3 ms·
> can only be used as leverage for borrowing rather than being spent directly Or , they could pay the tax and use the money (crazy idea I know).
by jonknee 9y ago
> can only be used as leverage for borrowing rather than being spent directly
Or , they could pay the tax and use the money (crazy idea I know).
- pducks32 9y agoIf they thought of doing that they could and probably should be sued. CEOs have a fiduciary duty meaning they are legally implored to do what is best for the company and bringing money back at a 40% tax is not in the financial interest of the company.
- toyg 9y agoAny judge would rule that following the law of the land is not against the interest of the company.
- module0000 9y agoThe judge has zero say in the CEO keeping his job though, and firing is a foregone conclusion when you make a decision that kills shareholder value. Decisions that don't increase shareholder value are "dubious" at best, and decisions that obviously decrease shareholder value are "insane" at best to the board.
- wyager 9y agoNot crazy as much as dumb. Why would you intentionally lose money you don’t have to?
- matwood 9y ago> Or , they could pay the tax and use the money (crazy idea I know). Or just use the super low interest rates and borrow against the money, which is exactly what they have been doing.