[geocrasher]

This reminds me of the Subaru BRAT in the early '80s. There was a 25% tarrif on imported pickups. So Subaru added two plastic jump seats in the back of the BRAT, even making them face backwards. No seat belts as I recall just handles. They weren't even really intended to be used. They were just cheap plastic. But they served the purpose of making the vehicle a four-seater car instead of a pickup, with only a 2.5% tarrif.

Tarrif averted, thousands sold!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_BRAT

[magicalhippo]

Here in Norway we have the infamous "E6 ham". We have an import tax on dry-cured ham[1], but not unprocessed meat.

Someone figured out it was cheaper then to import unprocessed meat from Spain to Norway, turn the truck around as soon as they were customs cleared and drive the 3000 km or so back to Spain for curing.

Once cured they'd re-import the processed meat, which now has a different tariff due to being "Norwegian" ham processed abroad, while still being proper Spanish dry-cured ham.

So a ~6000 km (3700 miles) detour to save on import taxes, yay...

The name comes from the E6 route[2] the trucks drive through Sweden and into Norway.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ham#Dry-cured

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_route_E6

[shagie]

> Someone figured out it was cheaper then to import unprocessed meat from Spain to Norway, turn the truck around as soon as they were customs cleared and drive the 3000 km or so back to Spain for curing.

Ahh, those Norwegians and their customs evasions. https://youtu.be/oP1Oq3JLNbc (do note that I'm ascribing this to Norwegians completely in jest - tone is difficult to get across in text)

... Which recently had an update. https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/asc-gets-green-li...

[captainmuon]

I never get why you actually have to put the ham on the truck.

In a slightly less illogical EU you could just go to the appropriate EU committe, and get an exception where you send the ham on a "virtual trip". Just proove that you payed the cost of shipment. The ham benefits, the environment benefits, everybody wins.

I would even go further and introduce a legal principle. Every law that can be circumvented by a ridiculous trick is either void, or the loophole has to be closed.

[function_seven]

> Every law that can be circumvented by a ridiculous trick is either void, or the loophole has to be closed.

California did something like this with window tint violations. It's illegal to have your windows tinted darker than some amount. In the old days, if you were ticketed for this, it would be a "Fix It" ticket. You get the tint removed, have a cop sign off that the violation was corrected, and pay some nominal fine. ($25, I think)

Almost everyone who got one of these tickets would have the tint peeled off, the ticket cleared, and be back at the tint shop the next day to get it put back on. If you like your tint, then true cost of the ticket was $225 or whatever.

Now the ticket gives you an option! You can still correct the violation, have it signed off, and pay the fee, or you can pay a larger fine and not have to demonstrate that you've cured the violation. They probably figured if the driver was going to go through the expense of removing and reapplying the tint, the state might as well see that money.

Wasn't really a loophole, per se, but it was a circumvention that the state decided to eliminate buy allowing you to buy an indulgence :)

[sokoloff]

Some tint shops responded to this loss of revenue by offering “tint guarantees” where you could have tint reapplied for some period of time for half price.

The game over here in New England is getting a statement of medical accommodation from an eye doctor asserting that bright sun is uncomfortable but you have no other limitations.

[throaway46546]

I have heard you can just bribe a cop to sign it off and you don't have to have it removed at all.

[withinboredom]

I had a drug dealer friend with a cop as a roommate. The cop “didn’t know” but he “loved to help out friends of friends.” It was entirely comical over at their house.

[wiseleo]

That sounds like a screenplay :)

[function_seven]

I've never heard of outright bribes, but plenty of people have a cop as a family member or friend who'd gladly fix the fix-it ticket for you. At the time I got mine, I didn't have that option. I paid the fine.

[jorams]

> In a slightly less illogical EU

This has approximately nothing to do with the EU. Norway is not in the EU and not in the EU Customs Union.

[taspeotis]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area

> The European Economic Area (EEA) was established via the Agreement on the European Economic Area, an international agreement which enables the extension of the European Union's single market to member states of the European Free Trade Association. The EEA links the EU member states and three EFTA states (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and *Norway*) into an internal market governed by the same basic rules.

[magicalhippo]

We have our own customs rules though. The proper EU members are all bound by the EU customs TARIC[1] while Norway has its own[2].

The EEA limits what we can do with our own customs tariff though.

[1]: https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/calculation-c...

[2]: https://tolltariffen.toll.no/tolltariff?language=en

[quickthrower2]

A lesson for anyone implementing metrics and incentives

[setr]

Well, it still did its job of increasing cost of external cured ham… just by not as much of an increase, or as directly, as they intended

[ianlevesque]

Also an egregious waste of carbon emissions in the era of climate change though.

[adrianN]

We should just put a price on carbon directly instead of optimizing lots of other rules to also take emissions into account. Fuel is just too cheap.

[robertlagrant]

Or just get rid of silly nonsense like this rule so people are not incentivised to drive 6000km by the government.

[peregren]

Too cheap for who?

There are carbon taxes being implemented and on the whole i think they are good. But combined with the current spike in energy prices, they are hammering some people.

[mavhc]

Everything should have a pollution tax of the amount it costs to clean up the pollution it creates, then use the money to clean it up

[biztos]

If you are a major oil exporter, is that a bug or a feature?

https://www.npd.no/en/

[kozak]

We now call this "proof of work".

[kgc]

Maybe they could just send an NFT of the meat to save on transport costs.

