Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!super!rminnich
From: rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: CBM vs. IRS
Message-ID: <5370@super.ORG>
Date: 27 Jan 89 18:39:20 GMT
References: <12500004@tippy> <87117@sun.uucp>
Sender: news@super.ORG
Reply-To: rminnich@kent.UUCP (Ronald G Minnich)
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center, Lanham, Md.
Lines: 17

In article <87117@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes:
>figured some interpretation CBM's laywers were using for a particular
>statute or paragraph in the tax code was faulty (or there may have been
>a recent tax court decision to support their view) and they could claim
>the other view and thus make them liable for back taxes. [You did notice
>that they picked the "C64 years" rather than the "Amiga years" in the
>CBM history didn't you?]  So now both CBM and the IRS go to tax court
well, according to a Forbes article some years ago about C=
the company used to sell C64s to their Bahama-based PLC
which would then import them into the US. There was some strange 
tax-break related to importing the machines from the Carribean, and
thus the sell-resell game. Best part was that the machines, in Forbes
words, "never left the warehouse in West Chester". Forbes thought 
C= was taking unnecessary chances with this one.
"Does a billion-dollar company really need to do this?"
Ah, tax laws. Ah, lawyers.
ron