Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Wins $1.5 Billion Tax Dispute Over IRS (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on from the beating-the-system dept.

Amazon.com on Thursday won a more than $1.5 billion tax dispute with the Internal Revenue Service over transactions involving a Luxembourg unit more than a decade ago. From a report: Judge Albert Lauber of the U.S. Tax Court rejected a variety of IRS arguments, and found that on several occasions the agency abused its discretion, or acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Amazon's ultimate tax liability from the decision was not immediately clear. The world's largest online retailer has said the case involved transactions in 2005 and 2006, and could boost its federal tax bill by $1.5 billion plus interest. It also said a loss could add "significant" tax liabilities in later years. Amazon made just $2.37 billion of profit in 2016, four times what it made in the four prior years combined, on revenue of $136 billion.

77 comments

  1. Let's rephrase that title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "US Loses $1.5 Billion Tax Dispute With Amazon"

    Transfer pricing should be illegal.

  2. Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Large corporations shouldn't have to pay taxes at all, given the many benefits to society they provide. I think once a business reaches a certain size, it should become exempt from income tax. That will give small business owners the incentive to grow and create more high paying jobs.

    China's economy is expanding so fast, we've got to do something to keep them from taking over. Eliminating income taxes for large corporations could be just what we need to keep the Chinese menace in check.

    1. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you fscking serious? Large corporations don't pay enough tax. The effective tax rate of most of our large US companies are no more than 10%.

      Lower taxes do not create jobs. Lower taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the corporations just allow them to keep getting richer. Nothing else changes.

    2. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should tax all profits and income over $1m at a flat 50%. No exceptions, no exemptions.

    3. Re:Good! by wizkid · · Score: 1

      Yes, corporations should pay higher taxes. But, if you force them to pay higher taxes, they'll move, and take the jobs/money with them. So they should pay higher taxes, but if we charge higher taxes, were screwed anyway.

      --
      I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong :)
    4. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you lower the tax rate for large corps to zero, all that money they've got stashed overseas will flow back into the country where it can benefit blacks and other poor people who need money. The tax laws now encourage money to leave the country where the poor people can't get any of it.

    5. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxes are calculated pre-8%profit, they're another business expense that gets passed along.

    6. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps. Or it would create an incentive for companies to just be like apple and horde massive amounts of cash. Is the $200 billion in cash that apple is sitting on, benefiting blacks and poor people in the OTHER countries where it's being held?

    7. Re:Good! by gtall · · Score: 1

      Yes, but moving out of the U.S. means no recourse to the U.S. legal system except as a foreign entity. And Amazon will lose their low transportation costs if their "fulfillment centers" are not in the U.S.

    8. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't Apple hording all it's money in Luxembourg and Monaco? I don't think there's many blacks and other poor people in those places. That's the main reason their crime rates are so low.

    9. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are completely full of shit and absolutely wrong in everything you posted.

    10. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's crazy, we should do just the opposite. We should give the rich even more money because they're the ones with a good track record of managing it.

    11. Re:Good! by vtcodger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "But if you lower the tax rate for large corps to zero, all that money they've got stashed overseas will flow back into the country where it can benefit blacks and other poor people who need money."

      Ah yes -- Tinkle-Down economics.

      Has never worked in the past.

      But this time it's different.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    12. Re:Good! by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "I don't think there's many blacks and other poor people in those places"

      Ah yes, but those that are there have become rich beyond their wildest dreams because money just naturally flows to them when all corporate taxes are eliminated.

      It's a law of nature.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    13. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true, just look at the Baroness Cécile de Massy. That sister has got all kinds of bank. I wonder why there aren't more poor blacks from the US emigrating to Monaco since they end up doing so well?

    14. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you force them to pay higher taxes, they'll move

      No they won't. Why? Because although staying might reduce their profit, it will still be higher than the zero profit of leaving.

    15. Re:Good! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Yes, corporations should pay higher taxes.

      No they shouldn't. Corporate taxes are regressive. The cost of the taxes are passed on to the customers (as higher prices), the employees (as lower wages), or the shareholders (as lower dividends or share prices). The first is equivalent to a sales tax. The second is equivalent to a payroll tax, which is even more regressive. The third is applied to all shareholders equally, so a working class family with a pension pays the same as a billionaire. It is better to just get rid of corporate taxes, and collect the tax at the individual level. This will not only be more progressive, but it will also give corporations a greater incentive to invest and grow, and fewer reasons to lobby and corrupt our government.

