2 ms·

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. Y

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...