4 ms·
I'll be the first to admit that I don't know how jurisdiction would work in a case like that. But it seems to me that paying taxes on money recovered for you b
by roc 14y ago
I'll be the first to admit that I don't know how jurisdiction would work in a case like that. But it seems to me that paying taxes on money recovered for you by a legal system is a fair price for the service.
If the legal system was corrupt or inefficient, he'd never have gotten his money. It only seems fair to pay to support it. Particularly given the fairly low tax rate. There are precious few places and ways you can earn hundreds of millions of dollars and only pay 15% on them.
That said, it sounds like he has paid tax once and is possibly trying to avoid paying tax on the appreciation of that property, which I will also admit muddies the waters quite a bit.
- beagle3 14y ago> But it seems to me that paying taxes on money recovered for you by a legal system is a fair price for the service. Basically, you can use the US court system even if you never once set foot in the US, and never had a US passport - as long as the party you are suing is bound by US law. Theoretically, the outcome should be the same. I'm not sure what the tax consequences are, but in general, if you get a remedy from the court, the tax is the same as the original transaction (possibly none).