So when you're having a bad year because you over-hired, or because some upstream service you depend on too much is abusing their power to squeeze you you should be entitled to break any law?
What if your company is set up with the usual tax tweaks where all net income is zeroed out by some licencing agreement about hand-wavy IP from a sibling company in the corporate family?
Taking it a step further, will you get a fine-back as a reward for breaking the law if your accountants manage to declare negative income?
Taking it a step further, will you get a fine-back as a reward for breaking the law if your accountants manage to declare negative income?
I think the GP meant that you should see the fine in relation to the net income, rather than that the fine should be computed in terms of the net income.
E.g. if a company has 100b revenue and a net income of 4b, then a 1.3b fine has a large impact. If a company has a net income of 50b, then 1.3b is peanuts.
(I don't necessarily agree, but just elaborating what they probably meant.)
An interesting way to look at it, the impact of a given percentage of revenue will certainly differ a lot between some tight margin reseller and a business that is basically market printing once established. But I can't parse the wording of the last sentence in GP post as "should be seen", it's to "should be". If there is ambiguity I fail to see it.
What if your company is set up with the usual tax tweaks where all net income is zeroed out by some licencing agreement about hand-wavy IP from a sibling company in the corporate family?
Taking it a step further, will you get a fine-back as a reward for breaking the law if your accountants manage to declare negative income?