Is there or i'snt there a tax break for going abroad

[Old Rocks]

Yes there is, it is Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

BTW, Obama tried to get rid of the deduction for business expenses for moving a company abroad, and the GOP, of course, blocked it.

Full Text of S. 3364: Bring Jobs Home Act - GovTrack.us

SEC. 3. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR OUTSOURCING EXPENSES.
(a) In General- Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

‘SEC. 280I. OUTSOURCING EXPENSES.
‘(a) In General- No deduction otherwise allowable under this chapter shall be allowed for any specified outsourcing expense.

‘(b) Specified Outsourcing Expense- For purposes of this section--

‘(1) IN GENERAL- The term ‘specified outsourcing expense’ means--

‘(A) any eligible expense paid or incurred by the taxpayer in connection with the elimination of any business unit of the taxpayer (or of any member of any expanded affiliated group in which the taxpayer is also a member) located within the United States, and

‘(B) any eligible expense paid or incurred by the taxpayer in connection with the establishment of any business unit of the taxpayer (or of any member of any expanded affiliated group in which the taxpayer is also a member) located outside the United States,

if such establishment constitutes the relocation of the business unit so eliminated. For purposes of the preceding sentence, a relocation shall not be treated as failing to occur merely because such elimination occurs in a different taxable year than such establishment.

‘(2) APPLICATION OF CERTAIN DEFINITIONS AND RULES-

‘(A) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this section, the terms ‘eligible expenses’, ‘business unit’, and ‘expanded affiliated group’ shall have the respective meanings given such terms by section 45S(b).

‘(B) OPERATING EXPENSES NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT- A rule similar to the rule of section 45S(b)(6) shall apply for purposes of this section.

‘(c) Special Rules-

‘(1) APPLICATION TO DEDUCTIONS FOR DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION- In the case of any portion of a specified outsourcing expense which is not deductible in the taxable year in which paid or incurred, such portion shall neither be chargeable to capital account nor amortizable.

‘(2) POSSESSIONS TREATED AS PART OF THE UNITED STATES- For purposes of this section, the term ‘United States’ shall be treated as including each possession of the United States (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands).

‘(d) Regulations- The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section, including regulations which provide (or create a rebuttable presumption) that certain establishments of business units outside the United States will be treated as relocations (based on timing or such other factors as the Secretary may provide) of business units eliminated within the United States.’.

(b) Limitation on Subpart F Income of Controlled Foreign Corporations Determined Without Regard to Specified Outsourcing Expenses- Subsection (c) of section 952 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘(4) EARNINGS AND PROFITS DETERMINED WITHOUT REGARD TO SPECIFIED OUTSOURCING EXPENSES- For purposes of this subsection, earnings and profits of any controlled foreign corporation shall be determined without regard to any specified outsourcing expense (as defined in section 280I(b)).’.

(c) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

‘Sec. 280I. Outsourcing expenses.’.

Let me get this straight, the part where it says "No deduction ... shall be allowable" actually means that deductions are allowed.

LOL. Guess you were just proven wrong. And you yourself demonstrated your inability to read a peice of legislation. But you buddies killed it. Now that makes you real happy, doesn't it.

 

[asterism]

An ordinary deduction for expenses is not a "tax break." That's why Romney had never heard of it, tax breaks are special credits and deductions written into the tax code.

Obama and Liberal Nutters FAIL

 

[Old Rocks]

Closing plants, opening plants and all related costs are just that - costs of doing business that are deductible.

Librards are lying as usual, and this is just one of several Lefty memes Romney destroyed last night.

No, one debate does not make the world go around. Obama is going to win by a HUGE landslide. This election will go down in history and the most lopsided election in our history.

get used to it

Or don't

A bit of hyperbole there. But the President will win a second term. Just too many lies in the promises and claims of the Romney-Ryan team.

 

[Leweman]

There is none.

 

[Leweman]

Closing plants, opening plants and all related costs are just that - costs of doing business that are deductible.

Librards are lying as usual, and this is just one of several Lefty memes Romney destroyed last night.

No, one debate does not make the world go around. Obama is going to win by a HUGE landslide. This election will go down in history and the most lopsided election in our history.

get used to it

Or don't

A bit of hyperbole there. But the President will win a second term. Just too many lies in the promises and claims of the Romney-Ryan team.

