Tax Dodger

=see also offshore banks
=Caterpillar, for example, saved $2.4 billion between 2000 and 2012 by funneling its global parts business through a Swiss subsidiary (a ruse so audacious that one of its tax consultants <a href="denied:%20%20%20http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/business/at-hearing-caterpillar-defends-tax-practices.html?_r=0" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: large; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; text-align: justify; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">warned</a> Caterpillar executives to “get ready to do some dancing” when called before Congress to justify it).  <div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">voodoo 2017" </div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/2019/02/how-the-gops-giant-tax-reform-con-was-designed-to-trick-american-voters-and-is-now-backfiring-spectacularly/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none;">https://www.alternet.org/2019/02/how-the-gops-giant-tax-reform-con-was-designed-to-trick-american-voters-and-is-now-backfiring-spectacularly/</a></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">'</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">cody f</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Even as the Republican Party pushed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act through Congress in December 2017, critics were pointing out that it was filled with tricks and gimmicks meant to obscure the fact that it was a massive giveaway to corporations and the wealthy.<div class="p1_15" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Now that the act has been law for more than and a year, the extent of its deception is coming into focus.</div></div>=Johnson & Johnson is cheating women and girls out of the chance to beat poverty.Turns out the pharmaceutical giant that has promised generations of children 'no more tears' is dodging its taxes.And it’s not the only member of the big pharma club that systematically stashes its profits in overseas tax havens. According to a new report by Oxfam International, Pfizer, Merck & Co (MSD), and Abbott are at it too. In doing so, they’re cheating governments out of millions that could be invested in public services – healthcare, education, and infrastructure.<div>=</div>http://www.alternet.org/economy/robert-reich-finally-someone-had-guts-take-tech-behemoth-apple-mat-and-won==<a href="http://www.alternet.org/economy/tax-loophiole-makes-super-rich-richer">http://www.alternet.org/economy/tax-loophiole-makes-super-rich-richer</a>Leo Hindery Jr. remembers the call he got the night before he was to

testify before Congress, in September of 2007, to close a tax loophole

enjoyed by private equity investors. It was from Stephen Schwarzman,

co-founder of the Blackstone Group, the largest private equity

management firm in the U.S.“His opening sentence was, ‘You’re a

traitor,’” remembers Hindery, himself the founder of a private equity

firm, and hence a member of the brotherhood of the loophole’s

beneficiaries. Hindery reminded Schwarzman that he hadn’t yet testified;

it might be too soon to judge. Schwarzman wasn’t having it.“If you change my income tax rate, I just won’t do this work anymore,” Hindery remembers him saying.“Then you’ll be worth only $4 billion, instead of $6 billion?” Hindery replied. “I think that’s okay.”Actually, Schwarzman’s net worth, according to <a href="http://www.forbes.com/profile/stephen-schwarzman/" target="_blank">Forbes magazine</a>,

is currently closer to $10 billion, down from nearly $13 billion in

2015, when he was the 100th richest man in the world (his ranking

declined this year to 113th). At least part of his success owes to a

tricky part of the U.S. income tax code that Hindery has now testified

against repeatedly, and before more than one legislative body. Called

the “carried interest tax loophole,” it allows managers of certain funds

to treat, for tax purposes, the bulk of their earnings not as

remuneration for services rendered, but as long-term capital gains. The

current tax rate on capital gains for earners in the higher-income tax

brackets is 20 percent. The ordinary tax rate for the same ultra-wealthy

class is 39.6 percent.“It’s so unfair to the middle class,” Hindery tells <a href="http://capitalandmain.com/" target="_blank">Capital & Main</a>.

“You adopt a progressive tax system, and then people get to abuse it.”

The tax break benefits only about 2,000 people in the country, “mostly

men, concentrated in a handful of states,” he says. Hindery estimates

the lower tax rate saves the combined lot of them $10 billion to $12

billion every year. With that kind of money, he says, “you could fix all

the municipal water problems in this entire country. It’s just a

fraud.”Other estimates of the potential revenue gain from closing

the loophole are lower; some run even higher. The Congressional Budget

Office estimates that taxing carried interest at ordinary rates would

net $18 billion over 10 years. Victor Fleischer, the law professor, now

at the University of San Diego, who in 2006 published an influential

paper on the carried interest tax, “<a href="http://victorfleischer.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Two-and-Twenty.pdf" target="_blank">Two and Twenty</a>,”

thinks even that might be low by a factor of eight. Fleischer

continually revises his estimate of how much a standard tax on carried

interest would generate over a decade, based on IRS income statistics.

He wrote in an email that his current figure stands at $150 million.Carried

interest, or “carry,” gets its name from the days when medieval ship

captains demanded a 20 percent profit on the goods they carried from

Europe to Asia, to compensate them for risking life and bounty braving

pirate-infested and storm-tossed seas. Though the metaphor has stuck,

the risk to the modern fund manager isn’t nearly so extreme; in fact,

it’s hardly a risk at all. Private equity firms make only miniscule

contributions to their investment schemes; the rest they raise from

“limited partners,” such as retirement funds and other fiduciaries.

Those partners pay an annual management fee of two percent on the

capital investment, and a 20 percent “carry” on any profits the

investment brings in.When the California Public Employees’

Retirement System (CalPERS), for instance, commits $500 million to a

Blackstone Group-managed fund (<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-financial-calpers-blackstone-idUSBRE84902H20120510" target="_blank">as it has</a>),

Blackstone earns a $10 million annual fee, which is generally taxed at

the regular rate. If that investment doubles in value, $100 million goes

to the firm, and the remaining $400 million to CalPERS. The tax code

treats that $100 million as a capital gain, subject to a 20 percent tax

rate.Hindery, founder of the private equity firm InterMedia, has

long been an advocate of labor and economic policies that benefit the

middle class. But he’s not the only one in his elite set arguing to

alter the tax code to his own detriment. He belongs to a group called

“Patriotic Millionaires,” led by Morris Pearl, until 2014 the managing

director of the investment-management firm BlackRock. Berkshire

Hathaway’s Warren Buffett actually <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html" target="_blank">complained</a> that

his 17.4 percent tax rate was too low. “My friends and I have been

coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress,” he wrote. “It’s

time for our government to get real about shared sacrifice.” It was the

carried interest problem President Obama was referring to in the 2012

presidential campaign when he noted that the billionaire “<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/04/10/white-house-report-buffett-rule-basic-principle-tax-fairness" target="blank">Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary</a>.”Schwarzman, <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/blackstones-stephen-schwarzman-sees-windfall-1456530727" target="blank">who personally collected $88.3 million in carried interest last year</a>,

did not respond to Capital & Main’s request for comment, but a

lobbyist connected with him, Wayne Berman, has argued that a carried

interest tax hike would <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/private-equity-billionaires-and-lower-taxes-104433" target="blank">punish innovators</a>, and drag down the entire economy. Schwarzman himself likened the push to extract more tax revenue from billionaires to <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-schwarzman-taxes-hitler-invaded-poland-2010-8" target="blank">Hitler’s 1939 invasion of Poland</a>. He has since apologized.Last

summer, Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Representative Sander Levin

(D-MI), introduced identical bills in their respective bodies, both

called the “Carried Interest Fairness Act of 2015.” Their combined

efforts, both currently held up in committee, mark the second attempt

Congress has made to address the issue since Fleischer’s research

brought the issue to the Senate Finance Committee’s attention.

(Fleischer’s paper, coincidentally, made the news around the same time

Schwarzman allegedly threw himself a <a href="http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/committees/CL690000pub/newsletter/200802/immerman.pdf" target="blank">$5 million birthday party</a> with Rod Stewart as headline entertainment).Alec MacGillis has <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/14/david-rubenstein-and-the-carried-interest-dilemma" target="blank">written in detail for the New Yorker</a> about

the saga of the legislation Levin first proposed, and its Senate

counterpart by then-Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) and Senator Charles

Grassley (R-IA). The bills have either been held up in committee,

stalled in the Republican-dominated Senate, or run into cloaked

resistance from Senate Democrats, including New York Senator Charles

Schumer. Hindery traces it all back to one simple fact: “Campaign

finance abuse,” from which the Democratic Party “is not immune.” Since

2007, private equity and investment firms have sunk anywhere from <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying.php?ind=F2600" target="_blank">$8 million to $16 million</a> into their lobbying efforts each year.“You get what you pay for in this country,” he says.Nevertheless,

there might be more hope for Levin and Baldwin’s efforts this year, in

part because of increasing voter awareness of the mechanisms of

inequality. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in his presidential campaign

vowed to <a href="https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/" target="_blank">pay for a jobs program for disadvantaged youth</a> by

closing the carried interest loophole; Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

has included the billionaire tax break in her overall message about Wall

Street reform.Hillary Clinton, who did not sign on as a

co-sponsor to the Baucus-Grassley bill as a Senator in 2007, now says

that she would consider using executive authority over the Treasury

Department to impose the full tax rate on fund managers’ earnings. Even

Donald Trump has come out against the carried interest loophole. (But he

also<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-biggest-winners-under-donald-trumps-tax-plan/" target="_blank">wants to lower taxes</a> so dramatically that the issue would be moot.)If

a national effort fails, Hindery tells Capital & Main, Patriotic

Millionaires will take the matter to the states. The New York

legislature already has a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/07/business/new-york-legislators-plan-to-introduce-measure-on-carried-interest-tax.html" target="_blank">bill in the works</a> to

impose a surtax on people who benefit from the federal loophole. In

California, where capital gains are already taxed as ordinary income,

legislators may be considering a similar proposal. “No one disputes that

thoughtful investment is good for the country,” Hindery says. “But if

you don’t shut this door, I don’t know how you get the middle class in

this country to ever trust Washington again.”==
<a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/how-david-rubenstein-helped-save-the-carried-interest-tax-loophole">https://www.propublica.org/article/how-david-rubenstein-helped-save-the-carried-interest-tax-loophole</a>The Patriot: How Philanthropist David Rubenstein Helped Save a Tax Break Billionaires Love
A

private equity mogul lauded for his patriotic donations has quietly

worked to protect one source of his wealth — the carried-interest

loophole.by Alec MacGillis, ProPublica
March 7, 2016
This story was co-published with The New Yorker.

On

Aug. 23, 2011, a magnitude-5.8 earthquake shook the Washington Monument

for about 20 seconds, sending tourists on the observation deck down

eight hundred and ninety-seven steps. One of the two strongest quakes

ever recorded east of the Rockies, it fractured two dozen of the stone

protrusions that hold up the marble slabs at the monument’s peak. That

December, Congress appropriated half of the $15 million required to

repair the obelisk, saying that the rest would have to be raised from

private citizens.
The Breakdown

How politics and government really work, and why they don’t.

See the full series.

Within

weeks, David Rubenstein, the co-founder of the Carlyle Group, a

private-equity firm, announced that he would provide the funds. On June

2, 2013, Rubenstein joined the Secretary of the Interior and the head of

the National Park Service to inspect the progress, atop the

scaffolding. In public appearances, he often tells what happened next,

in a deadpan manner that he says is joking. As he recalled last year in a

talk at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, he decided, while his hosts

were looking away, to leave his mark: “I took a pen out and I wrote my

initials at the very top.”

Rubenstein, with an estimated net

worth of $2.6 billion, is one of the wealthiest people in Washington. He

is an American-history buff, and practices what he calls “patriotic

philanthropy,” on behalf of the national heritage. In 2007, he spent

$21.3 million on a 710-year-old copy of the Magna Carta. He loaned it to

the National Archives and, four years later, financed the construction

of a new, $13.5 million gallery to house the document. He has bought two

copies of the Emancipation Proclamation, signed by Abraham Lincoln, and

loaned one to President Obama, who displayed it for a time in the Oval

Office. He has made substantial gifts to Monticello, to James Madison’s

estate at Montpelier, to Robert E. Lee’s mansion, to the Iwo Jima

Memorial, and, last month, to the Lincoln Memorial. (Although he has

also donated generously to hospitals, universities, and other

traditional beneficiaries, more than half of the several hundred million

dollars he has given away fits the “patriotic” theme.)

