• 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?

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"?
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 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
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.
 
Last edited:
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 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.

Really? So the state has tax records of private companies that are freely open to anyone that calls??? NO, they do not. Privately held companies don't have to publicly divulge any tax information, which begs the question of how Obama knows or thinks Koch doesn't pay corporate income tax. Private companies are NOT REQUIRED TO DIVULGE TAX INFORMATION !! Registration data is not private, but whether Koch paid taxes or not IS private.

Is Microsoft privately held?? No, didn't think so.

Now, what were you saying about ignorant people??
 
Really? So the state has tax records of private companies that are freely open to anyone that calls??? NO, they do not. Privately held companies don't have to publicly divulge any tax information, which begs the question of how Obama knows or thinks Koch doesn't pay corporate income tax. Private companies are NOT REQUIRED TO DIVULGE TAX INFORMATION !! Registration data is not private, but whether Koch paid taxes or not IS private.

Is Microsoft privately held?? No, didn't think so.

Now, what were you saying about ignorant people??
Koch Industries are listed as an S corporation and it says right here in Wikipedia that S corporations don't pay federal taxes....

In general, S corporations do not pay any federal income taxes....

Payments to S shareholders by the corporation are distributed tax-free to the extent that the distributed earnings were not previously taxed. Also, certain corporate penalty taxes (e.g., accumulated earnings tax, personal holding company tax) and the alternative minimum tax do not apply to an S corporation....
S corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No one had to look at the Koch's tax records to know or say they don't pay federal taxes. The entire allegation by the Koch's lawyers is a red herring.


Here is what Obama said.....

"So in this country we have partnerships, we have S corps, we have LLCs, we have a series of entities that do not pay corporate income tax. Some of which are really giant firms, you know Koch Industries is a multibillion dollar businesses. So that creates a narrower base because we've literally got something like 50 percent of the business income in the U.S. is going to businesses that don't pay any corporate income tax. They point out [in the report] you could review the boundary between corporate and non-corporate taxation as a way to broaden the base."
 
Last edited:
Koch Industries are listed as an S corporation and it says right here in Wikipedia that S corporations don't pay federal taxes....



No one had to look at the Koch's tax records to know or say they don't pay federal taxes. The entire allegation by the Koch's lawyers is a red herring.


Here is what Obama said.....

"So in this country we have partnerships, we have S corps, we have LLCs, we have a series of entities that do not pay corporate income tax. Some of which are really giant firms, you know Koch Industries is a multibillion dollar businesses. So that creates a narrower base because we've literally got something like 50 percent of the business income in the U.S. is going to businesses that don't pay any corporate income tax. They point out [in the report] you could review the boundary between corporate and non-corporate taxation as a way to broaden the base."

You're totally misintereting that. S-corps do pay federal taxes, they don't pay self employment taxes.

And, if Obama really beleives that there is any corporation that doesn't pay federal income taxes, then he is way-too-damned-stupid to be president.
 
You're totally misintereting that. S-corps do pay federal taxes, they don't pay self employment taxes.

And, if Obama really beleives that there is any corporation that doesn't pay federal income taxes, then he is way-too-damned-stupid to be president.
Wow, I post the facts and you post baloney. How typical of you.
 
Koch Industries are listed as an S corporation and it says right here in Wikipedia that S corporations don't pay federal taxes....



No one had to look at the Koch's tax records to know or say they don't pay federal taxes. The entire allegation by the Koch's lawyers is a red herring.


Here is what Obama said.....

"So in this country we have partnerships, we have S corps, we have LLCs, we have a series of entities that do not pay corporate income tax. Some of which are really giant firms, you know Koch Industries is a multibillion dollar businesses. So that creates a narrower base because we've literally got something like 50 percent of the business income in the U.S. is going to businesses that don't pay any corporate income tax. They point out [in the report] you could review the boundary between corporate and non-corporate taxation as a way to broaden the base."

The issue is NOT their filing status, it's whether they paid any corporate taxes or not. Filing status is public information, taxes paid, if any, is private information that no one should have legal access to when the corporation is a privately held S-Corp. Profits from S Corps is paid as individual income. Do you want Obama, or anyone else having access to your private tax records ??
 
