• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Koch Industries Lawyer to White House: How Did You Get Our Tax Information?

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,653
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Lately, the White House and its allies have been drawing attention to the political activities of libertarian billionaires Charles and David Koch. In an August 9 speech, President Obama singled out Americans for Prosperity, ...

Holden claims that the revelation of tax information could have been improper, depending on how the information was obtained by the White House:

"I’m not accusing any one of any illegal conduct. But it’s my understanding that under federal law, tax information, is confidential and it’s not to be disclosed or obtained by individuals except under limited circumstances. ... I don’t know what [the senior administration official] was referring to. I'm not sure what he's saying. I'm not sure what information he has. But if he got this information--confidential tax information--under the internal revenue code ... if he obtained it in a way that was inappropriate, that would be unlawful. But I don't know that that's the case."

Holden says that to his knowledge the tax status of Koch Industries has not been previously reported in the press.

So, questions remain: Why won't White House officials say if the quotation about Koch Industries is accurate--or even if a transcript of the briefing exists?

And, if the quotation is accurate, why won't they say how the White House obtained tax information on Koch Industries?

Koch Industries Lawyer to White House: How Did You Get Our Tax Information? | The Weekly Standard
Eh Obi... your team has'alotta 'splain'in to do.

Inquiring minds want to know... shouldn't take 72-hours... sorta reminds me of the Sestak deal... took days for them to craft an non-answer. Looking forward to Isa looking into these allegations of wrongdoing.

.
 

Coronado

Voluntary Resignation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
7,059
Reaction score
2,412
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Eh Obi... your team has'alotta 'splain'in to do.

Inquiring minds want to know... shouldn't take 72-hours... sorta reminds me of the Sestak deal... took days for them to craft an non-answer. Looking forward to Isa looking into these allegations of wrongdoing.

.
Great ... a certain poster is probably gonna slide right off her chair when she sees this thread ... :roll:
 

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,654
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Those who follow politics know that reports of Obama having an enemies list have come up more than once and he has ask to have the equivalent of what were called Block wardens in Germany during the war who would report on Neighbors.

Obama has asked on more than one occasion for people to report on other Americans who were for example making false or misleading statements about the "Obama I Don't Care about Your Heath Plan,"

Well I couldn't resist so I reported the 'Trifecta of Doom," Obama, Pelosi. and Reid.

I'm sure I am now on the Obama less than friends list for it and for much more.

The East Germany's Stasi spy group used similar tactics as did the Soviet Union, and now Russians do to.

All dictatorships such as Hugo Chavez rely heavily on a network of internal informants to garner information on people they consider to be subversives.

I'm sure those old enough remember Richard Nixon, remember he had an enemies list and a group of close confidants who did his bidding in the form of dirty tricks and use of the IRS as a weapon. Some of his undercover crew went to the federal cross bar hotel, for a while.

It is believed by some that Bill Clinton was the reason for their suudenly finding themselves on the IRS radar. Though it was never proven.

It would not surprise me to find that Obama has in his own cadre of radicals who's only function is to be his domestic spies using every tool at their disposal through the use of executive orders and other methods no matter if they are legal or not to get the goods on enemies.

Obama and his minions have shown in their speeches and actions that many of them are Anti-American and they have no use what ever for the Constitution except to hide behind the first Amendment in order to bash the rest of it and America and Americans with impunity.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Americans for Prosperity is a tax exempted organization filing form 990. Which by law is publicly accessible.

Furthermore, Koch Industries has one of the largest private businesses in America for at least a decade. If Koch is structured as a S Corp, then it doesn't pay corporate level taxes (aside from a few S corp special taxes).

Telling people what legal structure Koch Industries is and then summarizing the tax implications of that structure is not illegal any more then I saying Microsoft is an C corp and pays corporate taxes. Anyone can go down to the registration place where Koch Industries is registered and look up their legal structure. While is it possible that KI pays corporate level taxes via election, it doesn't make any sense for them to do so.

This thread is nothing more then an epic gross failure to understand the concept of legal information disclosure and tax code by people who really should not discuss taxes.
 
Last edited:

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
http://apps.sos.wv.gov/business/files/charitiespdf/007008729.pdf

That's their 2009 990 filing. David Koch is their Chairman.

Here's an idea: Run your tax issue by me first. Save yourself some egg on your face.

How did they get the info? By looking up documents and filings that are legally required to be available to the public.

I guess this means every time someone goes on the internet to a government site looking up information through deliberately enacted government sanctioned search, they've committed a crime.
 
Last edited:

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Koch and the lawyers should give a little more time and then file a lawsuit. Simple. During the process we'll find out what was being referenced and how information was handled by the government. Surprised that the fed would delve into private tax records of a corporation unlawfully? He'll no. Especially this admin who sees private industry and business as a villain.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Koch and the lawyers should give a little more time and then file a lawsuit.
Koch shouldn't. And neither should his lawyer (unless he really needs the money). In such a case, they'd be potentially open to revealing actual information they don't want released. Nothing the current adminstration said is not freely and legally avaliable to anyone. By filing a lawsuit and actually going to court, they open themselves up to examination of actual private tax information. A lawsuit in court is the last thing they want.

