IRS Wins $109 Million Court Case, Defeats ‘Project Soy’ Tax Maneuver

[martybegan]

That is a great solution. Get rid of all credits, deductions and the like, aka all tax expenditures.

But for someone reason those in congress do not what to do that....I wonder why...

Because everyone wants to keep the deductions they like?

Look at how the left whined about the SALT limitations and tried to get around them.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The thing is they did follow the letter of the law, and got punished for it.

the court disagreed.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Because everyone wants to keep the deductions they like?

because they are bought and owned by the rich that advantage of the fucked up tax laws.

 

[martybegan]

the court disagreed.

The court was wrong.

Look for this to be overturned on appeal, as the 2010 requirement for some "economic rationale" is far too vague to stand up said appeal.

 

[martybegan]

because they are bought and owned by the rich that advantage of the fucked up tax laws.

Anyone who doesn't do things to pay the minimum tax they legally owe is an idiot.

 

[marvin martian]

I remember a time, not long ago, when the left were not federal government boot lickers who happily kissed the bloated white asses of the government bureaucracy. That's changed...

Interesting..the court upheld the Govt.'s position that business transactions that have no economic reason, that are solely made to avoid taxes, are illegal.
Big blow to corporate America, if this stands.

MSN

The Internal Revenue Service won a $109 million victory in federal court this week that will help the tax agency combat aggressive corporate tax maneuvers and collect more money from other companies.
The IRS defeated telecommunications company Liberty Global, which used a maneuver it dubbed “Project Soy” to exploit a gap in the 2017 tax law and was seeking a refund.
“It appears that the only substantial purpose of the transaction was tax evasion,” wrote Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the U.S. District Court in Colorado.
Liberty Global plans to appeal, said Bill Myers, a company spokesman.
“We believe the court has incorrectly decided the case,” he said. “We remain confident in our position.”
Lawyers have been closely watching the Liberty Global case, which they view as a test of the government’s ability to beat large companies and partnerships by attacking transactions as being purely tax-motivated. In recent years, the IRS has become more willing to argue that some corporate transactions lack economic substance, invoking a concept that Congress embedded in tax law in 2010.
“It’s a harbinger of a newly aggressive tactic that the IRS will be using more and more,” said Rob Kovacev, a tax lawyer at Miller & Chevalier who wasn’t involved in the case. “It puts the wind at their backs, and when you combine that with the additional funding that they got for enforcement, that tells you that there are going to be a lot more of those cases and they’ll be pursued more aggressively.”

I hope they lose the appeal.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Anyone who doesn't do things to pay the minimum tax they legally owe is an idiot.

100%. The problem is all the loop holes and ways to cheat only benefit the rich and powerful that helped write the tax laws.

But be some average couple bringing in 250 grand a year and you are bent over and fucked without a reach around.

 

[martybegan]

100%. The problem is all the loop holes and ways to cheat only benefit the rich and powerful that helped write the tax laws.

But be some average couple bringing in 250 grand a year and you are bent over and fucked without a reach around.

Everyone gets deductions. The reason the rich need more lawyers and accountants is because the law becomes more complicated, and the amount taxed becomes greater.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Everyone gets deductions.

The poor get a ton of them, the really rich get a ton of them, those of us in the middle almost none

 

[martybegan]

The poor get a ton of them, the really rich get a ton of them, those of us in the middle almost none

The poor don't get deductions, they get subsidized.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The poor don't get deductions, they get subsidized.

semantics. Those of us in the middle get none of the above

 

[martybegan]

semantics. Those of us in the middle get none of the above

We get some, but are you really surprised that people who have more money an assets have more ways to deduct than people who have less money and assets?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

We get some, but are you really surprised that people who have more money an assets have more ways to deduct than people who have less money and assets?

surprised? No

Pissed yes.

Why should they pay a lower percent than I do?

 

[martybegan]

surprised? No

Pissed yes.

Why should they pay a lower percent than I do?

because they pay sometimes up to 100 or 1000 times what we do?

Percent is about envy, nothing more or less.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

because they pay sometimes up to 100 or 1000 times what we do?

doubtful.

Percent is about envy, nothing more or less.

Bullshit. I am more than fine with paying a higher percent than those who make less than me, I think it is only fair.

But there is no good reason for those making 10 times what I do to pay a lower percent.

 

[TNHarley]

So Congress fucks up, and a judge just makes shit up. Again.
The statists cheer!

 

[martybegan]

doubtful.



Bullshit. I am more than fine with paying a higher percent than those who make less than me, I think it is only fair.

But there is no good reason for those making 10 times what I do to pay a lower percent.

Why?

The actual purpose of taxing is funding the government, that's measured in dollars, not percent of income.

They pay a shit ton more of the ACTUAL mechanism of paying for government. Again, whining about percentage is class warfare in a nutshell.

Despite your protests, figured you for a marxist.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why?

The actual purpose of taxing is funding the government, that's measured in dollars, not percent of income.

Yes, it is measured in dollars, and the most efficient way to do that is to take a larger percent as people make more money, thus giving the dollars needed.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, it is measured in dollars, and the most efficient way to do that is to take a larger percent as people make more money, thus giving the dollars needed.

No, the most efficient way is to limit government to what its supposed to do and not try to make it the great social equalizer, comrade.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, the most efficient way is to limit government to what its supposed to do and not try to make it the great social equalizer, comrade.

But we do not do that, we the people keep voting in people that spend way more money than we have. You yourself keeps voting for people that spend more than we have.