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

[Lakhota]

Senate Republicans prevent passage of the Bring Jobs Home Act to end tax breaks for corporations for outsourcing jobs overseas! | The Barefoot Accountant on Accounting, QuickBooks, Taxes, Money, and Politics

 

[JoeB131]

Excessive regulations aren't only impacting small businessmen and women. Major manufacturers like Richmond, Va.-based MeadWestvaco are facing a barrage of regulations from the EPA. The company's senior expert on environmental regulations testified before a congressional panel that, "The current wave of regulations is unsustainable. Living with such an uncertain regulatory environment not only costs current jobs, but also prevents new jobs from being created."

Companies that find it unprofitable to comply with regulations leave the country.

Then we make it even more unprofitable for them to move their factories.

Huge tariffs on imported goods AND mandetory big labels that say "Made in China" with a big commie Chinese flag on the product.

Now, I recently had to entertain a visitor from one of my companies branches in China. (Yes, unfortunately, I'm part of the same hypocrisy,and will have to attend that.) As we drove through Chicago, she was ABSOLUTELY amazed that Chicago was a big city that had clean air, and you could actually see the buildings from a distance.

So, yeah, I guess if you don't like having clean air and clean water, or making a decent wage, you should totally move your factories to China.

 

[zeke]

Maybe one of you rethugs could answer a simple question; why should any companies be allowed any deductions for moving a company to another country?

And if you don't think deductions are "tax breaks" wtf do you think they are?

When I write off my mortgage interest as a deduction, you think my taxes go up or down for the write off? Let me help. My taxes go down, thereby making the write off a "tax break".

See how simple that was.

 

[pinqy]

Obama wins this round.

Romney’s recently released tax returns made it clear that he and his accountant are quite familiar with navigating the tax code. Romney should know that the law currently allows a company that closes its American plant and moves manufacturing operations overseas to deduct that moving expense.

The New York Times says, “It is true.” Reuters writes that there really are “deductions allowed for a company if it closes its plant in the United States and moves it to another country.” The conservative Boston Herald declared it a “huge gaffe.” Even Fox News’s fact check admits, “Technically, companies can claim a deduction for the costs associated with moving jobs overseas.”

In fact, Senate Republicans recently blocked a Democratic bill that would have provided a tax credit to companies that move jobs back to the United States and ended a tax break for companies moving operations overseas.

Daily Kos: Fact Check: Tax Breaks for Shipping Jobs Overseas

The Electoral Map - Presidential Race Ratings and Swing States - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com

Fact or fiction in the U.S. presidential debate? | Reuters

Romney's huge gaffe last night - BostonHerald.com

There is NO tax break or deduction SPECIFICALLY for moving overseas. There is a deduction for moving expenses, and it does not exclude overseas moves.

It is dishonest to state that the deduction is for moving overseas. Obama is implying that the deduction is for the specific purpose of moving overseas....and that's untrue.

It's like saying "Convicted Felons on parole get a refund on their income taxes." Which is true, in that convicted felons are allowed tax refunds just like anyone else and those just released and on parole are most likely in the lower income and pay little to no taxes. But the statement in quotes implies that there's a specific tax exemption for felons on parole.

Same thing with the "deduction for moving overseas." It implies that there is a specific deduction for the specific purpose of overseas.

It is dishonest to imply that a general rule is meant to specifically apply to a sub group that is covered under the general rule and ignore all the other sub groups that it also applies to.

 

[Seawytch]

So it would seem, to answer the OPs question...yes, there is a tax credit for moving a business. You get the tax credit if you move your business anywhere. Okay...not sure why this is a tax credit, but whatever. The Democrats, it would appear, tried to introduce a bill that would take away the tax credit ONLY for companies moving out of the United States (seems perfectly reasonable), but the Republicans, in their infinite pursuit of a "one term President", decided to filibuster the legislation.

Lovely.

 

[Old Rocks]

Obama wins this round.

