[screature2]

It is, in this case "double taxation" is a term of art and denotes the shareholders' perspective because the shareholder is taxed first on corporate income (as "owners" of the corporation) and second on receipt of their dividends (as part of their individual income).

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/03/102203.asp

[kevinh]

A corporation is a separate entity from a shareholder. If a company's corporate income and a shareholder's personal income are the same, surely we should also be OK with lawsuits against corporations also digging into the pocketbooks of shareholders.

That distinction exists for a reason.

[jacques_chester]

The distinction exists for a reason, but that reason doesn't in itself require taxation to happen twice. If I am in business I can pay tax once or, as the owner of a corporation, potentially pay tax twice. I will obviously prefer the former.

Since, as you say, the corporation is legally distinct, whether I own the whole corporation or just part of it is neither here nor there. My objection is the same, which is that there are two tollgates between me and what I see as my share of the income.

Australia's corporate tax system allows for "franking credits". Shareholders receive these from companies based on their proportional ownership. The income tax paid by the corporation may be offset against the income tax owed by shareholders.

Unsurprisingly, Australian companies are much more likely to pay dividends.

[torstenvl]

Can Australian companies spend unlimited amounts of money on political propaganda without the assent of all their shareholders?