Yes. They’ve conflated the idea of the tax basis on transfer with the tax losses due to remediation. They’ve also mixed in remediation costs vs penalties. We al

Yes. They’ve conflated the idea of the tax basis on transfer with the tax losses due to remediation. They’ve also mixed in remediation costs vs penalties. We also lack meaning attached to the word “income” used right up front. If it’s not taxable income, it’s not taxable income. Many of these concepts are not only entirely economically distinct, but also potentially functionally causal. For example, depending on when the environmental liability was introduced and to what responsible party, the woman may well have had an asset worth more than 1.2B, then has to sell it for less because of the very liability they decry. Is this an article about the tax consequences of direct environmental remediation? About the tax basis of inheritance? Of the environmental remediation reserves? Of the tax codes relationship to the continuation of the leak? Since they enlisted an expert tax consult, why didn’t the author let him explain what this article is supposed to be about, instead of writing about wall paper and Horatio Nelson. Perhaps only an excellent example of the Talebian perspective that one should not read journalism; when conveyed through the minds of non-experts, it often produces a sense of knowledge while failing to deliver understanding.