Drawling on with small examples that seem obvious to you is worthless. It's not articulating anything, it's only proving the point that there is no real distinc

Drawling on with small examples that seem obvious to you is worthless. It's not articulating anything, it's only proving the point that there is no real distinction other than one method of paying the legally required amount of taxes feeling more icky to you than another. Is your line in the sand the involvement of accountants or lawyers? Any publicly traded company needs both of those anyway even if they have extremely boring returns. So what is it that draws the line for you?