(CBS News)

Advocates for reducing U.S. corporate tax rates argue that lower
corporate rates charged in other countries impede American
competitiveness. Yet a new study finds that many of the nation's top
companies are already paying less in U.S. taxes on their pretax profits
than they do overseas.

In a study comprising more than half of the Fortune 500 list of the
largest U.S. corporations, a quarter of those examined paid little or
nothing in federal income taxes during the 2008-2010 period, despite
registering profits in all three years.

Of those 280 companies, 78 corporations had at least one year during
which their U.S. federal tax was zero or less, and many had more than
one year paying no tax, despite recording profits; many of these
companies also received tax rebates. In 2009 alone, 49 companies earned
combined profits of $78.6 billion, yet paid no taxes - and collected tax
rebates totaling $10.8 billion.

The study also disputes claims that the U.S. charges excessive corporate
tax rates compared to other countries: Two-thirds of the corporations
studied which earned significant foreign AND U.S. profits over the same
three-year period paid higher tax rates to foreign governments on their
foreign profits than they paid to the U.S. government on their domestic
profits.

The study, conducted by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on
Taxation & Economic Policy and published Thursday, examined the tax
payments of 280 companies from the Fortune 500 - those that recorded
profits in 2008, 2009 and 2010. (Companies that registered a loss for at
least one year were not included in the study.) These companies reported
total pre-tax U.S. profits of $1.4 trillion, and many of the companies
examined did pay close to the official corporate tax rate of 35 percent.

But because of tax breaks and loopholes, many paid little or nothing. In
the aggregate, these 280 companies actually paid about half the official
corporate tax rate - 18.5 percent over the 2008-10 period, and slightly
less (17.3 percent) over the last two years.

In all, the tax breaks that reduced these companies' payments to the
Treasury Department cost the United States more than $200 billion over
three years.

"Corporate Taxpayers & Corporate Tax Dodgers 2008-10"

The analyses are based on financial data from SEC filings.

The variation in tax payments did not correspond with profits: In some
cases comparable companies with comparable U.S. pretax profits made
wildly different tax payments. General Dynamics, on 3-year profits of
$9.147 billion, paid an effective tax rate of 27 percent, while Boeing,
on profits of $9.735 billion, paid -1.8 percent tax.

According to the report:

A quarter of the companies (71) paid more than 30 percent (averaging
32.3%) in corporate taxes over the three years.

Another quarter (67) paid effective three-year tax rates of less than 10
percent, with the average effective tax rate being zero. Thirty of these
companies paid LESS than zero.

The following 30 profitable corporations paid no U.S. income tax from
2008-2010:

Company / 2008-10 Profits ($ millions) / 2008-10 Taxes ($ millions) /
Effective 2008-10 Rate
Pepco Holdings $ 882 / $ -508 / -57.6%
General Electric 10,460 / -4,737 / -45.3%
Paccar 365 / -112 / -30.5%
PG&E Corp. 4,855 / -1,027 / -21.2%
Computer Sciences 1,666 / -305 / -18.3%
NiSource 1,385 / -227 / -16.4%
CenterPoint Energy 1,931 / -284 / -14.7%
Tenet Healthcare 415 / -48 / -11.6%
Atmos Energy 897 / -104 / -11.6%
Integrys Energy Group 818 / -92 / -11.3%
American Electric Power 5,899 / -545 / -9.2%
Con-way 286 / -26 / -9.1%
Ryder System 627 / -46 / -7.3%
Baxter International 926 / -66 / -7.1%
Wisconsin Energy 1,725 / -85 / -4.9%
Duke Energy 5,475 / -216 / -3.9%
DuPont 2,124 / -72 / -3.4%
Consolidated Edison 4,263 / -127 / -3.0%
Verizon Communications 32,518 / -951 / -2.9%
Interpublic Group 571 / -15 / -2.6%
CMS Energy 1,292 / -29 / -2.2%
NextEra Energy 6,403 / -139 / -2.2%
Navistar International 896 / -18 / -2.0%
Boeing 9,735 / -178 / -1.8%
Wells Fargo 49,370 / -681 / -1.4%
El Paso 4,105 / -41 / -1.0%
Mattel 1,020 / -9 / -0.9%
Honeywell International 4,903 / -34 / -0.7%
DTE Energy 2,551 / -17 / -0.7%
Corning 1,977 / -4 / -0.2%
TOTAL: On $160.341 billion in profits, they paid $ -10.742 billion in
taxes, for an average effective tax rate of -6.7%.

In some cases corporations may realize tax benefits for past years
through rebates, or may win disputes with the IRS for previous tax
periods, thereby accruing tax benefits not recorded in earlier financial
reports.

Of the companies receiving what the report terms "tax subsidies" - the
difference between what they would have paid for their profits at the 35
percent rate and what they actually paid during the 2008-10 period - the
largest subsidies went to Wells Fargo ($17.960 billion); AT&T ($14.491
billion); Verizon ($12.332 billion); General Electric ($8.398 billion);
IBM ($8.265 billion); ExxonMobil ($4.096 billion); Boeing ($3.585
billion); PNC Financial Services ($3.354 billion); Goldman Sachs ($3.178
billion); and Procter & Gamble ($3.158 billion).

