– President Barack Obama to crack down on business taxes

MoneyInTheBank

Unstoppable..............
Certified Pussy Poster
Obama to crack down on business taxes

capt.7f9c420a261c411ab4f6a7aa9eb4e022.obama_whgh122.jpg


By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer – 5 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama plans changes to tax policy certain to be unpopular with corporations with international divisions and individuals who use tax havens.

Obama's two-part plan, which he is slated to unveil at the White House on Monday, also calls for 800 new federal tax agents to enforce the system.

The president's proposal would eliminate some tax deductions for companies that earn profits in countries with low tax rates, as well as consider U.S. citizens who use tax havens in the Bahamas or Cayman Islands guilty of violating U.S. tax laws. If Obama wins congressional approval for the changes — and he faces a challenge on Capitol Hill — it could deliver $210 billion in tax revenue over the next decade.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was to join Obama for the 11 a.m. comments.

Officials described the administration's plan ahead of the announcement on the condition of anonymity so they wouldn't upstage the president's remarks. However, they acknowledged the political challenges facing the plan. The administration won't seek a complete repeal of overseas tax benefits and, although the rule changes are narrower than some anticipated, business leaders still oppose them as a tax hike. Obama aides countered that the plan is a step toward a massive overhaul of international financial regulations the president has promised.

In exchange, Obama said he was willing to make permanent a research tax credit that was to expire at the end of the year and is popular with businesses. Officials estimate that making the tax credits permanent would cost taxpayers $74.5 billion over the next decade.

But administration aides said 75 percent of those tax credits paid workers' wages; given the struggling economy, aides were reluctant to do anything that could add more Americans to the unemployment rolls.

It was small comfort. Companies who shelter profits in international accounts stand to lose billions if Obama's plan becomes law. Under the existing regulation, those companies pay taxes only if they bring the profits back to the U.S. If they keep the profits offshore, they can defer paying taxes indefinitely — and many do.

Obama's plan wouldn't go into effect until 2011; Obama has said he does not want to tinker with tax revenues until his $787 billion stimulus plan has run its course. The proposals, however, were far from complete, and aides said this was just one piece of the administration's plan for sweeping overhaul.

First up: Companies won't be able to write-off domestic expenses for generating profits abroad. For instance, administrative tasks performed in New York for a London office would not be tax deductible in the United States.

Administration officials depicted the move as a way to close unfair tax loopholes that encouraged companies to send jobs overseas. They argued that if it costs the same amount to do business in, say, Ireland as in Iowa, why not do it entirely in Des Moines? Officials said Obama would characterize the move as a way to keep jobs in the United States and fight a system that is rigged against U.S. companies who keep their entire business operation domestic.

Obama also planned to ask Congress to crack down on tax havens and implement a major shift in the way courts view guilt. Under Obama's proposal, Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts.

If financial institutions cooperate with Washington and disclose details when asked, Americans could invest anywhere they like.

Obama officials also said they would close a Clinton-era provision that would cost $87 billion over the next decade by letting U.S. companies "check the box" and treat international subsidiaries as mere branch offices. Officials said it was meant as a paperwork shortcut that is now a widely used and perfectly legal way to avoid paying billions in taxes on international operations.

___

On the Net: http://www.whitehouse.gov
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
Whoa, Obama the Constitutional Scholar, is proposing to end innocent until proven guilty. If Congress goes along with this the Supreme Court will surely toss this proposal in the garbage. If they don't we're screwed.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Whoa, Obama the Constitutional Scholar, is proposing to end innocent until proven guilty. If Congress goes along with this the Supreme Court will surely toss this proposal in the garbage. If they don't we're screwed.
I'm not seeing that. What do you think in the article stands for that proposition ? ? ?

QueEx
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
I'm not seeing that. What do you think in the article stands for that proposition ? ? ?

QueEx

Right here

Obama also planned to ask Congress to crack down on tax havens and implement a major shift in the way courts view guilt. Under Obama's proposal, Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws....

Remaining silent would no longer be an option, you would have to open your mouth and prove you are innocent.

It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts.

Seems as though the author has come to the same conclusion.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
I see where you're coming from, but I think one should be careful in placing any reliance upon a "reporter's opinion" for statutory construction. I see them (reporters) get it wrong, all the time. I'd like to see the actual legislation.

