3 ms·
Define "loophole". Because your definition seems to be taking advantage of something in a law, miswording or mistake, in a negative way, or even illegal, to av
by talmand 13y ago
Define "loophole".
Because your definition seems to be taking advantage of something in a law, miswording or mistake, in a negative way, or even illegal, to avoid paying taxes that are rightfully due.
I define it as following the law as written to lower your tax burdens.
You imply that there's something inherently wrong with using "loopholes". I say there's something inherently wrong not using them, since it is the law.
You may attempt to make this about moral high ground and doing what's right, but that's your definition of the situation and you are welcome to your opinion. But the law says otherwise.
Especially since the company is basically legally required to use such methods to reduce their tax burdens, because otherwise they're likely to be sued by share holders or to whomever they are beholden to.
- yapcguy 13y agoMulti-national corporations are playing a game of arbitrage with national tax laws. If it were true that a corporation is legally obligated to reduce its tax burden... then why isn't every shareholder in America suing the company for not moving the headquarters to Dubai where corporation tax is ZERO percent?
- bhahn 13y ago> If it were true that a corporation is legally obligated to reduce its tax burden I'm pretty sure the parent meant within reason. Moving a $300b tech company's headquarters from the heart of SV to a location halfway around the world is not reasonable.