4 ms·

I don't see how that's relevant. In what case is the difference between tax evasion and avoidance just the motive/explanation? I'm pretty sure the difference is

by Drew_ 2y ago

I don't see how that's relevant. In what case is the difference between tax evasion and avoidance just the motive/explanation? I'm pretty sure the difference is purely technical. Moreover, I don't think a lack of prosecution/enforcement makes something legal. At least, I don't think that defense would hold up very well in court.

mikeyouse 2y ago
> I'm pretty sure the difference is purely technical. It's really not - there is a ton of tax law that relies on e.g. the fair market value of hard-to-price assets or if all else fails and a penalty is due, there's an entire section of the CFR on how circumstances surrounding the underpayment can reduce or eliminate the liability. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.6664-4 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.6664-4 If you've only ever filed a personal tax return, you're dramatically under-appreciating how complicated business taxes are and how much grey area there really is. Did you know you can pay your 10-year old to work for you as a means to avoid taxes? Try looking up the dollar amount where avoid turns to evade... there isn't one. The amount paid just has to be "reasonable and justifiable" and the work they perform has to be "work necessary to the business".
- Drew_ 2y ago
  Waiving penalties depending on the circumstance is interesting but not directly relevant to the question on hand. You would have already been found to have evaded taxes before the penalty could be assessed. So the circumstance/motivation/explanation is still not the differentiator between avoidance and evasion in this case - just the penalty.
  - mikeyouse 2y ago
    If tax law were black and white / “purely technical” they wouldn’t make accommodation to reduce your penalties if you made good faith errors when filing was my only point.

4 ms·

I don't see how that's relevant. In what case is the difference between tax evasion and avoidance just the motive/explanation? I'm pretty sure the difference is

by Drew_ 2y ago

mikeyouse 2y ago
> I'm pretty sure the difference is purely technical. It's really not - there is a ton of tax law that relies on e.g. the fair market value of hard-to-price assets or if all else fails and a penalty is due, there's an entire section of the CFR on how circumstances surrounding the underpayment can reduce or eliminate the liability. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.6664-4 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.6664-4 If you've only ever filed a personal tax return, you're dramatically under-appreciating how complicated business taxes are and how much grey area there really is. Did you know you can pay your 10-year old to work for you as a means to avoid taxes? Try looking up the dollar amount where avoid turns to evade... there isn't one. The amount paid just has to be "reasonable and justifiable" and the work they perform has to be "work necessary to the business".
- Drew_ 2y ago
  Waiving penalties depending on the circumstance is interesting but not directly relevant to the question on hand. You would have already been found to have evaded taxes before the penalty could be assessed. So the circumstance/motivation/explanation is still not the differentiator between avoidance and evasion in this case - just the penalty.
  - mikeyouse 2y ago
    If tax law were black and white / “purely technical” they wouldn’t make accommodation to reduce your penalties if you made good faith errors when filing was my only point.