> "Profit" is not a defined term. It's shorthand for something else, usually gross profit, operating profit, or net income. And in this case, we are discussing

> "Profit" is not a defined term. It's shorthand for something else, usually gross profit, operating profit, or net income. And in this case, we are discussing profit as is relevant to the tax code. There is no need to be adversarial considering you've just said you agree with me. > No, they weren't. Yes, they were. > Most of Amazon's shares are not held by employees. This is irrelevant as capital gains are necessarily taxed. > which is that Amazon (taken either as an entity or as its owners, most of whom are not employees) is paying close to 0% taxes. Period. That's it. And this is just wrong. > That's outside the scope of the argument. It appears it would be most accurate to say that your argument hinges on a particular narrow definition of terms and scope of analysis. I don't think we need to discuss this further. Your point has been made, such that it is.