4 ms·
Avoidance and evasion are much the same thing. If one implies negativity in this matter then so does the other. Reduction versus evasion is better to me. If Go
by talmand 13y ago
Avoidance and evasion are much the same thing. If one implies negativity in this matter then so does the other. Reduction versus evasion is better to me.
If Google broke the law, then sure, punish them for it. At that point one can say they evaded paying their "fair share" of taxes and did not act in good faith.
- Nursie 13y agoBoth can imply negativity while only one is illegal.
- talmand 13y agoThat's just the accepted legal term. By definition they both can be the same thing. When the law was written they could have just as easily as gone with tax avoidance as tax evasion. But in the context of the discussion, avoiding taxes is being used in a negative way by implying that the companies are not paying taxes that they should be paying by whatever criteria society dreams up, such as "fair share". I simply object to this characterization since these companies are following the law until a tax court says otherwise.
- DanBC 13y ago> avoiding taxes is being used in a negative way But that's an important point. Traditionally "Tax evasion" was legal, and "tax avoidance" was normal, acceptable, and purely legal. The weird accounting practices of some of these big firms are pushing a language change. "Tax evasion" is clearly illegal. "Tax planning" is clearly legal and acceptable. "Tax avoidance" is using probably legal but weird methods to reduce (beyond any sensible amount) the tax burden of a company or very rich individual.