Just cause you keep saying it ...

 

[Charles_Main]

Romney seemed pretty confident that there is not a tax break when he used the "I dont know what you are talking about" line.

However, apparently Obama has been very busy "being president" doing things like deficit reduction planning; who to tax; who not to tax, etc......so I am sure he must know if there truly is a tax break as he asserted last night and many times during the campaign.

So either Romney is an idiot and wrong
or
Obama is a lair and knew what he was saying was wrong
or
Obama is not doing the things as president daily that he says he is "busy doing".

Which is it?

There is absolutely no specific Deduction or Credit for Specifically for shipping Jobs over seas. Just another Liberal Lie.

 

[Political Junky]

Just like any other expense.


You are a lying piece of shit, aren't you?

Once more a 'Conservative' defends the rich moving the factories to China. Then says what a bunch of moochers the people on unemployment are after the factory has been moved.

Liberals are the least likely demographic to buy an American made union worker product.

Liberals are more responsible for where products are made than anyone else.

Project much?


LOL

Link?

 

[Charles_Main]

Closing plants, opening plants and all related costs are just that - costs of doing business that are deductible.

Librards are lying as usual, and this is just one of several Lefty memes Romney destroyed last night.

No, one debate does not make the world go around. Obama is going to win by a HUGE landslide. This election will go down in history and the most lopsided election in our history.

get used to it

Or don't

A bit of hyperbole there. But the President will win a second term. Just too many lies in the promises and claims of the Romney-Ryan team.

Really what About Obama's Claims and Promises? He failed to live up to most of the ones he gave in 08, and now he is simply Promising more of the same.

Fools lol anyone who buys it, anyone who rewards failure with another term. Complete and total fools.

 

[SniperFire]

Once more a 'Conservative' defends the rich moving the factories to China. Then says what a bunch of moochers the people on unemployment are after the factory has been moved.

Liberals are the least likely demographic to buy an American made union worker product.

Liberals are more responsible for where products are made than anyone else.

Project much?


LOL

Link?

Sure, I have links.

Why would you doubt it?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Yes there is, it is Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

BTW, Obama tried to get rid of the deduction for business expenses for moving a company abroad, and the GOP, of course, blocked it.

Full Text of S. 3364: Bring Jobs Home Act - GovTrack.us

SEC. 3. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR OUTSOURCING EXPENSES.
(a) In General- Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

‘SEC. 280I. OUTSOURCING EXPENSES.
‘(a) In General- No deduction otherwise allowable under this chapter shall be allowed for any specified outsourcing expense.

‘(b) Specified Outsourcing Expense- For purposes of this section--

‘(1) IN GENERAL- The term ‘specified outsourcing expense’ means--

‘(A) any eligible expense paid or incurred by the taxpayer in connection with the elimination of any business unit of the taxpayer (or of any member of any expanded affiliated group in which the taxpayer is also a member) located within the United States, and

‘(B) any eligible expense paid or incurred by the taxpayer in connection with the establishment of any business unit of the taxpayer (or of any member of any expanded affiliated group in which the taxpayer is also a member) located outside the United States,

if such establishment constitutes the relocation of the business unit so eliminated. For purposes of the preceding sentence, a relocation shall not be treated as failing to occur merely because such elimination occurs in a different taxable year than such establishment.

‘(2) APPLICATION OF CERTAIN DEFINITIONS AND RULES-

‘(A) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this section, the terms ‘eligible expenses’, ‘business unit’, and ‘expanded affiliated group’ shall have the respective meanings given such terms by section 45S(b).

‘(B) OPERATING EXPENSES NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT- A rule similar to the rule of section 45S(b)(6) shall apply for purposes of this section.

‘(c) Special Rules-

‘(1) APPLICATION TO DEDUCTIONS FOR DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION- In the case of any portion of a specified outsourcing expense which is not deductible in the taxable year in which paid or incurred, such portion shall neither be chargeable to capital account nor amortizable.

‘(2) POSSESSIONS TREATED AS PART OF THE UNITED STATES- For purposes of this section, the term ‘United States’ shall be treated as including each possession of the United States (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands).

‘(d) Regulations- The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section, including regulations which provide (or create a rebuttable presumption) that certain establishments of business units outside the United States will be treated as relocations (based on timing or such other factors as the Secretary may provide) of business units eliminated within the United States.’.

