the Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act

[Rokenn]

Found this on the WOrking Assests site (http://www.workingforchange.com/acti...m?itemid=14796)
Seems appropriate for Tax Day here in the US.

--------------------------------------

Rein in Corporate Tax Deserters

Contributed by Working Assets

In recent years, corporate lawyers and accountants have become increasingly brazen in their efforts to avoid paying any Federal income tax, even when the companies they represent are highly profitable. Congress has pressured the IRS to not enforce existing laws and has repeatedly refused to pass laws to close arcane tax loopholes. Many brand name companies save huge amounts simply by creating a P.O. box headquarters in the Caribbean without moving any real operations.

Estimates vary, but the IRS suggests that closing several of the major loopholes would bring in an additional $70 billion per year! It is merely coincidental, but highly ironic, that these revenues would cover the cost of our invasion of Iraq, or the exploding state fiscal deficits – each and every year.

The list of companies that have taken advantage of the rest of us through aggressive use of tax shelters in the Caribbean is long and illustrious. It includes the criminal -- Enron and Tyco -- as well as major government contractors, such as Halliburton. Under then CEO and now Vice President Cheney, Halliburton created many Bermuda partnerships with no more reality than a post office box and a local lawyer. This forced regular citizens to pay Halliburton's share of public services, homeland security, and the military budget. This kind of behavior makes clear the utter lack of loyalty on the part of these tax dodgers.

In an effort to stop this abuse, Representative Richard Neal (D-MA) has introduced the Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act. Representative Neal’s legislation will not cure all corporate malfeasance, but it will make it less profitable, and it is a powerful first step in making sure companies pay their share of meeting America’s basic needs. Most observers believe that the Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act would pass easily if the Republican leadership would allow it to come to a vote since it is hard to publicly defend the indefensible.

Call to action

Urge your representative to support and co-sponsor HR 3884, the Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act, and to call on the House leadership to schedule a roll call vote as soon as possible.

More Info

[Morgeruat]

sounds like a good idea, count me in.

[Timber Loftis]

Until the laws are changed, 1000-lawyer law firms like mine will continue to advise corporations to incorporate in the Bahamas. It's that simple. We advise our clients to take the best advantage they can of the rules given. Note that Bush's tax cuts on dividends combined with offshore incorporation = NO taxes on corporations - "yippeee," shout the gleeful FatCats(tm). The fact that a Democrat introduced this bill (note: a Repug would get excommunicated immediately) is an example of a "check mark" on my Ways-in-which-Dems-are-better list. (Note, I also have a Ways-in-which-Repugs-are-better list. Halliburton never gets an honorable mention there, though. )

[/)eathKiller]

Originally posted by Rokenn: Many brand name companies save huge amounts simply by creating a P.O. box headquarters in the Caribbean without moving any real operations.

Uh... I have A P.O. Box in the Carribean, and belive me, My establishment really IS there, err here... In Cuba... Whatever... heh... I don't know of any nearby PO boxes which aren't actually used, that would seem less profitable due to the ammount of time it would take for mail to arrive...

[Timber Loftis]

Nobody uses these locations for mail, Deathkiller. And "post office box" sometimes refers to a one-room office location. The point is that it is a "shell" - just to satisfy legalities. The corporation incorporates in the Bahamas, then has its "principle place of business" in New York or Chicago or Dallas. It is like chosing to get your car licensed in another state - a loophole and nothing more.

TL, can you explain to me why dividend taxes are fair? The Corp. is already supposed to pay taxes on profits, why tax the share holders (ie. people like me and you) on the same profits? I don't see how you can consider double taxation as fair.

As for incorporating in the Bahamas, yeah Im sure it is a growing trend, but I will bet you a bottle of your favorite beverage that there are thousands if not tens of thousands of companies incorporated inside the US and that pay taxes.

And finally [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] I know that its off topic, but can anyone tell me how the economy can be said to be lagging when I see on a daily basis dozens of people standing in line for hours to get into the offices of any housing community all of which start in the low low $300,000 range....I want to know..who are these people with that kind of money, and where the heck are they coming from? How do these families afford houses that average out at roughly $450,000? You have to sign up for months ahead of time to even be able to get on the list of applicatns to own these houses and they are going up by the bushel......sorry....

