> The agency has lost more than a quarter of its staff, withdrawn directives to auditors to crack down on aggressive tax shelters and permitted other auditing efforts to falter.<p>When you see a government doing this, you know they're not interested in collecting Tax from their rich buddies.<p>This case will sit in limbo for 20x years.
Or they'll settle with Meta in a few years for a small fee with no admission of wrongdoing to save face.
Exactly. This is just one big tech fighting another big tech using the government as a weapon.
Ayup. Trump was able to get a stay on a case on an "allegedly" improperly-applied tax write-off for his casino's bankruptcy. It's been in limbo <i>at least</i> since 2016. Ten years. This is the standard operating procedure for people at that level of wealth.<p>Which would suggest that perhaps that level of wealth doesn't need to exist in our society.
>..withdrawn directives to auditors to crack down on aggressive tax shelters..<p>The above might be a salient point, but as for the 1/4 auditors lost and the rest:<p>The low income (under 25k) with EITC, were the largest audited group with 298,485 of 626,204 audits performed in 2022. The rest of those earning under 200k had 250,391 audits.[]
48% of audits were under 25k income w/ EITC. 87% of audits were people under 200k income.<p>Kind of interferes with the idea these audits were all about going after the "rich buddies." They were way more about going after the poor than they were about going after the rich.<p>[] IRS management audit reports obtained via FOIA by via TRAC / <a href="https://tracreports.org/reports/706/" rel="nofollow">https://tracreports.org/reports/706/</a>
This has been debunked as these are just data matching audits as EITC is full of fraud with an estimated 30% of over claiming and improper payments by taxpayers.
There are many, many more tax returns filed by people earning under 200k adjusted gross income than those earning more, I assume. So if there's a uniform chance that a return is audited, we would expect most audits to be done on returns under that threshold.<p>Of course, it may not make sense to select returns uniformly at random for audits...
Also, if tax cheating is uniform across the population, then the statement "there are more tax cheats earning under 200k" is true but wildly misleading, since "there are more taxpayers earning under 200k" is also true.
Nowhere near 48% of the population earns enough wages for EITC but still under 25k. It's way way way way overrepresented in audits. <i>Nearly half of the audits are aimed at the poorest workers.</i><p>------- re: below due to throttling-----------<p>.... they were audits according to IRS. This is from the FOIA'd audit numbers from IRS via TRAC.
<i>Kind of interferes with the idea these audits were all about going after the "rich buddies."</i><p>I think you misread the parent comment, who said exactly the opposite.
Biden and democrats increased funding in order to have the resources to go after rich offenders and they were doing it successfully and earning more than it cost, but Trumpublicans immediately rescinded it.
It’s all public record go look for it.
Yet they refused to codify the "promise" it wouldn't be used for under 400k income families. Look at what they do, not what they say. In public they make 'promises' but in statute it turns into ether, meanwhile real audit data pointing to otherwise.<p>-------- re: below due to throttling ------<p>>I'm very confused about where you're going with this. Are you upset that too many rich people are getting audited, or that tax cheats under 400k income might also get audited?<p>... this was a direct response to parent stating increased funding was added specifically for going after rich people. Yes I would be upset if I was told they were adding new funding specifically to go after rich tax cheats but then turns out to be something like "welp actually we refuse to codify that or make anything binding that it will be used for those purposes, but for the cameras we will pinky swear it will be used for that and please don't look at the historical data for inferences."
At what point does the term “regime” become an accurate description of that government rather than a derogatory label?
If Corporates can offshore their IP I should be able to offshore my likeness and rent it back to myself to reduce my personal taxes.
I wrote about this 20 years ago:<p><a href="http://digital-majority.wikidot.com/forum/t-5766/software-patents-and-fiscal-optimisation" rel="nofollow">http://digital-majority.wikidot.com/forum/t-5766/software-pa...</a><p>In the meantime, Ireland removed their 0% tax over patent royalties, but Holland kept it at 0%.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement</a>
> contending the company lowballed the price of trademarks, customer agreements, software licenses and other rights it moved offshore<p>At the same time they were telling HMRC (the British tax authority) that IP rights, etc. were incredibly valuable and a significant cost of doing business (in the form of payments back to the mothership), and that's why they made very little profit in the UK and didn't need to pay much tax.
Ah, the next level in determining Schrodinger's cat's outcome is if the detector measures Zuckerberg's profit taxability instead of radiation decay; the measurement's results depend on who is carrying them out, where they've taken place and, in all instances, the cat kills itself due to our inability to fix the crazy rich-favoring taxation systems.
I see a very funny fight on our hands.
> The agency is using real-world profit data to challenge how big companies value offshore intellectual property.<p><a href="https://archive.ph/2026.02.24-124153/https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/24/business/irs-meta-corporate-taxes.html" rel="nofollow">https://archive.ph/2026.02.24-124153/https://www.nytimes.com...</a>
Worth noting that this archive site has allegedly manipulated snapshotted content: <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-archive-today-after-site-executed-ddos-and-altered-web-captures/" rel="nofollow">https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-a...</a>
From your link:<p>> The Wikipedia guidance points out that the Internet Archive and its website, Archive.org, are “uninvolved with and entirely separate from archive.today.”<p>Isn't archive.ph associated with .org?
