[resoluteteeth]

> I had a boss once that owned the building to the business and charged rent to ensure zero profit.

To be clear, I assume the company wasn't wholly owned by him, correct? Because if it was, it wouldn't be a conflict of interest.

[cjbgkagh]

It's not breaking fiduciary duty to the company if the company is wholly owned and in the interest of the owner. Or the transaction is in the interest of all the owners. It comes under transfer mispricing (transfer pricing manipulation) where transactions are not at arms length which it would not be if the same owner wholly owned both. It's not a highly policed area so it's legal insofar as people do usually get away with it. I think there will be crackdowns on it eventually, courts are more apt to pierce the corporate veil for solo-owned companies.

I think there are many changes coming down the pipeline as governments start running out of money. Capital gains tax normalization, capital gains tax treated as income every year instead of at a 'event' when you sell. An effective wealth tax by taxing a percentage of property value. Once those are in place I think they'll crack down on the creative use of corporations to minimize tax.