Corporation That Paid Nothing In Taxes For Four Years Tells Congress It Pays Too Much In Taxes

reply to post by stirling

While you two argue who the hell a taxpayer is...i thinks it would be time better served counting crows or other weighty matters.... The plain truth is that the rich pay far LESS than their fair share.

Right, let's not determine who is actually liable for the damned tax, that wouldn't suit your agenda, would it? You would rather have everyone believe their liable for the tax so you can have your pointless class warfare. Sigh,

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Corporation That Paid Nothing In Taxes For Four Years Tells Congress It Pays Too Much In Taxes

www.alternet.org

Over a four years period from 2008 to 2011, Corning Inc. was one of 26 companies that managed to avoid paying any American income taxes, even though it earned nearly $3 billion during that time. In fact, according to Citizens For Tax Justice, the company received a $4 million refund from 2008 to 2010. That didn’t stop Susan Ford, a senior executive at the company, from telling the House Ways and Means Committee this week that America’s high corporate tax rate was putting her company at a disadvantage:

(visit the link for the full news article)

But if you really think about it, corporations never really pay taxes, they are really tax collectors for the government.

They collect sales taxes and give them to the state and most states give them a tiny fee for doing it.

With sales taxes, the business usually adds the tax to the selling price: "$19.95 plus tax". But for all other taxes, the business just includes the taxes "they pay" in the cost of the goods and services they offer.

So, anyone who talks about taxing corporations or business and not you is not being honest with you.

Jean Paul Zodeaux for President!!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I have an idea. Create a website. On that website list all the facts which have been listed on this thread - such as the graph by RealSpoke and the taxation liabilities cited by you. When anyone registers to the website they are signing up to a campaign in which we all refuse to pay taxes. Wait until the website has a million members or something like that. Send all the members an email informing them about the chosen time for when we should all refuse to pay taxes. Then a huge number of people suddenly stop paying taxes at one time. They'll be lucky to even charge 1% of the people (assuming they have any legal ground to stand on at all). Watch the political # storm unfold.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Well I was looking to see whether they really pay taxes or not.. and all I could find were liberal blogs screaming about how they pay no taxes. I couldn't even locate any actual information from a government source that says they did not pay taxes other than information about a refund (and a refund does not equate to paying no taxes?)

media.corning.com...

I did find their public SEC filings detailing in depth their entire budget, assets, liabilities, income, expenses, subsidiary info, what they spent their money on and how much they paid in taxes.

And they paid taxes.

I did find that they get a few "tax breaks" for certain scientific research through a few different subsidiaries, mostly in the area of telecom R&R and environmental R&R. Pretty common practice though.

In fact through my own numbers there base rate is approx 35.6% before a number of breaks associate with research, as well as large expenditures associated with acquisitions.

Who ever said "they paid no taxes" is a dumbass.

"Obama the communist" my a$$!

Those people sitting in Congress and Senate are nothing else than servants of that corporate oligarchy.

Click here for more information.

Click here for more information.

Boy, the perception of the people in these corporate offices is all screwed up. Can't they see what they are saying? Can't they say the truth.

I don't believe in taxing corporations anyway, when the money is removed than tax that. Also tax all benefits that people working there receive, like golf memberships, meals, apartments, cars used for personal use as well as company, etc.... A person can collect a salary of a thousand dollars a year and the benefits pay their food, expensive housing, club memberships, auto, insurances, and too much more to comprehend. They can live like a king and noone pays any taxes. For every law that is passed loopholes are left open so these kind of things can happen. I couldn't claim meals I bought for my employees unless we were out of town working. It caused an increase in audits and it would have cost me more accounting costs for my taxes. Big companies have accountants on their payroll so an audit is nothing to them. I just kept receipts and added them to my tax file but rarely claimed them. We need to get rid of the loopholes and the lawyers.

What this corporation is saying, is that it has moved its operations overseas in order to avoid paying taxes that it would have to pay in the States. And boy, did it work! The corporation got money back!

The point is that corporations are going to continue to move overseas unless something is done to make it cheaper for them to operate on U.S. soil, and this is bad for the U.S. infrastructure and the American worker.

In the meantime, I had no idea that corporations could earn money through taxes... that seems rather strange...

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Corporations should be taxed. They exist by charter and are legal creations that begin with regulation and demand constant regulation. Individuals are not legal creations, do not exist by charter and in fact preexist government. The question should not be why aren't corporations paying more in taxes, the real question should be why are individuals who have an unalienable right to earn a living paying taxes "on" the income they earn?

