They absolutely were! All kinds of tax incentives, benefits, and freebees,
including no-bid contracts.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 23:07:36 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

I know
they overcharged the government for services in Iraq, which is criminal,
but
I wasn't aware they were given a tax break to boot.

They weren't. As usual, Jon doesn't know what he's talking about, but has
fastened on spin put on a rather slim reed by some left wing blog.

Halliburton, like virtually all public companies, reports income on an
accrual basis. When there is timing difference between taxes actually
paid,
and taxes allocated to a period under accrual accounting, the company
creates a deferred tax asset or a deferred tax liability on its balance
sheet. Then when the timing difference reverses itself that deferred asset
or liability is charged rather than charging income for the period. If it
appears that the deferred tax asset will not be used (such as, for
example,
because the company doesn't think it will have enough future income to use
it) or that more of it will be used than previously assumed, the deferred
asset or liability must be revalued. That revaluation affects the accrual
for taxes for the period in which the adjustment is made.

In 2005, Halliburton revalued a deferred tax asset relating to asbestos
and
silicosis claims. As a result of this revaluation, the reported effective
tax rate for 2005 was only 3%. In the past the effective rate has been
33-37%, and in future years the effective rate is expected to be in line
with the historical rate. Should Halliburton have to revalue the deferred
tax asset the other direction, you would see an exceptionally high
effective
tax rate for the period of that revaluation.