4 ms·
> If you are engineering your finances in a contrived or artificial manner, purely for the purpose of reducing taxes nothing scream like "We failed at legislat
by Aperocky 4y ago
> If you are engineering your finances in a contrived or artificial manner, purely for the purpose of reducing taxes
nothing scream like "We failed at legislation so we're going to resort to arbitrary decisions"
Unless they define what contrived or artificial manner means exactly, which I doubt.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- vba616 4y agoI'm not a lawyer, but the traditional "Circular 230 Disclaimer" in the US suggests to me that either the US works similarly or many people think so. You know about "structuring"?
- Aperocky 4y agoNo, but I suspect I would feel the same way.
- vba616 4y agoAs I understand it, when there's a law that says something like "the bank has to report cash transactions over $10K", and you divide all your transactions into chunks of $9999 to evade it, then there's a law that says you can't do that. Even if every one is at a different bank. While it does seem to involve intent, a lot of laws do. "operatives...who scurry from bank to bank making these structured deposits are known as “smurfs” because, like the little blue cartoon characters, they’re everywhere" https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/crime/article223878770.html https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/crime/article223878770.h...
- jimmydorry 4y agoAnd structuring is another terrible example of "good legislation". It is yet another failure on the same scale as "civil asset forfeiture". That is, law so generalised and broad that it can be applied selectively and punitively.