Yes, M$, Audits Are Easier To Give Than To Receive

People are of two minds on this one. The year 2004 was around the time US DOJ v M$ was very interesting and one might think IRS went on a fishing expedition but this is only a recently started action.“Quinn Emanual was hired to investigate certain transactions between Microsoft and its own foreign subsidiaries, which presumably were organized as a way for Redmond to reduce its US tax burden.
I think Obama once joked publicly about auditing his enemies… It’s a fair question whether this is the tax-man doing his job or whether it’s some fishing expedition. I’m on the tax-man’s side. 😉 M$, who is used to extorting money from users with audits, is now being probed by IRS for the way it shifts money around the globe to dodge taxes. It would be a big hit if IRS could prove the money was earned in Redmond, WA and they were due a decade of triple income-tax. How does it feel, M$?

See US taxmen won't say WHY they're probing Microsoft. So Redmond is suing the IRS.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Yes, M$, Audits Are Easier To Give Than To Receive

  1. dougman says:

    Win-Dohs at it again, too many activations and you get sued..LOLz..

    http://torrentfreak.com/images/microsoftcomplaint.pdf

    “Microsoft seeking an AT&T customer who activated too many pirated copies of Windows 7 and Office 2010. The Redmond giant has the IP and wants the person(s) unmasked and to pay up”

    An IP address does not constitute a person, as a judge in a earlier case has stated that, “Plaintiff has shown that the geolocation software can provide a location for an infringing IP address; however, Plaintiff has not shown how this geolocation software can establish the identity of the Defendant. There is nothing that links the IP address location to the identity of the person actually downloading and viewing Plaintiff’s videos, and establishing whether that person lives in this district.”

  2. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser on http://www.scottandscottllp.com front page is a blog in that blog it details over and over again the methods the BSA has used for Microsoft and other parties.

    Really you are saying I should find a cite. I say you should be up on a topic before calling someone out.

    Really the first entry in the blog is the major problem. Audits are happening way more often and the rules on licenses are getting way more complex. Open Source solutions remove a lot of problems.

    http://www.scottandscottllp.com/main/windows_desktop_licensing.aspx
    Notice what is stated here Microsoft Auditors happen to like ignoring the fact a machine has a OEM license. No valid OEM license no valid volume license hello problems.

    However, System Builder licenses (often sold in packs of three or more for much less than retail prices) only allow a licensee to install the software on new computers and to sell those computers to third parties (conveying OEM licenses to the purchasers). System Builder licenses do not allow for any internal use of the Windows software by the licensee. By contrast, Windows entitlements acquired through volume licensing channels do allow for internal use, but those licenses always are upgrades, requiring the licensee to own qualifying, underlying, full-version Windows licenses (OEM or retail) in order for the licensee to use the upgrade benefit. Full-version Windows desktop licenses are not sold through any Microsoft volume-licensing agreement.
    This is the mega hair ball that screws over IT shops. Notice IT shop is totally screwed at times. The systems a IT shop builds themselves they cannot use themselves. Yes a IT shop technically cannot volume license over there own built systems to fix it either. Yes insane as it sounds a IT shop that builds computers should be two companies. Yes the company that builds computers owns none.

    Microsoft licenses are overly complex causing stupid conner cases resulting in people being in breach due to minor errors instead of being a thief.

    http://www.scottandscottllp.com/main/blogentry.aspx?id=3564&blogid=248
    Yep Microsoft Audit teams are not generating correct results. Microsoft auditors are unable to be trusted to get it right on how much is unlicensed.

  3. DrLoser wrote, ” a direct cite to a company that has been buggered by the Microsoft audit process in an “unfair way” (for some value of “unfair”).”

    Even M$ eventually agreed that they had been unfair threatening an audit of schools in the spring, the peak season for paper-shuffling. School divisions were considering hiring auditors and firing teachers… Eventually M$ relented when schools began moving to GNU/Linux with LTSP.

    Here’s a cite: “The letter arrived at the busiest time of the year for the schools, as they were gearing up for the close of the spring semester. And because the public schools in Portland have 25,000 computers spread across 100 buildings, completing the audit on time would have required hiring extra personnel at a total cost of around $300,000

    “They didn’t take it seriously until I showed them already-completed order forms for setting up 14 Linux computer labs for next year,” Robinson said, adding that Microsoft representatives seemed “stunned” by his actions.

