• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Where did I say anything about moving money? I was talking about filing taxes.

And you were wrong. Like OC said, you can go down to your local registration place and check out any company that registered there. It's public information, dude.
 
And you were wrong. Like OC said, you can go down to your local registration place and check out any company that registered there. It's public information, dude.

Again, we're not talking about registrations, we're talking about tax filings. All of you are aware that not all of that information--corporate or personal taxes--is public information, that some of it is protected by The Privacy Act.

As far as being a felony to take money out of an S-corp, that must be a state law.
 
Again, we're not talking about registrations, we're talking about tax filings.

You still don't get it do you? All the administration did was look up what Koch was registered in the Texas Registration Database and then look up the relevant tax code.

You can do this too! For cheap or even free.

Public Information

# Electronic filing of UCC documents for as low as $5.00 per document and for electronic filing of business organizations for fees set by statute. Certificates of formation, applications for registrations, name reservations; changes to registered agents/offices and assumed name certificates can be filed online. Dissolutions, terminations and withdrawals for corporations and limited liability companies; cancellation of certificates or registrations of limited partnership; registration of Texas LLPs and withdrawals of foreign LLPs also may be filed electronically. Applications for reinstatement following tax forfeiture and amendments to change the name of business and professional corporations may be filed through SOSDirect. In addition, annual statements, limited partnership and nonprofit corporation reports may be filed using SOSDirect.

# Turntime for web filings is generally 24 hours or less.

Expands records available online and includes records filed with the SOS relating to:

* Corporations
* Limited Partnerships
* Limited Liability Companies
* Assumed Names
* Trademarks
* Limited Liability Partnerships
* Foreign and State Financial Institutions
* Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Associations
* Probate Code filings by Foreign Corporate Fiduciaries
* UCC Financing Statements
* Federal Liens

Seriously. Uber fail there Apdst.

They called the Texas Registration office, asked them what Koch was registered under and then looked up Section S of the tax code.

All of you are aware that not all of that information--corporate or personal taxes--is public information, that some of it is protected by The Privacy Act.

Of course. Too bad that nothing the administration said is protected. Show me where registration data is private.

Again,
Public Information

You can go there free to look up the registration of businesses in Texas. Every state has one of these offices.

Tell me Apdst, how is calling the Texas Registry office, asking them for publicly available information and then looking up the tax code relevant to that specific tax registration is a violation of anything?

Do you know why Zimmer, Ockham, Mr. V and others have left this thread? They know they are wrong. The question is when you will figure that out.
 
Last edited:
And you were wrong. Like OC said, you can go down to your local registration place and check out any company that registered there. It's public information, dude.

You'll have to excuse Apdst. He doesn't realize that one can determine the tax implications by merely looking at registration filings. He fails to understand by having the registry office tell you that company A is a partnership that you can look up parntership taxation that will tell you that the partnership income is taxed on its partners' returns. He never learned that structure defines function.
 
I was talking about filing taxes.

But you constantly fail to connect the dots. Filings are determined by legal registration. And those legal registrations are public information. Therefore, anyone, including YOU, can call up a state's registry office, ask what the legal formation of Company XYZ is and then look up the relevant tax code to see what general implications are relevant to them. Just like some staffer did in the Obama Administration. He grabbed his phone. Looked up the phone number for the Texas registry office and made a call. For FREE.

I keep referencing Microsof to show just how absurd you are. You are explicitly arguing that looking up Microsoft's registration up online (or calling the Washington Registry office), seeing they are a C-Corp and then looking up the C corp relevant tax code is a violation of the Privacy Act. Are you wrong? 100%. Are you willing to admit it? Not a chance in Hell.
 
But you constantly fail to connect the dots. Filings are determined by legal registration. And those legal registrations are public information. Therefore, anyone, including YOU, can call up a state's registry office, ask what the legal formation of Company XYZ is and then look up the relevant tax code to see what general implications are relevant to them. Just like some staffer did in the Obama Administration. He grabbed his phone. Looked up the phone number for the Texas registry office and made a call. For FREE.

