• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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?

Bottom line of all this is... someone in the Obama administration has stated tax specifics that were not open to the public.. for political purposes.

How did they get them?

You can speculate and slice and dice the tax code all you want, and try to divert the attention away from obviously false initial statements, and continue to play the game; the bottom line is Obamatrons used tax info not available to the public for political purposes. How did they get them?

.
 
Last edited:
Bottom line of all this is... someone in the Obama administration has stated tax specifics that were not open to the public.. for political purposes.

How did they get them?

You can speculate and slice and dice the tax code all you want, and try to divert the attention away from obviously false initial statements, and continue to play the game; the bottom line is Obamatrons used tax info not available to the public for political purposes. How did they get them?

.
Other than mentioning Koch Industries was an S corporation that didn't pay taxes, can you be more specific and show where Obama was anymore specific than that?
 
Play all the samantics you want, but at the end of the day, the Federal government collects taxes off the profit of an s-corp.

But that does not equate to S-corps paying Federal Corporate Income tax. You apparently do not understand the difference between you and a legally separate entity. By your reasoning, municipal bonds are taxed because eventually the estate in which their accumulated interest is taxed.

LOL...I never said that I didn't pay payroll taxes out of my c-corps that have no employees.

You just argued that C-Corps don't have to deal with payroll taxes.

Note:
I, personally, choose a c-corp, because as an s-corp, I would have to keep track of a ****load of payroll taxes.

Except that S-Corps and C-Corps and frankly any entity that employs people has to deal with payroll taxes. Choosing a S-Corp over a C-Corp does not change the fact that if you employ people, you have payroll taxes. Your argument is entirely faulty. And it suggests you are making **** up.

You know what the books say, but you don't understand how it applies in the real world.

I'm not the one who argued that C-corps don't have to deal with payroll taxes. You did. And you say I don't know how it applies in the real world. You can keep throwing out that line of reasoning, but demonstrating time and time again you don't understand the concepts and me explaining them to you doesn't suggest your insults are of any worth.

There's less accounting, because I don't have to figure payroll taxes every time money is taken out of the company's account.
I can borrow money for a c-corp and don't have to figure payroll taxes, eveytime I write a check. Hence, less accounting.

Actually there's likely more that way. By engaging in related party loans, you have significantly more accounting to do as your reporting goes up as well as various other eliminations and imputed interest that has to be reported. Furthermore, you still have the same kind of self employment issues with S if you are a owner active partner. Try again apdst. And it's easy to do self employment compared to related party loans.

Because, as you probably know, all the money that is taken out of an s-corp has to be accounted as payroll, no matter where it goes.

Who ever told you that told you a boldface lie. You clearly do not understand the difference between the taxation differences between general partners and limited. Distributions to limited partners do not get accounted for as payroll. Therefore, not all of money distributed from an S-Corp is accounted for as payroll. You are wrong as usual. When will you learn to stop talking about this subject?

Hence, again, what the hell are you talking about?

You're catching on. It took a while, but I think you're finally there.

See above. Your ignorance is almost as appalling as your arrogance. And it's amusing you say that after it took pages for you to realize that structure defines function and by getting the freely available structure registration info, one can determine a entity's tax function.

That's right. S-corps do pay federal taxes. They're federal taxes are payed through the owner(s's) individual filing.

*sigh* S-Corps do not pay Federal Corporate Income tax. I have stated this from the beginning. They do pay, if meeting the criteria, special S-Corp corporate taxes. S-Corp income flows through to individuals who pay it on their taxes. Therefore, as an a separate legal entity, S-corps do not pay Federal Corporate Income tax.

Seriously, you realllllly need to stop talking about this subject.
 
I think they care more than the GOP or tea partiers do. To be honest I haven't paid much attention to Kerry since 2004. But Barbara Boxer, I'm more familiar with because I used to live in California and have followed her career since she was first elected. So yes, I think she cares a helluva lot more than Fiornia and judging from the polls, it appears that most Californians see that, too.

