Hacker News Reader

Comment by cj | Hacker News Reader

Gifting stock to a trust is a common way to avoid certain types of taxes in some cases.

If his end goal is to simply liquidate his position, maybe the "gifting shares to trust" is just part of a tax avoidance scheme (even if it sounds illegal, it often isn't).

I've seen this very commonly with private company founders expecting an exit in the next couple years, but very possible this situation is completely different.

The fact that it triggered a clause to eliminate preferred voting shares is very odd. Either a complete oversight by the guy's lawyer, or if it was done intentionally, I have no idea.

View on HN

There's just no way a guy with that much money sells out of the controlling stake in his own company without knowing it was going to happen.

The billoin dollar question is why? Seems it could only be a handful of things:

Major health problem so the controlling stake won't matter.

Major unannounced issue that would cause the stock to drop precipitously (on paper he'd be facing prison time, but I think we all know he won't even if true).

Outside pressure, presumably from a government entity because I don't know what private party would have the juice to push him out.

Outside of that, unless he's just done with the rat race, planning on retiring and just not working anymore I've got a lot of nothing. When you have as much money as he has, I don't see why you'd give up control of your baby willingly as part of "normal estate planning" at his age.

> Major unannounced issue...

To be fair, I'm not sure it could be much worse than the major announced issues of the past few years.

Probably related to replacing 500 positions with what I can only assume will be Genmoji.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/may/09/crowdstri...

> pressure, presumably from a government entity

Given the business crowdStrike is, it is now unlikely this scheme was setup by some three letter agency from the countries involved with this company. So, the control of the company is handled by one or more entities they trust.

Wildly speculating: Maybe he wants to distance himself from future events that he can't or won't prevent.

"The fact that it triggered a clause to eliminate preferred voting shares is very odd. Either a complete oversight by the guy's lawyer, or if it was done intentionally, I have no idea."

It's probably not an oversight. E.g. in Hong Kong, it is mandatory to have a minimum amount of equity (I think 10%), otherwise you will lose all super-voting power. I don't think a similar requirement is present in the US, but the logic behind is valid: the super-voting power is for a founder / important member of the company to maintain control and therefore allow for a long-term strategy to be carried out, even after multiple rounds of financing. If you're no longer a major shareholder and working for the company, the super-voting power may no longer be appropriate, as your priorities and preferences may now differ from the company.

This does not look like tax avoidance scheme. this looks like exit. which is million times better outcome than selling his shares to UAE fund. Most disturbing thing is that this company deals with most sensitive parts of their customer business and this opaqueness from CEO should be ringing alarm bells for any company relying on their service.

> a tax avoidance scheme (even if it sounds illegal, it often isn't)

It's never illegal, as far as I know. When it's illegal it's tax evasion.

It's always tax evasion, there are just some forms of tax evasion that are legal if you have enough money to make it work.

You don't go to court for tax avoidance. You do go to court for tax evasion.

It's tax evasion if you are found guilty, it's tax avoidance if you are found innocent.

You are never found as innocent within U.S. criminal courts. It’s only guilty or not guilty.

"You are innocent until proven guilty". Now lets all build out our truth tables to check if what he said is accurate.

When the doors to the courtroom close the defendant enters a quantum state whereby they are simultaneously innocent and guilty. Once the court room doors open the wave function collapses and a state is revealed.

Presumption of innocence is not the same as a court verdict. A court doesn't find innocence, it merely finds not guilty.

Should new evidence come to light, new charges can be filed.

Definitionally, "tax avoidance" refers to legal methods, and "tax evasion" refers to illegal methods.

I understand the semantics and the legal frameworks. I disagree with their application and the rules in place to enable the wealthiest individuals to preferentially pay lower tax rates than Joe Schmo. It's tax evasion that has been legally codified through lobbying of special interest groups.

Giving to a trust that then sells is also a way to manage insider sales restrictions, if the trust acts independently.

Not just taxes, liability too.

Doing it before creditors are interested in you, including even a spouse, shields those assets. With a good spendthrift clause even alimony couldnt get those assets. You dont get them with either though, but you can still direct control.

No longer on your balance sheet

Reply on news.ycombinator.com