There's been an ongoing investigation of IKEA by the EU Commission for the past several years because they believe IKEA is not complying precisely with the tax law as it exists.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-ikea-ab-taxavoidance-e...

https://www.tax-news.com/news/EU_Expands_Investigation_Into_...

Were they convicted of any wrongdoing?

Easy example: Some entities are exempt from taxes, because they are not there to enrich individuals, but to profit a higher cause. Like Amnesty International. I think it is great that we exempt AI from paying taxes. Now it might be very difficult to write legislation that precisely encodes the difference between AI and McDonalds. After all, McDonalds funds children hospitals! If McDonalds tries to avoid taxes by trying to look like a NGO, the LEAST we can to is to be outraged and punish them as customers - because the only solution for the legislator might be to make AI pay taxes as well.

As a soccer player, it might be a good move to fall to the ground when the ref cannot see you. But you are an asshole if you do it. The rules of the game are fine, the player is an asshole.

Maybe you should consider the hate of the public just as part of the game these companies are trying to play?

> Now it might be very difficult to write legislation that precisely encodes the difference between AI and McDonalds.

Perhaps that's because you're trying to legislate emotion instead of an objective difference.

If the rules should apply to one type of organization and not another (your "higher purpose" opinion), then it should be straightforward to unambiguously describe the difference in law: a bright line test. If you cannot, it's likely you're just trying to encode your own subjective personal dictatorial preferences into the law, which is contrary to the values of a society that believes in the rule of law.

It's possible that you just don't like McDs, or do like AI. That's fine, but trying to shape tax law based on your own personal value judgements is contrary to the ideas of equal application of the law to all members of society. This is sort of the "I know it when I see it" approach, and it's, in my view, a somewhat dishonest way to try to legislate personal morality into the public sphere.

>the only solution for the legislator might be to make AI pay taxes as well.

What taxes would AI pay? They're not selling items for profit. The only change that would need to happen is removing the ability to deduct charitable contributions from taxable income. I don't see any problem with that. People can still donate to AI with after tax income.

> They're not selling items for profit.

https://shop.amnestyusa.org/

Not-for-profit firms make profits all of the time, and while I'm not familiar with UK tax codes, at least in the US the only fuzzy line is that pursuit of profits not be the end goal... quite a few "non-profits", such as hospitals, sell a large number of services for a profit!

I didn’t know amnesty sold things. I meant that AI doesn’t sell any products and services, like a hospital or business would, therefore AI wouldn’t have income to tax anyway. But I guess they do sell some items for brand awareness/raising funds, and I think treating it like any other business is appropriate to prevent a loophole from existing.