sa国际传媒官网网页入口

This column is a response to an editorial that appeared in the Washington Post a little over a month ago.

The title of the was 鈥淒on鈥檛 blame companies with no tax liability for following the law.鈥�

Sounds reasonable. The editorial takes aim at comments made by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts.

Warren鈥檚 tax policies are best known for her bill that would impose a wealth tax on people with more than $50 million in wealth.

The wealth tax proposal has 10 sponsors in the Senate and 39 in the House. It will never be enacted.

Yes, California voters will decide this fall whether to impose a one-time wealth tax on those with a billion dollars in assets, but the Warren proposal will not go anywhere.

Perhaps the editorial was lashing out at Warren for the wealth tax and used her comments about corporate tax payments as a proxy.

Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon and a multibillionaire, owns the Washington Post.

Bezos was among the victims whose tax return disclosures were provided to ProPublica. He paid zero income tax in 2007 and 2011.

I have three comments about the editorial. First, let鈥檚 assume that the zero-tax liability of some corporations is simply using existing tax law properly.

Well, tax laws are passed through Congress and change frequently. You cannot criticize a U.S. senator for advocating to change the law.

That is, Warren never said that the corporations were at fault (although she might believe that).

She said the law should be changed so that corporations pay more tax. Every citizen and every representative has the right to make such an argument.

Every citizen and every representative also has the right to argue that businesses should pay less tax.

Second, let鈥檚 stick with the assumption that zero-tax corporations are simply using the existing tax law properly.

How did we get the existing tax law? It鈥檚 hard to ignore the old saying that you don鈥檛 want to know how laws and sausages are made.

Spending by lobbyists increased by 14% from 2024 to 2025 when the last tax law was passed. More lobbyists registered to work on the legislation than representatives.

I have a few ideas on tax policy. They might be good; they might be bad. But no member of Congress or president will ever hear them.

If I could contribute $5 million or $10 million to those 鈥渋n the room where it happens,鈥� I could get a one-on-one audience.

Couch change for Bezos. Now I am not being cynical here. I am not suggesting that you get what you want in exchange for money.

But you are getting your views heard. And those who cannot give that much money are not getting their views heard.

When issues are difficult, which most legislative issues are, those who are heard can sway the legislation 鈥� even with honest representatives.

So, this law that the zero-tax corporations are following may largely be one of their own making.

Third, let鈥檚 treat the law as the result of a careful and deliberative process. Who says that the zero-tax corporations are actually following it?

The most certain statement that I can make in this column is that, at least in part, these large corporations are not following the law.

Following the law does not mean that every position on your tax return is 鈥渞ight.鈥� Penalty and tax professional standards require only that you be 40% to 45% right.

But in addition to spending on lobbyists, large corporations spend significant sums on tax advice from the largest accounting and law firms.

Big fees require big ideas. I have seen many of these ideas. I am shocked that they are sold to clients.

IRS officials have long argued that they are 鈥渙utgunned鈥� by large professional service organizations selling tax savings.

If the ideas being sold are just following the law, there is no need to worry about being outgunned.

These ideas often involve restructurings with many steps, perhaps across multiple jurisdictions. Details of the ideas are kept from public disclosure.

Congress expanded something called the 鈥渆conomic substance doctrine鈥� to try to fight back.

If corporations are just following the law, there would seem to be little reason to show that what they are doing makes economic sense.

But economic substance is so subjective that it has not slowed these planning ideas. So, I wonder how reasonable the Post鈥檚 editorial really is.

Jim Hamill is the director of tax practice at Reynolds, Hix & Co. in sa国际传媒官网网页入口. He can be reached at jimhamill@rhcocpa.com.