An adulter who legislates against labeling formaldehyde, which has been proven to cause cancer, just to protect the chemical industry? If you or your family are dying of cancer or dead, why would you care about taxes? Your idea of economic freedom = freedom to kill for profit.

well that is how filthy rich dems get elected--the bamboozle lots of people into thinking that

why is it that rich republicans almost always give far more the charity than similarly situated rich dems?
 
Bottom line of all this is... someone in the Obama administration has stated tax specifics that were not open to the public.. for political purposes.

And what specifics would those be? Registration info is legally avaliable and often free by phone. And once you know an entity's registration info, you can look up their relevant tax code. What again was "specific" and "not open to the public?"

Care to cite something that actually was private?

How did they get them?

By calling up the Texas office of registrations and asking them. Which is legal. And free. You can do this too.

You can speculate and slice and dice the tax code all you want, and try to divert the attention away from obviously false initial statements, and continue to play the game; the bottom line is Obamatrons used tax info not available to the public for political purposes. How did they get them?

I didn't know that getting legally avaliable information and then looking up the IRC was illegal and not open to the public. Care to actually cite something not avaliable? Or are you going to be a partisan hack?

By your reasoning, calling up the Washington Office of registration, asking for what Microsoft is registered as and then looking up Section C of the Corporate relevant code is a crime.
 
Other than mentioning Koch Industries was an S corporation that didn't pay taxes, can you be more specific and show where Obama was anymore specific than that?

Well, if Obama said that Koch didn't pay taxes, he was either lieing his ass off, or he peeked into their confidential tax files. Which would it be, ya think?
 
But that does not equate to S-corps paying Federal Corporate Income tax. You apparently do not understand the difference between you and a legally separate entity. By your reasoning, municipal bonds are taxed because eventually the estate in which their accumulated interest is taxed.



You just argued that C-Corps don't have to deal with payroll taxes.

Note:

Except that S-Corps and C-Corps and frankly any entity that employs people has to deal with payroll taxes. Choosing a S-Corp over a C-Corp does not change the fact that if you employ people, you have payroll taxes. Your argument is entirely faulty. And it suggests you are making **** up.



I'm not the one who argued that C-corps don't have to deal with payroll taxes. You did. And you say I don't know how it applies in the real world. You can keep throwing out that line of reasoning, but demonstrating time and time again you don't understand the concepts and me explaining them to you doesn't suggest your insults are of any worth.



Actually there's likely more that way. By engaging in related party loans, you have significantly more accounting to do as your reporting goes up as well as various other eliminations and imputed interest that has to be reported. Furthermore, you still have the same kind of self employment issues with S if you are a owner active partner. Try again apdst. And it's easy to do self employment compared to related party loans.



Who ever told you that told you a boldface lie. You clearly do not understand the difference between the taxation differences between general partners and limited. Distributions to limited partners do not get accounted for as payroll. Therefore, not all of money distributed from an S-Corp is accounted for as payroll. You are wrong as usual. When will you learn to stop talking about this subject?

Hence, again, what the hell are you talking about?



See above. Your ignorance is almost as appalling as your arrogance. And it's amusing you say that after it took pages for you to realize that structure defines function and by getting the freely available structure registration info, one can determine a entity's tax function.



*sigh* S-Corps do not pay Federal Corporate Income tax. I have stated this from the beginning. They do pay, if meeting the criteria, special S-Corp corporate taxes. S-Corp income flows through to individuals who pay it on their taxes. Therefore, as an a separate legal entity, S-corps do not pay Federal Corporate Income tax.

Seriously, you realllllly need to stop talking about this subject.

Where does the money go? That's right, it goes to the Federal government. You're ebarrassing yourself; stop!

You've gone so far as to cause one of your compatriots to claim that Kock doesn't pay taxes, at all.
 
Well, if Obama said that Koch didn't pay taxes, he was either lieing his ass off, or he peeked into their confidential tax files. Which would it be, ya think?

Correction:

"So in this country we have partnerships, we have S corps, we have LLCs, we have a series of entities that do not pay corporate income tax. Some of which are really giant firms, you know Koch Industries is a multibillion dollar businesses."

He did not say that they don't pay taxes. He said they don't pay "corporate income tax." There is a difference there. While it could be argued that an S-Corp paying passive activity tax is in fact an income tax, it is hardly the same as what is being implied.

