Wrong. Read further, explore the options available. The exit strategy must be considered before the corporate shell is created to create the most wealth and least tax.
That's tax evasion. No doubt a few do it, but 99.9% don't. They just pay and pass the cost onto you.
Legal use of pretax dollars vs post tax income.
More sheltering retained earnings schemes?
I did not attempt to explain in detail how the strategies work- that would take several books or good advisors.
I challenge that they do work. They cause a great deal of resources to be misplaced, cause decisions about operations to be altered to inferior ones, cause personal duress as principles are culpable, all in an attempt to get more to lead a better life. What is the point? So they spend their lives living in a hell of their own creation in order to live better. I am not stretching anything here, because I've seen it, and I've seen it only in real estate where all the shenanigans you mention exist aplenty.
What is core of this discussion? Corporations should be taxed so that someone doesn't get away with something, but according to your own assertions, corporate tax causes people to engage in all kinds of shenanigans none of which work very well at the best. So what is it that "they" are getting away with?
In fact, this claim, "Income transfer in the form of rents may be treated at tax time differently than income thrown off by the active operations or salaries", is fraud since it is explicitly intent to deceive and the owner will be audited monthly.
Again, some study on your part here is required.
I challenge your hotel owner scheme of creating entities with presumably different taxing status in order to evade taxes. There's no study needed on my part. I want you to demonstrate precisely the validity of that example. I have a strong suspicion that you don't know the realities of such constructs. Anyone trying to set them up is a fool. At best they misallocate resources and cause less return over time. |
