4 ms·
> Peter Theil did not have 100% voting shares of Paypal, First, that's not the requirement. > and if he did that went away very soon after with the other co f
by nrmitchi 5y ago
> Peter Theil did not have 100% voting shares of Paypal,
First, that's not the requirement.
> and if he did that went away very soon after with the other co founders and investors diluting him fast enough for it to satisfy IRS regulations.
Your argument here is "even if he made illegal investments into a tax-advantaged account that has set him up to not pay taxes on 50000000000 dollars, we should ignore it because if he made the investment later it wouldn't have been illegal".
By that logic let's just throw out insider trading laws. "Well if he made the investment after the information was public, it would have been fine"
> the IRS may have lacked clarity back then.
They didn't. It was still explicitly not allowed for a officer/director of a company, someone with a similar role, > 10% share-holder, etc to make investments like this with a Roth IRA.
- vmception 5y agoPeter Theil was a 3.5% shareholder in 2002 when it was sold to Ebay He likely was within the thresholds back in 1999 or very quickly after its director && >= 10% not or but feel free to split hairs about that nuance, this isnt an area the IRS is splitting hairs, they go with the percent ownership
- nrmitchi 5y agoOwning 3.5% after a acquisition by/merger with x.com, and raising $200M in funding is not anywhere near the same thing as owning 3.5% at the time of the Confinity founding (which is apparently why $0.001/share is valid?).
- vmception 5y agoIt doesn't matter if the ownership percentage changed quickly throughout the year of 1999 These kinds of sanctions are based on the result by time of reporting or audit, not by their mere action and as we’ve already gone over, he very well may have chosen to pay a self reported penalty if his accountant’s tax software just spit out that additional number of $2000