Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Will Pay $0 in Federal Taxes on $11.2 Billion Profits (fortune.com)

Those wondering how many zeros Amazon, which is valued at nearly $800 billion, has to pay in federal taxes might be surprised to learn that its check to the IRS will read exactly $0.00. From a report: According to a report published by the Institute on Taxation and Economic (ITEP) policy Wednesday, the e-tail/retail/tech/entertainment/everything giant won't have to pay a cent in federal taxes for the second year in a row. This tax-free break comes even though Amazon almost doubled its U.S. profits from $5.6 billion to $11.2 billion between 2017 and 2018. To top it off, Amazon actually reported a $129 million 2018 federal income tax rebate -- making its tax rate -1%.

30 of 468 comments (clear)

  1. ridiculous by NikeHerc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm all for capitalism but it's ridiculous that Amazon gets money back from the government after those huge profits!

    --
    Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
    1. Re:ridiculous by jriding · · Score: 5, Informative

      For more information on why this is on Congress. ITEP notes that its non-existent federal tax payment is a result of the Trump Administrationâ(TM)s corporation-friendly tax cuts. The think tank writes that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act not only decreased corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%, but it also didnâ(TM)t close âoea slew of tax loopholes that allow profitable companies to routinely avoid paying federal and state income taxes on almost half of their profits.â According to The Week, Amazon ended up paying an 11.4% federal income tax rate between 2011 and 2016, which is a contrast to the -1% rate this year. http://fortune.com/2019/02/14/...

      --
      love the taste, hate the texture
    2. Re:ridiculous by link-error · · Score: 5, Interesting

          Didn't Amazon not make profits for like the first 10 years or so of their existence? How much money did they spend building out their infrastructure?
        Don't they get to write off all those loses from capital investments over that period?

            I haven't reviewed there financial statements, but I can see how this would easily be true...

      --
      -Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
    3. Re:ridiculous by BenJeremy · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are a liar. I've done my taxes, and paid more this year. Lots of people have been complaining about this.

    4. Re:ridiculous by sdinfoserv · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What we have is no longer capitalism. Our elected "representatives" are owned and beholden to the oligarchy donor class who put and keeps them in office. If the elected ones don't keep the stream of payola flowing to the donor class, someone else gets elected who will. It's that simple. The only way to fix this is campaign finance reform.

    5. Re:ridiculous by Altus · · Score: 5, Informative

      The average return has dropped 8% this year... maybe you got a cut but perhaps you are also taking advantage of things that are not available to most people. I haven't done mine yet but a lot of people that I know personally that have ended up with a worse return than last year despite similar earnings and deductions.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    6. Re:ridiculous by penandpaper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because of the SALT deduction cap. Mainly those in CA and NY. This tax cut actually raised the taxes on wealthy people because of this.

      IMO, I think that salt deduction is unfair and crap. There is no reason why I should pay more federal taxes than another person just because they decided to live in a high tax sate and I wanted to live in a low tax state.

    7. Re:ridiculous by meglon · · Score: 5, Informative

      IMO, I think that salt deduction is unfair and crap. There is no reason why I should pay more federal taxes than another person just because they decided to live in a high tax sate and I wanted to live in a low tax state.

      You get to live in your "low tax" states because those high tax states are donor states for your leeching. High tax states get back far less from the feds than the put in, while the "low tax" states leech far more money from the fed than they put in, that way they can have those "low tax" rates.

      If you don't think so, then lets all push for a constitutional amendment that says no state can receive more than 1.05, nor less than .95, of what they put in back. Virtually every "low tax" state would have their state budgets decimated by that... which might teach them a little bit about responsibility. It might also teach all the people in those "low tax" states to have a little bit of gratitude towards all of the taxpayers in the rest of the states who've been subsidizing them for decades.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    8. Re:ridiculous by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When corporations pay taxes, the cost is passed on to some combination of shareholders (lower dividends or less capital investment), customers (higher prices), and employees (lower wages).

      It would be better to just eliminate corporate taxes, and tax these groups directly. If you think employees should pay more, then increase payroll taxes. If you think customers should pay more, then increase sales taxes.

      If you think shareholders should pay more, which is where most people think the burden should fall, then indirectly taxing the corporation is a terrible way to achieve that. It means the stocks in grandma's pension fund are taxed exactly the same as a billionaire's holdings. I would make more sense to tax dividends or capital gains only once at the individual level, so grandma pays at the low income rate, while the billionaire pays a higher marginal rate.

    9. Re:ridiculous by Philotomy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A difference in your return doesn't indicate anything about whether you paid more or less tax compared to earlier years. You may have paid less tax and also seen a lower return because your withholding changed.

      My return dropped this year, so I'm part of that trend. But I also paid less tax this year.

    10. Re:ridiculous by crow · · Score: 3, Informative

      First, there are different accounting standards. Wall Street uses GAAP ("generally accepted accounting principles," I believe) and sometimes non-GAAP (ignoring some non-cash costs like stock options). The IRS uses its own rules.

