Text/HTML
Text/HTML
If you are a registered user please log in to see more postings.
 

The AAO Weblog covers accounting issues and current events as they relate the practice of investment analysis.

 
 
Aug 18

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
8/18/2008 6:44 AM 

Last week, the Governmental Accountability Office released a study of corporate income taxes paid for the years 1998 - 2005. Findings: for most of that period - roughly two-thirds of the time - firms did not report a US tax liability.

There was slightly more of a tendency for foreign-owned firms (50% or more of voting stock owned by a foreign entity) to report zero liability that for US-owned firms. In both cases (foreign-owned versus US-owned), firms paying no taxes tended to be smaller firms. (Firms were considered large firms if they had assets greater than $250 million and $50 million of revenues.)

Don't jump to conclusions about tax chicanery. There's one important attribute of the findings that the GAO listed in the first paragraph of the report:

"Most large FCDCs (foreign-controlled domestic corporations) and USCCs (US-controlled corporations) that reported no tax liability in 2005 also reported that they had no current-year income. A smaller proportion of these corporations had losses from prior years and tax credits that eliminated any tax liability."

So, while it carries a populist tune in an election year, some of that tax non-payment might be totally legitimate: income is a necessary condition for an income tax, right? And the crazy-quilt patchwork of a tax code lets firms turn losses into assets to be applied to taxes later, and credits shelter the income of favorite son industries. So that "two out of three IS bad" label might not really stick.

What it might mean though, is that the corporate tax code is badly in need of repair. That subject is nicely teed up in "A World of Wealth: How Capitalism Turns Profits Into Progress," which I enjoyed on my vacation last week. It's the work of Thomas Donlan, Barron's editorial page editor, and it's a terse primer on economics, capitalism and capitalistic solutions to modern problems. (Briefly: prices help do the job of solving most problems, and they do it best when they're left alone.) One issue Donlan raises: why have a corporate income tax at all? In the end, it isn't the company paying the tax; according to the GAO, there isn't even the appearance of most firms paying a corporate income tax in recent history. Where taxes are paid, however, the normal corporate behavior is to build the tax into the prices of the goods and services sold to consumers. Why continue the charade? Take the taxes off the corporations and everyone benefits - except maybe corporate tax shelter promoters, tax accountants and tax lawyers.

Donlan riffs on a variety of issues, from oil prices to greenhouse gases to immigration and taxes, with a zeal for capitalism that's clearly evident in his entertaining and breezy style. Quick, read it before the summer goes - and at the latest, before you vote in November.

Tags:
 

Pension & Other Benefit Plans: A Look Ahead


    Investors in firms with defined benefit pension plans always face the risk of suddenly being pushed farther back in line when it comes to being served their returns. Variability in plan assets and variability in benefit plan obligations are the reason: poor asset returns coupled with sinking interest rates always spell tough times for defined benefit plan funding. In that regard, this year’s asset returns combined with the Fed’s “Operation Twist” add up to “Operation Agony” for defined benefit pension plans. If trends continue along their current path, firms that may have anticipated moving to more realistic pension accounting - like Honeywell, AT&T and Verizon already have done - might forego that decision. It could be just too painful. 

    Pensions aren’t the only kind of benefit plan affected by Operation Twist. Other postemployment benefit (OPEB) plans share much the same accounting model as pensions, including the calculation of a projected benefit obligation that similarly incorporates a discount rate - one that will also be affected by Operation Twist. The net OPEB obligations were slightly less than pension obligations at the end of 2010, but also promise to grow in 2011. Investors perceive them as less threatening than pension obligations because they don’t require funding. Strangely, there are a number of firms that are recognizing income from these benefit plans - without ever creating a dime of cash for investors.

A recent edition of The Analyst’s Accounting Observer dissects these issues, and is available only to paid subscribers. A condensed version is available for free upon request. To receive it, send an e-mail to Brenda Rappold at brappold@accountingobserver.com, with “PENSIONS” in the subject line.

For information about subscribing to The Analyst’s Accounting Observer, click here.

 

 
barbie oyunu barbie giydirme oyunlarI barbie kIz oyunlarI barbie yemek oyunlarI oyunlar oyunlar oyunlar2