Romney’s recently released tax returns made it clear that he and his accountant are quite familiar with navigating the tax code. Romney should know that the law currently allows a company that closes its American plant and moves manufacturing operations overseas to deduct that moving expense.

The New York Times says, “It is true.” Reuters writes that there really are “deductions allowed for a company if it closes its plant in the United States and moves it to another country.” The conservative Boston Herald declared it a “huge gaffe.” Even Fox News’s fact check admits, “Technically, companies can claim a deduction for the costs associated with moving jobs overseas.”

In fact, Senate Republicans recently blocked a Democratic bill that would have provided a tax credit to companies that move jobs back to the United States and ended a tax break for companies moving operations overseas.

Daily Kos: Fact Check: Tax Breaks for Shipping Jobs Overseas

The Electoral Map - Presidential Race Ratings and Swing States - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com

Fact or fiction in the U.S. presidential debate? | Reuters

Romney's huge gaffe last night - BostonHerald.com

There is NO tax break or deduction SPECIFICALLY for moving overseas. There is a deduction for moving expenses, and it does not exclude overseas moves.

It is dishonest to state that the deduction is for moving overseas. Obama is implying that the deduction is for the specific purpose of moving overseas....and that's untrue.

It's like saying "Convicted Felons on parole get a refund on their income taxes." Which is true, in that convicted felons are allowed tax refunds just like anyone else and those just released and on parole are most likely in the lower income and pay little to no taxes. But the statement in quotes implies that there's a specific tax exemption for felons on parole.

Same thing with the "deduction for moving overseas." It implies that there is a specific deduction for the specific purpose of overseas.

It is dishonest to imply that a general rule is meant to specifically apply to a sub group that is covered under the general rule and ignore all the other sub groups that it also applies to.

Nice spin.

Simply, there is a tax break for moving your business. In country or out of the country. And Romney lied about that. For he has used that tax break frequently.

So, do we want a President that trys to eliminate a tax break for moving factories and jobs out of the nation, or do we want a President that has a record of using this tax break to move factories and jobs to China, then lies about it?

Seems to be a clear choice to me.

 

[Toro]

Obama wins this round.

Romney’s recently released tax returns made it clear that he and his accountant are quite familiar with navigating the tax code. Romney should know that the law currently allows a company that closes its American plant and moves manufacturing operations overseas to deduct that moving expense.

The New York Times says, “It is true.” Reuters writes that there really are “deductions allowed for a company if it closes its plant in the United States and moves it to another country.” The conservative Boston Herald declared it a “huge gaffe.” Even Fox News’s fact check admits, “Technically, companies can claim a deduction for the costs associated with moving jobs overseas.”

In fact, Senate Republicans recently blocked a Democratic bill that would have provided a tax credit to companies that move jobs back to the United States and ended a tax break for companies moving operations overseas.

Daily Kos: Fact Check: Tax Breaks for Shipping Jobs Overseas

The Electoral Map - Presidential Race Ratings and Swing States - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com

Fact or fiction in the U.S. presidential debate? | Reuters

Romney's huge gaffe last night - BostonHerald.com

There is NO tax break or deduction SPECIFICALLY for moving overseas. There is a deduction for moving expenses, and it does not exclude overseas moves.

It is dishonest to state that the deduction is for moving overseas. Obama is implying that the deduction is for the specific purpose of moving overseas....and that's untrue.

It's like saying "Convicted Felons on parole get a refund on their income taxes." Which is true, in that convicted felons are allowed tax refunds just like anyone else and those just released and on parole are most likely in the lower income and pay little to no taxes. But the statement in quotes implies that there's a specific tax exemption for felons on parole.

Same thing with the "deduction for moving overseas." It implies that there is a specific deduction for the specific purpose of overseas.

It is dishonest to imply that a general rule is meant to specifically apply to a sub group that is covered under the general rule and ignore all the other sub groups that it also applies to.

Exactly correct. Well said. It's intellectually dishonest.