[consp]

This reminds me of puzzles (as in physical 1000 piece things) in the 90s. It was cheaper to manufacture them somewhere, import them, export them to Spain, import them again than sell them straight from the country of origin which I think was Finland. All the while the stuff never moved and it was all on paper afaik. The lettering had to be in Spanish though but it's a puzzle, you know how it works.

[rasz]

Biggest Polish IT company was bankrupted by this. Optimus SA was called Polish Dell&Yahoo combined in the nineties. They manufactured computers, made multimedia/education software and games, distributed software/games, IT contracts/system integration, POS systems deployments, ERP, consulting, biggest web portal, biggest online communicator, biggest search engine.

.. then one day in 1999 ministry of education announced a huge contracts for school computerization program, and specifically requested "no VAT" prices (22%) from all bidders. The only way to achieve this was exporting/re-importing Polish build computers, something Ministry itself not only suggested, but was publicly proud of securing.

Year later local prosecutor accused Optimus of evading $2m VAT, froze all assets (~$100mil company in 2000) and arranged SWAT to arrest CEO, leading to inability to pay wages/service debt. 3 years and multiple appeals later investigation was closed without so much as "sorry". This wasnt even the only company destroyed same way. Another one was JTT, mayor PC hardware distributor https://pl-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/JTT_Computer?...

In 2011 CD Project reverse merger with corpse of Optimus SA to get on the stock exchange. https://pl-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/CD_Projekt?_x...

11 years later (2014) CD Project managed to "win" ~$300K settlement for court mistake https://crn-pl.translate.goog/aktualnosci/cd-projekt-dostal-...

Same year mayor shareholder of defunct JTT received ~$10mil settlement, which was immediately overturned. It only took them another 7 years to finally get ~$1mil just last year https://www-pb-pl.translate.goog/mci-otrzyma-5-mln-zl-odszko... for the destruction of a company worth ~$20mil in 2000.

[mszcz]

Yeah, I remember that. I think I still have a framed, very old cover of Wprost with Roman Kluska (the owner of Optimus) after we won a pyrrhic victory against the state for that, years after the fact. Of course, none of the bureaucrats responsible for burning Optimus to the ground got even as much as a citation. In fact, I vaguely recall reading about them getting bonuses for slapping a big fine on Optimus.

The framed cover used to be a reminder that, in general, the state and the Polish equivalent of the IRS is not, and never will be, your friend. Sure, I've had some friendly and helpful chats with multiple people working for our IRS but I've never forgotten Optimus.

[eru]

They are called jigsaw puzzlez in English, I believe.

[Hello71]

source? upon searching for "e6 ham", "norway ham tax", "e6 skinke" etc found only this post.

[Cederfjard]

Quick search found this, from the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation in 2014: https://www.nrk.no/norge/ellevill-skinkereise-1.11613122

Translated: https://www-nrk-no.translate.goog/norge/ellevill-skinkereise...

[Hello71]

thanks!

[danielfoster]

Not everything is on the Internet.

[jonnycomputer]

Heathen!

[actually_a_dog]

I guess it's not that "infamous," then, is it?

[magicalhippo]

Perhaps the wrong choice of word, English is my second language after all. But it's quite well known in the food importing industry here AFAIK, and most seem to recognize it's exceptionally silly. But it's cheaper...

[robjan]

Infamous is probably the correct word, its infamy just hasn't been translated.

[geoduck14]

Welcome to English!

Infamous refers to something that is "well known for being bad!". A classic example would be a (well known) pirate! If the tax you are talking about is bad (I'm pretty sure it is) and well known (also, yes), then "Infamous" is a fine word to use

Notorious is a similar word - well known for something bad

Famous works if it isn't bad, but it usnusually used for people, and I would imagine "the highest threshold" of well-known stuff - so expect people to argue with you: "I haven't heard of X, so it must not be famous!"

Renowned and prominent are fine alternatives to "famous"

My personal favorite is Preeminent- which carries the notion of "#1 best". "My king is the Preeminent leader" - there is NO OTHER leader that can be king

Again, welcome to English, enjoy your stay!

[magicalhippo]

A friend of mine works at a company that does just this.

He said the drivers who haven't done it before gets quite confused when ordered back to Spain just as they've crossed the border, without unloading.

[biztos]

If hams are fungible from a customs point of view (why would they not be?) you could try pre-curing the hams and have them ready just across the border. Ham in, ham out, ham in again, no extra trip to Spain required.

Then you sell the uncured hams you needed for the stamps to a pet-food factory or for German “salami” or whatever.

[Someone]

They possibly need to be cured in Spain so that they can be called Spanish (e.g. Serrano or Ibérico).

And I guess they aren’t fungible because they get tested for health reasons and protein content.

In the EU, tracking is needed. If people get ill from eating ham, it’s important to exactly know where the meat came from (factory, farm, sometimes even the specific pig. Conversely, if animals get ill, it’s important to know where their milk went. https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/traces_en)

[biztos]

They would be cured in Spain! Before coming up to the border.

However, you have reminded me that indeed this would probably not work because of all the tracking required to prevent the Mad Swine Pox and so on.

[kgwgk]

What do you mean?

a) You bring two sets of high quality hams from Spain, one cured and the other raw

b) You cross the border in and out with the raw hams, and tell the customs clerk "I'll come back the processed product"

c) You cross the border again with the cured hams "that was quick, eh?"

d) You dispose of the raw hams selling them at a high discount on a roadside stand

I guess you can do it even more efficiently changing slightly the first two steps:

a) You bring a thousand cured hams and a single raw ham

b) You cross the border in and out a thousand times with the (only) raw ham you have

That improves the economics of the scheme, but makes it look even more fishy.

[biztos]

a) Yes, but raw is not so high quality.

b) Yes

c) Yes but if the hams are fungible, which the other commenter explained they are not, then doing this at volume would make the timing irrelevant.

d) Yes, or just pre-sell them to someplace that doesn't care about quality. Just has to be inside the EU since these are the hams that (you say) have not yet been to Norway!

Crossing the border a thousand times, carrying a ham each way each time, would probably be less efficient, unless you get tax breaks for your hourly employees, in which case you could also have a thousand employees on standby and do it relay-style.

While it's true that this would never work, and if you tried it'd be extremely fishy, I do in fact know a place you can buy pork sausage that tastes of fish.

Sometimes the absurd is possible!

[epse]

That sure sounds like fraud and lying to customs officers, a bit like saying you import cheap Chinese tablets and instead you import WACOM cintiq drawing tablets worth thousands

[drcode]

Nutella was similarly invented as a chocolate substitute, to (you guessed it) avoid chocolate tariffs.

[desdiv]

Do you happen to have a source for that?

My understanding is that Napoleon's Continental System caused a shortage of cocoa in continental Europe, so chocolatiers had to substitute in hazelnuts. This became Gianduja[0], which later were modified to become Nutella.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianduja_(chocolate)

[eru]

Isn't that basically exactly the same story as what the comment you replied to said?

[kgwgk]

Except for the taxes part :-)

[drcode]

I had read it somewhere, but I agree it may not have been accurate, because I can't easily find a citation

[HeavenFox]

There's also the Ford vs Chicken Tax; basically U.S. import tariff for passenger van is 2.5% and cargo van is 25%, so Ford, which manufactured their Transit van in Turkey, installed seats in factory and stripped the seats once they arrived in the U.S.

Now looks like they are in trouble for this scheme.

https://jalopnik.com/ford-faces-potential-1-3-billion-fine-f...

(And why it's called Chicken Tax is another fascinating story...)

[bentcorner]

There's also the infamous Toy Biz, Inc. v. United States case where Marvel Comics argued that their X-Men toys where "nonhuman toys" and not dolls to avoid an import tax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Biz%2C_Inc._v._United_Stat...

The irony is that in the X-Men universe, the X-Men fight for a unification of mutants and humans.

[autoexec]

Still, technically true though I'd think. Mutants aren't human. The X-Gene makes them "Homo sapiens superior" and distinguishes them from humans who were mutated by other means (radiation, spider bites, etc). Do X-men want to erase the distinction or do they just want peaceful coexistence between the two species?

[quietbritishjim]

I'm not saying this would affect a court ruling, but as a point of curiosity: technically "human" means the homo genus, not just the sapiens species. So Neanderthals for example, or homo erectus, are both human. The X-men would be human too, if they were indeed homo sapiens superior.

[gumby]

> or do they just want peaceful coexistence between the two species?

Are they truly speciated or can they interbreed producing fertile offspring?

"Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" doesn't really address this as Superman is not a member of genus homo.

[autoexec]

Mutants and humans can produce fertile offspring, but hybrids aren't impossible across species just uncommon. Bison and cattle, or grizzlies and polar bears are examples. Where we divide groups into "species" is pretty murky. I'm sure somewhere there has to be a biologist who loves comics enough to sort all this stuff out for us. Then again, I've seen Neanderthals called both a subspecies and a separate species of human too so they should probably sort that one out first.

[gumby]

Given that every child is different from either parent (not only by half the chromosomes but transcription errors and epigenic triggers) what defines a mutatant vs “stock”?

[cgriswald]

As species boundaries go, human/mutant is incredibly arbitrary. Either a mutant or a human can be created from a pairing of human-human, mutant-human, or mutant-mutant. It would be like classifying blonde people as a different species.

[vba616]

I realize this is more about the X-men universe, but the statement "mutants aren't human" bugs me.

The human body accumulates on the order of 10 quadrillion uncorrected mutations per day, supposedly:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC47258/

(I'm assuming 30 trillion cells and that ~2.7% of mutations go uncorrected based on the rat figures mentioned)

[jrockway]

Wow. I hope the government loses their lawsuit here. Customs & Border Protection should have absolutely no jurisdiction over what an item is used for once it enters the country.

[colejohnson66]

Ford lost in 2019. An appeal to the Supreme Court was denied.[0] My non-lawyer understand of the issue wasn’t so much that they were avoiding a tariff (“tariff engineering”), but that they were removing the seats upon entry. In contrast with the BRAT where the dummy seats were still there when sold.

[0]: https://www.autoblog.com/2021/06/03/ford-transit-connect-imp...

[etskinner]

I wonder if they could, in theory, sell you the car for 150% of it's final price (so that they seats are there when sold), then buy back the seats immediately for 50% of its price. The invoice would say something like: Car with passenger seats: $15,000; Passenger seat buyback: $5,000; Total after buyback: $10,000.

That way everyone gets what they want, and they've technically sold it with the seats still installed.

[kentonv]

Law isn't interpreted by computers, it is interpreted by human judges, who generally aren't impressed by such hacks (though you might get lucky).

[dragonwriter]

Yeah, when the law allows additional sanction for willful/knowing violation, courts will not only often see through your “clever hack”, but also see it as evidence of deliberate wrongdoing.

[vba616]

Also see: structuring.

You have to report behavior X, and if you deliberately don't do behavior X to avoid reporting it, that's a crime too!

Let's see you put that on the blockchain...

