Patents on Tax Reduction Strategies a Problem

EsonLinji writes "The International Herald Tribune has an article about how some lawyers are realising that patents on tax reduction strategies (a business method) might be a problem. The article states that there are already 50 such patents with more on the way, and at least one lawsuit. Particularly worrying is the idea of needing a license to follow the law. Fortunately, some of the laws get that this is a problem. Tax patents, the lawyers wrote, amount to 'government-issued barbed wire' to keep some taxpayers from getting equal treatment under the tax code."

Comments

Fourteenth Amendment / equal protection clause

[Harmonious Botch]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

( and, yes, it does say 'state', but the US Supreme Court has ruled that this usually applies to federal law also. )

Obviousness test

[Alain Williams]

It strikes me that there is a simple obviousness test here: If shortly after a new tax law comes out several people start using the same/similar tax dodge then this is good evidence that the dodge is obvious to a reasonable tax accountant.

If, however, a tax dodge only comes into use several years after the tax law, then I would agree that the dodge was not obvious.

Having said that I still don't think that there should be patents on things like this, but that is another matter.

Re:Obviousness test

[vxvxvxvx]

Yeah.

Can't help but to wonder though, if it's something many start using to avoid taxes immediately after a new tax law is released, it's probably the intended effect. Like a tax break for driving eco-friendly cars or something. If it's something that is only discovered severals years after the tax law, it's probably a loop hole that got missed when the law was being written.

Which then brings the question, if you knew a loop hole in the law, would you tell the people who can close it about the hole by filing for a patent in use of it? Seems kinda self-defeating, sure you might get a patent for the hole but the hole will get closed that much quicker than if you had just kept your mouth shut and kept it secret.

Just make tax reduction strategies obsolete.

[jcr]

We waste incredible amounts of time and money working around our Byzantine internal revenue code. There's a better way to handle this.

-jcr

Re:The kicker is the final line in the article:

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget to look at history to see itself repreating. China is a nice boogieman oligarchy to compare to but never was a democracy and has no democratic tradition. The US as it is now (with so many corporate friendly laws and taxes that you'd almost think it's inhabited only by companies not people) looks much more like Italy and germany around 1930 - 1935. The only way you can get something changed in your country if you are part of a larger block. You cannot be non-religious (you get labelled religion:atheism) or not part of a political group (only republican, democrat, libertarian or leftwing extremist, you vote according to the block you're in, not after carefull deliberation). Any political opposition gets labelled anti-american.
There are plenty of other signs of approaching fascism in the US, but I am afraid few inside will recognise them. After all, it is unpatriottic to think such toughts, and in times of war, you should not question the army/the president/gouvernment...

Re:Oh that's it!

[pipatron]

"How can you patent a business method on following the law?"

Easy. It's done all the time with the law of nature, so why not with the other laws? It's even more justified to patent following this law, since it's something that we have written by ourselves. Something that should not be justified, is to patent facts, like they do in science like physics and medicine.

Re:Shakespeare was right

[hey!]

"The first thing we do," said the character in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is "kill all the lawyers."

I'm a software engineer. I work in Windows, and frequently have to work with ** shudder ** Microsoft SQL Server. Now, I'd much rather work in Unix; or maybe something better. But if you start making lots of stipulations about what you're willing to work with, you'll find it harder to find work period. My choices of systems are constrained by my customers' choices.

Why is this relevant?

I suspect most lawyers, if they could, would change a number of laws. That's probably why many lawyers decide to become politicians; but for the vast majority that don't, they're stuck working with what they have or not working at all.

It always sticks in my craw when politicians use lawyers for scapegoats. The lawyers are just making a living with what the politicians hand them.

Now it is true that business patents started after a court decision allowing them; however that court decision interpreted a statute, which happened to have an unintended consequence. It has been within the power of politicans ever since to fix this oversight, but they haven't because the average person is much less important to them than people seeking to turn business practices into a form of property.