[c0pium]

Of course they are, it’s a contractual agreement that is within the law. The fact that you don’t like it could not be less relevant, you don’t matter. If the government doesn’t like the law, they can (try) to change it but that has to go through the actual process. They are welcome to be as mad as they want that their law is poorly written but it is still their law.

[skeaker]

I believe "their law" is what is being criticized, and GP's "government that I help elect" would do away with "their law." Pointing out that the law being criticized as bad is in fact a law is at best a tautology...

[realusername]

Every law is judged with the intent behind the action... except for taxes which is the single exception I know of. And here the intent is pretty clear.

[sokoloff]

I hope (and think) that laws are judged primarily by their text and entirely so when it can be determined that the facts match the text even if many of us wish the text was different in light of these specific facts.

Criminal trials carefully lay out how the state believes the actions of the accused meet each required element of the crime. They don’t get to say “Foo definitely killed Bar. The law intends for people to not kill each other, and Foo meant to, therefore Foo is guilty of 1st degree murder.” Rather, they have to prove Foo’s actions met all required elements of the charge.

If you rear-end me while I’m stopped at a light, your intent doesn’t matter, only your actions. If you fail to stop for a school bus displaying red stop lights, your intent doesn’t matter.

I think the IRS step doctrine is relatively rare in legal interpretations, but at a minimum, it’s not “every other law is interpreted that way”.

I don’t take a position on Microsoft’s actions here, other than “if it can be shown to be plainly compliant with the law as written, I’m uncomfortable with the law being changed during interpretation such that it’s deemed to be non-compliant.”

[tw04]

> If you rear-end me while I’m stopped at a light, your intent doesn’t matter, only your actions. If you fail to stop for a school bus displaying red stop lights, your intent doesn’t matter.

Huh? In both of these examples, intent 100% matters. If I rear ended you because I had a medical emergency vs I was texting on my phone vs I had a bout of road rage and wanted to kill you vs I know who you are and you’re sleeping with my wife so I followed you from work to try to kill you:

All VERY different levels of potential punishment based entirely on my intent.

[sokoloff]

100% fair point. I was thinking the other way: when you accidentally ran into my car, the fact that you didn't mean to do it doesn't excuse you from liability for the damage to my car (even if you had a medical emergency).

You're absolutely right that overt intentional assault is different than an accidental collision.

[ceejayoz]

> If you rear-end me while I’m stopped at a light, your intent doesn’t matter, only your actions.

Bullshit. If you intended to do it, it’s something like assault or attempted murder. If you didn’t, it’s likely a civil traffic ticket and an insurance claim.

SCOTUS precedent permits use of legislative intent to resolve ambiguously worded legislation, too.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Southern_Pacific_Co...>

> The rule that penal statutes are to be construed strictly does not permit such a construction as defeats the obvious intention of the legislature.

[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

> I hope (and think) that laws are judged primarily by their text and entirely so when it can be determined that the facts match the text even if many of us wish the text was different in light of these specific facts.

What do you think a legal test is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_(law)

The canonical example of this is a restauraunt banning all head coverings. Despite the fact that technically everyone must adhere to it, since it disproportionally affects those who wear hijabs, it's considered a violation of civil rights.

These tests are created to help lower courts navigate grey areas, negligence is an area where this is applied a lot.

[realusername]

> I hope (and think) that laws are judged primarily by their text and entirely so when it can be determined that the facts match the text even if many of us wish the text was different in light of these specific facts.

The facts do matter when you are judged, laws aren't code. The only reason taxes are the single exclusion to this rule is because there's a massive amount of money to be made. You are not bound to the same justice system as them.

[mathgeek]

You should probably clarify that intent doesn’t matter in terms of baseline fault, as it definitely matters in terms of punishment and charges.

[Nursie]

Actually there seems to be a lot of intent in tax law, reading the wikipedia page about the Apple/Ireland controversy - some tax mechanisms/structures are specifically called out as not being available for firms looking to reduce their tax bill, use must be for genuine business requirements only.

[kwhitefoot]

> not being available for firms looking to reduce their tax bill, use must be for genuine business requirements only.

That's just a fig leaf.

[realusername]

And yet the reality is Apple doesn't product their value in Ireland, regardless what they say on their paper.

[londons_explore]

When it comes to tax-free allowances, groups of companies can sometimes be considered one - if, for example, they shared a phone number or website.

[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

despite what a lot of people think, you can ask for forgiveness from the IRS and will typically get it if you're a first time offender and it's clear your intent wasn't malicious.

Sometimes people screw up on their taxes, etc.

[Nursie]

Same with HMRC in the UK, as an individual taxpayer if you call them up and say “I screwed up, can you help me sort this out?” then they’re quite good at helping and often able to lift late fines etc.

Intent, and communication, do matter.

[spockz]

I think this is more of an Anglo-Saxon vs rest of Europe distinction. In UK (and presumably US) the letter of the law is more important than the intent. In the rest of Europe the intent is more important than the exact letter.

In both cases it is up to the judiciary to make the trade-off/judgement.

[realusername]

That's pretty much the same in both systems, if anything the common law system is based even more on intent than civil law.

[Y_Y]

Anglo-Saxon? What has that to do with Common vs. Civil Law? Or is it a magic term like "Caucasian" or "Judeo-Christian" that just handwaves some psuedo-historical distinction for "us vs them"?

[kwhitefoot]

They are probably claiming that English Common Law differs from Code Napoleon, and Roman Law in general, in the way they claim. As someone else mentions, they have it backwards.

[IshKebab]

No it's definitely true for taxes as well. Even on a tiny individual level you can argue with the tax authorities about whether something was purchased for business or personal use for example.

[gemstones]

As a voter, I’m OK with them not following the process on this one!

[c0pium]

That’s a very near-sighted idea. Can you really not see the problem?

[gemstones]

It’s not a problem for me! It sets a precedent, sure, but I’m okay with the tradeoff there.