His role

as a civic patriarch extends to other projects. He is the president of

the Economic Club of Washington, which brings together the city’s

business élite for discussions with government and financial leaders,

and he sits on the boards of the Kennedy Center, the Brookings

Institution, and the Smithsonian. Every few months, he funds a

bipartisan dinner salon for senators and representatives at the Library

of Congress, where he interviews a prominent presidential historian,

such as David McCullough, Ron Chernow, or Doris Kearns Goodwin.
David

Rubenstein views the 715-year-old copy of the Magna Carta he bought and

gave on longterm loan to the National Archives in Washington. (Karen

Bleier/AFP/Getty Images)

In 1987, after a short career in

politics, Rubenstein founded Carlyle, building it around his Washington

relationships and those of his partners — “access capitalism,” Michael

Lewis called it, in a critical 1993 profile of Rubenstein in The New

Republic. For the most part, Rubenstein has received favorable press

coverage, including widespread praise for his charitable work. In 2012,

the Washington Post described him as the “generous repeat benefactor for

Washington’s endangered national icons,” and the magazine Washingtonian

named him a Washingtonian of the Year. He is a frequent guest on

Bloomberg Television and on CNBC. Last May, on a “60 Minutes” segment

titled “All-American,” he said, referring to the Washington Monument,

“The government doesn’t have the resources it used to have. We have

gigantic budget deficits and large debt. And I think private citizens

now need to pitch in.”

Until recently, relatively little

attention had been paid to one source of Rubenstein’s wealth, which he

has quietly fought to protect: the so-called carried-interest tax

loophole. The tax break has helped private equity become one of the most

lucrative sectors of the financial industry. Since the end of the

recession, private equity has reported record profits, and at least

eighteen private-equity executives are estimated to be worth $2 billion

or more each. And during the current presidential campaign, with its

populist themes, the loophole has become a target among Democrats and

Republicans alike.

The notion of “carried interest” derives from

the share of profits that twelfth-century ship captains received on the

cargo they carried. It came into its modern usage in the 1920s, in the

oil-and-gas industry, and was enshrined in the federal tax code in 1954.

When a group of partners drilled for oil, a few would put up the money

and others would invest only their labor, or “sweat equity” — finding

land and investors, buying equipment, and so on. If the partners sold

out, the IRS would tax the profits of all the partners at the lower rate

for capital gains rather than as ordinary income.

Over time,

partnerships in other industries, mainly real estate and venture

capital, began taking advantage of the same form of taxation.

Private-equity firms stretched the model to its breaking point. Their

work is essentially a combination of investment banking and management

consulting: they are compensated not for building new ventures from

scratch, with the risk that entails, but for managing the investments of

wealthy individuals and pension funds and other institutional clients.

These funds are pooled, along ?with borrowed money, to acquire private

companies or to take public companies private — before making

improvements or cutting costs and selling at a big profit.

Even

if no profits are realized, private-equity firms get paid: under the “2

and 20” compensation structure, they receive a two percent fee annually

on assets under management, in addition to a 20 percent cut of profits

beyond a given benchmark. The IRS characterizes the managers’ cut of the

profits as carried interest, taxing it as though it were capital gains

made through the sale of a person’s own investment. For most of the past

fifteen years, long-term capital gains have been taxed at 15 percent,

compared with 35 percent for ordinary income in the top bracket.

One

name for the tax break is the “hedge-fund loophole,” but hedge funds

benefit much less than private equity does, because their trades tend to

be too short-term to qualify for the low capital-gains rate. At a

Credit Suisse forum in Miami, in 2013, Rubenstein said of private

equity, “Carried interest is really what the business has historically

been about — producing distributions for your investors from good sales

and IPOs … and getting 20 percent of the profits for yourself.” He went

on, “That’s how we’ve really grown our business.”

Barack Obama,

during his first presidential campaign, pledged to reform the tax on

carried interest and, in 2012, went after Mitt Romney for having enjoyed

its benefits as the co-founder of Bain Capital. This year, Bernie

Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump have all attacked the

loophole, often using hedge-fund managers as the rhetorical target. As

Trump put it in August, “They’re paying nothing, and it’s ridiculous. …

These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky.” Jeb Bush,

who made a foray into private equity in 2014, also called for closing

the loophole during his ill-fated campaign. Private-equity partners

argue that their tax treatment is justified under the tradition of

encouraging risky business partnerships and is necessary for their

industry to flourish. So far, the partners have won out: despite the

rise of anti-Wall Street sentiment after the 2008 financial collapse,

the loophole has withstood every effort at reform....

richard wolff 1/1/15 30b no taxes; MA SB propsed 1% (= 20% on INCREASE)  harvardhttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/30/business/economy/for-the-wealthiest-private-tax-system-saves-them-billions.html?ref=todayspaper&r=0

ASHINGTON — The hedge fund magnates Daniel S. Loeb, Louis Moore Bacon and Steven A. Cohen have much in common. They have managed billions of dollars in capital, earning vast fortunes. They have invested large sums in art — and millions more in political candidates.
Moreover, each has exploited an esoteric tax loophole that saved them millions in taxes. The trick? Route the money to Bermuda and back.
With inequality at its highest levels in nearly a century and public debate rising over whether the government should respond to it through higher taxes on the wealthy, the very richest Americans have financed a sophisticated and astonishingly effective apparatus for shielding their fortunes. Some call it the “income defense industry,” consisting of a high-priced phalanx of lawyers, estate planners, lobbyists and anti-tax activists who exploit and defend a dizzying array of tax maneuvers, virtually none of them available to taxpayers of more modest means.


RELATED COVERAGE
I.R.S. Cracks Down on Hedge Fund Tax StrategyJULY 8, 2015Peter Brown, co-chief executive of Renaissance Technologies, testified in front of a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday in Washington.DealBook: Hedge Fund Chief Testifies at Senate Tax-Avoidance HearingJULY 22, 2014

In recent years, this apparatus has become one of the most powerful avenues of influence for wealthy Americans of all political stripes, including Mr. Loeb and Mr. Cohen, who give heavily to Republicans, and the liberal billionaire George Soros, who has called for higher levies on the rich while at the same time using tax loopholes to bolster his own fortune.
All are among a small group providing much of the early cash for the 2016 presidential campaign.
Operating largely out of public view — in tax court, through arcane legislative provisions and in private negotiations with the Internal Revenue Service — the wealthy have used their influence to steadily whittle away at the government’s ability to tax them. The effect has been to create a kind of private tax system, catering to only several thousand Americans.
The impact on their own fortunes has been stark. Two decades ago, when Bill Clinton was elected president, the 400 highest-earning taxpayers in America paid nearly 27 percent of their income in federal taxes, according to I.R.S. data. By 2012, when President Obama was re-elected, that figure had fallen to less than 17 percent, which is just slightly more than the typical family making $100,000 annually, when payroll taxes are included for both groups.
The ultra-wealthy “literally pay millions of dollars for these services,” said Jeffrey A. Winters, a political scientist at Northwestern University who studies economic elites, “and save in the tens or hundreds of millions in taxes.”
Some of the biggest current tax battles are being waged by some of the most generous supporters of 2016 candidates. They include the families of the hedge fund investors Robert Mercer, who gives to Republicans, and James Simons, who gives to Democrats; as well as the options trader Jeffrey Yass, a libertarian-leaning donor to Republicans.
Mr. Yass’s firm is litigating what the agency deemed to be tens of millions of dollars in underpaid taxes. Renaissance Technologies, the hedge fund Mr. Simons founded and which Mr. Mercer helps run, is currently under review by the I.R.S. over a loophole that saved their fund an estimated $6.8 billion in taxes over roughly a decade, according to a Senate investigation. Some of these same families have also contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to conservative groups that have attacked virtually any effort to raises taxes on the wealthy.

For the Richest, Lower TaxesThe average tax rate for the ultra-wealthy has fallen dramatically.
Income Tax Rate%201001995200020052012Top 400 earners
Note: 2012 is the last year for which final data is available. 

In the heat of the presidential race, the influence of wealthy donors is being tested. At stake is the Obama administration’s 2013 tax increase on high earners — the first substantial increase in two decades — and an I.R.S. initiative to ensure that, in effect, the higher rates stick by cracking down on tax avoidance by the wealthy.
While Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have pledged to raise taxes on these voters, virtually every Republican has advanced policies that would vastly reduce their tax bills, sometimes to as little as 10 percent of their income.
At the same time, most Republican candidates favor eliminating the inheritance tax, a move that would allow the new rich, and the old, to bequeath their fortunes intact, solidifying the wealth gap far into the future. And several have proposed a substantial reduction — or even elimination — in the already deeply discounted tax rates on investment gains, a foundation of the most lucrative tax strategies.
“There’s this notion that the wealthy use their money to buy politicians; more accurately, it’s that they can buy policy, and specifically, tax policy,” said Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities who served as chief economic adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “That’s why these egregious loopholes exist, and why it’s so hard to close them.”
The Family Office
Each of the top 400 earners took home, on average, about $336 million in 2012, the latest year for which data is available. If the bulk of that money had been paid out as salary or wages, as it is for the typical American, the tax obligations of those wealthy taxpayers could have more than doubled.
Instead, much of their income came from convoluted partnerships and high-end investment funds. Other earnings accrued in opaque family trusts and foreign shell corporations, beyond the reach of the tax authorities.
The well-paid technicians who devise these arrangements toil away at white-shoe law firms and elite investment banks, as well as a variety of obscure boutiques. But at the fulcrum of the strategizing over how to minimize taxes are so-called family offices, the customized wealth management departments of Americans with hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in assets.
Family offices have existed since the late 19th century, when the Rockefellers pioneered the institution, and gained popularity in the 1980s. But they have proliferated rapidly over the last decade, as the ranks of the super-rich, and the size of their fortunes, swelled to record proportions.
“We have so much wealth being created, significant wealth, that it creates a need for the family office structure now,” said Sree Arimilli, an industry recruiting consultant.
Family offices, many of which are dedicated to managing and protecting the wealth of a single family, oversee everything from investment strategy to philanthropy. But tax planning is a core function. While the specific techniques these advisers employ to minimize taxes can be mind-numbingly complex, they generally follow a few simple principles, like converting one type of income into another type that’s taxed at a lower rate.


