By law, corporations are people. Why should they be taxed differently than human people? Why not just form a corporation that is in the sole business of making your life better, earn all income through and charge everything through the corporation, and never pay a penny in tax yourself?
This is a commonly held belief, but it is not true.
> Why not just form a corporation...
Your idea won't work because a company buying something for an employee (or owner) is considered a taxable benefit to that person just like paying them a salary.
>> By law, corporations are people.
>This is a commonly held belief, but it is not true.
"Are corporations people? The U.S. Supreme Court says they are, at least for some purposes. And in the past four years, the high court has dramatically expanded corporate rights.
It ruled that corporations have the right to spend money in candidate elections, and that some for-profit corporations may, on religious grounds, refuse to comply with a federal mandate to cover birth control in their employee health plans.
These are personal rights accorded to corporations. To many, the concept of corporations as people seems odd, to say the least. But it is not new."
Citing an NPR article for a legal point is like citing NPR for a programming point. Just, no.
Corporations and humans both implement the ILegalPerson interface. So for some purposes where you need a legal person, they are interchangeable. But they are not in general people.
Would you suggest I cite Supreme Court decisions directly then in the future? I'm happy to cite whatever documentation you treat as canonical when we have these sorts of discussions.
While it's true corporations are not "people", legal interpretation in the United States has shown that they have been given many rights of personhood.
You seem to be conflating "person" with "human". The two are entirely separate. And this is where being pedantic is important. For legal purposes on important points like entering contracts, free speech, freedom of religion, being sued, etc. corporations are people. The case law is very clear on this. Can your dog be sued? No.
So when we talk about legally bound responsibilities like paying taxes, suddenly making a distinction between corporations and humans with respect to personhood seems really strange.
We already make distinctions between "legally bound responsibilities like paying taxes." There is an entire separate tax code for corporate taxes vs taxes on individuals.
This is because they are not the same legally. They might have similarities in some respects, but they are not the same.
Please provide examples here of how they are different. There are entire separate tax codes for you filing individually vs. jointly. That does not mean that if you get married you're not a person anymore. Same with corporations - just because the specifics of the tax code differ for filing does not mean they are not legally people.
Also note that you yourself are already changing language here. You said "separate tax code for corporate taxes vs taxes on individuals". Both are legally people. If we want to make a distinction, we have to use other terms, like "individual".
> There are entire separate tax codes for you filing individually vs. jointly.
This is not true. The tax brackets are different but essentially everything else is the same. The same things are counted as income. You have the same deductions. You use the same forms.
Some other ways that corporations are different from people (just off the top of my head):
- A corporation can't get a driver's license.
- A corporation can't get federal loans to go to college
- A corporation isn't expected to register for the draft at a certain age (does that make a corporation a woman? Hah!).
- A corporation cannot "take the 5th" and refuse to testify against itself.
- A corporation cannot be sentenced to a prison term as punishment
- Corporate free speech rights are more limited than individuals
I think you might be confused by the idea of "corporate personhood." This idea doesn't mean that a corporation is a person, it means that corporations have some (but not all!) aspects of being a person.
I feel like you're getting into No True Scotsman territory here, especially since you're providing examples that have zero relevance to the matter at hand. However, I'll tackle your rebuttals in order:
- I don't think you actually understand the nuances of filing separately vs. jointly. It's a lot more complicated than just different tax brackets and "essentially everything else is the same". For example, filing jointly you cannot take the credit for child and dependent care expenses, you cannot take the earned income credit, you cannot take education credits or deduct student loan interest, etc. There are many more differences as well. It is, in fact, a separate code, not just a separate bracket.
- Individuals under the age of 15 also cannot get a drivers license. Does that mean they are not people?
- Obtaining loans has no bearing at all on legal status. But even so, a corporation can get all kinds of loans. What difference does it make if the loans are for capital or education?
- As you point out, women also are not expected to register for the draft, are they not people?
- The 5th amendment is a very interesting case with respect to corporations. You're kind of getting at the Collective Entity Rule, which basically says that an agent acting on behalf of a corporation cannot always exercise his or her personal rights, such as the 5th amendment. Here's what the courts had to say about the justification for the current state of affairs, "The privilege is limited to its historic function of protecting only the natural individual from compulsory incrimination through his own testimony or personal records" (emphasis mine). Note that it says nothing about "person". Also note that there is quite a bit of activity on this particular point, and in the near future the 5th amendment might be allowed to apply to corporations as well [1].
- Minors cannot be sentenced to prison terms, either. Are they not people?
- More limited does not mean non-existent.
No, I am not confused. In legal status, a corporation is a person. Period. The difference you're missing is that a corporation is an artificial person vs. a natural person (or if you prefer, a statutory person vs. a constitutional person). But still a person.
I'll also point you to the definition of Person from Black's law dictionary. Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.
> filing jointly you cannot take the credit for child and dependent care expenses
Yes you can. I file jointly and do this.
> you cannot take the earned income credit
Yes you can. Just google it.
> You cannot take education credits or deduct student loan interest, etc.
Yes you can. Again, google it. You are wrong.
I am tired of arguing with you when you keep saying things that are factually incorrect. Anyone reading this thread will clearly see that you are wrong. Goodbye.
I was incorrect on the above - the differences I noted were for married filing separately, not jointly. However, that goes further to prove my point. There are multiple tax codes that apply based on marital and filing status (single, married filing separately, married filing jointly, head of household, etc.) it is far more complicated than just being in a different bracket.
That being said, you ignored 90% of my comment, including the legal dictionary definition of Person and are now walking away to prove that I am wrong? Just, wow. This is not the level of debate I expect from HN.
Yes, it is true. The only question is extent, not of being - take a look through some of the case law summaries on wikipedia [1]. And you only addressed the expenditure portion of the hypothetical, not the income portion.
