Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (3163)	10/17/2001 11:53:35 PM
From: Mark Adams	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

Extraction of capital was the intent of all the above obfuscation? Are you in the phony corporation set-up business? You don't structure a company to fail. The above example demonstrates nothing. It sounds like the horrible tax laws have filled you with hate. Those laws have you and everyone else living in hell, so why defend them? No other conclusion can be reached from examining closely your example. I assume that you intend to set up a corporation because you expect it to be successful as a going concern. I provided an example of an early stage decision that would allow the owner(s) to extract value in a tax advantage way as the entity began to show positive cash flow. A simple example to be sure, but one that would fit within the confines of this box. Again, I refer you to the book linked prior, for additional more in depth examples. What does this prove? It proves all my points in spades. The tax laws are causing people to go crazy and do absurd things. That we agree on. How is it that you are defending them? I'm not defending them. I'm merely suggesting that changes in the tax law may have ramifications beyond that presented in the popular press, and I'm opposed to an elimination of corporate taxes because I believe it would be regressive and further increase existing distortions into economic behavour. My CPA thinks I'm the sharpest CPA he's ever seen. He used to argue against my claims about how shelters and other gimmicks like your hotel owner scam was directly destructive. It took him 10 years to come to my view. He was motivated to disagree because he thought it was in his financial interest to cook up these legal devices for the "big bucks". They ended up causing him and his clients chronic suffering. I asked him if it was worth it. He said, if gaining $1 to lose a $100 is worth it, I guess so, otherwise it's a bust unless you can con others to do the work for you. I can see this point. I think we have to be careful about letting the tax tail wag the income opportunity dog.