 

[Jarhead]

Daily Kos: Fact Check: Tax Breaks for Shipping Jobs Overseas

The Electoral Map - Presidential Race Ratings and Swing States - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com

Fact or fiction in the U.S. presidential debate? | Reuters

Romney's huge gaffe last night - BostonHerald.com

There is NO tax break or deduction SPECIFICALLY for moving overseas. There is a deduction for moving expenses, and it does not exclude overseas moves.

It is dishonest to state that the deduction is for moving overseas. Obama is implying that the deduction is for the specific purpose of moving overseas....and that's untrue.

It's like saying "Convicted Felons on parole get a refund on their income taxes." Which is true, in that convicted felons are allowed tax refunds just like anyone else and those just released and on parole are most likely in the lower income and pay little to no taxes. But the statement in quotes implies that there's a specific tax exemption for felons on parole.

Same thing with the "deduction for moving overseas." It implies that there is a specific deduction for the specific purpose of overseas.

It is dishonest to imply that a general rule is meant to specifically apply to a sub group that is covered under the general rule and ignore all the other sub groups that it also applies to.

Nice spin.

Simply, there is a tax break for moving your business. In country or out of the country. And Romney lied about that. For he has used that tax break frequently.

So, do we want a President that trys to eliminate a tax break for moving factories and jobs out of the nation, or do we want a President that has a record of using this tax break to move factories and jobs to China, then lies about it?

Seems to be a clear choice to me.

an honest way to present your question...

Do we want a president who does not understand how operating costs are a write off..

or do we want a president who knows how to apply operating costs as a write off.

FYI...your whole post is a pile of shit.

 

[Old Rocks]

There is NO tax break or deduction SPECIFICALLY for moving overseas. There is a deduction for moving expenses, and it does not exclude overseas moves.

It is dishonest to state that the deduction is for moving overseas. Obama is implying that the deduction is for the specific purpose of moving overseas....and that's untrue.

It's like saying "Convicted Felons on parole get a refund on their income taxes." Which is true, in that convicted felons are allowed tax refunds just like anyone else and those just released and on parole are most likely in the lower income and pay little to no taxes. But the statement in quotes implies that there's a specific tax exemption for felons on parole.

Same thing with the "deduction for moving overseas." It implies that there is a specific deduction for the specific purpose of overseas.

It is dishonest to imply that a general rule is meant to specifically apply to a sub group that is covered under the general rule and ignore all the other sub groups that it also applies to.

Nice spin.

Simply, there is a tax break for moving your business. In country or out of the country. And Romney lied about that. For he has used that tax break frequently.

So, do we want a President that trys to eliminate a tax break for moving factories and jobs out of the nation, or do we want a President that has a record of using this tax break to move factories and jobs to China, then lies about it?

Seems to be a clear choice to me.

an honest way to present your question...

Do we want a president who does not understand how operating costs are a write off..

or do we want a president who knows how to apply operating costs as a write off.

FYI...your whole post is a pile of shit.

LOL. Call it operating cost, or anything you like. We, the taxpayer, are rewarding the people that ship our jobs overseas. And you are supporting that. As a middle class working American, I deeply resent your attitude toward me and my fellow working Americans.

We have a clear choice this election. Vote for somebody that will try to keep the jobs here, and make this country stronger and more wealthy, or vote for someone that only cares about making 1% of the nation more wealthy. Simple as that.

 

[Seawytch]

There is NO tax break or deduction SPECIFICALLY for moving overseas. There is a deduction for moving expenses, and it does not exclude overseas moves.

It is dishonest to state that the deduction is for moving overseas. Obama is implying that the deduction is for the specific purpose of moving overseas....and that's untrue.

It's like saying "Convicted Felons on parole get a refund on their income taxes." Which is true, in that convicted felons are allowed tax refunds just like anyone else and those just released and on parole are most likely in the lower income and pay little to no taxes. But the statement in quotes implies that there's a specific tax exemption for felons on parole.

Same thing with the "deduction for moving overseas." It implies that there is a specific deduction for the specific purpose of overseas.