During the process we'll find out what was being referenced and how information was handled by the government.
No need for that. Posts #4 and #6 detail how they did it.

Surprised that the fed would delve into private tax records of a corporation unlawfully? He'll no. Especially this admin who sees private industry and business as a villain.
How the hell is looking up legally in the local registration office what Koch is registered as and then looking up their legally publicly avaliable 990 and then the relevant online tax code delving into private tax records?

You people really outta to stop talking about ANYTHING related to law or taxes.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Now, let's see how long the peanut gallery stops talking about legal matters and taxes. I suspect they won't learn their lesson.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,107
Reaction score
32,318
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Koch and the lawyers should give a little more time and then file a lawsuit. Simple. During the process we'll find out what was being referenced and how information was handled by the government. Surprised that the fed would delve into private tax records of a corporation unlawfully? He'll no. Especially this admin who sees private industry and business as a villain.
Somebody didn't read the thread.
 

apdst

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
131,520
Reaction score
30,446
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Americans for Prosperity is a tax exempted organization filing form 990. Which by law is publicly accessible.

Furthermore, Koch Industries has one of the largest private businesses in America for at least a decade. If Koch is structured as a S Corp, then it doesn't pay corporate level taxes (aside from a few S corp special taxes).

Telling people what legal structure Koch Industries is and then summarizing the tax implications of that structure is not illegal any more then I saying Microsoft is an C corp and pays corporate taxes. Anyone can go down to the registration place where Koch Industries is registered and look up their legal structure. While is it possible that KI pays corporate level taxes via election, it doesn't make any sense for them to do so.

This thread is nothing more then an epic gross failure to understand the concept of legal information disclosure and tax code by people who really should not discuss taxes.
If Koch is an S corp, then they should fall under the protections of The Privacy Act, since the share holders report income and loss on their individual tax returns.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
If Koch is an S corp, then they should fall under the protections of The Privacy Act, since the share holders report income and loss on their individual tax returns.
And nothing the adminstration said violates that. You, like the rest, are ignorant of the topic, the concept of legal disclosure and the tax code. I posted their 990. Under the crackpot logic given by others here, I just commited a crime. Despite the 990 being legally required to be avaliable to the public. Furthermore, S corp legal code, which is legally avaliable to all people states that S corps do not pay normal corporate level taxes. So the Adminstration leveling that Koch doesn't pay corporate tax is entirely legal and highly likely to be true. The number of S corps that make the election to pay corporate taxes is pretty small for obvious reasons to those who actually understand the tax code and don't get their "information" from crackpot blogs.

It is amazing what ignorance + stupidity + hatred will do to people. This thread is an excellent example of when logic, reason and intelligence are not practiced.

It's really best for the rest of you not to talk about legal or tax issues entirely.
 

apdst

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
131,520
Reaction score
30,446
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
And nothing the adminstration said violates that. You, like the rest, are ignorant of the topic, the concept of legal disclosure and the tax code. I posted their 990. Under the crackpot logic given by others here, I just commited a crime. Despite the 990 being legally required to be avaliable to the public. Furthermore, S corp legal code, which is legally avaliable to all people states that S corps do not pay normal corporate level taxes. So the Adminstration leveling that Koch doesn't pay corporate tax is entirely legal and highly likely to be true. The number of S corps that make the election to pay corporate taxes is pretty small for obvious reasons to those who actually understand the tax code and don't get their "information" from crackpot blogs.

It is amazing what ignorance + stupidity + hatred will do to people. This thread is an excellent example of when logic, reason and intelligence are not practiced.

It's really best for the rest of you not to talk about legal or tax issues entirely.
You oughta know, first hand.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Says the guy who sided with the group who demonstrated sheer ignorance of the topic against me who actually knows what I'm talking about.

Your side just argued that using any search function on a government site or office is a criminal offense.

And of course you fail to actually address my point. as usual.
 
Last edited:

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It is amazing what ignorance + stupidity + hatred will do to people. This thread is an excellent example of when logic, reason and intelligence are not practiced.

It's really best for the rest of you not to talk about legal or tax issues entirely.
You oughta know, first hand.
Moderator's Warning:
You both need to stop NOW or there will be further consequences.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
According to the logic given in post #1,

Using this site and this site is a crime.

Furthermore, Universities in the past when they made their accounting students by printed copies of the IRS Code were committing crimes too. And every time a student looked something up, that was a crime too. And the IRS was an accomplice to those crimes by giving the code to book publishers to print. And every state office of registration is committing a crime by allowing people to legally look up the registration of companies in their books. And everyone who looks up publicly available 990s is committing a crime. And Congress who legislated that 990s be made public are accomplices to such crimes.

I'm going to make fun of every one of you for this total epic fail.
 
Last edited:

apdst

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
131,520
Reaction score
30,446
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
According to the logic given in post #1,

Using this site and this site is a crime.