More than half (56 percent) of tax subsidies were gained by four
industries: Financial; utilities; telecommunications; and oil, gas &
pipelines.

There is also a wide range of tax payments between industry sectors.

While retailers and health care paid an average effective tax rate of 30
percent or more, oil, gas & pipeline companies averaged 15.7 percent.
Financial companies averaged 15.5 percent. Telecom companies averaged
8.2 percent. Gas and electric utilities paid an average effective tax
rate of 3.7 percent. The lowest average rate was paid by the industrial
machine sector, of -13.5 percent.

There was wide variance within each sector: For example, pharmaceutical
company Amgen paid 28 percent, while its competitor Baxter paid -7.1
percent. United Parcel Service paid 24.1 percent, while FedEx paid 0.9
percent.

Elements of the U.S. tax code that have allowed companies to defer or
reduce their tax burdens include accelerated depreciation of capital
investments; research and experimentation tax credits; non-cash goodwill
impairments; stock options; tax breaks awarded to specific industries;
and offshore tax shelters.

The report's authors (Robert S. McIntyre and Rebecca J. Wilkins of
Citizens for Tax Justice, and Matthew Gardner and Richard Phillips for
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy) write that lawmakers
should enact corporate tax reform, focusing on what are officially known
as "corporate tax expenditures"; reinstate a strong corporate
Alternative Minimum Tax; revise how stock options are treated; adopt
restrictions on abusive tax sheltering; reform how multi-national
companies assign profits between foreign and domestic divisions; and
repeal the rule allowing U.S. corporations to "defer" their U.S. taxes
on their offshore profits, to end the incentive for shifting profits
overseas.

"Unfortunately," the report states, "corporate tax legislation now being
promoted by many in Congress seems stuck on the idea that as a group,
corporations are now either paying the perfect amount in federal income
taxes or are paying too much. ... Meanwhile, GOP candidates for
president are all promoting huge cuts in the corporate tax or, in
several cases, even elimination of the corporate income tax entirely."

The report's authors call on elected officials to stop "kowtowing to the
loophole lobbyists" and enact corporate tax reform that benefits the
majority of Americans.

On 11/3/2011 6:50 AM, X ` Man wrote:
(CBS News)

Advocates for reducing U.S. corporate tax rates argue that lower
corporate rates charged in other countries impede American
competitiveness. Yet a new study finds that many of the nation's top
companies are already paying less in U.S. taxes on their pretax profits
than they do overseas.

In a study comprising more than half of the Fortune 500 list of the
largest U.S. corporations, a quarter of those examined paid little or
nothing in federal income taxes during the 2008-2010 period, despite
registering profits in all three years.


I wonder why corporations leave the US tax haven and move to far off
places? Harry knows the answer but he won't admit it.
--
1-20-13 The end of an error

On 03/11/2011 4:50 AM, X ` Man wrote:
(CBS News)

Advocates for reducing U.S. corporate tax rates argue that lower
corporate rates charged in other countries impede American
competitiveness. Yet a new study finds that many of the nation's top
companies are already paying less in U.S. taxes on their pretax profits
than they do overseas.

Funny how that fleabagger greed works eh? You dumb ****s blinded with
envy and greed can't see how it really works. You like denial of
reality like an addictive drug.

Lower interest rates to zero means lower dividend and company earnings
are needed to keep share holders happy. So lower dividend and earnings
generates less taxes. Yep, just government shooting itself in the foot
with fraud low interest rates.

Bottom line for many, no profit from US domestic operations means no
taxes. Because they paid taxes in other countries that were profitable,
those are tax credits domestically.

Take 0bama Government Motors, they don't pay taxes and will not for a
very long time. Yep, the bailout criminals left enough loss carry
forwards it is unlikely GM will pay federal income taxes in our lifetime.

0bama Solyndra didn't pay taxes, better yet got government bailouts.
Government streak on betting on losers and bailout buddies is astounding.

What? You fleabaggers things rich and companies should pay taxes when
they loose money or have loss carry forwards like Warren Buffet?

Bet you didn't pay much in taxes, just a fleabagger mushroom a whining.

Hey, you would be rich if fleabbagger bull**** was worth anything.

Got some good news, I might be able to get all my USA investments out of
the USA by January, seeing a tax guru next week. Have some etter places
than USA to plant the money and watch it grow as opposed to shrink.
See, not being stuck in the USA has its advantages.

--
The reason government can't fix the economic problems is government is
the problem.

On 03/11/2011 6:42 AM, Drifter wrote:
On 11/3/2011 6:50 AM, X ` Man wrote:
(CBS News)

Advocates for reducing U.S. corporate tax rates argue that lower
corporate rates charged in other countries impede American
competitiveness. Yet a new study finds that many of the nation's top
companies are already paying less in U.S. taxes on their pretax profits
than they do overseas.

In a study comprising more than half of the Fortune 500 list of the
largest U.S. corporations, a quarter of those examined paid little or
nothing in federal income taxes during the 2008-2010 period, despite
registering profits in all three years.


