Slashdot Mirror


The IRS Hits Symantec with a $1 Billion Tax Bill

GnoWay writes "Macworld is reporting that the IRS has charged Symantec Corporation with about a 900 million dollar tax bill due to the charge that Symantec and Veritas (purchased by Symantec last year) under-reported the value of intellectual property which they had transferred to their two Irish subsidiaries. Another $100 million is connected to Symantec's 2003 and 2004 reports."

337 comments

  1. News source by charlesnw · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why was this posted on Macworld? Talk about off topic...

    --
    Charles Wyble System Engineer
    1. Re:News source by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not? With the ability to run Windows in a virtual machine or as part of a dual-boot on Intel Macs, even Mac users will need a antivirus program to practice "safe computing" while playing Minesweeper.

    2. Re:News source by toleraen · · Score: 3, Informative
    3. Re:News source by charlesnw · · Score: 1

      Its not about anti virus software. Its about a tax bill. Just didn't seem like Mac related news.

      --
      Charles Wyble System Engineer
  2. Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by IflyRC · · Score: 1

    That's quite a big hit for Symantic. Anything think they might start selling off software titles? Norton is one of their big money makers so I doubt that will happen but I would definitely NOT want to be a Symantic employee right now.

    1. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by jim_v2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Norton Antivirus is small fries. The big money comes from Symantec's corporate antivirus.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    2. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually SAV is small fries too. The big money is in ESM, EV, Live State and other security products.

    3. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by badmammajamma · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually that's small potatoes too. The big money is in porn.

      --
      Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
    4. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rumor is that Sony is offering five or six times that amount to them to just pretend that Sony malware isn't.

    5. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
      > Actually that's small potatoes too. The big money is in porn.

      If a $900M bill from the IRS doesn't count as getting fucked, I don't know what does.

    6. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      That $900 million figure was probably a mistake. Wouldn't be the first that a decimal point got move over a few notches. One of these days the IRS should upgrade their DOS machines.

    7. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by easter1916 · · Score: 1

      Hey, all this potato talk is negative stereotyping... just because the Irish subsidiary was involved! ;-)

    8. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · · Score: 1
      900 million does sound like a lot for taxes on IP... There must be more to the story...

      -------

      Chuck norris was writing an email, and then he realized it would be faster to just run

      --
      And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
    9. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by smoker2 · · Score: 1
      fucking's not porn, it's natural.

      Trying to get away with shifting corporate property with a tax liability of $900M out of the country is pornographic.

      I've a feeling this story could run, enron, enron.

    10. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If a $900M bill from the IRS doesn't count as getting fucked, I don't know what does.


      Indeed. If I were Symantec I'd have just changed into my brown shorts.
    11. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I owe $700, which is a hell of a lot more to me than $900m is to Symantic.

      Which reminds me, I need to change my W-4...

    12. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by myth24601 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "900 million does sound like a lot for taxes on IP... There must be more to the story..."

      My guess is it's something like this:
      Symantec's tax people get audited by the IRS. Auditors flood Symantec with records requests from the last several years then go do nothing. for a while 'till the statue of limitations dedline looms. Auditors tell Symantec that they will slam them hard unless they sign a statute of limitations extention and claim that Syamantec isn't giving them records fast enough.

      Symantec gives in a few times on signing the statute extentions a few times while Auditors keep requesting irrelevent records that they had already been sent but lost. Symantec finally gets tired of screwing with the peon auditors and refuses to sign another statute extention which suprises auditor so they hastily put together a shody justification for a huge $900M assesment.

      Next step probibly has the assesment getting reduced to something reasonable which won't make any headlines and won't be a slashdot article.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    13. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully Symantec will sell two utilities by two companies they acquired over past few years/months, Ghost (Binary Research) and Sygate Firewall (Sygate)... instead of killing either product they should sell them to another source.

      just my $0.02

    14. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by IntelliAdmin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know about anyone else here but Symantec products really stink. If they buy a company, their stench seems to overtake it quickly. The last good program to come out of them was in 1993 when they had some great disk utilties for DOS. Which brings me to my final point. It looks like their accountants are just as good as their software developers.

    15. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by Artifex33 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The 200 million people having trouble sitting down today would agree with that.

    16. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Symantec buys up good products/companies and lives off their good name, raking in the cash and running the product into the ground. Consider how great the Norton products were back when Peter Norton's picture was on the box, versus how badly they suck now.

    17. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would the IRS maintain machines dedicated to Denial Of Service?

    18. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by lgw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If they buy a company, their stench seems to overtake it quickly.

      I don't know about that. I think all the hate come from the home security products. Ghost is still my favorite utility for Windows. Backup Exec doesn't suck too much - its new disk stuff is clever. The old-school Veritas disk management products are the same as ever - like them or hate them, they haven't chnaged in a long time. I use their corproate SAV at work and haven't had a problem with it since about 5 years ago - it doesn't try to consume my whole computer the way the personal NAV does.

      What Symantec products does everyone hate so much - is it just the home security stuff?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    19. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Virtual +1 Insightful, that sounds very accurate from what I've read of tax auditing. /me would never sign one of those "voluntary extension" papers.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    20. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by baadger · · Score: 1

      Their corporate client-server antivirus product isn't really that bad from a resource perspective. The workstation client works great as a home desktop solution.

    21. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by fuzznutz · · Score: 1
      Ghost is still my favorite utility for Windows.
      I heard that Ghost was dropped in favor of Drive Image. We switched to Acronis anyway since it seems to understand the newer XP NTFS partitions way better than Ghost. Plus it works perfectly with EXT3.
    22. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Getting a million dollar tax bill from the IRS is getting fucked.

      Getting a 900 million dollar tax bill from the IRS is getting ORAFUCKED (fucked in every orifice).

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    23. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by smbarbour · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes, their home products suck, but before upgrading to a newer version of corporate AV, we had to switch some of our users to the home version of NAV because the software that we wrote that printed reports made in Crystal 8.5 would cause Norton to blue screen the computer whenever they printed.

      Oh yeah, their Personal Internet Firewall is such a "great" product that even though I have told it that such and such program is safe, it continues to block it. Microsoft might suck, but at least XP's built-in firewall will do what it is supposed to do.

    24. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by krotkruton · · Score: 1

      If a $900M bill from the IRS doesn't count as getting fucked, I don't know what does.

      Umm, maybe a dick in your ass?

    25. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by nihaopaul · · Score: 1

      guess they didn't pay the right people off!

    26. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by magarity · · Score: 1

      corporate property with a tax liability of $900M
       
      You've correctly identified the problem. Now for the solution: Abolish corporate taxes. They're the worst of all the layers of stupid taxes. Corporations PAY ZERO IN TAXES. CUSTOMERS (you and me) pay corporate taxes for them as part of the prices for their goods.

    27. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No wonder, this is slashdot after all.

    28. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      WHy don't they scrap there home products, and sell there coporate products? Having more sale would allow them to lower the price, plus they wouldn't need to pay to have an inferiour home product made.

      On top of that, you sell expensive support to the large clients. Well anybody really, but a home uses isn't likley to spend 50K a year for 24/7 support.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  3. taxing IP by bbsguru · · Score: 4, Funny

    I just had a thought. Do I owe anything?

    1. Re:taxing IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      under-reported the value of intellectual property

      I doubt it, hell, you might need a rebate

    2. Re:taxing IP by truckaxle · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should see if you qualify for an earned income credit! :)

    3. Re:taxing IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, all your "IP" is down the toilet.

    4. Re:taxing IP by pfurlong · · Score: 1

      Well, how many systems do you have at home that are using IP? Please be sure to include both TCP, UDP, and any other protocols.

      I'm hoping to seriously under-report my IP usage.

    5. Re:taxing IP by Enzo+the+Baker · · Score: 3, Funny

      Depends on whether it's your two cents' worth, or someone is giving a penny for your thoughts.

      --
      I may twist orthodoxy to partly justify a tyrant. But I can easily make up a German philosophy to justify him entirely.
    6. Re:taxing IP by saddino · · Score: 1

      Yes, but only if you sell it to someone.

    7. Re:taxing IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rebate? He should get tax exempt status!

    8. Re:taxing IP by Jupix · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. Come to think of it, yes you do! Please transfer $500 to my Paypal account immediately.

      Thanks,
      IRS

    9. Re:taxing IP by Ucklak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you earned, you paid. The question is "Do you know how much you paid?"

      If you answer "I didn't have to pay, I got money back" then therin lies the problem.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    10. Re:taxing IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, I never understood this mentality. Americans seem to be under the impression that getting a tax return is "a good thing." In reality, you're essentially loaning out money to the government at 0% interest. By owing on a tax return (not by a huge amount, but by minimizing owed taxes) you can get your money back sooner in the form of your paycheck. You'd actually get more for your returns if you took this money and just stashed it into a savings account than by overpaying each year in taxes.

    11. Re:taxing IP by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1
      Yes, I never understood this mentality. Americans seem to be under the impression that getting a tax return is "a good thing." In reality, you're essentially loaning out money to the government at 0% interest.

      No kidding! I always track my withholding when I get my paychecks and change my W-4 a few times a year so I don't have too much taken out over the year. The closer I get my witholdings to where I don't get anything back or owe anything, the happier I am at tax time. I'd rather have my money to invest and use now than let Uncle Sam sit on it for a year or more.

    12. Re:taxing IP by Sir.Cracked · · Score: 1
      Depends on whether it's your two cents' worth, or someone is giving a penny for your thoughts.

      Somebody is making a penny.....
      --
      Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?
    13. Re:taxing IP by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      I do alot of 1099 and I was shocked that I didn't have to write an additional check this year.
      I did get 'money back' from my bank in the form of interest that I set aside specifically for my check to Uncle Sam.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    14. Re:taxing IP by cflannagan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm one of those who thinks tax returns is great, even though I could have made more putting the same money in an interest-earning account. The problem is, which I'm sure others share, is that I don't have enough financial discipline to put money into interest-earning account and leave it alone. I know I will end up touching the account when I know I shouldn't. I wouldn't be surprised if other people shared the same mentality.

  4. It's okay. by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 4, Funny

    Luckily, Norton Internet Security filtered out the IRS' notice before anyone at Symantec could read it. I won't tell if you won't...

    1. Re:It's okay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The IRS decided to fend back by typing 'startkeylogger' in all their employee's chat rooms.

    2. Re:It's okay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol! too funny

  5. Unrelated by liliafan · · Score: 5, Funny

    In unrelated news, the IRS has reported sudden loss of all their backups, and serious infection from computer viruses.

    --
    GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
    1. Re:Unrelated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean they seized Norton install disks, and foolishly USED THEM?

      My God, the IRS is dumber than I thought!

    2. Re:Unrelated by tehshen · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh come on, I know what you're getting at, and it's wrong. There's no way that Norton Internet Security could prevent serious infection from computer viruses.

      --
      Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
    3. Re:Unrelated by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      No, no... what you mean is there's no way Symantec would create and release a virus at all, never mind specifically to attack a government computer system.

    4. Re:Unrelated by Firehed · · Score: 1

      If our government relies on Symantec products for security, I'm surprised the national debt is only approaching $10T. With security that crappy, I'd have figured it'd be at least an order of magnitude higher. Though, let's put that in perspective: ten teradollars.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  6. What's "intellectual property" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is that like a smart building?

    1. Re:What's "intellectual property" by UberHoser · · Score: 0

      The reverse of the White house

      --
      Guns are for wimps... Use a crossbow.. this way you can pin them to their chair when you go postal.
  7. Lets Hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets hope they go bankrupt and sell off all the programs that were good... before they became totally bloated. :)

    1. Re:Lets Hope... by PastAustin · · Score: 0
      Lets hope they go bankrupt and sell off all the programs that were good... before they became totally bloated. :)


      Good programs? Are you sure we're talking about the same company?
      --
      Firefox 2.0 - Spell Rightly.
    2. Re:Lets Hope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm referring to programs that were good, before Symantec bought them (e.g. Sygate)

  8. Values of Non-Physical Objects by SeanDuggan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A billion dollars for intellectual property? Gosh, that's like charging $750 for copying one song... Seriously, though, how does one value these things? For that matter, what intellectual property is this? The article is rather vague.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
    1. Re:Values of Non-Physical Objects by William_Lee · · Score: 4, Informative
      Seriously, though, how does one value these things? For that matter, what intellectual property is this? The article is rather vague.

      It's IP based off an acquistion of a company called Veritas that the public financial market valued at over $10 billion in total. What appears to have happened here is that Symantec doesn't believe that something they bought in the deal is worth anything near what the IRS is claiming it is worth. I'm no CPA but I'm guessing it's related to how Symantec is calculating the goodwill involved in the acquistion.

    2. Re:Values of Non-Physical Objects by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Same way most people decide on the value of a physical object - some combination of how much it cost to produce it, the worth to the person in question, what they could sell it for, how much they're prepared to pay, and so on.

      Just because it can be easily reproduced doesn't mean that it was free to create the first copy or that it has no resale value.

      Gosh, that's like charging $750 for copying one song...

      That's a punishment and a deterrent. When something illegal is easy to do, hard to detect and widely regarded as not really being that big a deal, the punishment tends to be on the harsh side, or even out of all proportion. It's meant to act as a deterrent, the idea being that if it's so easy, so unlikely that you'll get caught and doesn't seem to hurt anyone, a sledgehammer punishment is the only thing that will stop prospective transgressors.

      I'm not saying that it's right, or just, but that's the theory behind it as I understand it.

    3. Re:Values of Non-Physical Objects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a punishment and a deterrent. When something illegal is easy to do, hard to detect and widely regarded as not really being that big a deal, the punishment tends to be on the harsh side, or even out of all proportion.

      Yes, just like "stealing" salt from the coast was illegal in India and punished heavily at one time. We all know what happened there.

    4. Re:Values of Non-Physical Objects by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1
      A billion dollars for intellectual property?

      In other news, the legal constipation at the US PTO comes into focus.

      Da gubmint be makin' a lot of dough outta that steamin' loaf; you just wishin' it could be tasteless.
      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    5. Re:Values of Non-Physical Objects by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      It's meant to act as a deterrent, the idea being that if it's so easy, so unlikely that you'll get caught and doesn't seem to hurt anyone, a sledgehammer punishment is the only thing that will stop prospective transgressors.

      I doubt its a deterrent. After all, if your chance of getting caught is slim to begin with, why would it stop anyone? They'd have little or no fear of being caught in the first place.

    6. Re:Values of Non-Physical Objects by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      The magnitude of the punishment isn't a deterrent, only the chance of getting caught is. Hence all the surveillance cameras: even if nobody's there to watch them, there might still be a perceived increased chance of getting caught, so they might act as a deterrent.

      I'm not saying I like those cameras, I'm uncomfortable with the assymetric structure (they can see us, but we can't see them), but at least they might prevent crime.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    7. Re:Values of Non-Physical Objects by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "but at least they might prevent crime"

      I'm concerned about a different kind of crime than you are.

      Yes, I would like muggings and assaults and street crime to not happen anymore. But that stuff is small potatoes...

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    8. Re:Values of Non-Physical Objects by davidsyes · · Score: 0

      Good will and bad vibes... what a juxt... well, if they messed up the IP value, their ass-sets will be on fire... I guess Dr. Evil will write off Preparations A-G... and use H and Tucks and some camphor...

