4 ms·
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. App
by 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 agoUsing 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 agoSure, 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.