(b) Limitation on Subpart F Income of Controlled Foreign Corporations Determined Without Regard to Specified Outsourcing Expenses- Subsection (c) of section 952 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘(4) EARNINGS AND PROFITS DETERMINED WITHOUT REGARD TO SPECIFIED OUTSOURCING EXPENSES- For purposes of this subsection, earnings and profits of any controlled foreign corporation shall be determined without regard to any specified outsourcing expense (as defined in section 280I(b)).’.

(c) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

‘Sec. 280I. Outsourcing expenses.’.

Let me get this straight, the part where it says "No deduction ... shall be allowable" actually means that deductions are allowed.

You couldn't get anything straight if you lay down on reinforced concrete under a steamroller. The part where it says "No deduction ... shall be allowable" actually means that the presently ALLOWED deductions will be repealed upon passage of the new bill.

And the Bring Jobs Home Act is a fantasy that fails to address the reasons that most companies leave America in the first place. It would not bring jobs home!

 

[Erand7899]

If you move a factory from Indiana to Alabama, you get a tax writeoff.

If you move that same factory from Indiana to China, you get the same tax writeoff.

It would not be difficult to take away the latter and keep the former.

.

So, once again Romney was lying. There is a tax break for moving a factory to China.

Yes, it would be very difficult to take away the latter. You have to get it through the House, and if the President is for it, the GOP controled House is going to be against it.

No, Romney was not lying, Obama was. The current tax code treats all moves the same. Democrats want to make an exception for plants that move overseas.

Establishing that exception would cost the US treasury billions of dollars in taxes, and would not solve any portion of jobs moving overseas. It is one of those cut off your nose to spite your face type of catering to the left wing nutjobs.

Some never seem to understand that when one country makes it tougher and tougher to do business in that country, business goes somewhere else. We now live in a world economic system, and countries have as much a need to compete for businesses as businesses have to compete for business.

 

[Salt Jones]

Let me get this straight, the part where it says "No deduction ... shall be allowable" actually means that deductions are allowed.

You couldn't get anything straight if you lay down on reinforced concrete under a steamroller. The part where it says "No deduction ... shall be allowable" actually means that the presently ALLOWED deductions will be repealed upon passage of the new bill.

And the Bring Jobs Home Act is a fantasy that fails to address the reasons that most companies leave America in the first place. It would not bring jobs home!

What are the reasons that most companies leave America in the first place?

 

[Salt Jones]

If you move a factory from Indiana to Alabama, you get a tax writeoff.

If you move that same factory from Indiana to China, you get the same tax writeoff.

It would not be difficult to take away the latter and keep the former.

.

So, once again Romney was lying. There is a tax break for moving a factory to China.

Yes, it would be very difficult to take away the latter. You have to get it through the House, and if the President is for it, the GOP controled House is going to be against it.

No, Romney was not lying, Obama was. The current tax code treats all moves the same. Democrats want to make an exception for plants that move overseas.

Establishing that exception would cost the US treasury billions of dollars in taxes, and would not solve any portion of jobs moving overseas. It is one of those cut off your nose to spite your face type of catering to the left wing nutjobs.

Some never seem to understand that when one country makes it tougher and tougher to do business in that country, business goes somewhere else. We now live in a world economic system, and countries have as much a need to compete for businesses as businesses have to compete for business.

Why are companies outsourcing jobs?

 

[Erand7899]

Yes there is, it is Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

.

Just like any other expense.


You are a lying piece of shit, aren't you?

Once more a 'Conservative' defends the rich moving the factories to China. Then says what a bunch of moochers the people on unemployment are after the factory has been moved.

Do you really believe that anyone moves a factory to China to get a tax break for moving expenses? They can get the same tax break by moving next door, and the commute is much shorter.

The fact is that Obama, and the Democrat party, has been lying to you, about some special tax break for moving a factory and jobs overseas. Romney called Obama on it, and Obama folded like a limp rag. Now, they are scrambling to find something that they can call a special tax break.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes there is, it is Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

BTW, Obama tried to get rid of the deduction for business expenses for moving a company abroad, and the GOP, of course, blocked it.

