I haven't done work for foreign clients outside the US, but I have been paid by foreign clients for work done in the US and for US clients for work done outside the US and in both cases I filled out IRS forms which absolved me of having to pay taxes to those countries because I was paying US taxes.
I am assuming you were filing as an individual, not a C-corp, and also as a US resident.
Google Ireland for example is not a US company, it is an Irish company that resides in Ireland (they just bought a large building in Dublin that will house up to 2000 workers of which they already employ 1700, but some will still try to argue it is really just a tax shelter). It has a US parent and the issues arise on the consolidation and the transfer of money between the operations.
A company can report substantial profits and pay far less than the book rate, nothing at all, and even have the government owe them money, because the tax code is full of special interest dodges and loopholes.
Did you know that accounting rules for taxes and accounting rules for book are very different? A company can report a book profit when they have cash losses and losses under IRS rules. Companies that have sustained domestic profits under IRS accounting pay federal income tax. Some pay less than others because of different tax breaks and incentives in our tax code, but I challenge you to find a company that had 10 years of domestic profits and paid no federal taxes over that span. The only way that happens is if they had prior operating losses that more than offset the future profits.
Did you know that accounting rules for taxes and accounting rules for book are very different? A company can report a book profit when they have cash losses and losses under IRS rules. Companies that have sustained domestic profits under IRS accounting pay federal income tax. Some pay less than others because of different tax breaks and incentives in our tax code, but I challenge you to find a company that had 10 years of domestic profits and paid no federal taxes over that span. The only way that happens is if they had prior operating losses that more than offset the future profits.
As I was saying. The tax code is full of perversities, which provide an incentive for companies to plan as much for taxes as for profits. I wasn't trying to suggest that a company could be profitable and pay no taxes over ten years, so your challenge is arbitrary. The point I made is the point I made. It's simple and direct. Don't keep trying to turn it into something else, just so you can find another reason to soapbox.
point I made is the point I made. It's simple and direct.
You listed several companies and said they paid no tax last year. I looked just one up and found that it paid no tax in 2009, but did pay tax in 2010. Your point was simply and directly in error.
You listed several companies and said they paid no tax last year. I looked just one up and found that it paid no tax in 2009, but did pay tax in 2010. Your point was simply and directly in error.
No, my point was entirely correct. You simply refuse to acknowledge it, even when you have shown that it was directly, simply, and plainly correct, just as you refuse to acknowledge or discuss any other point I have made. You are practiced at insults and avoidance, however. I will give you that.
This past year, ExxonMobil, Bank of America, and GE paid no federal income taxes, and they are hardly alone. Put that in your political pipe and smoke it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
No, my point was entirely correct. You simply refuse to acknowledge it, even when you have shown that it was directly, simply, and plainly correct, just as you refuse to acknowledge or discuss any other point I have made. You are practiced at insults and avoidance, however. I will give you that.
When did you show the above point was correct? As I pointed out at least one paid taxes this past year at least if you accept 2010 as this past year. You must be a lawyer like Bill Clinton with a different definition of "is" "past year" or "no".
What is your other point? The tax system is messed up? I said the same thing. Only a fool would say what we have is working well. That the statutory rate is not important? I highly disagree. Most US companies pay close to the statutory rate on average ON THEIR DOMESTIC PROFITS. You will see some disparities because of specific tax breaks passed by Congress, but the majority of the disparity is caused by the difference between book vs. tax accounting and the fact the most multinationals take steps to minimize, and or delay the double tax on offshore profits. The domestic profits are still taxed at the domestic rates and are rarely deferred. For a company like GE where the majority of its revenues and profits are offshore, the effective tax rate shown in the book numbers can stray quite far from the US statutory rate, but that does not mean the statutory rate is not the main driver of their tax on domestic operations. Experts from both sides of the aisle agree that the domestic statutory rate is too high, the high rate plus complex deducxtions reduces the tax revenue to the IRS, and the high rate is currently a drag on the economy. Lawyers, reporters, blog experts, and so forth with a political axe to grind may argue this but the experts from across the political spectrum don't. Yet you say I am the one who needs to put it in my political pipe and smoke it. I am the expert at insults and avoidance? I may be both but so are you. The difference is I actually know what I am talking about, and the experts from the Democratic President's debt commision to the Republican Cato institute to the Harvard Business school all agree with what I am saying. I have yet to hear someone who knows what they are talking about argue that the "book rate" is not meaningful.
Probably very few. Do you think Australia does not benefit from the general peacekeeping that the USA does around the world? Who do you think makes all the military hardware that most western countries (in geography and philosophy) use? As another poster pointed out, the USA provides soldiers who are dying and being injured around the world in peacekeeping efforts that the rest of the world is not willing to participate in.
Again, you're welcome.
Australian soldiers are dying alongside American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, Australia is and has been participating, we participated in Vietnam and Korea, Australia is probably America's staunchest ally in peace keeping efforts.
Did Australia ask us to send troops to those places? Do peace keeping missions make the world safer for Australia or more dangerous?
The Aussies should thank the US Marines who stopped the Japanese advance at Guadacanal, and they did, but I am not sure they owe us a darn thing for any of our current deployments against threats that were not threatening Australia. On the flip side, we should be thanking them for being one of the few allies to send troops and support for our wars in Afganistan and Iraq.
I just read this whole thread and this is your only post that I agree with! And for God's sake man, turn on spelling auto-correct.
They're not trying to avoid taxes altogether, they're trying to bring their money from foreign banks into U.S. banks without being penalized; otherwise, it would be more profitable to keep the money where it is.
I think it's fine as long as we get the holiday too. I'd like to take my $ home without penalty too you know. (not that I have any $ offshore ).
