you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 24 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Starbucks has built out a 4,624-square-foot office — replete with "luxury" finishes — that CEO Brian Niccol can use while home in Newport Beach, California.

In addition to giving him a $1.6 million base salary and stock rewards of more than $95 million in his first four months on the job, the filing said, the company would establish a "small remote office" near Niccol's home in Orange County so he wouldn't have to commute daily to Starbucks' Seattle base.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Which makes sense because home offices aren’t a tax deduction anymore, but a small remote office is a business expense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    It doesn't make sense because none of the other corporate employees are going to be there with him meaning it's no different than if he (or they) just worked from home to begin with. It's essentially the same as if they turned his home garage into an "office."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    It makes sense from an accounting perspective: no deduction versus large deduction.

    I agree it’s stupid from a practical perspective.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    That doesn't really make sense because they're still spending that money. A $1M/yr business expense on a new office that gives you a $1M/yr tax deduction isn't putting you ahead financially.

    What you're missing from the "no deduction" side is that they're also not spending additional money on new offices.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It makes more sense than having him commute via private jet like he used to

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Wouldn't that be a business expense as well? I agree it's the more sane option, but they're both still insanely hypocritical options when compared to allowing remote work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, it is. But if the CEO has a home office he doesn’t get a deduction.

    Honestly I’m amazed he didn’t buy the office and lease it back to the company. That sounds like the sort of sleaze I expect from the C-suite

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Which makes sense, but at the same time does not make sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, either both should be deductions or neither should be.

    I used to get the home office deduction because I worked from home and my employer didn’t have an office to get the business expense. But now fully remote companies are de facto taxed more than ones with an office.

  • source
  • parent