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

[Attila Dimedici]

Halliburten got contract after contract with a former employee as vice president of the United States

Of course, it got the same sorts of contracts when Bill Clinton was President.

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[longfalcon]

so microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems?

microsoft is a business, not a charity. the cost of doing business, be it taxes, labor costs and even lawsuits, is passed on to the consumer.

(i think it is worthy to note that microsoft counts most of the worlds corporations as customers in some capacity)

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[iccaros]

hmmm.. you have not proven any sources.. except .. well your mouth.. (or typing.. ) halaberton made 3.7 billion off the Iraq contract and 2.2 off Bosnia. Bosnia lasted 8 months.. with support for two years. Iraq has lasted over 7 years.. which one did they make more profit off of?? Simple math. Who did they pay... oh US citizens.. booting the local economy of the people working for them. Any one who has done Government contracting would be able to let you know that no bid contracts by them selves is not a bad thing. Contracts are regulated by the amount of profit a company can make and what fees can be charged. While civilian contract have no such limitation. my who point was that the Clinton administration did approve no bid contracts.. as the response I was responding to stated "Yes, but they were not getting no-bid contracts under Clinton" so stay with the conversation Troll..(karma to burn)

Re:Bill's Sponsor Also Ex-Microsoft Employee

[sumdumass]

Just for the record, though, I want it to be clear that the tax can also apply to business that out-of-state corporations do within the state (the Ford case). I am not saying you did not understand that, I just wanted to make sure it was spelled out.

Yes, I understand that. But the out of state business must have more of a presences then what would be similar to a typical mail order house as the two cases I pointed out explain.

I also want to apologize for the name calling and measures I took to get your attention. I sort of felt like it was reciprocal in nature but I should have been able to make my case clear without resorting to that. It didn't really add anything to the discussions even though my failed attempt was to get you to notice what was being missed.

Best wishes,
Sumdumass