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    9. Re:Values of Non-Physical Objects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both ATI and Nvidia's top of line GPUs are made by TSMC. The only difference between them is the design on the chip which amounts to little more than fine lines drawn on a couple plates of glass. The knowledge of where those lines should go is worth quite a bit.

    10. Re:Values of Non-Physical Objects by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      The magnitude of the punishment isn't a deterrent, only the chance of getting caught is.

      Isn't that basically what I said?

      I'm not saying I like those cameras, I'm uncomfortable with the assymetric structure (they can see us, but we can't see them), but at least they might prevent crime.

      So you're ok with giving up rights in the hope it MIGHT have some affect? I'd think if you want to stop muggings you let people carry weapons and train them in self defense. i think that would be pretty effective, and we won't have a useless police force which we have to pay for as well.

    11. Re:Values of Non-Physical Objects by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know. They make me feel uneasy too. Seeing clusters of cops in the underground station makes me feel unsafe too, because apparently they're needed there... Funny thing is, they're probably meant to make people feel safe.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    12. Re:Values of Non-Physical Objects by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      No, I didn't say I'm okay with it. I was trying to reverse-engineer a possible reason for those cameras. They don't make me feel safe. They might make other people feel safe, but I'd rather have more cops on the street than cameras, even though seeing cops on the street makes me feel unsafe, because it implies they're needed there. But since cameras are a lot cheaper, the authorities, for whom security is a big issue nowadays, choose for cameras more and more often.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
  9. If I were them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'd call one of those tax-help agencies. They can usually settle for pennies on the dollar.

    1. Re:If I were them by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

      They should call The Tax Lady!

      --
      What?
  10. Poor Peter.... by Itninja · · Score: 0

    I can't wait to see a box with a shirtless Peter Norton on the front.
    That's pretty freakin' hot if you ask me.

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    1. Re:Poor Peter.... by trailerparkcassanova · · Score: 1

      Wearing just his tie....

  11. No by WebHostingGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It will be tied up in Tax Court (where you appeal decisions like this) for years.

    --
    Quality Hosting e3 Servers
    1. Re:No by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It will be tied up in Tax Court (where corporations appeal decisions like this) for years.

      Fixed.

      (we peons simply go to directly pound-me-in-the-ass-prison -- do not pass go, do not collect dropped soap)

    2. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot. The IRS doesn't care if you break the law, they only care about getting the money they have coming (I'm serious). If you can't pay, they will work out an installment plan. If you go to jail, they get nothing.

    3. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deterrence. If the worst that was likely to happen was having to pay your back taxes plus reasonable penalties, people/companies could do a rational cost-benefit analysis of how much the financial risk is worth. I imagine a lot less taxes would get paid up-front. However, most people place a high value on staying out of prison, so the IRS gets a disproportionate benefit from sending a few examples to prison to keep the rest in line. I agree that they won't get much money from those people, so they don't want to send everyone up the river. But some measure of deterrence is necessary for a system that largely relies on self-reporting.

    4. Re:No by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The IRS isn't as harsh as it used to be. Maybe you're thinking of the 80s. These days, the IRS isn't too bad about working out payment plans if you get in trouble. But you need to come to them about this before you get dragged into tax court. If you work with them nicely, they'll help you out; if you're a pain in the ass, they won't.

    5. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but, for the individual, if you try to take it to court and lose badly, you could end up with a fine greater than your actual tax bill ($25,000) just for taking it to the court. Yay for fair access to justice.

  12. This won't stick. by Quasar1999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sure that the IRS and the evil company that didn't pay their taxes will come to some agreement, and it will be way less than a billion dollars. Companies always find a way out of messes like this. Of course, it'd be neat if Symantec were to declare that they were bankrupt, and then reopen under the name Norton, without paying a dime... Only in America... :P

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    1. Re:This won't stick. by mikesd81 · · Score: 1

      Be neat if they went bankrupt and Red Hat or Novell or some like purchased them and it became open source...

      Of course they'd have to make it less of a resource hog.

      --
      That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
    2. Re:This won't stick. by FirienFirien · · Score: 1

      Well, I believe "Norton" as a company name (not product name) wrt computing is held by Peter Norton - the guy who wrote the (actually very good) disk analysis and protection software back in well pre-OSX mac days (I think it was mac before PC?). It did nice efficient things to make your hard drive better and was a well-written program that worked. In 1990 it was bought out by Symantec, and since then it's tumbled gently downhill into a steaming pile of crap that intentionally breaks when a new full version is out that you have to buy.

      Granted, they'd still be able to change to a different name, just it wouldn't be Norton.

      --
      Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
    3. Re:This won't stick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:jHHBaeTXZaQJ:e n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Utilities+&hl=en&gl=us &ct=clnk&cd=1

      Norton Utilities were first made for MS-DOS machines. I think I've still got the Norton Utilities 4.5 disk... the sector editor from that is _still_ handy.

  13. Haha by Odin_Tiger · · Score: 0, Troll
    --
    Unpleasantries.
    1. Re:Haha by nb+caffeine · · Score: 1

      Word. I just install that for everyone now. They ask how much it is. I say free. They are amazed.

      --

      "Something's wrong with you...and I hope we never do meet again." - Deftones When Girls Telephone Boys
    2. Re:Haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and them you tell them about Avast! free edition (with a much better detection rate) and they ditch avg?

    3. Re:Haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only do this when they request an upgrade and are running Symantec Internet Security. The machine seems at least 5 times faster, they only have to pay for the hour or two it takes to uninstall that crap instead of a new machine and I have a happy customer.

  14. Thanks IRS - way to bring down the market by us7892 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hey IRS - thanks for bringing down their stock price by 40 cents. Hit all us stockholders in the pocketbook. How about working on a payment deal without going for the headlines?

    1. Re:Thanks IRS - way to bring down the market by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you want the government to Tip Toe (More) around public traded companies because of fear of shacking the stock prices. As a stock holder I would like to know if the companie I have stock in may have to pay a huge dept to someone else. Plus you also do realize stock prices rise and fall all day. I have seen cases where a company makes their exceeds their their projections are even higher. And still their stock gets hammered. Just remember Stock only is money when you sell it. Before that it is just the current value of of it. Once you buy stock your money is gone. When you sell it again then you get what it is worth at the time back.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Thanks IRS - way to bring down the market by Pope · · Score: 1

      Riiight, because you immediately sold all your stock as soon as it went down.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    3. Re:Thanks IRS - way to bring down the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that the IRS's fault? Symantec made the huge mistake. Go blame Symantec. If you don't trust the company, don't buy their stock.

    4. Re:Thanks IRS - way to bring down the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you meant lobbyists and lawyers.

      Not to mention everyone who thinks that Microsoft is responsible for everything bad that happens in the world.

      Rolling blackouts in Texas? Microsoft's to blame.
      Gasoline over $3/gal? Microsoft's to blame.
      Linux sucking ass? Microsoft's to blame.

      Yada, yada, etc.

    5. Re:Thanks IRS - way to bring down the market by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      Actually, since you're a part of the company, you are responsible as well, correct? Enjoy your hard time.

      Like the above poster said... stocks, bonds -- bad news.

    6. Re:Thanks IRS - way to bring down the market by suitepotato · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thanky you for insulting the millions of people who work honest jobs, have investments for the future to provide for their retirement and families, and contribute to the world every day. Good going.

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    7. Re:Thanks IRS - way to bring down the market by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      I suppose you were pissed at the FTC when Enron went under.

    8. Re:Thanks IRS - way to bring down the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliant assessment (read sarcasm here). Actually, most (a huge majority), of stock holders are average people who work for a living. They have 401k and retirement holdings which are mostly comprised of mutual funds. The majority of mutual funds available to 401k's are stock funds of some sort. Almost all of Symantec's stock is owned by institutional investors (that would be funds, banks, private funds, etc...), then comes private investments, as well as the lowley employees themselves. I suppose if the average Joe is a moron, asshole, or parasite, then you are right on the mark; and if you are an average Joe, feel free to hit yourself in the head with that nailed baseball bat... nobody here will stop you ;)

    9. Re:Thanks IRS - way to bring down the market by slashname3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just remember Stock only is money when you sell it. Before that it is just the current value of of it. Once you buy stock your money is gone. When you sell it again then you get what it is worth at the time back.

      Just like a lottery ticket.

    10. Re:Thanks IRS - way to bring down the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Stockholders are complete morons, who should be eradicated. Now watch almost every major corporation disappear, because they are completely dependant on the stock system. Please. Stockholders give companies who don't have huge heaping piles of cash the opportunity to start off, and possibly make a decent product. Even in analogous form, they sound good; it's like a rich uncle, who's lending you money to start this project. You don't even have to pay him back, unless he really needs the money - you're just really friendly, from now on, because he's giving you money. So very many companies out there use this system.

    11. Re:Thanks IRS - way to bring down the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I went to high school with a Roland Blackout. Do you think it's the same one?

    12. Re:Thanks IRS - way to bring down the market by honkycat · · Score: 1

      If you're day trading, then yeah. Otherwise it's very different given that the market has a history of growth. It's like a lottery ticket that's nearly guaranteed to pay out a few percent per year more than you paid for it (assuming you diversify and don't buy just one, and that you're able to hold on through temporary downturns).

    13. Re:Thanks IRS - way to bring down the market by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      As a stockholder you are a partial owner of the company, go figure...

    14. Re:Thanks IRS - way to bring down the market by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 1

      Uhmmmm... It wasn't the government that announced the tax liability - it was SYMC itself that disclosed it in an SEC filing. Of course the government (rationally) forces companies to disclose material changes in their business. I would assume that a billion dollar tax liability is a material change.

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    15. Re:Thanks IRS - way to bring down the market by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      Sorry, wrong. Stock in most companies is a share of ownership of that company. It has essentially an intrinsic value (a percentage of what the company is actually worth) and a market premium (increase or decrease in value based on the market's views on the company). At the end of the day, if the company has $5 billion in cash or assets, and no debt, your stock is worth a percentage of that cash at the very least.

      A lottery ticket (pre-drawing) simply has a market premium, no intrinsic value. Usually that's $1 per ticket. Once the drawing is over, most tickets are worth $0.

      Lottery tickets are closer to options than stock.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    16. Re:Thanks IRS - way to bring down the market by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Just remember Stock only is money when you sell it. Before that it is just the current value of of it. Once you buy stock your money is gone. When you sell it again then you get what it is worth at the time back.

      Ever hear of dividends?

    17. Re:Thanks IRS - way to bring down the market by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Hey, think of the bright side -- now you can write it off on your taxes and hit 'em right back!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    18. Re:Thanks IRS - way to bring down the market by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Dude, he totally sucked you in.
      Come on, total flamebait.

      Sheesh, be better then them...Ignore them.
      As a rule of thumb, I do not respond to AC. Life's too short

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    19. Re:Thanks IRS - way to bring down the market by geekoid · · Score: 1

      hey, dumb ass, they ahve to disclose it. SDo you think the people that make the stock market move(Hint: Not You) would know about this?

      Besides, they need to pay just like everyone else.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  15. Valueing intellectual property? by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How do you VALUE intellectual property? Is it what someone ELSE might pay for it, or what you say it is worth?

    If you go off of what someone ELSE might pay for it, then songs should be nearly free or much discounted vs what they are currently.

    If you go by what you value it to be, then you can make the value arbitrary since you are the one who applies value to it right?

    WTF? How do they make these determinations.

    --
    If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
    1. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by pizzaman100 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Rambus is worth 4.7 Billion, so it's definitly worth something.

    2. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 3, Informative

      The same way you assign a value to anything else in a capitalist system: by what the market price for it is. (Or would be, if it were on the market.)

      That price is influenced both by what people are willing to pay for it and what you are willing to sell it for. If the two go to far out of wack, you either get obcene profits or bankrupsy. (Depending on which way they are out of wack.) In the former case, someone else should enter the market, and start a price war. In the latter, you are being forced out.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    3. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by saddino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Both! Intellectual property is valued exactly like physical property: the price the market is willing to pay for it. If the price is too high, then the seller will lower the price. If the price is too low, then the seller will raise the price. The seller gets to set the price, and the market determines whether the price is correct or not.

      For online music, the success of the 99 cents per song seems to indicate that yes, a compressed, digital song with DRM is worth about 99 cents. Was Skype worth $4 billion? Yes, because someone was willing to buy it for that much after the founders asked for it. Is a 20oz Coke in a vending machine worth $1.25? Sure!

      What's the trouble?

    4. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

      yeah, but the marginal cost of production of IP is zero, so in a true free market without government interference the market price should and would be competed to the point where profit is zero, or a price of zero. that's why invoking "market economics" to justify the price or cost or loss of intellectual "property" is disingenuous and goofy.

      --
      Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    5. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by NewWorldDan · · Score: 1

      But the problem here is that no one is actually buying and no one is actually selling the property in question. Symantec "licensed" it to a foreign subsidiary. I'm not sure that any money actually changed hands. As far as I can tell (and the article is pathetic on the details) this is all about an entry in a ledger that the IRS feels is too small. There is no market for the "property" in question and no way to determine a price for it.

    6. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by everphilski · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming you work for a living? Do you get paid? Is your time worth something to you?

      Time * what you are worth per hour = value.

      There is a very basic formula for the value of something, regardless of its concreteness. If you put 40 hours into making a piece of IP, and you are worth $20 an hour, then your IP could be worth $800. But a more intelligent way of pricing it is by supply and demand, which was figured out thousands of years ago, this is economics 101.

    7. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      In the most general terms, you look at the cash flows that IP is expected to generate and discount them back to the present at a risk-adjusted rate of return. You can also search the financial literature (news, SEC filings) to find similar transactions and try to figure out some sort of valuation ratio. Naturally, you would hire an independent valuation firm to actually figure this out, lest you want to appear biased.

    8. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Both! Intellectual property is valued exactly like physical property: the price the market is willing to pay for it.

      No; not on your books. On your balance sheet, it's worth what you paid for it less ammortization, not what the market value is. When you report your assets, you report it at book value, not market value. That is per GAAP.

      A transfer to a subsidiary is deemed a disposition. Normally this disposition would be valued at what a company paid for it, but because it's a disposition to a subsidiary, they have to prove the market value instead of simply being able to demonstrate it.

      This will stay in tax court for years.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    9. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by GlassHeart · · Score: 1

      The problem with your viewpoint is that it becomes a massive hole for money laundering. If for whatever nefarious purpose Microsoft sells you the rights to Windows for $100, and Dell then has to pay you $50 per computer sold, they have effectively transferred billions of dollars to you despite the apparent transaction sum. What the IRS is doing here is trying to assess the true value of the transaction, while your rant on how things ought to be really doesn't accomplish much toward that necessity.

    10. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But since Symantec paid $10 billion for Veritas (the owner of the IP in question), shouldn't the book value of licensing this IP to their subsidiary reflect some portion of this price, per the details of that transaction? Isn't this what the IRS is saying?

    11. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      There is a very basic formula for the value of something, regardless of its concreteness. If you put 40 hours into making a piece of IP, and you are worth $20 an hour, then your IP could be worth $800.

      If I hire a cook at $20 an hour, and he spends 6 hours turning a bunch of apple (with market value) into a piece of charcoal (he burned the apple pie), what is the worth of his produce?

      That formula makes no sense to me.

