I think you're adding in a nuance which I wasn't trying to clarify. Corporations provide a legal protection that doesn't exist for sole proprietorships, partnerships, or some other forms. (For example, like Lloyd's of London over most of its history, where 'Names' backed policies with personal wealth and had unlimited liability.)

You are correct in that it's not "for free", and the corporation is liable. My point is that corporate existence only occurs through state involvement, and there's no obvious reason why the state cannot make money from that.

You follow up with a market reason. Your statement is correct. Companies (and people, and employers) can use tax differences in the world to their advantage. You are free to move your HQ should you wish.

And that leads us to the topic mentioned by the linked-to article. Quoting from the OECD's "About BEPS" page:

> In an increasingly interconnected world, national tax laws have not kept pace with global corporations, fluid capital, and the digital economy, leaving gaps that can be exploited by companies who avoid taxation in their home countries by pushing activities abroad to low or no tax jurisdictions. This undermines the fairness and integrity of tax systems. The project, quickly known as BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) is looking at whether the current rules allow for the allocation of taxable profits to locations different from those where the actual business activity takes place and if not, what could be done to change this.

I can view them as lots of ways. For that matter, I've owned two companies myself, one where the business income was part of my income and one where they were separate.

But I'm not answering your question as you've not answered the ones I posed to you. As it stands, it appears that you don't know much about corporations nor corporate taxation. It seems rather a waste of my time to continue this exchange if I don't think you're making a reasonable effort at it, or tire of weak attacks on my character.