I keep referencing Microsof to show just how absurd you are. You are explicitly arguing that looking up Microsoft's registration up online (or calling the Washington Registry office), seeing they are a C-Corp and then looking up the C corp relevant tax code is a violation of the Privacy Act. Are you wrong? 100%. Are you willing to admit it? Not a chance in Hell.

Chill out and wipe the spittle off your chin... Holden is only saying that "IF" the administration obtained tax information from the IRS, then privacy laws were "possibly" broken.
 
Last edited:
Chill out and wipe the spittle off your chin... Holden is only saying that "IF" the administration obtained tax information from the IRS, then privacy laws were "possibly" broken.

Yet, conservative posters act like this was definitely illegal. Hence the discussion.
 
Yet, conservative posters act like this was definitely illegal. Hence the discussion.

Yeah, and liberal posters act like it was definitely legal for Obama to have the info.

It is possible to have a discussion without the name calling. Hence the comment to the person quoted in my reply.
 
Great ... a certain poster is probably gonna slide right off her chair when she sees this thread ... :roll:
LOL You betcha.
 
I think if Koch's lawyers are going to charge the government with illegality they might want to consider charging Forbes magazine as well. How else would Forbes know that the Koch's were the top wealthiest men in the country if they didn't see their tax information? The government can just say they got the information from Forbes.

#9 David Koch - The Forbes 400 Richest Americans 2009 - Forbes.com

Did I mention Steve Forbes is on the board of directors for Americans for Prosperity?
 
Last edited:
How else would Forbes know that the Koch's were the top wealthiest men in the country if they didn't see their tax information?
The Forbes 400 Methodology said:
Our flagship Forbes 400 comes out once a year. But throughout the year our reporters meet with the list candidates and their handlers and interview employees, rivals, attorneys, ex-spouses and securities analysts. We keep track of their moves: the deals they negotiate, the land they're selling, the paintings they're buying, the causes they give to. Securities & Exchange Commission documents, court records, probate records, tax records, federal financial disclosures and Web and print stories--we dig through them all. In calculating wealth, we put a price on all assets, including stakes in public and privately held companies, real estate, art, yachts and planes. For the first time, this year we have also systematically collected data on billionaires' eight different categories of passions and pursuits. In these pages we call out these personal interests with icons next to people's names, space allowing. (A complete list is available at The Richest People in America - Forbes.com.)

When we value this crowd, we take a hard look at debt. Not that we pretend to know what is listed on everyone's private balance sheet, though some folks do provide that information. Our estimates of public fortunes are a snapshot of wealth on Aug. 25, when we locked in net worths and ranking. Some on our list will become richer or poorer within weeks--even days--of publication. Privately held companies are valued by coupling estimates of revenues or profits with prevailing price-to-revenues or price-to-earnings ratios for similar public companies. We have not included dispersed fortunes (as in those of the Du Ponts and Kennedys) when individual net worths are below our minimum. But we do include wealth belonging to a member's immediate relatives if the wealth can ultimately be traced to one living individual; in that case "& family" indicates that the number shown includes money belonging to more than one person.
:doh
Did I mention Steve Forbes is on the board of directors for Americans for Prosperity?
Relevance? None.
 
"....the deals they negotiate, the land they're selling, the paintings they're buying, the causes they give to. Securities & Exchange Commission documents, court records, probate records, tax records, federal financial disclosures ..."
:doh
Well, there you go, Forbes had access to their "tax records" and "federal financial disclosures".

Relevance? None.
Well, yes it most certainly does, since we're also talking about American's for Prosperity.

Speaking of which....


ColoradoPols.com:: Americans for Prosperity, GOP Implicated in Wisconsin Vote-Caging Plot

If that's the case and does appear so, then the Koch's tax information and funding for AFP will become evidence in a criminal investigation for voter suppression and fraud.