[shawnz]

Aren't the seats themselves already a "hack"?

[babypuncher]

Frankly I think our justice system should be less tolerant of "hacks" like this. They clearly violate the intent of the law, even if technically following it to the letter.

[cgriswald]

I prefer judges and lawyers interpret what the law says, not what they believe lawmakers meant to say. It is lawmakers responsibility to craft quality laws. Such hacks expose weaknesses in the laws as written.

Edit: ...when successful.

[orangecat]

Absolutely not. Throwing people in prison who were explicitly obeying the law as written is a terrible road to go down.

[WalterBright]

That would return us from the rule of law back to the rule of men. History hasn't been kind to the rule of men.

[noizejoy]

While I agree with your well intentioned sentiment, “intent” is even more nebulous and arguable.

[908B64B197]

Or have the dealerships take care of the aftermarket conversion.

Ford should only have issued a guide to independent dealers and repair centers on how to do a conversion between cargo and passenger (and made sure both were possible) but only import the passenger version into the country.

Then it's murkier, because not all dealerships would offer it and the customer isn't buying it from Ford, he's getting an independent dealer to install additional things (or remove) from the vehicle.

[laurent92]

Isn’t a lot of securization necessary for two more seats? Adding floor reinforcements, seatbelts, and more importantly, passing the crash tests with two more seats?

[thaeli]

They have to do that for the passenger version of the van anyway.

[bjustin]

And collect tax on $20,000 in sales instead of $10,000? Maybe they would be happy if car companies used this scheme.

[colejohnson66]

Then the government would collect income tax from the owner on that rebate as well, no? Seems like an expensive operation.

[R0b0t1]

This doesn't really assuage his concern. The government is still dictating what you do with items.

CBP is one of the worst infringers upon personal rights, I wouldn't defend them.

[dragonwriter]

> The government is still dictating what you do with items.

Well, no, they are dictating what taxes you owe based on intent, and using consistent patterns of behavior as evidence of ongoing intent.

This isn't Ford changing their mind about the purpose of the vehicle after importing them.

[babypuncher]

They aren't telling you what you can do with your items. They are telling you what taxes you owe based on the intended function of said item.

[R0b0t1]

The power to tax is the power to destroy. The same overzealous power they have to tell me what my usage intent was also allows them to totally ban items that aren't actually banned.

[nathanvanfleet]

So in your view they just felt like adding seats and then removing them later?

[harles]

I’d expect some were also sold with the seats, they just changed the default config. I wonder what the ratio was though.

[tshaddox]

> Customs & Border Protection should have absolutely no jurisdiction over what an item is used for once it enters the country.

I mean, that's the whole point of the import tariff law, so if the CBP has jurisdiction to enforce tariff law, surely how the item is used (or at least how the item is intended to be used or how the item can reasonably be expected to be used) is the primary factor to consider.

[khuey]

Why? Borders are full of rules of the form "X can cross for purpose A but not for purpose B" for both people and goods.

[jrockway]

How long does the rule apply for? If someone removes seats from their van, is that tax evasion? What if it's temporary? If an individual can do it, why not Ford?

The problem I have here is how easy it is to avoid the tax. CBP shouldn't have any jurisdiction over car modifications and repairs; that responsibility falls to different agencies.

[fredoralive]

It seems that the issue was that Ford, the importer, changed the class of vehicle between import and being sold inside the US. Presumably if you aren't the importer you can go wild (IANAL).

[jrockway]

Yeah, so they're really just getting punished for not dotting their is and crossing their ts. They could create a subsidiary with the same board of directors as Ford that they sell the cars to, and then the subsidiary does the dirty work of repurposing the cars from passenger vehicles to cargo vehicles. They skipped paying the $100 corporate registration fee, so now they're on the hook for a billion dollar fine that would have been legal if they added another company to the mix? Give me a break.

[beerandt]

No- the norm is for things to be imported, then combined or modified and sold as a new product, without paying the import tax based on the new product.

If import tax on a cpu is x, and motherboard is y, should you have to pay computer import tax z if you build and sell PCs? After all, what imported cpus and motherboards aren't destined to be assembled computers?

[AnimalMuppet]

The courts tend to take a dim view of "clever hacks" to get around the law, where the intent is clearly to circumvent the law and the action has no other purpose. They don't always rule that way. But if you pull this kind of stunt, you risk the court saying, "Very clever. No."

[gowld]

Corporate accounting is annindustry that only exist as "clever hacks". It usually works, unless you are politically out of favor.

[babypuncher]

The rule applies to the entity responsible for importing the item. Since Ford was importing the vehicle and then altering it immediately afterwards to escape the tax, they are in the wrong. If they instead sold it as-is to a customer, and the customer then made the modification themselves, it wouldn't be a problem.

[KarlKemp]

The fact I can’t tell you the individual grain of sand that makes the difference does not imply that the concept of a “sand beach” is meaningless.

[mc32]

It was pretty transparent that they did that to circumvent regulation.

Imagine Coca-Cola getting clearance for importing coca leaves for flavoring but then instead sells it to a third party who processes it for something else.

[vba616]

At least decades ago when I first read about it, it was said that the third party, a company called the Stepan Co., imports the coca leaves, removes the cocaine, and sends the leaves to Coca-Cola and the cocaine to Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals.

https://apnews.com/article/af06f48660bf613e12d411a8f4dd4784

[notch656a]

Am I the only one that sees no problem with that? Why the hell should coca-cola be responsible for what someone else does with coca leaves?

