4 ms·

If a professional accountant told my buddy to do one weird trick to completely eliminate the lion's share of his tax liability, and he did it, and then the IRS

If a professional accountant told my buddy to do one weird trick to completely eliminate the lion's share of his tax liability, and he did it, and then the IRS went after him, I'd feel entirely comfortable judging both my buddy and his accountant, even if I didn't know the precise details.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
Then you'd be judging a lot of people wrongly, because that sort of thing happens all the time for entirely legitimate reasons. For example, at various points there have been federal tax credits for installing solar panels on your house or buying certain types of green cars. For a lot of people the credit would exceed their federal tax liability for the year. You're prepared to send them all to jail for that without looking at the details?
- three_seagrass 7y ago
  I think by implying that the IRS went after them, the "weird trick" was not as legal as previously anticipated, despite being guidance from a professional. Appealing to popularity wouldn't make it anymore legal than appealing to professionalism.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    Using the event of prosecution as proof of guilt sure would streamline some things -- we wouldn't need independent courts anymore. Isn't this the plot to Judge Dredd?
  - JoshTriplett 7y ago
    > I think by implying that the IRS went after them, the "weird trick" was not as legal as previously anticipated, despite being guidance from a professional. That's about as legitimate as "the police investigated them, so they must have done something wrong". That kind of argument has huge problems.
    - jjoonathan 7y ago
      Sure, but it wasn't that kind of argument. It's not about trusting the police/IRS, it's about distrusting loopholes. I'm about as sympathetic to Facebook here as I am to the people who claim that under the maritime act of 1776 their car is a ship and therefore the police can't arrest them for speeding.
- munificent 7y ago
  Those are not "weird tricks". Those are tax incentives whose intent is obvious (make the environment better) and where your friend's using the tax incentive directly aligns with why that tax rule is there. Your friend and the tax law are clearly doing what they are clearly designed to do, which benefits not just him but us all. However, if your friend's "weird trick" is something like a double Irish [1], then it's not at all clear that the applicable tax laws are intended to be used that way or that your friend's choice to use that loophole is good for anyone but your friend. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > Your friend and the tax law are clearly doing what they are clearly designed to do, which benefits not just him but us all. As we know the mortgage interest tax deduction was intended to promote home ownership. A lot of people who would have bought a home anyway then go out and take a bigger home loan in order to use the money they would have put down as principal to e.g. buy a car. The tax provision clearly wasn't intended to promote car ownership, so all of those people should be in jail, right? > However, if your friend's "weird trick" is something like a double Irish [1], then it's not at all clear that the applicable tax laws are intended to be used that way or that your friend's choice to use that loophole is good for anyone but your friend. Being not at all clear is the circumstance where you most have to look at the details, not where you get to ignore them based on whether you like the accused. Money is fungible. International profit doesn't have a clearly defined jurisdiction. This isn't trivial. "Do what I meant not what I said" is a cop out. If you want better tax laws, change them instead of pretending the existing ones aren't what they are. But governments don't actually want to do that, because if you had clear tax laws that caused international corporations to pay more tax for operating in your jurisdiction, that would give them a major financial incentive to move somewhere else. Everybody wants to eat their cake and have it too. Pass laws that let corporations avoid your high nominal tax rates which makes them stay in your country, then get offended when they use them.
    - jeremysalwen 7y ago
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

Then you'd be judging a lot of people wrongly, because that sort of thing happens all the time for entirely legitimate reasons. For example, at various points there have been federal tax credits for installing solar panels on your house or buying certain types of green cars. For a lot of people the credit would exceed their federal tax liability for the year. You're prepared to send them all to jail for that without looking at the details?

three_seagrass 7y ago
I think by implying that the IRS went after them, the "weird trick" was not as legal as previously anticipated, despite being guidance from a professional. Appealing to popularity wouldn't make it anymore legal than appealing to professionalism.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  Using the event of prosecution as proof of guilt sure would streamline some things -- we wouldn't need independent courts anymore. Isn't this the plot to Judge Dredd?
- JoshTriplett 7y ago
  > I think by implying that the IRS went after them, the "weird trick" was not as legal as previously anticipated, despite being guidance from a professional. That's about as legitimate as "the police investigated them, so they must have done something wrong". That kind of argument has huge problems.
  - jjoonathan 7y ago
    Sure, but it wasn't that kind of argument. It's not about trusting the police/IRS, it's about distrusting loopholes. I'm about as sympathetic to Facebook here as I am to the people who claim that under the maritime act of 1776 their car is a ship and therefore the police can't arrest them for speeding.
munificent 7y ago
Those are not "weird tricks". Those are tax incentives whose intent is obvious (make the environment better) and where your friend's using the tax incentive directly aligns with why that tax rule is there. Your friend and the tax law are clearly doing what they are clearly designed to do, which benefits not just him but us all. However, if your friend's "weird trick" is something like a double Irish [1], then it's not at all clear that the applicable tax laws are intended to be used that way or that your friend's choice to use that loophole is good for anyone but your friend. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > Your friend and the tax law are clearly doing what they are clearly designed to do, which benefits not just him but us all. As we know the mortgage interest tax deduction was intended to promote home ownership. A lot of people who would have bought a home anyway then go out and take a bigger home loan in order to use the money they would have put down as principal to e.g. buy a car. The tax provision clearly wasn't intended to promote car ownership, so all of those people should be in jail, right? > However, if your friend's "weird trick" is something like a double Irish [1], then it's not at all clear that the applicable tax laws are intended to be used that way or that your friend's choice to use that loophole is good for anyone but your friend. Being not at all clear is the circumstance where you most have to look at the details, not where you get to ignore them based on whether you like the accused. Money is fungible. International profit doesn't have a clearly defined jurisdiction. This isn't trivial. "Do what I meant not what I said" is a cop out. If you want better tax laws, change them instead of pretending the existing ones aren't what they are. But governments don't actually want to do that, because if you had clear tax laws that caused international corporations to pay more tax for operating in your jurisdiction, that would give them a major financial incentive to move somewhere else. Everybody wants to eat their cake and have it too. Pass laws that let corporations avoid your high nominal tax rates which makes them stay in your country, then get offended when they use them.
  - jeremysalwen 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]