I'd knew you'd chicken out when it came to supplying specifics. It's the scenario that YOU provided, minus the critical detail of identification which makes your example impossible to scrutinize or research for purposes of this discussion.I described what many companies do in post 17 as the cite in post 62 tells you. And no, I will not be sharing the name of my previous employer nor any other personally identifying information about me in this forum.
And that you think the IRS would find this illegal is yet another demonstration that you really don't understand this subject.
Did you read this part from your link?:
The portion of taxable income was usually determined by the number of employees of the company in Switzerland, and whether the company was under Swiss control, i.e. the percentage of Swiss resident shareholders. In some instances, if the company had less than six employees and no Swiss control, only 10% of foreign-source income would have been subject to tax.
This means that, in certain instances, a Swiss IP holding was subject to effective tax rates between 8% to 10%. Furthermore, Cantonal Tax Authorities have been granting privileged corporate tax regimes via tax rulings to certain multinational business groups that provided for exemptions or reduced cantonal corporate tax rates.
Economic Substance requirements to access these regimes was lenient. A local director (which is required by law), and engagement with a trust services company for the provision of management and secretarial services would have sufficed in most cases.
However, these preferential tax regimes, together with the holding company and the finance branch regimes, have come to an end and will be abolished from 1 January 2020 on.
What government creates by corporate charter, can be fully regulated and taxed by governments.