4 ms·

> According to you, what is CVS accused of? If you can't be bothered to read my comments, or the original article, what are you arguing for? I've answered tha

by SamBam 4y ago

> According to you, what is CVS accused of? If you can't be bothered to read my comments, or the original article, what are you arguing for? I've answered that question twice, in sentences starting with: "The original article says that the petitioners are claiming that ..." "The point of the lawsuit is that ..." Are you actually claiming that the lawsuit is frivolous? Because I think you've been arguing about something inside your head this whole time, while I try to keep coming back to the facts in the lawsuit, and the legal definitions of donations, neither of which you seem to care to understand. You just keep making vague moral arguments about who should get "credit" for a donation.

thaumasiotes 4y ago
If you believe that the point of the lawsuit is that CVS had an obligation to donate money that didn't come from their customers... then all your comments about illegal tax deductions are nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about. I keep asking you to describe what you think is wrong, because you have no idea what you're talking about. And you keep refusing, presumably because you're not able to give such a description. But I'll try a completely different line of attack: an illegal tax deduction would be fraud, and the victim would be the IRS. It isn't possible, under the American legal system, for civilians to sue over an offense of that kind. But this is a lawsuit by a civilian seeking to become a class representative. He alleges that CVS has committed fraud against its customers. As he must, since it isn't possible for him to sue CVS for tax fraud. No one on any side has alleged any problem with CVS's taxes. Why do you believe there's a problem with them?
- SamBam 4y ago
  The claim is that: 1. CVS made a legally binding that CVS would donate $10 million to the ADA during the three year period of 2021 through 2023 2. CVS instead took the customer's own donations and used them to fulfill its own obligations. The purpose of discussing tax law is that you seem incapable of understanding that a company's own donation and a pass-through donation are two different things. They legally come from two different entities, and for good reason. If the company pledged to donate its own money, and instead it "donated" its customer's own donations, this is not the same thing. The claimed harm to the customer is that CVS had already pledged $10 million of its own money to ADA, so this money was already going to them, and the "donation" is therefore equivalent to a reimbursement to CVS itself, not additional money that helps the ADA. Clearly the customer desired to give money to the ADA, not to CVS. The ADA gets not a single penny more money from each donation if CVS only hands over the $10 million it had already pledged of its own money. > an illegal tax deduction Again, this is showing that you are unwilling to read my comments. I have not once described the issue as being a tax issue. I said "From a tax perspective" in a parenthetical in my very first comment, to show an example of how, legally, direction donations and pass-through donations are different, but said right away that "this particular case is about a legal obligation, not a tax credit." I've also referenced Tax Policy Center to, again, highlight how direct donations and pass-through donations are legally different. You are the one who has gone on and on about taxes even though this case is not about that.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > I said "From a tax perspective" in a parenthetical in my very first comment, to show an example of how, legally, direction donations and pass-through donations are different You don't seem to understand how they're different. The difference is that in one case, the customer is entitled to a tax deduction, and in the other case, they aren't. That is a choice the store makes. But it doesn't affect the store, or the charity. There is a difference, from a tax perspective, and that difference applies only to the customer. Going back to my earlier example, we see that the store must pay taxes on $30 of revenue in every scenario, while the customer always has to pay income tax on $30 of income, but may or may not have to pay income tax on the additional $5. That is the only legal difference. How do you think it applies to this lawsuit? After that, you're arguing about whether CVS has "really" donated any money to the ADA. As I have repeatedly pointed out, in every parallel scenario, the answer is unambiguously yes. Salesmen "really" bring in revenue when they haven't personally purchased anything. Politicians "really" bring in revenue when they haven't personally donated anything. Fundraisers "really" bring in revenue when they haven't personally donated anything. Logistical improvements "really" bring in profit even though that comes in the form of lowered costs and revenues don't increase at all. > The ADA gets not a single penny more money from each donation if CVS only hands over the $10 million it had already pledged of its own money. This is clearly untrue; see my sidethread example of a structured donation in which a pledge of $15 million in matched donations raises $25 million in match-seeking donations. You really believe CVS customers were tracking the total amount of donations and stopped when it hit $10 million?

by SamBam 4y ago

thaumasiotes 4y ago

If you believe that the point of the lawsuit is that CVS had an obligation to donate money that didn't come from their customers... then all your comments about illegal tax deductions are nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about. I keep asking you to describe what you think is wrong, because you have no idea what you're talking about. And you keep refusing, presumably because you're not able to give such a description. But I'll try a completely different line of attack: an illegal tax deduction would be fraud, and the victim would be the IRS. It isn't possible, under the American legal system, for civilians to sue over an offense of that kind. But this is a lawsuit by a civilian seeking to become a class representative. He alleges that CVS has committed fraud against its customers. As he must, since it isn't possible for him to sue CVS for tax fraud. No one on any side has alleged any problem with CVS's taxes. Why do you believe there's a problem with them?

SamBam 4y ago
The claim is that: 1. CVS made a legally binding that CVS would donate $10 million to the ADA during the three year period of 2021 through 2023 2. CVS instead took the customer's own donations and used them to fulfill its own obligations. The purpose of discussing tax law is that you seem incapable of understanding that a company's own donation and a pass-through donation are two different things. They legally come from two different entities, and for good reason. If the company pledged to donate its own money, and instead it "donated" its customer's own donations, this is not the same thing. The claimed harm to the customer is that CVS had already pledged $10 million of its own money to ADA, so this money was already going to them, and the "donation" is therefore equivalent to a reimbursement to CVS itself, not additional money that helps the ADA. Clearly the customer desired to give money to the ADA, not to CVS. The ADA gets not a single penny more money from each donation if CVS only hands over the $10 million it had already pledged of its own money. > an illegal tax deduction Again, this is showing that you are unwilling to read my comments. I have not once described the issue as being a tax issue. I said "From a tax perspective" in a parenthetical in my very first comment, to show an example of how, legally, direction donations and pass-through donations are different, but said right away that "this particular case is about a legal obligation, not a tax credit." I've also referenced Tax Policy Center to, again, highlight how direct donations and pass-through donations are legally different. You are the one who has gone on and on about taxes even though this case is not about that.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > I said "From a tax perspective" in a parenthetical in my very first comment, to show an example of how, legally, direction donations and pass-through donations are different You don't seem to understand how they're different. The difference is that in one case, the customer is entitled to a tax deduction, and in the other case, they aren't. That is a choice the store makes. But it doesn't affect the store, or the charity. There is a difference, from a tax perspective, and that difference applies only to the customer. Going back to my earlier example, we see that the store must pay taxes on $30 of revenue in every scenario, while the customer always has to pay income tax on $30 of income, but may or may not have to pay income tax on the additional $5. That is the only legal difference. How do you think it applies to this lawsuit? After that, you're arguing about whether CVS has "really" donated any money to the ADA. As I have repeatedly pointed out, in every parallel scenario, the answer is unambiguously yes. Salesmen "really" bring in revenue when they haven't personally purchased anything. Politicians "really" bring in revenue when they haven't personally donated anything. Fundraisers "really" bring in revenue when they haven't personally donated anything. Logistical improvements "really" bring in profit even though that comes in the form of lowered costs and revenues don't increase at all. > The ADA gets not a single penny more money from each donation if CVS only hands over the $10 million it had already pledged of its own money. This is clearly untrue; see my sidethread example of a structured donation in which a pledge of $15 million in matched donations raises $25 million in match-seeking donations. You really believe CVS customers were tracking the total amount of donations and stopped when it hit $10 million?