It is dishonest to imply that a general rule is meant to specifically apply to a sub group that is covered under the general rule and ignore all the other sub groups that it also applies to.

Nice spin.

Simply, there is a tax break for moving your business. In country or out of the country. And Romney lied about that. For he has used that tax break frequently.

So, do we want a President that trys to eliminate a tax break for moving factories and jobs out of the nation, or do we want a President that has a record of using this tax break to move factories and jobs to China, then lies about it?

Seems to be a clear choice to me.

an honest way to present your question...

Do we want a president who does not understand how operating costs are a write off..

or do we want a president who knows how to apply operating costs as a write off.

FYI...your whole post is a pile of shit.

Now wait a minute...did the Democrats try and end this tax break altogether or just end it for companies wanting to move overseas? If the latter, what would you have against that?

 

[Old Rocks]

Nice spin.

Simply, there is a tax break for moving your business. In country or out of the country. And Romney lied about that. For he has used that tax break frequently.

So, do we want a President that trys to eliminate a tax break for moving factories and jobs out of the nation, or do we want a President that has a record of using this tax break to move factories and jobs to China, then lies about it?

Seems to be a clear choice to me.

an honest way to present your question...

Do we want a president who does not understand how operating costs are a write off..

or do we want a president who knows how to apply operating costs as a write off.

FYI...your whole post is a pile of shit.

Now wait a minute...did the Democrats try and end this tax break altogether or just end it for companies wanting to move overseas? If the latter, what would you have against that?

What they have against that is that it affects the very wealthy being able to stick to the taxpayer for their greed in moving the companies.

 

[Seawytch]

Well, lookie here:

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to:
(1) grant business taxpayers a tax credit for up to 20% of insourcing expenses incurred for eliminating a business located outside the United States and relocating it within the United States, and

(2) deny a tax deduction for outsourcing expenses incurred in relocating a U.S. business outside the United States. Requires an increase in the taxpayer's employment of full-time employees in the United States in order to claim the tax credit for insourcing expenses.

Bring Jobs Home Act

So it would have continued the credit for businesses moving within the US. Please, someone explain the RW opposition to this. Anyone?

 

[Zander]

Well, lookie here:

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to:
(1) grant business taxpayers a tax credit for up to 20% of insourcing expenses incurred for eliminating a business located outside the United States and relocating it within the United States, and

(2) deny a tax deduction for outsourcing expenses incurred in relocating a U.S. business outside the United States. Requires an increase in the taxpayer's employment of full-time employees in the United States in order to claim the tax credit for insourcing expenses.

Bring Jobs Home Act

So it would have continued the credit for businesses moving within the US. Please, someone explain the RW opposition to this. Anyone?

This bill never had a chance because your leader, Obama, doesn't have the skills required to shepherd legislation through Congress.

Sorry, but he's not a leader. That is his problem - no leadership.

Hell, this chump can't even muster a single vote for his own budget!

 

[Seawytch]

Well, lookie here:

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to:
(1) grant business taxpayers a tax credit for up to 20% of insourcing expenses incurred for eliminating a business located outside the United States and relocating it within the United States, and

(2) deny a tax deduction for outsourcing expenses incurred in relocating a U.S. business outside the United States. Requires an increase in the taxpayer's employment of full-time employees in the United States in order to claim the tax credit for insourcing expenses.

Bring Jobs Home Act

So it would have continued the credit for businesses moving within the US. Please, someone explain the RW opposition to this. Anyone?

This bill never had a chance because your leader, Obama, doesn't have the skills required to shepherd legislation through Congress.

Sorry, but he's not a leader. That is his problem - no leadership.

Hell, this chump can't even muster a single vote for his own budget!

That doesn't answer my question. What is the opposition to this bill?

 

[G.T.]

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.

what you quoted was the proposal that got shut down in congress to stop the deduction, not the code Ed was referring to.

