Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!gamma!mibte!jbh
From: jbh@mibte.UUCP (James Harvey)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: CBM vs. IRS
Summary: Tax Laws
Message-ID: <2757@mibte.UUCP>
Date: 30 Jan 89 17:40:20 GMT
References: <12500004@tippy> <87117@sun.uucp> <5370@super.ORG>
Organization: Michigan Bell Telephone Company
Lines: 30

In article <5370@super.ORG>, rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich) writes:
> 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

That sounds like something Jack Tramiel would do.

-- 

Jim Harvey                        |      "Ask not for whom the bell
Michigan Bell Telephone           |      tolls and you will only pay
29777 Telegraph                   |      Station-to-Station rates."
Southfield, Mich. 48034           | 

ulysses!gamma!mibte!jbh