QueEx
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
I see where you're coming from, but I think one should be careful in placing any reliance upon a "reporter's opinion" for statutory construction. I see them (reporters) get it wrong, all the time. I'd like to see the actual legislation.

QueEx


Guess we'll find out in about 30 mins.
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
Bloomberg is on the story also



Obama Wants $190 Billion Tax Increase on Companies (Update1)



By Ryan J. Donmoyer

May 4 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama will propose today to outlaw three offshore tax-avoidance techniques U.S. companies such as Caterpillar Inc. and Procter & Gamble Co. want to use to save $190 billion over the next decade and make it riskier for Americans to stash money in tax-haven banks.

Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will target a strategy that allows U.S.-based multinational companies to effectively hide from the Internal Revenue Service the role their foreign subsidiaries play in shifting profits into low-tax jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands, an administration official said.

The proposal, affecting tax rules known as “check the box,” would net $86.5 billion in revenue between 2011-2019 by overhauling regulations created in Democrat Bill Clinton’s administration and later written into law by a Republican- controlled Congress after Clinton tried to withdraw the rules.

The proposal, combined with a $60.1 billion plan to limit many expense deductions for American companies that take advantage of laws allowing them to defer tax on foreign profits and a $43 billion crackdown on abusive foreign tax credits, would be the biggest tax increase on U.S. corporations since 1986. Obama also would shift the burden of proof to individuals when the IRS alleges assets are being hidden in certain offshore bank accounts, the official said.

‘Bad Stuff’

“This is bad stuff,” Kenneth Kies, a tax lobbyist at the Washington firm Federal Policy Group, said of Obama’s plans. “This is going to be the biggest fight for the corporate community in the next two years.” Kies represents General Electric Co., Anheuser-Busch Cos. and Microsoft Corp., among others

While the Obama administration expects companies to lobby against the proposals, the president believes his tax proposals strike at loopholes that give multinational companies an unfair advantage over companies that operate only within the U.S., an Obama official said last night on condition of anonymity.

In 2004, U.S.-based multinational corporations paid about $16 billion of U.S. tax while earning about $700 billion offshore, or an effective tax rate of about 2.3 percent, an administration official said. The top marginal tax rate for U.S. companies is 35 percent; drug companies such as Amgen Inc. and technology companies such as Microsoft are among companies that make the biggest use of tax deferral benefits.

Four Proposals

Obama and Geithner will outline four tax proposals ahead of a more detailed budget they will unveil later this week.

The biggest of the requests is the repeal of the check-the- box rules, which took effect in 1997. The rules were designed to reduce paperwork for companies and the IRS by allowing companies to classify entities within their corporate structure in the most tax-efficient manner without inviting a tax challenge.

The Clinton administration realized that the rules made it easy for U.S.-based multinationals to create entities whose only purpose was to shift profits into low-tax countries and out of reach of the tax authorities, according to a January Government Accountability Office report that found 83 of the 100 biggest companies had subsidiaries in tax havens.

Once the assets were in the haven, the U.S. parent company borrowed from the subsidiary. The interest payments were deductible in the U.S. and tax-free in the haven, the GAO said. The nonpartisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation recommended in 2005 that the rules be repealed.

Foreign Tax Liability

The Clinton administration intended the rules to help U.S. companies minimize their foreign tax liability, not to avoid the IRS, said Andrew Lyon, a former Treasury Department tax official who is now a principal at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP’s Washington office.

As a package, Obama’s proposal “is just a massive change and targeting what really has been a growth area for the U.S. economy: the overseas activities of U.S. firms,” Lyon said.

Stephen Shipman, a portfolio managers at Century Management, an Austin, Texas hedge fund manager, said the result would be double-taxation for many companies that operate overseas.

“The simple thinkers in the White House will learn the such policies will result in less economic exchange, both overseas and here in the United States,” Shipman said.

When the Clinton administration tried to rescind the benefits of the tax rules in such cases, companies mounted a lobbying effort and got Congress to back the rule, an Obama official said. Obama believes the rules have no economic substance other than avoiding U.S. tax, the official said.

Passive Income

“Check-the-box was responsible for a lot of currently taxable passive income disappearing from the system,” said Lee Sheppard, a tax lawyer and contributing editor at Tax Notes, a weekly industry journal.

