First, we are told by your source that they "have obtained" tax records of private individuals. Disclosure of those records is prohibited by law, so either the records they obtained are false or the person/s who disclosed them were themselves committing a crime. We're off to a bad start.
The key sentences in the material you linked are: "America’s billionaires avail themselves of tax-avoidance strategies beyond the reach of ordinary people. Their wealth derives from the skyrocketing value of their assets, like stock and property. Those gains are not defined by U.S. laws as taxable income unless and until the billionaires sell."
This is 100% true. However, it is not a tax evasion mechanism and it does not obviate the requirement to pay lawfully owed income taxes on ordinary income. This article is not about unrealised capital gains, it is about direct compensation paid to Mr Zuckerberg. That income is taxable, almost certainly in its entirety as "ordinary income". The tax rates on ordinary income are as I stated.
Those are matters of fact. Whether Mr Zuckerberg actually paid the tax he owes is a matter of justice; I never claimed to know, but since people who don't pay the taxes they owe are usually prosecuted I would assume that he did. Whether you think something in the neighbourhood of $13m is "adequate" is a matter of politics, on which I am not going to comment because there's little point in it: you've made up your mind already and nothing will ever change it. Next time your landlord comes round for the rent, I would encourage you to offer him some unrealised capital gains. The outcome might change your perspective, but I won't hold my breath.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
