Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by loeg 3581 days ago
Best interest of the company usually includes producing the most income for shareholders, which involves minimizing expenses. Taxes are an expense. It may not be written down in stone but it follows logically from other principles.
1 comments
plesner 3581 days ago
If what you're saying is true then it's easy to provide evidence: just find a case where a company has been successfully sued for not minimizing their taxes sufficiently. I've never heard of such a case and I can't imagine how it could exist and not be mentioned every time a company receives criticism for evading taxes.
link
Spivak 3580 days ago
What you're saying is ridiculous. No company would be sued for overpaying their taxes but their accountants would certainly be fired.

Assuming you're from the US, every year you have the choice to take the standard deduction or itemize. Do you ever feel guilty for choosing the option that lessens your tax burden? Why would you hold a company to a higher standard?

If you think that companies should pay more taxes, then push your government to close the loopholes they're using and/or raise taxes. If you're counting on people to 'do the right thing' when they're directly incentivized not to you're going get nothing but disappointment.

link
plesner 3580 days ago
The original comment said it was their fiduciary duty to minimize taxes. It's not - exploiting loopholes is a choice, not a legal obligation.

You're talking about incentives which is a different discussion. There are incentives that go the other way too: evading taxes looks bad, it's bad for business if society crumbles for lack of revenue, morally it's wrong to benefit from infrastructure, education, etc and not contribute back. But that's not the point I was addressing.

link
JumpCrisscross 3580 days ago
> just find a case where a company has been successfully sued for not minimizing their taxes sufficiently

If I owned a company overpaying taxes I'd seek to have them acquired (priced using a tax-efficient income assumption) or management replaced. Suing would be unlikely.

That said, I agree with your general point that no fiduciary obligation is likely violated. It's just bad business.

link