Mr. Loeb, for example, has invested in a Bermuda-based reinsurer — an insurer to insurance companies — that turns around and invests the money in his hedge fund. That maneuver transforms his profits from short-term bets in the market, which the government taxes at roughly 40 percent, into long-term profits, known as capital gains, which are taxed at roughly half that rate. It has had the added advantage of letting Mr. Loeb defer taxes on this income indefinitely, allowing his wealth to compound and grow more quickly.
The Bermuda insurer Mr. Loeb helped set up went public in 2013 and is active in the insurance business, not merely a tax dodge. Mr. Cohen and Mr. Bacon abandoned similar insurance-based strategies in recent years. “Our investment in Max Re was not a tax-driven scheme, but rather a sound investment response to investor interest in a more dynamically managed portfolio akin to Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway,” said Mr. Bacon, who leads Moore Capital Management. “Hedge funds were a minority of the investment portfolio, and Moore Capital’s products a much smaller subset of this alternative portfolio.” Mr. Loeb and Mr. Cohen declined to comment.
Photo
Louis Moore Bacon, shown with his wife, Gabrielle, is the founder of a highly successful hedge fund and a leading contributor to Jeb Bush’s super PAC. Among his homes is one on Robins Island, off Long Island. Credit Left: Amanda Gordon/Bloomberg News, via Getty ImagesOrganizing one’s business as a partnership can be lucrative in its own right. Some of the partnerships from which the wealthy derive their income are allowed to sell shares to the public, making it easy to cash out a chunk of the business while retaining control. But unlike publicly traded corporations, they pay no corporate income tax; the partners pay taxes as individuals. And the income taxes are often reduced by large deductions, such as for depreciation.
For large private partnerships, meanwhile, the I.R.S. often struggles “to determine whether a tax shelter exists, an abusive tax transaction is being used,” according to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office. The agency is not allowed to collect underpaid taxes directly from these partnerships, even those with several hundred partners. Instead, it must collect from each individual partner, requiring the agency to commit significant time and manpower.
The wealthy can also avail themselves of a range of esoteric and customized tax deductions that go far beyond writing off a home office or dinner with a client. One aggressive strategy is to place income in a type of charitable trust, generating a deduction that offsets the income tax. The trust then purchases what’s known as a private placement life insurance policy, which invests the money on a tax-free basis, frequently in a number of hedge funds. The person’s heirs can inherit, also tax-free, whatever money is left after the trust pays out a percentage each year to charity, often a considerable sum.
Many of these maneuvers are well established, and wealthy taxpayers say they are well within their rights to exploit them. Others exist in a legal gray area, its boundaries defined by the willingness of taxpayers to defend their strategies against the I.R.S. Almost all are outside the price range of the average taxpayer.


Among tax lawyers and accountants, “the best and brightest get a high from figuring out how to do tricky little deals,” said Karen L. Hawkins, who until recently headed the I.R.S. office that oversees tax practitioners. “Frankly, it is almost beyond the intellectual and resource capacity of the Internal Revenue Service to catch.”
The combination of cost and complexity has had a profound effect, tax experts said. Whatever tax rates Congress sets, the actual rates paid by the ultra-wealthy tend to fall over time as they exploit their numerous advantages.
From Mr. Obama’s inauguration through the end of 2012, federal income tax rates on individuals did not change (excluding payroll taxes). But the highest-earning one-thousandth of Americans went from paying an average of 20.9 percent to 17.6 percent. By contrast, the top 1 percent, excluding the very wealthy, went from paying just under 24 percent on average to just over that level.
“We do have two different tax systems, one for normal wage-earners and another for those who can afford sophisticated tax advice,” said Victor Fleischer, a law professor at the University of San Diego who studies the intersection of tax policy and inequality. “At the very top of the income distribution, the effective rate of tax goes down, contrary to the principles of a progressive income tax system.”
A Very Quiet Defense
Having helped foster an alternative tax system, wealthy Americans have been aggressive in defending it.
Trade groups representing the Bermuda-based insurance company Mr. Loeb helped set up, for example, have spent the last several months pleading with the I.R.S. that its proposed rules tightening the hedge fund insurance loophole are too onerous.
The major industry group representing private equity funds spends hundreds of thousands of dollars each year lobbying on such issues as “carried interest,” the granddaddy of Wall Street tax loopholes, which makes it possible for fund managers to pay the capital gains rate rather than the higher standard tax rate on a substantial share of their income for running the fund.
The budget deal that Congress approved in October allows the I.R.S. to collect underpaid taxes from large partnerships at the firm level for the first time — which is far easier for the agency — thanks to a provision that lawmakers slipped into the deal at the last minute, before many lobbyists could mobilize. But the new rules are relatively weak — firms can still choose to have partners pay the taxes — and don’t take effect until 2018, giving the wealthy plenty of time to weaken them further.
Shortly after the provision passed, the Managed Funds Association, an industry group that represents prominent hedge funds like D. E. Shaw, Renaissance Technologies, Tiger Management and Third Point, began meeting with members of Congress to discuss a wish list of adjustments. The founders of these funds have all donated at least $500,000 to 2016 presidential candidates. During the Obama presidency, the association itself has risen to become one of the most powerful trade groups in Washington, spending over $4 million a year on lobbying.
---
Buying PowerArticles in this series examine America’s growing concentration of wealth and its consequences for government and politics.
THE ELITE DONORSThe Families Funding the 2016 Presidential ElectionOCT. 10, 2015
THE AGENDAA Wealthy Governor and His Friends Are Remaking IllinoisNOV. 29, 2015
THE BIG BETInside the Billion-Dollar Battle for Puerto Rico’s FutureDEC. 19, 2015Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
And while the lobbying clout of the wealthy is most often deployed through industry trade associations and lawyers, some rich families have locked arms to advance their interests more directly.
The inheritance tax has been a primary target. In the early 1990s, a California family office executive named Patricia Soldano began lobbying on behalf of wealthy families to repeal the tax, which would not only save them money, but also make it easier to preserve their business empires from one generation to the next. The idea struck many hardened operatives as unrealistic at the time, given that the tax affected only the wealthiest Americans. But Ms. Soldano’s efforts — funded in part by the Mars and Koch families — laid the groundwork for a one-year elimination in 2010.
The tax has been restored, but currently applies only to couples leaving roughly $11 million or more to their heirs, up from those leaving more than $1.2 million when Ms. Soldano started her campaign. It affected fewer than 5,200 families last year.
“If anyone would have told me we’d be where we are today, I would never have guessed it,” Ms. Soldano said in an interview.
Some of the most profound victories are barely known outside the insular world of the wealthy and their financial managers.
In 2009, Congress set out to require that investment partnerships like hedge funds register with the Securities and Exchange Commission, partly so that regulators would have a better grasp on the risks they posed to the financial system.

The early legislative language would have required single-family offices to register as well, exposing the highly secretive institutions to scrutiny that their clients were eager to avoid. Some of the I.R.S.’s cases against the wealthy originate with tips from the S.E.C., which is often better positioned to spot tax evasion.
By the summer of 2009, several family office executives had formed a lobbying group called the Private Investor Coalition to push back against the proposal. The coalition won an exemption in the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, then spent much of the next year persuading the S.E.C. to largely adopt its preferred definition of “family office.”
So expansive was the resulting loophole that Mr. Soros’s $24.5 billion hedge fund took advantage of it, converting to a family office after returning capital to its remaining outside investors. The hedge fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller, a former business partner of Mr. Soros, took the same step.
The Soros family, which generally supports Democrats, has committed at least $1 million to the 2016 presidential campaign; Mr. Druckenmiller, who favors Republicans, has put slightly more than $300,000 behind three different G.O.P. presidential candidates.
A slide presentation from the Private Investor Coalition’s 2013 annual meeting credited the success to multiple meetings with members of the Senate Banking Committee, the House Financial Services Committee, congressional staff and S.E.C. staff. “All with a low profile,” the document noted. “We got most of what we wanted AND a few extras we didn’t request.”


A Hobbled Monitor
After all the loopholes and all the lobbying, what remains of the government’s ability to collect taxes from the wealthy runs up against one final hurdle: the crisis facing the I.R.S.
President Obama has made fighting tax evasion by the rich a priority. In 2010, he signed legislation making it easier to identify Americans who squirreled away assets in Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Islands shelters.
His I.R.S. convened a Global High Wealth Industry Group, known colloquially as “the wealth squad,” to scrutinize the returns of Americans with incomes of at least $10 million a year.
But while these measures have helped the government retrieve billions, the agency’s efforts have flagged in the face of scandal, political pressure and budget cuts. Between 2010, the year before Republicans took control of the House of Representatives, and 2014, the I.R.S. budget dropped by almost $2 billion in real terms, or nearly 15 percent. That has forced it to shed about 5,000 high-level enforcement positions out of about 23,000, according to the agency.
Audit rates for the $10 million-plus club spiked in the first few years of the Global High Wealth program, but have plummeted since then.

Steven A. Cohen, shown with his wife, Alexandra, is the founder of SAC Capital and owns a home in East Hampton. He is a prominent art collector and has focused his political contributions on a super PAC for Gov. Chris Christie. Credit Left: Carly Erickson/BFA; Right: Doug Kuntz for The New York TimesThe political challenge for the agency became especially acute in 2013, after the agency acknowledged singling out conservative nonprofits in a review of political activity by tax-exempt groups. (Senior officials left the agency as a result of the controversy.)
Several former I.R.S. officials, including Marcus Owens, who once headed the agency’s Exempt Organizations division, said the controversy badly damaged the agency’s willingness to investigate other taxpayers, even outside the exempt division.
“I.R.S. enforcement is either absent or diminished” in certain areas, he said. Mr. Owens added that his former department — which provides some oversight of money used by charities and nonprofits — has been decimated.
Groups like FreedomWorks and Americans for Tax Reform, which are financed partly by the foundations of wealthy families and large businesses, have called for impeaching the I.R.S. commissioner. They are bolstered by deep-pocketed advocacy groups like the Club for Growth, which has aided primary challenges against Republicans who have voted in favor of higher taxes.
In 2014, the Club for Growth Action fund raised more than $9 million and spent much of it helping candidates critical of the I.R.S. Roughly 60 percent of the money raised by the fund came from just 12 donors, including Mr. Mercer, who has given the group $2 million in the last five years. Mr. Mercer and his immediate family have also donated more than $11 million to several super PACs supporting Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, an outspoken I.R.S. critic and a presidential candidate.
Another prominent donor is Mr. Yass, who helps run a trading firm called the Susquehanna International Group. He donated $100,000 to the Club for Growth Action fund in September. Mr. Yass serves on the board of the libertarian Cato Institute and, like Mr. Mercer, appears to subscribe to limited-government views that partly motivate his political spending.


But he may also have more than a passing interest in creating a political environment that undermines the I.R.S. Susquehanna is currently challenging a proposed I.R.S. determination that an affiliate of the firm effectively repatriated more than $375 million in income from subsidiaries located in Ireland and the Cayman Islands in 2007, creating a large tax liability. (The affiliate brought the money back to the United States in later years and paid dividend taxes on it; the I.R.S. asserts that it should have paid the ordinary income tax rate, at a cost of tens of millions of dollars more.)
In June, Mr. Yass donated more than $2 million to three super PACs aligned with Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has called for taxing all income at a flat rate of 14.5 percent. That change in itself would save wealthy supporters like Mr. Yass millions of dollars.