Obama’s plan will be “surprising and cause a lot of pain” to U.S. companies, said Pamela Olson, a former top tax policy official in President George W. Bush’s Treasury Department. Many companies structured their international operations over the last decade based on rules such as check-the-box.

“Everything they’ve done is going to get wiped out,” Olson said. The Obama Treasury Department could have made most of the changes administratively, she said. By making it a legislative proposal, the new administration can count any revenue that results from the policy change in its budget.

Obama’s other corporate tax plans are patterned on those made in 2007 by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, an administration official said.

Expense Deductions

The first would defer most expense deductions, including those for interest paid, for U.S.-based multinationals, until U.S. tax is paid on the foreign income.

That would end a practice where companies deduct 35 cents of a dollar of interest paid to a foreign subsidiary that owes little or no tax in the country where it is located, the Obama administration official said. Such tax arbitrage, while now legal, reduces companies’ overall tax burdens often at the expense of the U.S. Treasury.

The proposal stopped short of an outright repeal of U.S. tax-deferral rules, as feared by a coalition of companies spearheaded by the Business Roundtable, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Foreign Trade Council, all Washington-based trade associations.

Letters to Leaders

In letters to congressional officials including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the trade groups warned such a repeal would hurt U.S. companies’ competition with their foreign rivals by increasing operating costs. That would make U.S. companies vulnerable to takeover and cost American jobs, they said.

Obama’s proposal would divert the revenue it collects to making permanent a research and experimentation tax credit that is popular with many of the same businesses protesting the end of the tax-deferral rules, the administration official said. That credit, which has expired 13 times, is due to expire again Dec. 31; while the research credit is renewed only temporarily, there has been only one year since 1986 when it and the tax deferral rules haven’t been on the books at the same time.

Another Obama proposal would end abuses of foreign tax- credit rules. U.S. tax law gives companies a dollar-for-dollar credit for taxes paid for foreign governments, but companies are projected to use techniques over the next decade to artificially inflate or accelerate those credits by $43 billion, the administration official said. The Obama budget would recoup that revenue, the official said.

Offshore Money

For individuals, Obama will propose shifting the burden of proof when the IRS believes money is being hidden offshore. In cases where individuals bank with financial institutions that haven’t agreed to report certain account information to the IRS, the individual will have to prove he or she doesn’t own the account, rather than requiring the IRS to prove ownership.
The change is projected to generate about $9 billion in new revenue between 2011 and 2019, and Obama believes it will yield substantially more, the administration official said.

Obama’s proposals could be superseded by recommendations by a panel led by Paul Volcker, whom the president named to make recommendations on tax overhaul by December, the administration official said. The panel won’t be constrained by the budget’s proposals, the official said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Ryan J. Donmoyer in Washington at rdonmoyer@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: May 4, 2009 09:31 EDT
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
By Ryan J. Donmoyer

Offshore Money

For individuals, Obama will propose shifting the burden of proof when the IRS believes money is being hidden offshore. In cases where individuals bank with financial institutions that haven’t agreed to report certain account information to the IRS, the individual will have to prove he or she doesn’t own the account, rather than requiring the IRS to prove ownership.
The change is projected to generate about $9 billion in new revenue between 2011 and 2019, and Obama believes it will yield substantially more, the administration official said.

  1. I don't know Bro, it sounds to me like the change is proposed in the "civil enforcement" of the IRS Code, the President is proposing a shift in the burden of proof <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00"> in cases where individuals bank with financial institutions that haven’t agreed to report certain account information to the IRS</span> the burden will be placed upon that entity or person to prove he/she/it doesn't own the account.

  2. The legal "Presumption of Innocence" applies in criminal cases -- which essentially requires the state to prove the critical facts, that is, that the crime charged was committed and that the defendant was the person who committed the crime. The article still doesn't tell us whether this new rule would apply, in criminal cases.

  3. The "Burden of Proof" is a shifting doctrine. All it really means is that if one party has the obligation of proving one point, the burden shifts to the other party to prove its opposite, its none existence or a different but countervaling point.
    For example: you say the new rule repeals the presumption of innocence; the burden shifted to me to prove that wrong, hence, I offered that "innocence-until-proven-guilty" is a criminal concept and it appears here that the rule change is to a "civil procedure". Your turn . . .

