I do not know if that would hold up if they’re actually naming specific individuals (the shareholders) and demanding that they pay the tax in the form of shares (aka turning over property) rather than the dollar value of those shares. If they’re not doing those things, I’m curious how they’re targeting it.
And unless they’re doing it in a way that doesn’t grant the government voting rights, that’s a guaranteed loss of control of those companies by current shareholders.
If you follow through some of the links you get to this paper which seems to suggest that the mechanism might be requiring issuance of new shares?
Issuance of new shares does not confiscate the shares previously held, but simply dilutes their value.
I’m not so convinced by their arguments. It has the vibe of trying hard to avoid seeming like a taking while accomplishing the same thing as a taking, which I would expect a court to pick up on and be skeptical of. Particularly with the existing composition of the Supreme Court I think its going to be hard to rely on such arguments.
I do not know if that would hold up if they’re actually naming specific individuals (the shareholders) and demanding that they pay the tax in the form of shares (aka turning over property) rather than the dollar value of those shares. If they’re not doing those things, I’m curious how they’re targeting it.
And unless they’re doing it in a way that doesn’t grant the government voting rights, that’s a guaranteed loss of control of those companies by current shareholders.
If you follow through some of the links you get to this paper which seems to suggest that the mechanism might be requiring issuance of new shares?
I’m not so convinced by their arguments. It has the vibe of trying hard to avoid seeming like a taking while accomplishing the same thing as a taking, which I would expect a court to pick up on and be skeptical of. Particularly with the existing composition of the Supreme Court I think its going to be hard to rely on such arguments.