      In the GAAP and non-GAAP rules, profits are for the given year (or quarter) only. So a loss in a previous period isn't subtracted from profits before reporting, just as profits from a previous period aren't added to the current report. Likewise with IRS rules, you can generally carry forward losses. So if they had a loss in the previous year, until they've realized that much profit, they won't pay taxes.

      Now what is probably really going on is that much of the profits are realized by overseas subsidiaries, so they pay taxes in places like Ireland, but until those profits are moved back to the US, they don't pay US taxes on them.

    11. Re:ridiculous by cfalcon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > The average return has dropped 8% this year

      This is the most politically charged nonsense statistic I have heard in years.

      Dude, ANY return just means you fucked up your withholding. Assuming you get paid like a salary, your return is just the government giving you back your own money that you overpaid. One year I owed 4000, the next I got back about 200. What changed? I had screwed up my settings in a web app that controlled the amount payed per check, and fixed it the next year.

      If someone looks at lower taxes, goes through miles of data, and comes up with "8% lower refund" as the one bad thing they can say (with the implication that taxes have gone up, when they have gone down)....

      Come on lol

    12. Re:ridiculous by penandpaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that people that make the same amount of money should have to pay the same federal taxes regardless where they live. I think that is unfair just like it is unfair Amazon paying 0 federal taxes.

      I can vote with my feet for a high tax state or not. I cannot vote with my feet with the federal government. If you want high taxes then pay higher taxes but don't force me to pay more because of a loop hole.

    13. Re:ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Corporations ARE the economy for better or worse.

      Saying it proudly does not make any one person's bias universal.

      George Washington would've said corporations are what destroys an economy, because the whole point of a corporation is to prevent individual responsibility for actions.

      The founding fathers hated corporations for very good and well documented reasons, but of course teaching actual real history isn't something Americans have ever been big on.

    14. Re:ridiculous by apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't get me wrong, it is ludicrous that Amazon didn't pay anything but pretending there are no large scale economic benefits for the middle class in something like this and especially in increasing capital in corporations on the whole is disingenuous.

      Then please demonstrate those benefits to the middle class. Wages are stagnant and not keeping up with inflation, and the middle class doesn't own much in the way of stocks. Large corporations like Amazon have driven lots of family owned business into the ground.

      Please let us know where the economic benefit to the middle class is, because it's not really evident to most of us.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    15. Re: ridiculous by jbengt · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wisconsin, Nevada, and Minnesota are not red states, though they may not be blue either, more or less purple.

    16. Re:ridiculous by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but those figures do not enter into the equation of the argument that "high tax states" do not receive their money back.

      Whether or not those are included depends on which study you're talking about.

      Shifting what counts and what does not count moves the edge cases a bit, but the major trend remains - the "blue" states are subsidizing the "red" states.

      Which is fine. We're all one union. It just gets annoying when the folks from the "taker" states whine about the feds not helping them enough or preach about self-reliance.

    17. Re:ridiculous by jeff4747 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who exactly should Alabama tax?

      Alabamans.

      We blue states don't begrudge sending you money. What we begrudge is your complaints about our people are moochers while claiming your people are self-reliant uber-Randian supermen.

  2. So who is paying for their employees' SS & SSI by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Q: So who is paying for their employees' Social Security and SSI disability?

    A: We are.

    I'm more than a little bit tired of the wealthiest corporations and individuals paying proportionally less in taxes than even people in the bottom tax bracket. Giving tax breaks to help small businesses grow makes sense. Giving huge tax breaks to help one of the largest businesses in the world grow does not.

    It's time for a tax revolution at the ballot box. Vote only for politicians who declare a willingness to make our tax code more fair and less protective of the wealthy. Raise capital gains taxes. Phase out corporate tax exemptions for companies earning more than 100M annually or add a business version of the alternative minimum tax. Make our tax system fair.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  3. Before we bash Amazon... by skam240 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Before we bash Amazon it's important to note the following from the linked to article.

    "...ITEP notes that its non-existent federal tax payment is a result of the Trump Administration’s corporation-friendly tax cuts. The think tank writes that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act not only decreased corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%, but it also didn’t close “a slew of tax loopholes that allow profitable companies to routinely avoid paying federal and state income taxes on almost half of their profits.”

    According to The Week, Amazon ended up paying an 11.4% federal income tax rate between 2011 and 2016, which is a contrast to the -1% rate this year."

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    1. Re:Before we bash Amazon... by shess · · Score: 4, Funny

      Before we bash Amazon it's important to note the following from the linked to article.

      "...ITEP notes that its non-existent federal tax payment is a result of the Trump Administration’s corporation-friendly tax cuts. The think tank writes that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act not only decreased corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%, but it also didn’t close “a slew of tax loopholes that allow profitable companies to routinely avoid paying federal and state income taxes on almost half of their profits.”

      According to The Week, Amazon ended up paying an 11.4% federal income tax rate between 2011 and 2016, which is a contrast to the -1% rate this year."

