>>IMO paying executives' tax liabilities is much worse than inversion itself - I don't have problem with inversion in general term because at least you can argue inversion is for ALL shareholders.
I think I agree on that one. While shareholder-employees are different than just shareholders and there is some rationale for treating them differently, I suspect that companies should not pick up the tax caused by an inversion.
That said, I am mindful that if the company did not pick up the tax, the event would create a window for key employees to move to another company. So again this is not without a trade-off.
I suspect the answer to this decision comes down to executive self-interest tilting the balance toward reimbursement.
ij
It is astonishing what foolish things one can temporarily believe if one thinks too long alone ... where it is often impossible to bring one's ideas to a conclusive test either formal or experimental. J.M. Keynes