To all our non-expert-expert tax attorneys out there:

TIGTA Agrees to Probe Possible Breach of Taxpayer Info by Obama Administration

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has agreed to the request from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and six other committee members to conduct an investigation of whether Obama Administration officials illegally accessed and disclosed confidential taxpayer information involving a particular taxpayer.

The inquiry comes after media reports quoted a senior Obama administration official describing the tax structure of Koch Industries, Inc., a prominent financial supporter of the Tea Party Movement. Taxpayer confidentiality laws are strict, in part to prevent the use of tax information for political gain. The official appeared to indicate knowledge of Koch Industries’ tax structure beyond what is publicly available.

“The statement that Koch is a pass-through entity implies direct knowledge of Koch’s legal and tax status, which would appear to be a violation of section 6103,” the senators wrote. “Alternatively, if the statement was based on speculation, it raises the question of whether the Administration speculating about any specific taxpayer’s liability is appropriate.”

.
 
Last edited:
Wow, I post the facts and you post baloney. How typical of you.

What's baloney, is the idea that an s-corp doesn't pay Federal income taxes. S-corps pay federal income taxes, only the taxes are filed on the 1040 of the owner(s).
 
What's baloney, is the idea that an s-corp doesn't pay Federal income taxes. S-corps pay federal income taxes, only the taxes are filed on the 1040 of the owner(s).

the s corp profit is not taxed until it's distributed. so no corporate income tax is paid, and any distribution of profit to the shareholders is paid at an individual rate. so, it IS different than publicly held companies, whose dividends are taxed twice.
 
the s corp profit is not taxed until it's distributed. so no corporate income tax is paid, and any distribution of profit to the shareholders is paid at an individual rate.

The money gets taxed, just the same. It's erroneous to say that s-corps don't pay Federal taxes.

so, it IS different than publicly held companies, whose dividends are taxed twice.

The difference is whether not a corporation is an s-corp, or a c-corp. Being public, or private doesn't have anything to do with it.
 
The money gets taxed, just the same. It's erroneous to say that s-corps don't pay Federal taxes.



The difference is whether not a corporation is an s-corp, or a c-corp. Being public, or private doesn't have anything to do with it.

the s-corp itself does not pay. they avoid corporate taxes, unlike c-corps. very simple. and most publicly held companies are c corps.
 
The money gets taxed, just the same. It's erroneous to say that s-corps don't pay Federal taxes.



The difference is whether not a corporation is an s-corp, or a c-corp. Being public, or private doesn't have anything to do with it.
If a privately owned corporation had a choice to be an S-corp or a C-corp, which do you think they would chose? Duh, they would chose to be an S-corp of course. Especially, a privately owned company like Koch Industries who are extremely outspoken against paying taxes, which is why it's a no brainer to see they are an S corporation. Because if all the dividends and profits from the company go to the Koch brothers, do you seriously believe they would want double taxation on their earnings? Puuuulease, get real.
 
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?

I guess missing the point should be expecteded.
 
If a privately owned corporation had a choice to be an S-corp or a C-corp, which do you think they would chose? Duh, they would chose to be an S-corp of course. Especially, a privately owned company like Koch Industries who are extremely outspoken against paying taxes, which is why it's a no brainer to see they are an S corporation. Because if all the dividends and profits from the company go to the Koch brothers, do you seriously believe they would want double taxation on their earnings? Puuuulease, get real.

It would all depend. There are pros and cons to both. I, personally, choose a c-corp, because as an s-corp, I would have to keep track of a ****load of payroll taxes. You wanna see real trouble with the IRS? **** up your payroll taxes and you'll get exactly that.

Ultimately, all corporations are double taxed--which is bull****. An s-corp has to deal with tons of payroll taxes and a c-corp has to deal with self employment taxes. At least with a c-corp, there are more gray areas to dabble in for right offs.
 
Really? So the state has tax records of private companies that are freely open to anyone that calls?

Yes. They do. Your state included. Note the link I gave to Adpst. There's even an email option to request the data.

