Readit NewsOf course, whether the story is true or not matters, but at least as important is who Bloomberg's source is - as that goes to motive for releasing this information (true or false). And it isn't just Bloomberg who will be asking these kinds of questions.
Dead Comment
I know that some people here like to get hung up on literal interpretations and stated missions, but they really shouldn't. (Sorry, can't get into it here.)
For many reasons, there isn't a lot of good that would come from them making a big deal about this among the general public. Feel free to see my earlier post.[1]
If the story is both fake and some grand market manipulating plot, most people involved are 1) going to hope that the public forgets that this story ever was; and 2) deal w/this privately.
But since some clearly disagree, I eagerly await your well-informed case.
I know that some people here like to get hung up on literal interpretations and stated missions, but they really shouldn't. (Sorry, can't get into it here.)
For many reasons, there isn't a lot of good that would come from them making a big deal about this among the general public. Feel free to see my earlier post.[1]
This is really hard to believe. An engineer who found this bug at Apple would most likely be praised for finding it. It is a huge discovery. What motivation would he have to not tell his manager?
Seriously, history, recent and otherwise, is littered w/the ghosts and carcasses of employees who were anything but rewarded for identifying problems great and small.
Oftentimes the safest thing to do is to pretend that one saw/heard/knows nothing while hoping that someone else has the steel to sound the alarm.
And for this sort of situation, there's too much at stake and are too many known and unknown stakeholders involved to blindly believe that this would be an exception to what I wrote above.
On a separate but related note, for those playing the "conspiracy theory" game: - On October 4th, Bloomberg releases The Big Hack story; and - On the same day, VP Pence gives a speech at the Hudson Institute about...? China being a bad actor which indulges in all sorts of behavior (that the United States would never ever engage in or condone).[1]
Factor in the "trade war" and long-ongoing attempts to 'encourage' companies to rethink their supply chains/ relocate production...
[1] https://www.hudson.org/events/1610-vice-president-mike-pence...
IANAL (or a CPA), but it seems like a good-faith attempt to invest in an OZ should not incur penalties later. Disclaimer: you are taking about the IRS, so logic/fairness may not apply.
Also: why would personal investment be against the spirit of the OZ legislation? It seems to focus on getting the property developed, not why it is developed.
This depends on the penalties that the Service/Treasury aims to collect and their ability to tie-up and/or seize one's assets.
So, to my way of thinking, an unintended consequence would be some no-name schmuck being the one to systematize and beat the known quantities at the game. (IMHO)
Both of these paths cause a loss of right to enter the US. Neither one automatically bans re-entry if one otherwise qualifies to enter as an alien. I agree differences in these areas would be major.
The minor differences I know of: formal renunciation specifically for the purpose of avoiding taxes makes one inadmissible, but this purpose is so hard to prove and enforce that only a very small number of people (I forget precisely but around 2-5) have ever been ensnared by it. Also, renunciants are ineligible to possess firearms in the US, even if they'd otherwise be in one of the nonresident alien categories which would be allowed to.
Taking the wording of both of these provisions at face value, they don't apply to former citizens who relinquish but don't renounce.
Courts probably haven't yet been asked to rule either way on this, but at the very least, I don't know a court ruling finding that all former citizens are covered by either provision.
I hope we can both easily agree that law should (almost) never be taken at face value. In my professional experience, the words mean what they mean until they mean something different.
Seriously, history, recent and otherwise, is littered w/the ghosts and carcasses of employees who were anything but rewarded for identifying problems great and small.
Oftentimes the safest thing to do is to pretend that one saw/heard/knows nothing while hoping that someone else has the steel to sound the alarm.
And for this sort of situation, there's too much at stake and are too many known and unknown stakeholders involved to blindly believe that this would be an exception to what I wrote above.
On a separate but related note, for those playing the "conspiracy theory" game: - On October 4th, Bloomberg releases The Big Hack story; and - On the same day, VP Pence gives a speech at the Hudson Institute about...? China being a bad actor which indulges in all sorts of behavior (that the United States would never ever engage in or condone).[1]
Factor in the "trade war" and long-ongoing attempts to 'encourage' companies to rethink their supply chains/ relocate production...
[1] https://www.hudson.org/events/1610-vice-president-mike-pence...
Anyway, here's a September article from Axios entitled, "The Trump administration's secret anti-China plans" https://www.axios.com/trump-administration-anti-china-campai...
From the article: "The broadside against China — which is planned to be both rhetorical and substantive — will be "administration-wide,"" [emphasis added] ""The push is coming from the national security apparatus," the source added."
Personally, I hope no products are compromised, ever. That's probably not the case, and either way, the average person won't care much in the short term. Busy w/other stuff, they probably don't remember this story today, if they even heard about it. Businessweek is, after all, a business magazine targeted at a pretty specific audience.
As for whether Bloomberg's story is part of a wider campaign, I don't know and don't believe I've said otherwise. It doesn't really matter to me, as I know that a game is on and that it isn't unreasonable to use such a story while playing. I've seen and heard all sorts of curious things in the last few years. Nothing about today's environment tells me that I'll have fewer such occurrences.
Toodles, kids.