Full Text of S. 3364: Bring Jobs Home Act - GovTrack.us

SEC. 3. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR OUTSOURCING EXPENSES.
(a) In General- Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

‘SEC. 280I. OUTSOURCING EXPENSES.
‘(a) In General- No deduction otherwise allowable under this chapter shall be allowed for any specified outsourcing expense.

‘(b) Specified Outsourcing Expense- For purposes of this section--

‘(1) IN GENERAL- The term ‘specified outsourcing expense’ means--

‘(A) any eligible expense paid or incurred by the taxpayer in connection with the elimination of any business unit of the taxpayer (or of any member of any expanded affiliated group in which the taxpayer is also a member) located within the United States, and

‘(B) any eligible expense paid or incurred by the taxpayer in connection with the establishment of any business unit of the taxpayer (or of any member of any expanded affiliated group in which the taxpayer is also a member) located outside the United States,

if such establishment constitutes the relocation of the business unit so eliminated. For purposes of the preceding sentence, a relocation shall not be treated as failing to occur merely because such elimination occurs in a different taxable year than such establishment.

‘(2) APPLICATION OF CERTAIN DEFINITIONS AND RULES-

‘(A) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this section, the terms ‘eligible expenses’, ‘business unit’, and ‘expanded affiliated group’ shall have the respective meanings given such terms by section 45S(b).

‘(B) OPERATING EXPENSES NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT- A rule similar to the rule of section 45S(b)(6) shall apply for purposes of this section.

‘(c) Special Rules-

‘(1) APPLICATION TO DEDUCTIONS FOR DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION- In the case of any portion of a specified outsourcing expense which is not deductible in the taxable year in which paid or incurred, such portion shall neither be chargeable to capital account nor amortizable.

‘(2) POSSESSIONS TREATED AS PART OF THE UNITED STATES- For purposes of this section, the term ‘United States’ shall be treated as including each possession of the United States (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands).

‘(d) Regulations- The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section, including regulations which provide (or create a rebuttable presumption) that certain establishments of business units outside the United States will be treated as relocations (based on timing or such other factors as the Secretary may provide) of business units eliminated within the United States.’.

(b) Limitation on Subpart F Income of Controlled Foreign Corporations Determined Without Regard to Specified Outsourcing Expenses- Subsection (c) of section 952 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘(4) EARNINGS AND PROFITS DETERMINED WITHOUT REGARD TO SPECIFIED OUTSOURCING EXPENSES- For purposes of this subsection, earnings and profits of any controlled foreign corporation shall be determined without regard to any specified outsourcing expense (as defined in section 280I(b)).’.

(c) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

‘Sec. 280I. Outsourcing expenses.’.

Let me get this straight, the part where it says "No deduction ... shall be allowable" actually means that deductions are allowed.

You couldn't get anything straight if you lay down on reinforced concrete under a steamroller. The part where it says "No deduction ... shall be allowable" actually means that the presently ALLOWED deductions will be repealed upon passage of the new bill.

Does that mean that if a business closes down because it is broke, and five years later it reopens in Mexico they will have to pay taxes on the new jobs?

 

[edthecynic]

Let me get this straight, the part where it says "No deduction ... shall be allowable" actually means that deductions are allowed.

You couldn't get anything straight if you lay down on reinforced concrete under a steamroller. The part where it says "No deduction ... shall be allowable" actually means that the presently ALLOWED deductions will be repealed upon passage of the new bill.

Does that mean that if a business closes down because it is broke, and five years later it reopens in Mexico they will have to pay taxes on the new jobs?

how does that make you any less of a dumb assed bullshit artist?

 

[Zander]

The short answer is NO. There are no "tax breaks" for moving jobs overseas. Obama lied.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Yes there is, it is Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

BTW, Obama tried to get rid of the deduction for business expenses for moving a company abroad, and the GOP, of course, blocked it.

Full Text of S. 3364: Bring Jobs Home Act - GovTrack.us

SEC. 3. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR OUTSOURCING EXPENSES.
(a) In General- Part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

‘SEC. 280I. OUTSOURCING EXPENSES.
‘(a) In General- No deduction otherwise allowable under this chapter shall be allowed for any specified outsourcing expense.