Probably less about tax revenue and more about the executive branch squeezing tech companies to assert influence.
> Probably less about tax revenue and more about the executive branch squeezing tech companies to assert influence.<p>Absolutely <i>not</i> about this, as is clearly reported in the linked article.
I doubt the current executive branch has enough brain trust to understand these sort of tactics.
"Trump's stupid" is how we got here. You don't need to be smart to get where he is. You just have to have the willingness to engage in shady business practices, have enough money to outlast opponents in a courtroom, and exist in a society where there's no real pressure on people who do those things.
> I.R.S. auditors have been pursuing Meta for about a decade<p>Soon: "I.R.S. auditors have been pursuing Meta for about [a decade + length of current administration term]"
Surely Zuckerberg's bribe check is in the mail already
The "check" is what's given for a political favor and the "balance" is what goes up once the check clears.<p>Simple enough lesson to me!
You mean send to one of Trumpo's milliard Crypto *hitcoins, just like civilised nations like the UAE, Russia or the saudis do it?
IRS is using AI now too.
<a href="https://archive.is/Vsdqd" rel="nofollow">https://archive.is/Vsdqd</a>
With the way that Zuckerberg both kisses up to and has bribed the current administration by “settling lawsuits”, this won’t go anywhere.
<a href="https://archive.ph/Vsdqd" rel="nofollow">https://archive.ph/Vsdqd</a>
The less they tax corporations the more the burden will fall on income tax. These big multinationals have been defrauding countries worldwide for decades. The issue is at the core of the political turmoil we are experiencing.<p>I'd like to know how much less income tax would be, if we could tax multinationals properly.
The tax avoidance schemes used by most major US companies are to avoid US taxes on foreign income. Most developed countries have territorial tax systems so their companies do not even need to use these fancy legal maneuvers because the income is largely exempt anyways.<p>In any given year corporate income tax is like 6-10% of federal receipts so even if that was doubled there would not be a huge decline in income taxes needed. The way the US does corporate tax is really also not that great from an economic perspective because it is a form of double taxation. The Estonian model of only taxing distributions incentivizes investment and avoids many debates over depreciation etc.
The income tax would be less but so would be your salary. The corporate tax is another cost for the company.
I wonder how much Meta wrote off with their Metaverse adventure
Well that was a 100% certifiably genuine ridiculous loss.<p>It is interesting how corporations develop personalities, that can do some things well but reliably fail at others. No matter the funding, personnel or efforts. And in this case, by developing a personality I mean enabling Zuck.
If it wasn't every last penny of their spend then they weren't being honest with themselves.
We cannot tariff our way out of debt by taxing consumption by individuals just needing to eat and live<p>Billionaires silo-ing massive wealthy beyond multiple lifetimes must pay their taxes<p>and Trillionaire corporations<p>Each state now has several Billionaires, there are almost 1,000 in the USA<p>They need to pay their damn taxes, a flat tax without deductions for everything over a million dollars of income per year<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_the_number_of_billionaires" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_the_num...</a><p><a href="https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/most-billionaires-by-state" rel="nofollow">https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/most-billio...</a>
Note that the issue at hand here is almost entirely about corporations earning money overseas and then trying to "import" the money back into the U.S. whilst dodging taxes. It's quite germane to the same concept as tariffs, although not the exact same thing.
Get ready for a lot more billionaires and a lot more poor people in the next 5-10 years
Tax evasion is so pervasive at large companies that I have come to the conclusion that we need to start criminally charging the c-suite. Without personal consequences they're never going to change.
[dead]
<i>The agency has lost more than a quarter of its staff, withdrawn directives to auditors to crack down on aggressive tax shelters and permitted other auditing efforts to falter.</i><p>Remember the fear mongering ads [0] Republicans ran during the 2022 midterms about arming IRS agents to act as a shadow army to go after every day law abiding people? As it turns out, Republicans were just talking about their own plans for ICE. Remember, every accusation from Republicans is an admission. Additionally, they don't care about crime, as they are specifically turning a blind eye to rich people and corporations breaking the law.<p>0 - <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-87000-irs-agents-midterm-elections/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-87000-irs-agents-mi...</a>
Solution (for big corp)?<p>Mega is big enough to <i>buy</i> entire islands, and be its own country. A corporate country. One with a very specific constitution, enshrining rights, but also?<p>No corporate taxes.<p>If done right, you could lure away Western judges, police, and more as they retire. Or retire early. You could lure them away not with high salaries, but with shorter work days, AI assistance, and with it being a tropical paradise.<p>Compared to the billions Meta would pay in taxes annually, this endeavour would be far cheaper. And citizens would still pay taxes, of course.<p>Now imagine if Google, Musk Corps, Meta, and others all created a consortium to do just this, and, to build and fund the initial island.<p>I agree, not fully plausible. But... these guys can do a lot of interesting things, and I think if it was truly a tropical paradise, and land and housing was cheap and aplenty, lots might be interested in moving there.<p>Certainly, hiring the "glue" of society would be easy. I know so many people who retire to third world nations, but anyhow...<p>Yes, holes but, maybe something to ponder.<p>Corporate towns have existed, why not corporate nations?<p>edit:<p>As I've said elsewhere, it's -20C outside my door, so a tropical paradise with cheap housing and flying cars, and AGI and beaches and free coconuts may be masking my thoughts a bit.<p>So downvote me, as you are. It burns, but by god it's -20C outside <i>so that's just fine</i>.<p>(warms hands over burning post)
Operating a military, maintaining positive diplomatic relations with other countries, and keeping your workforce pacified might be more expensive than you think.<p>Not to mention that a lot of people prefer to live in a democracy instead of a giant company town, unless you compensate them really, really, well, and even then, well-heeled people are notorious for starting revolutions.
