Exxon/Mobil Paid No Federal Income Tax in 2009

[boedicca]

We'd also have to renegotiate all of the tax treaties the Feds have negotiated with other countries around the world. If we start taxing foreign based income - don't be surprised if they want to retaliate by taxing the income from their domestic companies which is earned in the U.S.

The net result could be a loss of tax revenue for the U.S.

 

[drsmith1072]

do you take every deduction you are entitled to?
If not you are an unpatriotic American just trying to swindle the system.
At least on your view.
Yes, they exploit every loophole to avoid paying taxes. So do I. So does every business owner I know.
But since my taxes are in the thousands rather than in the hundreds of millions/billions like Exxon I am more limited in the steps I can take to avoid the liability.

The gov't could easily close every "loophole" but in the process will create more. And if they make it too simple many accountants will be out of business.

WOW so now out of sheer desperation and dishoensty you are actually trying to rationalize and to equate taking every tax deduction I qualify for to companies doing everything they can including creating shell companies to hide income to avoid paying taxes on that income.

How is taking deductions equivalent to hiding income to keep it from being taxed?? Funny I thought republicans/righties were against tax evasion?? LOL

Please.
If companies are hiding money, then they need to be prosecuted. Please post lists of actions against companies for doing what they are doing.
There are none. They are doing nothing illegal, therefore no prosecutions. Is it illegal to create shell companies? Is it illegal to shelter income offshore?
No, there is nothing illegal about it. So comparing one way of doing business to assure minimum tax liability to another way to insure minimum tax liability seems like a pretty good comparison to me.

Where did I say that they committed a crime?? I clearly said I didn't like what they were doing to avoid paying taxes on income and your repsonse was to dishonestly try to compare deductions to hiding income to keep it from being taxed.
The only real comparison between the two is that both reduce the amount of money paid to the government on income. You take one attribute that makes them similar and try to claim that they are the same.
Your dishonest comparision is like saying that a fish and a sub are the same because they both travel through the water.

 

[boedicca]

Do you pay more taxes than what you calculate you owe?

 

[drsmith1072]

We'd also have to renegotiate all of the tax treaties the Feds have negotiated with other countries around the world. If we start taxing foreign based income - don't be surprised if they want to retaliate by taxing the income from their domestic companies which is earned in the U.S.

The net result could be a loss of tax revenue for the U.S.

Has anyone in this thread suggested that we start taxing foreign based income??

Your post seems like yet another in a long line of strawmen arguments.

 

[The Rabbi]

WOW so now out of sheer desperation and dishoensty you are actually trying to rationalize and to equate taking every tax deduction I qualify for to companies doing everything they can including creating shell companies to hide income to avoid paying taxes on that income.

How is taking deductions equivalent to hiding income to keep it from being taxed?? Funny I thought republicans/righties were against tax evasion?? LOL

Please.
If companies are hiding money, then they need to be prosecuted. Please post lists of actions against companies for doing what they are doing.
There are none. They are doing nothing illegal, therefore no prosecutions. Is it illegal to create shell companies? Is it illegal to shelter income offshore?
No, there is nothing illegal about it. So comparing one way of doing business to assure minimum tax liability to another way to insure minimum tax liability seems like a pretty good comparison to me.

Where did I say that they committed a crime?? I clearly said I didn't like what they were doing to avoid paying taxes on income and your repsonse was to dishonestly try to compare deductions to hiding income to keep it from being taxed.
The only real comparison between the two is that both reduce the amount of money paid to the government on income. You take one attribute that makes them similar and try to claim that they are the same.
Your dishonest comparision is like saying that a fish and a sub are the same because they both travel through the water.

OK. So they are committing no crimes. They are minimizing their tax liability like every other corporation and individual on earth.
What is your problem with all this again?

 

[Immanuel]

Really? Do you happen to have any specifics on the numbers for the "tax burden Congress put on these corporations."?

Is it really as high and imposing as you are implying?

BTW what are they purchasing in "the bahamas and elsewhere"?

If you can't read, why should I bother replying to you?

