Did Romney pay zero taxes in 2009? And 2008?
UPDATE September 2012: Okay, he didn't pay zero taxes, but we still don't know if he paid any significant amount.
Romney's caught heat for a lack of transparency in his finances, especially compared to his father's presidential run. He's now announced a delay in filing his final 2011 taxes, presumably looking for a time when people will be less resentful of a multi-millionaire paying lower tax rates than they do.
Back in the heat of the primary, though, Romney was forced to release his 2010 taxes and estimate 2011, but failed to do any more as the Democrats have demanded. The Washington Post blogger guessed it was the exotic nature of his finances that made him hesitant to release them. Let me try another guess.
Among the details that may spur fresh debate: The returns show that Romney was able to cut his taxable income by $4.8 million because of losses carried over from previous years. Under the tax code, taxpayers who lose money from their investments can deduct those losses against their capital gains. If a taxpayer ends up losing so much that the losses outweigh the gains in a given year, the rest of those losses can be carried to the next year and subtracted from income.
Capital losses are carried over from previous years - the years that Romney still refuses to release. The carryover means he had no net capital gains in 2009, possibly in previous years as well. The only taxes he paid in 2010 were capital gains - he had no earned income.
Unless he had earned income in 2009 that he didn't in 2010, which seems unlikely because he's been running for president since 2006, then the information he has given suggests he paid no taxes in 2009, or even earlier if he took large capital losses in 2007 or 2008 that carried over for subsequent years.
I'm no tax expert so maybe I'm missing something, but this looks like dynamite to me.
UPDATE: looks like others have had the same thought. More links here.
UPDATE: looks like others have had the same thought. More links here.
Posts
17 comments:
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
on a much, much more important side note, Mr. Raise my Taxes himself company Berkshire Hathaway owes $1 billion in back taxes since 2002.
Of course the double standard is in effect daily here and since Buffett says he'll pay higher taxes, he is a champion.
Dr.Reeses Pieces, MFA
on a much,much more important side note,
Mrs Every Woman for Herself( Rand)
used medicare
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
Berkshire Hathaway owing $1 billion dollars in back taxes, while simultaneously asking for the gov't to raise his taxes, while simultaneously not writing a check to the treasury or
Ann Romney using medicare.
Nice snipe, you got me good.
I'm starting to think Eli has something cooking for the doctor because it's been amateur hour over here for days now.
Its possible but a loss is a loss. I would be surprised if he didn't make money from speaking engagements, even then they could have been campaign contributions. A person like Mitt could live quite well off of an expense account. I'm all for looking at the tax rates and deductions but I don't expect to many to donate to the govt. That being said I would expect someone running for president to want to release their returns unless they are hiding something. Last time I checked Buffett is not running for president so I don't care to much about his finances.
NetJets is a unit of Berkshire, and of course Buffett's *company* and its tax issues are not Buffett's taxes.
While Cadbury should always be ignored, it's an interesting case. The IRS has dunned NetJets for unpaid ticket taxes. NetJets sells fractional ownership (timeshares) in business jets. If you own an airplane, you don't have to pay a ticket tax because you're not buying a ticket. NetJets position is that fractional owners, like 100% owners, aren't buying tickets but exercising their ownership right to use the airplane for a fractional number of the flying hours available.
It also happens that the IRS hasn't dunned NetJets competitors, though if they win in court I'm sure they will.
Regardless, if NetJets loses its suit against the IRS, Buffett won't be paying the taxes, NetJets will, i.e. its shareholders (including those who own bits of Berkshire through other mutual funds).
And NetJets will be collecting the ticket tax from its fractional owners.
It has nothing to do with Buffetts personal taxes, while Romney's personal taxes have everything to do with Romney's personal taxes.
No hypocrisy involved.
The IRS position appears weird to me. Lots of people have fractional ownership in airplanes, for instance 50%-50% ownership in a Cessna 172 or the like. The IRS is arguing that by splitting ownership you suddenly have to sell tickets and pay the ticket tax rather than just go fly your toy? Harrumph.
The legal argument's not that simple but the principle is.
I sincerely hope that the Romney campaign run with Jay's suggestion if/when this comes out, and we'll let the public decide what's more important.