    16. Re:Good! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      And Amazon will lose their low transportation costs if their "fulfillment centers" are not in the U.S.

      You seem to be under the delusion that American tax law makes sense. It does not. Taxes are not based on where activities occur, but where the company is incorporated. So if an American company makes a laptop in China, and sells it in France, the profit on that transaction is taxable in America. This gives companies a huge incentive to either incorporate overseas, or to keep their capital outside of America (the profit isn't taxable until it is repatriated). No other country has such stupid job-killing policies, but the American economy is big enough that a few trillion in foregone investment isn't big enough to bother fixing.

    17. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Passing costs onto the consumer only works if the consumer is prepared or able to pay more, and if the company has the pricing power to do so. Pricing in a market is not cost plus a margin, although it is fair to say that selling at a loss long term is not ideal, but if you are selling at a loss you are unlikely to be paying tax on profits.

    18. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Da, komrade!

      #FEELTHEBERN

    19. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, that is wrong. The larger a corporation is, the more likely that it is reducing total employment, reducing product choices for customers, and taking advantage of its size and market share to keep prices higher and reduce competition. Corporations are artificial constructs created by law for the purpose of improving the economy. It is possible that corporations should be subject to a progressive income tax in order to discourage them from getting too large, but that is probably not easy to do well, nor the best way to control corporate behavior. Regulations prohibiting acquisitions that result in corporations that have more than about ten percent of their market are probably a better way of controlling them.

    20. Re:Good! by thomn8r · · Score: 2

      That will give small business owners the incentive to grow and create more high paying jobs.

      I can't believe you typed that with a straight face.

    21. Re:Good! by thomn8r · · Score: 1

      Corporations are artificial constructs created by law for the purpose of improving the economy.

      Corporations are artificial constructs created by law to concentrate power and deflect liability.

    22. Re:Good! by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

      LOL, I admit I had a good chuckle writing it. You see, I'm home sick today with not much to do so I figured I'd write a quick troll on Slashdot and see if I could push anyone's buttons. As you can see, I've had a measure of success.

      The first moderation of the post correctly labelled it as "Troll", but I'm glad at least a couple of other moderators saw the humor in it.

      I've been reading Slashdot for some time, so I have a pretty good idea of how to "stir the pot"

      Cheers!

    23. Re:Good! by SpankiMonki · · Score: 1

      Ah yes -- Tinkle-Down economics.

      Is that where the rich piss down your back and tell you it's raining?

    24. Re:Good! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      The real reason not to tax income of anybody for any purpose of-course is the moral one: slavery should not be authorized even for government to engage in.

      Economically speaking it is also the worst thing that can be done, you get less of what you tax, so if you tax income you get less income because production is more expensive.

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
  3. Before everyone piles on by rsilvergun · · Score: 0, Troll

    To say that it's ok to cheat on taxes because it's legal I'd like to remind you that these same tax cheats bought the laws that let them cheat. To put it in nerd parlance, when you own the arcade you get to set the dip switches.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Before everyone piles on by wulfmans · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Following the law is not cheating. If you don't like the law as written petition congress to change it.

    2. Re:Before everyone piles on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon didn't cheat. They paid exactly what the law said they should.

      If you think AMZN should pay more than way they owe, put your money where your mouth is and send a few thousand as a gift to the USG when you file your next tax return.

    3. Re:Before everyone piles on by fred6666 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Following the law is not cheating. If you don't like the law as written petition congress to change it.

      In most democracies this would be correct, but in the US corporations can literally buy the congress, so democracy is an illusion.

    4. Re:Before everyone piles on by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

      This isn't a tax cheat, at least not with respect to the U.S. The only reason the IRS tried to cash in on this is because the U.S. is almost unique in the world in taxing income that its citizens/corporations make abroad. If you're a U.S. citizen and you live full-time in (say) Canada and work and earn money there, and have nothing to do with the U.S. other than having a piece of paper saying you're a U.S. citizen, the IRS still expects you to pay U.S. taxes. The U.S. has negotiated tax treaties with some countries to offset the most egregious forms of double taxation - taxes on earned income (wages) in one country can be applied as a credit for taxes in the other. So I didn't have to pay U.S. taxes on my wages since I'd already paid Canadian taxes on it (the Canadian taxes were the higher of the two). But I had to pay both U.S. and Canadian taxes on interest on my Canadian bank account, even though I was living in Canada, the money in the account was only from my Canadian job, and the money never left Canada nor entered the U.S. If I'd bought a house in Canada and made money when I sold it because it appreciated in value, the IRS would expect a cut of that.

