3 ms·
You're right that this is legal, and that it does not seem to involve any trickery. It's not clear that it's even a loophole per se. But that is not the same a
by hyperpape 5y ago
You're right that this is legal, and that it does not seem to involve any trickery. It's not clear that it's even a loophole per se.
But that is not the same as intended, which is a stricter bar. Arguably a provision capping the tax-exempt returns to a mere 10000% (just spitballing, surely there are better ways to write such a provision) would have been more in keeping with the intent of the law.
- vmception 5y agoA stricter bar because? What issue do you have with people having post tax dollars? I don’t really understand this sentiment, it seems to be at odds with even the government’s goals.
- hyperpape 5y agoYou misinterpret. I mean a stricter bar for interpretation. My own opinion on taxes is irrelevant—the parent poster cannot say “it’s legal, so it’s the intent of the law”. This is true whether it’s a good or a bad law.
- vmception 5y agoI see, just a stricter bar of scrutiny I think this outcome passes the stricter bar of moral, just, intended, and something others should learn from