• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

AT&T pays no tax, they get a refund instead

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
5
76
Corporations are taking over, before long we will not be electing government officials, it will be only stockholder meetings.

AT&T paid no taxes and got a $400+ million refund due to new laws they lobbied for and of course were approved.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Paid-No-Federal-Taxes-in-2011-Saw-420-Million-Refund-120912

AT&T is one of 26 companies that paid their CEOs more than they paid in taxes last year according to a new study by the Intstitute for Policy Studies. According to the report, the 26 companies paid their CEOs an average of $20.4 million last year while paying little or no federal tax on what were significant profits. In 2011, AT&T paid CEO Randall Stephenson $18.7 million, while getting a $420 million refund. That hefty refund was courtesy of new "accelerated depreciation" rules corporations bought lobbied for, resulting in you or your local community picking up the tab from the taxation shortfall created.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
AT&T pays no tax, they get a refund instead

Corporations are taking over, before long we will not be electing government officials, it will be only stockholder meetings.

AT&T paid no taxes and got a $400+ million refund due to new laws they lobbied for and of course were approved.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Paid-No-Federal-Taxes-in-2011-Saw-420-Million-Refund-120912
I posted this already but the P&N elite say this is not true.

Clearly all these articles are wrong.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
5
76
I posted this already but the P&N elite say this is not true.

Clearly all these articles are wrong.
That or someone has been drinking from the corporate kool-aid pitcher again.

Telecom is also asking the FCC now for an increase in USF fees, to provide that wonderful service that they can't now because they are so tight for cash.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I don't see where it says ATT paid no income tax. I do see the refund info, however, that is quite a likely a refund of the estimated tax they paid in over-and-above the actual tax. I.e., they over estimated the actual amount of tax they would owe.

I'm not sure which "accelerated depreciation" rule(s) they are referring to, but in general these rules are enacted to encourage businesses to purchase equip etc to help the economy. This type of deduction is not fictitious in any way (like statutory depletion), they actually paid out cash money for the equipment. So, I don't understand criticism of the depreciation deduction, whether "accelerated" or not. In any case, it's merely a question of timing. They are going to be able to deduct the total cost of the new equipment, the question is over how years.

I don't understand why we would compare income tax expense and CEO salary. I don't see any real relevance.

(Note: I briefly looked at the PDF summary. Since they refer to every tax deduction mentioned as a "loophole" I can't give them much credence. They clearly don't even know what a loophole is.)

Fern
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
"Wal-Mart, for example, set up an out-of-state subsidiary that “collects ‘rent’ from Wal-Mart stores, enabling the chain to disguise (an estimated $7.3 billion in profits over four years) as expenses,” according to this article. By paying itself rent via a real estate investment trust (REIT), Wal-Mart avoids additional taxes while keeping money inside the corporation.

Another trick is to create a trademark holding company in a state that doesn’t tax intangible like trademarks. Home Depot has a paper subsidiary in trademark-tax-free Delaware. This subsidiary collects large trademark use fees from Home Depot stores in other states, writes NewRules. Home Depot deducts those fees as a business expense, and voila, its taxes dive"


http://www.businesspundit.com/5-tricks-corporations-use-to-avoid-paying-taxes/
When that whole flare-up about US citizens having Swiss banks accounts occurred, Swiss were saying US was hypocritical because Delaware and Florida are also essentially off shore tax havens.
 
Last edited:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
If people do not understand how to read tax laws, how they are written and/or how used; commenting on them is very foolish and.makes them look so. Article writers and commentators both.

Nothing is stopping anyone from attempting to apply the same tax laws that exist to their incomes
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
"Wal-Mart, for example, set up an out-of-state subsidiary that &#8220;collects &#8216;rent&#8217; from Wal-Mart stores, enabling the chain to disguise (an estimated $7.3 billion in profits over four years) as expenses,&#8221; according to this article. By paying itself rent via a real estate investment trust (REIT), Wal-Mart avoids additional taxes while keeping money inside the corporation.
I have trouble believing this.

Rent collected from US sited property by a foreign corporation would be US source FDAPI (a taxable type of income) and taxed at a flat 30%.

When that whole flare-up about US citizens having Swiss banks accounts occurred, Swiss were saying US was hypocritical because Delaware and Florida are also essentially off shore tax havens.
Switzerland is no more of a tax haven than the USA. We do not tax foreigners on their interest income from US banks. Nor do we tax their capital gains from US brokerage accounts. The Presidential campaign has brought up so much BS from people commenting on shizz they know nothing about.

Fern
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,775
0
76
If people do not understand how to read tax laws, how they are written and/or how used; commenting on them is very foolish and.makes them look so. Article writers and commentators both.

Nothing is stopping anyone from attempting to apply the same tax laws that exist to their incomes
Honestly, the people who work at the IRS don't even understand all of the tax laws in this country. Why would you expect people who don't work in that field to understand it? Like most other things in this country, it has been made so convoluted and cumbersome for one objective and one objective only....to screw over all the little people.