NO, they do not.

Fail #1.

Privately held companies don't have to publicly divulge any tax information

But they do have to disclose their registration filings in their state registry office. And that registry office is legally obligated to release that information to anyone who asks. You, like Apdst, never learned that structure defines function. By having the Texas Registration office tell the Obama staffer (or more likely some democrat in Texas) what Koch registered with the state as, they simply looked up the S corp IRS code. I already explained this. It's not hard to understand. Well, it shouldn't be.

Real simple, just for you.
Koch MUST register with the Texas Office of registration.
The Texas Office of registration MUST disclose registrations to the public

See how easy that was?

which begs the question of how Obama knows or thinks Koch doesn't pay corporate income tax.

They called the office of registration, asked what Koch was registered as, were told C-corp with S election and then they thanked the clerk. Then they looked up section S and noticed S-corps for the most part don't pay corporate income tax.

Gill Fail #2.

Private companies are NOT REQUIRED TO DIVULGE TAX INFORMATION!

There are you mistaken. Tell me, since when were registrations private information? Tell me, if they are so private, why does the Texas Office of registrations state on its website that you can request company's registration filings for free? (hint: you like adpst are wrong)

Registration data is not private, but whether Koch paid taxes or not IS private.

Still not getting it are you? Structure defines function. Btw, registration data IS tax information.

Is Microsoft privately held?? No, didn't think so.

Doesn't matter.

Now, what were you saying about ignorant people??

I'm laughing louder after your post.
 
You're totally misintereting that. S-corps do pay federal taxes, they don't pay self employment taxes.

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.

And, if Obama really beleives that there is any corporation that doesn't pay federal income taxes, then he is way-too-damned-stupid to be president.

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?
 
It would all depend. There are pros and cons to both. I, personally, choose a c-corp, because as an s-corp, I would have to keep track of a ****load of payroll taxes.

You have to keep track of payroll taxes regardless of what entity you are if you employing people. What are you talking about?

You wanna see real trouble with the IRS? **** up your payroll taxes and you'll get exactly that.

That's nothing. Want to see real trouble with the IRS? Ignore the transfer pricing rules.

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.

Ultimately, all corporations are double taxed--which is bull****. An s-corp has to deal with tons of payroll taxes and a c-corp has to deal with self employment taxes.

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.

At least with a c-corp, there are more gray areas to dabble in for right offs.

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.
 
Last edited:
The issue is NOT their filing status, it's whether they paid any corporate taxes or not.

Still not connecting the dots are you?

Filing status = structure
Structure defines function
Choosing a pass-through structure free from corporate income tax means...that entity doesn't pay corporate income tax!

See! Structure defines function. How hard was that?

Filing status is public information, taxes paid, if any, is private information that no one should have legal access to when the corporation is a privately held S-Corp. Profits from S Corps is paid as individual income.

Wow. Total fail there Gill. Obama said that Koch doesn't pay federal corporate income tax because it was a pass through. See how he understands how structure defines function?

Pass through status = no fed corporate income tax.
KI = Pass through
KI = No federal corporate income tax.

How hard was that? Wow transitive logic for the win there.

Do you want Obama, or anyone else having access to your private tax records ??

One must wonder what you define as "private." I guess the government knowing I drive a gasoline car means they know I buy gas. STRUCTURE DEFINES FUNCTION. Learn it.
 
What's baloney, is the idea that an s-corp doesn't pay Federal income taxes. S-corps pay federal income taxes, only the taxes are filed on the 1040 of the owner(s).

They don't pay federal income taxes.

United States Code: Title 26,1363. Effect of election on corporation | LII / Legal Information Institute

That's the I.R.C. Try argue with it.

How many times are you going to fail in this thread?

The money gets taxed, just the same.

No it's not. You realized you just argued that as long as the money gets taxed, then whatever entity generated it got taxed? Do you know how insane that sounds?

Furthermore, you totally fail to understand the difference between entity and shareholders.

It's erroneous to say that s-corps don't pay Federal taxes.

No, it's erroneous to say that S-corps pay federal income tax. Therefore, you are wrong.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom