I honestly don't understand why “tax avoidance” is meant to sound so naughty. Almost everyone avoids taxes, almost every time they might be subject to a tax; some people are just better at it.
When you fail to collect taxes from somebody who is following the law, that is a matter for your tax code, not a moral failing of the filer.
Judge Learned Hand (not the Supreme Court, but often quoted; I'm sure partly for the name):
"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes" (Gregory v. Helvering, 1934)
"Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions" (Commissioner v. Newman, 1947).
People can lower their taxes by buying alternative fuel vehicles, renovating historic properties, donating to charities, etc. Those laws are meant to encourage that behavior. But somebody using them to lower their taxes is engaged in tax avoidance. Is that wrong?
Many states have business tax laws that aren't as noble-minded but are meant to encourage businesses to hire people (e.g., no income tax) or operate from those states (e.g., favorable treatment of inventory). Is it wrong to take advantage of those tax laws?
In my opinion, the alternative minimum tax ( https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc556 ) is proof that the United States has given up on creating a system where tax deductions and tax credits always give a reasonable outcome.
Most of that was before the two tier tax system emerged, on for labor—which can not be avoided under any circumstances—and one for business owners which can actually result in negative tax rates.
Upon reading the story again, I realize they literally tell you he paid over four million dollars despite only owing about 1500 bucks. I don't know why people are so upset when he literally paid 2000x more tax than he owed.
As a normal American citizen, I often overpay taxes and then collect the amount I overpaid in my return. I certainty don't cook up elaborate schemes to avoid paying taxes. Does that make me stupid?
I consider it a moral responsibility to pay back the community college and state university system, as well as the state and country that gave me access to the infrastructure and opportunity to earn that taxable income.
You overpay during the year, but when you file your returns, do you intentionally deduct less than you’re allowed, or intentionally skip tax credits? I personally would prefer to have the government owe me money than owe the government money, but I do my best to make sure my taxes are accurate and I’m not in the hook for any more than I truly owe.
Things like the child tax credit aren’t really meant to encourage particular behavior, but others are. I have a 401(k) to save for retirement, but it also lowers my taxes (in my case, it lowers my future taxes). The tax break is meant to encourage me to get the 401(k). Am I a bad person for taking advantage of the tax break?
I'm thinking more in the category of buying a failing company in anticipation of using it's annual losses to create tax benefits.
The level at which you and I are engineering this stuff is kid's play. But that's kind of the idea. If you have extensive amounts of money, you hire a team to engineer getting you out of paying your fair share, I think the average person has the right to be upset about that, since all of that profit is earned on the backs of ordinary folks.
If someone wants to disagree, fair enough, but I'd be mainly interested in hearing from folks who can't afford to hire a team to engineer their way out of paying taxes.
I wouldn’t claim to be a tax expert. I was responding to a comment that used the term “overpay taxes” differently from how I would. Sure, if you overpay your estimated tax during the year, that’s overpaying. So is failing to use deductions and credits that you qualify for. I only wanted to clarify the distinction.
I’m happy to add that it’s no surprise people consider taxes when they make decisions, and in some cases tax incentives are specifically designed to change people’s behavior. It’s silly to be scandalized when their behavior actually does change. Not everybody agrees on which tax avoidance behaviors are perfectly acceptable (e.g., buying alternative fuels) and which are pure evil.
When people have a lot to lose, it’s no surprise that they hire tax experts. The US government gave up trying to design a system that always gives reasonable outcomes, and instead created the alternative minimum tax specifically for the scenario of rich people getting too creative with credits and deductions. If Trump truly received several million dollars of income in 2016 and legally paid a grand total of $750, then the alternative minimum tax isn’t doing its job and should be reworked.
If I'm understanding the article correctly, the New York Times isn't counting the millions it found that Trump paid in alternative minimum tax over the years when making all its big, attention-grabbing viral claims about how little income tax he paid because technically alternative minimum tax is a different, seperate thing from income tax.
They make a huge deal about the difference between Trump’s “I paid millions in total taxes” and their “he paid a tiny amount in income taxes,” and I overlooked where AMT would fit in that distinction.
From my experience, there is a lot of anger generated when those who have so much, avoid paying even the bare minimum compared to those who have very little.
The average lower-to-middle-income family with a mortgage and a couple of kids, sure they have a lot to worry about and they really need that money. Pay as little taxes as you can because what you save goes to feeding your kids, paying for college, and putting gas in the minivan.
Someone who is essentially playing a game (Trump) to maximize one number (income) while minimizing another (tax), I don't think a lot of people have a lot of sympathy for. Accumulating wealth really is a game at that point, no different than speedrunning RE2, or trying to YOLO options on Robinhood. It's not like Ivanka is putting the money into diapers, summer camp for the kids, and tires on the minivan.
In that sense, Trump doesn't have a lot to lose (anything to lose, really - just monopoly money). It's just numbers in a spreadsheet, it's not your kid's Christmas presents, or fixing the water heater, or getting a new set of tires on the family car. It's paying off Stormy Daniels who you slept with 4 months after your wife gave birth, Jared getting a fancy new tie, and your son Eric getting to go to Africa to shoot some new animal.
People are pissed. I think they have good reason to be. The system benefits those who are playing a game, and hurts those who are actually playing with real odds.
That’s not exactly a tax dodge strategy to get deeper in debt. More than likely, he just isn’t a good business person and fell for the sunk cost fallacy.
> I certainty don't cook up elaborate schemes to avoid paying taxes. Does that make me stupid?
Tax avoidance is legal, and if you're overpaying, it means you're giving the government money which you could have used in the meantime. I prefer to keep my money.
I put free candy on my porch, anyone can take some, someone take them all, isn't he bad for doing so? I would say kind of ;).
Thing is though, tax avoidance in the level Trump would have done is another layer way crazier. Most people can't take theses candies, but he can. At one point losing that much money over that many year start to be too much.
With tax avoidance on this scale, he had better hope that the records were truthful. If they were fraudulent, the this moves from tax avoidance to tax fraud.
It also shows that Trump is not the fantastic businessman that he has portrayed as his public persona
Tax avoidance that allows somebody to pay $750 tax on multimillion dollar income should, without question, trigger the alternative minimum tax ( https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc556 ).
Which is more likely, (a) that Trump’s accountants are creative enough to get his personal tax bill to $750 without triggering the AMT, that the IRS hasn’t been able to successfully challenge the returns, and the tax experts the New York Times spoke with for this story didn’t comment on that fact, or (b) the Times story is missing key details?
Quite a different thing though if you are head of government which is supposed to collect taxes from people like you, and you see no need to change that.
> Quite a different thing though if you are head of government which is supposed to collect taxes from people like you, and you see no need to change that.
His predecessors/competitors talk a big game, but they were in office for eight years; take a lucky guess whether it got easier or harder, under the Obama-Biden administration, for people in Donald Trump's business to deduct and reclassify almost all of their taxable transfers and incomes.
If there's an improper or unjustifiable deduction in these filings, then complain about that.
Nobody has any obligation, and essentially nobody has any private reason, to pay taxes that they do not owe. If you think they should owe taxes, then complain that they don't owe them, not that they won't pay what they don't owe.
As I recall, the Republican Congress actually cut funding to the IRS for tax enforcement during Obama's second term, so we actually don't know who's committing tax fraud. The audits just aren't being done.
When you fail to collect taxes from somebody who is following the law, that is a matter for your tax code, not a moral failing of the filer.