Mr. Paul, also a presidential candididate, has suggested going even further, calling the I.R.S. a “rogue agency” and circulating a petition in 2013 calling for the tax equivalent of regime change. “Be it now therefore resolved,” the petition reads, “that we, the undersigned, demand the immediate abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service.”
But even if that campaign is a long shot, the richest taxpayers will continue to enjoy advantages over everyone else.
For the ultra-wealthy, “our tax code is like a leaky barrel,” said J. Todd Metcalf, the Democrats’ chief tax counsel on the Senate Finance Committee. ”Unless you plug every hole or get a new barrel, it’s going to leak out.”
Nicholas Confessore contributed reporting and Kitty Bennett contributed research.---pfizer NJ allergan scam irish allergan tax haven, allready offshores profits; 40 min david k johnston syracuse law aljazeera am<a href="https://kpfa.org/episode/upfront-november-25-2015/">https://kpfa.org/episode/upfront-november-25-2015/</a>apple test congr "stateless income"2004 b 43 save 11b$ in taxes Ensignsingle line of tax code signed into law by RR; keep taxes while techinvally offshore, but they can do whatever they want incl reinvest it in US, but make more off compund interest than tax, so bassically make $ on taxes
duopoly can be  worse than mono; mkt power, raise prices 1b$ per WEEK of we could negotiate (Vets Admin can)3 airlines plus SW; tax haven wiki<h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Extent[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tax_haven&action=edit&section=3" title="Edit section: Extent" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h2><table class="wikitable" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); border-collapse: collapse; float: right; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><caption style="font-weight: bold;">Global distribution
of net financial assets<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-17" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[17]</a></caption><tbody><tr><th style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242);">Individuals with
financial assets</th><th style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242);">Total liquid net
worth ($Tr.)</th><th style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242);">Amount of which
offshore ($Tr.)</th></tr><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;" align="left">> $30MM</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;" align="center">$16.7</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;" align="center">$9.8</td></tr><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;" align="left">$5 – $30MM</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;" align="center">$10.7</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;" align="center">$5.1</td></tr><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;" align="left">$1 – $5MM</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;" align="center">$17.4</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;" align="center">$4.7</td></tr><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;" align="left">All > $1MM</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;" align="center">$44.8</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;" align="center">$19.6</td></tr><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;" align="left">Rest < $1MM</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;" align="center">$10.3</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;" align="center">$1.0</td></tr><tr><th style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background-color: rgb(242, 242, 242);">
</th><td colspan="2" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: right;">
</td></tr><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;" align="left">Total</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;" align="center">$55.1</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;" align="center">$20.6</td></tr></tbody></table><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Capital held offshore<span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tax_haven&action=edit&section=4" title="Edit section: Capital held offshore" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>While incomplete, and with the limitations discussed below, the available statistics nonetheless indicate that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_banking" title="Offshore banking" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">offshore banking</a> is a very sizable activity. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_for_Economic_Co-operation_and_Development" title="Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">OECD</a>estimated in 2007 that capital held offshore amounted to between $5 trillion and $7 trillion, making up approximately 6–8% of total global investments under management.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-Places_in_the_sun-18" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[18]</a> The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Justice_Network" title="Tax Justice Network" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Tax Justice Network</a> (an anti-tax haven pressure group) estimated more recently in 2012 that capital held offshore amounted to between $21 trillion and $32 trillion (between 24-32% of total global investments).<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-TOI-19" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[19]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-Reuters-20" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[20]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-BBC-21" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[21]</a>In 2000, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund" title="International Monetary Fund" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">International Monetary Fund</a> calculated based on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_for_International_Settlements" title="Bank for International Settlements" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Bank for International Settlements</a> data that for selected <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_financial_centre" title="Offshore financial centre" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">offshore financial centres</a>, on-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_sheet" title="Balance sheet" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">balance sheet</a> cross-border assets held in offshore financial centres reached a level of $4.6 trillion at the end of June 1999 (about 50 percent of total cross-border assets). Of that $4.6 trillion, $0.9 trillion was held in the Caribbean, $1 trillion in Asia, and most of the remaining $2.7 trillion accounted for by the major <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Finance_Centre" title="International Finance Centre" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">International Finance Centres</a> (IFCs), namely London, the U.S. IBFs, and the Japanese offshore market.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-22" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[22]</a> The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.Department_of_Treasury" title="U.S. Department of Treasury" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">U.S. Department of Treasury</a> estimated that in 2011 the Caribbean Banking Centers, which include Bahamas, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Netherlands Antilles and Panama, held almost $2 trillion dollars in United States debt.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-23" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[23]</a> Of this, approximately US$1.4 trillion is estimated to be held in the Cayman Islands alone.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-Places_in_the_sun-18" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[18]</a>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Journal" title="Wall Street Journal" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Wall Street Journal</a> in a study of 60 large U.S. companies found that they deposited $166 billion in offshore accounts in 2012, sheltering over 40% of their profits from U.S. taxes.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-ThurmLinebaugh-12" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[12]</a> Similarly, Desai, Foley and Hines in the Journal of Public Economics found that: "in 1999, 59% of U.S. firms with significant foreign operations had affiliates in tax haven countries", although they did not define "significant" for this purpose.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-24" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[24]</a> In 2009, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Office" title="Government Accountability Office" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Government Accountability Office</a> (GAO) reported that 83 of the 100 largest U.S. publicly traded corporations and 63 of the 100 largest contractors for the U.S. federal government were maintaining subsidiaries in countries generally considered havens for avoiding taxes. The GAO did not review the companies' transactions to independently verify that the subsidiaries helped the companies reduce their tax burden, but said only that historically the purpose of such subsidiaries is to cut tax costs.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-25" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[25]</a>James Henry, former chief economist at consultants <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinsey%26_Company" title="McKinsey & Company" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">McKinsey & Company</a>, in his report for the Tax Justice Network gives an indication of the amount of money that is sheltered by wealthy individuals in tax havens. The report estimated conservatively that a fortune of $21 trillion is stashed away in off-shore accounts with $9.8 trillion alone by the top tier—less than 100,000 people—who each own financial assets of $30 million or more. The report's author indicated that this hidden money results in a “huge” lost tax revenue—a "black hole" in the economy—and many countries would become creditors instead of being debtors if the money of their tax evaders would be taxed.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-TOI-19" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[19]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-Reuters-20" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[20]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-BBC-21" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[21]</a><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Lost tax revenue<span class="mw-editsection" style="user-select: none; font-weight: normal; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1em; display: inline-block; white-space: nowrap; unicode-bidi: -webkit-isolate;">[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tax_haven&action=edit&section=5" title="Edit section: Lost tax revenue" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h3>The Tax Justice Network estimated that global tax revenue lost in 2012 to tax havens is between USD $190 billion and $255 billion per year, assuming a 3% <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains" title="Capital gains" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">capital gains</a> rate, a 30% <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax" title="Capital gains tax" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">capital gains tax</a> rate, and $21 trillion to $32 trillion hidden in tax havens worldwide.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-tjn12-8" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[8]</a> If such hidden offshore assets are considered, many countries with governments nominally in debt are shown to be net creditor nations.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-cbc12-9" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[9]</a> However, the tax policy director of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Institute_of_Taxation" title="Chartered Institute of Taxation" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Chartered Institute of Taxation</a> expressed skepticism over the accuracy of the figures.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-bbc.co.uk-11" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[11]</a> If true, those sums would amount to approximately 5 to 8 times the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulation(currency)" title="Circulation (currency)" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">total amount of currency presently in circulation</a> in the world. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Mitchell" title="Daniel J. Mitchell" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Daniel J. Mitchell</a> of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute" title="Cato Institute" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Cato Institute</a> says that the report also assumes, when considering notional lost tax revenue, that 100% money deposited offshore is evading payment of tax.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-26" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[26]</a>In October 2009, research commissioned from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloitte_Touche_Tohmatsu" title="Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Deloitte</a> for the Foot Review of British Offshore Financial Centres (London is a tax haven for much of Europe, Asia, and South America, it should be noted) said that much less tax had been lost to tax havens than previously had been thought. The report indicated "We estimate the total UK corporation tax potentially lost to avoidance activities to be up to £2 billion per annum, although it could be much lower." An earlier report by the U.K. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trades_Union_Congress" title="Trades Union Congress" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Trades Union Congress</a>, concluded that tax avoidance by the 50 largest companies in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTSE_100_Index" title="FTSE 100 Index" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">FTSE 100</a> was depriving the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Treasury" title="UK Treasury" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">UK Treasury</a> of approximately £11.8 billion.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-The_Times-27" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[27]</a> The report also stressed that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Crown_Dependencies" title="British Crown Dependencies" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">British Crown Dependencies</a> make a "significant contribution to the liquidity of the UK market". In the second quarter of 2009, they provided net funds to banks in the UK totalling $323 billion (£195 billion), of which $218 billion came from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey" title="Jersey" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Jersey</a>, $74 billion from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernsey" title="Guernsey" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Guernsey</a> and $40 billion from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man" title="Isle of Man" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Isle of Man</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-The_Times-27" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[27]</a>The Tax Justice Network reports that this system of tax evasion is “basically designed and operated” by a group of highly paid specialists from the world’s largest private banks (led by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBS" title="UBS" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">UBS</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_Suisse" title="Credit Suisse" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Credit Suisse</a>, and<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs" title="Goldman Sachs" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Goldman Sachs</a>), law offices, and accounting firms and tolerated by international organizations such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_for_International_Settlements" title="Bank for International Settlements" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Bank for International Settlements</a>, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund" title="International Monetary Fund" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">International Monetary Fund</a>, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank" title="World Bank" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">World Bank</a>, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OECD" title="OECD" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">OECD</a>, and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G20" title="G20" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">G20</a>. The amount of money hidden away has significantly increased since 2005, sharpening the divide between the super-rich and the rest of the world.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-TOI-19" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[19]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-Reuters-20" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[20]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-BBC-21" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[21]</a><h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Examples[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tax_haven&action=edit&section=6" title="Edit section: Examples" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">edit</a>]</h2><div class="hatnote boilerplate seealso" style="font-style: italic; padding-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">See also: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_financial_centres" title="List of offshore financial centres" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">List of offshore financial centres</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world" title="Tax rates around the world" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Tax rates around the world</a></div>The U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research has suggested that roughly 15% of the countries in the world are tax havens, that these countries tend to be small and affluent, and that better governed and regulated countries are more likely to become tax havens, and are more likely to be successful if they become tax havens.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-28" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[28]</a><ul style="line-height: 22.4px; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" data:image="data:image" png="png" base64="base64" ivborw0kggoaaaansuheugaaaauaaaanaqmaaabb8jblaaaablbmvex="iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAUAAAANAQMAAABb8jbLAAAABlBMVEX" auow5qsojaaaaaxrstlmaqobyzgaaabnjrefucb1jyeabbqw="AUow5QSOjAAAAAXRSTlMAQObYZgAAABNJREFUCB1jYEABBQw" wlcagqeagpidyt0ivcsaaaaasuvork5cyii="); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" xmlns:data="data"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland" title="Switzerland" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Switzerland</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg" title="Luxembourg" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Luxembourg</a>—primarily a conduit tax haven<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-Kevin_S_2009-29" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[29]</a></li></ul>Other sovereign countries that have such low tax rates and lax regulation that they can be considered semi-tax havens are:<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-30" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[30]</a><ul style="line-height: 22.4px; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" data:image="data:image" png="png" base64="base64" ivborw0kggoaaaansuheugaaaauaaaanaqmaaabb8jblaaaablbmvex="iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAUAAAANAQMAAABb8jbLAAAABlBMVEX" auow5qsojaaaaaxrstlmaqobyzgaaabnjrefucb1jyeabbqw="AUow5QSOjAAAAAXRSTlMAQObYZgAAABNJREFUCB1jYEABBQw" wlcagqeagpidyt0ivcsaaaaasuvork5cyii="); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" xmlns:data="data"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland" title="Republic of Ireland" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Ireland</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-31" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[31]</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands" title="Netherlands" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Netherlands</a>—primarily a conduit tax haven<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-Kevin_S_2009-29" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[29]</a></li></ul>Non-sovereign jurisdictions commonly labelled as tax havens include:<ul style="line-height: 22.4px; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" data:image="data:image" png="png" base64="base64" ivborw0kggoaaaansuheugaaaauaaaanaqmaaabb8jblaaaablbmvex="iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAUAAAANAQMAAABb8jbLAAAABlBMVEX" auow5qsojaaaaaxrstlmaqobyzgaaabnjrefucb1jyeabbqw="AUow5QSOjAAAAAXRSTlMAQObYZgAAABNJREFUCB1jYEABBQw" wlcagqeagpidyt0ivcsaaaaasuvork5cyii="); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" xmlns:data="data"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey" title="Jersey" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Jersey</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-32" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[32]</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man" title="Isle of Man" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Isle of Man</a></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 22.4px; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" data:image="data:image" png="png" base64="base64" ivborw0kggoaaaansuheugaaaauaaaanaqmaaabb8jblaaaablbmvex="iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAUAAAANAQMAAABb8jbLAAAABlBMVEX" auow5qsojaaaaaxrstlmaqobyzgaaabnjrefucb1jyeabbqw="AUow5QSOjAAAAAXRSTlMAQObYZgAAABNJREFUCB1jYEABBQw" wlcagqeagpidyt0ivcsaaaaasuvork5cyii="); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" xmlns:data="data"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territory" title="British Overseas Territory" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">British Overseas Territory</a><ul style="line-height: 1.6; list-style-type: disc; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url();"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda" title="Bermuda" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Bermuda</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-33" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[33]</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Virgin_Islands" title="British Virgin Islands" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">British Virgin Islands</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-34" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[34]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-35" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[35]</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayman_Islands" title="Cayman Islands" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Cayman Islands</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-36" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[36]</a></li></ul></li></ul><ul style="line-height: 22.4px; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" data:image="data:image" png="png" base64="base64" ivborw0kggoaaaansuheugaaaauaaaanaqmaaabb8jblaaaablbmvex="iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAUAAAANAQMAAABb8jbLAAAABlBMVEX" auow5qsojaaaaaxrstlmaqobyzgaaabnjrefucb1jyeabbqw="AUow5QSOjAAAAAXRSTlMAQObYZgAAABNJREFUCB1jYEABBQw" wlcagqeagpidyt0ivcsaaaaasuvork5cyii="); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" xmlns:data="data"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware" title="Delaware" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Delaware, United States</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-37" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[37]</a></li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico" title="Puerto Rico" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Puerto Rico</a> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States" title="United States" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">United States</a>)<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-38" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[38]</a></li></ul>Some tax havens including some of the ones listed above do charge income tax as well as other taxes such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_taxes" title="Capital gains taxes" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">capital gains tax</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_tax" title="Inheritance tax" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">inheritance tax</a>, and so forth. Criteria distinguishing a taxpayer from a non-taxpayer can include citizenship and residency and source of income. For example, in the United States foreign nonresidents are not charged various taxes<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-39" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[39]</a> including income tax on interest on U.S. bank deposits by income tax; since the Clinton administration the IRS has proposed collecting information on these depositors to share with their home countries as a regulation; these regulations were eventually finalized in April 2012.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-40" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[40]</a>In September 2013 British Prime Minister <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cameron" title="David Cameron" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">David Cameron</a> said "I do not think it is fair any longer to refer to any of the Overseas Territories or Crown Dependencies as tax havens. They have taken action to make sure that they have fair and open tax systems. It is very important that our focus should now shift to those territories and countries that really are tax havens."<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-41" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[41]</a> Mr Cameron's comments were interpreted as a direct reference to Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands, and followed a period of negotiations with those (and other) British territories during which those jurisdictions had made a number of concessions relating to tax transparency and sharing of information.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-42" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[42]</a> Anti-tax haven pressure groups immediately accused the Prime Minister of taking leave of his senses, and commenting sarcastically "It was Cameron's father's tax haven activities that are repotted [sic] to have paid for his Eton education. Was it ever realistic to think he'd change his spots?".<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven#cite_note-43" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[43]</a><h2 style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px 0px 0.6em; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 19.2px; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">Negative tax rate</h2>A 2011 analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; padding-right: 13px; background: url(" data:image="data:image" png="png" base64="base64" ivborw0kggoaaaansuheugaaaaoaaaakcaqaaaanowc2aaaatkleqvr4xmxkqqqamawf0x="iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAoAAAAKCAQAAAAnOwc2AAAATklEQVR4XmXKQQqAMAwF0X" xssz9cskiyiifrfcjmmihmigbb5fqdcaqj4j46pzyluwe="XsSz9CSKiyIIFRFcjMmihmiGbB5fqDCaQJ4j46pzYLUWe" cxz6ovbhts0sry2njp="cXZ6OVBhTS0srY2Njp" xxxxzolu6euwaopx1vnwtbe6qqaaaaaelftksuqmcc="XxXXZOLu6EUWAOPX1vnwTBe6qQAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC" no-repeat="no-repeat" xmlns:data="data">"Corporate Taxpayers & Corporate Tax Dodgers: 2008-10"</a> found dozens of companies, including fossil fuels, used tax breaks and various tax dodging methods to have a negative tax balance between 2008 and 2010, while making billions in profits. The study found 32 companies in the fossil-fuel industry -- such as <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Peabody_Energy" title="Peabody Energy" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Peabody Energy</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ConEd" title="ConEd" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">ConEd</a>, and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/PG%26E" title="PG&E" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">PG&E</a> -- transformed a tax responsibility of $17.3 billion on $49.4 billion in pretax profits into a tax benefit of $6.5 billion, for a net gain of $24 billion.<div><a href="http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf">http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf</a></div><div>
</div><div><div>30 Corporations Paying No Total Income Tax in 2008-2010</div><div>
</div><div>Company ($-millions) 08-10 Profit 08-10 Tax 08-10 Rate</div><div>
</div><div>Pepco Holdings $ 882 $ –508 –57.6%</div><div>General Electric 10,460 –4,737 –45.3%</div><div>Paccar 365 –112 –30.5%</div><div>PG&E Corp. 4,855 –1,027 –21.2%</div><div>Computer Sciences 1,666 –305 –18.3%</div><div>NiSource 1,385 –227 –16.4%</div><div>CenterPoint Energy 1,931 –284 –14.7%</div><div>Tenet Healthcare 415 –48 –11.6%</div><div>Atmos Energy 897 –104 –11.6%</div><div>Integrys Energy Group 818 –92 –11.3%</div><div>American Electric Power 5,899 –545 –9.2%</div><div>Con-way 286 –26 –9.1%</div><div>Ryder System 627 –46 –7.3%</div><div>Baxter International 926 –66 –7.1%</div><div>Wisconsin Energy 1,725 –85 –4.9%</div><div>Duke Energy 5,475 –216 –3.9%</div><div>DuPont 2,124 –72 –3.4%</div><div>Consolidated Edison 4,263 –127 –3.0%</div><div>Verizon Communications 32,518 –951 –2.9%</div><div>Interpublic Group 571 –15 –2.6%</div><div>CMS Energy 1,292 –29 –2.2%</div><div>NextEra Energy 6,403 –139 –2.2%</div><div>Navistar International 896 –18 –2.0%</div><div>Boeing 9,735 –178 –1.8%</div><div>Wells Fargo 49,370 –681 –1.4%</div><div>El Paso 4,105 –41 –1.0%</div><div>Mattel 1,020 –9 –0.9%</div><div>Honeywell International 4,903 –34 –0.7%</div><div>DTE Energy 2,551 –17 –0.7%</div><div>Corning 1,977 –4 –0.2%</div><div>
</div><div>TOTAL $ 160,341 $ –10,742 –6.7%</div></div>