It is clear as the wart on your nose, what they are "buying" from The Bahamas and elsewhere. They are "buying" the right to do business in a nation that does not tax them or burden them with what they believe to be unnecessary regulations.

As for specifics, you will have to ask them why they chose to go elsewhere. Since you do not understand that "cheaper" is sometimes better, I doubt you will be able to figure out their response.

Immie

So you still have NO specifics and you try to attack me personally to make up for your lack of info. LOL

YOU made a claim about the tax burden applied to these companies by congress so I asked YOU for specifics to back up YOUR argument and YOU failed to provide any. That has nothing to do with me but it sure says a lot about YOU. '

Actually, the facts are right in front of your face. The fact that you have a reading comprehension problem is not my fault.

You will have to ask the various companies why they have chosen to go to foreign countries, but you will find that most of them will tell you that they found better deals in those other countries. Specifics vary from company to company so for you to ask me to pick out one particular specific is impossible. It may be, tax consequences, it may be the cost of labor (which is influenced by personal tax rates and employment laws) or any slew of reasons many if not all flowing back to U.S. Tax Rates and Employment Laws.

Immie

 

[drsmith1072]

Please.
If companies are hiding money, then they need to be prosecuted. Please post lists of actions against companies for doing what they are doing.
There are none. They are doing nothing illegal, therefore no prosecutions. Is it illegal to create shell companies? Is it illegal to shelter income offshore?
No, there is nothing illegal about it. So comparing one way of doing business to assure minimum tax liability to another way to insure minimum tax liability seems like a pretty good comparison to me.

Where did I say that they committed a crime?? I clearly said I didn't like what they were doing to avoid paying taxes on income and your repsonse was to dishonestly try to compare deductions to hiding income to keep it from being taxed.
The only real comparison between the two is that both reduce the amount of money paid to the government on income. You take one attribute that makes them similar and try to claim that they are the same.
Your dishonest comparision is like saying that a fish and a sub are the same because they both travel through the water.

OK. So they are committing no crimes. They are minimizing their tax liability like every other corporation and individual on earth.
What is your problem with all this again?

Thanks AGAIN for the dishonesty as you try to equate taking deductions to hiding income to keep it from being taxed.

If you want to know my problem with it is, then I suggest you take Immanuels advice uncessarily given to me and LEARN TO READ.

Everything is in my posts it's not my fault that you cherry pick and select what you want to read and ignore antything else that doesn't suit your spin.

 

[drsmith1072]

If you can't read, why should I bother replying to you?

It is clear as the wart on your nose, what they are "buying" from The Bahamas and elsewhere. They are "buying" the right to do business in a nation that does not tax them or burden them with what they believe to be unnecessary regulations.

As for specifics, you will have to ask them why they chose to go elsewhere. Since you do not understand that "cheaper" is sometimes better, I doubt you will be able to figure out their response.

Immie

So you still have NO specifics and you try to attack me personally to make up for your lack of info. LOL

YOU made a claim about the tax burden applied to these companies by congress so I asked YOU for specifics to back up YOUR argument and YOU failed to provide any. That has nothing to do with me but it sure says a lot about YOU. '

Actually, the facts are right in front of your face. The fact that you have a reading comprehension problem is not my fault.

You will have to ask the various companies why they have chosen to go to foreign countries, but you will find that most of them will tell you that they found better deals in those other countries. Specifics vary from company to company so for you to ask me to pick out one particular specific is impossible. It may be, tax consequences, it may be the cost of labor (which is influenced by personal tax rates and employment laws) or any slew of reasons many if not all flowing back to U.S. Tax Rates and Employment Laws.

Immie

How typical. I asked YOU about YOUR statement and YOU failed to substantiate it once again. Thanks for the spin and avoidance, AGAIN, however if YOU can't prove YOUR claim then the honest thing for YOU to do would be to admit that rather than avoiding it as YOU try to send me out to do YOUR work for YOU.

It's really simple, YOU made the claim prove it. Put up or shut up.

 

[Nonelitist]

In other news....

President Obama appoints several tax cheats to his cabinet. Most notably, Tim Geitner... a tax cheat... is appointed to the head of the IRS.