Is a ditch digger subject to the applicable revenue laws and liable for this so called "income tax"? Is a janitor subject to the applicable revenue laws and liable for this so called "income tax"? Is an architect subject to the applicable revenue laws and liable for this so called "income tax"? Is a doctor subject to the applicable revenue laws and liable for this so called "income tax"? Is a cook, waiter, busboy, dishwasher subject to the applicable revenue laws and liable for this so called "income tax"? Are contractors, day laborers, electricians and plumbers subject to the applicable revenue laws and liable for this so called "income tax"?

To the best of my knowledge, all the professions or jobs I just listed have not been made liable for any "income tax" but countless of those professionals and employees pay the damn tax anyway. What if most Americans are not even liable for the tax, not subject to the applicable revenue laws, but corporations most assuredly are? What if, instead of getting really angry because of the overwhelming sense of helplessness one feels when discovering that the taxes - they don't likely owe to begin with - they pay are being used to subsidize multinational corporations these people simply refused to pay the taxes they most likely don't owe to begin with?

Do you think if more than 250 million people stopped paying taxes they don't owe that Congress would keep giving the absurd tax breaks they give corporations? Do you think that the loss of revenue caused by more than 250 million people refusing to pay the taxes they don't owe would encourage the federal government to simply adjust and live within their means, or do you think they would look to those corporations to replace that lost income?

Wouldn't it be nice if people exercised the inherent political power they hold in this country and asserted their rights and starved the very beast that is biting the hand that feeds it?

Interesting theory. Would have to consider it more thoroughly to take a position on this.
However, let's say everyone wanted to do this - most people don't actually pay their taxes directly. They are withheld by the corporations and then remitted to the government. There is no individual leverage (in the macro) to do what you say.

Quit crying, put your boots on and do something about it.

reply to post by darkbake

Amazon.com: America: What Went Wrong? (9780836270013 ... www.amazon.com/America-Wrong-Donald-L-Barlett/.../083627001... $9.46 [Donald L. Barlett, James B. Steele] on Amazon.com. *FREE* super ... "Net operating loss" is perhaps the most egregious method of transferring wealth upward.

Yep -- from the Amazon review:

Many of the statistical comparisons of Phillip's book were originated here: the junk bond plunder of healthy companies, the massive export of high-wage jobs, the decline of pension funds and health care, et.al. And a sorry, sorry tale it is. Several pressing topics not included in Phillip's book are discussed here. "Net operating loss" is perhaps the most egregious method of transferring wealth upward. This highly biased tax allowance allows struggling companies to write off last year's net operating loss on this year's tax bill, forcing taxpayers to pay for operating losses incurred by private sector firms. Similarly, Chapter 11 bankruptcies allow indigent firms to continue operating with present management but immune from creditors. The net effect of both measures is to lessen risk and encourage reckless speculation, thereby undermining long-term market health. Included in the book are other degenerate measures deriving largely from the 1980's: Deduction of interest from corporate borrowing, Tax-free government bonds (deriving from early 1900's), Untaxed stock transactions, et.al. The overall result is to transfer the tax burden from wealthy categories to middle-cass brackets. For more far-sighted conservatives, this amounts to an alarming social and political development.

Upside Down Subsidies

Because the federal income tax is a progressive tax and those with higher incomes pay a higher proportion in taxes, the value of a tax subsidy grows as income rises, reducing progressivity. This has led some to call tax expenditures "upside down subsidies," since they tend to generally benefit those with higher incomes more than those with lower incomes in a progressive income tax system. Not only do tax subsidies benefit a small group of interests — often those with higher incomes — they usually do not go through open, transparent political processes. Particularly true in the case of tax subsidies, expenditures through the revenue code are often large, hidden, and not subject to the same public debate as direct spending. Further, they do not get evaluated like much direct government spending does. Politicians often employ tax expenditures because they can use the tax code to confer benefits to constituents while campaigning on a platform of lowering taxes, which sounds quite a bit different than explaining that they use the tax code to benefit certain people and not others.

Yeah Bartlett and Steele's early 90s book "America: What Went Wrong?" is an amazing expose on the tax fraud

To understand the magnitude of the tax shift, consider this: If corporations paid federal income tax today at the effective rate paid in the 1950s, the U.S. Treasury would collect an extra $250 billion a year — wiping out the federal deficit overnight.

AIG was incorporated in Delaware on July 9, 1967, and has its executive offices in New York. That little provision and a similarly arcane clause written for another big insurer — Cigna — were worth an estimated $20 million to the two companies. They would have been obliged to pay that much in taxes had not a friendly, but anonymous, member of Congress' tax-writing committees inserted the exemption into law. You, of course, can't obtain such a tax break, since they go only to the politically well-connected. But if you could secure your own tax law, it might read like this: "This section of the Internal Revenue Code does not apply to a resident of West Virginia born on Jan. 31, 1949, who incorporated a business in Delaware on Feb. 23, 1968." Not possible, you think? Think again. If you believe that's preposterous, ponder yet another provision in the Internal Revenue Code that excused the still-unidentified beneficiaries from paying taxes that others in a similar situation were obliged to pay: "(E) Application of old rules to certain acquisitions. — In the case of a Texas resident whose birthdate is May 16, 1931, and a Michigan resident whose birthdate is November 16, 1941, in connection with a corporation incorporated in Texas on February 4, 1971, and a corporation incorporated in Florida on August 24, 1979..." Convinced? In any event, 1986 was not the first time that AIG helped to write the tax laws. In 1976, the company was the prime beneficiary of a section in the tax reform act of that year entitled "Exclusion From Subpart F of Certain Earnings of Insurance Companies."

