Re: America's last hope.....

"michelle ronn" <completelyinvalid@xxxxxxxxx> stated in post
2007101420245875249-completelyinvalid@boguscom on 10/14/07 8:25 PM:

On 2007-10-14 17:25:37 -0700, Snit <CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

"michelle ronn" <completelyinvalid@xxxxxxxxx> stated in post
2007101416161775249-completelyinvalid@boguscom on 10/14/07 4:16 PM:

Please prove your case if you can. I am beginning to believe that you
cannot.

Keep in mind I gave a site with many companies listed and you are the one
who hand-picked MS to try to show I was wrong... so here is some more
sources for your hand-picked company:

I "hand picked" Microsoft because it was the first company on the list
of the link that you gave me.

Whatever the reason, *you* picked that company.

<http://www.billparish.com/20000418microsoftnotax.html>

This article claims that Microsoft paid no tax on its 1999 earnings
because it deferred 1999 earnings.

Here is a quote from your link:
"Based upon a review of SEC filings for the quarter ending 9/30/99, the
Microsoft Corporation no longer pays federal income tax on current
income. Taxes now paid are from prior years that were deferred into
the future. What this means is that someone cutting hair at Great
Clips for $10 per hour now pays more federal income tax than the
Microsoft Corporation."

You claim that this article shows that Microsoft pays no taxes.

I do? Where?

The article does not say that at all. I suggest you read it a few times. The
quote that I picked out makes it easier for you. I find the context of the
article to be a bit disengenuous. Deferring means that it will be paid later.
Not avoided.

Microsoft did pay taxes in 1999. It is in their annual report. The
second sentence from the quote that I pulled backs that statement up.
Also, Microsoft states that revenue from 1999 is deferred. That means
that they will 1) count the revenue at a later time, and 2) pay taxes
on that revenue at a later time.

Potentially.

<http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm>

I already tore this one up

Incorrect.

, so I don't see the need to do it again. you will notice that Microsoft is
the first company on the list, which is why I "hand picked" them.

<http://www.portlandtribune.com/opinion/story.php?story_id=9726>

Since you can't grasp basic tax concepts, I don't expect you to grasp
this. I will give it a shot anyway while my code compiles.

Back to your ad hominem. That says a lot about you.

Stock options used to be taxed at the time they were exercised, and not
granted. This follows along with the basic concept that if money is
accessible, it is subject to taxation. No sense taxing options if no
one can get the benefit from them. Options are tricky, because not all
the options granted ever get cashed. Accounting for them when they are
issued creates problems, as does accounting for them when they get
cashed. The accounting rules have now changed around this.

The references to Enron in the article are moot. Enron cheated, Enron
got caught.

A quote from the page:

-----
Microsoft, like Enron, now pays zero federal income tax, even
though Microsoft¹s earnings for the two years ending June
2001 exceeded $15 billion. This nonpayment of federal income
tax is indeed the largest source of Microsoft¹s massive $40
billion cash balance.
-----

Funny how you did not comment on that.

<http://billparish.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/inside-story-on-how-microsoft-go
t-googled/>

Again, what this author is not telling you is that taxes are being
deferred, and not avoided. There is a difference. Techincally, they do
not have to pay today. That does not mean that they do not have to pay
at all.

-----
When I first disclosed that Microsoft paid zero federal
income taxes in 1999, Gretchen Morgenson, a reporter at the
NY Times who went on to win a Pulitzer Prize doing stories
from my core research, laughed, saying that was ridiculous.
-----

and it links to this page in the NYT:

<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950CE1DD153EF930A25755C0A966
9C8B63>
-----
Microsoft and Cisco Systems, two of the nation's most
profitable companies, are well on their way to owing nothing
in federal income taxes on the money they have made so far
this year.
-----

<http://www.nader.org/template.php?/archives/1204-Tax-Haven-Racket.html>

This article is great, I would like to see some facts to back up these
accusations.
They leave out the fact that these local jurisdictions that house the
money, also tax the money. That is why they offer to do this.

Sure... taxed at a much lower rate and *not in America*.

The article references that Microsoft sells software in Ireland.
Microsoft has a subsidiary in Ireland. There is nothing illegal about
selling software in a foreign country, and keeping the revenue made in
that foreign country there. They sell to local companies, and pay local
taxes.

Who said the schemes were illegal? I have made it clear that in many cases
they are legal - which is to be expected with the loads of cash these
companies pay the government to get favorable laws passed for them... unless
you think they pay just to be good citizens. :)

It looks to me like the article is stating that Microsoft sells ALL its
software through Ireland in order to avoid US taxes. This is clearly
not the case, as demonstrated in Microsoft's annual report.

I would like to see proof of the claims from this article. Looks like
uncredible ravings to me.

Everything that you disagree with "looks" that way to you - but how things
"look" to you is not the question.

<http://www.vegsource.com/homeschool/issues/messages/7931.html>

This is a rehash of one of the other links you provided. nothing new to
add here...

Of course not. :)

<http://www.cbronline.com/article_cbr.asp?guid=EEA6042C-D3B9-4C4F-B347-5E8B2
E90E0BB >

Again, old news around the stock option controversy. The accounting
rules have changes, this is old news. It does nothing to prove your
case.

LOL!

<http://thekomisarscoop.com/2006/08/21/how-big-business-evades-taxes>


Where the info is not obvious from a glance please do a search for the word
"Microsoft" on the page.

Another article about the sins of Enron. It also states that Microsoft
paid no taxes in 1999. The link you showed above states that they paid
deferred taxes in 1999. The annual report properly states that
Microsoft did indeed pay taxes.

What they fail to mention about off shore accounts is that when the
money comes to the US, it is subject to US taxation.

There is nothing wrong with making money in a country, spending it in
that country, and subjecting it to that countries taxation.

Again, show me a credible source that states your case. I have given
you annual reports and IRS links that show otherwise.

Since *nobody* who disagrees with you is deemed credible in your eyes you
are asking for the impossible.

Maybe there is a vast left-wing conspiracy. :)

Just a few journalists that are sacrificing the truth to promote propoganda.

Ah, yes, of course. LOL!


--
Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Americas last hope.....
    ... Microsoft Corporation no longer pays federal income tax on current ... You claim that this article shows that Microsoft pays no taxes. ... The quote that I pulled from it clearly states that Microsoft did pay taxes. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Americas last hope.....
    ... "Based upon a review of SEC filings for the quarter ending 9/30/99, the Microsoft Corporation no longer pays federal income tax on current income. ... Taxes now paid are from prior years that were deferred into the future. ... Deferring means that it will be paid later. ... That means that they will 1) count the revenue at a later time, and 2) pay taxes on that revenue at a later time. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Americas last hope.....
    ... evidence that corporations do not pay the same level of taxes as you ... The article theme is that Microsoft paid zero taxes. ... anything in Microsofts Annual report for 1999. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Why welfare Democrap assholes are givig away stlen Money
    ... More Than 40% Pay Zero Federal Income Tax ... that do pay federal income taxes. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Salon article about Sarah Palin
    ... than $250,000 a year don't pay taxes? ... just flapping your gums? ... There are many people who make less that $250,000 a year that do not pay any ... pay any (federal income) taxes. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
Loading