Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 123

Thread: Koch Industries Lawyer to White House: How Did You Get Our Tax Information?

  1. #71
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Koch Industries Lawyer to White House: How Did You Get Our Tax Information?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Really, there's not that much of a difference aside from the pass through aspect.
    I have to admit this isn't entirely true. There are some pretty significant differences in taxation depending on the type and percent of income such as passive. That said, considering what Koch does, a C-corp doesn't make much sense.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #72
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,584

    Re: Koch Industries Lawyer to White House: How Did You Get Our Tax Information?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Fail again.

    S-corps don't pay corporate income tax. They do pay special S-corp related taxes, such as passive investment (once they hit a certain level of passive income to non-passive) and built in gains tax. Furthermore, no non-person entity pays self employment tax. Self employment tax is by definition paid by someone self employed.



    There are plenty of corporations that don't pay federal income taxes. S-corps for one if they are non-electing. Corporations that don't make money don't pay federal income taxes. The recession saw likely thousands of corporations not pay federal income taxes. Luckily for them, Dear Ol' Obama enacted a special 5 year NOL carry back! And people say he's anti-business.

    Really, how many times do you have to learn to stop talking about this stuff?
    Read what I wrote. I never said that s-corps pay corporate taxes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #73
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,584

    Re: Koch Industries Lawyer to White House: How Did You Get Our Tax Information?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    You have to keep track of payroll taxes regardless of what entity you are if you employing people. What are you talking about?
    In my case, some of my coporations don't emply anyone. With those companies, I choose to operate as a c-corp, because there's less accounting involved. i.e if those companies were s-corps, there would be more accounting, since any money that was transferred out of the company account would have to have payroll taxes taken out, on top of the rest of the accounting that goes along with my annual filing.



    There are relatively few reasons to pick a C-corp over an S-corp if you are privately held. An S-corp is taxation wise, superior. It makes little sense for Koch to organize as a C-corp when the main shareholders are the brothers. In their case, a C-corp is another layer of taxation that is functionally unnecessary. And considering how the Koch Brothers are anti-tax, it makes absolutely no sense for them to pick the higher tax system when the benefits of a C-corp just don't exist for them. They don't need the capital raising aspects of the C, nor do they likely need 101 shareholders.

    The only real reason I can think of as to why Koch would organize as a C would be for estate purposes as they could slowly gift out their shares in the corporation to their beneficiaries. But considering how large their stakes in Koch Industries are, they'd need a colossal number of beneficiaries to actually make a dent while avoiding gift tax. And that would effectively dilute the value of the voting shares. Doesn't seem to fit with their style. It does not make sense for Koch to organize as a C-corp.



    Not really. C-corps have payroll taxes as a function of their employees. As do all firms. Where did you get this crackpot notion that C-corps don't deal with payroll taxes? Why would they be exempted from it? And self employment only affects the active partners which is pretty easy to compute as there generally aren't more then a handful. While big service firms like PwC have a large number of equity partners and therefore have a sizable amount of self employed people, most pass throughs don't have that problem.



    And you got this notion where? An S-corp is functionally a C-corp in most ways.

    it sounds like you are making **** up about the differences between an S and C corp.

    The real problem with S-corps and C-corps is in valuation.

    C Corporation vs S Corporation vs LLC

    Really, there's not that much of a difference aside from the pass through aspect.

    It's amusing to watch you argue that adamantly anti-tax folks deliberately choose the higher tax structure when the benefits did not outweigh the cost.
    That's matter of opinion and since I'm actually out here in the real world, running my own companies, my opinion carries much more weight than that of someone who reads about it in textbooks.

    I've elected s-corps and one of my LLC's is an s-corp, but for the most part I prefer my businesses to be c-corps.

    Not saying it's the best thing to do, but it works for me and that's really all that matters.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #74
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Koch Industries Lawyer to White House: How Did You Get Our Tax Information?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Read what I wrote. I never said that s-corps pay corporate taxes.
    You just said that S-corps pay federal income taxes.

    Note: "What's baloney" , is the idea that an s-corp doesn't pay Federal income taxes."

    Except that corporate taxes on income are included in federal income taxes.

    I get that you don't understand what you are talking about. That is pretty evident.

    In my case, some of my coporations don't emply anyone.
    That does not equate to C-Corps = no payroll taxes. Merely because you have some holding corporations does not prove your argument.