      Wow, that's terrible, it must have pushed them close to bankruptcy to pay such an onerous tax burden for those years.

  4. Re:So who is paying for their employees' SS & by kenh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Q: So who is paying for their employees' Social Security and SSI disability?

    A: We are.

    No, Social security and SSI disability are paid by both the employee and the employer, and are not "Income Taxes".

    Your ignorance of the topic undercuts and invalidates your argument.

    --
    Ken
  5. Re:Is this just because of previous years losses? by mjperson · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, the chart at the bottom of TFA shows they've made profits for several years and except last year and this year, used to pay (very small) taxes on those profits. they've just been getting better at playing the system as their profits are rising.

  6. Re:Where can small businesses get this deal? by kenh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Talk to the folks that write the tax code, they structured it this way for a reason, and we (collectively) keep re-electing them.

    --
    Ken
  7. Oh no! by Comboman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    if they were "paying" taxes to the government, they'd just raise the price on their products and services

    Oh no! Then customers would be forced to support local, brick-and-mortar, small businesses instead (the ones that actually DO pay taxes and create real jobs).

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
  8. Re:Tax Returns.. by dbrueck · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, it's not average, but maybe close enough? 44% of the people pay $0.00 in federal income taxes:

    https://www.marketwatch.com/st...

  9. Explan Please by kenh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The fine print of Amazon’s income tax disclosure shows that this achievement is partly due to various unspecified “tax credits” as well as a tax break for executive stock options.

    In researching what "a tax break for executive stock options" means, I found a Forbes article from 2013, that described it this way:

    The option break,which Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) calls an “unjustified corporate loophole,” works like this: A company issues options to executives to buy stock at a certain, usually low price. (For example, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg had options to purchase 120 million shares for just 6 cents a share when the company went public last May at $38 per share.) Then, when the executive exercises those options, the company gets to deduct the difference between the executive’s exercise price and the shares' higher market value, even though the company hasn’t actually paid the exec that large amount of cash. As a result, while Facebook reported $1.1 billion in pretax U.S. profits for 2012, it owed no corporate income taxes and in fact qualified for $429 million in refunds. (One key here is that companies report their earnings to shareholders and the SEC under different rules than they use to report taxable income to the IRS.)

    It went on to explain:

    Defenders of this tax treatment for executive options point out that it’s not like Uncle Sam is getting stiffed. That's because the executive must report the same amount deducted by the company as ordinary income. So while corporations avoid a 35% corporate income tax, wealthy executives pay individual income taxes (after this year's fiscal cliff tax deal) at a top 39.6% rate. Plus, the whole amount is considered compensation subject to Medicare taxes at a 3.8% rate. (That’s the normal 2.9% Medicare rate, equally split between employer and employee, plus a 0.9% Medicare surcharge on highly paid employees that was part of ObamaCare.) And, of course, the exec has state individual income taxes to pay too. (In California, the top rate on income above $1 million is now a whopping 13.3%.) Some companies such as Facebook, “net settle” options. As Forbes contributor Robert Wood, a tax lawyer, explains here, that means Facebook made tax payments to Uncle Sam on employees’ behalf (essentially, it withheld taxes the workers owed), giving them only the shares they would end up with, after tax. (Note that the tax treatment of executive stock options—also called nonqualified stock options--is entirely different than the tax treatment of the "qualified" or "incentive" stock options typically handed out to rank and file employees.

    So taxes were paid, mainly by the employee exercising the stock options, but also to an extent by the corporation as well - the article sums it up thusly:

    To tax geeks, the treatment of executive stock options makes perfect sense: A tax deduction on the corporate side is balanced by taxable income to the employee.

    Source: Stock Options Meant Big Tax Savings For Apple And JPMorgan, As Well As Facebook

    The takeaways - rather than tax the income at corporate tax rates (21.5%) the income is taxed at the highest individual rate (39.6%) AND Medicare at 3.8% and state tax rates, and the source of these deductions predate the Trump administration, since the above article is from during the Obama Administration. The origins of the tax break are left as a research project for the reader, I've done my part by showing the taxes are still paid by the employee that got the tax break, and paid at a higher rate than the corporation would have paid. (All tax rates described are from the 2103 article, the concerned reader is invited to substitute in post-Trump tax break rates if they like, the principle remains the same.)

    --
    Ken
  10. That's surprisingly low by Headw1nd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So the thing I'm amazed at is given the stranglehold Amazon seems to have on its market, they only made 11.4 Billion for the year. From what I can see, Apple posted a 14.1 Billion profit on Q4 alone.

    1. Re:That's surprisingly low by raftpeople · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And 90% of that profit is from AWS, not from selling merchandise.

  11. I dispute your finding by onepoint · · Score: 5, Informative

    I dispute your finding
    http://www.governing.com/week-...

    and
    https://rockinst.org/wp-conten...

    with the data to support it from
    https://www.govinfo.gov/conten...

    NY and NJ pay a lot of taxes and don't get it all back.
    and Politifact California, can't find your reference, cite your source

    --
    if you see me, smile and say hello.