<p style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">===

<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/09/1423351/oil-zero-subsidies/">http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/09/1423351/oil-zero-subsidies/</a>

Despite ranking among the <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2012/11/05/43995/how-big-oil-spent-part-of-its-90-billion-in-profit-so-far-in-2012/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">most profitable</a> corporations in the world, Big Oil benefits from $4 billion in annual tax breaks. It fights to maintain them through aggressive <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/28/1225341/oil-2014-election/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">political donations, lobbying, and heavy ad spending</a>, but also employs another tactic: Pretending these tax breaks don’t exist.

“The oil and gas industry gets no subsidies, zero, nothing,” API President <a href="http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/hands-off-oil-industry-warns-government/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Jack Gerard</a> said on Tuesday. “We get cost-recovery benefits, much like other industries. You can go down the road of allowing economic activity, generating hundreds of billions to the government, or you can take the alternative route by trying to extract new revenue from industry by increasing their cost to do business.”

Tax deductions are indeed subsidies, as API admitted in a document that labeled “subsidies for alternative fuels” as <a href="http://www.api.org/_{/media/Files/Publications/Catalog/20PES.ashx}" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">“preferential tax treatment.”</a> And the oil industry’s $4 billion preferential treatment is written permanently into the tax code. <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/news/2011/05/05/9663/big-oils-misbegotten-tax-gusher/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">These include:</a>

Percentage depletion allowance: lets companies deduct the costs of an oil or gas well, about <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/26/news/economy/oil_tax_breaks_obama/index.htm" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">15 percent</a>, from its taxes.

Domestic manufacturing tax deduction: Allows oil companies to collect $1.8 billion each year, even though there are vast differences between oil and traditional U.S. manufacturing. It is a benefit that was never intended for them, according to Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, who said Congress<a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/news/2011/05/05/9663/big-oils-misbegotten-tax-gusher/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">included</a> oil producers “almost inadvertently.”

The foreign tax credit: Oil companies overwhelmingly fall into the category of companies that can claim credits for payments to foreign governments.

Expensing intangible drilling costs: For over a century, oil companies have written off wages, fuel, repairs, and hauling costs.

</blockquote>

<p style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0.4em 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips have paid federal tax rates well below the 35 percent top corporate rate, a far cry from paying <a href="http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/hands-off-oil-industry-warns-government/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">“more than our fair share”</a>. ExxonMobil, for instance, paid a 13 percent tax rate in 2011, after drilling deductions and benefits, and 14 percent on average between 2008 and 2010.

The record-high gas prices of 2012 reinforce the decades of data showing domestic drilling has <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/02/1385431/average-us-gasoline-prices-hit-record-high-in-2012/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">very little impact</a> on gas prices. At the same time, the Big Five companies are on track to collect more than $100 billion profit this year.

==

<h2 class="headline" style="margin: 0px 0px 13px; padding: 0px 15px 4px; overflow-wrap: break-word; box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: normal; break-after: avoid; orphans: 3; widows: 3; line-height: 1.3em; background-color: rgb(112, 23, 1); word-spacing: 5px;"><a href="http://www.projectcensored.org/2-richest-global-1-percent-hide-trillions-tax-havens/" rel="bookmark" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">2. Richest Global 1 Percent Hide Trillions in Tax Havens</a></h2>

The global 1 percent hold twenty-one to thirty-two trillion dollars in offshore havens in order to evade taxes, according to James S. Henry, the former chief economist at the global management consulting firm, McKinsey & Company. <a href="http://www.projectcensored.org/3-trans-pacific-partnership-threatens-regime-corporate-global-governance/">http://www.projectcensored.org/3-trans-pacific-partnership-threatens-regime-corporate-global-governance/</a>

=

</div>

<h1 class="print-title" style="">Tax Day Repurposed To "Illuminate" Corporate Tax Evaders</h1>

<div class="meta">by <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/users/35305/harriet-rowan" title="View user profile.">Harriet Rowan</a> [1] — April 15, 2013 - 12:12pm</div>

<ul>

<li class="vocabulary-2">Topics: <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/topics/banking">Banking</a> [2], <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/topics/corporations">Corporations</a> [3]</li>

</ul>

</div>

offshore: ge, b of a, bp, jpm, citi, exxon, fb, google, pfizer, wells f, ms, </div>

With President Obama fielding cynical cuts to Social Security to appease the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Portal:Fix_the_Debt" target="_blank">Fix the Debt </a>[5]crowd and reach a budget deal, groups are teaming up to point out that there would be a lot less concern about the budget deficit if corporate America did what average Americans have to do and actually pay taxes. Taking advantage of loopholes, tricks and deductions, many U.S. companies pay far below the required 35% tax rate, and some, like General Electric have a negative tax rate. New web resources are shining a light on the firms and individuals that manipulate the U.S. tax system to their benefit, putting more of the burden on America's middle class.

<h2><a href="http://www.TaxEvaders.net" target="_blank">www.TaxEvaders.net</a> [6]</h2>

A coalition of groups have launched the new website <a href="http://www.taxevaders.net/" target="_blank">TaxEvaders.net</a> [7] as part of a week of action aimed at bringing attention to an estimated $100 billion per year that U.S. corporations are avoiding in taxes. The website was launched with help and research from the Citizen Engagement Lab, The Other 98%, US Uncut, The Yes Lab, Americans for Tax Fairness, U.S. Public Research Interest Group, Occupy Wall St, and the Wisconsin-founded Overpass Light Brigade.

The website is a play on the popular 1970s arcade game Space Invaders, but with a twist. The invaders are corporations who have been paying shockingly low taxes, some even manipulating loopholes to achieve a negative tax rate. The coalition takes a closer look at the taxes paid by General Electric, Bank of America, British Petroleum (BP), JPMorgan/Chase, Citigroup, ExxonMobil, Facebook, Goldman Sachs, Google, Microsoft, Pfizer, and Wells Fargo.

There are three main sections on the website; one for entertainment, one for education, and one for action. The home page allows visitors to play a video game as a group of protestors fighting off the Tax Evaders, in order to save schools, fire stations, and other public institutions. There is also an educational section, which shows each company's profits, their tax bill, and their refund. A third section allows visitors to "fire" on the tax evaders by sending <a href="http://www.taxevaders.net/" target="_blank">Tweets</a> [7] to the corporations telling them to pay their fair share.

<h2>Offshore Tax Haven Docudump Raises Profile of Tax Evasion</h2>

In case you missed it, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), <a href="http://www.icij.org/offshore" target="_blank">released a giant load of data in April that details the offshore holdings of people and companies</a> [8] in more than 170 countries around the world. The hoard of the documents "represents the biggest stockpile of inside information about the offshore system ever obtained by a media organization. The total size of the files, measured in gigabytes, is more than 160 times larger than the leak of U.S. State Department documents by Wikileaks in 2010," says the group.

The disclosures have <a href="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-10/world/38418503_1_tax-evasion-president-francois-hollande-prime-minister-jean-marc-ayrault" target="blank">rocked the government of French President Francois Hollande</a> [9], whose budget minister was forced to acknowledge he lied about foreign holdings, and they provide a one stop shop on how tax evasion is actively pursued by corporations and individuals and facilitated by big banks around the globe. Learn more <a href="http://www.icij.org/offshore/secret-files-expose-offshores-global-impact" target="blank">here</a> [10].

<hr />

CMD's Mary Bottari contributed to this article.

</div>

<div class="print-footer" style="">Center for Media and Democracy • 520 University Avenue, Suite 260 • Madison, Wisconsin 53703

Phone: 608-260-9713 • Fax: 608-260-9714</div>

<div class="print-source_url" style="">Source URL: <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/04/12058/tax-day-repurposed-illuminate-corporate-tax-evaders">http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/04/12058/tax-day-repurposed-illuminate-corporate-tax-evaders</a></div>

Links:

[1] http://www.prwatch.org/users/35305/harriet-rowan

[2] http://www.prwatch.org/topics/banking

[3] http://www.prwatch.org/topics/corporations

[4] http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prwatch.org%2Fnews%2F2013%2F04%2F12058%2Ftax-day-repurposed-illuminate-corporate-tax-evaders&linkname=Tax%20Day%20Repurposed%20To%20%22Illuminate%22%20Corporate%20Tax%20Evaders

[5] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Portal:Fix_the_Debt

[6] http://www.TaxEvaders.net

[7] http://www.taxevaders.net/

[8] http://www.icij.org/offshore

[9] http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-10/world/38418503_1_tax-evasion-president-francois-hollande-prime-minister-jean-marc-ayrault

[10] http://www.icij.org/offshore/secret-files-expose-offshores-global-impact

==

<div class="byline story" style=""><a href="http://www.alternet.org">AlterNet</a> [1] / By <a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/paul-buchheit">Paul Buchheit</a> [2]</div>

<h1 property="dc:title" datatype="" class="node-title">16 Giant Corporations That Have Basically Stopped Paying Taxes -- While Also Cutting Jobs!</h1>

</div>

<div class="story-date">March 18, 2013  |  </div>

<p style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The brackets are set for the big dance — the dance around tax responsibility. Most of the teams are in the bottom bracket. In this league, the lowest score wins.

Outside the stadium our nation's kids and seniors and low-income mothers may be dealing with <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3909" target="blank">food</a> [3] and <a href="http://www.alternet.org/no-baby-formula-poor-kids-sequester-cuts-are-tragic-blow-poor" target="blank">housing</a> [4] cuts, but on the corporate playing floor new low-tax records are being set again this year. Just as this is a golden age for sports, this is also, as noted by the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/business/economy/corporate-profits-soar-as-worker-income-limps.html" target="_blank">New York Times</a> [5], "a golden age for corporate profits."

Corporations have simply stopped paying their taxes, perhaps using the 2008 recession as an excuse to plead hardship, but then never restoring their tax obligations when business got better. The facts are indisputable. For over 20 years, from 1987 to 2008, corporations paid an average of 22.5% in federal taxes. Since the recession, this has <a href="http://www.payupnow.org/CorpTaxByYear.xls" target="_blank" style="">dropped to 10%</a> [6] -- even though their profits have doubled in less than ten years.

<a href="http://payupnow.org/TaxPercents2008-12.htm" target="blank" style="">Pay Up Now</a> [7] just completed a compilation of corporate tax payments over the past five years, using <a href="http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml" target="blank" style="">SEC data</a> [8] as reported by the companies themselves. The firms chosen are top-earners who have filed 10-K reports through 2012. Their US Tax figures represent the five-year total of "current" payments.

The 64 corporate teams paid just over <a href="http://payupnow.org/TaxPercents2008-12.htm" target="_blank" style="">8% in taxes</a> [7] over the five-year period.

The Slink Sixteen

General Electric: The <a href="http://payupnow.org/TaxPercents2008-12.htm" target="_blank" style="">worst tax record</a> [7] over five years, with $81 billion in profits and a $3 billion refund.

Boeing: In addition to receiving a refund despite $21.5 billion in profits, the company ranked high in <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/biggest-layoffs-announcements-of-2012-2012-7?op=1" target="blank" style="">job cutting</a> [9], <a href="http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/pension-deficit-disorder" target="blank" style="">underfunded pensions</a> [10], and<a href="http://www.contractormisconduct.org/" target="_blank" style="">contractor misconduct</a> [11].

Exxon Mobil: Made by far the largest profits in the group, but paid less than 1% in U.S. taxes, and yet received <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/05/big_oil_kaching.html" target="blank" style="">oil subsidies</a> [12] along with their tax breaks. Unabashedly reports a 2012 <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/18233625" target="blank" style="">"theoretical tax"</a> [13] of over $27 billion, almost 90% of its total income tax expense. The company was also near the top in <a href="http://www.contractormisconduct.org/" target="_blank" style="">contractor misconduct</a> [11].

Verizon: Second worst tax record, with a refund despite $48 billion in profits.

Kraft Foods: Received a refund from the public despite $13.5 billion in profits. Also a leading <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/biggest-layoffs-announcements-of-2012-2012-7?op=1" target="_blank" style="">job-cutter</a> [9].

Citigroup: One of the five big banks who are estimated to get a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/why-its-a-bad-idea-that-w_n_2733777.html" target="_blank" style="">bailout/refund</a> [14] from the American public amounting to three cents from every tax dollar.

Dow Chemical: Received a refund despite almost $10 billion in profits.

IBM: Paid less than 3% in taxes while ranking as one of the leading <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/biggest-layoffs-announcements-of-2012-2012-7?op=1" target="blank" style="">job cutters</a> [9], and near the top in <a href="http://www.contractormisconduct.org/" target="blank" style="">contractor misconduct</a> [11].

Chevron: In addition to a meager 4.3% tax rate and a share of oil subsidies, the company has been the main beneficiary of <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_22717399/stealthy-subsidy-aiding-big-businesses-is-growing" target="_blank" style="">tax-exempt government bonds</a> [15].

FedEx: The company paid less than 5% in federal taxes while relying on the <a href="http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/03/04/how-the-postal-service-is-being-gutted.aspx" target="_blank" style="">publicly-funded Post Office</a> [16] to deliver thirty percent of its ground packages.

Honeywell: Less than 6% in taxes, a leading <a href="http://www.alternet.org/labor/meet-five-ceos-who-prove-lower-corporate-taxes-dont-equal-more-hiring" target="blank" style="">job cutter</a> [17], near the top in instances of <a href="http://www.contractormisconduct.org/" target="blank" style="">contractor misconduct</a> [11], and run by the "Fix the Debt" CEO with the <a href="http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/pension-deficit-disorder" target="_blank" style="">largest pension fund</a> [10].

An 8% tax rate, a leader in <a href="http://www.alternet.org/labor/meet-five-ceos-who-prove-lower-corporate-taxes-dont-equal-more-hiring" target="blank" style="">job cuts</a> [17] and <a href="http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/pension-deficit-disorder" target="blank" style="">underfunded pensions</a> [10], and in the top 20 of <a href="http://www.contractormisconduct.org/" target="_blank" style="">contractor misconduct</a> [11] instances.

Notable for an 8.4% tax rate, <a href="http://www.alternet.org/labor/meet-five-ceos-who-prove-lower-corporate-taxes-dont-equal-more-hiring" target="blank" style="">job cuts</a> [17], <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/03/11-6" target="blank" style="">offshore holdings</a> [18], and the top U.S. spot on the <a href="http://www.contractormisconduct.org/" target="_blank" style="">contractor misconduct</a> [11] dollar list.

Apple: Where to begin? Avoiding <a href="http://payupnow.org/TaxPercents2008-12.htm" target="blank" style="">federal taxes</a> [7], avoiding <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html?r=1" target="blank" style="">state taxes</a> [19], <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/9829894/Apple-shelters-almost-1bn-a-week-from-US-tax-man.html" target="blank" style="">hiding overseas earnings</a> [20], engaging in <a href="http://www.wired.com/business/2013/01/apples-28-billion-dollar-tax-war/" target="blank" style="">intellectual property</a> [21] schemes, using the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html?r=1" target="blank" style="">"Double Irish"</a> [19] to transfer profits from Europe to Bermuda, and <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/156042/corporate_profits_at_all-time_high%3B_wages_at_all-time_low%3A_can_we_call_it_class_war_yet/" target="blank" style="">underpaying</a> [22] its store workers despite conducting most of its<a href="http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-04-09/news/bs-ed-apple-taxes-20120409_1_tax-avoidance-apple-tax-bill" target="_blank" style="">product and research development</a> [23] in the United States.

Pfizer: One of the leaders in stockpiling <a href="http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-02/cash-horde-expands-by-187-billion-in-untaxed-offshore-accounts.html" target="blank" style="">untaxed profits</a> [24] overseas, and right behind Merck in <a href="http://www.contractormisconduct.org/" target="blank" style="">contractor misconduct</a> [11] dollars.

Google: A master at the <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html" target="blank" style="">"Double Irish"</a> [25] revenue shift to Bermuda tax havens, while using tax loopholes to bring a lot of the money <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323301104578255663224471212.html" target="blank" style="">back to the U.S.</a> [26] without paying taxes on it. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20559791" target="blank" style="">Recognized</a> [27] as one of the <a href="http://en.avaaz.org/1202/who-are-the-worlds-biggest-tax-avoiders%2012/12" target="blank" style="">world's biggest tax avoiders</a> [28].

Microsoft: Named as one of the biggest <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/03/11-6" target="blank" style="">offshore hoarders</a> [18] while using tax strategies to bring much of their untaxed money back to the U.S., where it also <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html?r=1" target="_blank" style="">avoids state taxes</a> [19].