 

[The Rabbi]

Where did I say that they committed a crime?? I clearly said I didn't like what they were doing to avoid paying taxes on income and your repsonse was to dishonestly try to compare deductions to hiding income to keep it from being taxed.
The only real comparison between the two is that both reduce the amount of money paid to the government on income. You take one attribute that makes them similar and try to claim that they are the same.
Your dishonest comparision is like saying that a fish and a sub are the same because they both travel through the water.

OK. So they are committing no crimes. They are minimizing their tax liability like every other corporation and individual on earth.
What is your problem with all this again?

Thanks AGAIN for the dishonesty as you try to equate taking deductions to hiding income to keep it from being taxed.

If you want to know my problem with it is, then I suggest you take Immanuels advice uncessarily given to me and LEARN TO READ.

Everything is in my posts it's not my fault that you cherry pick and select what you want to read and ignore antything else that doesn't suit your spin.

How is anyone "hiding income"?? Hiding income is illegal. You've already admitted they are doing nothing illegal.

Let's step back here. A company has a fiduciary duty (and that's a technical legal term--look it up) to its shareholders. It does not have a fiduciary duty to its employees. And it damn sure does not have fiduciary duty to the U.S. government. The company would be in violation of that duty if it did not employ every legal method to minimize its tax liability.
So you admit there is nothing illegal going on here. And yet you won't state what exactly your problem with the practice is. I'd say you're the one cherry picking.

 

[FrankieGA]

C'mon Rabbi, You know you are just speaking logic with him and he cannot comprehend it. I am with an earlier post... When is the last time, ANYONE, in this board has paid more taxes than what he was Legally Obligated to pay?

 

[The Rabbi]

C'mon Rabbi, You know you are just speaking logic with him and he cannot comprehend it. I am with an earlier post... When is the last time, ANYONE, in this board has paid more taxes than what he was Legally Obligated to pay?

The issue is that many people feel "corporate profits" are dirty things. The truth is that all good things flow out of corporate profits. Employees are hired. Taxes get paid. Research is done. New products are developed. Prices get cut, etc etc.
But to people who think that companies making money is prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, none of that matters. They must be doing SOMETHING wrong, for gosh sakes. The truth is the opposite: if they are making lots of money then they are doing something right.

 

[drsmith1072]

OK. So they are committing no crimes. They are minimizing their tax liability like every other corporation and individual on earth.
What is your problem with all this again?

Thanks AGAIN for the dishonesty as you try to equate taking deductions to hiding income to keep it from being taxed.

If you want to know my problem with it is, then I suggest you take Immanuels advice uncessarily given to me and LEARN TO READ.

Everything is in my posts it's not my fault that you cherry pick and select what you want to read and ignore antything else that doesn't suit your spin.

How is anyone "hiding income"?? Hiding income is illegal. You've already admitted they are doing nothing illegal.

Let's step back here. A company has a fiduciary duty (and that's a technical legal term--look it up) to its shareholders. It does not have a fiduciary duty to its employees. And it damn sure does not have fiduciary duty to the U.S. government. The company would be in violation of that duty if it did not employ every legal method to minimize its tax liability.
So you admit there is nothing illegal going on here. And yet you won't state what exactly your problem with the practice is. I'd say you're the one cherry picking.

OMG are you retarded?? I have already said that it's not illegal but that I don't like the process of them hiding money in shell companies and other such means.

this is from the article link to by the OP.

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi.

Maybe you choose not to like my terminology but are you actually trying to claim that they do not do this?? I have already clearly stated what my problem is and that it is my belief that if they wish to engage in these type of activities then they should not receive the benefits granted to American companies such as corporate welfare and leasing of rights for oil or minerals. Why is it so hard for you to understand something that is written in plain english?

 

[FrankieGA]

Thanks AGAIN for the dishonesty as you try to equate taking deductions to hiding income to keep it from being taxed.

If you want to know my problem with it is, then I suggest you take Immanuels advice uncessarily given to me and LEARN TO READ.

Everything is in my posts it's not my fault that you cherry pick and select what you want to read and ignore antything else that doesn't suit your spin.

How is anyone "hiding income"?? Hiding income is illegal. You've already admitted they are doing nothing illegal.