    In response to the school districts’ open hostility and their talk of migrating to other software platforms, Microsoft executives now say that the schools simply misunderstood its intentions.”

    see Schools cry bully over Microsoft licensing fees

    It is unfair to disrupt peoples’ operations with an audit just to sell more licences.

  4. DrLoser says:

    I was actually expecting a direct cite to a company that has been buggered by the Microsoft audit process in an “unfair way” (for some value of “unfair”).

    And when I say that I was expecting such a cite, I really mean it. Microsoft is a huge company, and I know from personal experience that huge companies (Microsoft, American Express, Visa from personal experience) employ an ungodly number of dangerous buffoons.

    I’m naïve enough to assume that one of said buffoons accidentally (or in a chase for stack-ranking, whatever) created a Cause Celebre whereby an innocent company got screwed by a specifically Microsoft Audit. Remind me again: isn’t this what the OP claims?

    M$, who is used to extorting money from users with audits, is now being probed by IRS for the way it shifts money around the globe to dodge taxes.

    Just one, guys. Just One.

    Put a bit of back into it this time round. I mean, do you all want to listen to more oiaohm disassociated, incoherent, and pointless drivel?

    Because I know I don’t.

  5. DrLoser says:

    And Dougie?

    I agree with you entirely on points 1, 2 and 3.

    I don’t even have a problem with point 4. If your face absolutely insists on having a nose, even though you can see no particular point in the darned thing and consider it to be a bit of a pain …

    Just cut it off.

  6. DrLoser says:

    Before I start, oiaohm, let me point out that I have no interest in defending the BSA. Even if I did, I am equally as ignorant about them as you are.

    But, since they are an umbrella for many, many more companies than simply Microsoft, I will continue to maintain that BSA == Microsoft is a completely false equality. (Further details, from your own cites, below.)

    Oh well, back to the grindstone of trying to understand Ye Olde Anglo-Saxon Gibberish:

    I don’t need to know the company to know BSA is up to no good.

    Equally, you don’t need to know the BSA to determine whether “the company” is up to no good.

    This is sort of what an auditing process is there for.

    Do I have to think companies like http://www.scottandscottllp.com not telling truth.

    Well, they’re lawyers. And all you’ve done here is to steal a link to their front page from another of your cites, which seems futile to me.

    When dealing with lawyers, it is generally advisable to remember that “truth” is contingent on “fees.”

    DrLoser Microsoft usage of BSA is not the worst. Adobe takes the cake.

    Why are you telling me this, oiaohm? Tell Robert. I wasn’t the one who brought up the BSA in the first place, was I? (Nor was Robert: he purely hates to confuse an anti-Microsoft soap-box effort with anything more general and diffuse.)

    But, since we’re citing TechDirt, which essentially regurgitates James Gaskin in a wind-down post from Network World in 2009 … up to date as always, I see, oiaohm … let’s pick a few bones out of that little stew.

    AutoDesk, another BSA member company, loves to file suit in federal courts leveraging the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) to make things more expensive for the small companies attacked by the BSA.

    … and …

    Adobe, another BSA founding member, has started a program to audit companies for font abuse. Yes, fonts. Each font includes a copyright and you need a license. If someone sends you a Word document with a licensed font, and that font gets used by anyone in your company, it becomes a federal case. Literally.

    … and let’s not leave the EVIL SCUMBAGS IN REDMOND out of this entirely. THEY ARE VOLDEMORT REINCARNATED and WORSE EVEN than ADOBE and AUTODESK. Want proof?

    According to Scott, Microsoft remains the largest supporter of the BSA, but the company is much more likely to negotiate than sue.

    THOSE EVIL BASTARDS! Just when you’ve gotten accustomed to paying extortion money to Autodesk and Adobe (inter alia), and taking a weekly trip to your local Federal Circuit Court … Microsoft does an end-around on you and “negotiates.”

    Oh, the unspeakable horror of it all! What exquisite torture do these fiends have lined up for us next?

  7. dougman says:

    How to Deal with the BSA 101:

    1. Find a lawyer and have them draft a letter requesting information on what they claimed was illegal.

    2. Offer to show the BSA the results of an internal audit performed.

    3. Offer a third party audit that the BSA would have to pay for out of pocket.

    4. Use Linux and not worry about the BSA.

  8. oiaohm says:

    Do you have a single example of such a company being treated “unfairly” by a Microsoft (or even a BSA) audit? No, you don’t.