And S-Corps do not pay corporate income tax. See my previous post for the link to the relevant IRC. So Obama was neither lying nor commiting a crime. Basically you guys are arguing looking up avaliable information legally is a crime.
 
Where does the money go? That's right, it goes to the Federal government. You're ebarrassing yourself; stop!

Says the guy who argued I don't understand how it works but then demonstrates appalling large amounts of ignorance of the topic.

You've gone so far as to cause one of your compatriots to claim that Kock doesn't pay taxes, at all.

Moot is inaccurate as to what taxes are being discussed. You however, are wrong on just about everything aside from S-Corp income being reported on 1040s. Furthermore, Moot's failure to pay attention to the terms in question is not my fault. I have made it perfect clear just which type of tax I discussed. At no point have I ever used the term "tax" as a general term in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Correction:

"So in this country we have partnerships, we have S corps, we have LLCs, we have a series of entities that do not pay corporate income tax. Some of which are really giant firms, you know Koch Industries is a multibillion dollar businesses."

He did not say that they don't pay taxes. He said they don't pay "corporate income tax." There is a difference there. While it could be argued that an S-Corp paying passive activity tax is in fact an income tax, it is hardly the same as what is being implied.

And S-Corps do not pay corporate income tax. See my previous post for the link to the relevant IRC. So Obama was neither lying nor commiting a crime. Basically you guys are arguing looking up avaliable information legally is a crime.

Why do you keep insisting that I said anything about corporate income tax? You're the only one talking about corporate income taxes. No one else has even mentioned it. You do understand the difference between corporate taxes and individual taxes. Yes? Surely, you read that in your textbook at some point.
 
I'm laughing louder after your post.

Question... have you ever filed for tax status in a state??

Have you ever filed corporate taxes with the IRS and states ???

Have you ever filed payroll taxes with the IRS and states ???

Never mind, I already know the answer based on your replies.

Do you REALLY think there is a difference in the taxes paid by an S-Corp and a C-Corp ??? The only difference in the corporate taxes paid is in semantics.

You've made yourself look really silly and your lack of knowledge is appalling.
 
Why do you keep insisting that I said anything about corporate income tax?

Because you did.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...get-our-tax-information-8.html#post1059032213

You're the only one talking about corporate income taxes.

Well, if you're not counting Obama sure. But then again, he was the original point of the thread.

No one else has even mentioned it.

Clearly you have not read the thread at all.

You do understand the difference between corporate taxes and individual taxes. Yes? Surely, you read that in your textbook at some point.

Check above. You're the one demonstrating a clear lack of any understanding of the subject.

You failed to realize the reason why your payroll is so low is because you're effectively a PHC. That has nothing to do with being an S vs a C in terms of payroll taxes. And you think YOU can talk to ME about taxes. What a joke.

Did you notice you claimed that "no one" except me was talking about Corporate Income taxes when the post you quoted has a direct quote of Obama talking about corporate income taxes? Gotta saw WOW.

I honestly feel a little bad. It's like shooting fish in a barrel with you two.
 
Last edited:
Well, if Obama said that Koch didn't pay taxes, he was either lieing his ass off, or he peeked into their confidential tax files. Which would it be, ya think?
Frankly, I don't think he had to do "either", or "or". But obviously you do.
 
Question... have you ever filed for tax status in a state??

Yup. And tried to avoid filing for one. Nexus is a bitch. (Hint: here's a sign I know more then you)

Have you ever filed corporate taxes with the IRS and states ???

Yup. Did plenty of them. One good way of reducing your taxes is to have your parents gift you shares of a passive money losing interest and net it with passive investments. Cost you nothing really.

Have you ever filed payroll taxes with the IRS and states ???

Yup.

Never mind, I already know the answer based on your replies.

Of course. I know and have done everything. You on the other hand....

Do you REALLY think there is a difference in the taxes paid by an S-Corp and a C-Corp?

Absolutely.

Let's do this real basic for people like you.

