old joke (crops up in Yes Minister, may go back further): in Germany, everything is prohibited except that which is allowed; in the UK, everything is allowed except that which is prohibited; in Russia, everything is prohibited including that which is allowed, while in Italy everything is allowed especially that which is prohibited.
  - collyw 10y ago
    Wikipidia says it is partially true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbid...

jimmywanger 10y ago

Tax laws are NP-complete systems. Every time you pass a new law you have to think about how it interacts with all other current laws, and how it affects how current laws affect each other. Passing more laws just inhibits small businesses. As said before, big businesses are able to afford the small army of accountants and lawyers to navigate the lawyers, whereas small businesses just kind of have to take it. Sort of how the super rich are able to pay a lower tax rate than a solidly middle class family.