Originally posted by Rockpuck


I did find that they get a few "tax breaks" for certain scientific research through a few different subsidiaries, mostly in the area of telecom R&R and environmental R&R. Pretty common practice though.

In fact through my own numbers there base rate is approx 35.6% before a number of breaks associate with research, as well as large expenditures associated with acquisitions.

Who ever said "they paid no taxes" is a dumbass.

edit on 7/25/2012 by Rockpuck because: (no reason given)

Similarly, during the 1950s, for every $1 billion that corporations paid out in interest on borrowed money, they allocated $710 million for research and development. By the 1980s, corporations spent only $220 million on research and development for every $1 billion in interest payments. Through the 1980s, corporations paid out $2.2 trillion in interest, more than double their interest payments through the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s—combined. It was enough money to create seven million manufacturing jobs, each paying $25,000 a year.

Yep -- tax-free corporate borrowing to finance take overs by hedge funds, etc.

Originally posted by schuyler
Plus corporations are subject to inumerable governmental regulations on how they do business that costs them dearly. The US has one of the HIGHEST corporate taxes in the world. The government is there with its hand out every step of the way.

If total revenue, after all expenses is in the billions of dollars per year, nothing "costs them dearly".

The so-called "civil service" enjoys higher salaries than their civilian counterparts. They have better benefits, better pensions, greater job security, and they have shown no particluar restraint in spending taxpayer confiscated money on themselves.

edit on 7/24/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)

I don't even know where to start.
I'm a Fed. I've never hidden that fact around here, so we will go one-by-one. Higher salaries? Rarely. It's a fun GOP talking point, but I could easily get $20,0000 a year more in the private sector for the same job. Better benefits? Maybe. It's a pretty vague statement. We have good, but costly options for health insurance. Better pensions? I agree with that. I don't care if that makes you mad though. It's a primary recruiting tool of the government. Greater job security? Yeah, to an extent.

Consider this, oh wise tax whiner. Let's go with your misguided utopia of no taxes. Get rid of ever tax at every level and sell off every road, tower, hell, every bit of infrastructure as it's all tax supported. Now you tell me if you would spend more or less of the pittance you pay in taxes every year when you are now paying for every single thing you do once you pull your car out of the driveway. Your residential neighborhood streets are owned by a private company who charges you for using the roads. Then you leave the neighborhood and pull out onto another company's street and pay them a toll. Then you hit the highway. Toll. Then you accidentally run a red light, which is now owned by a private company who charges as much as they want for violations. I bet you beg for taxes within a month.

reply to post by pirhanna

Interesting theory. Would have to consider it more thoroughly to take a position on this. However, let's say everyone wanted to do this - most people don't actually pay their taxes directly. They are withheld by the corporations and then remitted to the government. There is no individual leverage (in the macro) to do what you say.

Most people who have their taxes withheld by their employer do so because they sign Withholding exemption certificates. This "withholding certificate" authorizes the employer to act as a fiat tax collector, but why would any individual do any such thing? Because it is the law they might say? Let's take a look at the law, or in this case the Code of Federal Regulations which is in pursuance of the law:

For form and contents of such certificates, see 31.3402(f)(5)1. The employer is required to request a withholding exemption certificate from each employee, but if the employee fails to furnish such certificate, such employee shall be considered as a single person claiming no withholding exemptions.

First, it is important to understand I have quoted the second paragraph of 31.3402(f)(2) - 1 but before we look at that first paragraph it is prudent to read carefully the second paragraph I just quoted. Take note how the employer is instructed what to do in the event an employee "fails" to furnish a withholding certificate. Also take note how that employers requirement is only that they "request" the employee sign a "withholding authorization certificate". Most know this "withholding exemption certificate" as the Form W4. The employer is told precisely what to do and they are not told to refuse employment, or refuse payment for services or labor rendered, they are simply instructed to mark that employee a specific way on their own filing requirements. What is that specific way? The employee shall be considered as a single person claiming no withholding exemptions. I want you to remember this as we go down the rabbit hole.

