Microsoft To Get $100M Annual Tax Cut and Amnesty

reifman writes "Despite a $2.8 billion deficit, Washington State's House Bill 3176 would provide Microsoft with an effective $100 million tax cut annually and possible amnesty on its $1.27 billion Nevada tax maneuverings. Under current law, all of Microsoft's worldwide licensing revenues of approximately $20.7 billion annually are taxable at .484 percent. Under the new law, only the portion of software licenses sold to Washington state customers would be taxable. Ironically, after slashing Microsoft's tax burden, HB3176 directs the Department of Revenue to crack down on 'abusive tax transactions' like those in Nevada — except for a loophole that may provide Microsoft amnesty on its twelve year practice. The bill's lead sponsor is Ross Hunter of Medina, home to Bill Gates and a number of current and former Microsoft billionaires and multi-millionaires, and other areas around Microsoft's corporate campus."

Comments

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[sumdumass]

No shit, Sherlock? Wow. What a revelation. But obviously you do not know what THIS tax law can do, in WHAT situations. I don't need your explanations of totally different situations to know what you mean.

Actually, it's you that does not know what this law can and cannot do. The problem which you are completely ignoring is that Washington state only has a set limit of jurisdiction in which is can pass laws that effect entities outside their control. MSLI is one of those entities outside of their jurisdiction and no matter how much ignoring that fact you want to do, it doesn't make you right.

Yes! I agree. But since you mention situations, here is the real situation: up until now I did not know that MSLI and MSFT were different corporations, operating in different states. I had been misinformed and told that MSFT was incorporated in Nevada and operating in Washington, and that it was MSFT that had been trying to avoid paying B&O tax.

The fact that the situation is different than I had been told is not an indication that I do not understand the tax and how it works. Up until now you have been trying to tell me that Washington state has no jurisdiction to tax outside its borders. I hope you understand now that you were wrong.

Actually, up until now, I have been telling you that Washington state has no jurisdiction to tax a "company" that is outside it's borders and doesn't operate in the state. I was not wrong, you were just refusing to listen to what was being said. Either way, now you know that MSLI and MSTF are separate companies and one doesn't operate within Washington state.

Treating me like an infant does not make you look any better. As I mentioned, I did not know that MSLI was a separate corporation, or that it operated out of Nevada. I was led to believe that the situation was much different. But this situation still does not contradict what I was saying about the B&O tax, which you claimed was nonsense. So while I appreciate being corrected if that is the true situation, you still aren't going to talk your way out of the fact that you were wrong about that.

I have tried and tried to tell you that they were separate companies and you were ignoring that while yelling Boeing and Ford. I know you were led to believe the situation was different, that is why I have been futilely attempting to explain to you that they are different and telling you to pay attention to the fact and cite me a court case with similar circumstances instead of the ford or beoing. OF course it doesn't help that we are in three threads now so one reply to all that was said is more or less 6 message between the two of us.

As for your position on the B&O tax, what I claimed was nonesense was the premise you were pushing in that Washington could tax a company that was incorporated and operated in another state without operating inside of Washington. B&O taxes are very real in many states, their connections to companies operating in other states too is very real. In fact, most states with an income tax will apply the very same principles. It wasn't the B&O tax I objected to, it was how you were claiming it would apply when you were mistaken on the facts even though I attempted multiple times to explain them to you.

It is not difficult for me to grasp at all, and I very much resent the insinuation. Until a few minutes ago I did not know that there even was an MSLI.

Then you simply were not paying attention. I explained this a long time ago. It is here with "MSLI or Microsoft's licensing incorporation is not located in the state of Washington at all and is incorporated in Nevada with it's offices in Nevada (and other areas outside of the State of Washington). Because

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[sumdumass]

I think we have become a little more heated then a civil discussion should go. I replied to your other threads and took the time to point out where I still think you were wrong. You were mislead by information gathered somewhere else, and I failed to properly correct your understanding of that information. I think we should just leave it at that before it turns into a hate fest for no real reason. You were correct in your understanding of the B&O tax, however, as I attempted to state, the situation is very different that that understanding doesn't apply here. I think we were arguing two very separate issues without fully understanding what the other was attempting to say which made things -not so productive.