General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Seen on FB now: "Warren Buffett owes 1 billion in back taxes."
When I google that, sure enough there are tons of hits but they are all suspiciously linked to RW sites.
Truth to this or not?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)
DocMac
(1,628 posts)RZM
(8,556 posts)Behind Carlos Slim and Bill Gates.
Romney's got a lot of money, but not that kind of money.
tridim
(45,358 posts)think
(11,641 posts)Republicans aren't good with facts, doing research, finding credible sources, and vetting their sources.
But they sure can sling the mud...
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Do we have any facts from doing research with credible sources that have been vetted?
think
(11,641 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 26, 2012, 10:01 PM - Edit history (2)
There may be one but I have only seen speculation based on anonymous sources. Here is the only, cough, "news source" I see making the claim that $1 billion dollars is owed:
Report: Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes
Thursday, 01 Sep 2011 06:37 PM
By Newsmax Wires
....But it turns out that Buffett’s own company, Berkshire Hathaway, has had every opportunity to pay more taxes over the last decade. Instead, it’s been mired in a protracted legal battle with the Internal Revenue Service over a bill that one analyst estimates may total $1 billion....
Full "article"
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520
1. Notice there is no byline for the story other than News Max Wires.
2. Notice also that the analyst making the $1 billion claim is not mentioned by name any where in the "article". (I stand corrected on this. The source is listed later in the article and the total potential tax liability claim is corroborated by BH's own books but the source of potential tax liabilities is not known and in the amount owed is still in dispute. My bad.)
3. Then finally notice the word "MAY" which makes the whole issue of how much is owed completely speculative.
If you have another credible source that states definitively or at least names their analyst "source" please feel free to post it. So far all I've seen is BULLSHIT.
Berkshire Hathway may or not owe back taxes. I do not know nor do I know the complete circumstances. If these claims are based on the case I posted here they may owe $1 billion in back taxes but it is not a cut and dry case of tax avoidance :
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=226823
Notice that Berkshire Hathaway was audited by the IRS and they are claiming Berkshire's subsidiary NetJets did not charge a "ticket tax". Netjets is claiming other similar "fractional jet" companies don't charge this fee and they are being singled out by the IRS.
dugeefresh
(1 post)It was announced on Friday (3-9-12) afternoon that NetJets Inc, a private jet-sharing company owned by Berkshire Hathaway Inc , was sued for $366.3 million by the IRS to recover unpaid taxes. Four months earlier the company sued the IRS demanding a return of $642.7 million in taxes already paid.
http://capoliticalnews.com/2012/03/12/buffetmunger-company-sued-by-irs-for-366-million-in-back-taxes/
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2010ar/2010ar.pdf
Back in September NetJets’ parent company Berkshire Hathaway, was revealed to be fighting the IRS over payment of back taxes totaling around $1,000,000,000 (that’s one billion dollars for people who don’t like to count zeros).
Americans for Limited Government (ALG) found out about the protracted fight in Berkshire Hathaway’s own annual report, embedded below see Note 15 on pp. 54-56 — the company has been in a years-long dispute over its federal tax bills.
"According to Berkshire Hathaway's own annual report - see Note 15 on pp. 54-56 - the company has been in a years-long dispute over its federal tax bills.
According to the report, "We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (`IRS') for the 2002 through 2004 tax years at the IRS Appeals Division within the next 12 months. The IRS has completed its examination of our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2005 and 2006 tax years and the proposed adjustments are currently being reviewed by the IRS Appeals Division process. The IRS is currently auditing our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2007 through 2009 tax years."
Americans for Limited Government researcher Richard McCarty, who was alerted to the controversy by a federal government lawyer, said, “The company has been short-changing the tax collection agency for much of the past decade. Mr. Buffett’s company has not fully settled its tax bills from 2002-2009. Yet he says he’d happily pay more. Except the IRS has apparently been asking him to pay more going on nine years.”
McCarty explained, “The rough translation of the report is that Berkshire Hathaway did not pay all the federal taxes that it was required to for 2002 through 2004. The IRS examination team caught Berkshire Hathaway on at least some issues. Instead of paying up, Berkshire Hathaway is threatening the IRS with protracted litigation and is in the process of cutting a deal with the IRS Appeals office.”
He continued, “For 2005 and 2006, Berkshire Hathaway again did not pay all the federal taxes that it was required to. Again, the IRS examination team caught Berkshire Hathaway on at least some issues. Now, Berkshire Hathaway is again threatening the IRS with protracted litigation and is trying to cut a deal with the IRS Appeals office.”