‘(b) Specified Outsourcing Expense- For purposes of this section--

‘(1) IN GENERAL- The term ‘specified outsourcing expense’ means--

‘(A) any eligible expense paid or incurred by the taxpayer in connection with the elimination of any business unit of the taxpayer (or of any member of any expanded affiliated group in which the taxpayer is also a member) located within the United States, and

‘(B) any eligible expense paid or incurred by the taxpayer in connection with the establishment of any business unit of the taxpayer (or of any member of any expanded affiliated group in which the taxpayer is also a member) located outside the United States,

if such establishment constitutes the relocation of the business unit so eliminated. For purposes of the preceding sentence, a relocation shall not be treated as failing to occur merely because such elimination occurs in a different taxable year than such establishment.

‘(2) APPLICATION OF CERTAIN DEFINITIONS AND RULES-

‘(A) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this section, the terms ‘eligible expenses’, ‘business unit’, and ‘expanded affiliated group’ shall have the respective meanings given such terms by section 45S(b).

‘(B) OPERATING EXPENSES NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT- A rule similar to the rule of section 45S(b)(6) shall apply for purposes of this section.

‘(c) Special Rules-

‘(1) APPLICATION TO DEDUCTIONS FOR DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION- In the case of any portion of a specified outsourcing expense which is not deductible in the taxable year in which paid or incurred, such portion shall neither be chargeable to capital account nor amortizable.

‘(2) POSSESSIONS TREATED AS PART OF THE UNITED STATES- For purposes of this section, the term ‘United States’ shall be treated as including each possession of the United States (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands).

‘(d) Regulations- The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section, including regulations which provide (or create a rebuttable presumption) that certain establishments of business units outside the United States will be treated as relocations (based on timing or such other factors as the Secretary may provide) of business units eliminated within the United States.’.

(b) Limitation on Subpart F Income of Controlled Foreign Corporations Determined Without Regard to Specified Outsourcing Expenses- Subsection (c) of section 952 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘(4) EARNINGS AND PROFITS DETERMINED WITHOUT REGARD TO SPECIFIED OUTSOURCING EXPENSES- For purposes of this subsection, earnings and profits of any controlled foreign corporation shall be determined without regard to any specified outsourcing expense (as defined in section 280I(b)).’.

(c) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for part IX of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

‘Sec. 280I. Outsourcing expenses.’.

So was this around during Obama's first 2 years, why was this not closed?

It was killed. Because of stupid, bipartisan politics in the Senate it fell four votes short. There were other things in the bill that they could not reach an agreement on.

There is this thing called legislation that the president isn't solely responsible for....

Yeah I get that, but for 2 years the democrats had total control

 

[buckeye45_73]

So, once again Romney was lying. There is a tax break for moving a factory to China.

Yes, it would be very difficult to take away the latter. You have to get it through the House, and if the President is for it, the GOP controled House is going to be against it.

No, Romney was not lying, Obama was. The current tax code treats all moves the same. Democrats want to make an exception for plants that move overseas.

Establishing that exception would cost the US treasury billions of dollars in taxes, and would not solve any portion of jobs moving overseas. It is one of those cut off your nose to spite your face type of catering to the left wing nutjobs.

Some never seem to understand that when one country makes it tougher and tougher to do business in that country, business goes somewhere else. We now live in a world economic system, and countries have as much a need to compete for businesses as businesses have to compete for business.

Why are companies outsourcing jobs?

Becasue it's too expensive to have them here with the regulation and taxes......hence they should be lowered....Ever wander why you dont see stuff from the "educated" and well to do Europeans? Because it costs a TON to make stuff there, and we're heading in that direction......YAY
Cant wait for the 8 week vacations, 20 hour workweeks, $100/hour min wage, have my condemns paid by the healthcare law, maybe even my booze at some point

sounds like a party, but it costs and that's what liberals want, not to mention making rules for non descrimination, like hey it's unfair blind people cant drive, we require you to hire them just because we dont want to descriminate (yes liberals are so stupid they would agree with this)

 

[Zander]

So was this around during Obama's first 2 years, why was this not closed?

It was killed. Because of stupid, bipartisan politics in the Senate it fell four votes short. There were other things in the bill that they could not reach an agreement on.

There is this thing called legislation that the president isn't solely responsible for....

Yeah I get that, but for 2 years the democrats had total control

Team Doh!bama was too busy ramming Obamacare down out throats.....