[rtpg]

It's basically about lying. Coca-Cola says "I am going to do X so let me import this", while intending to actually do Y. Meanwhile, the gov't is like "well in principle we don't want people importing this because of Y but we'll make exceptions if it's for X"

And like many rules, it's not necessarily about stopping 100% of everything all the time, but about preventing enough of it so that we don't have some problem.

In the universe in which you agree X is fine but Y is not, and that there is some sort of proof that Coca-Cola knows what is going on, it seems really obvious that Coca-Cola is responsible!

[JohnBooty]

I mean, we (ideally) pass laws to benefit society.

I'm not somebody who really loves rules and regulations and I'll be the first person to say that America's "war on drugs" has been an utter disaster in multiple ways.

But, generally speaking, flooding a country with cocaine is not what most of us would call beneficial to society.

If you don't think that we should have a society and/or laws, cool, that's another discussion. But if you accept the premise that we should have laws, controlling the flow of industrial quantities of coca leaves seems like the good kind of law.

I mean, I guess we could just let Coca-Cola import metric tons of coca leaves, sell them to whoever the fuck they want, and then just... prosecute the people who do bad things with them? I think we would find that orders of magnitude more work and orders of magnitude less effective. There would be a large cost to society, and nobody wins except Coca-Cola, really.

[vba616]

>I mean, I guess we could just let Coca-Cola import metric tons of coca leaves, sell them to whoever the fuck they want, and then just... prosecute the people who do bad things with them?

Yes? Basically?

(1988)

"Workers at the Stepan Co. plant, the nation’s only legal importer of cocaine, must undergo strict background checks, and agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Agency frequently visit, said plant manager John O’Brien.

DEA spokesman Milton Smilek in Newark said there haven’t been any security problems at the plant just west of New York City. He said it processes hundreds of tons of cocaine each year."

This is where Coca-Cola is said to get its flavoring from.

[8note]

You are responsible for who you sell things to.

At worst, you can imagine selling a full nuclear bomb to Al kaeda, then being surprised pikachu when they use it to blow up IAD

[michaelmrose]

Presumably because the would logically accept such a duty as an alternative to the government telling them they aren't allowed to import it at all.

[RC_ITR]

It also goes to show how corrupt the import tax system is.

Why SHOULD a cargo van have higher import taxes than a passenger van, other than to serve the needs of some random private company?

Even moreso, I wouldn’t be surprised if Ford lobbied FOR those laws before changing its mind in where to produce a particular sku

[jrockway]

It sounds like the age-old market segmentation thing. People driving their kids to soccer practice don't make money with their vans, so they'll notice the higher price (and if they find out their congresscritter was responsible, they'll vote for a different one). Meanwhile, cargo vans are used to make money, so the users can bear the extra cost. There's also overtones of taxation without representation going on here; individuals can vote, and so they have lower taxes than businesses, which can't vote. (It's too bad that Ford doesn't dump the seats they take out of the van into Boston Harbor! Someone would probably still get the reference.)

It's the same game that SaaS companies play. Everything is free until you want SSO, then it's $30,000 a year. If you need SSO, you can afford it.

Personally, I hate this in both cases. I think we could save everyone a lot of time if every vendor you did business with just grabbed you by the ankles and flipped you upside down and took whatever money fell out of your pocket. Why tiptoe around what they really want...

[titusjohnson]

> There's also overtones of taxation without representation going on here; individuals can vote, and so they have lower taxes than businesses, which can't vote.

I'm confused about this statement. Businesses are comprised of individuals, and those individuals (if citizens) can vote. So the business has a vote through the voice of its employees and representation in government through the people employees at a business.

Or are you saying the legal fiction of business personhood should give the business a ... vote? That just sounds like business owners (individuals) getting 2 or more votes then...

[NoboruWataya]

> Or are you saying the legal fiction of business personhood should give the business a ... vote? That just sounds like business owners (individuals) getting 2 or more votes then...

I believe the more common proposal is to resolve the contradiction the other way: remove taxes on corporations, as the individuals comprising the corporations generally already pay taxes. That would be politically quite unpopular, but there is a certain logic to it and it would also make taxes easier to administer and more difficult to avoid. And it doesn't need to be as pro-rich as it sounds - you could just replace corporation taxes with other taxes targeting wealthy individuals, such as a wealth tax or higher income taxes.

[slt2021]

maybe businesses can't vote, but they can buy votes of the congressmen directly.

why go through the hassle of voting and deal with uncertainty whether you voted a right person, when you can just buy with cash whatever law/regulation you need

[gowld]

Would you prefer that only rich people could buy things? Without price discrimination, the market clearing price is higher.

[nickff]

>"Why SHOULD a cargo van have higher import taxes than a passenger van, other than to serve the needs of some random private company?"

Have you read a tariff schedule? They're full of this stuff, which seem to be protections or favors for specific industries. Anti-dumping protections seem similar.

[RC_ITR]

>It also goes to show how corrupt the import tax system is.

[nickff]

I am not sure it is 'corrupt', though that may be a question of semantics. I didn't mean to disagree with you, just point out how rampant the issue was.

[colejohnson66]

No lobbying involved. It’s the remnants of a tariff war with France and Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

[RC_ITR]

The Chicken Wars brought the powerful agricultural lobby in France into direct conflict with the powerful agricultural lobby in the United States. Not surprisingly, France, the largest poultry producer in the EEC, was unwilling to embrace a free trade policy whose benefits would be spread among consumers throughout Europe. The benefits of protectionism were concentrated in France and the costs were borne by consumers throughout Europe. Indeed, the stakes were sufficiently high that France might have quit the EEC had not French agricultural interests been appeased.