      Nearly all other countries tax based on location. If you earn money in the country, they tax it. If you earn money outside the country, it's not their concern. Even if this is a tax cheat, it really has nothing to do with the IRS, other than being a money grab simply because nonsensical U.S. law allows them to do it. The profit in Luxembourg came from Amazon's European operations. If Luxembourg or the EU wants to sue Amazon over this, then that's their legitimate right. But it has nothing to do with the U.S. nor the IRS.

    5. Re:Before everyone piles on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the default argument without even reading the summary.

      In THIS case the IRS abused its power against Amazon. If Amazon bought the US government, as you suggest, this wouldn't have been possible. So your argument fails hard on this one.

    6. Re:Before everyone piles on by David_Hart · · Score: 2

      Following the law is not cheating. If you don't like the law as written petition congress to change it.

      In general, you are right, what Amazon, and other big corporations do, is not cheating. They are using legal tax code to avoid paying the higher tax amount that they would owe if they weren't able to claim deductions, etc., much like we all do.

      However, very few of us can afford to pay lawyers, lobbyists, think tanks, etc. to get in the face of the politicians 24x7x365 or hand them wholesale bills to game the system in our favor. That's also why the "petition congress to change it" statement is pure and utter bullshit. You, as an individual, can petition your congress-critter until you are blue in the face and they won't listen unless you have 100,000 of your friends screaming the same thing. The problem is that there are more pressing and "sexier" issues. When was the last time you saw a rally to fix the tax code? The only time people care is if they all of a sudden get a big hit on their paychecks, being nickel-and-dimed to death doesn't register.

      It was bad enough that corporations have lobbying power. It got worse, in my opinion, when the Supreme Court struck down campaign finance restrictions. The balance of power in having a voice in legislation is so far skewed in the corporations favor that it's near impossible for a fair and balanced tax code.

      Amazon isn't cheating, but they and other corporations definitely have their hands on the scale and in the end it amounts to the same thing.

    7. Re:Before everyone piles on by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      Wish we could put "a pound of flesh" back in the tax code.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    8. Re:Before everyone piles on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wait what? My tax form allows tax credit dollar for dollar of all foreign taxes paid.

    9. Re:Before everyone piles on by larryjoe · · Score: 2

      This isn't a tax cheat, at least not with respect to the U.S. The only reason the IRS tried to cash in on this is because the U.S. is almost unique in the world in taxing income that its citizens/corporations make abroad.

      Isn't this particular case the exact opposite of what you're talking about? Amazon (and it's fellow transfer pricing compatriots) would like to claim that income earned in a particular country wasn't really earned in that country through accounting sleight of hand.

      If individuals could legally use transfer pricing, the US government would financially collapse. Fortunately for US citizens, the laws prevent this calamity by only allowing this privilege of legal tax minimization to entities with income in the billions of dollars.

    10. Re: Before everyone piles on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're a fucking idiot. Have you been under a rock the past 20 years? Congress making laws for the people; yea right... Just as soon as we create PACs to do so.

    11. Re:Before everyone piles on by vtcodger · · Score: 2

      I think everything you say is true. And you're right. It's not equitable.

      But that's probably not the issue here. I assume the issue here is the "usual" one of a large corporation manipulating its books so that many of its profits on income generated in a higher tax jurisdiction (e.g. the US) magically gets booked/paid in a country where the taxes are lower. The poster child being Apple which disappeared billions in profits through a "Head Office" in Ireland that existed (exists?) only on paper. No physical office. No employees. Under Irish law, only about 50,000 Euros were taxable. In Apple's case, US taxes will be owed if the loot is ever returned to the US, but I doubt that will happen unless the wretched hive of scum and infamy currently installed in Washington allows the money to be repatriated tax free or at very low rates.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    12. Re:Before everyone piles on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Following the law cannot, by definition, be called cheating. It can be immoral for sure, but it can never be cheating.

    13. Re:Before everyone piles on by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Wish we could put "a pound of flesh" back in the tax code.

      Don't forget to include the blood and other tissue that will be removed as a consequence of removing the pound of flesh, or you may find that you can't actually collect the flesh. I think there was a story about this.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    14. Re:Before everyone piles on by thomn8r · · Score: 1

      they won't listen unless you have 100,000 of your friends screaming the same thing.

      They won't listen at all unless your friends happen to be named "Benjamin Franklin."

    15. Re:Before everyone piles on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can renounce your american citizenship and all the benefits and obligations that it has. Like the partner of Facebook, Eduardo Saverin did to avoid the taxation from the profit of the sell of his shares in Facebook and he become a citizen of Singapore.

