6 ms·

Every once in a while, a publication will run something like this about major companies [1][2]. It seems to be standard practice among large corporations. As a

Every once in a while, a publication will run something like this about major companies [1][2]. It seems to be standard practice among large corporations. As a company, if you are allowed to save large amounts of money by using existing loopholes (read: things that are within the scope of the law), wouldn't you be silly not to? [1]http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_44/b4201043146825.htm http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_44/b42010431... [2]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strate... [Disclaimer: I work for Microsoft]

count 14y ago
If you work for a public firm and know that the 'loophole' exists, I wonder if share holders could take action against you if you did NOT utilize it.
- wildmXranat 14y ago
  On the flip-side, how is it that publicly elected officials are not indicted or held responsible for creating these loopholes after being lobbied and end up costing their shareholders - the public, some real coin. I think of the whole thing as a closed loop ecosystem and somebody has to be losing, if a group of shareholders is gaining.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    This is actually a valid question. Surprisingly, in business you can argue your incompetence shields you. The "business judgement rule"[1] says basically you are allowed to make "mistakes". But you're not allowed to be "negligent", act bad faith or whatever. [1] In the USA, viz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_judgment_rule