No, the quote is in reference to men of ambition, who often behave as vicious predators of others in pursuit of their own private interests. The gentleman in fact referred to in the line was himself a wealthy and important member of Roman Republican society. In the play the reference is a foreshadowing of what is to transpire.
Because it is neither
his tax bill,
his tax dispute, nor
his money.
The tax dispute is Berkshire Hathway, Inc.'s. BHI is a publicly traded company. Buffet is an officer of that company. He has a
legal & fiduciary obligation to the company and its shareholders. The reason it is a dispute is that there is a disagreement as to whether the monies are actually owed to the government according to the tax code. For Buffet to simply authorize payment without first exhausting other alternatives would set himself up legally for violation of his fiduciary obligations to the stockholders of the company.
That is the sort of thing that comes of overly permissive laws relating to corporations. Corporations and there officers often are in a position where non-compliance with governing bodies becomes both economically profitable and legally defensible.
To say the least, your mischaracterization of Buffet's involvement is a public slander and you owe the man an apology.
Mark A. Baker
