http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes_2.htmlMind you, not all global megacorps enjoy such low tax rates. Try to muster some pity for Big Oil. ExxonMobil ( XOM - news - people ) in its 2009 annual report to the SEC, recorded a larger income tax expense than any other U.S. company last year, some $17.6 billion, or 47% of pretax earnings.
Exxon has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas. Likewise, GE has $84 billion in overseas income parked indefinitely outside the U.S.
Though Exxon's financial statement's don't show any net income tax liability owed to Uncle Sam, a company spokesman insists that once its final tax bill is figured, Exxon will owe a "substantial 2009 tax liability." How substantial? "That's not something we're required to disclose, nor do we."
The most egregious example is General Electric ( GE - news - people ). Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.
Mike said:Corporations shouldn't have to pay income taxes anyway.
The owners/stockholders already pay.
Corporate Income Tax is double taxing.
TSR said:I think your last two quotes say more than the first quote to the average taxpayer. The reason I even googled this was because the other day when the politicians on C-Span were arguing over tax reform, a democrat from somewhere said that Exxon/mobile contributed no taxes in 2010 to the treasury. I was surprised when no republicans offered a rebuttal.
Steve said:TSR said:I think your last two quotes say more than the first quote to the average taxpayer. The reason I even googled this was because the other day when the politicians on C-Span were arguing over tax reform, a democrat from somewhere said that Exxon/mobile contributed no taxes in 2010 to the treasury. I was surprised when no republicans offered a rebuttal.
the Democrat was wrong according to Forbes, the SEC and the IRS..
TSR said:Can someone help/clarify what I just got through reading after I googled-Exxon Quarterly Taxes? This was from Forbes magazine (is this publication liberal or conservative in nature ?) 2 of 3 Corporations paid no taxes to the IRS in 2009 including Exxon Mobil and General Electric. :???:
“Corporations shouldn't pay income taxes because it is simply another tax on individuals. Depending on the elasticity of demand, the taxes are passed on to consumers (individuals). Also, individuals own the corporation and are therefore double taxed. That is, they pay their portion of the corporate income tax (depending on how many shares they own) and they pay taxes on the dividends the company provides.
For example, if a person owns stock in a company and that stock amounts to $100 of the profit of the company, they would pay $34 in corporate income tax (alternative minimum tax). They would also pay personal income tax on the remaining $66 or about $20. Therefore, they are paying $54 on the $100 of corporate income or 54%.
What's worse is that the main shareholders in the country are pension funds. Therefore regular people (people who get pensions), not "rich" people are paying corporate income taxes.”
TSR said:Steve said:TSR said:I think your last two quotes say more than the first quote to the average taxpayer. The reason I even googled this was because the other day when the politicians on C-Span were arguing over tax reform, a democrat from somewhere said that Exxon/mobile contributed no taxes in 2010 to the treasury. I was surprised when no republicans offered a rebuttal.
the Democrat was wrong according to Forbes, the SEC and the IRS..
So the republicans were illiterate with respect to corporate taxes? It would have been a great time to belittle democrats and their knowledge of taxes. :???: Doesn't say much for the republicans as debaters on national tv.
Steve said:TSR said:Steve said:the Democrat was wrong according to Forbes, the SEC and the IRS..
So the republicans were illiterate with respect to corporate taxes? It would have been a great time to belittle democrats and their knowledge of taxes. :???: Doesn't say much for the republicans as debaters on national tv.
Maybe they realized it was such a ludicrous claim, and thought no one would be stupid enough to actually believe that the corporation that "recorded a larger income tax expense than any other U.S. company last year" didn't pay any taxes..
is that a belittling enough comment?
TSR said:Steve said:TSR said:So the republicans were illiterate with respect to corporate taxes? It would have been a great time to belittle democrats and their knowledge of taxes. :???: Doesn't say much for the republicans as debaters on national tv.
Maybe they realized it was such a ludicrous claim, and thought no one would be stupid enough to actually believe that the corporation that "recorded a larger income tax expense than any other U.S. company last year" didn't pay any taxes..
is that a belittling enough comment?
And of course, on the other side of the coin I guess its entirely possible the Republicans either had no defense or just weren't as knowledgeable as they should have been about the situation.
Aside from all that, lets get down to kindergarten level for everyone reading these posts by answering this question-How much federal income taxes did Exxon Mobil pay to the treasury in 2010 Not as a percentage but a $ amount. I have no idea myself but I do believe a congressman on national tv regardless of party, would have done a little research before making such a statement,especially knowing who he was facing on the other side.
I'd rather get 2% of $1 billion, compared to 35% of $0
http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2010/04/07/exxon-says-it-does-pay-u-s-income-taxes/ExxonMobil reports in its annual consolidated financial statements is just accounting, that the numbers reflect expenses or credits recorded throughout the year and “do not represent our tax bill,” which has not yet been filed,
My mistake was in thinking that these figures somehow reflected actual tax benefits and liabilities. So what we should have written was that ExxonMobil “recorded” no U.S. income taxes for 2009 instead of “paid.”
And for all you commenters outraged that Exxon isn’t paying taxes in the U.S., don’t worry, it is. Our article only focused on income taxes, but it’s worth noting that the 10-k also records $7.7 billion in other taxes in the U.S.
ExxonMobil is a leading U.S. taxpayer
December 14, 2010
Claims that ExxonMobil did not pay taxes in 2009 are just plain incorrect. The myth started with a misreading of our 2009 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and it’s now being perpetuated for all kinds of reasons.
So, let me set the record straight.