Let's step back here. A company has a fiduciary duty (and that's a technical legal term--look it up) to its shareholders. It does not have a fiduciary duty to its employees. And it damn sure does not have fiduciary duty to the U.S. government. The company would be in violation of that duty if it did not employ every legal method to minimize its tax liability.
So you admit there is nothing illegal going on here. And yet you won't state what exactly your problem with the practice is. I'd say you're the one cherry picking.

OMG are you retarded?? I have already said that it's not illegal but that I don't like the process of them hiding money in shell companies and other such means.

this is from the article link to by the OP.

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi.

Maybe you choose not to like my terminology but are you actually trying to claim that they do not do this?? I have already clearly stated what my problem is and that it is my belief that if they wish to engage in these type of activities then they should not receive the benefits granted to American companies such as corporate welfare and leasing of rights for oil or minerals. Why is it so hard for you to understand something that is written in plain english?

Here let me give it a try...

"Let's step back here. A company has a fiduciary duty (and that's a technical legal term--look it up) to its shareholders. It does not have a fiduciary duty to its employees. And it damn sure does not have fiduciary duty to the U.S. government. The company would be in violation of that duty if it did not employ every legal method to minimize its tax liability.
So you admit there is nothing illegal going on here. And yet you won't state what exactly your problem with the practice is. I'd say you're the one cherry picking."

They are doing nothing ILLEGAL!!
So whats your problem with it? That a company is making a profit for something that you have to buy?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

They are doing nothing ILLEGAL!!
So whats your problem with it? That a company is making a profit for something that you have to buy?

Last I checked, shell companies ARE illegal for tax-hiding purposes.

 

[drsmith1072]

C'mon Rabbi, You know you are just speaking logic with him and he cannot comprehend it. I am with an earlier post... When is the last time, ANYONE, in this board has paid more taxes than what he was Legally Obligated to pay?

The issue is that many people feel "corporate profits" are dirty things. The truth is that all good things flow out of corporate profits. Employees are hired. Taxes get paid. Research is done. New products are developed. Prices get cut, etc etc.
But to people who think that companies making money is prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, none of that matters. They must be doing SOMETHING wrong, for gosh sakes. The truth is the opposite: if they are making lots of money then they are doing something right.

#1. no they are not dirty unless you do something less than honest or ethical (even if it is legal) to attain them.

#2. employees are hired? in which country?? the one with the subsidiary that is meant to avoid income being taxed?? How does that benefit the US??

#3 and #4. Research is done and new products are developed? With a lot of ferderal subsidies that the companies gladly take and yet when it comes to paying taxes on income gained through research and new products these companies do everything they can to avoid paying taxes on the income.

#5. Prices get cut?? Do you actually believe that a company will cut prices on a product if their production costs drop or will they retain the same prices to maximize profits and fulfuil their feduciary duty (and that's a technical legal term--look it up) to their shareholders.

#6. again you try to insert a strawman into the debate instead of debating what was actually said all so you can dishoenstly try to demonize someone that you disagree with. At no point did i say that making profit is proof of wrongdoing and in fact i explained my position many times. however you apparently believe that ignoring my statement and instead making up your own so you can dishonestly atrtibute them to me serves your purposes so you stick with being dishonest.

AGAIN, the point I am making and have stated repeatedly is that if they believe that they have no duty to the country in which they are based and which funds them with corporate welfare and other funding then perhaps the US needs to re-evaluate the relationship with them and give these benefits to other companies that would better represent America's needs.

 

[drsmith1072]

How is anyone "hiding income"?? Hiding income is illegal. You've already admitted they are doing nothing illegal.

Let's step back here. A company has a fiduciary duty (and that's a technical legal term--look it up) to its shareholders. It does not have a fiduciary duty to its employees. And it damn sure does not have fiduciary duty to the U.S. government. The company would be in violation of that duty if it did not employ every legal method to minimize its tax liability.
So you admit there is nothing illegal going on here. And yet you won't state what exactly your problem with the practice is. I'd say you're the one cherry picking.

