• fine_sandy_bottom
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is just plain incorrect.

    The law doesn’t allow CEOs to write off yachts.

    Whether or not regulators investigate them is another matter.

    • elxeno@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      Can’t they just buy in the name of a company, which would be a ‘business expense’, which is kind of a write off?

      • HydraulicMonkey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        They would have to justify how it is a part of the companies operations. In theory at least.

        So a private jet to fly your execs to business meets? Ok.

        A yacht? Maybe for entertaining customers? I don’t know about the US, but here in Australia entertainment expenses are written off at a lower rate than other business expenses.

        • TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          A yacht can have meeting rooms, you can receive clients in these meeting rooms for business purposes, making it therefore a business expense.

        • fine_sandy_bottom
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          here in Australia entertainment expenses are written off at a lower rate than other business expenses.

          Sorry mate. Not really correct.

          If an Australian company pays for entertainment expenses for staff, it’s considered a fringe benefit and fringe benefits tax is payable. It equates to almost the cost of the actual expense. So if a company pays $10k for an employee to take a holiday, they’ll have to pay almost $10k in fringe benefits tax, but they do get a deduction for the whole $20k, which will save them $5k in income tax.

            • fine_sandy_bottom
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              Not really, at all.

              It’s written off at the same rate, while being subject to a whole other type of tax, which means the company pays more tax, rather than less.

              • HydraulicMonkey@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Ok, so the point I was originally trying to make was that claiming a yacht as an entertainment expense was less attractive. Would you agree?

                • fine_sandy_bottom
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  If sticking a fork in your eye is “less attractive” than eating icecream then sure.

                  … but let’s be honest, that’s not what you were trying to say. You were just plain wrong. Get over it. No one cares.

      • fine_sandy_bottom
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        It doesn’t work like that. Expenses need to be “necessarily incurred in the course of producing income”. Just be cause a company pays for something doesn’t make it tax deductible.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s why they don’t own the yachts, but they own the charter companies that run the yachts.