4 ms·
mrguyorama I agree 1000% and most reasonable people should as well. The technical letter of the law should not matter as much as the spirit of the law!
by nautilus12 9y ago
mrguyorama I agree 1000% and most reasonable people should as well. The technical letter of the law should not matter as much as the spirit of the law!
- lucio 9y agoThen you're at the mercy of the judge. That's a very bad scenario. With literal interpretation, the legal system is way more previsible. What if the literal interpretation create unfair loopholes? Then you change the law.
- nautilus12 9y agoNot in this case. They have created a complex tax haven out of juggling around entities and IP's. We should NOT expect the law to have a specific technical description of this, and they shouldn't be around to get around the law just because they created a new scenario. In this case we should just use the obvious determination that its clearly they are trying to dodge taxes, rather than try to change to law to account for every possible scenario they could come up with. Specific laws don't preclude the ability to use common sense and judgement, and the law shouldn't be expected to explicate every possible permutation in order to be enforceable.
- __blockcipher__ 9y agoThe spirit of the law is not clearly defined. In fact, by definition it means "person X's interpretation of what the law was trying to achieve". How could that be the basis for an intelligent taxation system?