> <i>Mega is big enough to buy entire islands, and be its own country. A corporate country. One with a very specific constitution, enshrining rights, but also?</i><p>It's a charming thought. But it can't possibly survive the brute reality that the world is full of people with guns, planes, drones, boats/ships, missiles, etc., who feel entitled to call the shots, and sometimes to take whatever they can from whomever they can.
This would not work. Investors are still based in actual countries. Jurisdictions will also always have the ability to tax a % of revenue at source / where it was generated and not on profit rolled up through spvs to a couple low tax havens ;)
> Corporate towns have existed, why not corporate nations?<p>because they dont need to do that. They can already obtain what they want with smaller tax havens that have already established trade/tax treaties, have existing facilities, infrastructures, etc.
> Corporate towns have existed, why not corporate nations?<p>Will those nations survive Maduragate? Won't in essence it make easier to deal with if they aren't under souvereign law, only international?
Snow Crash's Franchise-Organized Quasi-National Entities.
Sounds easier to just buy a few congressmen and a circuit judge or two.
Listen my friend. It's -20C outside my house, so I'll kindly ask you to allow this fantasy to continue unabated in my mind, OK? A tech haven, filled with flying cars, and AGI, and warm sandy beaches, and...
One question is: does the US wants to keep its big tech leader ship or not? Thankfully for the US the EU is nowhere in tech (biggest market cap is SAP and it's tiny compared to the US giants). But China is becoming big and quickly.<p>RAM makers are going to feel the heat from China soon. Batteries makers. China is eating the world with its EVs. Drones, etc.<p>If you're not nice with your corporations, they incorporate elsewhere: that's why the EU is nowhere in tech. Insane taxes since forever and a very strong anti-entrepreneurship mindset (in the EU you're a loser if you tried and fail, for example).<p>Companies like Meta, Google, MSFT, Apple, etc. should receive medals and thanks from the US government for the insane amount of money they syphon of the <i>other</i> countries and the wealth they create for the US.<p>Some countries are understanding this: in the UAE for example Dubai is now the world's busiest airport <i>in the world</i> for international passenger traffic. Some countries <i>really</i> fucked up big times to allow this to happen. Dubai is also now a very important hub for commodities trading. And diamonds: Antwerpen/Anvers (Belgium) used to be the city where the most diamonds exchanged hands, now it's... Dubai.<p>There <i>is</i> such a thing as competition between nation states and at some point entrepreneurs simply pick the best place to launch their businesses. And having the IRS using "tactics" to say that Meta owes them tens of billions does not send a nice message to people wondering in which country it's best to incorporate.<p>I now live in the country with the 2nd or 3rd highest GDP per capita in the world and that requires a mindset where businesses are welcome, entrepreneurs are welcome and the IRS doesn't feel like they're out there to get you at any cost.<p>And I'm here because I voted with my feet, my wealth and the future wealth I was going to create.
Everything in correct. But one omission there is politics. People occupy nations and don't all have the same interest. Those (felt, or actually) left aside, not benefiting enough from the macro growth speak and act in their interest.<p>The people in the E.U arguably are more successful at getting their demands met. They typically are less fooled by the "American dream", they see Zuckerberg and the others for what they are, a tiny number of lucky, or privileged, sometimes just very gifted unicorns, the extreme majority won't make it so they want social welfare, this tax.<p>The IRS going after big corp may simply be the result of this MAGA movement, which underneath really is just a popular uprise for the little guy to get a slice of the lie.<p>Of course the current head of state is a master manipulator so this news may just be fluff to make his electorate happy
There is being hospitable to startups, and there is being hospitable to massive corporate giants.<p>Turns out there is a big difference in what “hospitable” actually means in these two cases. Although the tech giants don’t want people to think so. They work hard to keep up their “scrappy” underdog patinas.<p>I am not for punishing any organization for being successful, or for being big. But actual neutral tax parity, for the middle class up, would be good. The rich have so many tax-not-neutral alternate ways to do the same thing, but with lower or no taxes, it is ridiculous.<p>Progressive taxation isn’t effective for the most part. And when it is, the high disparity in application is its own kind of unfairness.<p>But inescapable neutral tax treatment would remove so many high paying financial, legal and lobbying jobs. Who would subsidize political careers if we eliminated that work, and cut of those perverse incentives? Not a likely scenario.
This is one of those situations where I hope both parties duke it out to the maximum extent and completely obliterate each other.