That's from the 'further reading' link on Wikipedia.

[vilaca]

> benefits would be spread among consumers throughout Europe

The EU has banned poultry meat from the US on psytosanitary grounds for more than two decades.

[colejohnson66]

Yes, but I meant lobbying from Ford for said tariff as you suggested.

[drzaiusapelord]

I find it incredible that people think the government does things like this "just because." It do so because its capitalist masters demand it. Of course this is lobbying driven. The government in a capitalist society exists almost solely to bring the agenda of lobbyists into the legislature by any means possible be it via cash contributions, manufacturing consent via the corporatist media, riling people up via the pulpit, fixing elections, demonizing unrelated minority groups, threatening or even attempting coups, blocking the teaching of certain subjects in school, assassination, etc.

Its incredible to me that there's an entire political identity that borderline denies any of this happens, and instead the government itself is somehow naturally corrupt but business and the lobbying and capital owning class are all angels and saints. Everyday conservatism buys into this fallacy fairly well and this dishonesty seems to be the core of libertarianism.

Explaining this concept to some people feels like how I would imagine explaining water to fish must be. We're just so surrounded by it and it defines so much of our culture, that you can fail to see if you choose. You can just call everything government corruption from cradle to grave without asking about the source and motivation of that corruption. You can swim your whole life and never wonder why you're wet.

[gamblor956]

The issue was that the seats were only added for the purposes of evading tax, and the tax evasive purpose was established by Ford systematically removing the seats prior to sale.

Ford would have been fine if they had kept the seats in the car until they were sold and left it up to the customer to remove the seats. (This would not have affected the customer, tax-wise, since the import duty is paid by Ford, and by the time the customer has removed the seats, they have already paid the sales tax on the vehicle.)

[throwawaylinux]

I've always been lead to believe the intent of a law or regulation is what matters in the eyes of a court.

The Subaru case probably violates the intent as well but maybe that would be a lot harder to prove. But the Ford case they clearly conspired to violate the intent. Which, if "intent" really is the important thing, I suppose should have lead to criminal charges too.

I suppose intent probably matters a bit more when it's the little guy on the receiving end of it.

[friedturkey]

I sincerely hope Ford gets hit hard and pays back all the profits they made from their tax dodging scheme plus penalties.

I'm beyond tired of massive corporations sending jobs to other countries, pretending to care about their own country and lying about being made locally, and dodging taxes. Ford hit all three here.

[db65edfc7996]

Planet Money did[0] a story about the Chicken Tax.

[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/01/25/511663527/epis...

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Perhaps a more relevant and legally robust example is the Mercedes Benz Sprinter, which is manufactured in Germany, but US-bound vehicles have various parts removed before shipping. A facility in NC reassembles the vehicles (the removed parts are shipped with the van) once they arrive, which reduces or eliminates the tax.

[notmercedespr]

Bit off, this was done near Charleston, SC as recently as a few years ago but has since transitioned to full manufacturing.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

How right you are!

[notch656a]

I'm guessing they're only trouble because they took the seats out. Probably cheaper just to leave them in, and sell along with wrench to remove them 'in case it's needed for repair.' A friendly source will publish in a trade magazine it's the same van after 12 minutes to remove the seats, and the scheme will continue.

[fredoralive]

According to an article about it[1], Ford also removed / panelled in various windows as well, so conversion probably isn't as trivially DIYable as just removing some token seats.

Although I suppose van buyers are slightly more likely to know someone with a welding torch and some steel sheets than the average person, so perhaps they missed a trick...

[1]https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/SB125357990638429655

[Pasorrijer]

Yeah I remember reading that the Ford employees on the US side got the removal time down to 12 minutes a van.

[gumby]

Given the cost of labor it was probably worth doing some design engineering to make the removal as easy as possible

[Hokusai]

> Now looks like they are in trouble for this scheme.

All these cheats will never be accepted for working individuals. Corporations get a different flavor of justice. Even then they push it to the limits and dinner times find a burocrat in the pertinent agency willing to push forward a rightful punishment.

[ethbr0]

SMB and sole proprietorships get away with ridiculous tax things constantly! The only difference is they usually don't try to take it to the Supreme Court when the IRS audits them.

[fooey]

A seafood company in Canada has a 100 foot section of train track, where they load trucks on and right back off, in an attempt to get around the Jones Act requirement that goods shipped between 2 points in the US must use US flagged vessels

https://www.adn.com/business-economy/2021/09/15/feds-accuse-...

[mmcgaha]

We need something like the senate filibuster debate rule for taxes. Basically just state that there is this thing I can do to skirt the tax system so I declare a tax evasion without having to actually make people do stupid stuff.

[Forgeties79]

That defeats the purpose of the law. If they’re flagrantly violating the spirit and intent by barely passing the technical requirement, then the law should either A) be removed or B) retooled to address the loophole.

We should never encourage ignoring certain laws or it undermines the whole system. It’s why I don’t support states legalizing weed under the federal government’s nose/while they turn a blind eye. Sure, we like it for weed, but what happens when a super conservative state does something less popular like, say, functionally bans gay marriage and goes, “well you aren’t enforcing drug laws, why should they get a pass but not us?”

I’m sure there are better examples but hopefully I’m getting my point across. Exceptions = weakening of the established structure. I don’t know about you, but I like that “the law is king” in the US. Mostly because we can change them.