[Timber Loftis]

MagiK, if you get paid $1 in income, it is taxed. If you then turn around and buy something with the $1 at a store, that store owner pays taxes on it too - it is their income. The same holds true with a corporation. If it makes money, it pays taxes. If it then pays that money out as dividends (income), the recipient pays taxes. It's a "per transaction" setup - it is not double-taxation because the company and the shareholder are two different legal entities (which is the whole PURPOSE for creating the company - an entity's liability wall).

If you do not "double-tax" (inaccurate, but I'll use it) in this way, you allow the shareholders to have the liability wall benefits of a corporation (i.e. can only lose as much money as they bet, unlike the sole proprietership and partnership situations where you can go negative) without paying any extra price for it. This liability wall is a very powerful thing, and should not come for free. Plus, as mentioned above, you've ignored the reality of the fact that 2 transactions take place between 2 different "persons."

This is a stoopid debate, anyway, as it is obviated in a number of ways. (1) Corporations re-invest most earned money, so it isn't really "income." Keep your money tied up, you rich fat cats, and you will forever avoid taxes. (2) If no dividends are paid, there is no taxation on the stockholder, yet the value of the stock (likely) rises, meaning the stockholder gets to defer any taxation until he sells the stock, and then pays the really cheap "capital gains" tax (@ 20% or less). This is a common model. Micro$oft has never paid $1 in dividends to anyone, yet the stockholders get rich because the stock doubles-and-splits, doubles-and-splits, doubles-and-splits before they sell. (3) For you small corporation holders, pay the $$$ out as "salary" to yourselves rather than dividends. That way, the money is a "business expense" and the corp. gets to subtract it from income (thereby avoiding the corporate tax), while the individual just pays regular income tax on it. Of course, if you own a small corp., you knew this already. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 04-16-2003, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

I thank you muchly TL [img]smile.gif[/img] I know you could charge a decent amount of money for these little gems of insight [img]smile.gif[/img] and yet you share them here freely. I was aware of the wall/liability thing (basic accounting classes taught us that) but not the reasoning behind the taxes...I may have to rethink about the taxation of dividends.

[Timber Loftis]

Actually, I think I should cut-and-paste that post into a Word document, as I'm sure it's an explanation/argument I'll be called upon to cough up again in a few months. I think I got it all right. I'm not a tax attorney, but I did take a class on income tax, as did my wife, and we do our own taxes. Thanks for the kudos, though, and let me know if you have other questions which arise as a result of what I wrote.

Oh, and I will note that everyone uses the language to push their agenda. "Double-taxation" is a word that has been heavily demonized by business, and it is therefore basically created a misunderstanding amongst people. There are many tax myths.

Here's one: "I can't afford a raise, I'll go into the next tax bracket." WRONG. Let's say the 20% tax bracket cuts off at $30K and becomes the 25% bracket (hypothetical numbers - not currently accurate, but good for a lesson). Well, you don't pay the 25% rate on all your money, but ONLY on that part of the money that exceeded the lower bracket. In other words, you only pay 20% on the first 30K, and then you pay 25% on every dollar above 30K. Perhaps the most common misunderstanding with taxes. Despite what we may like to think, the tax code does NOT discourage earning more money.

[ 04-16-2003, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Here's one: "I can't afford a raise, I'll go into the next tax bracket." WRONG. Let's say the 20% tax bracket cuts off at $30K and becomes the 25% bracket (hypothetical numbers - not currently accurate, but good for a lesson). Well, you don't pay the 25% rate on all your money, but ONLY on that part of the money that exceeded the lower bracket. In other words, you only pay 20% on the first 30K, and then you pay 25% on every dollar above 30K. Perhaps the most common misunderstanding with taxes. Despite what we may like to think, the tax code does NOT discourage earning more money.

Hmmm, well I am hard pressed to explain an instance in the 1980's when I actually got a 5% raise, but increases in the federal, state and local taxes caused me to actualy take home less than I had prior to the raise......don't remember the specifics...just remember my shock at a smaller paycheck [img]smile.gif[/img] .

[ 04-16-2003, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]