https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/14/ieee-analysis-shows-uber-pai...
- Cap table: what % is owed to other founders, investors, employees, etc?
- The total acquisition price may include substantial legal and other fees that will lower the actual amount received by the owners or shareholders.
- How much of the acquisition is financed through cash vs. equity? Equity may vest over a certain time period, and be subject to certain requirements (your sustained performance, ability to clear legal scrutiny, etc.).
- Taxes.
Taking all of this (and probably more) into consideration, it doesn't seem unreasonable for a founder to ultimately net <10% of the total sale price. Again, this is all wild speculation in this particular case.
If you own things and sell them for a capital loss you get a tax credit to use later.
If you sell for a capital gain within 12 months then you will pay tax on the full amount of profit from the sale. For individuals this is just added to your income tax.
If you sell for a capital gain having held the asset for over 12 months you get a 50% discount to how much profit is taxed.
The tax credit for a capital loss can be used to offset a capital gain but it gets applied before any discount is applied.
I am not an accountant but I have listened to one.
That doesn’t sound right.
CGT operates by treating net capital gains as taxable income in the tax year in which an asset is sold or otherwise disposed of. If an asset is held for at least 1 year then any gain is first discounted by 50% for individual taxpayers, or by 33.3% for superannuation funds. Capital losses can be offset against capital gains. Net capital losses in a tax year cannot be offset against normal income, but may be carried forward indefinitely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_Australia
Maybe the 50% your thinking of come from this?
For most CGT events, your capital gain is the difference between your capital proceeds and the cost base of your CGT asset. (The cost base of a CGT asset is largely what you paid for it, together with some other costs associated with acquiring, holding and disposing of it.)
There are three methods for working out your capital gain. You can choose the method that gives you the best result – that is, the smallest capital gain.
CGT discount method
Eligibility: For assets held for 12 months or more before the relevant CGT event. Not available to companies. For foreign resident individuals, the 50% discount is removed or reduced on capital gains made after 8 May 2012.
Description: Allows you to reduce your capital gain by 50% for resident individuals (including partners in partnerships) and trusts 33.33% for complying super funds and eligible life insurance companies.
How to do it: Subtract the cost base from the capital proceeds, deduct any capital losses, then reduce by the relevant discount percentage. See: The discount method. Indexation method
Eligibility – For assets acquired before 11.45am (by legal time in the ACT) on 21 September 1999 held for 12 months or more before the relevant CGT event.
Description: Allows you to increase the cost base by applying an indexation factor based on the consumer price index (CPI) up to September 1999. How to do it: Apply the relevant indexation factor, then subtract the indexed cost base from the capital proceeds. See: The indexation method. Other method
Eligibility: For assets held for less than 12 months before the relevant CGT event. Description: Basic method of subtracting the cost base from the capital proceeds. How to do it: Subtract the cost base (or the amount specified by the relevant CGT event) from the capital proceeds. See: The 'other' method.
https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Capital-gains-tax/Working-out...
Today, it's virtually impossible to hide money overseas as an American after FATCA and various other crackdowns unless you are willing to entirely give up your US citizenship. Since the $USD is the reserve currency of the world, the US government has enormous leverage in mandating foreign banks to report on the assets of every single US citizen with money abroad.
In fact, foreign banks are so scared right now, many will refuse to even deal with Americans outright. It's a huge draconian nightmare for expats--99% of whom are not rich by any means.
Ironically, if you're looking to do something nefarious, the best place to do so is actually right here in the US! Numerous states allow you to create anonymous corporations and trusts.
- Supply chains run dry mid April. Huge supply shock... and will be arriving right as the beer virus starts to crush the west coast.
No one has a risk model that can price those things. It's entirely possible large institutions will go insolvent in the chaos.
Source: Family members went through bankruptcy in Florida and were able to get back on their feet much quicker because their house couldn't be seized.
Sure, you shouldn't lose your reasonable family home over debt. But that doesn't mean people like OJ Simpson should be able to keep their multi million dollar estates even though they have filed for bankruptcy.
In order for a creditor to take a lien on your home after a bankruptcy proceeding in CA, I believe they need to prove that after a Sheriff's sale (which generally does not get market value), there will be more than the exemption limit left over after all the mortgage and taxes and fees are paid.
If they can't then they won't be able to levy your home and force a sale. So in a worst case scenario, you would need to take out an additional mortgage or heloc on the available equity in your home to bring the total available equity under the exemption limit ($75k+) and then pay that money towards the bankruptcy debt.
So basically what is happening, is you get to keep your home, but you are forfeiting all you home owner's equity that exceeds the exemption limit.
This is going to hurt him far, far more than what he did could ever have hurt Google. Yeah, maybe Google would have lost more than this on paper, but definitely not in terms of marginal utility. Google remains an extremely wealthy and powerful company and now Anthony is broke.
There is moral hazard written all over this, and you are either too naive to see it or are trying to defend the stacked kangaroo courts of American criminal proceedings for employees of large multinational corporations.
We know that the guy stole proprietary technology and maybe there might have been intentions to use it by Uber, BUT there's no proof tying it to Uber (of course). As always. These guys aren't dumb enough to make the mistakes that Microsoft made in the 90's.
He may have realized early that Bitcoin is unconfiscatable.
If he has less than $100M in assets, then he will only pay a portion of the judgment. If he, his lawyer and his accountant were smart, he would have moved most of his assets into trust funds, iras and other judgment proof assets. Like Epstein did to protect his wealth from civil lawsuits of the rape victims.
> I would be highly surprised if his employer (Uber) shouldered any of the this
Uber fired him 3 years ago. If they were willing to shoulder the costs, they wouldn't have fired him.
But hey, if it helps to hide away millions of dollar, I guess why not?
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/03/waymos-uber-lawsuit-reveals-...