The Fouling Four

GE, Boeing, Exxon, and Apple. Merck almost crashed the party, but the competition was too stiff.

The Winner?

No one wins this game. In a financial sense they do, but the gains are outweighed by the greed and irresponsibility of tax avoidance.

All these companies, after using our infrastructure and technology and research facilities and higher education and national defense to build incomparably successful businesses, are now doing everything in their power to avoid paying anything back, while instead using a carefully manipulated set of "legal" business writeoffs and exemptions and loopholes to cut their tax bills to almost nothing. And all the while they rant about the unfairness of the U.S. tax code.

The real madness is that human beings are suffering because of the tax games corporations play.

</div>

<div class="tags" style="">See more stories tagged with:

<div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/march-madness" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">march madness</a> [29],</div>

<div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/tax-responsibility" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">Tax responsibility</a> [30],</div>

<div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/corporations" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">corporations</a> [32],</div>

<div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/general-electric" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">general electric</a> [33],</div>

<div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/boeing-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">boeing</a> [34],</div>

<div class="field-item even"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/exxon-mobil-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">exxon mobil</a> [35],</div>

<div class="field-item odd"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/verizon" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel">verizon</a> [36]</div>

</div>

</div>

<div class="print-source_url" style="">Source URL: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/16-giant-corporations-have-basically-stopped-paying-taxes">http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/16-giant-corporations-have-basically-stopped-paying-taxes</a></div>

Links:

[1] http://www.alternet.org

[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/paul-buchheit

[3] http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3909

[4] http://www.alternet.org/no-baby-formula-poor-kids-sequester-cuts-are-tragic-blow-poor

[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/business/economy/corporate-profits-soar-as-worker-income-limps.html

[6] http://www.payupnow.org/CorpTaxByYear.xls

[7] http://payupnow.org/TaxPercents2008-12.htm

[8] http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml

[9] http://www.businessinsider.com/biggest-layoffs-announcements-of-2012-2012-7?op=1

[10] http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/pension-deficit-disorder

[11] http://www.contractormisconduct.org/

[12] http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/05/big_oil_kaching.html

[13] http://www.economist.com/node/18233625

[14] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/why-its-a-bad-idea-that-w_n_2733777.html

[15] http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_22717399/stealthy-subsidy-aiding-big-businesses-is-growing

[16] http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/03/04/how-the-postal-service-is-being-gutted.aspx

[17] http://www.alternet.org/labor/meet-five-ceos-who-prove-lower-corporate-taxes-dont-equal-more-hiring

[18] http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/03/11-6

[19] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html?_r=1

[20] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/9829894/Apple-shelters-almost-1bn-a-week-from-US-tax-man.html

[21] http://www.wired.com/business/2013/01/apples-28-billion-dollar-tax-war/

[22] http://www.alternet.org/story/156042/corporate_profits_at_all-time_high%3B_wages_at_all-time_low%3A_can_we_call_it_class_war_yet/

[23] http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-04-09/news/bs-ed-apple-taxes-20120409_1_tax-avoidance-apple-tax-bill

[24] http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-02/cash-horde-expands-by-187-billion-in-untaxed-offshore-accounts.html

[25] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html

[26] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323301104578255663224471212.html

[27] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20559791

[28] http://en.avaaz.org/1202/who-are-the-worlds-biggest-tax-avoiders%2012/12

[29] http://www.alternet.org/tags/march-madness

[30] http://www.alternet.org/tags/tax-responsibility

[31] http://www.alternet.org/tags/sec-0

[32] http://www.alternet.org/tags/corporations

[33] http://www.alternet.org/tags/general-electric

[34] http://www.alternet.org/tags/boeing-0

[35] http://www.alternet.org/tags/exxon-mobil-0

[36] http://www.alternet.org/tags/verizon

[37] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

</div>

<h1><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/07/653201/corporate-tax-rate-nine-percent/">http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/07/653201/corporate-tax-rate-nine-percent/</a></h1>

America’s 10 most profitable corporations paid an average corporate income tax rate of <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/most-profitable-corporations-tax-rate_n_1746817.html?utm_hp_ref=business">just 9 percent</a> in 2011, according to a study from financial site NerdWallet reported by the Huffington Post. The 10 companies include Wall Street banks like Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase, oil companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron, and tech companies like Apple, IBM, and Microsoft.

The two companies with the lowest tax rates were both oil companies. ExxonMobil paid $1.5 billion in taxes on $73.3 billion in earnings, a <a href="http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/markets/2012/corporate-taxes-only-9-percent/#.UCFMCvmZd8F">tax rate of 2 percent</a>. Chevron’s tax rate was just 4 percent. None of the companies paid anywhere near the 35 percent top corporate tax rate, providing more evidence to debunk claims that America’s corporate tax rate is stunting economic growth and job creation (Despite the high marginal rate, American corporations pay <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/05/260535/graph-corporate-tax-second-lowest/">one of the lowest</a> effective corporate tax rates in the world).

The study also calculated the overall amount the companies owed in both domestic and foreign taxes. This includes deferred taxes that will, theoretically, be paid in the future, once the companies bring foreign profits back to the United States. Apple, for instance, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/30/473256/apple-tax-dodging/">avoided $2.4 billion in American taxes</a> last year by utilizing offshore tax havens.

If Republicans have their way, however, those deferred taxes may never be paid. Switching to a territorial tax system, a policy leading Republicans have <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/07/439988/tax-dodgers-want-tax-cuts-corporate/">considered</a>, would allow corporations to repatriate foreign profits back to the United States nearly free of taxation, costing the country billions of dollars and <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/16/520431/how-romney-would-make-it-easier-for-american-companies-to-avoid-taxes-outsource-jobs/">thousands of jobs</a>.

<h1>

</h1>

<h1>6 Rigged Rules Corporations Use to Dodge Taxes</h1>

</div>

<div class="teaser" style="">AT&T, Boeing, Citigroup, Duke Energy and Ford reported more than $20 billion of US pre-tax income last year, but didn't pay any federal income taxes. Here's why.</div>

As American families rush to complete their annual tax returns, many will have paid more in federal income taxes than some of America’s largest and most profitable corporations. AT&T, Boeing, Citigroup, Duke Energy and Ford collectively reported more than $20 billion of US pre-tax income last year, yet none of them paid a dime in federal income taxes. Instead, they claimed refunds of more than $1.3 billion from the IRS.

These corporations are not alone in turning tax dodging into a competitive sport. Last year, US corporations paid an effective tax rate of just 12.1 percent, the lowest level in the last forty years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Sixty years ago, when Republican President Dwight Eisenhower lived in the White House, corporations paid 32 percent of federal government’s tax receipts; last year they paid 9 percent.

---

---

Below are six examples of how large corporations have rigged the tax rules to ensure that those who have the most get to amass even more, at the expense of everyone else. Figuring out how to unrig them is not rocket science, but it will require strong public pressure on lawmakers to ensure that America’s most prosperous corporations pay their fair share.

Boeing’s Double Dip

In each of the past nine years, Boeing has reported at least $1 billion in pre-tax profits, yet in only one did it pay any US corporate income taxes. In fact, the aerospace giant got so much money in tax subsidies that it had an effective tax rate of -7.8 percent during this period.

One of the main reasons Boeing has avoided the taxman is that the rest of us subsidize their research and development spending. Last year this amounted to $137 million. Congress first passed the research and experimentation tax credit during the 1981 recession, intending to provide a temporary boost to America’s sagging economy. Though it has expired for short periods over the years, it has been renewed thirteen times, and Congress is presently considering making the tax credit permanent.

Government investment in basic research and development can be valuable, but the way the current tax credit is structured, much of the support goes to large well-resourced high-tech firms like Boeing that would have conducted the research anyway as a part of maintaining a vibrant business.

What’s particularly disturbing about the Boeing subsidies, however, is that the company already bills the Pentagon for research costs. The third largest defense contractor, Boeing has landed more than $54 billion in government contracts in the past nine years. So essentially, taxpayers are paying for the company’s research—twice.

GE’s Tax-Free Offshore Profits

General Electric employs 975 people to mine the tax code for every possible deduction. One of their IRS returns ran an awe-inspiring 57,000 pages. As a result, GE paid an effective tax rate of just 2.3 percent on more than $81 billionof US income over the last decade.

One of GE’s most lucrative tax breaks is dubbed “the active financing exception.” Under US tax law income earned from interest anywhere in the world is taxable in the United States. That is because interest is consider a “passive business activity” that is easily transferred from country to country. The active financing exception allows corporation that establish captive foreign finance subsidiaries to exclude interest they earn offshore from their US taxes. The 1997 subsidy was meant as a temporary measure to help US banks and manufacturers compete internationally.

General Electric’s lobbyists, who led the fight to create the subsidy, have made sure the “temporary” part was just a joke. Congress has renewed the exemption multiple times over the last fifteen years. And in the meantime, active financing has allowed GE to legally shift much of its US profits to overseas jurisdictions with lower taxes.

The active financing exception is one of sixty tax breaks, known as “tax extenders,” that expired last year. Congress is actively considering reauthorizing them, even while they also consider dramatic cuts to social programs.

AIG’s Stealth Bailout

In 2008, American International Group’s reckless uncovered bets helped lead the global economy to the brink of collapse. Taxpayers bailed out the rogue insurer to the tune of $182 billion.

Less well-known is a perk the US Treasury made available to AIG that allowed the company to retain its losses to offset against future profits. Tapping these tax losses allowed AIG to report more than $17 billion in tax-free profits in 2011, a move Elizabeth Warren, who chaired the TARP oversight panel, labeled a “stealth bailout.” “When the government bailed out AIG, it should not have allowed the failed insurance giant to duck taxes for years to come,” wrote Warren in a statement co-signed by three other panel members.

“This corporate tax break transfers public money to AIG’s private shareholders and inflates executive pay at AIG—both at the public’s expense,” added Damon Silvers, another member of the oversight panel. At least four of the executives who stand to benefit financially from the tax break were leading the company at the time of the massive failure.

Apple and Facebook’s Double Books

Under current rules, companies can show shareholders and the IRS two different sets of books. In financial statements to shareholders, they’re allowed to estimate the value for their executives’ stock options at the time they’re granted. But when it comes to paying their taxes, they can lower their bill by deducting the full value of the options on the day executives cash them in, which is often a much higher figure. This loophole saved Apple $1.5 billion on its taxes between 2008–10, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, boosting its bottom line and its executive bonuses.

When Facebook becomes a public company later this year, the stock option deduction will save it an estimated $3 billion on taxes, including an immediate $500 million IRS refund of the taxes it has paid during the last two years.

The Ending Excessive Corporate Deductions for Stock Options Act (S. 1375) and the Cut Unjustified Tax Loopholes Act (S. 2075), both introduced by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) would close this loophole and limit companies to a tax deduction no greater than the expense they report to shareholders.

Pfizer Heaves Domestic Profits Overseas

Pfizer is the largest drug company in the world. It generates 40 percent of its sales in the largest and most lucrative drug market—the United States. And yet Pfizer has reported losses in the US in each of the last four years.

Pfizer’s tax disclosures offer some clues to how the company achieves this puzzling result. First, it operates eighty subsidiaries in offshore tax havens. Second, Pfizer’s 2011 non-US tax rate was a low 14.7 percent, suggesting that they booked a significant portion of overseas profits in tax havens like Luxembourg, Ireland and Jersey, places where Pfizer has at least ten subsidiaries each.

