Comment on [deleted]
Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week agoMaybe for money where they can calculate the risks. But IMHO not for more severe (for example percentage based) punishments where companies will actively try to avoid getting in the crosshairs.
I see it a bit iffy. Yes, your argument is valid but I have a feeling mine is so too.
Also, isn’t it a bit weird to generalize a tax system in an international context?
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
Sorry I don’t really understand what your argument actually is.
Since the dawn of writing, legislators (kings / politicians) have laid down the rules. Regulators (police, tax office) have enforced the rules. And courts decide whether the rules have actually been broken and what the penalties ought to be.
In the vast majority of self assessment situations, it’s very obvious how the law applies to ones situation, there is very little doubt. You just follow the rules and face penalties for breaches.
In those few situations which are unclear, you generally have a range of options:
Finally, most legislation relating to corporate behavior has safe harbor clauses. That is, where someone has acted reasonably, taken reasonable steps, and made a good-faith attempt to interpret and apply the rules correctly, the regulator won’t penalise them even if they’re found to have breached the rules.
That is to say penalties are usually only applied where there’s a breach, and there’s no scope to argue that it was a reasonable error.
This is a fair and transparent structure with which to ensure the rules are applied fairly to everyone. It’s very robust, tolerant of edge cases, and the most efficient compliance structure we have.
I don’t really know what an alternative would be? If you want a regulator to publish a list of which apps / companies are effected in what way, that’s just nuts. The antithesis of modern democratic economic regulation.