 

[Katzndogz]

Excessive regulations aren't only impacting small businessmen and women. Major manufacturers like Richmond, Va.-based MeadWestvaco are facing a barrage of regulations from the EPA. The company's senior expert on environmental regulations testified before a congressional panel that, "The current wave of regulations is unsustainable. Living with such an uncertain regulatory environment not only costs current jobs, but also prevents new jobs from being created."

Companies that find it unprofitable to comply with regulations leave the country.

Then we make it even more unprofitable for them to move their factories.

Huge tariffs on imported goods AND mandetory big labels that say "Made in China" with a big commie Chinese flag on the product.

Now, I recently had to entertain a visitor from one of my companies branches in China. (Yes, unfortunately, I'm part of the same hypocrisy,and will have to attend that.) As we drove through Chicago, she was ABSOLUTELY amazed that Chicago was a big city that had clean air, and you could actually see the buildings from a distance.

So, yeah, I guess if you don't like having clean air and clean water, or making a decent wage, you should totally move your factories to China.

You don't understand how business works. When China decided to break the US steel industry the US slapped a hefty tariff on Chinese steel. China, being a totalitarian country, just increased subsidies to Chinese steel companies that kept the price down until our industry was devastated. When our industry is gone and the price of imported product is outrageous, there will be plenty of calls to end the tariffs. It's only a matter of time.

It's even worse now, because the US is just another country. The Chinese don't have to sell us anything. They can sell to India, Russia, any number of countries. In fact, as obama pumps 40 billion dollars of worthless money into the economy, our dollar won't be worth as much as an Indian rupee.

The answer is not to make imports unprofitable, it's to make American goods more profitable. With worthless money, crushing regulations and confiscatory taxation that's not going to happen. At least not with this royal regime.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yes you can get a tax break for moving your company. Regardless if you relocate outside the US.

 

[JoeB131]

You don't understand how business works. When China decided to break the US steel industry the US slapped a hefty tariff on Chinese steel. China, being a totalitarian country, just increased subsidies to Chinese steel companies that kept the price down until our industry was devastated. When our industry is gone and the price of imported product is outrageous, there will be plenty of calls to end the tariffs. It's only a matter of time.

It's even worse now, because the US is just another country. The Chinese don't have to sell us anything. They can sell to India, Russia, any number of countries. In fact, as obama pumps 40 billion dollars of worthless money into the economy, our dollar won't be worth as much as an Indian rupee.

The answer is not to make imports unprofitable, it's to make American goods more profitable. With worthless money, crushing regulations and confiscatory taxation that's not going to happen. At least not with this royal regime.

Hey, I noticed you skipped over the part where my Chinese associate marvelled at the fact we had clean air in this country.

Why don't we section off a little pice of the country, and exile all the asshole Conservatives, Christians and other people there. They can drink dirty water, breathe dirty air, work for shit wages and be as free as a bird. Until you all die of horrible diseases in an act of truly Darwinian justice.

We can easily tell the Chinese to screw themselves. We just refuse to because assholes are making money.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes you can get a tax break for moving your company. Regardless if you relocate outside the US.

Okay. Then change the law. Not tax break for moving your company at all.

Period.

Works for me. I mean, if you think that they can't tell the difference between an outside the country location and an inside the country location.

NO TAX BREAKS AT ALL.

And higher tariffs.

 

[asterism]

Prohibiting the deductibility of expenses for overseas moves would save $168 million from 2012-2022, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation's costs estimates for the Bring Jobs Home Act. That means the tax break only funnels about $15 million a year to U.S. companies.

Obama, Romney both right (sort of) in debate clash on outsourcing - latimes.com

As to the Senate bill that was blocked:

Republicans do not oppose the outsourcing measure outright, but prefer an overhaul of the tax code. The GOP blocked the bill Thursday largely because Democrats refused allow amendments, including one that is a top GOP priority – extending the George W. Bush-era individual income tax rates that expire at the end of the year, including those for wealthier Americans that Democrats want to let lapse.

Bill to curtail outsourcing blocked in Senate - latimes.com