Not entirely disagreeing with you, but if we want to stop companies from avoiding tax, we should change the tax code.

Apple has gone and done the analog of that; they've changed the returns code.

I don't see anything wrong with what Apple has done here, and if the US decided to tighten up the tax code, I wouldn't see anything wrong with that either.

To your actual point, I think it's about intent and spirit. The holes in the tax code were put there intentionally, to benefit businesses. We may not like it, but that's how it is. Businesses aren't violating the letter or even the spirit of the law when they avail themselves of it.

On the contrary, Apple sets their return policy based on a balance between good customer service and an estimate of how much that customer service will cost them to provide. They likely estimate this cost based on what they think is reasonable customer behavior. In this case they mis-estimated: apparently Indians don't behave within what they consider to be the spirit of that policy.

Another way of looking at it: the US government estimates tax revenue knowing that those loopholes exist, and is fine with the result. There are no budget-related surprises. Apple's estimates for the cost of returns in India was a large underestimation, so they're fixing their problem.

Maybe it's an overreaction to think about this as "returns abuse", but I don't see these two things as being the same.

A legislator implementing a tax code is not an all-seeing god able to divine all the consequences of their proposed law. They have an intent, sure, but to say that every consequence of their actions are intentional, that's too simplistic.

The result, which is that large corporations have a tax rate lower than small businesses, is what is important. Do you want a company, as it grows bigger and spends more on the legal implications of its business structure, to be able to lower its tax rate? Do you want to incentivize bigger companies to have more tax agility than smaller ones? I don't, and I don't believe any legislator would hold such unpopular views.

> A legislator implementing a tax code is not an all-seeing god able to divine all the consequences of their proposed law. They have an intent, sure, but to say that every consequence of their actions are intentional, that's too simplistic.

It's not like they are paid for that or anything.

I'm paid very well for my job as a manager, but I cannot divine all the consequences of my management. I'm sure I've empowered and stifled beyond my intent. Legislators are the same; they're ultimately just human.

Once again, you're being too simplistic.

Seems like reporting a phone as lost without losing it would be the equivalent of lying about income, which is generally recognized as tax fraud, not business acumen.

This is a very astute observation. There seems to be an assumption that only people, but not organizations can act in bad faith - and that deceiving the government is a virtue.

> I wonder if the same people hold both the opinions.

I suspect there are a lot of business owners on HN. Current, future or past. So it's definitely possible.

I see it other way around. When company does legal tax saving , they are morally bankrupt and monsters. When individuals try to rip off company due to some mistake or even better something like pirady then it is usually "what other choice do people have?". If companies do not give them for cheap, they will have to pirate.

store courtesies != tax law.

If you break store policy, they don't send armed people to your house to fix the glitch.

You also seem to be comparing tax minimization (as distinct from tax fraud) with warranty/return fraud.