    12. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 3, Funny

      You miss the point entirely, I am worth 100 an hour or 150 an hour, depending on what I am doing. Though I only get a small chunk of that.

      BUT, what if I decided to sell the thing for 10 bucks, after I put 800 worth into it, is it worth 10 bucks or 800, am I selling it under market value or am I actually worth the 800 I WANT to be paid for it?

      IF I make a Hello World Application, and my time is worth 100 an hour, does my hello world app cost 100 dollars because I bill a minimum of an hour?

      Or is it worth essentially nothing?

      Thats the question, who determines the price, if Symantic wanted to licence it for free, would it then not be worth "free"? Or is it worth what a competitor would have paid to bring it in house or an actual client.

      I hope I am not obsfucating this more lol.

      --
      If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
    13. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      There's no easy answer, but you could start with what they paid for it on the open market a few months earlier...

    14. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by Unordained · · Score: 1

      Isn't this subject to a sort of reverse-Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, by which the only way to get an accurate market value is to actually put the item on the market and play the game? (Which in turn would make the whole "taxing you for having it" thing moot -- as you would lose it as part of getting taxed?)

    15. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by everphilski · · Score: 1

      Then you overpaid the cook, the cook wasn't worth $20 an hour. I know teenagers in home economics who can cook better than that.

      All that formula is, is a simple rate formula: rate*time = value. Real world economics is based on percieved values. It doesn't have to make sense to you.

    16. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by everphilski · · Score: 0

      Thats the question, who determines the price, if Symantic wanted to licence it for free, would it then not be worth "free"?

      Of course not. It would just be undervalued. Market determines price, companies generally determine value. Remember, there is a difference between price and value. I paid $900 for all the pieces to my computer (price) however it is worth more to me than the $1500 Dell machine than it outspecs, and it will last a long time, providing me a lot of CPU cycles for my thesis research and a kickass platform for gaming (value I assign to it). Now a friend of mine who is into much more hardcore gaming would assign a far lower value as the video card isn't as big as he would like, etc. Price is generally fixed or at least on an even playing field for all participants (or governments get involved) whereas value is more relative, but there are generally rules to get you started.

    17. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 1

      But you still dont answer the question. When you sell something to someone, what is the value of that transaction? How do you determine it if you say its worth something. I am still trying to dig down to the BASIS of the term value here, and how someone ELSE can determine the value objectively externally.

      If I value something at 10 bucks, and I sell it to you for 10 bucks, how do I know that what you gave me was worth more than 10 bucks when it comes to intellectual property rights.

      Is it what _I_ determined the value to be or what? see thats the problem, even though the IRS may value it, it may not have been WORTH that much to anyone. So is the IRS overvalueing the intellectual property? Is Norton undervalueing it because they wont sell it for more? Is Norton Lieing about the value of something it owns when it sells it?

      How can you determine these things? How can you prove that it has a greater market value? What if Norton sells or licences it to everyone at that price?

      If Bob sells me a peice of software for 100 dollars, and rights to sell it, is the software worth 100 bucks a pop, or is it worth 1 dollar a pop if I sell it to 100 people?

      Were does value begin with intellectual property? At the time of creation of the property or at the time of purchase of the property?

      Who determines that. And that all rolls back around. So I create the value for 1000 dollars and sell the product once to Bobs Software Buying Company for 1000 dollars, then after that all of my production costs are covered, after that all I have to do is sell it and do not support or marginally cheap support. Is the software still worth 1000 dollars, or is it now only worth what I want to sell it for. If I sell it for 50 dollars from then on, is it worth 50 bucks that I say it is, or am I undervalueing it by 950 dollars, since functionally its the same thing I made for the first client?

      Could the IRS ding me for 950 dollars more in taxes because I undervalue my product? Or undervalue my licence? What if other companies are less efficient and actually do cost them 1000 dollars a pop, but since I did it right its only worth 50, should I be held to the similar product standard that they set?

      This is what angers me about all these value things, it usually comes down to whatever the other guy will pay for it, so haveing the IRS say "this is what we value it at" is incredibly arbitrary, just as arbitrary as the valuation process itself in this case.

      If you tie the value to the value of the company, then you MIGHT have some argument, but thats on a whole package of value and it STILL comes down to whatever the company or the market says the company is worth, not really what goes into creating the proces, its totally artificial.

      --
      If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
    18. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same way you assign a value to anything else in a capitalist system: by what the market price for it is.

      And which market would that be? Local? National? Global? Average of the three, or pick any two? How do you put a value on "intellectual property" that has nothing to compare with, because noone is allowed to copy it? You make it sound simple when it isn't.

    19. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by cynicalmoose · · Score: 1

      There are several methods available.

      Firstly, you can use a discounted net present value method. For this, you imagine how much, in licensing fees, you'd have to pay, now and in the future, to use the relevant piece of IP. From that, you know how much income the IP generates (or would generate if it were licensed). You then take the discounted net present value of from that. (Roughly, you say, if it's gonna pay $250 a year for ever, and you expect interest rates to be 5%, then the NPV is $5000, because you'd need $5000 returning 5% to get an income of $250 pa)

      Secondly, you can try to use market value. These things aren't traded alone often, so this is difficult.

      Thirdly, you can try to use production costs: How much did it cost to produce? This has certain problems with IP whose production costs are not always easily attributable (for you must account for all the time you spent dreaming up things that didn't work out etc...)

      If you think standard IP is hard, though, try valuing brands....

      --
      Exercise your right not to vote. thinkoutside.org
    20. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      The system is simple. The application isn't.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    21. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by kiddx · · Score: 1

      The value of the company is done in a myriad of ways, but a basic is what is the networth of the company. A quick look at Veritas stock price * shares equals its value. Theres other things like P&L or EBITA and then of course you have liabilities, assets etc. So lets say Veritas says that 80% of its company is in its Intellectual Property. Well if the company is valued at 100million (80 mil in IP), the selling price is often 2-3 times annual revs. So if revs are 50 million, then the company could be worth 100 million and sell for 150 million. My numbers arent mathematically accurate Im just showing different 'views'. I took my company public 2 years ago and turned all this stuff over to a CEO and I still dont understand it! haha

    22. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're overthinking this. If you sell something, it's valued at the price at which you sell it. The IRS looks at the market price of something to determine what its value is. If for some reason there is no market value (e.g. unique IP for which there is no market), the IRS can look at the income accruing to the holder of the IP from owning that IP. And if there's no way of calculating the income accruing to the IP holder, the IRS can value the IP by looking at the cost of development.

      P.S., none of the problems you list arise if you sell the IP to an unrelated person/company. The problem here is that the company sold something to itself for below its value, where value is determined in one of the above three ways, in order of preference.
      (And the reason to sell something to yourself (i.e. a foreign affiliate) below market price is to avoid taxes)

      There are tax consulting firms (e.g. Deloitte and Touche) that specialize in determining the value of transferred IP. Any company that transferred $1bn in assets without consulting one of those firms deserves to get hit.

    23. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Really? Ok, I have an idea that will make virus searching faster, and take up less resources on a machine. How much is that worth?

      Wow, things aren't so simple in the real world.

      Moderators - don't mod me down, his statement was stupid!

    24. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by saddino · · Score: 1

      Really? Ok, I have an idea that will make virus searching faster, and take up less resources on a machine. How much is that worth?
      It's worth EXACTLY what someone is willing to pay for it. And, if you really do sell it - guess what? - you'll owe taxes on that sale.

      Wow, things aren't so simple in the real world.
      Of course they are, IP is bought and sold ALL THE TIME. Not sure why this little fact seems to throw you.

      Moderators - don't mod me down, his statement was stupid!
      LOL, I think you need to look up the meaning of that word. ;-)

    25. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

      it's not a rant, it's pure chicago school economics. the "value" of intellectual property is not market driven, but a result of government interference in the markets in the form of "copyright" and "intellectual property." so trying to settle on the value of software by looking for its market price is flawed because as it stands today, that "market price" is actually a monopoly rent sanctioned by an interventionist government. if you wanted to get to the true market price, you'd do better to find out what pirated versions of windows are going for in silk alley in beijing, which is the cost of burning a cd plus whatever surplus they can get people to pay for. under classical economics, however, in a free market the price of a good or service will get competed to the point where price=marginal cost, or where profit=price-marginal cost=0.

      --
      Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    26. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      It's a rant because you're asking the IRS, which operates very much under the current economic system, "interventionist government" and all, to determine the price of intellectual property as if it didn't exist. In our world, it is very much possible to get a rough idea how much intellectual property is worth in terms of "monopoly rent".

      Yes, if there was no copyright law, the value of Windows might be as you describe. On the other hand, there might not be Windows at all. So why are you talking about a hypothetical world when clearly the topic is alleged tax evasion in this real world?

    27. Re:Valueing intellectual property? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      So I can only judge the cost of something by selling it?? What is I don't want to sell it... is it worth 0?? This is my point, which you have great difficulty grasping.

      Why should I have to sell something to gauge its value??

      This is the problem with this tax bill.

  16. New Tax Policy by Vandilizer · · Score: 1

    Now don't forget boy's and girls if you learnt something this year to accurately estimate the Intellectual property that you have gained and if you have taught anyone then that you have spent and report it on your tax bill. Also if that knowledge increases with value over time that gain must also be reported as well.

    Honestly I just don't know what to say ladies and gentlemen. I do not think I could afford that tax bill.

    1. Re:New Tax Policy by Volante3192 · · Score: 0

      Fortunatly, lobotomies are now tax deductable.

    2. Re:New Tax Policy by aztec+rain+god · · Score: 1

      Whatever happened to the old Faber College motto:

      "Knowledge is good"

      --
      Sig cannot be found.
    3. Re:New Tax Policy by TykeClone · · Score: 2, Funny
      Fortunatly, lobotomies are now tax deductable.

      But only the expense from them that are greater than 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income - and only if you are itemizing your deductions anyway.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    4. Re:New Tax Policy by TykeClone · · Score: 1
      Or the University of Nebraska-Lincoln motto:

      N Is for Nowledge

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    5. Re:New Tax Policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly I just don't know what to say...

      Fortunately, I do: Learn to use commas!

  17. My thoughts exactally by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Unless you are selling, and have a *real* dollar value, its all just shady accounting practices.

    I hope this puts them out of business.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  18. Nothing New About Tax Evasion& Creative Accoun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting
    There is nothing new about tax evasion and creative accounting. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the IRS have investigated numerous firms in the past year.

    Show me an honest businessman, and I will show you a figment of your imagination.

    The tax laws (as I understand them) are mainly for the middle class and lower classes. The rich and the corporations exploit a dizzying array of loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Most Americans do not earn enough money to qualify for these loopholes. Without the loopholes, the IRS tax guide would have exactly 3 pages: the front page, the tax formula, and the back page. The current IRS tax guide, packed with hundreds of detailed loopholes, requires more than 1000 pages.

    The biggest unstated truth in the corridors of Congress is that 33% is the highest enforceable tax rate in America. Once the tax rate exceeds 33%, the rich move their money into offshore accounts that answer to no one. That goes double for George Soros.

  19. No problem.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They will just release another major virus soon and rake in the cash to cover this settlement with the IRS, no problem.

    1. Re:No problem.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to check the thickness of your tinfoil hat.

  20. Just over $1B in revenue. by gasmonso · · Score: 1

    With a revenue of just over $1B expected this quarter, that certainly is a bite in the ass. Looks like the cost of Norton AV is going up.

    http://religiousfreaks.com/
    1. Re:Just over $1B in revenue. by The+Hobo · · Score: 1

      Refer to this comment.

      --
      There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
  21. Not really a billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    900 millions and 100 millions add up to 1000 millions, not 1024 millions.

    1. Re:Not really a billion by LiLWiP · · Score: 1

      Is that millions with a big dollar sign or a little dollar sign???

  22. Dependents by LiLWiP · · Score: 2, Funny

    Luckily, Symantec can claim the millions/billions who use their live update as dependents, so this will really only end up being like a $20 tax bill when they are done filing. Thank GOD for TurboTax.

  23. all thoughts by jollyroger1210 · · Score: 0

    All thoughts should be taxable at 2 cents maximum......

    --
    Purple, because ice cream has no bones.
  24. This is how I would do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    How do you VALUE intellectual property?

    I would subtract from the purchase price all of the tangible assets, then subtract the value of the "goodwill" (another valuation hocus pocus), and any other assets like securities and notes, etc... Whatever is left that would be value of the intellectual property - which is basically what you said: the price that the purchaser was willing to pay for it.

    This will go to court and/or the IRS ( without the space it's "THEIRS" - funny) will just (maybe) settle for a smaller amount.

  25. $1 Billion Tax Collection by digitaldc · · Score: 3, Funny

    Great! This money will be well spent by Congress, oh wait....
    it is already gone, what a shame, before I could even finish my congratulations.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:$1 Billion Tax Collection by Surt · · Score: 1

      Now now, be fair, the US government spends only about 5 billion per day, so really, it will take them something like 4 hours to burn through that money.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:$1 Billion Tax Collection by WolfZombie · · Score: 1

      Typical Congress move. Spend the money before they even collect it!

  26. You expected any less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft needs some kind of help to ba able to market its' up and coming anti-virus software. This is just the government's way of throwing MS a bone!

    1. Re:You expected any less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take off the tinfoil hat. The conspiracy theory is getting old.

  27. Symantec bought into Veritas's problems. by black2d · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the article the 900 million is "in connection with the Veritas claim, which covers the 2000 and 2001 Veritas tax returns" So symantec basicly got screwed in the whole deal , bought a company then has to pay their debts from 5 years ago. That sucks.

    1. Re:Symantec bought into Veritas's problems. by Surt · · Score: 1

      In all fairness, Symantec only got screwed if they didn't do due diligence work about their purchase, which would make it their own fault. No one spends $10 billion to buy a company without looking through the books and paying their own corporate accountants to do an audit. On the other hand, if they did their due diligence work, then they probably knew, and maybe were just hoping they could get away with something, in which case, yay for the IRS, make those corporate tax frauders pay!

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:Symantec bought into Veritas's problems. by keepingmyheaddown · · Score: 1

      It looks like they got caught in a transfer pricing scheme to evade US taxes. They set up an Irish subsidiary to handle all sales outside the US, but didn't charge the sub a fair (in the opinion of the IRS) price for the software/IP they were selling. Gaming transfer prices is SOP for US multinationals.

      As for it sucking, look up "due diligence"...

    3. Re:Symantec bought into Veritas's problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should go ask those nice republicans if they would like a donation solved.

    4. Re:Symantec bought into Veritas's problems. by osgeek · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but I don't think it's common to go back and recheck all of your acquisition's from 5+ years before. Just getting a handle on that quarter's numbers for a $10B company can take a long time and a huge amount of auditing effort.

      IANAA, though...

    5. Re:Symantec bought into Veritas's problems. by nettdata · · Score: 1

      I asked my cousin about this... he does Mergers and Acquisitions for a top 3 bank.

      That's EXACTLY what they do... they go and check back as far as they are legally responsible for. If it's seven years of tax returns, then they check back 7 years. That's why some of the due dillegence bills alone can be in the millions of dollars, even if the deal never goes through.

      --



      $0.02 (CDN)
    6. Re:Symantec bought into Veritas's problems. by osgeek · · Score: 1

      Huh... live and learn. Thanks for the info.

