From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Lotus as a public charity
Organization: The World
	<2798975736@dwetzel.mis.stratus.com>
	<1992Sep11.180148.1002@miki.pictel.com>
	<BZS.92Sep11195850@ussr.std.com>
	<1992Sep13.113911.394@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:11:03 GMT


From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) [responding to me]
>>If the govt changes the rules for one individual (or some small group)
>>then I think the word subsidy is appropriate.
>
>What rules are being changed?

If Lotus did absolutely nothing, then they would be subject to the
same tax laws as everyone else, right? So in order for them to pay
less, something has to change. I am calling that "the rules", the tax
laws, etc. Even if the change is ``but Lotus is exempt from the rate
and shall instead use the following rate ...''.

Put another way, if nothing has to be changed then what's the fuss all
about? I certainly don't need to petition city hall to take a
deduction I'm entitled to, etc.

>My neighbor, his neighbor, and everyone else in the city have the right to
>approach the city and say "we would like our taxes lowered or we're moving."
>It is called "reevaluation".

I thought re-valuation is when they change the value of a property
used to calculate tax. That's not normally based on the likelihood you
are going to move if you don't get your way, it's based on a claim
that the current valuation of the property is somehow faulty, under
the current rules (e.g. you show what you believe to be an equivalent
or comparable property being treated differently under the same rules,
as a typical approach, a parity argument.)

>The question the city must answer then is whether the loss of some tax
>revenue is less than what would be lost if the company asking for said
>reduction moved.

Yes, and certainly not in the small. They should also consider the
possibility of dozens of other sizeable businesses demanding the same
treatment if Lotus is successful.

I know if I were TMC or Baybanks or Purity Supreme (etc) I'd be
watching Cambridge's behavior very carefully.

One potential problem is that the first one (Lotus) may have to make
the threat and possibly even be ready to carry it out, but judges
being what they are and our nation's history of equal protection under
the law (and tax parity as an ideal if not always a practice) it would
be very likely that one or more of the others would merely have to
make an argument in court (and not even an expensive one, this is
usually hearing-level stuff in the judge's chambers as it's just an
interpretation of the rules, unless there's a lot of resistance of
course) that they should be treated equivalently, even without the
overt threat to leave. And I think if I were a judge in such a
situation I'd have a heckuva time telling TMC or Baybanks etc no, at
least based on working from a principle of law rather than sheer
leverage.

But if they (Cambridge) decide it is still worthwhile, then they need
to change or bend the rules. Which is all I really said.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD