> The agency has lost more than a quarter of its staff, withdrawn directives to auditors to crack down on aggressive tax shelters and permitted other auditing efforts to falter.
When you see a government doing this, you know they're not interested in collecting Tax from their rich buddies.
This case will sit in limbo for 20x years.
yellow_lead 47 minutes ago [-]
Or they'll settle with Meta in a few years for a small fee with no admission of wrongdoing to save face.
mothballed 23 minutes ago [-]
>..withdrawn directives to auditors to crack down on aggressive tax shelters..
The above might be a salient point, but as for the 1/4 auditors lost and the rest:
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.
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.
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.
Of course, it may not make sense to select returns uniformly at random for audits...
mothballed 16 minutes ago [-]
Nowhere near 48% of the population earns enough wages for EITC but still under 25k. It's way way way way overrepresented in audits. Nearly half of the audits are aimed at the poorest workers.
hnburnsy 15 minutes ago [-]
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.
mothballed 11 minutes ago [-]
Even if you change the view to it's mostly the poor who are the tax scammers it doesn't degrade the counterpoints that these auditors were by far mostly going after the middle class and poor -- you're just asserting the poors are tax cheats that perhaps deserve it.
mikestew 20 minutes ago [-]
Kind of interferes with the idea these audits were all about going after the "rich buddies."
I think you misread the parent comment, who said exactly the opposite.
lenerdenator 18 minutes ago [-]
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 at least since 2016. Ten years. This is the standard operating procedure for people at that level of wealth.
Which would suggest that perhaps that level of wealth doesn't need to exist in our society.
reactordev 47 minutes ago [-]
Exactly. This is just one big tech fighting another big tech using the government as a weapon.
spiderfarmer 24 minutes ago [-]
At what point does the term “regime” become an accurate description of that government rather than a derogatory label?
masfuerte 34 minutes ago [-]
> contending the company lowballed the price of trademarks, customer agreements, software licenses and other rights it moved offshore
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.
moomin 20 minutes ago [-]
I see a very funny fight on our hands.
mrbluecoat 49 minutes ago [-]
> I.R.S. auditors have been pursuing Meta for about a decade
Soon: "I.R.S. auditors have been pursuing Meta for about [a decade + length of current administration term]"
draw_down 21 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
mitchbob 3 hours ago [-]
> The agency is using real-world profit data to challenge how big companies value offshore intellectual property.
Probably less about tax revenue and more about the executive branch squeezing tech companies to assert influence.
bonsai_spool 58 minutes ago [-]
> Probably less about tax revenue and more about the executive branch squeezing tech companies to assert influence.
Absolutely not about this, as is clearly reported in the linked article.
notyourwork 50 minutes ago [-]
Because the article said so? That’s your rationale for saying the executive branch isn’t weaponizing the rest of government offices for their own influence and benefit. Sorry, color me unconvinced until this administration shows good faith.
bonsai_spool 41 minutes ago [-]
> Because the article said so?
Because... the article clearly says the case began under the FORMER administration, and goes further to say that it's not clear whether the CURRENT administration is going to drop the case.
ambicapter 59 minutes ago [-]
I doubt the current executive branch has enough brain trust to understand these sort of tactics.
lenerdenator 14 minutes ago [-]
"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.
mcs5280 44 minutes ago [-]
Surely Zuckerberg's bribe check is in the mail already
kotaKat 5 minutes ago [-]
The "check" is what's given for a political favor and the "balance" is what goes up once the check clears.
Simple enough lesson to me!
mentalgear 27 minutes ago [-]
You mean send to one of Trumpo's milliard Crypto *hitcoins, just like civilised nations like the UAE, Russia or the saudis do it?
dylan604 3 minutes ago [-]
You're brave enough to post about Trump, yet chicken*hit enough to not type out the word shit? What standards are you setting for yourself?
josefritzishere 16 minutes ago [-]
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.
raw_anon_1111 55 minutes ago [-]
With the way that Zuckerberg both kisses up to and has bribed the current administration by “settling lawsuits”, this won’t go anywhere.
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.
I'd like to know how much less income tax would be, if we could tax multinationals properly.
erfgh 7 minutes ago [-]
The income tax would be less but so would be your salary. The corporate tax is another cost for the company.
raverbashing 41 minutes ago [-]
I wonder how much Meta wrote off with their Metaverse adventure
Nevermark 23 minutes ago [-]
Well that was a 100% certifiably genuine ridiculous loss.