ExxonMobil is one of the country’s largest taxpayers, having incurred a total U.S. tax expense of $60 billion over the past five years – a tax cost that exceeded our U.S. earnings in that same period by $19 billion. Simply stated, for every dollar of net earnings in the U.S. between 2005 and 2009, we paid almost $1.50 in taxes to federal, state and local governments.
Furthermore, one only has to look at ExxonMobil’s previous tax bills to realize that any claim we don’t pay taxes is absurd
February 09, 2007
When You Tax Profits, You Tax People
By Lawrence Kudlow
ExxonMobil just reported the largest annual profit ever by a U.S. company -- a staggering $39.5 billion.
I say congratulations, although Hillary Clinton begs to differ.
At the winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee, the senator from New York said, "The oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits, and I want to put them in an alternative energy fund."
Take? Isn't that a confiscation of private property? Author P.J. O'Rourke framed it perfectly on a recent edition of CNBC's "Kudlow & Co.": She's "Hugo Chavez in a pants suit."
And what exactly would Mrs. Clinton be taking? ExxonMobil's profits are outsized, but they come on sales of $377.5 billion, making for a profit margin of just over 10 cents on the dollar. This remains well below the profit margins of many industries, including banking and biotech, where the margins nearly double those in the energy sector. The numbers are big, but the returns are middling.
And since sales and profits in the energy sector depend on the world price of oil, it's feast or famine for these businesses. In the last decade, oil prices have fluctuated from about $10 a barrel to nearly $80. Talk about volatile pricing.
Indeed, the energy business isn't easy. Still, ExxonMobil remains one of the best-run companies in America. Many professional investors believe it's the best-run company. In his recent book, "The Future for Investors," Jeremy Siegel of the University of Pennsylvania reveals that Exxon has been one of the top three stocks in terms of return on investment over the past 50-odd years. John D. Rockefeller Sr., looking down from on high, must be pleased.
But it's also a tax-burdened company. While ExxonMobil recorded record profits last year, it also paid $100.7 billion in taxes -- two-and-half times its net profits, according to the Tax Foundation. In fact, over the past 25 years, federal and state governments took $397 billion from the largest oil companies and an additional $1.1 trillion in taxes at the pump. In today's dollars, that's $2.2 trillion.
This isn't an isolated problem. The prevailing 35 percent corporate tax rate takes a monster bite from all U.S. businesses. Moreover, our business taxes are far too high in relation to the rest of the world. Believe it or not, the corporate tax rate is lower in France than it is in the United States.
Along with slow-growing Japan, the United States has the highest marginal tax rate on corporate profits of any of the developed countries. Think of this: Germany is cutting its corporate tax rate to 15 percent from 25 percent. And if frontrunner Nicolas Sarkozy wins the French presidential election this spring, he plans to slash France's corporate tax burden. Meanwhile, we'll still be taking our best companies behind the barn and shooting them.
The bottom line here is that our economic system is all about free-market capitalism, and at the core of that system is profit. Profit isn't a dirty word. From profits spring the abundance of this great country. Profits are the mother's milk of stocks and the economy. Expanding profits provide businesses the resources to enlarge production operations and hire additional workers. This, in turn, is how incomes are created -- wages that are then spent by American families.
Why can't liberals grasp this?
When the government meddles in the market and taxes companies more -- when it sticks its nose where it doesn't belong -- it ends up hurting not just businesses, but all individuals. Taxing profits more means taxing families more. Taxing profits more leads to smaller wage gains for middle-income workers. When you tax American companies more, the American workforce is paid less. And when you tax American energy companies more, they produce less energy. That means higher prices for gas at the pump and heating fuel at home. This may enrich Uncle Sam, but it comes at the expense of ordinary folks.
Washington economist Kevin Hassett has shown that the U.S. workforce bears a full 70 percent of the cost of corporate taxes. So, if folks are indeed worried about wage inequality, they should be lobbying their congressional representatives to cut corporate taxes in order to increase worker wages.
The truth is, when you tax profits more you undermine the American work ethic and the incentive structure that goes along with it. In fact, you demoralize the very system that has made this country great. It's the people who ultimately pay the corporate profits tax -- and that includes shareholders, pensioners and other retirees. Business taxes should be headed down, not up.
Punish ExxonMobil for turning a healthy profit? Take those profits? Do that, and you punish the American worker and the entire economy, too.
Lawrence Kudlow is a former Reagan economic advisor, a syndicated columnist, and the host of CNBC's Kudlow & Company. Visit his blog, Kudlow's Money Politics.
hypocritexposer said:TSR said:Steve said:Maybe they realized it was such a ludicrous claim, and thought no one would be stupid enough to actually believe that the corporation that "recorded a larger income tax expense than any other U.S. company last year" didn't pay any taxes..
is that a belittling enough comment?
And of course, on the other side of the coin I guess its entirely possible the Republicans either had no defense or just weren't as knowledgeable as they should have been about the situation.
Aside from all that, lets get down to kindergarten level for everyone reading these posts by answering this question-How much federal income taxes did Exxon Mobil pay to the treasury in 2010 Not as a percentage but a $ amount. I have no idea myself but I do believe a congressman on national tv regardless of party, would have done a little research before making such a statement,especially knowing who he was facing on the other side.
supposedly Exxon did not pay any Federal Income Tax in the US. They did in other Countries to the tune of $17 B.
Corporations set up their profits in lower taxed countries and their expenses in the higher taxed countries.
Oil companies are somewhat limited in where they set up, the oil dictates where they operate.
Drilling in the US might help to increase inc. taxes paid in the US, as would lowering the rate on those profits.
I'd rather get 2% of $1 billion, compared to 35% of $0