And the reference above in the thread was to Ayn, not Ann.
It's always amateur hour when Bluey posts.
And seriously, Brere Eli doesn't need to stoke the range. Bluey takes care of the self-marinading all by his lonesome.
Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.
> "Berkshire Hathaway owes $1 billion in back taxes since 2002"
So, in reality, it does so only in the opinion of the IRS, and the judicial system is busy sorting out whether or not this opinion holds water?
Why am I not surprised that the chocobar is lying again?
Well color me stoopid, that's why they call me stoopid.
A cynic would say, since your average brainwashed by Faux Noose, the unfortunate US voter, has the effective the memory retention span of goldfish. This storm in a teacup over tax avoidance/evasion/late filing will be long forgotten, well before the end of April 2012.
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
@dhogaza
I'll direct this question at you since you're the only one being half reasonable.
so I'm of the opinion that it is a huge conflict of interest for Buffett to say he'll pay higher taxes when his company owes $1 billion dollars. I'd think we could call it square if he just paid that off. If you disagree with me, that's fine.
Secondly, at least as a gesture of good faith, why doesn't Buffett write a check to the treasury? This is why I think Buffett is very disingenuous when he says he'll pay higher taxes.
And I'm guessing you know his company received a ton of money in the TARP bailouts. Look at the timing of his investments into companies such as Goldman, versus the timing it received TARP money. It's pretty obvious to me that Buffett knew.
I have extensive notes on this at my house, I will have more tomorrow. I have found this information very difficult to come by on the internet.
"Secondly, at least as a gesture of good faith, why doesn't Buffett write a check to the treasury? This is why I think Buffett is very disingenuous when he says he'll pay higher taxes."
Really? You've never been in a situation where you'd happily be one of many each pitching in their fair share, but aren't going to go in and do it yourself outside of a community effort?
In general, my theory of ethical economic behavior is that it is okay to take advantage of the existing system and loopholes and such (otherwise only the jerks win), but that one should lobby to close those loopholes (or at lesat, not fight against closing them). Eg, it was okay for Romney to use the carried interest tax loophole, but he shouldn't have been lobbying against closing that loophole.
Also, http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16612221&postID=4890392727790094983&isPopup=true claims that it is 360 million, and that the other 640 million was paid but NetJets is suing to get it back over the ticket tax issue.
Does any auditor know why tax payers are, relatively speaking, paying for Romney's losses?
Willard, because the richest amongst us have been legally enabled to personalise profit and socialise losses.
Cadbury:
"so I'm of the opinion that it is a huge conflict of interest for Buffett to say he'll pay higher taxes when his company owes $1 billion dollars. I'd think we could call it square if he just paid that off. If you disagree with me, that's fine."
Berkshire Hathaway is a publicly traded company. Why would Buffett pay off the tax liabilities of a publicly traded company? Because he founded it? Because he's the largest single shareholder?
Makes aboslutely no sense at all. I own shares in many companies. My personal taxes are something I control, and something I pay directly. Apple's taxes aren't.
It's really not that difficult though I realize that in your case the bar separating difficult from simple things is set very, very low.
And, of course, if the IRS is proven wrong in tax court, why would any company, person, entity pay a tax they don't owe?
Buffett's talking about changing the tax code so that people like himself will pay a greater share of the country's tax burden.
He's not talking about *donating* money to government.
I support letting the bush tax cuts expire, for instance, even though I make six figures and the impact on me will be greater than the impact on someone in the 15% tax bracket. But that doesn't mean I'm donating money above and beyond my taxes in the interim. That would be stupid.
And, of course, Buffett's not the CEO of NetJets, just like he's not the CEO of Gieco, etc.
dhogaza - I'm sure Jay's wrongly-held belief is sincere, but I think the main reason why he brought it up is that he doesn't want to talk about mult-millionaire Romney paying no taxes and minimal taxes while running for president.
" but I think the main reason why he brought it up is that he doesn't want to talk about mult-millionaire Romney paying no taxes and minimal taxes while running for president."
Oh, he's diverting away from the OP, obviously. I should've ignored his direct question to me. As I mentioned above, I only responded to his first trolling effort because I think the NetJets case is interesting ...
Post a Comment