America’s real corporate tax problem is that big companies get away with paying nothing.
Report: 26 U.S. Companies Not Paying Federal Income Tax
[/quote]
From your third link:
[i]William McBride, an economist with the Tax Foundation, said the best source of information would be a company’s tax return, which is not public information.
“The CTJ is estimating the true figure from what the company is reporting,” McBride said. “They are guessing what companies are paying in taxes.” [/i]
Why people continue to believe this propaganda is beyond me. These “reports” compare GAAP basis incomes to tax payments they can’t prove because it isn’t public knowledge… And people eat it up.
This is literally like the leftist version of Flex magazine’s workout routine.
America’s real corporate tax problem is that big companies get away with paying nothing.
Report: 26 U.S. Companies Not Paying Federal Income Tax
All Competition of these big Corps are a a disadvantage of what ever their tax rate is . It is numbers game called Monopoly
especially in retail where a profit margin maybe 4 or 5 % . Not only do major corps. get huge advantages from the Fed they also get it from states and locals . Because they have figured out the way politics work in America
America’s real corporate tax problem is that big companies get away with paying nothing.
Report: 26 U.S. Companies Not Paying Federal Income Tax
[/quote]
From your third link:
[i]William McBride, an economist with the Tax Foundation, said the best source of information would be a company’s tax return, which is not public information.
“The CTJ is estimating the true figure from what the company is reporting,” McBride said. “They are guessing what companies are paying in taxes.” [/i]
Why people continue to believe this propaganda is beyond me. These “reports” compare GAAP basis incomes to tax payments they can’t prove because it isn’t public knowledge… And people eat it up.
This is literally like the leftist version of Flex magazine’s workout routine.
[/quote]
because w are all uninformed and our integrity is lacking
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Why do we even tax C Corps? No other business org types pays tax at the entity level. [/quote]
It works out in certain situations, particularly foreign investors.
The foreign entities form what is called a “blocker” in somewhere like the Caymans. Then the blocker invests in US business.
This works because the blocker registers in the US, and pays the taxes to the US on behalf of the foreign investors without them having to file. It is called a blocker so the US can’t use interpretations of Effectively Connected Income rules to attack their foreign income as well, because they never formally file or participate directly in US activity.
Works out well. US get’s their revenue and the Foreign Investors only pay tax in their home country.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Why do we even tax C Corps? No other business org types pays tax at the entity level. [/quote]
It works out in certain situations, particularly foreign investors.
The foreign entities form what is called a “blocker” in somewhere like the Caymans. Then the blocker invests in US business.
This works because the blocker registers in the US, and pays the taxes to the US on behalf of the foreign investors without them having to file. It is called a blocker so the US can’t use interpretations of Effectively Connected Income rules to attack their foreign income as well, because they never formally file or participate directly in US activity.
Works out well. US get’s their revenue and the Foreign Investors only pay tax in their home country. [/quote]
Wouldn’t that cause a higher tax liability than if a foreign investor just filed in the U.S.?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Why do we even tax C Corps? No other business org types pays tax at the entity level. [/quote]
It works out in certain situations, particularly foreign investors.
The foreign entities form what is called a “blocker” in somewhere like the Caymans. Then the blocker invests in US business.
This works because the blocker registers in the US, and pays the taxes to the US on behalf of the foreign investors without them having to file. It is called a blocker so the US can’t use interpretations of Effectively Connected Income rules to attack their foreign income as well, because they never formally file or participate directly in US activity.
Works out well. US get’s their revenue and the Foreign Investors only pay tax in their home country. [/quote]
Wouldn’t that cause a higher tax liability than if a foreign investor just filed in the U.S.? [/quote]
Maybe, maybe not, going to depend on the type of income (character) and what country the foreign entity is.
Also, the Effectively Connected net is rather wide. A foreign subsidiary of a foreign entity that creates income effectively connected to a US trade or business could potentially subject the income of the parent to US taxation even though the Parent has no direct business contacts with the US.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Why do we even tax C Corps? No other business org types pays tax at the entity level. [/quote]
It works out in certain situations, particularly foreign investors.
The foreign entities form what is called a “blocker” in somewhere like the Caymans. Then the blocker invests in US business.
This works because the blocker registers in the US, and pays the taxes to the US on behalf of the foreign investors without them having to file. It is called a blocker so the US can’t use interpretations of Effectively Connected Income rules to attack their foreign income as well, because they never formally file or participate directly in US activity.
Works out well. US get’s their revenue and the Foreign Investors only pay tax in their home country. [/quote]
Wouldn’t that cause a higher tax liability than if a foreign investor just filed in the U.S.? [/quote]
Maybe, maybe not, going to depend on the type of income (character) and what country the foreign entity is.
Also, the Effectively Connected net is rather wide. A foreign subsidiary of a foreign entity that creates income effectively connected to a US trade or business could potentially subject the income of the parent to US taxation even though the Parent has no direct business contacts with the US. [/quote]
Hmmm, interesting. This is the first time I’ve heard of the effectively connected Income rules.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
I love how this conversation continually creeps up.[/quote]
Yeah, and it isn’t going away anytime soon.
It really comes down to sensationalism and the never ending push by people to get everyone ELSE to pay, so they don’t have to.
Christ, after the meltdown and losses companies had, the lack of taxes paid might just be carried over losses from previous years. No one, not one single person, other than those who’ve seen the tax returns can make ANY judgment, what-so-ever on the reasons why no or little tax was paid without it being speculation.
These articles are like posting the following on Facebook and expecting to get an accurate answer:
My car engine makes a ping pong ding-al-ling clunk when I drive. What is wrong with it?
Might be a rock in the tire, car might be about to explode. Who the fuck knows.
