[burke]

Corporations literally have a legal obligation to attempt to pay as little tax as is legally possible (really, to maximize shareholder value, which might even mean paying less tax than is legally possible, as long as the expected value of the gambit is positive).

The issue is not corporations taking advantage of it, the issue is that we have a system where an actor is obligated to optimize for certain variables within the rules of a network of systems, but the network of systems is not coordinated in a way that prevents "abuse" as everyone would like to define it, but strictly speaking, haven't.

[crdoconnor]

>Corporations literally have a legal obligation to attempt to pay as little tax as is legally possible

That is a myth. Directors and officers have no such legal responsibility. Equity is a residual claim.

[ionised]

> Corporations literally have a legal obligation to attempt to pay as little tax as is legally possible

They literally do not.

[burke]

I tried to find a source for this, but just ended up bewildered. There seems to be a lot of conflicting information on this. For example: https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/s...

[basseq]

Exactly this. The term is "fiduciary responsibility". Their directors could be sued for paying unnecessary tax, against which "doing the right thing" is not a legitimate defense. ("Right" in that statement having different moral and legal meanings.)

Or, put another way, it would have been illegal for them to have paid that tax.

[crdoconnor]

>Exactly this. The term is "fiduciary responsibility". Their directors could be sued for paying unnecessary tax

Directors have a responsibility to the corporation, they have no fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.

No shareholder would win a case against a corporation for 'paying too much tax' any more than they would win a case against a corporation for paying the directors or the CEO too much money.

This myth needs to die already.

[ocdtrekkie]

I don't think I agree with that. There's no reason to suggest Google's current actions[1] (hiding billions of dollars in offshore accounts) maximizes shareholder value. They could, instead, either invest that money in ways that bring shareholders returns or even pay out dividends to shareholders directly. Both methods which would generate shareholder value and improve the US economy, which is also good for shareholders.

Instead they're hoarding the money offshore in what looks like a figurative dragon in a cave hoarding shiny things. To my knowledge, hiding cash under your mattress has never been a wise investment strategy.

[1] Note: Plenty of other companies do this too. Apple, Microsoft, etc. all have played tax games, even just in the tech industry. Though I find the level of disparity between Google's public statements about how it thinks things should be, and the statements of employees who seem to think they improve humanity by working there, and the actual realities of Google's business operations bordering on the comical.

[DerpyBaby123]

>it would have been illegal

[Citation needed]