  4. The public wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Entity that serves the public and makes millions of lives better wins in a dispute against the IRS -- one of the most hated agencies in government, the tip of the spear of a government that represents government interests against the people.

  5. No wonder Scandanavia and the low countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    have the happiest people in the world. There aren't too many ppl there, but they set up these tax dodges for multinational corporations and distribute the proceeds to their residents.

    1. Re:No wonder Scandanavia and the low countries by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Take your "subject is part of the comment" format over to Daily Kos where it's the norm.

    2. Re:No wonder Scandanavia and the low countries by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Sweden has a lower corporate tax rate than Germany.

    3. Re:No wonder Scandanavia and the low countries by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      And higher capital gains taxes.

      Capital seeks returns. Net tax rates on investments must be globally competitive. Average earnings * (1 - Cap Gains Rate) * (1 - Corporate Tax Rate) must compete. The effective investor 'keep rate' is about 55% in all first world nations. To the extent it varies, it reflects the difference in earnings.

      Which isn't to say it's really simple. Average earnings is noisy as fuck and past performance is no guarantee of future earnings. Earnings can avoid corporate tax rates by returning value in increased share price and no declaring earnings, which is an argument for zero corporate taxes and 45% cap gains taxes.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  6. IRS abused power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the judge, it was the IRS that was cheating and abusing its power in this case not Amazon.

    I don't think this is your typical "tax avoidance" by legal means case, it appears the IRS just wrote how much they wanted Amazon to pay and took it to court and made up values of Amazon assets to justify their number.

    And before anyone decides to tell me what Amazon did is illegal, we actually have a judge deciding on this already.

  7. No wonder Scandanavia and the low countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take your "penis goes into the rectum" format over to Slashdot where it's the norm.

  8. List of countries by tax rate by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here

    1. Re:List of countries by tax rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This should be linked in more debates around here.

      So the USA is 10th in federal corporate tax rate, behind such global economic powerhouses as Greece, Argentina, Bangladesh and Pakistan. (in some states, we're only second behind Greece, yay 47% combined tax rate)

      Although, once you get down to the "basically 30%" range, there are a lot of nations, some struggling and some thriving. Another obvious trend is that the places with 0% corporate tax rate are mainly either tourism societies or wealthy exporters.

      Looks like most Nordic nations like the 20%-24% range, even the Britlanders and Ruskies fall in that span, so maybe that means it's too globally popular for the USA to take seriously.

    2. Re:List of countries by tax rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And let's add some context to the discussion:

      https://americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-corporate-tax-rates/
      https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-363

  9. IRS loses - I'm happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't care about the details of the case. The IRS lost. That makes me happy.

    I've dealt with them in multiple tax audits - and they have way too much power to deny reasonable documentation as "not good enough", leaving you with no recourse. it's their goal to take as much as possible from you, even if the auditor you're working with doesn't understand the tax laws they are enforcing.

    They even have their own special tax courts, where the burden of proof is against you from the outset.

    So, IRS lost? Great! Happy day!

    1. Re:IRS loses - I'm happy by PPH · · Score: 1

      They even have their own special tax courts,

      But in Amazon's case, the IRS lost in one of those tax courts.

      IRS Motto: We've got what it takes to take what you've got.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  10. No, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I won't.

  11. "Just $2.37 billion of profit"? by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Amazon made just $2.37 billion of profit in 2016...

    Such a small profit. How ever will they manage to feed their families...

  12. Re:If by SScorpio · · Score: 1

    Really? Jesus was very much anti taxes.

    There was an article about times Jesus was a passive aggressive dick. One of the stories had tax collectors being forced to wait around all day as Jesus performed a miracle. As the fishermen would clean fish they would find a coin in each one. So at the end of the day the tax men were paid, but all of the money reeked of fish that was out in the sun all day.

  13. Amazon isn't moving by sjbe · · Score: 1

    But, if you force them to pay higher taxes, they'll move, and take the jobs/money with them.

    Exactly how is Amazon going to move outside the US? Their business model is dependent on being able to deliver stuff quickly which means they aren't going anywhere and are going to be subject to US taxes whether they like it or not.

    So they should pay higher taxes, but if we charge higher taxes, were screwed anyway.

    They don't need to pay higher taxes, they just need to be prohibited from weaseling out of paying taxes they rightfully should have to pay. And no, just because they found some clever loophole doesn't make it ok.