    7. Re:Symantec bought into Veritas's problems. by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Gotta do your DD or else you end up fucked like this. When you buy a company you're not just buying their assets. You're buying their liabilities, too.

  28. Not suprising by ejaw5 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Symantec probably hired H&R Block to do their taxes this year.

    --

    $cat /dev/random > Sig
  29. I'm starting to wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If our CEO has a crystal ball.

    I work at EMC, when we bought Legato then a couple of months later Symmantec bought Veritas I remember thinking "What kind of dumb@$$ manuever was that?!? We could have had VxVM/VxFS, Backup and clustering that people actually use for only a couple of hundred thou more than we bought Legato for!"

    I still have a hate-on for Joe (what he's done overall to the companMy is disgusting) but I have to give him props for not getting sucked into a billion dollar fiasco.

  30. No balls, no real fight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IRS just neutered one of the of the dogs in the battle for the antivirus market.

  31. Great. by MImeKillEr · · Score: 1

    Now they won't be able to afford to hire any additional developers to improve their crappy products.

    --
    Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
    1. Re:Great. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      haha, they have a few really good developers, who need to do what management decodes, no matter how stupid.
      There developer are beaten, and then sucked dry.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  32. Don't quite understand it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay... So a company buys an other company.
    Isn't the sales price what the value of the sold company is?

    What has just happened with the principle that "the market knows best"?

    Was Veritas "undervalued" in order to save on tax bill, and the difference of the sale price and the "real value" was paid under the table?

    Or Veritas just made a bad deal and the IRS knows better what the real value for Veritas was?

    I don't quite understand it.

  33. Live by the Patent, Die by the Taxes.... by BookRead · · Score: 1
    I love it! Getting bit in the ass over-valuing Intellectual Property. And then trying to have your tax cake and eat it too by selling it to foreign subsidiaries. Made my day!

    Seriously, though, maybe that will help companies take a more measured approach to valuing "intellectual" "property".

    1. Re:Live by the Patent, Die by the Taxes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you bother to read the article? Oh wait, this is /., where NO ONE READS THE FUCKING ARTICLE.

      FYI - Symantec/Veritas UNDERVALUED their intellectual property when they sold it to an Irish subsidiary, and then took a tax loss. Basically, the company tried to set up a tax shelter in Republic of Ireland (which has favorable tax laws for doing business in the Euro zone), and took that loss against their earnings, thus reducing their tax bill by, oh, $900 million dollars.

      Companies off-shore their IP all the time, then lease the rights back to the corporate users. Why do you think there are so many corporations headquartered in the Bahamas, Bermuda, Aruba, Malta, the Channel Islands?

  34. Re:Valuing intellectual property? by Duodecimal · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The flaw in that argument is that the free market can only reach prices for scarce resources. Resources that are not scarce (information, ideas) and must be protected by statutory 'rights'. And the only way to enforce a statutory right is to violate a natural or property right (i.e., what I do with my recordable media in my DVD writer).
    So, my initial irritation with the IRS deciding to extort a huge chunk of money is offset by knowing that a corporation that lives by the sword is getting cut by it too.

  35. New supporters by Artifex33 · · Score: 1

    Let's see if the hits from Symantec to www.fairtax.org increase at all.

    1. Re:New supporters by NokX · · Score: 1

      man, i hope so... income tax has to go and the US needs to stop trying to become a socialist country

    2. Re:New supporters by Artifex33 · · Score: 1

      As someone who just wrote a check yesterday for everything he'd managed to save over the last 12 months, I wholeheartedly agree.

    3. Re:New supporters by geekoid · · Score: 1

      and replace it for?

      Or do you jsut want to slash the government into nothing.
      Before you answer that, be sure you think about all the services the government brings.

      OTOH, you probably just think the government in some abscure thing far away and doesn't impact you at all.

      Dork.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:New supporters by NokX · · Score: 1

      the government shouldn't be in the business of charity or services. it should be in the business of making laws and enforcing them. cut out the charity and services and we souldn't have to be taxed for every single thing we do.

  36. Learn from this... by infinite9 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I used to work for veritas and got out shortly after the buyout. Veritas was a cool place to work. And when symantec took over, they sent out this 1/4" thick book full of management-speak. It was unreal. "What is winning?" "We believe in unity." "Our customers trust us to lead the way." After all of this, they listed the names of every employee from either company. Then they had a company-wide conference call with the new ceo. They had "questions from employees" dolled out by a pretty-sounding secretary type. One of the questions was "what can I do to be a better employee?" "You know, I'm being asked that all the time..." I nearly vomited. Ahead of their exit interview, they send you this questionaire to fill out planning to go ever it with you later. After I sent it back to them, they didn't want to have an exit interview anymore... something about how the ceo on the conference call sounded like a lord trying to placate the serfs. :-) I still have the book as a joke, and as a reminder of why, yet again, I've become a consultant and vow never again to be a wage-slave. I shudder to think about what it costs to print up 20,000 of these shiny black books. If they were trying to buy my loyalty with bull-shit management wrapped in a shiny package, they would have bought more loyalty by simply sending me a check for the printing cost of my little book.

    I hear their stock has dropped by 1/3 since the buyout. I'm glad I didn't hang around for the stock options.

    --
    Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    1. Re:Learn from this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      They did not try to "buy your loyalty with bull-shit management wrapped in a shiny package".

      They do this for their bosses, to prove that they were dealing with the employees properly.
      They have gone through this bullshit themselves, probably a well paid management consultant star brainwashed them. Corporate managers love these fabulous "corporate tales". Some truly believe that if the story is right and the mantra is being told often enough, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

      Strangely enough, Communist leaders used to love the same method - some still wondering what the hell has just happened with the Berlin Wall and why.

    2. Re:Learn from this... by Megane · · Score: 3, Funny
      Did they tell you about this before you left?

      http://www.madchat.org/vxdevl/vxmisc/Symantec_Revo lution.mp3

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:Learn from this... by Mistah+Blue · · Score: 1

      Were you in ECS?

    4. Re:Learn from this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's nice. Finding a rapper to rap about your latest security softwares.

      *THUMP*

      That's the sound of me dropping on the floor laughing to death

    5. Re:Learn from this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:Learn from this... by mmkkbb · · Score: 1

      I've become a consultant and vow never again to be a wage-slave.

      Errr, don't you get the same sorta BS from your clients?

      --
      -mkb
    7. Re:Learn from this... by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      One of the questions was "what can I do to be a better employee?" "You know, I'm being asked that all the time..." I nearly vomited.

      I myself have often wondered why management feels the need to insult the intelligence of their employees, especially when those employees have engineering degrees or other advanced forms of education. Surely they know that running a fortune 1000 software company is not the same as running the local fast food franchise and yet they continually try to equate the two with their bumbling and inept leadership styles. If they want to motivate their employees and reward outstanding achievements then why not offer cash bonuses and stock options just as they do for themselves? Are the contributions by the engineers and others to the ultimate success of their enterprise any less important than their own? Would they be satisfied with meaningless platitudes, tired clichés, and a free t-shirt with the logo of the company emblazoned across the front instead of their cash bonus? Certainly not, so why should we be expected to believe that the bear shit is better than the buckwheat when anyone can see that the emperor has no clothes? If there are managers reading this then please remember that your engineers are intelligent people and will not be placated by reverse physiology, worthless trinkets, or motivational speeches. If you want to get the most out of your engineers then treat them with the same respect that you would extend to your management colleagues and offer real rewards for real work because in the end, if it were you, would you expect anything less?

    8. Re:Learn from this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to work for a company whose investors got jittery after the Enron thing and the management responded by initating a company-wide program dealing with employee ethics. They mentioned many times that they didn't want to become the next Enron. They spent god-know-how much money printing up all sorts of materials and sending trainging folk out to every office we had all around the country. The presentation dealt with such complicated topics as (you'll probably guess what industry they're a part of) "Is it ok to post employee perscription information to public forums?" and "Can I look up and manipulate the patient records of my friends and relatives?" (no joke).

      Somehow the presenter didn't find it funny when I told her that all that was necessary to avoid becomming the next Enron was to run these sessions for senior management...

      I too am glad to be gone from that job, but I do wish I had managed to exercise more of my stock since, like most other stocks dealing with prescription drugs, it has done quite well.

    9. Re:Learn from this... by rw2 · · Score: 1

      Errr, don't you get the same sorta BS from your clients?

      Yes. But as a consultant you can usually say no if you want to and are only accountable to yourself. And, if you do take the gig anyway, you keep the margin to pay for thing *you* think are important instead of looking at the nice car your CEO drives but you cannot afford.

    10. Re:Learn from this... by syousef · · Score: 1

      Common mistake. You've basically shot yourself in the foot by being too honest in the exit interview. You did more than be too honest, you sound like you've done enough to be memorable. This means that at some point in the future someone's going to remember what you said and not hire you (consultant or permanent) because no one wants to hire someone who is sour, judgemental or critical of a former employer. Basically the company paid your wages for a long while and most people consider you to owe them some courtesy. I mean basic tact is an important skill. If you're the sort of person that walks up to his boss and says "You're an idiot" you're not going to get far (whether or not the title is richly deserved).

      In your position, I'd have been careful how much I gave away. No need to kiss anyone's boots. Just let them ask their inane questions, answer politely and if it's not nice don't say it.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    11. Re:Learn from this... by WallyAnti · · Score: 1

      I had a similar experience with the ISP I used to work for. When I started there everyone loved their jobs and could get answers to whatever questions they may have had. Slowly over the course of three years things changed. Noone knew how any of the services really worked. Actual knowledge of the product was replaced by patronizing "moral boosters". Things like the book you mentioned, banners, and plenty of vanilla cake. I can't help but roll my eyes thinking back on it.

    12. Re:Learn from this... by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Basically the company paid your wages for a long while and most people consider you to owe them some courtesy.

      While I agree that going off in an exit interview isn't the greatest thing to do, I disagree with your statement above. When I leave a company, I don't owe them anything, unless previously obligated by contract. They paid me for a service that I have performed for them. If they want anything additional, they can continue paying me for my time.

      Do you think management has the same attitude of 'courtesy'? Ha!! Look at all these people who are getting COMPLETELY FUCKED by companies they've worked for for years. GM/Delphi, Ford, Delta, Enron, etc.

    13. Re:Learn from this... by Politburo · · Score: 1

      I myself have often wondered why management feels the need to insult the intelligence of their employees, especially when those employees have engineering degrees or other advanced forms of education.

      It's truly mind boggling. Health insurance costs went up here, as they did everywhere else. I work at an engineering firm and almost everyone has at least a bachelors. Management came up with this convoluted hypothetical situation where your health care costs would actually go down due to the new Rx plan, etc. It was a complete joke and we all saw right through it. For 99% of cases, prices were going to increase and management is trying to spin it as a decrease in cost. A few of us were seriously insulted that they would try such an obvious trick.

    14. Re:Learn from this... by kbahey · · Score: 1

      Some truly believe that if the story is right and the mantra is being told often enough, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

      "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels, chief propagandist for the Nazi Third Reich.

    15. Re:Learn from this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The current CEO came from IBM. He's not a techie. He talks marketing speak and corporate doubletalk. He rarely answers a direct yes/no question with, but he regurgitates 5 minutes of blarney and expects the techies to fall for it.

      He seems to run Symantec on the principle of "What would I do if I ran IBM?".

      I prefered the previous CEO. At least he knew something about tech, and had a sense of humor.

  37. How did "900 million" become "1BN"? by SuperBanana · · Score: 0

    The IRS Hits Symantec with a $1 Billion Tax Bill

    Okay, I could understand "Product X costs almost $100" if the price is $90; that'a discrepancy of $10, and you qualified it with "almost".

    This, however, is a one hundred million dollar round-up, with no qualifier. It's not even "almost." But "billion" sounds cooler, eh?

    1. Re:How did "900 million" become "1BN"? by weasello · · Score: 1

      Well, if you RTFA, you'd see they were slapped with an additional, unrelated $100 million bill for last year's tax returns. :P

      And don't forget - these figures do NOT include penalties or interest. O_O

    2. Re:How did "900 million" become "1BN"? by nigelo · · Score: 2, Informative

      The last sentence of the summary points out the additional $100M:

      "...a 900 million dollar tax bill due to the charge that Symantec and Veritas (purchased by Symnatec last year) under-reported the value of intellectual property which they had transferred to their two Irish subsidiaries. Another $100 million is connected to Symantec's 2003 and 2004 reports."

      --
      *Still* negative function...
    3. Re:How did "900 million" become "1BN"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTFSummary: Another $100 million is connected to Symantec's 2003 and 2004 reports.

      Duh.

    4. Re:How did "900 million" become "1BN"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just die already

    5. Re:How did "900 million" become "1BN"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is another 100M in another case. Read the last line

  38. a billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i thought $1 billion was $1024 million. oh wait. anyone else have the same reaction?

    1. Re:a billion? by Bassman59 · · Score: 1

      No.

  39. Re:Valuing intellectual property? by Duodecimal · · Score: 0
    Erm, something ate two whole clauses from two consecutive sentences. To rephrase:

    The flaw in that argument is that the free market can only reach prices for scarce resources. Resources that are not scarce (information, ideas) and must be protected by statutory 'rights' have no free market value. And the only way to enforce a statutory right is to violate a natural or property right (i.e., what I do with my recordable media in my DVD writer) by having the local justice monopoly (government) grant a useage monopoly (copyright, patent).

    That's not free market.

    So, my initial irritation with the IRS deciding to extort a huge chunk of money is offset by knowing that a corporation that lives by the sword is getting cut by it too.

  40. Don't Be So Certain... by Black-Man · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They obviously pushed their IP to the Irish subsidiary's specifically to avoid the IRS. And they got caught. Sure, they will settle, but they WILL pay in this post-Enron world.

    1. Re:Don't Be So Certain... by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Sure, they will settle, but they WILL pay in this post-Enron world.

      No, they won't. You're under the misapprehension that companies have wealth. They do not. Only people hold wealth and property (this includes shareholders, by the way). Therefore, if the IRS hits Symantec with a $1 billion charge, you and I (as consumers and/or shareholders) will foot the bill. Never let the class-warefare rhetoric let you forget that every time a company pays a fine or pays taxes, you as the consumer of that company's goods are actually paying that fine.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    2. Re:Don't Be So Certain... by Tweekster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You may buy their products, but I certainly dont. You pay their bill, I will stick to something cheaper and better.

      --
      The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
    3. Re:Don't Be So Certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a company pays a fine because it was mismanaged, who do you think should be the one to demand a fix? If shareholders don't pay for mistakes made by the companies they own, the whole system is a joke. You're wording reminds me of the people who where saying tobacco companies should not be punished for lying about their products because it would hurt the poor innocent shareholders. This is the same people who say you shouldn't be able to sue them, since everyone knew they were lying. Bah!

    4. Re:Don't Be So Certain... by nb+caffeine · · Score: 1

      Not if I don't consume their goods or own their stock. Both of which I am glad I don't.

      --

      "Something's wrong with you...and I hope we never do meet again." - Deftones When Girls Telephone Boys
    5. Re:Don't Be So Certain... by Mistah+Blue · · Score: 1

      Are you absolutely certain any entities you deal with for pay (either from you or to you) don't use Symantec products? If so, you pay. If not, you don't. Just don't be so positive this isn't going to cost. It may not cost you directly, but could indirectly.

