Text 10069, 40 rader
Skriven 2009-03-10 09:46:06 av Bob Ackley (1:300/3)
  Kommentar till text 10011 av Dave Drum (1:124/311)
Ärende: Double taxation
=======================
Replying to a message of Dave Drum to Bob Klahn:

 DD> -=> bob klahn wrote to BOB ACKLEY <=-

 DC>>> Tell me:  Is a shareholder the company?  Is the company a
 DC>>> shareholder?

 BA>> A shareholder is an *owner* of the company.  As such s/he
 BA>> is entitled to a part of that company's profits without
 BA>> having to pay taxes on them.

 bk>>  Why? Why should a shareholder not have to pay taxes on his
 bk>>  income from a company?

 DD> Assuming that was a serious question ... he has to pay taxes A)
 DD> because the tax code says so; B) because the money is "income" from
 DD> his investment in the company.

 DD> Were the shareholder the sole proprieter of the company he would have
 DD> to pay taxes on his income from that company. Why would his being a
 DD> part owner (shareholder) be any different?

You're intimating that I say the guy should get off scot free, I didn't.  My 
problem is that the proprietor aggregates his income, including the income
from the business into one heap and pays the income tax on it *once*.  The
business itself *pays no separate income tax*.

In the case of the shareholder's corporation, the business pays income tax on
its earnings and the owners pay income tax *again* on those same earnings 
when those earnings are passed back to the owners.  The money is thus taxed
twice.  Either the shareholders should not have to pay income tax on the
earnings
received from the company or the company should not have to pay a separate
income
tax on the money it receives, take your pick.  BTW I have never personally
owned
any stock in any company, and don't plan to start.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
 * Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)