McCarty concluded, “And, finally, the IRS has opened another examination of Berkshire Hathaway’s tax returns for 2007 through 2009, but has not officially sent Berkshire Hathaway the bill yet for taxes that Berkshire Hathaway failed to pay for those years. One would expect they will find yet more issues.”
From Berkshire disclosure page 54
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Continued)
(15) Income taxes (Continued)
We file income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction and in state, local and foreign jurisdictions. We are under
examination by the taxing authorities in many of these jurisdictions. With few exceptions, we have settled tax return liabilities
with U.S. federal, state, local and foreign tax authorities for years before 2002. We anticipate that we will resolve all
adjustments proposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for the 2002 through 2004 tax years at the IRS Appeals
Division within the next 12 months. The IRS has completed its examination of our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns
for the 2005 and 2006 tax years and the proposed adjustments are currently being reviewed by the IRS Appeals Division
process. The IRS is currently auditing our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2007 through 2009 tax years. It is
reasonably possible that certain of our income tax examinations will be settled within the next twelve months. We currently
believe that there are no jurisdictions in which the outcome of unresolved issues or claims is likely to be material to the
Consolidated Financial Statements.
At December 31, 2010 and 2009, net unrecognized tax benefits were $1,005 million and $926 million, respectively.
Included in the balance at December 31, 2010, are $774 million of tax positions that, if recognized, would impact the effective
tax rate. The remaining balance in net unrecognized tax benefits principally relates to tax positions for which the ultimate
deductibility is highly certain but for which there is uncertainty about the timing of such deductibility. Because of the impact of
deferred tax accounting, other than interest and penalties, the disallowance of the shorter deductibility period would not affect
the annual effective tax rate but would accelerate the payment of cash to the taxing authority to an earlier period. As of
December 31, 2010, we do not expect any material changes to the estimated amount of unrecognized tax benefits in the next
twelve months.
seattledo
(295 posts)I found the problem. I have several friends that work for them here in the Seattle area, and they can't even get paychecks or expense reimbursements correct. I have no doubt that their underpayment is due to incompetence rather than intentional underpayment. I don't think they're competent enough to be dishonest.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,049 posts)Are they starting wonder why Fox News is covering this up yet?
Edit:
it may have started with the NY Post OpEd (No big surprise):
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/warren_buffett_hypocrite_E3BsmJmeQVE38q2Woq9yjJ?utm_source=SFnypostopinion&utm_medium=SFnewyorkpost#ixzz1WRqud7uZ
<snip>
"That’s right: As Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson notes, the company openly admits that it owes back taxes since as long ago as 2002.
“We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for the 2002 through 2004 tax years ... within the next 12 months,” the firm’s annual report says."
<snip>
Who is "Americans for Limited Government"?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Limited_Government
"Americans for Limited Government, the tax-exempt organization that bankrolled a series of controversial [takings] ballot initiatives this year, raised 99 percent of its $5.4 million in total contributions in 2005 from just three donors."
Edit 2: A more objective view - It's a tax dispute between Berkshire Hathaway and the IRS
http://www.pappasontaxes.com/index.php/2011/08/26/buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-is-disputing-irs-tax-assessment/
<snip>
"Although I disagree with Buffett’s claim that he and other multi-millionaires are under-taxed, his personal hypocrisy is not proven by the fact that his company continues to dispute an IRS assessment. Berkshire Hathaway’s IRS dispute has nothing whatsoever to do with Warren Buffett’s claim that he is personally under-taxed.
If Berkshire Hathaway’s Board of Directors and Officers believe that the IRS assessment is incorrect and that the company does not owe the taxes the IRS claims it owes, they would be breaching their fiduciary duty to the shareholders if they did not dispute it.
And remember, just because the IRS says you owe a tax doesn’t make it true."
</snip>
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)If the right-wing says it, it's probably horseshit.
gkhouston
(21,642 posts)He's also challenged other mega-wealthy people to leave at least 50% of their assets to charity at or before their deaths.
former9thward
(32,082 posts)He has sheltered his wealth in family controlled trusts in order to evade the estate tax.
think
(11,641 posts)former9thward
(32,082 posts)This is an interesting interview with Gates and Buffett where they say they support the estate tax -- except for them. They know how to spend their money better. http://www.trustsestateslaw.com/2009/05/warren-buffett-and-bill-gates-on-the-estate-tax/
think
(11,641 posts)Being against the repeal of the estate tax means they don't want the estate tax to end.
No where in the interview did they say they were against the estate tax for them at least from what I heard:
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3887799/?playlist_id=
As for the article claiming avoidance of estate taxes even the author back tracks on his dubious claims in the comment section in a response to a poster who called him on it:
Bigcitythinker:
I highly doubt that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are donating their wealth to charity for the purpose of avoiding estate tax. As you say, this is clearly about supporting important causes. However, the question, as posed by Professor Zelinsky, is why they do so in a way that avoids the estate tax if they’ve also publicly supported the retention of the estate tax. Why not give to charity on a taxable basis?
I’ll plead guilty to slippery-sloping Professor Zelinsky’s suggestion that the Treasury get a significant share of the estates. I don’t know Professor Zelinsky, but by urging Gates and Buffett to give charity on a taxable basis....
http://www.trustsestateslaw.com/2009/05/warren-buffett-and-bill-gates-on-the-estate-tax/
former9thward
(32,082 posts)Buffett and Gates appear to have planned their estates around charitable giving to avoid paying federal estate tax.
Zelinsky writes:
Buffett (and Gates) might explain this apparent contradiction by arguing that their charity is an effective substitute for taxation. Thus, the argument would go, when they give $1.00 to the Gates Foundation with no corresponding tax payment, they should nevertheless be treated as if they had paid $1.00 in tax since the contributed $1.00 is devoted to public purposes.***
[But] giving money to the Gates Foundation is not the same as giving money to the federal Treasury. The federal Treasury is controlled by the people of the United States through their elected representatives. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is controlled by Bill and Melinda Gates.
Zelinsky urges Buffett to put “his money where his heart is” and give charity to the Gates Foundation on a taxable basis. The logic escapes me. If Buffett really believes that the best place for his money was the federal government, he should donate it all to the Treasury and encourage Bill Gates to do the same. After all, Buffett’s estimated $37 billion is 2% of the projected $1.84 trillion federal budget deficit for 2009.
It seems to me that Buffett’s actions imply a clear distrust of governmental taxing and spending programs and their ability to improve society in an efficient manner. As we’ve said, the argument that one has a moral obligation to society for the opportunity to acquire wealth does not necessarily lead to an endorsement of government tax and spend policies. Philanthropy has a long history of improving society. Warren Buffett obviously trusts the Gates Foundation more than he trusts the Treasury to use his money wisely for the public good.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Roselma
(540 posts)Berkshire Hathaway (as in the corporation known as Berkshire Hathaway) may/may not owe back taxes. The individual person, Warren Buffett, does not. He pays the required amount each year and has made his own tax returns public.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)And that is dubious but according to the HuffPo piece (I won't click-through) Berkshire admits to owing a billion dollars --
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html
Sadly the rest of the article seems to veer off into a "some animals are more equal than others" dodge. The fact of the matter is, Berkshire underpaid their taxes for 9 years, since 2002. They may feel entitled to "adjustments" but the law is the law and presumably they pay people to color between the lines for them. To simply not pay until you can argue for "adjustments" seems bogus.
think
(11,641 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I'm sure it'd be totally cool if the small army of accountants working for you allowed you to underpay taxes for 9 years.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)Not sure it's a billion dollars, but it's significant. You can argue whether or not Berkshire Hathaway is Warren Buffet and vice-versa.
former9thward
(32,082 posts)Although Buffett is a favorite 1% on DU he attempts to evade taxes like they all do. If you wish to read see p;age 54 of Buffett's company annual report. http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2010ar/2010ar.pdf The admit that the IRS says they owe $1 billion in back taxes. They are using their army of tax (evader) lawyers to keep from paying.
think
(11,641 posts)Berkshire's NetJets Sues IRS Over Tax Bill
By ERIK HOLM
NEW YORK—NetJets, a unit of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc., this week sued the Internal Revenue Service over what it called an "illegal" $643 million tax assessment.
The IRS had determined that NetJets had failed to collect a "ticket tax" from its customers—the same tax that's paid by passengers every time they fly on a commercial flight.
NetJets, a division of billionaire Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, failed to collect a 'ticket tax' from customers, the IRS claims.
But NetJets argued in the lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Ohio on Monday, that the tax was meant to be paid only by commercial or charter passengers. NetJets, in contrast, primarily sells or leases shares in planes to wealthy flyers. It calls its clients "owners" of a fraction of a plane...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203611404577046374108267952.html
former9thward
(32,082 posts)I am not saying the IRS is always right. A few months ago the IRS said I owed them $8,000 in back taxes. When all was said and done they gave me a check for $141. So Buffett may be right, may not be. The point is he fights for his money and does not want to pay a dime more than anyone else just like everyone.