    DrLoser there is absolutely no reason to use Ernie Balls. There is only 400 other documented cases in the last 12 months by different legal firms around the world.

    Of course the legal companies have protected their clients privacy. Instead just detail the actions the BSA is performing. I don’t need to know the company to know BSA is up to no good. Do I have to think companies like http://www.scottandscottllp.com not telling truth.

    The license is never written that publisher is the only one allowed to audit.

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091015/0251156547.shtml

    DrLoser Microsoft usage of BSA is not the worst. Adobe takes the cake. Adobe BSA send you a document with a embed font that is licensed you on send that sue you for infringement. Great way to prevent you passing document on to your legal firm safely right. Remember you remove the font the document is modified. Dealing with adobe print and scan or convert to image is kinda mandatory. Yes if BSA cannot get you for Microsoft infringement they can play you to get you for Adobe Font infringement.

    http://sydneysolicitor.com.au/_blog/Sydney_Lawyers_Blog/post/Is_computer_software_goods_or_services/

    Besides for us here in Australia there is major problems with Microsoft Volume Licensing. It has not been updated to support the 2011 change. Its quite a major changing be called goods. One change is increased liability on software makers.

    dougman
    The authority for these audits is often a provision in the end user license agreement which entitles the publisher to audit companies’ installations of the software.
    Sorry this is not exactly what is happening. The usage of BSA means they use 1 volume from one vendor to get in door then you can get hit for infringement from another.

  9. dougman says:

    By what law? There isn’t a law…The authority for these audits is often a provision in the end user license agreement which entitles the publisher to audit companies’ installations of the software.

    Blackmail? Ok, please explain this…who is being extorted and for what reasons.

  10. DrLoser says:

    Just in case anybody wishes to bring up Ernie Balls at this point, btw, I encourage you not to do so.
    I’ve looked at what numbers are available. They ain’t pretty, and they ain’t convincing.
    Fire away, however.

  11. DrLoser says:

    Since most companies that get audited have volume licensing they should not have to be worrying about retail price if Microsoft was playing fair.

    Let us simply focus on the sub-set of companies that do have volume licensing. Do you have a single example of such a company being treated “unfairly” by a Microsoft (or even a BSA) audit? No, you don’t.

    So why do you even bring this sub-set up? Outside that sub-set, there are presumably dozens, hundreds, thousands of other companies subjected to an “unfair” audit. Not that you can come up with a single one.

    Explain this to me, oiaohm. It evidently gives you a perverse pleasure to ignore everything I say. It evidently gives you a perverse pleasure to ignore everything Robert says (MH17, say, or even the physics of generating random numbers through white noise).

    And, obviously, it gives you a perverse pleasure to ignore any detail you find on Wikipedia (Linux thread groups, just for one … oh, wait, there’s the wonders of UTF-8 as well!) once you’ve got a meaty little link and a headline.

    All of that I understand, oiaohm. You are a feeble fantasist. It is what you do. It makes you, in some inscrutable way, happy. And in that sense, I too am happy for you.

    But what I don’t understand is, why do you find so much joy in not even being able to read what you, yourself, say?

  12. DrLoser says:

    Ignoring the twin facts that
    1) Microsoft has developed its own auditing process over the last ten years or so. (I have mentioned these below.)
    2) The BSA is an umbrella organisation that acts, inter alia, for IBM and Dell and Apple and so on …

    DrLoser by what law is Microsoft or the BSA allowed to impose fines. In fact no law anywhere. The fines are blackmail. Pay us X money or you will have to face us in court. BSA writes the fines up as out of court settlements because they legally cannot write them up as fines.

    “By what law?” I have no idea at all, oiaohm. To the best of my knowledge, all of these fines have been given due process through the courts.

    Do you have a counter-example?

    No, you don’t.

  13. oiaohm says:

    Since most companies that get audited have volume licensing they should not have to be worrying about retail price if Microsoft was playing fair.

    I missed a word.

  14. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser by what law is Microsoft or the BSA allowed to impose fines. In fact no law anywhere. The fines are blackmail. Pay us X money or you will have to face us in court. BSA writes the fines up as out of court settlements because they legally cannot write them up as fines.