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.
rwmj 30 minutes ago [-]
If it wasn't every last penny of their spend then they weren't being honest with themselves.
dfxm12 47 minutes ago [-]
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.
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.
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?
No corporate taxes.
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.
Compared to the billions Meta would pay in taxes annually, this endeavour would be far cheaper. And citizens would still pay taxes, of course.
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.
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.
Certainly, hiring the "glue" of society would be easy. I know so many people who retire to third world nations, but anyhow...
Yes, holes but, maybe something to ponder.
Corporate towns have existed, why not corporate nations?
edit:
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.
So downvote me, as you are. It burns, but by god it's -20C outside so that's just fine.
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 ;)
chii 42 minutes ago [-]
> Corporate towns have existed, why not corporate nations?
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.
b112 35 minutes ago [-]
This whole article is about "not anymore that way". So now we need a new way. A way where it isn't -20C this morning outside my door, OK?
avmich 36 minutes ago [-]
> Corporate towns have existed, why not corporate nations?
Will those nations survive Maduragate? Won't in essence it make easier to deal with if they aren't under souvereign law, only international?
floatrock 43 minutes ago [-]
Sounds easier to just buy a few congressmen and a circuit judge or two.
b112 36 minutes ago [-]
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...
TacticalCoder 26 minutes ago [-]
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.
RAM makers are going to feel the heat from China soon. Batteries makers. China is eating the world with its EVs. Drones, etc.
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).
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 other countries and the wealth they create for the US.
Some countries are understanding this: in the UAE for example Dubai is now the world's busiest airport in the world for international passenger traffic. Some countries really 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.
There is 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.
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.
And I'm here because I voted with my feet, my wealth and the future wealth I was going to create.
Nevermark 13 minutes ago [-]
There is being hospitable to startups, and there is being hospitable to massive corporate giants.
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.
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.
Progressive taxation isn’t effective for the most part. And when it is, the high disparity in application is its own kind of unfairness.
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.
ceramati 42 minutes ago [-]
This is one of those situations where I hope both parties duke it out to the maximum extent and completely obliterate each other.
Rendered at 15:40:19 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
When you see a government doing this, you know they're not interested in collecting Tax from their rich buddies.
This case will sit in limbo for 20x years.
The above might be a salient point, but as for the 1/4 auditors lost and the rest:
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.
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.
[] IRS management audit reports obtained via FOIA by via TRAC / https://tracreports.org/reports/706/
Of course, it may not make sense to select returns uniformly at random for audits...
I think you misread the parent comment, who said exactly the opposite.
Which would suggest that perhaps that level of wealth doesn't need to exist in our society.
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.
Soon: "I.R.S. auditors have been pursuing Meta for about [a decade + length of current administration term]"
https://archive.ph/2026.02.24-124153/https://www.nytimes.com...
Absolutely not about this, as is clearly reported in the linked article.
Because... the article clearly says the case began under the FORMER administration, and goes further to say that it's not clear whether the CURRENT administration is going to drop the case.
Simple enough lesson to me!
Billionaires silo-ing massive wealthy beyond multiple lifetimes must pay their taxes
and Trillionaire corporations
Each state now has several Billionaires, there are almost 1,000 in the USA
They need to pay their damn taxes, a flat tax without deductions for everything over a million dollars of income per year
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_the_num...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/most-billio...
I'd like to know how much less income tax would be, if we could tax multinationals properly.
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.
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.
0 - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-87000-irs-agents-mi...
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?
No corporate taxes.
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.
Compared to the billions Meta would pay in taxes annually, this endeavour would be far cheaper. And citizens would still pay taxes, of course.
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.
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.
Certainly, hiring the "glue" of society would be easy. I know so many people who retire to third world nations, but anyhow...
Yes, holes but, maybe something to ponder.
Corporate towns have existed, why not corporate nations?
edit:
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.
So downvote me, as you are. It burns, but by god it's -20C outside so that's just fine.
(warms hands over burning post)
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.
Will those nations survive Maduragate? Won't in essence it make easier to deal with if they aren't under souvereign law, only international?
RAM makers are going to feel the heat from China soon. Batteries makers. China is eating the world with its EVs. Drones, etc.
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).
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 other countries and the wealth they create for the US.
Some countries are understanding this: in the UAE for example Dubai is now the world's busiest airport in the world for international passenger traffic. Some countries really 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.
There is 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.
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.
And I'm here because I voted with my feet, my wealth and the future wealth I was going to create.
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.
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.
Progressive taxation isn’t effective for the most part. And when it is, the high disparity in application is its own kind of unfairness.
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.