Where's yer billions now, Kochs? nyah nyah nyaah
 
Last edited:
Envy is a terrible thing.
I wouldn't want that much money, too much of headache trying keeping track of it all. It's all I can do to keep track of what I got.
 
Yet, conservative posters act like this was definitely illegal. Hence the discussion.

I don't recall any Conservative posters acting like, "this was definitely illegal". Care to point out those posts?
 
I wouldn't want that much money, too much of headache trying keeping track of it all. It's all I can do to keep track of what I got.

Be that as it may, it's not your's, and damn sure not the government's place to tell them how much money they can make.

Legal, or not, it's nothing but lowdown dirty politics to dig up their tax info and go public with it. It goes to show just how anti-business this adminstration really is.
 
Chill out and wipe the spittle off your chin... Holden is only saying that "IF" the administration obtained tax information from the IRS, then privacy laws were "possibly" broken.

And Holden is a dumb piece of ****. The fact that a bunch of you jumped on board without first reading what the Administration said and checking to see if they did actually reveal any private information shows just how partisan you people are.

It's hilarious how several of you think that calling up a registration office to ask for public information and then accessing the freely available IRS code is a crime.

Look. I just called Microsoft a C corp and said they pay Corporate taxes. According to the OP, I'm a criminal! Stupid.

But then again, many of you simply should not be talking about taxes or legal matters in any way, shape or form.

The administration should piss them off enough so they file. That way actual private information enters the court's records and becomes accessible to the public. And THEN the administration will have a field day. Koch would be a complete and total moron to actually go to court. Getting Koch's notoriously private attitude to breakdown in a record court session would make Democrats jump for joy. A lawsuit is the absolute last thing Koch should want.
 
Last edited:
I don't recall any Conservative posters acting like, "this was definitely illegal". Care to point out those posts?

Read the first post. And read your own. And Councilman's

By all standards of legal and tax matters, the administration did nothing illegal.

It's hilarious it took you so long to figure out that registration filings are one, publicly accessible, and two tell you what tax structure an organization falls under.

Structure defines function. Didn't you learn that in biology 101?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, and liberal posters act like it was definitely legal for Obama to have the info.

It was. Unless you think that calling a state's registration office up and asking them for public information and then using the internet to access the freely avaliable IRS code is a crime.

Maybe you think that me posting the legally required to be public 990 was a crime too?

It is possible to have a discussion without the name calling.

It is possible to have a discussion with people who have demonstrated a massive raging ignorance of the subject coupled with hatred of actually learning about the relevant legal code?

Know why I'm making fun of you? Because reasonable people would have first looked up to see if what the administration said was illegal. None of you did that. You just assumed they violated the law and ran with it.
 
Be that as it may, it's not your's, and damn sure not the government's place to tell them how much money they can make.
Where did I say it was, Mr. Strawman?

Legal, or not, it's nothing but lowdown dirty politics to dig up their tax info and go public with it. It goes to show just how anti-business this adminstration really is.
Hmm, you don't say. So voter suppression, fraud and corruption is considered good politics in your eyes?
 
Be that as it may, it's not your's, and damn sure not the government's place to tell them how much money they can make.

That's not entirely true. For the longest time states banned perpetual trusts under the notion that they could in theory consolidate vast sums of assets for people who did nothing to earn them other then being born into the right family. The availibity of dynastic trusts is now growing but are questionable.

Legal, or not, it's nothing but lowdown dirty politics to dig up their tax info and go public with it. It goes to show just how anti-business this adminstration really is.

So it's dirty to look up the backgrounds on people who are against you? So it was dirty for the Republicans to dig up Edward's cheating? Or all that crap on Kerry when he was running? Let's see just how hypocritical you can get. If a Republican does this, it's okay. But if a Democrat does, it's dirty. Typical Adpst. Partisan up to the tips of your hair. What IS dirty is the kind of crap Rove pulled on McCain during the 2000 primary where he started a rumor that his adopted daughter was actually his love child with a black hooker. THAT was dirty.