(a) On commencement of employment. On or before the date on which an individual commences employment with an employer, the individual shall furnish the employer with a signed withholding exemption certificate relating to his marital status and the number of withholding exemptions which he claims, which number shall in no event exceed the number to which he is entitled, or, if the statements described in 31.3402(n)1 are true with respect to an individual, he may furnish his employer with a signed withholding exemption certificate which contains such statements.

This is the paragraph that precedes the one instructing employers on what to do in the event an employee "fails" to supply their employer with a Form W4. Here it appears as if the employee must acquiesce to the employers "request", but read this paragraph closely and always keep in mind that the rules of statutory construction require that each and every word be given significance. Before looking at 31.3402(n)1 let's also just use our critical thinking skills for a moment and address the "exemption" aspect.

If in fact You, I or Joe Blow are not subject to the applicable revenue laws, and therefore not liable for the tax involved, it follows that You, I or Joe Blow need no "exemptions" from the tax.

Now let's take a look at 31.3402(n)1 which his headed Employees incurring no income tax liability.

a) In general. Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart (except to the extent a payment of wages is subject to withholding under § 31.3402(g)-1(a)(2) ), an employer shall not deduct and withhold any tax under chapter 24 upon a payment of wages made to an employee, if there is in effect with respect to the payment a withholding exemption certificate furnished to the employer by the employee which certifies that— (1) The employee incurred no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code for his preceding taxable year; and

Read that carefully and take note of the phrase "taxable year", click that link and take note how a taxable year is in regards to "taxpayers". This is much to chew on and I'm out of character space, so I will let you read over these linked regulations and statutes and come back and ask your questions, and later there is, of course, the "taxpayer identification number" which is also known as the Social Security Number.

No corporation or business pays taxes.
Individuals pay taxes. If they are the owner of a business they pay the taxes. If they are a stock holder or officer of a corporation they pay taxes. The tax return of a corporation reflects income earned from the customers and the taxes collected from those same customers, whom also are individuals. As many of you so painfully frequently point out Corporations are not people.
Higher corporate income taxes cause two things. Higher costs passed directly to the consumer, movement of assets and operations to offshore locations to reduce cost and liability.
If you want to creat a net flow of income and assets back into the US then eliminate corporate taxes and capital gains taxes all together. Eliminate the personal income tax and move us all to a consumption based tax such as a National Retail Sales tax.

Originally posted by peck420
Wait...so a multinational corporation has to pay taxes on all of their profits all to the US?

Not, say, to the country they made the profits in?

I got news for you, these corporations funnel their profits outside of the US because the US has too high of a corporate tax rate.

Lower your tax rate to a point where these companies want to funnel the money through the US, and you make money. Jack up the tax rate, they move their money to a more favourable location...well, they keep funneling it through other countries.

Ummm dude... Taxes are paid only on the money you make in the US... Not internationally.. No company pays taxes based on its profits alone, its taxable monies made in the US..

reply to post by Dragoon01


You are mistaken

How Corporations Are Taxed

Corporations are taxed differently than other business structures: A corporation is the only type of business that must pay its own income taxes on profits. In contrast, partnerships, sole proprietorships, and limited liability companies (LLCs) are not taxed on business profits; instead, the profits "pass through" the businesses to their owners, who report business income or losses on their personal tax returns.

It is important to understand taxation and to deny ignorance.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


If the corporation shows no profit it pays no taxes. If they show a profit they pay taxes on those shown profit. The corporations burn up the money they make on expenditures that they can write off but are sheltered as a necessity for their corporate high officials. It is allowable to write off things like vehicle expenses, memberships to organizations that can be considered business related, Golf clubs because they may need to entertain clients, etc... These expenditures are legitimate expenses for a corporation but the recipient of the perks does not pay a tax on the benefits gained. It is used by most corporations. Some big corporations even own Jets to fly all over the place and high ranking officials of the companies get to use these. Just plan your family vacation around a scheduled conference and the whole thing is paid for by the corporation and it's untaxable to everyone. This policy just brings up the cost of the products we buy. How much does the commercial on the superbowl cost a corporation. Nothing, it may cost the purchaser of the product a penny for that commercial though. All advertisement costs are also passed on to the consumer. The GSA recently had a conference where they spent 800,000 bucks. People bitch at the excessive costs, I ask "why do they need the conference in the first place". We have to start questioning these things. How come the football income from the Penn State games wasn't treated as general college funds. Why are these coaches making so much money? We have been conditioned to think that all sorts of people deserve extravagant benefits. The rich are supposed to waste their money and support the community but it seems the new rich don't support the common workers in the community anymore. They go on trips to big resorts and make other rich people richer and do not stimulate the working people's jobs anymore. This new breed of rich is bad for our country, the oldtime Elite will understand what I am speaking of. The elite waste money but where they distribute this waste is important to the society they live in.