I wonder why corporations leave the US tax haven and move to far off
places? Harry knows the answer but he won't admit it.

Yep, fleabaggers need to understand that there is no reason a US corp
should be paying double taxes to DC. Say a product is made in China,
sold in China then Chinese profit taxes paid. Then greedy fleabaggers
think DC should double tax the US corp for non-domestic profits.

So to solve the problem they just move the head office offshore and only
account for US taxes on US operations, which is fair. Means less
revenue for DC and the fat taxable exec salaries and economic activity
of a head office is no longer in the USA. Screwing themselves with
their own greed.

But no one ever accused a fleabagger of using their brains for anything
other than envy, lust and greed of others. Sinful bunch really, putting
all that debt on our grand kids like they are debt-corruption-tax slaves.
--
The reason government can't fix the economic problems is government is
the problem.

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:42:39 -0400, Drifter wrote:

I wonder why corporations leave the US tax haven and move to far off
places? Harry knows the answer but he won't admit it.

======

It's not that simple. A lot of Fortune 500 companies are
multi-nationals meaning that they do business internationally and
generate profits in different countries/currencies. If they
repatriate that money back to the US they get hit with double
taxation, first where they earned it, and again here when they bring
it back. A lot of them would like to bring profits back but not at
the cost of double taxation.

On 11/3/11 1:32 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:42:39 -0400, wrote:

I wonder why corporations leave the US tax haven and move to far off
places? Harry knows the answer but he won't admit it.

======

It's not that simple. A lot of Fortune 500 companies are
multi-nationals meaning that they do business internationally and
generate profits in different countries/currencies. If they
repatriate that money back to the US they get hit with double
taxation, first where they earned it, and again here when they bring
it back. A lot of them would like to bring profits back but not at
the cost of double taxation.


Beardsley's corporate apologetica continues.

On 11/3/2011 1:53 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 11/3/11 1:32 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:42:39 -0400, wrote:

I wonder why corporations leave the US tax haven and move to far off
places? Harry knows the answer but he won't admit it.

======

It's not that simple. A lot of Fortune 500 companies are
multi-nationals meaning that they do business internationally and
generate profits in different countries/currencies. If they
repatriate that money back to the US they get hit with double
taxation, first where they earned it, and again here when they bring
it back. A lot of them would like to bring profits back but not at
the cost of double taxation.


Beardsley's corporate apologetica continues.

Wayne made an intelligent assumption and you made a fool of yourself,
AGAIN. Way to go WAFA.

--
1-20-13 The end of an error

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:53:59 -0400, Drifter wrote:

It's not that simple. A lot of Fortune 500 companies are
multi-nationals meaning that they do business internationally and
generate profits in different countries/currencies. If they
repatriate that money back to the US they get hit with double
taxation, first where they earned it, and again here when they bring
it back. A lot of them would like to bring profits back but not at
the cost of double taxation.


Beardsley's corporate apologetica continues.

Wayne made an intelligent assumption and you made a fool of yourself,
AGAIN. Way to go WAFA.

=========

Proving once again that you can't educate those who already know
everything, or those who don't know what they don't know. :-)

On 11/3/11 4:07 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:53:59 -0400, wrote:

It's not that simple. A lot of Fortune 500 companies are
multi-nationals meaning that they do business internationally and
generate profits in different countries/currencies. If they
repatriate that money back to the US they get hit with double
taxation, first where they earned it, and again here when they bring
it back. A lot of them would like to bring profits back but not at
the cost of double taxation.


Beardsley's corporate apologetica continues.

Wayne made an intelligent assumption and you made a fool of yourself,
AGAIN. Way to go WAFA.

=========

Proving once again that you can't educate those who already know
everything, or those who don't know what they don't know. :-)


The only thing that you've proven in all your corporationist posts,
Beardsley, is that no matter what excesses corporations commit, you'll
favor them.

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:10:04 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 11/3/11 4:07 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:53:59 -0400, wrote:

It's not that simple. A lot of Fortune 500 companies are
multi-nationals meaning that they do business internationally and
generate profits in different countries/currencies. If they
repatriate that money back to the US they get hit with double
taxation, first where they earned it, and again here when they bring
it back. A lot of them would like to bring profits back but not at
the cost of double taxation.


Beardsley's corporate apologetica continues.

Wayne made an intelligent assumption and you made a fool of yourself,
AGAIN. Way to go WAFA.

=========

Proving once again that you can't educate those who already know
everything, or those who don't know what they don't know. :-)


The only thing that you've proven in all your corporationist posts,
Beardsley, is that no matter what excesses corporations commit, you'll
favor them.

========

Usually when I run into someone with attitudes similar to yours it
turns out that they were never able to get, or hold, a job with a
corporation. Frequently the reason is related to personality, skills
(lack thereof) or work ethic. I'd guess that in your case it's a
personality issue. Hopefully Ms. Greer will be willing to keep you on
a while longer as CEO job at Harry Krause & Associates. That would be
the pits getting fired from your own company.