    The company Microsoft and other companies employ don’t know the difference and end up doing blackmail methods at enhanced prices.
    DrLoser read this line of mine. I personally think many companies need to be pulled over coals over the usage of BSA.

    Drloser explain how Microsoft/BSA can claim retail price in court on a over deployment of volume licensing. Reality is they cannot legally but they do any how. If I steal a 10c steal bolt you cannot make me pay for a 2 dollar stainless steel bolt by using the courts. Same has happened when someone has taken the BSA to court it has always resulted in value of infringement being reduced. The complete idea of retail price is unfair and illegal unless of course the software turned out to be a stolen retail copy or did not have a volume acquirement agreement for the software. Since most companies that get audited have volume licensing they should have to be worrying about retail price if Microsoft was playing fair.

    Most business that are running legalish that have properly acquired their volume license should only have to worry about paying the correct difference if Microsoft was fair.

    Companies will incur penalties if Microsoft finds them to be out of compliance. In most cases, companies will be expected to pay for additional licenses, sometimes at retail cost. Non-compliant companies may also encounter fines, penalties, and even criminal prosecution for the most serious cases.

    Fines and Penalties are for criminal prosecution not something should expect if you settle without criminal prosecution.

    Please note not all BSA members give the BSA instructions to charge retail price where possible. Symantec I know does not Symantec instructions is if customer has volume agreement the price will be volume even if it a stray illegal retail copy.

    BSA will abuse customers as much as the company contracts them. Why BSA gets paid on a percentage of the found infringement value. BSA has no interest in finding out exactly how much the customer was truly infringing if it is less than what they can make up with kinda solid looking information.

    Legally all you allowed do is in a case of find someone infringing:
    1 Recover the cost of the software as the customer would have have had to bought it by the legal channels they had access to.
    2 Have the infringing pay compensation for the time and money your audit team expended proving it. Yes this should be a formal invoice detailing the costs of catching them.

    That is what you are allowed todo by common law. Remember the bad bit here if you audit someone and you find they are not infringing by common law they are allowed to give you an invoice for disrupting their operations. A fair audit is a risk to both sides.

    In a fair audit you will want to schedule the audit when it least disrupts the party you want to audit operation to reduce the costs if you turn out to be wrong and they are legal.

    A fair audit is equal risk to both sides. If you are audited in Australia by the Taxoffice you get to claim the disruption on your tax return infringing or not. This is overly fair.

    You do not call what the BSA does for particular companies fair. Microsoft is responsible for giving BSA the instructions that they can charge Retail price then negation down from there.

  15. DrLoser says:

    Now, while I wait for all the incoherent blather that will no doubt result from even mentioning the BSA, may I point out that the current Microsoft practice, where audits are concerned, appears to be completely different?

    Disclaimer: I know nothing at all about this stuff. Which puts me on the same basis as oiaohm. I just google for it.

    (Unfortunately for oiaohm, I am capable of understanding what I read.

    Now, most sites you will hit on Google are, understandably, legal or auditing firms who are anxious to sell you their “expertise” in this matter. So they’re not exactly unbiased.

    But sometimes, as in with EzeCastle, you’ll find a passable resemblance to reality.

    Sounds like the basic audit is a Software Audit Management audit, which appears to be, in oiaohm’s unfortunate choice of words, “fair.”

    What you don’t want is an LCC Audit. To quote:

    An LCC Audit is only administered when Microsoft believes that a serious licensing infraction has taken place, as this type of audit is costly and time consuming.

    Guess whose time and money is being primarily spent on an LCC Audit?

    And as for oiaohm’s fantasy about dialling 1-800-IBM-FREE! … well, maybe it’s not such a fantasy after all. Not even when Microsoft are at the other end of the phone.

    Companies will incur penalties if Microsoft finds them to be out of compliance. In most cases, companies will be expected to pay for additional licenses, sometimes at retail cost. Non-compliant companies may also encounter fines, penalties, and even criminal prosecution for the most serious cases.

    Sounds “fair” to me.

  16. DrLoser says:

    Microsoft employs someone todo their audits for them and then turns their back. The company Microsoft uses is the Business Software Alliance.

