It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. to be Sanctioned??

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I guess the United states isn't susposed to offer tax breaks to companies like Microsoft Corp., Boeing Co. or General Electric Co.
So the EU wants to saction products such as steel, textilels, food, and automotive parts....


It's estimated that the tax advantages from the jobs creation act will benefit Boeing alone by at least $615 million over the next decade.

www.breitbart.com...

hey, maybe we've found a way to close up a little of the deficit......
wonder how much Microsoft and GE are getting???




posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
I guess the United states isn't susposed to offer tax breaks to companies like Microsoft Corp., Boeing Co. or General Electric Co.
So the EU wants to saction products such as steel, textilels, food, and automotive parts....


So wait, we're not allowed to offer tax breaks, but the EU can subsidize thier own companies? Maybe the US should sanction them as well!



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Here's some backgound of the FSC that was ruled illegal:



Foreign Sales Corporations

Under legislation dating from 1984, which was eventually declared unacceptable by the World Trade Organization after a complaint from the European Union, the US Internal Revenue Code authorized the establishment of foreign sales corporations (FSCs), being corporate entities in foreign jurisdictions through which US manufacturing companies could channel exports. 15% of the revenue concerned was exempted from corporation tax, meaning (at 35% tax) that companies kept 5.25% more of their revenue.


A very high proportion of qualifying companies made use of the FSC legislation, typically through tax-exempt companies in the US Virgin Islands, the Bahamas, Barbados and Bermuda.

After the World Trade Organization (WTO) finally ruled in early 2000 that the FSC constituted an illegal trading subsidy, the US passed replacement legislation called The Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act.

This in turn was ruled illegitimate by the WTO, and after much to-ing and fro-ing, including the imposition of permitted tariffs by the EU during 2004 on many US imports, US President George W Bush finally signed a law in late 2004 which repealed the FSC-ETI legislation in favour of broader tax reliefs.


Getting around taxes by moving products through tax havens outside of the US is a little underhanded.

Regarding the EU subsidies, that is handled through the WTO if there are ever complaints. I beleive that under the WTO rules they are not allowed to subsidize above an agreed upon amount (30% ?)

[edit on 15-3-2006 by AceOfBase]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   
proper taxes and tax rules needed from wto and not one country.yes very unhanded. the eu has its rights in order im sure.oh well slap tarrifs on the u.s they seem to not care the feet they step on lol......




top topics
 
0

log in

join