[sneak]

> That defeats the purpose of the law. If they’re flagrantly violating the spirit and intent by barely passing the technical requirement, then the law should either A) be removed or B) retooled to address the loophole.

Yes, indeed. It completely defeats the purpose of the law, which is why the suggestion is akin to your A solution (that it should be invalidated/removed).

The law doesn't encode "purpose" or "spirit", the law only exists as written. When applying the law, and tax law especially, it's counterproductive to speculate as to "spirit" or "purpose", and best to focus just on what the law actually is, because that's the only part that really counts as "democratic". Intentions and ideals weren't voted on, the actual literal text of the law was.

[BeFlatXIII]

The fact that laws can't (or just don't) address purpose is a major shortcoming. IMO, the preamble to the US Constitution is its most important part. Defining purpose and scope gives later judges clear guidelines on how to handle future ambiguous cases and people who think they're clever for finding technical loopholes.

[vineyardmike]

> but what happens when a super conservative state does something less popular

Or like abortion. The new abortion rules in conservative states are betting they can sway the federal gov if a lawsuit arises, but its based on the assumption they'll get to ignore the gov.

[spiffytech]

> what happens when a super conservative state does something less popular like, say, functionally bans gay marriage

That happened in North Carolina (albeit before weed legalization had gained momentum):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Amendment_1

[Forgeties79]

Luckily it was shot down, but yeah, my concern is the serious precedent weed legalization is setting. I like the outcome, I am scared of the precedent.

[908B64B197]

> If they’re flagrantly violating the spirit and intent by barely passing the technical requirement

There's no such thing as the "spirit of the law", just like there's no such thing as the "spirit of the code".

If you leave a buffer overflow it will get exploited no matter what. Same thing with the law.

[BeFlatXIII]

Rule of law lasts only so long as the laws are accepted by juries. If the laws drift too from from public acceptability, the people will weaken rule of law on their own terms.

[mellavora]

unless jury nullification is banned. Noting that there is a trend in this direction.

[BeFlatXIII]

Could nullification be effectively banned without first getting rid of juries or the prohibition of double jeopardy?

[Aperocky]

Exactly, but the ridiculousness of this is on the senate.

[stenl]

Or maybe we need the opposite: basically just state that you did this stupid stuff only to avoid the tax, so you should pay the tax anyway.

[version_five]

The solution to a bad or poorly written law is not to leave it on the books and have some "oh well we actually meant" thing that means it can be arbitrarily applied in a different way than written.

Courts can interpret laws if the interpretation is the problem. If there is just a stupid loophole, then either the law itself makes no sense (as seems to apply to this Jones Act) or it needs to be reworded to align with its intent.

This reminds me of all the california electricity deregulation games where Enron et al moved power out of state and back, or had plants go down strategically for maintenance in order to gain the system. The correct solution is not to say "play nice, you know what we meant". It's to have a consistent and enforceable set of rules that dont admit gaming.

[ggrrhh_ta]

Laws, at least in many European countries, are prefaced with a preamble, introduction, or Vorwort, that explains a bit of the history, the motivation, the underlying principles, the philosophy, the practicality, and the guidelines for interpretation of that law. The words, as written, are not to be taken, in any case literally. Moreover, a literal interpretation contradicting the spirit of the law is unlawful, and that is one of the principles of many legal systems. Using a loophole that contradicts the law is unlawful; imagine the law says you have the right to water your plants in your balcony; however, you only do it when the neighbor below is sitting at their balcony with the intention to bother them: you are abusing the law and committing an unlawful act.

[BizarroLand]

A law system like that requires wisdom. America has a lot of smart but almost no wisdom, so it would be chaos and anarchy if we suddenly switched to such a system.

[gamblor956]

You're being downvoted but that's actually how tax works in the U.S. and Europe.

Tax is one of the few areas of law where activities can be declared illegal and subject to punitive sanction after the fact. For example, the fictive loss tax shelter scheme that was popular 15 years ago. Fictive losses were technically legal at the time the scheme began (in the sense that they were legal within the letter of the law but violated the intent of the law), and weren't explicitly stated to be illegal until years later (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkens_%26_Gilchrist).

[spicybbq]

That's amazing. The section of track (ahem proper Canadian railroad) is quite visible on Google maps and street view has a great shot of it[0]. It is VERY short indeed.

[0] https://www.google.com/maps/@45.1583297,-67.1396882,3a,75y,3...

[BeFlatXIII]

The Jones Act is a major factor in Puerto Rico's economic problems because it unnecessarily raises the costs of shipping to and from PR.

[jmccaf]

PT cruiser is an example of the opposite, which sought truck classification: https://www.brakeandfrontend.com/tech-spec-retro-work-servic...

Chrysler specifically designed the PT Cruiser to fit the NHTSA criteria for a light truck in order to bring the average fuel efficiency of the company’s light truck fleet into compliance with CAFE standards.

[bko]

That's fascinating. I remember hearing there about a giant book on import taxes on apparel with various definitions. For instance, "sandals" may be taxed X but "open toed shoes" may be taxed Y. Apparently these rates drive fashion trends to an incredible degree where even small modifications to a product could totally change the economics.

[eli]

There's a famous example that Converse All Stars included a very thin fuzzy lining along the outside of the soles so that they could qualify under the "slipper" tax instead of the higher "sneaker" tax.

[matsur]

Said giant book: https://hts.usitc.gov/current

[bko]

The legends are true.