    With those companies, I choose to operate as a c-corp, because there's less accounting involved.
    Incorrect. There's less accounting because it's a holding corporation. Not because it's a C-corp.

    if those companies were s-corps, there would be more accounting, since any money that was transferred out of the company account would have to have payroll taxes taken out, on top of the rest of the accounting that goes along with my annual filing.
    Come again? How would there be more accounting on a S-corp holding vs a C-corp holding? If neither is employing anyone, there is no payroll taxes to account for at all. You still have to deal with PHC test for C-corp and the passive activity tax for S-corp, but neither are payroll related.

    What the hell are you talking about?

    That's matter of opinion and since I'm actually out here in the real world, running my own companies, my opinion carries much more weight than that of someone who reads about it in textbooks.
    No, that's the law. You seem to be exceedingly unaware of what the law states.

    Not saying it's the best thing to do, but it works for me and that's really all that matters.
    Because the activity your holding corporations are doing is preferable to be held as a C-Corp. You aren't employing anyone. Koch is.

    Seriously. Please stop talking about legal and tax issues entirely.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  5. #75
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,584

    Re: Koch Industries Lawyer to White House: How Did You Get Our Tax Information?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    You just said that S-corps pay federal income taxes.

    Note: "What's baloney" , is the idea that an s-corp doesn't pay Federal income taxes."

    Except that corporate taxes on income are included in federal income taxes.

    I get that you don't understand what you are talking about. That is pretty evident.
    Play all the samantics you want, but at the end of the day, the Federal government collects taxes off the profit of an s-corp.



    That does not equate to C-Corps = no payroll taxes. Merely because you have some holding corporations does not prove your argument.

    LOL...I never said that I didn't pay payroll taxes out of my c-corps that have no employees. You know what the books say, but you don't understand how it applies in the real world.



    Incorrect. There's less accounting because it's a holding corporation. Not because it's a C-corp.
    There's less accounting, because I don't have to figure payroll taxes everytime money is taken out of the company's account. I can borrow money for a c-corp and don't have to figure payroll taxes, eveytime I write a check. Hence, less accounting.



    Come again? How would there be more accounting on a S-corp holding vs a C-corp holding? If neither is employing anyone, there is no payroll taxes to account for at all. You still have to deal with PHC test for C-corp and the passive activity tax for S-corp, but neither are payroll related.
    Because, as you probably know, all the money that is taken out of an s-corp has to be accounted as payroll, no matter where it goes.

    What the hell are you talking about?



    Because the activity your holding corporations are doing is preferable to be held as a C-Corp. You aren't employing anyone. Koch is.
    You're catching on. It took a while, but I think you're finally there.

    That's right. S-corps do pay federal taxes. They're federal taxes are payed through the owner(s's) individual filing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  6. #76
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:51 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,503
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Koch Industries Lawyer to White House: How Did You Get Our Tax Information?

    Bottom line of all this is... someone in the Obama administration has stated tax specifics that were not open to the public.. for political purposes.

    How did they get them?

    You can speculate and slice and dice the tax code all you want, and try to divert the attention away from obviously false initial statements, and continue to play the game; the bottom line is Obamatrons used tax info not available to the public for political purposes. How did they get them?

    .
    Last edited by zimmer; 10-10-10 at 01:57 PM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  7. #77
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

    Re: Koch Industries Lawyer to White House: How Did You Get Our Tax Information?

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    Bottom line of all this is... someone in the Obama administration has stated tax specifics that were not open to the public.. for political purposes.

    How did they get them?

    You can speculate and slice and dice the tax code all you want, and try to divert the attention away from obviously false initial statements, and continue to play the game; the bottom line is Obamatrons used tax info not available to the public for political purposes. How did they get them?

    .
    Other than mentioning Koch Industries was an S corporation that didn't pay taxes, can you be more specific and show where Obama was anymore specific than that?

  8. #78
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Koch Industries Lawyer to White House: How Did You Get Our Tax Information?

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Play all the samantics you want, but at the end of the day, the Federal government collects taxes off the profit of an s-corp.
    But that does not equate to S-corps paying Federal Corporate Income tax. You apparently do not understand the difference between you and a legally separate entity. By your reasoning, municipal bonds are taxed because eventually the estate in which their accumulated interest is taxed.