    1. Re:Amazon isn't moving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll spin off "3rd party distributors" to do that, let them get taxed, and the bulk of the profit will go to the Amazon name in Ireland or wherever.

    2. Re:Amazon isn't moving by lgw · · Score: 1

      These aren't taxes on activities that happened in America. If they decided to incorporate in e.g. the Caymans, they'd still owe US tax on US activities, just like today, but they wouldn't owe US tax on stuff made, shipped, and consumed in Europe, like they do today.

      It's the tax system that's fucked up here.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re: Amazon isn't moving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does Burger King continue selling burgers despite being based out of Canada?

  14. On $400 billion investment (lost money after infla by raymorris · · Score: 2

    Amazon made $2.37 billion, on over $400 billion invested. So an owner (investor) who put in $10,000 of their retirement savings made $59. Whoohoo!

    Due to inflation, $10,000 in 2015 was worth only $9,700 in 2016, so they actually LOST $241.

    Yeah, "making" less money than you're losing to inflation is pretty dismal.

  15. Corporations aren't people! by mad7777 · · Score: 1

    So... why do they pay income tax, like people? And what means "corporate profit", anyway?

    Shareholders, customers, management, employees... these are the people who profit. Corporations are piles of paper. Every dime taxed away from these entities hurts these people. The corporations don't care one lick, since paper doesn't actually have feelings.

    Abolish corporate tax. Problem solved. The only people who would be opposed to such an idea would be the corporate tax attorneys, lawyers, accountants, legislators, and judges, and bureaucrats who make their living fighting over this money. Maybe they can all find real jobs. Sounds like a win to me.

    --
    Might makes right irrelevant.
  16. Re:If by dj245 · · Score: 1

    Really? Jesus was very much anti taxes.

    There was an article about times Jesus was a passive aggressive dick. One of the stories had tax collectors being forced to wait around all day as Jesus performed a miracle. As the fishermen would clean fish they would find a coin in each one. So at the end of the day the tax men were paid, but all of the money reeked of fish that was out in the sun all day.

    When people ask "What would Jesus do?", they should not forget that flipping over tables and chasing people around with a whip is one of the options.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  17. Sell/Pay by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

    You sell stuff here. You pay your fair share in taxes. End of story!

  18. helping Amazon with their political views by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    The IRS was just helping Amazon have correct political views.

    Can you blame them for steering Amazon away from joining alt right groups, the tea party, CPAC, etc?

    Before you know it, Amazon would have been pushing Rush Limbaugh down our throats.

  19. You're missing the point by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    They bought those laws with campaign donations. I can't do that. I don't have millions lying around to but Senators with. You're making an appeal to fairness where none exists. Their voice is bigger than mine. The world is not, in fact, a fair place. Who knew?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  20. Re:If by whoever57 · · Score: 1

    Really? Jesus was very much anti taxes.

    Like many things in the bible, it's not so clear cut.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  21. acted arbitrarily or capriciously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Arbitrary or capricious acts have been a vicious tactic used by the IRS for years. They hope that people will not fight them and people are usually encouraged to not fight by lawyers and CPAs. I had a relative that was attacked by the IRS back in the 1950s. They suddenly popped up accusing him of owing $3000, instead of getting $3000 due back on his tax returns. His CPA warned him to not fight the IRS. As it turned out, the IRS decided that he would either have to pay the bogus $3000 owed or that it would be a wash, he just wouldn't get the $3000 he was owed. Of course, they decided to make it a wash, stealing the $3000 the IRS owed him.
    This agency has always been corrupted and will always be corrupted. They are evil to the core.

  22. Re:If by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no... in fact he said "give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"... i.e. taxes.

  23. Re:If by lgw · · Score: 1

    When people ask "What would Jesus do?", they should not forget that flipping over tables and chasing people around with a whip is one of the options.

    As long as the targets are bankers, would anyone really complain?

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  24. Not just IRS, States go nuts by bongey · · Score: 1

    Multiple states have basically bluffed on the tax returns my CPA wife has done for a very large company.
    More than one time in the last few years, a state will reject a return. Says the company has to pay millions. 1 day before the tax court date, the state drops disagreement.
    3 states are trying to say that they agree that huge chunk of stock sold in another company investment capital gains, but hundreds of millions is company income in their state. So 3 different states are seeing big millions in capital gains and all 3 are trying to say state income tax applies to the same portion of income that came from capital gains.
    One state went as far to try to call someone else other than my wife, to try to get someone at the company to agree that they needed to pay the tax bill.