4 ms·

They won’t pay unless they have to. If they did, the shareholders would sue.

by MR4D 3y ago

salawat 3y ago
Somehow, I have the feeling that upon the Court receiving the case to be heard, any sane judge would look at the details and go "So let me get this straight. You're trying to sue the company you invested in for paying their lawfully assessed taxes? Case dismissed, and don't darken my courtroom door with this ever again." Fiduciary duty does not justify, incent, or require tax evasion. The Courts would be the last people to say otherwise.
- tomnipotent 3y ago
  > Case dismissed I'm not so sure it's that simple. IANAL, but as I understand it the concept of "intent" plays a crucial role in the effectiveness of prosecution in US court. In this context, IRS investigators have evidence of Microsoft senior executives celebrating the move of shifting revenues to an offshore subsidiary in Puerto Rico as a genius "pure tax play". Another document from KPMG plotted how to make this subsidiary look more "real", given it was an 85-person factory with revenues that don't match what you'd expect from this class of business. I'm not sure how that's evidence a judge could ignore, when asked to determine "Did Microsoft shield revenues in offshore companies with the intention, primary or not, to avoid paying US taxes?"
  - pests 3y ago
    Isn't your parent talking about the case of a shareholder suing Microsoft being case dismissed? Microsoft commiting tax fraud or not doesn't change the fact that a shareholder can't be upset that a company paid its legal taxes...
olliej 3y ago
That’s an absurd idea. The idea that a shareholder could sue because “obeying the law is less profitable” is beyond absurd. That’s like an investor in Purdue suing Purdue because it stopped illegally pushing oxy.
- MR4D 3y ago
  It’s not absurd. Microsoft believes they followed the law. The IRS doesn’t. If Microsoft believes they followed the law and then paid the bill they would now be upholding their duty to shareholders. And to be clear, if they violated the law (should that be found in a final court case after appeals) then they will also have not done their duty for shareholders and also get sued. Your notion of Oxy is not at all relevant.

They won’t pay unless they have to. If they did, the shareholders would sue.

by MR4D 3y ago

They won’t pay unless they have to. If they did, the shareholders would sue.

Somehow, I have the feeling that upon the Court receiving the case to be heard, any sane judge would look at the details and go "So let me get this straight. You're trying to sue the company you invested in for paying their lawfully assessed taxes? Case dismissed, and don't darken my courtroom door with this ever again." Fiduciary duty does not justify, incent, or require tax evasion. The Courts would be the last people to say otherwise.

tomnipotent 3y ago
> Case dismissed I'm not so sure it's that simple. IANAL, but as I understand it the concept of "intent" plays a crucial role in the effectiveness of prosecution in US court. In this context, IRS investigators have evidence of Microsoft senior executives celebrating the move of shifting revenues to an offshore subsidiary in Puerto Rico as a genius "pure tax play". Another document from KPMG plotted how to make this subsidiary look more "real", given it was an 85-person factory with revenues that don't match what you'd expect from this class of business. I'm not sure how that's evidence a judge could ignore, when asked to determine "Did Microsoft shield revenues in offshore companies with the intention, primary or not, to avoid paying US taxes?"
- pests 3y ago
  Isn't your parent talking about the case of a shareholder suing Microsoft being case dismissed? Microsoft commiting tax fraud or not doesn't change the fact that a shareholder can't be upset that a company paid its legal taxes...

olliej 3y ago

That’s an absurd idea. The idea that a shareholder could sue because “obeying the law is less profitable” is beyond absurd. That’s like an investor in Purdue suing Purdue because it stopped illegally pushing oxy.

MR4D 3y ago
It’s not absurd. Microsoft believes they followed the law. The IRS doesn’t. If Microsoft believes they followed the law and then paid the bill they would now be upholding their duty to shareholders. And to be clear, if they violated the law (should that be found in a final court case after appeals) then they will also have not done their duty for shareholders and also get sued. Your notion of Oxy is not at all relevant.