Furthermore, Universities in the past when they made their accounting students by printed copies of the IRS Code were committing crimes too. And every time a student looked something up, that was a crime too. And the IRS was an accomplice to those crimes by giving the code to book publishers to print. And every state office of registration is committing a crime by allowing people to legally look up the registration of companies in their books. And everyone who looks up publicly available 990s is committing a crime. And Congress who legislated that 990s be made public are accomplices to such crimes.

I'm going to make fun of every one of you for this total epic fail.
Are you for real? Where did that even come from?
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Are you for real? Where did that even come from?
Perhaps, you unlike Ockham, should read the thread before posting. Koch's dumb ass lawyer asserted that the Administration broke privacy laws in what they stated. Except that the administration merely summarized section S of the code after looking up section S of the code. By saying that the administration broke privacy laws, they are arguing that by looking up section S of the tax code, that was a violation of privacy laws. Thus, anyone who looks up various tax code sections has committed a crime. I'm merely taking the truly asinine argument given by Kock's stupid lawyer and supported by various ignorant partisans here to show how completely absurd they are.

Do I think that looking up various tax code sections is a crime? Not a chance. But I also think Koch's lawyer is completely full of ****. But that doesn't stop me from making fun of his total idiocy.

I can see why most of the partisans abandoned this thread. It's total epic fail on their part.
 
Last edited:

apdst

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
131,520
Reaction score
30,446
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Perhaps, you unlike Ockham, should read the thread before posting. Koch's dumb ass lawyer asserted that the Administration broke privacy laws in what they stated. Except that the administration merely summarized section S of the code after looking up section S of the code. By saying that the administration broke privacy laws, they are arguing that by looking up section S of the tax code, that was a violation of privacy laws. Thus, anyone who looks up various tax code sections has committed a crime. I'm merely taking the truly asinine argument given by Kock's stupid lawyer and supported by various ignorant partisans here to show how completely absurd they are.

Do I think that looking up various tax code sections is a crime? Not a chance. But I also think Koch's lawyer is completely full of ****. But that doesn't stop me from making fun of his total idiocy.

I can see why most of the partisans abandoned this thread. It's total epic fail on their part.
If the administration revealed protected details of how Koch filed through it's S corp, then in fact, the administration violated privacy laws, since s corps are filed on individual taxes; privacy laws are protected under the privacy act. You're wrong, unless you want to display your tax law prowess explaining to us how the privacy act is applied to s crops vs. c corps. Care to take that challenge?
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
If the administration revealed protected details of how Koch filed through it's S corp
Which they didn't. Furthermore, there are no protected details of registration. I see you're itching for a whopping.

then in fact, the administration violated privacy laws
Which they didn't as it is not illegal to talk about the public registration of companies. How much fail do you want this time?

since s corps are filed on individual taxes
Not correct. S corp income for the most part flows through to individuals and is reported on individual shareholders' taxes. The S-corp itself files its own informational tax return.

privacy laws are protected under the privacy act.
To which the adminstration said nothing of.

You're wrong
Really. Want to prove to me how saying KI doesn't pay corporate taxes because it's an S corp is illegal under privacy laws? Please. Cite the relevant code. Try. Or run away. By your crackpot logic, me saying Microsoft is a C-Corp and pays corporate taxes just violated privacy laws.

unless you want to display your tax law prowess explaining to us how the privacy act is applied to s crops vs. c corps.
Except that the Adminstration revealed nothing covered under the privacy act. Therefore, you, as usual, are wrong. Not exactly news you are wrong, but it should be noted you are wrong. How is looking up publically avaliable registration illegal and saying publically avaliable information in the news illegal? How is looking up publically avaliable 990s illegal? Really. Tell me how saying on camera everything that the average citizen can get on their own legally illegal. Or you could run away.

Care to take that challenge?
Already did. The question now is are you going to flee this thread.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If Koch is an S corp, then they should fall under the protections of The Privacy Act, since the share holders report income and loss on their individual tax returns.
Where did you come up with that? In Texas, if you have an s-corp, it is a felony to move money between corporate and personal accounts, other than paying yourself a paycheck.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Where did you come up with that? In Texas, if you have an s-corp, it is a felony to move money between corporate and personal accounts, other than paying yourself a paycheck.
He's not wrong about the reporting of shareholder S-Corp income and loss on individual returns. He did entirely missed that S-corps file their own returns (1120S). He's also entirely wrong about S-corp registration falling under the Privacy Act in this context. I can go down right now to my local registration office and look up the registration of any company in the books. All legal.

How does that Texas law work? How do passive investors get their share of income if it's illegal to transfer money between accounts? Passive investors don't get paychecks. You sure that's right? Maybe it's illegal to make unreported distributions from corporate accounts to personal ones? This sounds odd Dana.
 
Last edited:

apdst

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
131,520
Reaction score
30,446
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Where did you come up with that? In Texas, if you have an s-corp, it is a felony to move money between corporate and personal accounts, other than paying yourself a paycheck.
Where did I say anything about moving money? I was talking about filing taxes.
 
Top Bottom