    6. Re:Don't Be So Certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never let the class-warefare rhetoric let you forget that every time a company pays a fine or pays taxes, you as the consumer of that company's goods are actually paying that fine.

      This is bs on so many levels, but I'll stick to one point.

      You seem to be ignoring the fact that if one business is allowed to avoid taxes while his competitor is not, there will be no competition. A fair field benefits everyone.

    7. Re:Don't Be So Certain... by HardCase · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and the gold fringe around the flag means that it's an admiralty court, so it has no jurisdiction over you.

      Every expense is part of the profit/loss statement. No surprise there. But this isn't a commodity business, so prices don't move in direct relation to those expenses. If all that it took to deal with an increase in expenses was a corresponding increase in prices, then no company would ever post a loss. The hitch in that plan is that most pricing is driven by the marketplace as opposed to being simply a "cost plus" proposition.

      The whole wealth and class warfare business is just a red herring. You can apply the same rhetoric to any expense that a company pays. It's just the cost of doing business. If your costs are low enough, you make money. If they're not, you lose money. In a competitive market, the margin of price adjustment directly related to costs isn't vary large.

      Incidentally, /.'s favorite whipping boy, Microsoft, has something like $40 billion in cash. That's wealth. My employer has about $2 billion on hand. That's wealth, too. Sure, you could make an argument that it's wealth that belongs to the shareholders, but the whole company belongs to them - from the physical plant to the paper clips. But saying that it's the shareholder's money is like saying that public lands belong to the people - which acre in Nevada is yours?

      The hole in part of your proposition is that, under normal conditions, "ownership" (in the form of stock) in a corporation is not a literal thing.

      -h-

    8. Re:Don't Be So Certain... by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you missed the part of my post where I said that this applied to "consumers", which was kind of a hint that it would apply to people who purchased Symantec products.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    9. Re:Don't Be So Certain... by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and the gold fringe around the flag means that it's an admiralty court, so it has no jurisdiction over you.

      This makes no sense. What is your point?

      Every expense is part of the profit/loss statement. No surprise there. But this isn't a commodity business, so prices don't move in direct relation to those expenses. If all that it took to deal with an increase in expenses was a corresponding increase in prices, then no company would ever post a loss. The hitch in that plan is that most pricing is driven by the marketplace as opposed to being simply a "cost plus" proposition.

      All cost increases eventually trickle down to the consumer, either in the form of higher prices or reduced profit margins. The former requires the consumer to foot the bill. The latter puts the company at a disadvantage competitively, thus hurting stockholders and potentially putting the firm out of business. quod erat demonstrandum.

      The whole wealth and class warfare business is just a red herring.

      The OP seemed just a tad too smug that Symantec was being fined so egregiously, especially the part about Symantec trying to hide wealth overseas. Sounded an awful lot like "those fat cats got what they deserved" without anyone considering the impact to the average consumer or shareholder. That, in turn, sounds almost identical to the average idiot's class warfare rhetoric.

      Incidentally, /.'s favorite whipping boy, Microsoft, has something like $40 billion in cash. That's wealth. My employer has about $2 billion on hand. That's wealth, too. Sure, you could make an argument that it's wealth that belongs to the shareholders, but the whole company belongs to them - from the physical plant to the paper clips. But saying that it's the shareholder's money is like saying that public lands belong to the people - which acre in Nevada is yours?

      No, it's not. I have a certificate (quite a few of them, actually) that says how many shares of the company I own. I get to vote on various things depending upon the company. I can redeem that stock any time I choose for its fair market value. Were I rich enough, I could purchase a controlling interest in said company and direct it myself. None of this applies to your "public land" analogy, making it more than a little flawed. Actually, it's a lot flawed. No, then again, it's totally flawed.

      But to address your $40 billion in MS cash comment, Microsoft, as a company, can do nothing with that money. Can a company walk down to the store and even buy a gallon of milk? No, it cannot. A company cannot spend any money because it is not a sentient entity. It has no wants, needs, or desires. It has no volition. It is an organizational construct, nothing more. People spend money, which is why that $40 billion in cash actually belongs to Microsoft's stockholders. Again, you've proven my argument that companies do not and cannot hold wealth. Thanks! It's not like I needed help, but if you're willing to make my arguments for me, so much the better.

      The hole in part of your proposition is that, under normal conditions, "ownership" (in the form of stock) in a corporation is not a literal thing.

      Oh really? Methinks thou art...well...wrong. If I only own one share of Microsoft, I still own it. That is a literal thing in every sense of the word. I'd love to see you try and prove otherwise.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    10. Re:Don't Be So Certain... by HardCase · · Score: 1

      Your last sentence makes my point. If you own one share of Microsoft, you own it - a share. You own a share that represents some fraction of the value of the company. But what do you own? A tire on one of the company cars? A few cases of paper? A copy of Windows XP? Even if you owned a controlling interest, what do you own? You own an abstraction of the value of the company. Can you take your share of Microsoft stock to Redmond and ask for your 10e-9th fraction of the assets of the company? Nope. But you can sell that abstraction to somebody else.

      The stock represents the assets, profits and losses of the company. It implies ownership, but it is not ownership in the classic sense. You own a share of MSFT. You own and interest in MSFT. Maybe you even own a controlling interest in MSFT. But what do you own? What can you do with that portion of MSFT that you claim you own? Well...nothing, really. You can vote your proxy, I guess, but that's about it. Oh, and you can sell it. But you can't touch the assets that are owned by Microsoft. So who really owns the assets?

      Your argument that MS is merely an organizational construct is also a red herring. Volition, sentience - that has nothing to do with ownership. Here's another example of why you're wrong. I owned several houses. I transferred the title to those houses to a corporation. My wife and I own the corporation. The corporation owns the houses. Do I own 50% of the houses? No - I own 50% of the corporation. I can direct the disposal of the assets of the corporation, but they are not my direct assets. If I sell the houses, turn it all into cash, then I own a corporation that has a lot of cash. But which dollar is mine and which is my wife's? What can I do with the assets of that corporation? Can I just take the money and run? Believe me, if I started dipping into the assets of the corporation by using the excuse that I own 50% of it, so 50% of its assets are mine, there will be legal (not to mention tax) trouble like you wouldn't believe! On the other hand, I can, under certain circumstances, sell my 50% interest in the corporation, the value of which may or may not be limited purely to the value of the houses.

      As a corporate officer, I still have to pay the bills on behalf of the corporation. But that does not make the assets of the corporation my assets, nor does it diminish the corporation's ownership of its assets. Same with your stock.

      The bottom line is that stock is merely an abstraction of the company.

      Oh, and the first line of my original reply was sarcasm.

      -h-

    11. Re:Don't Be So Certain... by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Your last sentence makes my point. If you own one share of Microsoft, you own it - a share. You own a share that represents some fraction of the value of the company. But what do you own? A tire on one of the company cars? A few cases of paper? A copy of Windows XP? Even if you owned a controlling interest, what do you own? You own an abstraction of the value of the company. Can you take your share of Microsoft stock to Redmond and ask for your 10e-9th fraction of the assets of the company? Nope. But you can sell that abstraction to somebody else.

      This argument is specious. Taking your logic, I can own 100% of the shares of a company yet -- according to you -- I still "own" nothing. Or are you going to argue that your position only applies to those who have fractional ownership?

      As for your idea that you can't go to Microsoft and demand your portion of the company, you're quite right. But you're forgetting what stock really is. It is not a deed of ownership of a tangible item, it is ownership of value. The value fluctuates with the worth of the company (and other variables, of course), but my portion of that ownership does not change. The fact that you own an intangible does nothing to alter the fact that you still own it, which was my original -- and still uncontested -- argument.

      Now, if you wish to redefine ownership as something that can only apply to tangible things, be my guest. The rest of the world won't join you in your quest to reshape the English language, but you go right ahead and get your jollies however you see fit.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  41. Even beter, outdated IP value! by RingDev · · Score: 1

    The issue stems from Symantic undervaluing the IP behind Veritas in 2000-2001. Now, I'm sure I'm not the only one on /. that had to deal with that worthless piece of crap software in that time frame. The IP value of Veritas wasn't worth the CD the software was burned on. I've seen more effective backup systems writen in 5 lines of bash script.

    In any case, it hardly matters. Symantic and the IRS will argue, then settle for $20 mil.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    1. Re:Even beter, outdated IP value! by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a true Astroturfer who probabyl works for CA.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    2. Re:Even beter, outdated IP value! by RingDev · · Score: 1

      Nope, just a disgrunteled customer. Veritas has improved greatly over the last few years, but in 2000-2001 the software was a pile of smega.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  42. By adding $100M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Macworld is reporting that the IRS has charged Symantec Corporation with about a 900 million dollar tax bill due to the charge that Symantec and Veritas (purchased by Symnatec last year) under-reported the value of intellectual property which they had transferred to their two Irish subsidiaries. Another $100 million is connected to Symantec's 2003 and 2004 reports.

    "a 900 million dollar tax bill" + "Another $100 million" = $1 Billion

  43. Re:Nothing New About Tax Evasion& Creative Acc by qbzzt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Without the loopholes, the IRS tax guide would have exactly 3 pages: the front page, the tax formula, and the back page.

    Not exactly. How do you define income? In other words, what is a business expense (I bought a widget for $15 and sold it for $25, so I made $10), and what isn't (I bought a widget for $15 and lunch for $5, then sold the widget for $25 - I still made $10)? What if I bought lunch to find widget buyers in the restaurant?

    The whole concept of taxing income is flawed because income is abstract. It can be manipulated in multiple ways. It would be better to tax something tangible like property or sales - but that would lose politicians their power to play with the tax code to the benefit of their backers.

    --
    -- Support a free market in the field of government
  44. Transfer Pricing issue by Steve+Hamlin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Transfer pricing is how companies allocate revenues and expenses across borders. Because an inter-company transaction isn't arms-length (nor at presumed fair market value), companies can play games with the prices at which goods are transfered between related parties. You try to shift income (minimize revenue, maximize expense) out of countries with high taxes, and into countries with lower taxes.

    BTW, this is the same idea that underlies SALT strategizing (State and Local Tax). You move income out of states with high taxes (NY), and into states with low/no taxes (FL). That is why you'll see cost centers (backoffice) in low-tax states. The company then "charges" the revenue-generating units for use of these services, and income is shifted from the revenue units (high tax locations) into cost centers (low tax locations)

    Here, it looks like Veritas licensed software (IP) to a subsidiary in Ireland, and at a transfer price that the IRS thought was too low (below market). The IRS is claiming that Vertias-U.S. should have recognized greater licensing revenue than they did, and as a result, they underreported their income. Complexities of international tax treaties aside, it could be because they wanted to leave more income in Ireland (lower expense for the Ireland sub), which might have had a lower tax rate. Or timing, or US vs IRE tax credits, or deductibility or software expensing/amortization, or witholding, or offsets with other subs, or phases of the moon, etc.

    From the 8-K, "The Notice of Deficiency primarily relates to transfer pricing in connection with a technology license agreement between VERITAS and a foreign subsidiary."

    From a news article: "Genevieve Haldeman, Symantec's vice president of corporate communications, ...explained that the notices related to transfer pricing of intellectual property, in effect licensing technology from the Symantec parent company to its Irish affiliate to sell outside of the Americas."

    "Effectively what the IRS is saying is that separately both Symantec and Veritas undervalued the technology license that was used in the international subsidiary," she said. "They believe it should be valued at a higher rate, and given their valuation, we owe additional taxes."

    1. Re:Transfer Pricing issue by Somegeek · · Score: 1

      Thanks for taking the time to post that. Made it a lot more clear!

      --
      And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
    2. Re:Transfer Pricing issue by eionmac · · Score: 1

      Irish corporation taxes on profits are 16.5% about half those of other Europrean states and about 50% below USA combined Fed and state taxes. This is to locate profit in low tax regime, as location of ownership is location of 'management charge ' for use by USA ,or elsewhere, parts of company

      --
      Regards Eion MacDonald
  45. Symantec claim could be much higher by brettbum · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's a more thorough version of this story at Red Herring http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=16541&hed =Symantec+Faces+Hefty+Tax+Billor=Industries&subsec tor=SecurityAndDefense There are two parts to this Veritas claim $900m Symantec claim $100 m That's a total of $1b If you glance at the IRS rules for calculating penalties and interest your head will spin. However the penalty for not paying is 0.5% per month for every month not paid. so Veritas if we lump it all at the end of 2001 and say they didn't pay $900 million for 2002,3,4,5, and last 3 months of 2006 So that's $45 million per month for conservative 51 months = $2,295,000,000 in penalties excluding taxes (not compounded) Plust interest at 6% per year (not compounded) - $54 million per year for 4 years + $13.5 million last three months = $229,500,000 in Interest Then you have a $100 million Symantec Tax bill based on their subsidiary setup in an Irish tax haven to tranfer profits out of the US to Ireland (not making a moralistic comment just stating the facts) This is for 2003/2004, so if we look at it like it all happened at the end of 2004 for simplicity, we have 12 months in 2005 and 3 months in 2005 for penalties Or $5 million per month for 15 months = $75 million in penalties That leaves $6 million in interest for 2005 and $1.5 million year to date for 06 in interest Add it all up Veritas tax claim $900m Veritas Penalties $2.295B Veritas Interest $229m Symantec tax claim $100m Symantec Penalties $75m Symantec Interest $7.5m Grand Total Potential claim - $3.607 Billion Reality Check Symantec will fight the tax claim and will negotiate to reduce the penalties and interest charges. However, as there is a significant amount of pressure from Wall Street, they probably need to wrap this up quickly. No matter what they'll have to cook their estimates of what they think this will really cost into their reserves to provide a provision for it and that will hit the bottom line in their quarterly(may be there already). Others have pointed out that it might have been smart of Symantec to perform a little due dilligence of Veritas. I think Symantec is getting the picture now. They just bought an open can of worms and attracted the IRS's attention to look at their other transactions as well.

    1. Re:Symantec claim could be much higher by nsayer · · Score: 1
      This being /., I don't think it's too much to ask for you to construct a proper link.

    2. Re:Symantec claim could be much higher by umrgregg · · Score: 1
      Screw that. Block of unreadable HTML formated text, meet the break
        and paragraph

      tag.

      --
      NMG
    3. Re:Symantec claim could be much higher by brettbum · · Score: 1

      My apologies for crappy formatting on original comment:


      There's a more thorough version of this story at Red Herring

      There are two parts to this


      Veritas claim $900m
      Symantec claim $100m

      Total of $1b

      If you glance at the IRS rules for calculating penalties and interest your head will spin.However the penalty for not paying is 0.5% per month for every month not paid. So if we lump the Veritas portion in at the end of 2001 and say they didn't pay $900 million for 2002,3,4,5, and last 3 months of 2006.

      That's $45 million per month for conservative 51 months = $2,295,000,000 in penalties excluding taxes (not compounded)

      Plus interest at 6% per year (not compounded) - $54 million per year for 4 years + $13.5 million last three months = $229,500,000 in Interest


      Then you have a $100 million Symantec Tax bill based on their subsidiary setup in an Irish tax haven to tranfer profits out of the US to Ireland (not making a moralistic comment just stating the facts)
      This is for 2003/2004, so if we look at it like it all happened at the end of 2004 for simplicity, we have 12 months in 2005 and 3 months in 2005 for penalties.
      Or $5 million per month for 15 months = $75 million in penalties.