The differences could be huge

> Footwear with open toes or open heels; footwear of the slip-on type, that is held to the foot without the use of laces or buckles or other fasteners, the foregoing except footwear of subheading 6402.99.33 and except footwear having a foxing or a foxing-like band wholly or almost wholly of rubber or plastics applied or molded at the sole and overlapping the upper:

>> Having outer soles with textile materials having the greatest surface area in contact with the ground, but not taken into account under the terms of additional U.S. note 5 to this chapter 12.5%

>> Other 37.5%

> Sandals and similar footwear of plastics, produced in one piece by molding. 3%

[fredoralive]

Recently in Europe we had a kinda reverse - Suzuki removed the rear seats of the Jimny, a small 4x4, to reclassify it as a commercial vehicle to qualify for laxer CO2 emission standards.

[bitL]

Yeah, but they also really dumbed down the interior and lowered roof quality, while selling it for the same MSRP as the previous model (still + 10k from the actual sellers, bringing it to Toyota RAV4 territory price-wise).

[fredoralive]

Ouch, I think I'd seen something about them swapping to steel wheels instead of alloys, but I didn't realise it had generally been downgraded. And that price...

Pity, as I kinda like the Jimny even if it makes no sense at all for me to own one.

[SenHeng]

I’ve sat in the back of a Jimny, the rear seats might as well not exist.

Anyway here’s a popular video of a 660cc Jimny towing a large truck that’s stuck in snow during the great Tokyo Blizzard of 2014.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek5OebM4BC4

[philk10]

Are Jaffa cakes classed as biscuits or cakes? https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38985820

[bryanlarsen]

That's a great article. Dives into philosophy without getting wishy-washy. Must have been a fun article to write.

> And if it's true to say, "a Jaffa Cake is a cake" (or "a Jaffa Cake is a biscuit") then that also tells us something about the world, i.e. about the properties of a Jaffa Cake, as well as about the meaning of the word "cake".

And of course it's even more fun because I have to mentally substitute "cookie" every time I read "biscuit".

[philk10]

yeh, as a Brit who's been in the US for 10 years now i still have to do the cookie/biscuit chips/crisps fries/chips thing

[kingcharles]

LOL. Same.

[smegger001]

I am reminded of the candy tax my state tried 10 years ago and was quickly repealed. Food and candy had different tax rates, and it was decided that if it had flour as a ingredient is was food not candy leading to situations simiarbitray pricing. So kitkat was food snickers were candy

[SenHeng]

I’ve always thought of cookies as that American food thing you dunk in milk while biscuits are that British food thing you dip in tea.

When I was young, I dipped my biscuits in Milo.

[inanutshellus]

now you've got me wondering about those old Fig Newtons commercials "it's not a cookie, it's fruited cake!"

[olalonde]

It does shed a light on how arbitrary and ridiculous tariffs can be. I can't imagine the amount of resources wasted on enforcing, complying with and avoiding tariffs. There aren't many consensus in economics but getting rid of tariffs is one and here we are in 2022.

[tablespoon]

> This reminds me of the Subaru BRAT in the early '80s. There was a 25% tarrif on imported pickups.

Isn't that tariff still in place?

It seems like they're smarter with the enforcement, so tricks like that don't work anymore:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

> The U.S. Customs Service changed vehicle classifications in 1989, automatically relegating two-door SUVs to light-truck status.[4] Toyota Motor Corp., Nissan Motor Co., Suzuki (through a joint venture with GM), and Honda Motor Co. eventually built assembly plants in the U.S. and Canada in response to the tariff.[1]...

> Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ruled in 2013 that Transit Connects imported by Ford as passenger wagons and later converted into cargo vans should be subject to the 25% duty rate applicable to vans and not to the 2.5% rate applicable to passenger vehicles. Ford sued and finally, in 2020, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case which confirmed the position of CBP.[22]

[hedgehog]

This kind of thing is apparently pretty common. The two that I know of are shoes -> slippers by adding fabric to the bottom and European manufactured vans being imported to the US as passenger vehicles and then converted to cargo after arrival.

[enobrev]

I remember those! A family friend had one and he called them the "Oh Shit" handles! I had a blast riding back there for short trips. I think I was 12 or so. The 80s and early 90s were a very different time.

[Johnny555]

Oddly, the Subaru Baja is much more car-like than the Brat ever was (the Baja has 4 real seats, not jump seats), but when I had one, it was registered as a pickup, not a car.

[njarboe]

The "truck" (trucks, SUVs etc) class of vehicles in the US have lower average gas mileage requirements than cars so many cars are made just large enough to be classified as "trucks" even though they are marketed still as cars. Subaru did this with almost all their cars back in 2004[1].

[1]https://web.archive.org/web/20210609082852/https://www.nytim...

[ninly]

Its reputation is eternal: http://achewood.com/index.php?date=12012003

[Lammy]

Should have stuck with the 1978 Volvo 244GLE http://achewood.com/?date=05102005

[rlafranchi]

If anyone has the desire to see one in person, the Subaru dealership in Longmont, CO has a BRAT in their showroom.

[Spooky23]

Ford was doing this a couple of years ago with their small van… the Transit Connect (iirc).

They would import from Europe with seats, but remove the seats at the port and ship them right back.

[aaaaaaaaaaab]

Almost. The back seats were actually shredded.

[Neil44]

In Automotive manufacturing, CKD kits are a thing - Completely Knocked Down, or disassembled and shipped as parts and re-assembled again, to avoid taxes like this.

[albatross13]

Life uh...finds a way.

[veltas]

You don't need seatbelts if you're going facing opposite to direction of travel, so this is safe for driving forwards.