OMG are you retarded?? I have already said that it's not illegal but that I don't like the process of them hiding money in shell companies and other such means.

this is from the article link to by the OP.

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi.

Maybe you choose not to like my terminology but are you actually trying to claim that they do not do this?? I have already clearly stated what my problem is and that it is my belief that if they wish to engage in these type of activities then they should not receive the benefits granted to American companies such as corporate welfare and leasing of rights for oil or minerals. Why is it so hard for you to understand something that is written in plain english?

Here let me give it a try...

"Let's step back here. A company has a fiduciary duty (and that's a technical legal term--look it up) to its shareholders. It does not have a fiduciary duty to its employees. And it damn sure does not have fiduciary duty to the U.S. government. The company would be in violation of that duty if it did not employ every legal method to minimize its tax liability.
So you admit there is nothing illegal going on here. And yet you won't state what exactly your problem with the practice is. I'd say you're the one cherry picking."

They are doing nothing ILLEGAL!!
So whats your problem with it? That a company is making a profit for something that you have to buy?

WOW we have a parrot on the board. frankie want a cracker?

It was a BS avoidance attempt when he posted it so why do you honestly believe that you parroting the same BS will change anything?? LOL

BTW Do you have any thoughts of your own or is following another's lead word for word all you have to offer?

IF you had the ability to reason I would suggest that you READ my post and reply to what's in it where I explain my problem rather than parroting someone else's lame talking points.

 

[FrankieGA]

Why not just lessen the tax burden that these LARGE Corporations face to make it more enticing for them to operate out of this country, therefore leading to them bringing more of their assets and monies here to the US.If you reduced the tax rate to lets say 12% on business' that shelter money outside the US, wouldn't you assume as they bring the money here in the US we would collectively make more on it?

There is my FREE THOUGHT!!!

 

[drsmith1072]

Why not just lessen the tax burden that these LARGE Corporations face to make it more enticing for them to operate out of this country, therefore leading to them bringing more of their assets and monies here to the US.If you reduced the tax rate to lets say 12% on business' that shelter money outside the US, wouldn't you assume as they bring the money here in the US we would collectively make more on it?

There is my FREE THOUGHT!!!

You know I asked for specfics concerning this tax burden that these companies face and got none from the posters who made very similar claims earlier in this thread so I really don't expect any from you since you seem to be parroting AGAIN. However, i will give it a try.

What percentage, on average, are these LARGE corporations paying now and could you please provide something of substance to back it up. Thanks.

I also asked several other questions but since it's apparent that you don't read posts I am certain that you missed them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thanks AGAIN for the dishonesty as you try to equate taking deductions to hiding income to keep it from being taxed.

If you want to know my problem with it is, then I suggest you take Immanuels advice uncessarily given to me and LEARN TO READ.

Everything is in my posts it's not my fault that you cherry pick and select what you want to read and ignore antything else that doesn't suit your spin.

How is anyone "hiding income"?? Hiding income is illegal. You've already admitted they are doing nothing illegal.

Let's step back here. A company has a fiduciary duty (and that's a technical legal term--look it up) to its shareholders. It does not have a fiduciary duty to its employees. And it damn sure does not have fiduciary duty to the U.S. government. The company would be in violation of that duty if it did not employ every legal method to minimize its tax liability.
So you admit there is nothing illegal going on here. And yet you won't state what exactly your problem with the practice is. I'd say you're the one cherry picking.

OMG are you retarded?? I have already said that it's not illegal but that I don't like the process of them hiding money in shell companies and other such means.

this is from the article link to by the OP.

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi.

Maybe you choose not to like my terminology but are you actually trying to claim that they do not do this?? I have already clearly stated what my problem is and that it is my belief that if they wish to engage in these type of activities then they should not receive the benefits granted to American companies such as corporate welfare and leasing of rights for oil or minerals. Why is it so hard for you to understand something that is written in plain english?

Aha. I see. The issue is that you personally think they ought to just open their coffers to the U.S. government and let it all hang out.
As I pointed out, they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders not to do that. The fact that you are somehow personally offended by their perfectly legal activities is tough shit on you.
You have no arguments here, only feelings. Go off and feel someone's pain.