      That leaves $6 million in interest for 2005 and $1.5 million year to date for 06 in interest.


      Add it all upVeritas tax claim $900m
      Veritas Penalties $2.295B
      Veritas Interest $229m
      Symantec tax claim $100m
      Symantec Penalties $75m
      Symantec Interest $7.5m

      Grand Total Potential claim - $3.607 Billion

      Reality Check

      Symantec will fight the tax claim and will negotiate to reduce the penalties and interest charges.

      However, as there is a significant amount of pressure from Wall Street, they probably need to wrap this up quickly.

      No matter what they'll have to cook their estimates of what they think this will really cost into their reserves to provide a provision for it and that will hit the bottom line in their quarterly(may be there already).

      Others have pointed out that it might have been smart of Symantec to perform a little due dilligence of Veritas. I think Symantec is getting the picture now. They just bought an open can of worms and attracted the IRS's attention to look at their other transactions as well.

    4. Re:Symantec claim could be much higher by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      I think your calculations are off by an order of magnitude.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    5. Re:Symantec claim could be much higher by brettbum · · Score: 1

      The penalty and interest mechanism at the IRS is stacked in favor of the IRS and set up to severely intimidate people to pay their taxes in full and on time

      Its very very easy for the penalties and interest to double the tax liability when someone owes back taxes

      The more time that passes the more this arithmetic growth displays itself(keep in mind I did not compound the interest nor the penalties in the simple example


      As my Reality Check indicates, this usually gets negotiated away, hence the lack of publicity on the topic. It does the IRS no good to publish the fact that they will negotiate it away, and it does the company no good to publish a potentially larger bill.
      So trying to identify the middle ground will not be easy. Symantec will have to negotiate both its tax position on both tax claims(Veritas & Symantec). Once they have settled on an amount of back taxes with the IRS, they'll have to prove they were not evading income taxes, ergo just a simple mistake.
      Then they can review the penalties and negotiate that away. Both sides will look at the cost of taking it to court, legal resources and costs and a number of other factors

      My simple example shows the upper bounds of the claim. If Symantec negotiates the $1b claim down to say $600m, they will still need to negotiate the penalties and interest too. Which could indicate a final payment around $1b or more anyway.

    6. Re:Symantec claim could be much higher by Zak3056 · · Score: 1
      I think your calculations are off by an order of magnitude.

      The penalty and interest mechanism at the IRS is stacked in favor of the IRS and set up to severely intimidate people to pay their taxes in full and on time

      I'm not disputing that part--merely your suggesation that 0.5% of $900M is $45M. Your calculations were literally off by an order of magnitude.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    7. Re:Symantec claim could be much higher by brettbum · · Score: 1

      Zak, You are correct. Should be $4.5m per month not $45m per month. My son doesn't listen to me either the first time that I tell him his math work has an error. Apparently, the condition is genetic. - brett

    8. Re:Symantec claim could be much higher by brettbum · · Score: 1

      Per Zak's catch on my math error,

      The total claim with penalties and interest (not compounded) would be an additional $229m not $2.29b


      Still a substantial chunck of money for Symantec.

      Please note I did not compound interest nor penalties. The IRS does.

  46. Efficiency by Blue0ctane · · Score: 1

    Like Norton and Symantec could get any more unsecure. With this tax bill, expect them to cut some of their staff - most likely their "best" programmers.

    --
    Everyone's favorite Jewish kid!
    1. Re:Efficiency by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      With this tax bill, expect them to cut some of their staff - most likely their "best" programmers.

      You mean the ones that write the viruses?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  47. Now I don't feel so bad... by JustASlashDotGuy · · Score: 1

    I was pretty upset over having to pay the state $13 this year, but I do believe that Symantec has it worse, heh.

    1. Re:Now I don't feel so bad... by Yaotzin · · Score: 1

      13 dollars? I would gladly pay that amount in tax every year. :-)

      --
      Error: No error occurred
  48. Symantec reported the information, not the IRS by tppublic · · Score: 1

    This is NOT the IRS playing the media, this is based on a company filing a report with the SEC... following the legally established rules (see 13(l)) that the company must "disclose to the public on a rapid and current basis such additional information concerning material changes in the financial condition or operations..."

  49. Is $900mil a big deal for SYMC? by eltonito · · Score: 1
    As I told my friend who was complaining about paying twice my annual salary in taxes...

    "I wish I had the income to experience your problem."

    Symantec has yearly revenue of what... $20bil? The issue at hand is their filing over a $10bil acquisition?

    I really wish I had such problems.

    ***Yes, I am aware I am not a huge, multi-national corporation that employees tens of thousands of people. I am, however, beset with my own financial setback today that somehow failed to make the news. My AC died, it's hot today and it's 10% of my salary to replace the entire system.

    1. Re:Is $900mil a big deal for SYMC? by nuzak · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Symantec has yearly revenue of what... $20bil?

      John Thompson would be squealing like a gleeful schoolgirl if that were true.

      Try 2.58 billion. It's as easy as sticking SYMC into google.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    2. Re:Is $900mil a big deal for SYMC? by eltonito · · Score: 1

      I did... but my conversion was off by a few digits. :)

  50. This isn't even a RTFA by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 1

    This is a RTFS! Read the f***ing summary!

  51. Veritas BackupExec down the tubes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to work for veritas and got out shortly after the buyout. Veritas was a cool place to work.

    Tell us WTF happened with Veritas between versions 8.x and 9.x of Backup Exec???

    We used to have 5 different buildings/LANS full of Wintel servers backed up with 8.6 and it worked mostly flawlessly. Then came version 9.0 and the product went to hell in a handbag. The switch to MSDE as the database storage was an abomination. I immediately noticed all the free memory on all the servers gobbled up by the MSDE SQL server process and the machines would grind down to a sluggish snail's pace. Backup jobs would fail left and right for various indeterminable reasons that never happened with version 8.6. The Open Files feature almost never worked after 9.0 either. Was the whole 9.x product redesign team smoking drugs or something? The product got so bad that we had to replace it with a competitor's backup software one year ago, at a great expense, in order to start getting good backups again. My boss was so cheesed over the whole deal that he will never buy anything again made by either Veritas or Symantec (yeah I know Symantec had little to do with the BE 9.x fiasco), which is a bummer because we use pcAnywhere and Ghost a lot and those two are very good products, but he won't allow us to buy them anymore, and we musty switch to alternatives.

  52. Symantec has not reported this to inverstors yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SYM has not reported this issue for their investors yet:

    http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=89422& p=irol-news

    Maybe it's not true...

  53. and i say... by stewie's+deuce · · Score: 1

    why does the word 'extortion' come to mind?

    1. Re:and i say... by Unlikely_Hero · · Score: 1

      It comes to mind because that's what taxes are.
      Money
      Taken
      By
      Force
      For
      Things
      You
      Wouldn't
      Have
      Spent
      It
      On

      Clear enough?

      --
      Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
  54. Outside the CEO's office.. by packetmill · · Score: 0

    EMPLOYEE 1: You tell him

    EMPLYOYEE 2: No YOU tell him

    [gunshots heard from within]

  55. RIAA have learnt their lesson by MarkByers · · Score: 2, Funny

    charging $750 for copying one song.

    So they finally they gave in to public pressure and reduced their prices.

    --
    I'll probably be modded down for this...
  56. Ireland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hope it makes a few corporations a bit more wary about "investing" in Ireland too. I'm Irish, and I fucking hate what the corporatist scumbags have done to the place in the past few years. AMERICANS: invest in India or something. Get the fuck out of Ireland (especially Shannon, you warmongering bastards).

  57. Gary Bloom, is that you??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hope you sold your stock right after you bailed out!!

  58. FAIRTAX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Golly, that FairTax thing is looking better everyday.

    1. Re:FAIRTAX by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      Well, this is a troll, but since I've seen posts like this before, it deserves a response. First, for this specific article, I'd rather have some huge crapware business pay taxes than me. Second, in general, a consumption based tax is regressive meaning that, the more money you make, the lower the percentage you pay in taxes. This is why FairTax has the minimum rebate. But this just means that the lowest classes will pay no tax, and the brunt of the tax will be felt by the middle class. The more money you make, the more you save, the more you save, the less you consume.

      This is why we have an income tax. A good, clean, progressive income tax (without all these exceptions) is what we need, not a tax that only benefits the lowest and highest classes. The middle class is what keeps a republic intact. They're also what makes up the biggest part of the American economy. /rant

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    2. Re:FAIRTAX by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      The only thing I would add to that is that a real progressive income tax (not the fake one we have now) is also more fair since those in the higher income brackets generally benefit more from the society through things like the police force, courts, roads, and other aspects of the infrastructure. The way things are now, if you are in the upper-middle to lower-upper class (~$50k to $300k/year), you have the greatest burden since the truly rich have able to sleaze their way out of a lot of taxes. The upper-middle to lower-upper class have to deal with being in the higher income bracket, but it is even higher than it would be under a fair progressive system since the uber-rich don't have to worry about their tax rates as much as you do. And, they can hire their army of monkey lawyers to figure all the tax evasion schemes that their money has bought in Congress.

    3. Re:FAIRTAX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The very rich also have the money to hire their own security forces, so they don't really need our stinking police.

    4. Re:FAIRTAX by d_54321 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd rather have some huge crapware business pay taxes than me.
      Right now, with our current tax system, both you and the business are paying taxes. Except with corporate income taxes, the corporations raise their prices to foot their bill, passing their tax burden on to you. The FairTax removes corporate income taxes. Then market competition will force them to lower their prices.Then you stop paying for corporate income taxes.

      in general, a consumption based tax is <i>regressive</i>
      In general, yes. Not with the FairTax, because of the prebate you mentioned, the FairTax is a system that is progressive.

      the brunt of the tax will be felt by the middle class
      Read up a little more on who are the winners and losers of the FairTax

      The more money you make, the more you save[. T]he more you save, the less you consume.
      There is a flaw in your logic. If the more money you make is greater than what you plan to save, then you can both save more and consume more. Also read up on what increased saving does to interest rates and how that benefits the whole economy.

      A good, clean, progressive income tax (without all these exceptions) is what we need
      A common point against the FairTax is that it's a good idea, but it'll never happen. I agree that the likelihood (and more to the point, ease) of getting the FairTax passed isn't its strongest aspect, but it is way more likely than hoping Congress will go thru our current system and plug up all of its thousands of holes. The current system is a whopping steaming piece of shit. It needs to be scrapped an replaced.

    5. Re:FAIRTAX by d_54321 · · Score: 1

      Do you realize that with our current system, the "rich" are not necessarily taxed? The current system taxes based on income. But this excludes those who go a year without earning anything, rather just living off their earnings from previous years. The income tax treats them differently- it gives them a free pass. The FairTax does not.

    6. Re:FAIRTAX by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1
      Um, CEOs and high-level executives make lots of income, both from direct compensation, benefits, investments, and so on. Corporations make lots of money too, in case you haven't noticed, which would be properly taxed by a true progressive income tax. The problem is that now there are too many loopholes for them. Plus, if the theoretical person you posit above didn't make any income, but only lived off the money he already has, then he is eating into his savings. If he only eats into his savings and doesn't make any actual money, why should he pay income tax? Also, he is an idiot for not earning any interest on his savings, the interest of which would be taxed. The current system, and any reasonable progressive income tax system, is based on all income, not just wages and salary.

      You also seem to forget that a consumption tax has already been tried. It was called the Gilded Age. I have no desire for the USA to go back to the ways of the 19th century. I'd rather we become something at least resembling a civilized nation.

    7. Re:FAIRTAX by d_54321 · · Score: 1

      Corporations make lots of money too
      This statement is misleading since corporations own nothing. All wealth is owned by individuals. All the wealth in corporations is individual shareholders.

      which would be properly taxed by a true progressive income tax.
      So when the corporations are taxed and they raise their prices in order to meet that tax burden, passing the tax burden on to consumers, that's proper? Funny, I call it obscuring the cost of the federal government.

      The problem is that now there are too many loopholes
      There are several solutions for that. The most feasible is doing away with the whole income tax system and replacing it with something that doesn't have loophooles (much more likely than relying on congress to go thru the tax code and plug up all --or even half-- of the thousands of holes).

      If he [...] doesn't make any actual money, why should he pay income tax?
      I'm not saying he should pay an income tax if he doesn't make any income. But doesn't it get under your skin to know that he can both be wealthy and live tax free? It does for me. And that's a loophole that no reasonable edit to the current tax code can fix. He still uses the government services, he should pay for them somehow. Basing taxes on income doesn't do it. Basing taxes on consumption does.

      You also seem to forget that a consumption tax has already been tried. It was called the Gilded Age
      First, I found no mention of consumption taxes here.
      Second, let's assume for a second that you're being honest and that there were consumption taxes back then, which led to drastic increase in immigration which led to "increased prejudice and racial discrimination". Consider for a moment why that would happen. For starters, this was before the civil rights movement. Next, there are suddenly a bunch of people flocking to the USA because of a booming economy (and this is a bad thing?). For each that flocked here legally, I'd have no problem with that, nor should anyone else. Otherwise, flock the flockers.

  59. Asset valuation appraisal methods by Steve+Hamlin · · Score: 2, Informative

    Generall, experience valuation practitioners use 3 separate ways to value assets, or indeed, enterprises.

    (1) Cost - what it cost you to create. More applicable to tangible, long-lived fixed assets in mature industries. Less so to IP, or to companies.

    (2) Market - what it costs for comparable assets on the market. Very good if you can find similar comps. For IP, you'd look to licensing rates, for enterprises, you'd look to market transactions of similar companies.

    (3) Income - the present value of a stream of future cash flows that arise from that assets. Depends a great deal on the assumptions that go into the model (market adoption of your IP, enterprise revenue and expense growth and the discount rate used)

    You take these amounts, weight them according to the type of asset you are valuing, and give a range of probable value.

    See also my post above about transfer pricing in this case. The IRS would use the above valuation techniques to figure out the appropriate transfer price.

  60. Nah, I'm reasonably certain. by hey! · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, they won't. You're under the misapprehension that companies have wealth. They do not. Only people hold wealth and property (this includes shareholders, by the way). Therefore, if the IRS hits Symantec with a $1 billion charge, you and I (as consumers and/or shareholders) will foot the bill.

    Not unless Symantec has a monopoly on anti-malware. Otherwise, the market determines what they can charge. Given the price will not change much, then the shareholders are first in line for pain. Next the employees. Customers only come into the picture this way: as the company trims its workforce, customers can expect the rate of new features to be slowed down. This is not necessarily the end of the world. Prices may tick upwards very slightly.

    Never let the class-warefare rhetoric let you forget that every time a company pays a fine or pays taxes, you as the consumer of that company's goods are actually paying that fine.

    "Class-warfare rhetoric" is class-warfare rhetoric. At least in this case. Nobody is saying Symantec should pay taxes because they're fat cats. They pay taxes because we all pay taxes. Nothing could be fairer. Furthermore, if they tried to shelter income, and the shelter wasn't legal, they should pay the difference, plus interest. Just like you or I would.

