4 ms·
IANAL, but https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/80a-20 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/80a-20 suggests there are structures that would be permi
by RhysU 2y ago
IANAL, but https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/80a-20 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/80a-20 suggests there are structures that would be permissible.
For example, something like a pooled company that exists to provide this service for dozens of corporations thereby meeting ownership dilution requirements to avoid triggering circular ownership statutes.
Corporate tax lawyers are bright (a well-deserved compliment). Someone would figure out how to hack it. And then the well-intended hypothetical law would just put money into the pockets of lawyers and accountants at the expense of shareholders. It'd sound great on a campaign trail but be stupid in practice.
- immibis 2y ago> Someone would figure out how to hack it. That's the point of the judge.
- RhysU 2y agoThe judge is there to interpret and to apply the law. If there's a hole, there's a hole. And the incentives would be immense to find a legally defensible hole. Think bug bounty on an unfathomable scale.
- immibis 2y agoWhen the law says "companies can't own themselves, even indirectly, or the CEO goes to jail" the judge will be able to see that company A owning company B which owns company A is indirect self-ownership, and send the CEO to jail. No matter how complicated a scheme the CEO comes up with, the judge can likely see through it.