Comments
I'd have to look into this.
I haven't done work for foreign clients outside the US, but I have been paid by foreign clients for work done in the US and for US clients for work done outside the US and in both cases I filled out IRS forms which absolved me of having to pay taxes to those countries because I was paying US taxes.
I am assuming you were filing as an individual, not a C-corp, and also as a US resident.
Google Ireland for example is not a US company, it is an Irish company that resides in Ireland (they just bought a large building in Dublin that will house up to 2000 workers of which they already employ 1700, but some will still try to argue it is really just a tax shelter). It has a US parent and the issues arise on the consolidation and the transfer of money between the operations.
A company can report substantial profits and pay far less than the book rate, nothing at all, and even have the government owe them money, because the tax code is full of special interest dodges and loopholes.
Did you know that accounting rules for taxes and accounting rules for book are very different? A company can report a book profit when they have cash losses and losses under IRS rules. Companies that have sustained domestic profits under IRS accounting pay federal income tax. Some pay less than others because of different tax breaks and incentives in our tax code, but I challenge you to find a company that had 10 years of domestic profits and paid no federal taxes over that span. The only way that happens is if they had prior operating losses that more than offset the future profits.
Did you know that accounting rules for taxes and accounting rules for book are very different? A company can report a book profit when they have cash losses and losses under IRS rules. Companies that have sustained domestic profits under IRS accounting pay federal income tax. Some pay less than others because of different tax breaks and incentives in our tax code, but I challenge you to find a company that had 10 years of domestic profits and paid no federal taxes over that span. The only way that happens is if they had prior operating losses that more than offset the future profits.
As I was saying. The tax code is full of perversities, which provide an incentive for companies to plan as much for taxes as for profits. I wasn't trying to suggest that a company could be profitable and pay no taxes over ten years, so your challenge is arbitrary. The point I made is the point I made. It's simple and direct. Don't keep trying to turn it into something else, just so you can find another reason to soapbox.
point I made is the point I made. It's simple and direct.
You listed several companies and said they paid no tax last year. I looked just one up and found that it paid no tax in 2009, but did pay tax in 2010. Your point was simply and directly in error.
You listed several companies and said they paid no tax last year. I looked just one up and found that it paid no tax in 2009, but did pay tax in 2010. Your point was simply and directly in error.
No, my point was entirely correct. You simply refuse to acknowledge it, even when you have shown that it was directly, simply, and plainly correct, just as you refuse to acknowledge or discuss any other point I have made. You are practiced at insults and avoidance, however. I will give you that.
This past year, ExxonMobil, Bank of America, and GE paid no federal income taxes, and they are hardly alone. Put that in your political pipe and smoke it.
No, my point was entirely correct. You simply refuse to acknowledge it, even when you have shown that it was directly, simply, and plainly correct, just as you refuse to acknowledge or discuss any other point I have made. You are practiced at insults and avoidance, however. I will give you that.
When did you show the above point was correct? As I pointed out at least one paid taxes this past year at least if you accept 2010 as this past year. You must be a lawyer like Bill Clinton with a different definition of "is" "past year" or "no".
What is your other point? The tax system is messed up? I said the same thing. Only a fool would say what we have is working well. That the statutory rate is not important? I highly disagree. Most US companies pay close to the statutory rate on average ON THEIR DOMESTIC PROFITS. You will see some disparities because of specific tax breaks passed by Congress, but the majority of the disparity is caused by the difference between book vs. tax accounting and the fact the most multinationals take steps to minimize, and or delay the double tax on offshore profits. The domestic profits are still taxed at the domestic rates and are rarely deferred. For a company like GE where the majority of its revenues and profits are offshore, the effective tax rate shown in the book numbers can stray quite far from the US statutory rate, but that does not mean the statutory rate is not the main driver of their tax on domestic operations. Experts from both sides of the aisle agree that the domestic statutory rate is too high, the high rate plus complex deducxtions reduces the tax revenue to the IRS, and the high rate is currently a drag on the economy. Lawyers, reporters, blog experts, and so forth with a political axe to grind may argue this but the experts from across the political spectrum don't. Yet you say I am the one who needs to put it in my political pipe and smoke it. I am the expert at insults and avoidance? I may be both but so are you. The difference is I actually know what I am talking about, and the experts from the Democratic President's debt commision to the Republican Cato institute to the Harvard Business school all agree with what I am saying. I have yet to hear someone who knows what they are talking about argue that the "book rate" is not meaningful.
Probably very few. Do you think Australia does not benefit from the general peacekeeping that the USA does around the world? Who do you think makes all the military hardware that most western countries (in geography and philosophy) use? As another poster pointed out, the USA provides soldiers who are dying and being injured around the world in peacekeeping efforts that the rest of the world is not willing to participate in.
Again, you're welcome.
Australian soldiers are dying alongside American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, Australia is and has been participating, we participated in Vietnam and Korea, Australia is probably America's staunchest ally in peace keeping efforts.
Did Australia ask us to send troops to those places? Do peace keeping missions make the world safer for Australia or more dangerous?
The Aussies should thank the US Marines who stopped the Japanese advance at Guadacanal, and they did, but I am not sure they owe us a darn thing for any of our current deployments against threats that were not threatening Australia. On the flip side, we should be thanking them for being one of the few allies to send troops and support for our wars in Afganistan and Iraq.
I just read this whole thread and this is your only post that I agree with! And for God's sake man, turn on spelling auto-correct.
They're not trying to avoid taxes altogether, they're trying to bring their money from foreign banks into U.S. banks without being penalized; otherwise, it would be more profitable to keep the money where it is.
I think it's fine as long as we get the holiday too. I'd like to take my $ home without penalty too you know. (not that I have any $ offshore