You know it, you probably love it, and that just speaks to what a piece of shit you are as a human being.
 

HeXen

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2009
7,818
30
91
IF i could get a refund like that legally, i'd do it too. I dare anyone here to say different while being honest.
 

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
When that whole flare-up about US citizens having Swiss banks accounts occurred, Swiss were saying US was hypocritical because Delaware and Florida are also essentially off shore tax havens.
The point about Walmart renting/etc. is very common to limit liability and separate things that truly are two separate activities. Even very small businesses usually set up partnerships or something to hold the property and then rent to the business. Finally, if the corporation located in Delaware makes rental income from say a Walmart property in NJ they are still going to have to pay NJ taxes on that income. I'm sure there are loopholes, but I think a lot of times these claims of tax-evasion are a tad overblown.
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,641
4,242
136
Stop trying to alter the tax code to make profitable corporations pay even more in taxes you fucking liberals. The job creators are getting taxed to death while middle class/lower class dregg bleed this country fucking dry.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Honestly, the people who work at the IRS don't even understand all of the tax laws in this country. Why would you expect people who don't work in that field to understand it? Like most other things in this country, it has been made so convoluted and cumbersome for one objective and one objective only....to screw over all the little people.

You know it, you probably love it, and that just speaks to what a piece of shit you are as a human being.
appreciate the comment; will not hold it against you if/when you visit the tax thread.

I hate the tax laws; just have worked to understand how I apply them to my situation and others in general.

And I am an engineer by trade, not a paper pusher.
As for credentials; I have had 3 run ins with the IRS and still am alive.:p

The laws are not made to screw over the little people; they are rigged for the benefit of the "big" people - the ones that pay the most taxes.

The trick is to figure out how some of those "enhancements' could apply to your situation.
 

zanejohnson

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2002
7,048
7
81
No, and I'm not surprised that Obama was going to take them to the shed like he said he would. Oh wait, he didn't.

No, nothing surprises me.

exactly, and either will romney.. why?

because they are the same.. vetted presidents, by the corporate machine..

the only way out is revolution.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,581
313
126
If people do not understand how to read tax laws, how they are written and/or how used; commenting on them is very foolish and.makes them look so. Article writers and commentators both.

Nothing is stopping anyone from attempting to apply the same tax laws that exist to their incomes
Pure nonsense.

Very few people can hire a team of tax lawyers and accountants.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,547
651
126
I don't see where it says ATT paid no income tax. I do see the refund info, however, that is quite a likely a refund of the estimated tax they paid in over-and-above the actual tax. I.e., they over estimated the actual amount of tax they would owe.

I'm not sure which "accelerated depreciation" rule(s) they are referring to, but in general these rules are enacted to encourage businesses to purchase equip etc to help the economy. This type of deduction is not fictitious in any way (like statutory depletion), they actually paid out cash money for the equipment. So, I don't understand criticism of the depreciation deduction, whether "accelerated" or not. In any case, it's merely a question of timing. They are going to be able to deduct the total cost of the new equipment, the question is over how years.

I don't understand why we would compare income tax expense and CEO salary. I don't see any real relevance.

(Note: I briefly looked at the PDF summary. Since they refer to every tax deduction mentioned as a "loophole" I can't give them much credence. They clearly don't even know what a loophole is.)

Fern
As someone who implemented the financial system functionality for my former company to take advantage of the accelerated depreciation on capital purchases made last year, it allowed our company to invest more in capital assets while taking advantage of $30 million in savings. But guess what? The next couple of years, the company is not able to deduct any depreciation for those assets against income.

Unfortunately, the ignorant will be ignorant. Stupid article.
 
Last edited:

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,305
751
126
If they use accelerated depreciation, then that just speeds up the number of years to claim the depreciation. In the aggregate over x number of years, it does not lower their taxes.

How much are the really saving by accelerating depreciation or depreciating something over 10/15/30/however many years? Not much.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
2
0
They are just writing off future expenses now. They will pay for it later. AT&T also had to pay $4 Billion to T-Mobile after breaking a merger deal which will certainly bring their expenses up quite a bit. There is no tax evasion but it sure makes for good news on an election year.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
6,911
1,739
136
Stories like this pretty much always revolve around the fact that the person writing them doesn't understand what depreciation really is and what it accomplishes.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,458
2
0
47% 47% stick it to the man!!! yes we support refunds for people that do not pay taxes, yet not a corporation? wtf
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,775
0
76
Stories like this pretty much always revolve around the fact that the person writing them doesn't understand what depreciation really is and what it accomplishes.
You know what we all understand, that a company making record profits should not be getting a multi-hundreds of million dollars refund from a government that is sinking, especially when that company sent a huge portion of it's production to a slave labor camp in a communist country.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY