Show Me the Money

I am trying to see how that report would have hurt him with the TARP funds. Especially since Obama has pledged to close tax loop holes for Big Businesses as well as the fact that every wing nut in the world seems to think he hates Big Business and wants to tax them into oblivion.
.
Of course the same wingnuts who say that one day would come back the next and claim that Big Business was buying the presidency for Obama. Oh well its all too confusing at this point.

Confusing post to say the least. That corporations would seek to register in jurisdictions that offer tax breaks, oh my word! That Obama is at all affected by this? Hmmmmmm... I'm not sure of the relevance.
.
Doesn't seem like real news to me.

I see why there is such gaping loopholes:
1. A lack fo definition of what a 'Tax Haven' constitutes
2. Intent has to be proven
3. There is no criteria for enforcing the provision of information relating to subsidiaries.
.
You could drive more than a few Republicans' limos through these loopholes, and I'm guessing they have...

The report also states that it doesn't say those companies are using their subsidiary as tax havens. Some if not most of those companies probably have good reason to have subsidiaries in those countries. For example its much cheaper for Pepsi to make a factory in each country to bottle water and add sugar to it then to ship cans and boxes of pepsi all around the world.

onlystandstoreason1:
.
Hates pork, but hell, loopholes for BigCorp is ok.
.
What priorities. No wonder the economy collapsed...

"Some if not most of those companies probably have good reason to have subsidiaries in those countries."
.
I'm sure these good, honest corperations would never stoop so low as to actually take advantage of the gaping loopholes that come with having that subsidiary, now would they?
.
Hecks no!
.
Trust us...

So between both right wing examples, to corporate tax cheating we have one 'so what' and one 'trust us'.
.
With sentiments like these, is it any wonder that Paulson and Bernanke have resorted to ignoring FOIL and keeping just who has been gettting that 6,900,000,000,000 dollars*?
.
*I'm subtracting out TARP, btw

Is my friend Preview here too?
.
He is! We're approaching Y2K in our implementation here.

carriage return?

test

uhmm not so much

jayack, Bold Beautiful preview! Huzzah!
.
Thanks for letting us in on the news.
.
Coming soon - I can haz paragraf sepraters?

But whyy in heavens name do they do these releases end of day Friday?

So they have the weekend to get out of Dodge if the code turns out to be buggy?

Wait, sorry, that was before the 24/7 news cycle.

I'm happy to report that most of the companies that have a presence in the USVI actually do have some business here. The BVI - not so much!

The report also states that it doesn't say those companies are using their subsidiary as tax havens.
_
I guess no one bothered to look at the full report with all the data, because that is where the good stuff is. Like for instance, Morgan Stanley has 158 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands alone. Indeed, when you look at the list, the worst and most obvious offenders are the financial institutions that TARP was used to bail out.

Do you have a link, pluk? Because that's where the bodies are buried. The offshore, no countsies cutouts.

plukasiak:
.
The IRS has to take their word for it, and even then, there is no clear definition of a tax shelter, so when it comes to enforcement, their hands are tied.
.
How many lawyers do you think would be able to win a case where the crime hasn't even been defined, legally?

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09157.pdf
.
Halfway down the first paragraph on page 10 for my commentary.

> Hates pork, but hell, loopholes for BigCorp is ok.
.
.
No, not really.
.
But if a corporation has the option to register in a jurisdiction that will cost $100,000 in taxes or file in another that will cost $10,000, which do you think they will choose?
.
What would you choose?
.
How would your stockholders feel if didn't try to reduce your tax exposure?
.

Government Regulators Aided IndyMac Cover-Up, Maybe Others
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Economy/Story?id=6658365&page=1
.
Every institution has failed.

Doesn't seem isolated:

In looking into the IndyMac situation, "we also discovered that OTS had allowed other thrifts to record capital contributions in an earlier period than received," Treasury Department Inspector General Eric Thorson wrote. "While there is some support ... for recording capital contributions in one period that were received in a later period, that support is limited."

Do you have a link, pluk? Because that's where the bodies are buried. The offshore, no countsies cutouts.
_
here's the link jay.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09157.pdf -- look at appendix 3 (starting on page 25 of the pdf file)
_
While there is some ambiguity for a whole lot of companies, you will note that just about all the financial sector companies not only have a tremendous number of offshore subsidies in "suspect" tax havens, but they have multiple ones in many of these countries -- far too many to be explained by providing business services to the citizens of those nations.

onlystandstoreason1:
"No, not really."
.
Now this is what I call real enthusiasm for closing tax loopholes.
.
Whether they can be blamed for taking advantage of them is a discussion that belongs in a sociology discussion. It's completely beside the point.
.
Your tacit 'so what' is pretty typical, but someone has to pay for that 6,900,000,000,000 dollars, and I prefer that the people who caused this mess pay for it!
.
And we do know who they are, or would, if Bernanke and Paulson complied with FOIL...

>Your tacit 'so what' is pretty typical, but someone has to pay for >that 6,900,000,000,000 dollars, and I prefer that the people who >caused this mess pay for it!
.

Wanting to reduce your tax liability and the government giving out handouts are two different issues. I guess tying the two together gives you a chance to feel important and rant, but your argument doesn't make any sense.