Talk:Tax avoidance

VAT avoidance by residents

Should be mentioned how techniques used to avoid paying VAT / Sales tax, import tariffs ? This is might be original research but: Norwegians shopping in Sweden (avoid tariffs on food imports). Lithuanians shopping for food and petrol in Poland. Food VAT are 21% in Lithuania and 5% for basic items in Poland. Swiss, Denmark residents shopping in Germany. Ordering children's clothing in GB located internet store (0VAT%) vs 21% in LV, LT , 20% in EE. I suspect that similar approach is used USA, by people living close to state boundaries with different sales/excise taxes. AlV (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Article split

For older discussions see Talk:Tax noncompliance (previously Talk:Tax avoidance and evasion). Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Why the "neutrality" tag on the "Government Response" section?

The "Government Response" section has been flagged as "neutrality disputed" in September 2011, but no explanation has been given here on the talk page. So what's the problem?

Mojowiha (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Tax mitigation

The lead para's attempt to distinguish between Tax avoidance and Tax mitigation is incomprehensible. Could somebody sort it out? GrindtXX (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

merging of various Tax avoidance schemes into this article

An editor has suggested (but surprisingly not followed up with any discussion) the merging of articles like Singapore Sling (tax avoidance) or Bermuda Black Hole (tax avoidance) into this article. I am opposed to such a merge - each scheme is different, and a meaningful article can be created for each. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This isn't really a debate since there is no one making an argument in favor of the merge. I'll just remove the merge tags. --Makkachin (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tax avoidance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131105040152/http://www.cfo-insight.com/reporting-forecasting/tax/2013-has-the-chancellor-delivered-a-budget-for-business/ to http://www.cfo-insight.com/reporting-forecasting/tax/2013-has-the-chancellor-delivered-a-budget-for-business/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggest tidying lead paragraphs into three sections

The lead paragraphs are a bit messy, with the same terms (especially "tax avoidance") being used in different ways, and some repetition.

I suggest the following:

1) Defining "tax avoidance" in the widest possible terms. I think the present first sentence - "Tax avoidance is the legal usage of the tax regime in a single territory to one's own advantage to reduce the amount of tax that is payable by means that are within the law" - does this well.

2) Distinguishing between:

2a) using tax laws in the ways intended by governments, and the various names this is given "tax planning" etc,

2b) using tax laws in ways not intended by governments, and the various names this is given "aggressive tax avoidance" etc

including mentioning terms that are used in different ways by different people, and at different times.

3) Mentioning tax evasion as a different thing - which I think is already done by the sentence "Tax evasion, on the other hand, is the general term for efforts by individuals, corporations, trusts and other entities to evade taxes by illegal means."

Does this seem a good scheme?

Is anyone up to taking it on? (I don't think I am) FrankSier (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

General Electric tax avoidance.

Not a Wikipedia author, or particularly familiar with editing it so I don't want to dive into that, but the section about tax avoidance has at least one potential error: It mentions that GE did not pay taxes in 2010. The source cited was a New York Times article from 2011. A follow up article from Fortune disputes that claim: http://fortune.com/2011/04/04/the-truth-about-ges-tax-bill/

From what I understand about taxes, corporations actually pay (or can pay) quarterly, or pay estimated taxes quarterly, and then they can receive what is essentially a refund when filing the final tax statement for the year. It winds up being very similar to when you or I file individual taxes and receive a refund. Are you actually getting money from the government? Technically no. You are receiving money back from an overpayment. Over the course of the year, you paid out 4000$ and you got 3000$ back in a refund, so you wound up paying 1000$.

The Fortune article goes into more actual depth about how corporate taxes are paid and determined, and from what I know of accounting terminology, appears to be a more reliable source. Very often in accounting accounts are not paid at the time they are incurred or expensed.

I think maybe someone who actually edits pages more regularly should take a look at this source. And to be honest, I frequently find that the New York Times is not near as authoritative and accurate a source as one would hope.

-Chris 192.241.57.66 (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct and a majority of businesses (not sure of all) in the US are required to pay quarterly, self-employed generally are required to pay quarterly also https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/self-employed-individuals-tax-center Not sure what the exceptions are.SteveJEsposito (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, I will try and look into it. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Loophole usage

"loopholes in the law such as like-kind exchanges" bad example or a misuse of loophole (an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules). If it is overtly a law or in the law it is not a loophole. SteveJEsposito (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Integration proposal

We propose to insert, in the United States paragraph, the legal definition of tax avoidance and its civil penalties system. Here the link of our university project: https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_progetto:Coordinamento/Università/UNITO/Diritto_Tributario#

We have also created the daughter-page "Abuse of Tax Law in the United States" (the mother page is Tax Avoidance) in which we have explained how the phenomenon of abuse of tax law is dealt with in the United States, referring to the legislative position and case law. Here the link of the new page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Abuse_of_tax_law_in_United_States

Thanks. Greetings, CapitanoPicard (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)CapitanoPicard

Increase neutrality

This article has a general negative tone for the topic. Should be made more impartial and neutral NicSzer (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

No source for this

"...Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Norway, Hong Kong and" has no apparent source 2604:3D09:D78:1000:AB5C:D9AC:4A9E:CB63 (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)