    The only way "class warfare" might come into the picture is if the size of the penalties were disproportionately large. However since we're talking about the better part of a billion dollars proportionate penalties will have a lot of zeros on the end. The news isn't that the government is on a crusade against people who produce wealth. The news is that somebody at Symantec made a mistake on their tax returns large enough to be news.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Nah, I'm reasonably certain. by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Not unless Symantec has a monopoly on anti-malware. Otherwise, the market determines what they can charge.

      True, but only to a certain extent. Symantec is a very large company with a diverse array of products. It can easily spread this cost to other products that it has little competition in, or markets that it dominates. If nothing else, the worth of the company is devalued by $1 billion and the stockholders pay. In the end, costs borne by a company are always trickled down. They have to be, because the company holds no wealth to itself.

      They pay taxes because we all pay taxes. Nothing could be fairer.

      Another misconception. Corporations do not pay taxes. Oh, they write big checks to the government around tax season every year, but how can a company -- not a person, but a company -- pay taxes? It owns nothing. It can't spend money. A company cannot buy itself a house, car, or anything else. I company is, in the tax sense, a non-entity.

      Instead, we pay those taxes in the form of higher costs of goods and services. Or, if we're employees of that company, we pay it in the form of lower salaries and benefits than what we'd have if corporations weren't taxed as they are. Or, if we're shareholders, we pay for it in the form of lower share value, lower dividends, or both. But make no mistake about it: companies do not pay taxes in the real sense of the word. We do.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    2. Re:Nah, I'm reasonably certain. by alienw · · Score: 1

      Just to clear up a few misconceptions: a company charges the highest price the consumer is willing to pay for a product. A tax bill isn't going to change that. It's not like they figure "it costs us $x to make, so let's charge $1.2*x". If they can sell something that costs them 50 cents for $50, they will certainly do that. Competition is the only thing that creates an upper bound on the price. The same thing applies with salaries -- they aren't going to pay more than they have to. In reality, they could cut their costs by 50% and keep their products just as expensive. In fact, that is a company's legal obligation to shareholders -- to maximize profits. If people are willing to pay $40 for an iPod USB cable, that's the price Apple is going to charge -- even though the cable costs maybe a dollar to make.

    3. Re:Nah, I'm reasonably certain. by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Instead, we pay those taxes in the form of higher costs of goods and services. Or, if we're employees of that company, we pay it in the form of lower salaries and benefits than what we'd have if corporations weren't taxed as they are. Or, if we're shareholders, we pay for it in the form of lower share value, lower dividends, or both. But make no mistake about it: companies do not pay taxes in the real sense of the word. We do.

      The same logic easily supports the notion that individuals should not pay tax either. If I didn't have to pay taxes, I would have more money to buy shit from corporations, for example.

    4. Re:Nah, I'm reasonably certain. by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      If Symantec could raise its prices to cover the costs, then why wouldn't it just raise its prices anyway? The penalty it pays to the IRS does not affect its marginal costs, so if it were better off raising its prices to pay off the fine (increase in revenue/profit), it would be better off raising them anyway.

      Note that even a monopolist is constrained by the demand for its product.

  61. Re:Nothing New About Tax Evasion& Creative Acc by rolfwind · · Score: 2, Interesting

    [quote]The whole concept of taxing income is flawed because income is abstract. It can be manipulated in multiple ways. It would be better to tax something tangible like property or sales - but that would lose politicians their power to play with the tax code to the benefit of their backers.[/quote]

    Taxing property is equally flawed. Often, property tax assessment can be inflated by 10-20% than what one would get on the open market. I remember when Washington State used to chare (several years ago) a registration fee based on the value of your car. The BLUEBOOK value. They often assessed unreasonable values based on the best condition for that car, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. They tried to get my friend had to pay a $400+ yearly registration fee because they value his 10 y.o. Mercedes at $15,000+. It has 180K miles on it and he payed $2300 for it in another state before he moved.

    Property tax is also unfair because it doesn't assess what you can afford. Older couples may want to keep their big house but can't afford to pay the property tax on it because they don't have the jobs that bought in the money precisely because they are retired. California has (had?) the fairest system where property was taxed at 1% on the original buying price. If people decided to reap the profit on property going sky high, the government would also benefit from the NEW owners who knew what they were getting into, but people wouldn't be forced from their homes simply because suddenly the land became valuable.

    Sales tax would be fairest. With rebates/allowments/coupons on clothing/food/necessities for the poor/lower income people. Yes, some loopholes but that is unavoidable in a society that doesn't want to present only faceless rules and have some humanity toward others.

  62. Its coming by indy_Muad'Dib · · Score: 1

    im sure microsoft will "help out" by buying NAV and sysgate off of Symantec for a billion.

  63. Other examples working just as well... by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 1
    It's meant to act as a deterrent, the idea being that if it's so easy, so unlikely that you'll get caught and doesn't seem to hurt anyone, a sledgehammer punishment is the only thing that will stop prospective transgressors.

    "Harsh penalties for non-crimes" (as I like to call them) don't work at all, and indeed aren't intended to work. Politicians know they won't work when they pass the legislature/congress, and governors/presidents know they don't work when they sign them into law, but they do it ANYWAY, knowing full-well it won't achieve anything.

    They are, instead, put out there so that when the Helen Lovejoys of the world jump up and shriek "Won't someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!" any politicians present can point to the "stiff penalties" to give an impression of caring/"doing something" when they are, of course, doing nothing at all.

    Punishing somebody harshly to make one group of people happy, rather than for the purpose of achieving justice is, in a word, unjust. And unjust laws breed contempt for all laws.
    --
    Who did what now?
  64. Get a brain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Show the IRS' interests in the transaction. Credit is being measured in comparison to USD, and is not actualy worth any UNITED STATES Dollars (USD).

    It's proven that living next to freeways has effected greater probability of developing symtoms of Asthma; should someone pay more taxes just because they think they can move someone else to live a little healthier?

    Don't the shareholders expect their share of the IP would be more prosperous in another nation-state or country? Trying to supress the movement of IP is the same as hindering someones life. Don't register IP, other than by postal mail.

  65. Do USians own any property? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All I see in that above post is some idiot commenting on organized theft of a unproven claimant (IRS) trying to violate a security interest on IP from the shareholders of a corporation. Did not the shareholders consent to their property moving to another country just so it would be more effectively drawn from and implemented?

    "Bite in the ass" is not informative, and not insigtful. Show me evidence you're not trolling for karma with attempts at misplaced comedy. "Internal Revenue Service" is corporation representing the International Monetary Fund on loans of alleged Debt to citizens of the United States; loans derived from no substance, but letters noting debt.

    No value in that IRS and no value in the claim. Money is substance; debt notes are not substance, and the IRS tresspassed on a claim by appraising the value of the shareholders' IP in USD without evincing any motion to sell the IP.

  66. SCO tax bill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't SCO owe trillions of dollars? After all they own the IP for UNIX, which is a lot of money.

  67. No schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not having money to run decent schools is getting fucked.

    Let the corporations pay their taxes.

    1. Re:No schools by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ha. Don't even get me started on that. About half of my yearly property tax bill goes to what passes for education in this county. There's more than enough funds to educate students (including all the illegal ones) if it wasn't being misdirected to build private empires. Sorry ... the state of the educational system in this country is a bit of a sore point with me. I get fed up with schools crying "we're sorry your kids are ignorant fucks that can't get a job, but if you just give us even more of your hard-earned cash we're just so totally certain we can fix the problem." Phooey. Cut out the football and the basketball and plush offices and mahogany conference tables and the private secretaries with big salaries and bigger tits and spend some bucks on hiring *good* teachers and providing a good place to learn. Like most things run by the government, there's a Texas shitload of waste in the school system, but I see no way to remove the entrenched bureacracy.

      But you're right ... the tax burden in the past thirty years or so seems to have shifted from the corporate world to the middle class. I'm not sure how the IRS is valuing "intellectual property" (I'm not sure how anyone values something that exists solely in someone's head) but I'm not feeling too badly about Symantec getting hit up for some more taxes. Sure, they'll pass the cost on to the consumer, but nobody with functioning cognitive areas in their brain should be buying their stuff anyway.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:No schools by st.isaac · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. Playing sports has nothing to do with education and should not be in a school's budget, nor associated with the school. The argument that athletics make for a healthier society is valid, but at least separate the budget into necessary teacher salaries and worthless football pads.

    3. Re:No schools by Disavian · · Score: 1

      You are completely correct, sir.

      The only way I ever learned anything in high school was by being in the International Baccalaureate program.

  68. Charging money for ideas? Posh! by FellowConspirator · · Score: 2, Funny

    In response, I'd probably tell the IRS the truth: "Intellectual Property" is a marketing term not a tangible asset. US law does not recognize the concept (yet). In so far as "Intellectual Property" is a convenient fiction, the IRS has no authority to levy taxes on fictional assets.

    The "value" of information ("intellectual property") depends on the the buyer. In fact, the value of the information that they are being assessed $900 million in taxes for is $0 to me. In fact, on average, it's likely to be $0 for most people (outside of the possibility that you're bound to find some idiot that will pay gobs of money for it).

    1. Re:Charging money for ideas? Posh! by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      In fact, the value of the information that they are being assessed $900 million in taxes for is $0 to me. In fact, on average, it's likely to be $0 for most people (outside of the possibility that you're bound to find some idiot that will pay gobs of money for it).

      I dunno, that seems like a large possibility to just discount. If the IRS thinks it's worth $10Billion or whatever (and hence worth a $900M tax bill), I'll up your $0 bid to at least $10. $10 isn't much money lose, and I could maybe resell it for a lot more.

      (500 people outbid me, and now someone's offering $9 Billion for it. For a company their size, that's not much to lose, and it could generate them some nice short-term profits.)

      In short, the market can and will determine the value of intangible assets, just as it can for physical ones.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  69. Microsoft in the back by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1

    I find it interesting that Symantec is hit with a $1B tax bill to defend against just as Microsoft is preparing a competitive product. Symantec is sure to be distracted at the least. Nice timing for Microsoft, coincidence?

    --

    --
    $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    1. Re:Microsoft in the back by DaveM753 · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I was thinking. Glad somebody mentioned it. :-)

    2. Re:Microsoft in the back by FathomIT · · Score: 1
      Yeah Symantec is probably already getting hazy thinking about how to deal with January's MS Vista release. Most likely an oversite because resources and eyes were alocated elsewhere.

      I think a McAfee, Symantec and others vs Microsoft classaction lawsuit will follow Vista's release. Clearly anticompetitive monopolistic action will be in effect.

    3. Re:Microsoft in the back by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  70. That's a lotta scratch by Vengeance · · Score: 1

    Can I have my 45 grand back? I don't think the Feds'll be needing it now.

    --
    It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
    1. Re:That's a lotta scratch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, the $45k you paid in taxes was already spent on a rocket used in Iraq.

      Well, part of a rocket used in Iraq.

      Okay, honestly, part of a rocket used in Iraq 3 years ago.

  71. Obligitory Simpson's Quote by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

    Doh!

    --
    Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

    http://financialpetition.org/
  72. Ouch!!! by OutlawPenguin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    And yet the oil tycoons get away with a 8 billion dollar profit. Looks like Symantec need to get a few senators in their back pocket.

  73. Re:Nothing New About Tax Evasion& Creative Acc by FTL · · Score: 1
    > California has (had?) the fairest system where property was taxed at 1% on the original buying price. If people decided to reap the profit on property going sky high, the government would also benefit from the NEW owners who knew what they were getting into, but people wouldn't be forced from their homes simply because suddenly the land became valuable.

    Still not a foolproof system. I buy a house for half a million. Sometime later I sell it to my spouse for $1. Thus illustrating the need for assessors. That example is extreme enough that it is clearly fraudulent; devising subtler scenarios is left as an exercise.

    --
    Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
  74. As someone who uses their software... by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

    Happy days are here again! The skies above are clear again! So let's sing a song of cheer again! Happy days are here again!

  75. Why Irish Companies Rock by ddt · · Score: 1

    You need an Irishman on the board, but the reason people set up Irish companies is to enjoy the 12% flat tax rate. However, transferring IP's that already have track-records is completely dumb. The IRS can tax that transfer, and these guys will get manhandled by the government, I can assure you. You need to have the balls and forethought to create the Irish company and develop the IP there when it is still relatively worthless, or you will owe massive taxes.

    The reason not everyone does this is because it can cost anywhere from $20k-$70k in legal fees, depending on how many companies in how many countries you want to connect the Irish corporation to.

    1. Re:Why Irish Companies Rock by brettbum · · Score: 1

      All very astute points.

  76. What Thomas Jefferson had to say in 1813 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."

    Yea, we've come a long way Baby!

  77. Speling? Grammer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Valuing intellectual property, perhaps?

  78. Not discounting your sarcasm... by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    but you already paid or someone you meet probably has.

    This fine will pass right through the channels and come from the investors in the company or the purchasers of their products. Embedded it will hit consumers who use products and services of people who purchase Symantec products.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  79. Re:Ouch...will they sell off Norton? I'll bet they by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    will release a patch to fix THIS viral attack REAL soon...

    BTW, I "did a Google" and searched for "etymology veritas" and got page that said, "truth, goddess of truth"

    I clicked the URL, and veritas is not there...but, verity is...

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=v&p=3

    I guess etymonline needs to "verify" their listings...
    ------

    http://www.pantheon.org/articles/v/veritas.html

    does have it, and Romans appear in the definition. I guess Symantec is going to feel the IRS is the new rear-reaming Romans.

    --

    But, makes you wonder... who piqued the IRS' attention. A "slip" of the tongue in Ireland? I guess some dragons will be getting slain... Imagine the IRS auditors salivating and rubbing their hands in glee (to Austin Powers.. with a little bit of Ren/Stimpy voice thrown in (Or, if you like, Simon Bar Sinister...)): "You owe US.. **O**N**E** BEEL-YUN dollars...(YEE--hee--haah--haah-haah-haah...)"

    I bet the Symantec eyes POPPED out at that board meeting.

    Moral of the story about rampant M&A activity: Don't lie about the assets value, OR, just don't make the purchase/acquisition...

    Interesting: word image: "backyard"

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  80. Does that mean SCO might get a refund? by surfingmarmot · · Score: 1

    They have been far over-valuing their intellectual property. So I guess Uncle Sam is going to have to write them a nice check one day soon ;-)

  81. two for one by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

    Depends on whether it's your two cents' worth, or someone is giving a penny for your thoughts.

    Apparently it is a buyers market...

  82. Ha ! by Sam+Nitzberg · · Score: 1

    Muuuuaaaaahahahahhahahahahahahaha ! ONE BILLION DOLLARS !

  83. Better call Ronnie Deutsch! by daitengu · · Score: 1

    They better call Ronnie Deutsch! She can help settle tax debts for pennies on the dollar!

  84. uh oh by icepick72 · · Score: 1

    Obviously Norton Antivirus doesn't protect against the IRS. Dammit, I knew should have read the EULA.

  85. Well Done!! See IRC Sec. 482 by ahbi · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well done.

    Now for those wishing extra reading, Google for "Transfer Pricing for Intangible Property under Section 482"

    That is Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sec 482 (26 U.S.C. 482).
    Explained in more depth in Treasury Regulation 1.482-1(a)(1), et al. (scroll down).