    Excellent. This is turning out to be an unusually well-balanced discussion. First you admit that there’s nothing wrong with audits (provided they are “fair” … we may have to revisit that extremely vague qualification). And now you admit that it isn’t Microsoft who is at fault for these “unfair” (see qualification) audits at all … it’s the Business Software Alliance.

    Amongst whose other members are:
    * Apple
    * Oracle
    * McAfee
    * Intuit
    * Symantec
    * Autodesk
    * Adobe

    … and others. So, at the very least, you are here conceding that assuming these audits are “unfair” they are not in any particular way a “Microsoft speciality.”

    Gotta give props to IBM for providing a direct customer service number (uncited as always). That’s a real boon. It absolves the White Plains Friend of Freedom from every possible criticism, doesn’t it?

    Well, it would, if you could produce a single instance of anybody benefitting from this munificent offer.

    Which, since you haven’t cited a case involving Microsoft (and the corresponding phone call or other contact that Microsoft supposedly ignored), is unlikely, I think.

    So, right now, we’re at level pegging. Any company that uses the services of the BSA is either a possible aider and abettor of “unfair auditing practices” (yet to be defined or explained in any way), or else they’re all “just doing our job, Ma’am…”
    * IBM
    * Dell
    * Intel

  17. oiaohm wrote, ” The company Microsoft uses is the Business Software Alliance.”

    That’s for fishing expeditions. M$ does go after some targets for selling projects.
    e.g.

    See IT Software Audits Gone Bad: Beware the BSA

    See Rotten Effort

    see Readers Sound Off About Microsoft’s Strong-arm Sales Tactics (6 letters)

    Then there are the schools, folks actually advertising M$’s software to children…

    Licensing issues are one of the top one or two reasons to use GNU/Linux in schools. Schools are in the business of educating students, not working for M$ advertising to students and not in the business of funding M$.

  18. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser please learn to read I did not say Microsoft does unfair audits.
    1) Microsoft imposes “unfair” audits. (Unproven.)
    Microsoft employs someone todo their audits for them and then turns their back. The company Microsoft uses is the Business Software Alliance.

    Business Software Alliance
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091015/0251156547.shtml
    They are despicable company. With unfair practice after unfair practice documented against them.

    Red Hat does not use Business Software Alliance.

    IBM does use Business Software Alliance but they do provide a direct IBM dispute number. If you think the Business Software Alliance has gone too far and is badly incorrect you can call IBM and if IBM agrees they will send their lawyers to get the BSA to back off. Microsoft no such option.

    Microsoft is not the only one allowing unfair audits to be performed. Its like if you license a debt collecttor to get your money and they are effective and they have turned out to be using bullets in knees method and you knew about it. Microsoft would have to be fairly head in sand not be aware what BSA is upto.

  19. DrLoser says:

    Oh, it’s hard to sit and wait for the other shoe to fall. Let me guess:

    1) A company in San Luis Obispo
    2) A school district somewhere near Redmond.
    3) Underpants?

    I’m waiting for the underpants on this one. Even oiaohm isn’t shameless enough to promote the other two.

  20. DrLoser says:

    I don’t have any problems with anyone being audited using fair audit methods.

    Well, at least we’re bringing the subject back onto a level playing field. The theory now holds that audits are acceptable, no matter whether they are done by a government or by a private organisation (through legal injunction, I think we can presume).

    No difference between Microsoft, Red Hat, the US or any other auditor so far, then.

    I do have a big gripe with unfair.

    Oh, we all do, oiaohm. We all do. When was the last time you heard anybody say, “I know I shouldn’t, but, dammit, today I’m just going to go out and be relentlessly unfair to everyone I meet?”

    In your specific case, however, don’t you think it’s a little “unfair” to accuse Microsoft of such an abuse of process without actually citing any evidence whatsoever?

    Please note patent trolls also use unfair methods.

    This is either a pointless tangent, or an (incomplete) false syllogism.

    1) Microsoft imposes “unfair” audits. (Unproven.)
    2) Patent trolls also use unfair methods.
    3) Therefore Microsoft are basically the same as patent trolls.

    Either way, it’s a completely worthless statement.

  21. oiaohm wrote, “I don’t have any problems with anyone being audited using fair audit methods.”

