This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on January 24, 2011 9:45 AM. The previous post in this blog was The City That Puts Up Signs. The next post in this blog is What they play with on their iPhones in hell. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Monday, January 24, 2011

Corporations.... corporations who need corporations...

Now that we know that corporations are "persons" for purposes of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, do they also have "personal privacy" rights? The Supreme Court will tell us soon. Who knows? Maybe this gal will get her wish.

Comments (16)

How about mandatory minimum sentences and the death penalty for corporations.

If corporations "persons" then what are individuals... people?

I was under the belief that the United States Code defines a individual as a "person" as well.

Professor, have you considered the tax aspects? This may be a way to get around the repeal of the General Utilities doctrine. Suppose that your family controls a corporation that owns valuable appreciated assets. Marry the corporation to your daughter (or son), and then have the corporation give the appreciated assets to its spouse. If the corporation can treat this as a gift to a spouse instead of as a distribution to a shareholder, then the transaction is free of tax, as gifts between US spouses are disregarded for tax purposes.

Also on the tax issue, since the SCOTUS has ruled corporations are persons, that should put to rest any argument against taxing them.

As persons they enjoy the rights and benefits of all other persons in the U. S. and certainly should be required to help pay for that.

Perhaps Ms Steiner, who "hasn't picked a groom yet" would be happy with a PC or a personal service corporation:

"A professional corporation is a variation of the corporate form of business organization that is available to entrepreneurs who provide professional services—such as doctors, lawyers, accountants, consultants, and architects."

Actually, were everyone to become a PC, perhaps this whole vexing matter would be mooted.

Why should corporations have privacy rights when persons no longer do?

"personal privacy" isn't in the Constitution, only the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.

I'm pretty sure that the government could kill a corporation if it wanted to, since corporate charters can be easily revoked. But I would like to know why, if corporations are essentially the same as a person, why aren't they taxed the same as a person? Can I incorporate myself and be taxed at the lower corporate rate, while claiming a zero income on myself?

I've tried to turn this issue into one of the standard joke riffs in America. I think it's super-important and packed with comedy goodness but I can't get any traction with it. Maybe that's what this woman will accomplish.
Halliburton is over 65 years old. Does that mean we have to send it a social security check every month?

Oh, we do, we do.

If a PC corporation is of the same gender as the hopeful spouse, how will that get resolved?

lw - There is a chicken and egg you are missing. How does gender get assigned to corporations? Or can corporations choose their own gender and change it as they desire? Maybe they all need a preliminary stop at Johns Hopkins for that.

Re: "I'm pretty sure that the government could kill a corporation if it wanted to...."

Erik H., the government, in the form of the FDIC, "[a]n independent agency of the federal government," killed WaMu on September 25, 2008, selling $307B of its assets to JPM for $1.888B, although no list of assets transferred has yet been provided by either the FDIC or JPM. Because the bank was solvent when seized by the OTS at the insistence of the FDIC's censorious Sheila Bair, every effort has been made to disguise the killing as euthanasia. Mainstream media, including the local daily of record, have, for the most part, passed along that depiction.

Corporations are bi-sexual. LLCs are asexual. PCs are metrosexual.

I thought we were going to talk about the Benj. Franklin Savings & Loan...

It's shareholders successfully sued the federal government for an illegal shutdown of that S&L which was entirely solvent...

I'm an LLC trapped in a PC charter.

Erik H., by all means talk about the previous FDIC assault upon the Pacific Northwest during a Bush administration:

Wiki says:
"The shareholders have won several rounds of the legal contest over the seizure, but the controversy is still in the courts." Do you know whether litigation has been concluded?

Benj. Franklin was very small compared to WaMu, with relatively few shareholders. That they could successfully pursue the illegality of retroactive use of FIRREA is very encouraging. The FDIC and JPM are trying to hide behind FIRREA in the theft of WaMu.

The legislation that they would like to apply retroactively to the purloining of WaMu is recent "reform" that allows the seizure of a bank's holding company when the bank is seized. Had Sheila Bair, who has only contempt for FOIA, been able to do that legally in the case of WaMu, she might well have slipped away without the past twenty-eight months of bankruptcy hearings and other outstanding litigation that will extend well beyond the June conclusion of her single term.

Clicky Web Analytics