QueEx
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
  1. First off, it sounds like in the "civil enforcement" of the IRS Code, the President is proposing a shift in the burden of proof <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00"> in cases where individuals bank with financial institutions that haven’t agreed to report certain account information to the IRS</span> the burden will be placed upon that entity or person to prove he/she/it doesn't own the account.

  2. The legal "Presumption of Innocence" applies in criminal cases -- which essentially requires the state to prove the critical facts, that is, that the crime charged was committed and that the defendant was the person who committed the crime. The article still doesn't tell us whether this new rule would apply, in criminal cases.

  3. The "Burden of Proof" is a shifting doctrine. All it really means is that if one party has the obligation of proving one point, the burden shifts to the other party to prove its opposite, its none existence or a different but countervaling point.
    For example: you say the new rule repeals the presumption of innocence; the burden shifted to me to prove that wrong, hence, I offered that "innocence-until-proven-guilty" is a criminal concept and it appears here that the rule change is to a "civil procedure". Your turn . . .

QueEx



As it stands NOW the burden of proof is squarely with the government/plaintiff. The Defendants only requirement is to do...well...nothing(unless you wanna count staring at the legs of the court stenographer) if he/she so chooses, except, when the government is finished presenting it's evidence stand and say the government has failed to meet it's burden of proof. Been there, done that and walked out with my wallet intact.

Now here comes Obama with his"Shift" thereby flipping the script and allowing the Government to make an accusation with a minimum of evidence, if any, and force the defendant to present a full fledge case while the prosecuter does??....whatever. This is BS!!!!!
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
I see where you're coming from, but I think one should be careful in placing any reliance upon a "reporter's opinion" for statutory construction. I see them (reporters) get it wrong, all the time. I'd like to see the actual legislation.

QueEx

As always, consider the source!
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
one additional consideration. Doesn't this also SHIFT the requirement that the plaintiff/accuser in a civil case to prove the guilt of the defendant with a preponderance of the evidence
to requiring the defendant to prove their innocence with a preponderance of the evidence. The so-called 50+1% standard.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
You make good points and I didn't see this as I scanned over the first article posted:
Obama also planned to ask Congress to crack down on tax havens and implement a major shift in the way courts view guilt. Under Obama's proposal, Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts.​
This could be troubling.

QueEx
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
one additional consideration. Doesn't this also SHIFT the requirement that the plaintiff/accuser in a civil case to prove the guilt of the defendant with a preponderance of the evidence
to requiring the defendant to prove their innocence with a preponderance of the evidence. The so-called 50+1% standard.
Whoa. You're mixing apples and oranges -- civil and criminal rules; they don't mix.

QueEx
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
Whoa. You're mixing apples and oranges -- civil and criminal rules; they don't mix.

QueEx


I'm not mixing bro in a criminal case the government's burden is beyond reasonable doubt, 99.9% sure. In a civil case the plaintiff only has to prove more likely than not( 50+1%) that the defendant committed the offense.

Or am I mssing something and Obama wants to charge a person criminally for stashing cash overseas?

I guess the IRS could do either or both.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
In a civil case the plaintiff only has to prove more likely than not( 50+1%) that the <u>defendant committed the offense</u>.

Committing an offense is criminal terminology. An "offense" is to break the criminal law. Offenses are: murder, theft, etc. But you're right, "typically" in civil cases the preponderance of the evidence is the "Burden of Persuasion" in civil cases . . . though there is also "Clear and Convincing Evidence" in some, as well. Nevertheless, Burden of Proof is different from Burden of Persuasion, no ??? One deals with who has to come forward; and the other deals with the quantity that must be brought forward, does it not ???

QueEx
 
Last edited:

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
Committing an offense is criminal terminology. An "offense" is to break the criminal law. Offenses are: murder, theft, etc.

QueEx


Oh,.. ok... I'm not that deep in legalese. Would the defendant committed a TORT be appropiate??
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
Got a question QueEx:

Is the reasonable doubt and preponderance of evidence enshrined in the Constitution or did those come about by Legislation or Supreme Court precedence?
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Bro, I believe that both concepts (Beyond a Reasonable Doubt in the criminal law context; and Preponderance of the Evidence, typically in the civil law contesxt) are "standards of proof" which arose out of practice from the English common law. Hence, neither will be found in the Constitution, but both may be found in many statutes.