    Requiring customers to agree to audits with no limits/schedule is unfair, always. Audits can be very disruptive and M$ nor any other company should be able to disrupt another company. It’s just too powerful a tool to manipulate the relationship. Typically, M$ uses an audit to get a company to pay for more licences. It’s not really about respecting the rights of M$ to the code and the EULA. It’s about companies paying M$ to go away. It’s extortion. Using the old car analogy: Would anyone buy a car if one of their duties in the sales contract was driving that vehicle to Point X for a checkup to make sure only Company Y’s parts were installed any time the supplier demanded? A consumer would just shop elsewhere. No manufacturer in a competitive market would put his product at such a disadvantage. Software should be no different. It’s protected by copyright law. The law should not protect a monopoly. The monopoly can take care of itself.

    There was a case where M$ demanded an audit of a school-system right at the peak of business in academia. Schools would have been required to let teachers go/hire expertise for the audit right in the middle of the school year. It would have done a lot of damage. M$ relented when many schools in the area began to install GNU/Linux…

  22. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser there is a difference between fair audit and blackmail. The company Microsoft and other companies employ don’t know the difference and end up doing blackmail methods at enhanced prices.

    Redhat and many others have a lot simpler processes for Audit. What Redhat does is also fair. Redhat understands human error does happen. If it is just human error pay the difference at the rate you were meant to and everything is good. In fact a Redhat Audit can result in a refund. Microsoft audit will never be a case of the company being audited being refunded for a error in purchase.

    A fair audit is not just about getting the money you are due it also about returning any money that has been incorrectly taken for services not provided because they were never used.

    DrLoser a tax office audit is technically a Fair audit. Because it works both ways you might have to pay the tax man or the tax man might pay you all depending on what direction the error is.

    I don’t have any problems with anyone being audited using fair audit methods. I do have a big gripe with unfair. Please note patent trolls also use unfair methods. Key difference between fair and unfair is can it be corrected in case of error. We are human we are not perfect we make errors. Fair methods to allowing corrections of errors is required. Yes a patent found to be bogus all money collected over it should have to be returned. A case that someone has ordered too much volume license that is never been used should also have to be returned. Same issue being paid for services not rendered. So a audit should have the possibility to be beneficial to both sides.

  23. DrLoser says:

    But, leaving that aside.

    You’re fine with Google and Amazon and Apple and so on being audited, I assume?

    After all, all three have done more or less exactly the same thing.

  24. DrLoser says:

    I believe the law of copyright does not give M$ or anyone else the right to audit a customer.

    And I believe in the benevolent rule of the Spaghetti Monster, Robert. Sadly, we are both mistaken in our beliefs.

    Specifically, in your case, on a simple point of law.

  25. DrLoser wrote, “What’s your logical and consistent position on this”

    I believe the law of copyright does not give M$ or anyone else the right to audit a customer. That comes from M$’s EULA, an abusive document. This is part of the nature of non-Free software. Free Software, OTOH, allows one to use the software to the maximum extent. If I go into a bookstore and buy a copy of David Copperfield or something still under copyright, I don’t have to agree to an audit and folks should not who use M$’s software. So, M$ has abused copyright with it’s EULA and other arrangements with OEMs and customers but now it’s M$’s turn to feel the heat. I like that. Unfortunately, I doubt any court/government/law can undo the damage M$ has done over the years. The best thing is to move on and leave M$ behind. I’ve done that.

  26. DrLoser says:

    I’m confused, Robert. Help me out here.

    Audits are a bad thing when somebody like Poster Child Ernie Balls has cocked up and owes the auditing entity (M$) money.

    But audits are a good thing when somebody like The Beasts of Redmond have cocked up and owe the auditing entity (IRS) money.

    And presumably audits are a bad thing when somebody like, say, Google or Amazon or possibly even Red Hat have cocked up and owe the same auditing entity (IRS) money.

    I’m really confused.

    Because, you see, I have a logical and consistent position across all of these auditing possibilities. If you are audited, and you didn’t pay up, then you are due for a shafting.

    Ernie Balls, M$, Google, Amazon, whomever.

    What’s your logical and consistent position on this, Mr Pogson?

  27. dougman says:

    Regarding the IRS, someone smells blood….China charges Microsoft $140m for tax ‘evasion’

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/db5b55e6-752c-11e4-b1bf-00144feabdc0.html

Leave a Reply