5 ms·
Yes, but for that much money, it will be litigated and should be. Deference to the IRS for this sort of retrospective taxation is not a good idea..
by prasadjoglekar 3y ago
Yes, but for that much money, it will be litigated and should be. Deference to the IRS for this sort of retrospective taxation is not a good idea..
- tedivm 3y agoRetrospective taxation implies that a change was made to the tax code that went back in time. The reality is the tax code didn't change at all, but the fact that FTX was cheating on their taxes was discovered and adjusted for. Now I'm sure it'll get litigated, but there's a big difference between "I cheated my taxes and got caught" versus "I paid all my taxes, but then the rules changed and now I owe more".
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> it will be litigated and should be They’re almost certainly inflating the claim in preparation of litigation, e.g. by reclassifying “all of FTX’s contractors to full-time employees.” (There is pressure, in such bankruptcies, to file claims fast.) But the current claim is 4x FTX’s cash. It’s unlikely the IRS is off by 4x. Unsecured creditors’ recovery is likely going to be zero.
- mindslight 3y agoThe numbers seem too large to be employee reclassification for reasonably-paid employees, no? I would think it's more likely the IRS is calling the embezzled money income and/or wages.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> numbers seem too large to be employee reclassification for legitimately-paid employees, no Yes. Which is why it’s unlikely to expect the claim to quarter. (It might get reassigned from FTX to Alameda or Blockfolio, though.) > it's more likely the IRS is calling the embezzled money income and/or wages Partnership taxes on the embezzled money.