8 ms·

Except taxes are the thing that funds civil society. Letting people work around that by paying $x results in a more regressive tax structure. Overall I would

Except taxes are the thing that funds civil society. Letting people work around that by paying $x results in a more regressive tax structure. Overall I would say there are many losers in the above scenario.

Dracophoenix 2y ago
"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes." - Judge Learned Hand, Helvering v. Gregory
- leereeves 2y ago
  So what? Even judges can be wrong. Quite a few of them ruled that slavery was natural and right.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Sure, even judges can be wrong. That doesn't make the decision in question wrong, though. At the moment, it's a judge, with a written opinion that contains detailed argument, versus a random commenter on the internet who's saying "nah, he's wrong" with absolutely no argument or evidence. If you want us to believe you rather than the judge, you're going to have to do better than that.
    - leereeves 2y ago
      There's no "detailed argument" in that quote, just the same assertion repeated three times. It's pure argument from authority. It may even be accurate legally (depending as always on which judge(s) issue the ruling), but it has no value morally or rationally. > a judge...versus a random commenter Just argument from authority again. > If you want us to believe you rather than the judge, you're going to have to do better than that. I'm not trying to convince you of anything except that Dracophoenix's argument from authority is unconvincing. Would anyone disagree that the status quo in America is that the law favors the rich? People arguing that this is wrong/immoral/graft aren't disputing whether it is currently legal, but whether it should be.
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        I didn't say that the quote contained detailed argument. I said that the judge's decision did. It's not just that a judge said it. It's that a judge said it, and gave detailed reasoning to support it, in a multi-page written decision that has stood the test of time (that is, not overturned in the intervening years). Yes, I know that Dracophoenix didn't quote the entire decision in his comment. He did cite the reference, though, so that anyone could go back and look at the reasoning behind it. So it's a bit more than an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to authority, and to the reasoning behind it - reasoning that supports a decision that is still, to this day, valid law.
        leereeves 2y ago
        I did "go back and look [for] the reasoning behind it." There was none. This is the entire relevant quote from Judge Hand's ruling: > We agree with the Board and the taxpayer that a transaction, otherwise within an exception of the tax law, does not lose its immunity, because it is actuated by a desire to avoid, or, if one choose, to evade, taxation. Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. U. S. v. Isham, 17 Wall. 496, 506, 21 L. Ed. 728; Bullen v. Wisconsin, 240 U.S. 625, 630, 36 S. Ct. 473, 60 L. Ed. 830. Therefore, if what was done here, was what was intended by section 112 (i) (1) (B), it is of no consequence that it was all an elaborate scheme to get rid of income taxes, as it certainly was. [From this point the ruling switches to arguing why "To dodge the shareholders' taxes is not one of the transactions contemplated" as tax exempt.] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/69/809/1562063/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/69/... I see precedents, which only support the legality, not the morality, of the position. The legality is not in dispute. I do not see "detailed reasoning to support it". Perhaps I missed something. Can you point out where Judge Hand explained why his claim was morally correct, and not merely a statement of the legal status quo (comparable to pro slavery rulings before the 13th)?
        AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    - hodlngme 2y ago
      [dead]
- Justsignedup 2y ago
  I would strongly argue it is the direct job of the legislative branch to counter these tactics. Unfortunately dollar for dollar the irs is outmatched
  - leereeves 2y ago
    Despite the quote, in the case the quote is taken from (Helvering v. Gregory), the tactics actually failed. Both Judge Hand's appeals court and the SC ruled that the tactics in question were consistent with the letter but not the intent of the law, the tactics were therefore invalid, and Gregory had understated her tax liability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering
ben_w 2y ago
Game theory, they benefit from defecting no matter what impact this has on others, nor does their decision depend on what others choose to do at the same time independently of themselves.
throwaway110911 2y ago
cute but taxes dont actually fund anything with any real substance. the money is simply printed.
KptMarchewa 2y ago
Society also would be better if you spend your free time sweeping the streets, but you don't have to - we don't require people to do things that are not required by law. Using legal tax avoidance strategies is not tax evasion. Also, requiring people (whether legally or morally) to use interpretation of law that's not the most favorable to them is a giant, bad slippery slope.
- leereeves 2y ago
  Did techdmn say it was tax evasion? Techdmn is right that there are many losers because Congress made a regressive tax structure legal. The lawyers win. The rich clients win. Society loses. Edit: I'm "posting too fast" so I'll have to respond here. > The ethical/moral argument is IMO lost when talking about people using the structure. Why? An immoral act doesn't become moral simply because it is legal. (Consider slavery, bribery disguised as lobbying, or murder in The Purge). And even many rich people admit that paying a lower tax rate than their employees is immoral.
  - KptMarchewa 2y ago
    The ethical/moral argument is IMO lost when talking about people using the structure. You can use it against people enacting those laws, lobbying for them or arguing for them in public.
lotsofpulp 2y ago
Paying a lawyer to get an undefined tax question clarified is not “letting people work around [taxes]”. Paying a lobbyist or legislator (who very likely might be a lawyer) to lobby or legislate for loopholes would be getting around taxes.

Dracophoenix 2y ago

"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes." - Judge Learned Hand, Helvering v. Gregory

leereeves 2y ago
So what? Even judges can be wrong. Quite a few of them ruled that slavery was natural and right.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Sure, even judges can be wrong. That doesn't make the decision in question wrong, though. At the moment, it's a judge, with a written opinion that contains detailed argument, versus a random commenter on the internet who's saying "nah, he's wrong" with absolutely no argument or evidence. If you want us to believe you rather than the judge, you're going to have to do better than that.
  - leereeves 2y ago
    There's no "detailed argument" in that quote, just the same assertion repeated three times. It's pure argument from authority. It may even be accurate legally (depending as always on which judge(s) issue the ruling), but it has no value morally or rationally. > a judge...versus a random commenter Just argument from authority again. > If you want us to believe you rather than the judge, you're going to have to do better than that. I'm not trying to convince you of anything except that Dracophoenix's argument from authority is unconvincing. Would anyone disagree that the status quo in America is that the law favors the rich? People arguing that this is wrong/immoral/graft aren't disputing whether it is currently legal, but whether it should be.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      I didn't say that the quote contained detailed argument. I said that the judge's decision did. It's not just that a judge said it. It's that a judge said it, and gave detailed reasoning to support it, in a multi-page written decision that has stood the test of time (that is, not overturned in the intervening years). Yes, I know that Dracophoenix didn't quote the entire decision in his comment. He did cite the reference, though, so that anyone could go back and look at the reasoning behind it. So it's a bit more than an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to authority, and to the reasoning behind it - reasoning that supports a decision that is still, to this day, valid law.
      - leereeves 2y ago
        I did "go back and look [for] the reasoning behind it." There was none. This is the entire relevant quote from Judge Hand's ruling: > We agree with the Board and the taxpayer that a transaction, otherwise within an exception of the tax law, does not lose its immunity, because it is actuated by a desire to avoid, or, if one choose, to evade, taxation. Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. U. S. v. Isham, 17 Wall. 496, 506, 21 L. Ed. 728; Bullen v. Wisconsin, 240 U.S. 625, 630, 36 S. Ct. 473, 60 L. Ed. 830. Therefore, if what was done here, was what was intended by section 112 (i) (1) (B), it is of no consequence that it was all an elaborate scheme to get rid of income taxes, as it certainly was. [From this point the ruling switches to arguing why "To dodge the shareholders' taxes is not one of the transactions contemplated" as tax exempt.] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/69/809/1562063/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/69/... I see precedents, which only support the legality, not the morality, of the position. The legality is not in dispute. I do not see "detailed reasoning to support it". Perhaps I missed something. Can you point out where Judge Hand explained why his claim was morally correct, and not merely a statement of the legal status quo (comparable to pro slavery rulings before the 13th)?
        AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  - hodlngme 2y ago
    [dead]
Justsignedup 2y ago
I would strongly argue it is the direct job of the legislative branch to counter these tactics. Unfortunately dollar for dollar the irs is outmatched
- leereeves 2y ago
  Despite the quote, in the case the quote is taken from (Helvering v. Gregory), the tactics actually failed. Both Judge Hand's appeals court and the SC ruled that the tactics in question were consistent with the letter but not the intent of the law, the tactics were therefore invalid, and Gregory had understated her tax liability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering

ben_w 2y ago

Game theory, they benefit from defecting no matter what impact this has on others, nor does their decision depend on what others choose to do at the same time independently of themselves.

throwaway110911 2y ago

cute but taxes dont actually fund anything with any real substance. the money is simply printed.

KptMarchewa 2y ago

Society also would be better if you spend your free time sweeping the streets, but you don't have to - we don't require people to do things that are not required by law. Using legal tax avoidance strategies is not tax evasion. Also, requiring people (whether legally or morally) to use interpretation of law that's not the most favorable to them is a giant, bad slippery slope.

leereeves 2y ago
Did techdmn say it was tax evasion? Techdmn is right that there are many losers because Congress made a regressive tax structure legal. The lawyers win. The rich clients win. Society loses. Edit: I'm "posting too fast" so I'll have to respond here. > The ethical/moral argument is IMO lost when talking about people using the structure. Why? An immoral act doesn't become moral simply because it is legal. (Consider slavery, bribery disguised as lobbying, or murder in The Purge). And even many rich people admit that paying a lower tax rate than their employees is immoral.
- KptMarchewa 2y ago
  The ethical/moral argument is IMO lost when talking about people using the structure. You can use it against people enacting those laws, lobbying for them or arguing for them in public.

lotsofpulp 2y ago

Paying a lawyer to get an undefined tax question clarified is not “letting people work around [taxes]”. Paying a lobbyist or legislator (who very likely might be a lawyer) to lobby or legislate for loopholes would be getting around taxes.