And how exactly is this anti-business?
 
Last edited:
That's not entirely true. For the longest time states banned perpetual trusts under the notion that they could in theory consolidate vast sums of assets for people who did nothing to earn them other then being born into the right family. The availibity of dynastic trusts is now growing but are questionable.



So it's dirty to look up the backgrounds on people who are against you? So it was dirty for the Republicans to dig up Edward's cheating? Or all that crap on Kerry when he was running? Let's see just how hypocritical you can get. If a Republican does this, it's okay. But if a Democrat does, it's dirty. Typical Adpst. Partisan up to the tips of your hair. What IS dirty is the kind of crap Rove pulled on McCain during the 2000 primary where he started a rumor that his adopted daughter was actually his love child with a black hooker. THAT was dirty.

And how exactly is this anti-business?

Far be it from me to want to cast aspersions on you but when you say such outlandishly foolish and blatant a lie as:
So it was dirty for the Republicans to dig up Edward's cheating?
you run the risk of being seen in the eyes of some as a less than all there type, and I am being nice as I can here.

You have to stop making things up to suit your own partisan wish list.

The Jon Edwards is a cheating scum bag story was chased down and he was exposed by the NATIONAL ENQUIRER.

A key owner of the Enquirer is a prominent New York investment banker and one of Hillary Clinton's key backers, Roger Altman. Altman was an official in the first Clinton administration, and in no (bleeping) way a dirty or any other kind of Republican.

I hope that now before you make wild claims you'll know what the hell you're talking about before you open mouth and insert foot.
 
Last edited:
Far be it from me to want to cast aspersions on you but when you say such outlandishly foolish and blatant a lie as: you run the risk of being seen in the eyes of some as a less than all there type, and I am being nice as I can here.

You have to stop making things up to suit your own partisan wish list.

The Jon Edwards is a cheating scum bag story was chased down and he was exposed by the NATIONAL ENQUIRER.

A key owner of the Enquirer is a prominent New York investment banker and one of Hillary Clinton's key backers, Roger Altman. Altman was an official in the first Clinton administration, and in no (bleeping) way a dirty or any other kind of Republican.

I hope that now before you make wild claims you'll know what the hell you're talking about before you open mouth and insert foot.
But Edwards didn't run on a platform of "conservative family values" and he isn't running for office now. But the LYING, CHEATING, SCUMBAG, ADULTERER, SEN. DAVID VITTER, is.....

David Vitter - Prostitution Scandals

Vitter was chased down and exposed by Larry Flynt, the owner of HUSTLER MAGAZINE and the guy who saved free speech so the Enquirer could keep exposing their thang.

Who helps fund David Vitter? Why da Koch's do, who else?

How Senator Vitter Battled the EPA Over Formaldehyde’s Link to Cancer - ProPublica

Do you really believe these tea bag politicians give a fig about you?
 
But Edwards didn't run on a platform of "conservative family values" and he isn't running for office now. But the LYING, CHEATING, SCUMBAG, ADULTERER, SEN. DAVID VITTER, is.....

David Vitter - Prostitution Scandals

Vitter was chased down and exposed by Larry Flynt, the owner of HUSTLER MAGAZINE and the guy who saved free speech so the Enquirer could keep exposing their thang.

Who helps fund David Vitter? Why da Koch's do, who else?

How Senator Vitter Battled the EPA Over Formaldehyde’s Link to Cancer - ProPublica

Do you really believe these tea bag politicians give a fig about you?

do you believe uber-wealthy dems like Boxer, Kerry, etc care about you other than pandering to you to get your vote by pretending that they want to stick it to the "rich"?

an adulterer who is not going to jack up my taxes, further destroy American economic freedom etc is far preferrable to a chaste marxist tax hiking schemer
 
Back
Top Bottom