The fallacy here is that when you look at the numbers, they're not just using ordinary deductions - they can't because then they couldn't arrive at these results.
These kind of things work by deliberately setting up perverse virtual organizational structures to take advantage of complex loop holes. It is abusive, in the strict term of the word.
Using your analogy, would what you say if your tax preparer told you that if you proforma-married a woman in country X and used her name to set up a non-existing company in country Y, because then you'd qualify for certain deductions?
Comparatively in terms of size of the commitment you example would be more like an accountant telling Google that they could make big savings if they moved 10k employees across to a tax haven.
A better comparison for what is happening would be your accountant telling you you could pay them 1% of your yearly earnings extra and they could set you up to save many times that in tax.
Comments
The fallacy here is that when you look at the numbers, they're not just using ordinary deductions - they can't because then they couldn't arrive at these results.
These kind of things work by deliberately setting up perverse virtual organizational structures to take advantage of complex loop holes. It is abusive, in the strict term of the word.
Using your analogy, would what you say if your tax preparer told you that if you proforma-married a woman in country X and used her name to set up a non-existing company in country Y, because then you'd qualify for certain deductions?
Comparatively in terms of size of the commitment you example would be more like an accountant telling Google that they could make big savings if they moved 10k employees across to a tax haven.
A better comparison for what is happening would be your accountant telling you you could pay them 1% of your yearly earnings extra and they could set you up to save many times that in tax.