QueEx
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
^^^^^Thanks

hmmmmmm??...So if Congress does pass this, depending on how the legislation is crafted, it could pass Constitutional scrutiny.

Several questions are swirling around in my head, suchas:

1)At what political cost?

2)Doesn't this create a sort of precedence which a prosecutor could attempt to have applied in other areas of the law or can they tailor it for this specific purpose?


More questions in my head but they haven't taken proper form yet. I'll wait til they make more sense before I put them out there.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
We really need to see the legislation. Generally, I don't place much reliance upon early media reports to get some of these things right.

QueEx
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
^^^^^Thanks

hmmmmmm??...So if Congress does pass this, depending on how the legislation is crafted, it could pass Constitutional scrutiny.

Several questions are swirling around in my head, suchas:

1)At what political cost?

2)Doesn't this create a sort of precedence which a prosecutor could attempt to have applied in other areas of the law or can they tailor it for this specific purpose?


More questions in my head but they haven't taken proper form yet. I'll wait til they make more sense before I put them out there.

None, Obama won, republicans are being emptied out of the congress and senate, remember. Haven't you heard the corporatists are being exposed.
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
None, Obama won, republicans are being emptied out of the congress and senate, remember. Haven't you heard the corporatists are being exposed.

Contrary to popular belief among some of his supporters Obama was not anointed King for life.U.S. public opinion can turn on a President and his party as has happened to previous one's. Keep in mind whatever he does can be undone by a future Administration and Congress. I wish they would keep that in mind as events unfold over the next few years.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Contrary to popular belief among some of his supporters Obama was not anointed King for life.U.S. public opinion can turn on a President and his party as has happened to previous one's. Keep in mind whatever he does can be undone by a future Administration and Congress. I wish they would keep that in mind as events unfold over the next few years.

So let it. Isn’t this what the Reagan Revolution was all about? This is nothing that Obama has not made known during his campaign. We have had enough of Reagan. Time for Change!
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
So let it. Isn’t this what the Reagan Revolution was all about? This is nothing that Obama has not made known during his campaign. We have had enough of Reagan. Time for Change!

Reagan???.........HUH?????

What you smoking bro?



GIMME SOME OF IT
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Several questions are swirling around in my head, such as:

1) At what political cost?

I thought about this one, but I'm having a hard time seeing how Obama loses political support for removing a loop hole that allows corporations huge tax breaks, that most people in the middle class and below, don't have.

I mean, why would they be concerned ? ? ? They're losing their jobs and their shirts anyway, no ? ? ?


QueEx
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
I thought about this one, but I'm having a hard time seeing how Obama loses political support for removing a loop hole that allows corporations huge tax breaks, that most people in the middle class and below, don't have.

I mean, why would they be concerned ? ? ? They're losing their jobs and their shirts anyway, no ? ? ?





QueEx



He may present this as directed only towards multi-national corporations to get public support for his proposal, but others also use these low tax countries to park their money. You know that obscenely rich GS/15 level government employee married to a nurse whose combined earnings are slightly above $250,000 a year.They aren't going to be happy about this additional hit when Dems come knocking asking for their support and a donation so they can stick it to these same people some more in 2012.

A second issue the middle class seems to forget is those multi nationals usually will find ways to re-coup that money, suchas, raising prices, additional job cuts or moving the entire operation overseas.

So, Obama and his supporters may not see any minuses in this proposal but I do. I've seen it before. Ask Carter, who btw had similar approval ratings and clear majority in Congress, how the public can turn on him. If the Dems had put forth a stronger candidate in 1984 Reagan would have been a one term President. Bush 1, one term. Clinton and the Dems who lost their majority in 1988 leaving him no choice but to turn toward the middle on social issues, then caught a lucky break to get matched up with a weak GOP candidate which saved his re-election hopes. Bush 2, story repeats,, majority in Congress, similar poll numbers, a new era, now his program is being dismantled.

Obama's supporters can continue in the euphoria of his victory and believe he will always have the public's support regardless of what he does.Recent history has proven that hope may be misplaced.
 
Top