Assuming that they're following the law assumes that they'll also stand through a proper IRS audit without any questionable financials. If you'd ever been close to any corporation, you'd know that that's a hellova assumption to make.
"Following the law" is something that's very fungible when you're rich.
Are you sure? When I read the article it seemed to make a big deal about how part of the reason the companies got tax rebates is that the CARES act let companies apply their negative profits retroactively for a tax rebate instead of having to carry them forward.
Comments
Isn’t this just a function of not having any profits?
No, it's a function of companies following the law instead of doing what the article writer thinks is "fair".
Assuming that they're following the law assumes that they'll also stand through a proper IRS audit without any questionable financials. If you'd ever been close to any corporation, you'd know that that's a hellova assumption to make.
"Following the law" is something that's very fungible when you're rich.
The article shows that's not it.
Are you sure? When I read the article it seemed to make a big deal about how part of the reason the companies got tax rebates is that the CARES act let companies apply their negative profits retroactively for a tax rebate instead of having to carry them forward.
Even if so, I don't get all the outrage directed toward Nike. They're merely doing exactly what the US government told them they could do.
Are you saying it's good for companies to behave as badly as they possibly can? Maximizing shareholder money is not the only way of life.