    It should be noted that Sec 482 covers both tangible and intengible proprty, & domestic and international transfers. Also, note that the US is odd in that it taxes citizens and corps on theiir worldwide (not just domestic) income (see IRC Sec. 61, "from whatever source derived").

  86. IRS computers by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    Some idiot must have deployed Symantec AV and/or Client Security on all the PCs at the IRS. I guess those IRS guys finally got pissed off enough at Symantec's crappy software always slowing down and crashing their computers, so they decided to get even... Can't say I blame them.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  87. Austin Powers Moment... by TheBeowulf · · Score: 1

    IRS to Symantec: "We want... $1 BILLION Dollars!" (Dunn dunn dunnnnnnn)

  88. Must be a mistake then .... by Luthair · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows Symantec products are practically worthless.

  89. IRS Antivirus Patch Ensues by Bushido+Hacks · · Score: 1

    Norton Autoupdate just included an antivirus patch for the IRS. The IRS is a Trojan Horse that goes off ever April 15, unless the 15th is on a Saturday or Sunday. Those with bank accounts will find that the virus loves to take your money. The hackers who programmed it work for the government. A traceroute indicated they are in 1500 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC.

    --
    The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
  90. nah, the poor bastards were using.... by CFD339 · · Score: 1

    ...QUICKBOOKS 2005 and Intuit decided to use its "sundowning" policy a bit differently this time -- it randomly reset the flags on cleared transactions to not yet cleared, unbalancing the key accounts. Oh, no., that was me. Never mind.

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  91. if only by um...+Lucas · · Score: 1

    if only symantec had done the transfer using offshore bank accounts linked to their paypal account... oh? the IRS is onto that as well?!? nevermind!

  92. This is nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually Symantec has at least $2.4 billion in cash. If it doesn't get overturned it will be significantly reduced in a settlement and Symantec will be able to write it off as an expense on future taxes. I would be surprised if they have to pay more than $200 million total.

  93. heh by Vector713 · · Score: 1

    since when is 1 billion equal to 900 million?

    1. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since they started using scientific accuracy measurements for financial calculations, i.e. an order of magnitude.

  94. Income Tax should GO AWAY! by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

    Congressman Ron Paul: America Without An Income Tax?

    As April 15 approaches, ponder these words from Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), who has introduced legislation to abolish the income tax:

    "[C]ould America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of her history.

    "Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck.

    "Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion - a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000!

    "Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.

    "It's something to think about this week as we approach April 15th."

    Indeed!

    Source: "Cough Up" by libertarian Congressman Paul:
    http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst041006.ht m

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
    1. Re:Income Tax should GO AWAY! by flyneye · · Score: 0

      We would be perfectly fine without Federal Income Tax.
      We could cut the government out of our business in many areas,just by eliminating "programs".
      1.Delete the I.R.S. that'll save a bundle.
      2.Eliminate any trace of welfare programs.(Libs quit whining,just read on and quit bleating)Put care for the needy back into the hands of the community.(poor communities can either invite more commerce now that the fed is out of their pocket,or encourage their poor to migrate.It worked during the depression!quit whining!)Local communities are more able to serve the needs of local poor than a bureaucrazy anyway.Churches for instance wouldn't allow "welfare cadillacs" and other fraud that"entitlement programs foster"
      actual poor would get actual help instead of well.....you know.
      With no income tax people could choose which charities to help.
      Instead of being robbed and forced to participate in tax wasters like:fraudulent college research,grants for the arts(if you are worthy find a benefactor,if not keep your feces on canvas to feed yourself.)Most welfare recipients can work anyway.Jobs will be opening soon as Mexico fills back up.Thanks for the jalapenos,come back and visit when you can legally!
                Roads,services?Of course.Local sales tax will allow local governments to decide how much money goes where.If the taxes should become overwhelming,not a problem.The voters speak and get heard at local levels(try that with the fed)If not enough revenues are available,no problem,negotiate for trade with other localities or merge with other localities.
                Since the Fed can't seem to keep up with all the work theyve taken on for themselves,it's time to relieve them of these duties and remind them they only have a few jobs the constitution appointed them.All others are illegal and unnecessary(don't gimme a bunch of crap opinion some teacher shoved down your throat,theyre wrong and it's lies propagated for decades.)
      Time to take our country back folks.
      Is that what I need to understand about a well regulated militia?(as per your tagline)

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    2. Re:Income Tax should GO AWAY! by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Ron conveniently left some words out of his PR. I'll fix it for him.

      Could America exist without a federal income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 75 years of her history. America also did not have a large standing military, any forms of social insurance, and little oversight of business, items that today are considered necessities by most citizens.

      Prior to 1862, and from 1895-1913, the federal government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever directly touching a worker's paycheck.

      Even today [2005], individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion - a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000.

      Ron conveniently ignores the defecit here. Federal revenue != federal spending. However I do agree that cuts can be made in federal spending. It's also important to note that Ron is a member of the party that is fully responsible for the increase in federal spending that he refers to. Furthermore, tariffs? China is MFN, which means low tariffs, which means cheap shit at Wal*Mart. You want to raise money through tariffs again? That's fine, but don't be surprised when bad shit happens.

    3. Re:Income Tax should GO AWAY! by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      Well, you are correct. The US didn't have a large standing military, many social handouts, or an interefering presence in the market place.

      In other words they were sticking to the Constitution and original ideas of the founding fathers of the US. It should also noted that the greatest prosparity and transformation of this nation took place druing the Industrial Revolution, a period when government was minimal.

      Ron is only a member of the Reps because he wouldn't be able to get elected as a Libertarian.

      One reason it is so cheap to produce things in other countries and then import them to the US is because of the high amount of regulation here in the US. In other words, producers are able to produce things cheaper elsewhere because there are less regulations to contend with. But to make the same product in the US requires larger capital and thus less profit. One way to combat this is to eliminate most, if not all, regulation.

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
    4. Re:Income Tax should GO AWAY! by Politburo · · Score: 1

      It should also noted that the greatest prosparity and transformation of this nation took place druing the Industrial Revolution, a period when government was minimal.

      Coincidence. The IR was fueled by the invention of the steam engine. Counterexample: The tech boom occurred when regulation was near an all-time high. Also, conditions during the IR were not the standard of living you enjoy today.

      One reason it is so cheap to produce things in other countries and then import them to the US is because of the high amount of regulation here in the US. In other words, producers are able to produce things cheaper elsewhere because there are less regulations to contend with.

      Yes, because they don't have to pay a minimum wage, worry about health care, etc. etc. However, the main reason for the gap is simply a lower cost of living, which is in part due to lack of regulation.

    5. Re:Income Tax should GO AWAY! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Ron is only a member of the Reps because he wouldn't be able to get elected as a Libertarian."

      Well at least we know he will only sell out when he can't get his way.
      Did he tell that to the votrers? Hi, I am libertarian, but I am running under the republican ticket."

      I mean, he lied to the voters doing this.

      We have to have a standing army. A militia will NOT protect us from other super powers.

      'Social Handouts' cute. Another person who ahs no knowledge of the very system he derides.

      Am I surprised? no, be cause you a a responibilty doging, cheap SOB who think social ill can not spread and that we should be living with dirt roads AKA Libertarian.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Income Tax should GO AWAY! by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      No it wasn't a coincidence. Nor was the "Internet/Information" revolution a coincidence that the Net wasn't regulated much at all. Regulation tends to stifle growth and innovation as well as investment and risk.

      You're right. They don't have to pay minimum wage, health care, etc etc. But they are also not a free-market economy either. If they were, then the work force could unionize and collectively bargain for better wages/conditions. It's all about supply and demand, free markets and allowing the natural economic forces to run their course.

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
    7. Re:Income Tax should GO AWAY! by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

      It is no secret he is a libertarian. In fact I suspect that's WHY he got elected because of his libertarian views (he is from Texas). Ballot access and campaign funds are very hard to do if you are a third party

      You are right, we need a standing army to protect our southern border from the current illegal immigration invasion.

      Other than that, we don't really need a full-time army for much of anything than to protect our borders. At least not according to the Constitution. We should NOT be spread out all over the world like we are now. We are the British Empire of the 18th and 19th centuries.

      And you are ignorant about libertarianism however and your posts makes this obvious. Libertarians actually WANT more personal responsibility and less governmental oversight. And I am not cheap. I am in business and spend great amounts of personal money if I feel can get a return on it. That isn't cheap, it's intelligent.

      --
      Libertas in infinitum
  95. mnb Re:Nothing New About Tax Evasion& Creative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One dollar transfers happen all the time in Ohio, and not in an attempt to avoid property taxes. If John and Jane Smith bought a house when they were in their 50's, and now they are in their 70s, it is probably a good idea to seriously think about dealing with one of their deaths.
    Transferring the house from a Warranty deed to a Survivorship deed will avoid probate for the survivor. So John & Jane would sell to John & Jane for one dollar.
    If John dies and Jane wants to put the house into a trust so that an executor maintains control even while she is incapacitated in a nursing home, she would sell it to the Jane Doe Irreconcilable Trust, James Doe Executor, for a dollar.

  96. Next will they tax the value of our brains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a very serious issue to all of us in the software and IP business, think about this for a moment - we use a wide variety of methods to try and determine the value of our IP, yet until we actually produce something there is no way to actually establish a value. If the IRS moves against the engineers and software companies based on some "Value" without any actual production of revenue might they next tax the value of oil in the ground before it is recovered, processed, and delivered? Or the value of timber before harvesting, cutting, and distributing? Write you congressman or woman - we need a new tax system!!!

  97. Re:Nothing New About Tax Evasion& Creative Acc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    My local tax authority (UK Inland Revenue) keep sending me these confounded tax return forms to fill in. After ripping up the most recent one & filing in the round file, I called them up to explain that I wasn't going to fill their form in as I have my tax automatically removed from my pay cheque, and I refuse to do someone else's work for them. They explained that it was the law. I explained that they could bite my shiny metal ass and see me in court. They explained that it was just to check whether I'd overpaid tax. I explained that I couldn't care less, am quite happy to be overcharged a few hundred quid if that means they'll stop harrassing me with these bloody forms. They then took my NS number, looked me up, and announced that they have no record of me ever paying tax. I explained that this was THEIR fucking problem, not mine, but that if they decided I owe them more money, to send me a bill and they'd get a cheque by return of post.

    At the end of this farce I asked what would happen next. "You'll probably have someone come out to talk to you" they said. Fine. So far I haven't had a call asking for an appointment... if they arrive unannounced they're going to be SoL.

    No doubt they're relying on their ability to compel me to jump through those hoops. However what they've failed to take into account is that the hassle and stress of unemployment is nothing to me compared to the hassle and stress of trying to play "weekend accountant". If it comes to it, they can seize my pay - they are doing this already, after all. If that doesn't leave me enough to live off (eg to run my car so I can get to work) I'll resign, and the IR can then go and fuck themselves with a plank wrapped in rusty barbed wire. The more intimidating and threatening they get with me, the more I've won.

  98. re: It isn't hard to tell - by what they produce.. by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    When I think of Symantec, I think of a company that hasn't truly developed a single application from the ground up! (If they have, which one was it?) It seems like they just buy out other products after other people make them good, hire programmers to change the installers and splash screens to say "Symantec" all over them, and resell the result.

    Their "staple" items, the Norton products, were all technically bought out - since Peter Norton had no part of "Symantec Corp." when he was doing his thing. I don't believe "PC Anywhere" was originally their product? Ghost used to be made by a company called "Innoval", as I recall. And their backup product has been shuffled around from company to company - but I *think* Veritas was the original developer of Backup Exec?

  99. Re:Learn from this... THANKS FOR URL!!!! (^_^) by iamcf13 · · Score: 1

    Brilliant, derivative, and subversive all at the same time!

    This parody was put together by pros who (wisely) remain anonymous.

    Otherwise the legal eagles behind Symantec and the record label that put out
    Marky Mark (Wahlberg) and the Funky Bunch's GOOD VIBRATIONS would be all over them
    in a heartbeat! :P

    Some parodys are forgettable crap--like the one 2Live Crew did years ago that became a SCOTUS-level court case that eventually 'made' this much, much better parody possible.

    This is definitely time capsule material! (^_^)

    I don't know if even Wierd Al Yankovic is capable of this level of excellence apart from his 'main title song' to UHF which I consider to be his masterpiece.

    P. S. This file needs to be mirrored on the Internet far and wide in the fine tradition of 'Ballmer's Ipod' and 'endoftheworld.swf'.

  100. Symantec Press Release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Due to an unexpected increase in tax liabilities, Symantec is announcing that Norton Antivirus products will no longer scan email sent to any .gov domain for viruses and worms. This change has the effect of leaving all government email systems open to such attacks, while at the same time reducing the value of Symantec's own intellectual property. This change in IP value will reduce the chances of unexpected tax liabilities in the future due to its reduced IP asset value as well as the Internal Revenue Services ability to generate and email any notice of such delinquency.

  101. Won't touch Symantec by Joreallean · · Score: 1

    Even in the event that Symantec has to pay, which it won't, Symantec has like $2.4 billion in cash. So worse case senario they slightly deplete their cash reserves. What is more likely to happen is either it will get appealed or Symantec will negotiate a significant reduction settlement, pay the back taxes, and then write off the payment as an expense accured during the purchase of Veritas.

    1. Re:Won't touch Symantec by geekoid · · Score: 1

      SInce the courts are watching them very closly, they will probably negotiate, but not write it off under the purchase.
      OTOH the managemrnt there is both greedy and egotisitcal, so who knows.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Won't touch Symantec by Joreallean · · Score: 1

      It's perfectly legal for them to write it off. If the IRS had discovered the discrepancy prior to the purchase it would have been added to the purchase cost and therefore an expense to Symantec.

  102. Commvault QiNetix by JhohannaVH · · Score: 1

    What a boon for them! I know a LOT of people looking for a good reason to dump NetBackup... and I can't begin to tell you what a powerhouse Commvault has become in the last 2 years. I just went from a BackupExec -> Netbackup -> Tivoli Storage Manager -> Commvault QiNetix full implementations (obviously over the last 2-3 years), and by far, Commvault outperforms all of the rest. So far. :D We'll see how it likes AIX's HAACMP clustering and Oracle 10g. If it can't pass that muster, well... damn. We may have to get creative! :D

    --
    Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
  103. Re:Nothing New About Tax Evasion& Creative Acc by geekoid · · Score: 1

    yeah, the tax people didn't think of that one.

    If you sell it for 1 dollar, the new owner pays the tax on it's value.(as determined by the state).

    I have been a home owner for 20 year in CA. on Or. and not once has the apraised value of the home been more then the money I could sell it for. Ca still calculates value. For example, if you rebuild you get your tax adjusted.

    IN truth, it's been about 20-50% lower then what I can sell my house for.

    I still prefer a system where once a house is purchased, the tax on that house stays the same. There are many retired people in oregon who have to sell there house becasause they are on a fixed income. Terible way to loose your house.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  104. Yes it does by geekoid · · Score: 1

    AMerica has recognizde IP for a very long time.

    There are three catagories, each unique:
    Patent
    Copyright
    Trademark

    Each one is know as IP to the US government, and has been for many, many years.

    Where does this IDEA that IP is new come from?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  105. Incorrect by geekoid · · Score: 1

    the correct answer is:
    Irish Ladies.
    Boom chucka Bwuaw wuaw.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect