7 ms·

When Microsoft got dragged into court for their antitrust issues, wall street pointed out that it was partially because Microsoft didn't play politics. They di

When Microsoft got dragged into court for their antitrust issues, wall street pointed out that it was partially because Microsoft didn't play politics. They didn't employ lobbiest in any meaningful way, infact they ignored Washington altogether and just went about their business. Google and Facebook internalized this lesson and became two of the most politically connected companies and some of the biggest spenders on lobbyists in America. It turns out one good thing about the IRS is that it doesn't care much for politics or who is running the show, it just cares that it gets paid what it thinks its owed. Say what you will about the IRS but I think it might be one of the least political organizations in Washington. If the issue is that auditors are signing off on companies licensing its IP and trademarks way too cheaply to a wholly owned foreign subsidiary, then maybe the solution is to have auditors responsible for a portion of the taxes owed if the IRS challenges and wins. At the least it would start making auditors a more risk adverse. Here is a list of companeis with Irish subsidiaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_of_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_of_Ireland and check out the list of companies using the double Irish agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement There are alot of heavy hitters watching this case very carefully:)

zaroth 10y ago
> Say what you will about the IRS but I think it might be one of the least political organizations in Washington. I would so love for that to be the case. But I haven't forgotten the massive controversy surrounding IRS red-flagging tax-exempt applications based on their conservative ideology. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy
- popmystack 10y ago
  Except that's not what happened. It even states as much in the Wikipedia article you linked.
- beatpanda 10y ago
  > In January 2014, the FBI told Fox News that its investigation had found no evidence so far warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the scandal, as it had not found any evidence of "enemy hunting", and that the investigation continued. On October 23, 2015, the Justice Department declared that no criminal charges would be filed. But whatever, keep grinding that axe.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    Not all improper behavior is a crime you know. Even less is provably a crime. One of the IRS agents involved pled the fifth, which you can only do if an honest answer would incriminate you.
    - dastbe 10y ago
      incrimination is not the same thing as guilt, though. If you have legitimate concern that your words could be misconstrued and used against you, it is perfectly justifiable for you to refuse testimony.
    - tedunangst 10y ago
      What??? You can plead the fifth whenever you like, not only when you're guilty.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - mikeash 10y ago
      We're taking the invocation of Constitutional rights as evidence of guilt, now?
    - ceejayoz 10y ago
      > One of the IRS agents involved pled the fifth, which you can only do if an honest answer would incriminate you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Self-incrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_... To "plead the Fifth" is to refuse to answer any question because "the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked" lead a claimant to possess a "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer", believing that "a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result." i.e. "This is a political witch hunt and my answer will get twisted no matter what I say" is a perfectly valid reason to plead the Fifth. It is not evidence of guilt - if it were, it'd be a useless right.
- guelo 10y ago
  The real crime is the several hundred nakedly political "tea party" groups filing as nonprofit "social welfare" organizations that got away with it. They're probably politically untouchable now and can spend all their illegally tax free money this election.
  - oh_sigh 10y ago
    As if there aren't many on the other side of the 1D political spectrum as well.
    - Frondo 10y ago
      Ok, but now you're making a specific claim. The original claim: lots of right-wing groups organized as a type of tax-exempt group that didn't measure up under scrutiny. This has been well-documented. Your new claim: left-wing groups do it too!! I'm sure it won't be hard for you to produce the documentation of that.
      - leesalminen 10y ago
        It does happen [0] http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/13/tina-brown-charity-big-celebrities-short-charity/ http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/13/tina-brown-cha... I don't think this is a left vs right issue. It's a greed issue.
        Frondo 10y ago
        Ok, that's one. The claim is that it's widespread for left-leaning groups.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        oh_sigh 10y ago
        First, I said "many", and how many would you require me to produce to be satisfied?
- beedogs 10y ago
  The IRS did nothing wrong there; conservatives just thought they could fraudulently register a bunch of 501s and get away with it. Turns out, they couldn't.
erdevs 10y ago
Would most of the companies on those lists be affected similarly? Did they also transfer IP and likely undervalue it at the time of transfer, as FB is alleged to have done here?
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> maybe the solution is to have auditors responsible The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) oversees auditors [1]. Facebook is welcome to sue its auditor if they acted negligently. The IRS is overworked - no need to additionally task them with adjudicating on auditor-client disagreements. [1] https://pcaobus.org/Pages/default.aspx https://pcaobus.org/Pages/default.aspx
cloudjacker 10y ago
Actually it sounds to me like the IRS is reneging on its advance pricing arrangements. Your entire supposition is invalid.
- chollida1 10y ago
  I've re-read your comment 3 times and I still can't figure out what you are trying to say. Are you saying that Facebook and the IRS had already agreed on an Advance pricing agreement and then the IRS retroactively cancelled it? If so where is this agreement? I haven't seen any indication of one being signed when searching through my terminal. And what exactly do you think my supposition is? :)
  - cloudjacker 10y ago
    I am assuming the IRS did agree and articles say the IRS is disputing the price of assets that Facebook originally claimed, most likely in APAs People want this to be a story of multinational tax evasion, but this is yet another story of state sanctioned tax avoidance for the wealthy
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ojbyrne 10y ago
I feel like this is similar to an "allowance for bad debts" in Facebook's accounting. A risk of doing business.
wdr1 10y ago
> It turns out one good thing about the IRS is that it doesn't care much for politics or who is running the show I beg to differ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_allegations_of_misuse_of_the_Internal_Revenue_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_allegations_of_misuse_... http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-irs-scandals-idUSBRE94F16V20130516 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-irs-scandals-idUSB... http://lfb.org/the-sordid-history-of-irs-political-abuse/ http://lfb.org/the-sordid-history-of-irs-political-abuse/

zaroth 10y ago

> Say what you will about the IRS but I think it might be one of the least political organizations in Washington. I would so love for that to be the case. But I haven't forgotten the massive controversy surrounding IRS red-flagging tax-exempt applications based on their conservative ideology. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

popmystack 10y ago
Except that's not what happened. It even states as much in the Wikipedia article you linked.
beatpanda 10y ago
> In January 2014, the FBI told Fox News that its investigation had found no evidence so far warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the scandal, as it had not found any evidence of "enemy hunting", and that the investigation continued. On October 23, 2015, the Justice Department declared that no criminal charges would be filed. But whatever, keep grinding that axe.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  Not all improper behavior is a crime you know. Even less is provably a crime. One of the IRS agents involved pled the fifth, which you can only do if an honest answer would incriminate you.
  - dastbe 10y ago
    incrimination is not the same thing as guilt, though. If you have legitimate concern that your words could be misconstrued and used against you, it is perfectly justifiable for you to refuse testimony.
  - tedunangst 10y ago
    What??? You can plead the fifth whenever you like, not only when you're guilty.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - mikeash 10y ago
    We're taking the invocation of Constitutional rights as evidence of guilt, now?
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    > One of the IRS agents involved pled the fifth, which you can only do if an honest answer would incriminate you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Self-incrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_... To "plead the Fifth" is to refuse to answer any question because "the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked" lead a claimant to possess a "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer", believing that "a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result." i.e. "This is a political witch hunt and my answer will get twisted no matter what I say" is a perfectly valid reason to plead the Fifth. It is not evidence of guilt - if it were, it'd be a useless right.
guelo 10y ago
The real crime is the several hundred nakedly political "tea party" groups filing as nonprofit "social welfare" organizations that got away with it. They're probably politically untouchable now and can spend all their illegally tax free money this election.
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  As if there aren't many on the other side of the 1D political spectrum as well.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    Ok, but now you're making a specific claim. The original claim: lots of right-wing groups organized as a type of tax-exempt group that didn't measure up under scrutiny. This has been well-documented. Your new claim: left-wing groups do it too!! I'm sure it won't be hard for you to produce the documentation of that.
    - leesalminen 10y ago
      It does happen [0] http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/13/tina-brown-charity-big-celebrities-short-charity/ http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/13/tina-brown-cha... I don't think this is a left vs right issue. It's a greed issue.
      - Frondo 10y ago
        Ok, that's one. The claim is that it's widespread for left-leaning groups.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        oh_sigh 10y ago
        First, I said "many", and how many would you require me to produce to be satisfied?
beedogs 10y ago
The IRS did nothing wrong there; conservatives just thought they could fraudulently register a bunch of 501s and get away with it. Turns out, they couldn't.

erdevs 10y ago

Would most of the companies on those lists be affected similarly? Did they also transfer IP and likely undervalue it at the time of transfer, as FB is alleged to have done here?

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

> maybe the solution is to have auditors responsible The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) oversees auditors [1]. Facebook is welcome to sue its auditor if they acted negligently. The IRS is overworked - no need to additionally task them with adjudicating on auditor-client disagreements. [1] https://pcaobus.org/Pages/default.aspx https://pcaobus.org/Pages/default.aspx

cloudjacker 10y ago

Actually it sounds to me like the IRS is reneging on its advance pricing arrangements. Your entire supposition is invalid.

chollida1 10y ago
I've re-read your comment 3 times and I still can't figure out what you are trying to say. Are you saying that Facebook and the IRS had already agreed on an Advance pricing agreement and then the IRS retroactively cancelled it? If so where is this agreement? I haven't seen any indication of one being signed when searching through my terminal. And what exactly do you think my supposition is? :)
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  I am assuming the IRS did agree and articles say the IRS is disputing the price of assets that Facebook originally claimed, most likely in APAs People want this to be a story of multinational tax evasion, but this is yet another story of state sanctioned tax avoidance for the wealthy

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ojbyrne 10y ago

I feel like this is similar to an "allowance for bad debts" in Facebook's accounting. A risk of doing business.

wdr1 10y ago

> It turns out one good thing about the IRS is that it doesn't care much for politics or who is running the show I beg to differ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_allegations_of_misuse_of_the_Internal_Revenue_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_allegations_of_misuse_... http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-irs-scandals-idUSBRE94F16V20130516 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-irs-scandals-idUSB... http://lfb.org/the-sordid-history-of-irs-political-abuse/ http://lfb.org/the-sordid-history-of-irs-political-abuse/