Thread

Meta Uses A.I. Data Centers to Avoid Billions in Federal Taxes

255 points · 249 comments · gmays

djoldman · 1790864377 · focus · HN ↗
It often strikes me as quite the biased and one-sided take when a tax-paying entity is called out by the press for tax avoidance (NOT tax evasion, which is illegal). (yes TFA implies that Meta is breaking the law, I'm not talking about situations where entities break the law).
Previously we've seen "The Secret IRS Files" from Propublica as well as other coverage of tax avoidance that never resulted in tax evasion charges. Coverage wide enough that it's arguably safe to assume that no laws were broken because there was quite the demand for an enforcement response.
The funny thing is that a more accurate title for these pieces would be, "Federal Government Allows [tax-paying entity] a Massive Tax Break." And then the piece would be all about how the senate, congress, and president either explicitly wanted there to be this extreme tax loophole or was incompetent and allowed something they didn't mean to allow.
Folks are continually getting upset and riled up about players in the economic system instead of who and what makes the rules.
An analogous example: everyone got cranky about Martin Shkreli, mostly because he raised prices on Deraprim, although also because many would label him a brash jerk. But he went to jail for finance stuff, not raising prices. Why? Because raising prices in the way he did wasn't something the feds thought was illegal or wasn't something they thought he could be convicted of.
Folks get mad at Musk, Zuckerberg, etc... if they're doing something illegal, ok yea that makes sense. If folks are mad about actions that are legal, it makes zero sense to be mad at the actor. Be mad at the people/entities who created the legal loopholes and laws.
1. jeremyjh · 1790866823 · focus · HN ↗
  Why have you posted this comment on this article? This article is about something Meta is doing that the author considers illegal. Maybe IRS and courts will agree, maybe not, but either way your comment is simply irrelevant to the situation being reported here.
  1. tacticalturtle · 1790868952 · focus · HN ↗
    I suspect the commenter didn’t actual read the article, but is inferring from past articles.
    Some of the NYT’s past articles on accounting practices have been… strange to say the least.
    This one from the last year on SpaceX was one of my favorites, with one of the experts claiming without evidence that carrying forward operating losses was only ever intended for companies struggling in difficult times:
    <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/15/technology/spacex-musk-government-contracts-taxes.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/15/technology/spacex-musk-go...
    But yeah, this article seems to be pointing out something that may be legitimately wrong, and Meta has disclosed that as a risk.
    oefrha · 1790869795 · focus · HN ↗
    No that's not what's happening here. The commenter:
    > (yes TFA implies that Meta is breaking the law, I'm not talking about situations where entities break the law).
    then
    > The funny thing is that a more accurate title for these pieces would be, "Federal Government Allows [tax-paying entity] a Massive Tax Break."
    The funny thing is more accurate titles for articles that are unlike this one is something unlike this one's title? Sure, whatever.
    djoldman · 1790870335 · focus · HN ↗
    For TFA, I propose:
    "A Federal Law Gray Area Allows Meta a Potentially Massive Tax Break."
    ... or something similar.
    The focus could be less about Meta and more about the law. It's not like there's something special about Meta. The vast majority of corporations would do this if it was profitable.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.