    LOL...I never said that I didn't pay payroll taxes out of my c-corps that have no employees.
    You just argued that C-Corps don't have to deal with payroll taxes.

    Note:
    I, personally, choose a c-corp, because as an s-corp, I would have to keep track of a ****load of payroll taxes.
    Except that S-Corps and C-Corps and frankly any entity that employs people has to deal with payroll taxes. Choosing a S-Corp over a C-Corp does not change the fact that if you employ people, you have payroll taxes. Your argument is entirely faulty. And it suggests you are making **** up.

    You know what the books say, but you don't understand how it applies in the real world.
    I'm not the one who argued that C-corps don't have to deal with payroll taxes. You did. And you say I don't know how it applies in the real world. You can keep throwing out that line of reasoning, but demonstrating time and time again you don't understand the concepts and me explaining them to you doesn't suggest your insults are of any worth.

    There's less accounting, because I don't have to figure payroll taxes every time money is taken out of the company's account.
    I can borrow money for a c-corp and don't have to figure payroll taxes, eveytime I write a check. Hence, less accounting.
    Actually there's likely more that way. By engaging in related party loans, you have significantly more accounting to do as your reporting goes up as well as various other eliminations and imputed interest that has to be reported. Furthermore, you still have the same kind of self employment issues with S if you are a owner active partner. Try again apdst. And it's easy to do self employment compared to related party loans.

    Because, as you probably know, all the money that is taken out of an s-corp has to be accounted as payroll, no matter where it goes.
    Who ever told you that told you a boldface lie. You clearly do not understand the difference between the taxation differences between general partners and limited. Distributions to limited partners do not get accounted for as payroll. Therefore, not all of money distributed from an S-Corp is accounted for as payroll. You are wrong as usual. When will you learn to stop talking about this subject?

    Hence, again, what the hell are you talking about?

    You're catching on. It took a while, but I think you're finally there.
    See above. Your ignorance is almost as appalling as your arrogance. And it's amusing you say that after it took pages for you to realize that structure defines function and by getting the freely available structure registration info, one can determine a entity's tax function.

    That's right. S-corps do pay federal taxes. They're federal taxes are payed through the owner(s's) individual filing.
    *sigh* S-Corps do not pay Federal Corporate Income tax. I have stated this from the beginning. They do pay, if meeting the criteria, special S-Corp corporate taxes. S-Corp income flows through to individuals who pay it on their taxes. Therefore, as an a separate legal entity, S-corps do not pay Federal Corporate Income tax.

    Seriously, you realllllly need to stop talking about this subject.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #79
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,773

    Re: Koch Industries Lawyer to White House: How Did You Get Our Tax Information?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    I think they care more than the GOP or tea partiers do. To be honest I haven't paid much attention to Kerry since 2004. But Barbara Boxer, I'm more familiar with because I used to live in California and have followed her career since she was first elected. So yes, I think she cares a helluva lot more than Fiornia and judging from the polls, it appears that most Californians see that, too.

    An adulter who legislates against labeling formaldehyde, which has been proven to cause cancer, just to protect the chemical industry? If you or your family are dying of cancer or dead, why would you care about taxes? Your idea of economic freedom = freedom to kill for profit.
    well that is how filthy rich dems get elected--the bamboozle lots of people into thinking that

    why is it that rich republicans almost always give far more the charity than similarly situated rich dems?



  10. #80
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Koch Industries Lawyer to White House: How Did You Get Our Tax Information?

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    Bottom line of all this is... someone in the Obama administration has stated tax specifics that were not open to the public.. for political purposes.
    And what specifics would those be? Registration info is legally avaliable and often free by phone. And once you know an entity's registration info, you can look up their relevant tax code. What again was "specific" and "not open to the public?"

    Care to cite something that actually was private?

    How did they get them?
    By calling up the Texas office of registrations and asking them. Which is legal. And free. You can do this too.

    You can speculate and slice and dice the tax code all you want, and try to divert the attention away from obviously false initial statements, and continue to play the game; the bottom line is Obamatrons used tax info not available to the public for political purposes. How did they get them?
    I didn't know that getting legally avaliable information and then looking up the IRC was illegal and not open to the public. Care to actually cite something not avaliable? Or are you going to be a partisan hack?

    By your reasoning, calling up the Washington Office of registration, asking for what Microsoft is registered as and then looking up Section C of the Corporate relevant code is a crime.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •