Most loopholes allow you simply to pay less tax than you might otherwise owe.

This loophole seemingly allows you to take back more than you paid in the first place. This is theft.

Or a tax break. If you get an R&D cash subsidy from the government, is that theft? If it's possible within the boundaries of the law, it isn't theft. It's a design flaw (and one certain politicians should definitely be held accountable for, for sure!)

No, no, no. Fuck that. I cannot understand this kind of sociopathic attitude to morality, even on Hacker News. Theft is a social and moral concept. Right and wrong are not defined purely by what's legal. The law is just a (flawed) attempt to codify a society's moral consensus, not an excuse for individuals or organisations to abdicate all personal moral judgement.

If a child in a nursery grabs away another child's juice box for themselves, they haven't broken any law, but it's still theft. If an autocratic government passes a law allowing it to seize the assets of a minority group, it's still theft. If a bank exploits legal loopholes to take billions of taxpayer's money, it's theft, regardless of whether it's legal.

If you tried to double count R&D spending with a subsidiary and request both tax credits in excess of your liabilities, then yes... I'd say you still owe taxes, interest and penalties.

That is what the article is about, claiming the same tax rebate for the legal fiction that there are 2 simultaneous owners of a stock due to a short sale.

If you allow that, why not let me sell your short sale short, and then sell that short so that there are 8,16, or 32Billion rebates to be had.

Legal fiction is the key... and yes, they let lobbyists rewrite the law promising they wouldn't exploit the new one, but they were caught doing it again (on the excluded foreign accounts).

Can you please describe in more detail, how do you jump from this:

> This loophole seemingly allows you to take back more than you paid in the first place.

To this?

> This is theft.

Because by itself, this logic would seem to include all welfare recipients - they also take more than they pay. You probably didn't mean to call them theives though; so, you probably have more precise criteria to calling someone a thief than just "he takes back more than he pays".

If false statements were made in order to exploit this loophole, I think it would count as theft under this argument.

If, yes, then I totally agree. But that's up to a judge to decide whether it was a false statement and/or claim.