32 pointsby mitchbob2 hours ago13 comments
  • bilekas24 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 The agency has lost more than a quarter of its staff, withdrawn directives to auditors to crack down on aggressive tax shelters and permitted other auditing efforts to falter.

    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_lead21 minutes ago
      Or they'll settle with Meta in a few years for a small fee with no admission of wrongdoing to save face.
    • reactordev21 minutes ago
      Exactly. This is just one big tech fighting another big tech using the government as a weapon.
  • masfuerte8 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.

  • mrbluecoat23 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]"

  • mcs528017 minutes ago
    Surely Zuckerberg's bribe check is in the mail already
  • mitchbob2 hours ago
    > The agency is using real-world profit data to challenge how big companies value offshore intellectual property.

    https://archive.ph/2026.02.24-124153/https://www.nytimes.com...

    • notyourwork34 minutes ago
      Probably less about tax revenue and more about the executive branch squeezing tech companies to assert influence.
      • ambicapter32 minutes ago
        I doubt the current executive branch has enough brain trust to understand these sort of tactics.
      • bonsai_spool31 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.

        • notyourwork24 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_spool14 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.

  • raw_anon_111128 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.
  • numbers_guy7 minutes ago
    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.

  • raverbashing15 minutes ago
    I wonder how much Meta wrote off with their Metaverse adventure
    • rwmj3 minutes ago
      If it wasn't every last penny of their spend then they weren't being honest with themselves.
  • dfxm1220 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.

    0 - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-87000-irs-agents-mi...

  • techpulse_x13 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • ceramati15 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.
  • b11219 minutes ago
    Solution (for big corp)?

    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?

    • laylower15 minutes ago
      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 ;)
    • avmich10 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?

    • chii15 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.

      • b1128 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?
    • floatrock16 minutes ago
      Sounds easier to just buy a few congressmen and a circuit judge or two.
      • b11210 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...