Here’s how these strategies work. A company like Pfizer conducts the bulk of its product and research development in the United States. This work is done by scientists, many of whom were educated in US schools, often using basic research that was funded by US taxpayers. The corporation then takes the patents earned by its US labs and registers them in nations that impose little or no taxes on income from patent royalties. When Pfizer sells a pill, it charges a lot for the use of the patent, telling the IRS that without the intellectual property, the product would be virtually worthless. By doing this, Pfizer transfers much of their profits to the tax haven, while retaining much of the costs of research, advertising and management in the United States. Such shenanigans cost the US Treasury an estimated $100 billion a year.

A pending bill, the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, would require that offshore subsidiaries managed from the United States and often little more than a post office box and a brass nameplate be treated as US entities for tax purposes.

Bechtel’s “Mini” Masquerade

Though Bechtel is the world’s largest telecommunications, engineering and construction firm (with $32.9 billion in revenue and 52,700 employees), in terms of corporate structure it is one of America’s largest “small businesses.” That’s because the giant corporation takes advantage of a 1958 law intended to extend limited liability protection to owners of small, family-owned businesses. Companies that qualify for this law’s “S Corporation” status do not have to pay federal corporate income taxes. Instead the company’s profits are reported as personal income by individual owners. While the Bechtel empire was hardly the intended beneficiary, their firm technically qualifies for the S Corporation status because it is family run and has less than 100 shareholders.

At the time the law was enacted, the wide differential between top corporate tax rates (52 percent) and top individual rates (91 percent) was a disincentive for gaming the system to dodge taxes. Fast forward half a century and top tax rates have collapsed to only 35 percent for corporations and individuals, erasing the previous disincentive for big corporations to change their business status. By incorporating as an S Corporation, enormous businesses like Bechtel pay just individual taxes, rather than having their corporation pay taxes on corporate profits and shareholders pay taxes on their dividends.

S Corporations, and other businesses where income is taxed only at the individual level, have become the new tax haven, where large businesses have fled to avoid US corporate income taxes. In 2008, more than 14,000 S Corporation tax returns were filed by firms with more than $50 million in revenue, according to the IRS. These 14,000 firms, with an average profit of $6.4 million each, collectively reported 29 percent of the total profit on nearly 4 million S Corporation tax returns. Preserving S Corporation status for real small businesses can help level the playing field, but closing the loophole that allows giant multinational corporations to avoid the corporate taxes that their peers have to pay is key to bringing more fairness to the tax code and more funds into public coffers.

As the 99% Spring unfolds, restoring fairness to our tax code must be at the center of the debate. As it stands, our tax system rewards those at the top, robbing the rest of us of the public money we need to transform the economy from one that works for the 1 percent to one that works for the 100 percent.

Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and is a co-author of the report "Taxing the Wall Street Casino."

also indiv dodge:

Chris Hayes, in his new book Twilight of the Elites, notes that the ultra-wealthy have spawned a whole “income defense” industry dedicated to preserving their wealth and power, an industry that works tirelessly to push policies that favor the rich. He writes:

Over the last decade, the political arm of the income defense industry has been wildly successful. The tax cuts passed by Bush and extended by Obama represent a total of $81.5 billion transferred from the state into the hands of the richest 1 percent. Meanwhile, hedge fund managers and their surrogates have deployed millions of dollars to lobbyists to maintain the so-called carried interest loophole, a provision of tax law that allows fund managers to classify much of their income drawn from investing gains as “carried interest” so that it is taxed at the low capital gains rate of 15 percent, rather than the marginal income rate, which would in most cases be more than twice that. It was this wrinkle in the law that helped Mitt Romney, a man worth an estimated quarter of a billion dollars, pay an effective tax rate of just under 14 percent in 2010. In 2008, 2009, and 2010, the House of Representatives passed a bill closing the loophole, only to see it beaten back by an intense wave of lobbying in the Senate.

</blockquote>

With Citizens United, the Supreme Court gave the ultra-rich yet another weapon in the class war, another tool by which to control our politics. MIT economist Daren Acemoglu told <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/23/451166/acemoglu-income-inequality-political-powe/">ThinkProgress</a>, “We already had a very serious problem. Instead of trying to stem that tide [of money in politics], we’ve done the opposite and we’ve now opened the sluice gate and said you can use that money with no restrictions whatsoever.”...

<a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/156042/corporate_profits_at_all-time_high%3B_wages_at_all-time_low%3A_can_we_call_it_class_war_yet?page=entire">http://www.alternet.org/story/156042/corporate_profits_at_all-time_high%3B_wages_at_all-time_low%3A_can_we_call_it_class_war_yet?page=entire</a>

<h2 style="">Negative tax rate</h2>

A 2011 analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, <a href="http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf" class="external text" title="http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf" rel="nofollow">"Corporate Taxpayers & Corporate Tax Dodgers: 2008-10"</a> found dozens of companies, including fossil fuels, used tax breaks and various tax dodging methods to have a negative tax balance between 2008 and 2010, while making billions in profits. The study found 32 companies in the fossil-fuel industry -- such as <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peabody_Energy" title="Peabody Energy">Peabody Energy</a>, <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ConEd&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="ConEd (page does not exist)">ConEd</a>, and <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=PG%26E" title="PG&E">PG&E</a> -- transformed a tax responsibility of $17.3 billion on $49.4 billion in pretax profits into a tax benefit of $6.5 billion, for a net gain of $24 billion.

The companies that paid no tax for at least one year between 2008 and 2010 are the utilities <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ameren" title="Ameren">Ameren</a>, American Electric Power, <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CenterPoint_Energy&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="CenterPoint Energy (page does not exist)">CenterPoint Energy</a>, <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CMS_Energy" title="CMS Energy">CMS Energy</a>, <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Consolidated_Edison&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Consolidated Edison (page does not exist)">Consolidated Edison</a>, <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=DTE_Energy" title="DTE Energy">DTE Energy</a>, <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duke_Energy" title="Duke Energy">Duke Energy</a>, <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Entergy" title="Entergy">Entergy</a>, <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=FirstEnergy" title="FirstEnergy">FirstEnergy</a>, <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Integrys" title="Integrys">Integrys</a>, <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NextEra_Energy&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="NextEra Energy (page does not exist)">NextEra Energy</a>, <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NiSource" title="NiSource">NiSource</a>, <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pepco" title="Pepco" class="mw-redirect">Pepco</a>, <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=PG%26E" title="PG&E">PG&E</a>, <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=PPL" title="PPL">PPL</a>, <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Progress_Energy" title="Progress Energy">Progress Energy</a>, <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sempra_Energy" title="Sempra Energy">Sempra Energy</a>, <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wisconsin_Energy" title="Wisconsin Energy">Wisconsin Energy</a> and <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Xcel_Energy" title="Xcel Energy">Xcel Energy</a>.<a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Electric_Power#cite_note-5" title="">[6]</a>

Between 2008 and 2010, American Electric Power received a tax rebate of $545 million and made $5.899 billion in US profits, meaning it paid a tax rate of -9%. <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Electric_Power#cite_note-Public_Campaign_Report-6" title="">[7]</a>

----

omg a investor page uses it to endorse!

Public Campaign is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to sweeping campaign reform that aims to dramatically reduce the role of big special interest money in American politics.  Earlier this month, the organization released a report showing thirty big corporations that spent more money on lobbying the federal government, than they paid in federal income taxes for the three years between 2008 and 2010.  In total, the companies made profits of $164 billion in the three year period.  However, the thirty companies combined received a hefty tax refund of almost $11 billion.

Here are the 30 corporations listed in the report:

General Electric (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=GE" target="blank">NYSE:GE</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $4.7 billion, and paid $84 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=GE" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

PG&E Corp (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=PCG" target="blank">NYSE:PCG</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $1.02 billion, and paid almost $79 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=PCG" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

Verizon Communications (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=VZ" target="blank">NYSE:VZ</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $951 million, and paid just over $52 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=VZ" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

Wells Fargo (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=WFC" target="blank">NYSE:WFC</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $681 million, and paid $11 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=WFC" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

American Electric Power (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=AEP" target="blank">NYSE:AEP</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $545 million, and paid nearly $29 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=AEP" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

Pepco Holdings (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=POM" target="blank">NYSE:POM</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $508 million, and paid $3.7 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=POM" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

Computer Sciences Corporation (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=CSC" target="blank">NYSE:CSC</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $305 million, and paid $4.4 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=CSC" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

CenterPoint Energy (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=CNP" target="blank">NYSE:CNP</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $284 million, and paid $2.6 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=CNP" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

NiSource Inc. (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=NI" target="blank">NYSE:NI</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $227 million, and paid $1.8 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=NI" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

Duke Energy (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=DUK" target="blank">NYSE:DUK</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $216 million, and paid $17.5 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=DUK" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

Boeing (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=BA" target="blank">NYSE:BA</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $178 million, and paid $52.3 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=BA" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

NextEra Energy, Inc. (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=NEE" target="blank">NYSE:NEE</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $139 million, and paid nearly $10 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=NEE" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

Consolidated Edison (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=ED" target="blank">NYSE:ED</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $127 million, and paid almost $1.8 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=ED" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

Paccar (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=PCAR" target="blank">NASDAQ:PCAR</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $112 million, and paid $760k in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=PCAR" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

Integrys Energy Group (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=TEG" target="blank">NYSE:TEG</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $92 million, and paid $710k in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=TEG" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

Wisconsin Energy (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=WEC" target="blank">NYSE:WEC</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $85 million, and paid $2.45 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=WEC" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

DuPont (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=DD" target="blank">NYSE:DD</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $72 million, and paid almost $14 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=DD" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

Baxter International (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=BAX" target="blank">NYSE:BAX</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $66 million, and paid $10.45 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=BAX" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

Tenet Healthcare (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=THC" target="blank">NYSE:THC</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $48 million, and paid $3.43 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=THC" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

Ryder System, Inc. (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=R" target="blank">NYSE:R</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $46 million, and paid $960k in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=R" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

El Paso (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=EP" target="blank">NYSE:EP</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $41 million, and paid almost $3 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=EP" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

Honeywell International (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=HON" target="blank">NYSE:HON</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $34 million, and paid $18.3 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=HON" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

CMS Energy (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=CMS" target="blank">NYSE:CMS</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $29 million, and paid $3.48 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=CMS" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

Con-Way (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=CNW" target="blank">NYSE:CNW</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $26 million, and paid $2.3 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=CNW" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

Navistar International (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=NAV" target="blank">NYSE:NAV</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $18 million, and paid $6.3 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=NAV" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

DTE Energy (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=DTE" target="blank">NYSE:DTE</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $17 million, and paid $4.37 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=DTE" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

Interpublic Group (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=IPG" target="blank">NYSE:IPG</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $15 million, and paid $1.3 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=IPG" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

Mattel Inc. (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=MAT" target="blank">NASDAQ:MAT</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $9 million, and paid $840k in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=MAT" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

Corning (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=GLW" target="blank">NYSE:GLW</a>):  The company received a tax refund of $4 million, and paid $2.81 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=GLW" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

FedEx (<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=FDX" target="blank">NYSE:FDX</a>):  The company paid $37 million in federal taxes, and paid $50.81 million in lobbying expenses. <a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=FDX" target="blank">Get the most recent company news and stock data here >></a>

<a href="http://wallstwatchdog.com/company?symbol=FDX" target="_blank">bernie sanders

1)      Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009.  Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2)      Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3)      Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4)      Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5)      Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6)      Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7)      Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8)      Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9)      ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10)  Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

Sanders has called for closing corporate tax loopholes and eliminating tax breaks for oil and gas companies. He also introduced legislation to impose a 5.4 percent surtax on millionaires that would yield up to $50 billion a year. The senator has said that spending cuts must be paired with new revenue so the federal budget is not balanced solely on the backs of working families.

</a>

</div>

</div></div>