Is it reading comprehension or memory that you have problems with. I already stated that several states require individual state designation as S-Corps. :roll:
Except you also said S election "has nothing to do with states." You tend to forget what you wrote. A lot.
Clearly, the reading comprehension problem lies with you. Remember your asinine comment about S and C corp taxes being different only in semantics? How you have abandoned that line of reasoning.
I already explained it once and I'm not going to keep repeating myself since you obviously can't keep track of the thread.
Yeah.
And I mocked you constantly for it. What kind of fool thinks that infinite layers of taxation is the same as one? You. That's who.
How about this. I get what remains of $100 after it's taxed once. You get what remains of $100 after it's taxed 500 times at corporate rates. Tell me who end up with more money. According to you, we both end up with the same. :2wave:
Crazy? Yes.
Stupid? Absolutely.
Your argument? Exactly. You can keep pretending you know more then me, but your constant avoidance in actually addressing my examples shows you really don't get it.
No, actually the state of Kansas doesn't.
Go look up those statues again. There's a difference between making a state S election and filing your Federal S election with the state. Learn it.
It's about time you admitted that states don't list corporations' filing status.
Come again? The database link I posted shows that they do. Or maybe you are unaware of what the letters at the end of their names mean. Considering how you have utterly and completely failed to demonstrate any legal understanding of structure or taxation, that's a distinct possibility.
If you had bothered to read the original information in the O.P., you would know your "breakthrough" information was addressed a long time ago by Koch's lawyers.
None of which was not private. Furthermore, Obama did not actually specificy that Koch was an S-corp. He named off several types of pass throughs, which as my link to the Kansas database shows, include a number of Koch firms. I do love it when my opponent gives me the tools to utterly annihilate him.
Just because some Koch entities are LLCs or LPs doesn't mean they all are.
And that proves your point how? How does that prove that Obama is wrong? Oh wait, it doesn't.
It also has nothing to do with whether they pay corporate taxes or not.
Really. You are really arguing that Koch registered as pass through entities and then choose to elect to be taxed at corporate rates?
You know you should have just given up once I posted that list of passthroughs.
A simple question for you..... if the information is readily available through the various states, why didn't the Obama administration simply state this ????
Actually they did. If you
bothered to research anything, you would have noticed that the Administration stated that they got some of their info from Koch's own public information releases.
The world does not revolve around you. You not hearing about it does not mean it did not happen. How arrogant of you.
No, they claimed they got the information through Forbes or testimony at the PERAB.
Which are public as well.
Seems to me it would be simpler to point out your "breakthrough" information rather than go through the embarrassment they are enduring now or a possible judicial investigation. Perhaps the Obama administration should hire you since you obviously know much more about this than they do. :lol:
Done yet?
Thanks Gill.
Rarely do I see my opponents destroy their own arguments by giving me the necessary evidence.
Btw, your avoidance of most of my points shows how weak you are as a debater.
Tell me Gill, how did I get info from a place that doesn't have the info?
It's hilarious how you think I know nothing about the subject...
and then you run away from every technical challenge I make to you. 
