> 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 prosecuti

> 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?"