C-Corps are taxed on their base income at some rate dependent upon their position in a consolidate parent return and what level of income they generated (hint: this is a sign I know far more then you do) Then they distribute income via dividends. Which are taxed right now at 15% on individuals. If the dividends were distributed by another corporation not owned by the original C, 30% of them are taxed on income. So there is potentially infinite layers of taxation on C-Corp income when you account for the lack of 100% Dividends Received Deduction.

An S-Corp does not have this. Income it generates is generally pass through to the individual and taxed once. While there are a host of special S-corp taxes, generally the maximum number of taxation levels on a S-Corp income is two. Otherwise, it's generally one. C-Corps have minimum 2 layers.

So you just argued that there is no difference between infinite layers of taxation and one. And you have the gall to say I have a lack of knowledge.

I find it hilarious you still don't understand that structure defines function. I do see you now have shutup about the filings.

Futhermore, Corporation PHC tax is lower then S-Corp passive income tax.

The only difference in the corporate taxes paid is in semantics.

Hey kids, are 500 layers of taxation the same as 1? Hey Gill, you outta call up the math people to tell them that 500 = 1. Or frankly any whole number = 1.

You've made yourself look really silly and your lack of knowledge is appalling.

See above. I'm the one laughing. At you. Infinite = 1 according to you. Your definition of silly clearly does not match that of the dictionary.

Keep trying. Maybe you'll get something right here. I'm still waiting for you to address pots #66. You can always tell who is who has no skill by how much they ignore in post.

Let's see.

Apdst, Zimmer and Gill have all failed repetitively to cite a single piece of private information Obama allegedly revealed.
 
Last edited:
Frankly, I don't think he had to do "either", or "or". But obviously you do.

We're not going to see them prove their claim that Obama said something private. Because he didn't. And they know it. The problem is that Zimmer, Adpst and Gill are too entrenched in their positions to actually admit they are wrong. See how they keep arguing that S and C corp taxes are the same? Crazy. Utterly crazy. If that was the case, no one would elect to be an S-corp if the taxes were the same. And there would not be lawsuits over termination of S status. But there are. I get notices daily about S-corp shareholders winning cases about wrongful termination. This behavior is what we see when people care more about their "face" then the truth.
 
We're not going to see them prove their claim that Obama said something private. Because he didn't. And they know it. The problem is that Zimmer, Adpst and Gill are too entrenched in their positions to actually admit they are wrong. See how they keep arguing that S and C corp taxes are the same? Crazy. Utterly crazy. If that was the case, no one would elect to be an S-corp if the taxes were the same. And there would not be lawsuits over termination of S status. But there are. I get notices daily about S-corp shareholders winning cases about wrongful termination. This behavior is what we see when people care more about their "face" then the truth.

The Republican's filed for an investigation. We will see what results.

The White House fell under suspicion in August when Goolsbee -- whose identity was concealed until a Koch lawyer revealed it to The Weekly Standard last month -- was quoted in a background call, saying Koch was structured to escape corporate taxes by allowing income to flow directly through it.

The White House has not confirmed or denied that it was Goolsbee.

A White House official told Fox News that "a senior administration official used Koch Industries as an example" when he discussed an issue in a presidential report noting that "half of business income goes to companies that do not pay corporate income tax because they are pass-through entities and that many of them are quite large."

"The official's statement was not based on any review of tax filings and we will not use this example in the future," the White House official told Fox News.

White House Denies Spying on Conservative Billionaires' Taxes - FoxNews.com

So, they will not use it in the future. Why would that be if it's merely public information?
The most likely answer still appears to be no, and the White House simply made a slip when a senior official suggested that Koch doesn’t pay corporate-level taxes. The company has issued a statement since then saying it does indeed pay corporate taxes.

But at a minimum, the new investigation will keep alive the broader question of how – and why – the administration made the apparent mistake. Koch Industries has said it believes the White House official’s statement “was politically motivated.” It notes that President Obama himself also made disparaging remarks recently about a prominent conservative political organization, Americans for Prosperity, that has ties to company owner David Koch.

In response to a recent request by several Republican senators, Treasury’s tax inspector general, Russell George, said in a letter that he has “ordered the commencement of a review” into the senior official’s comments. In their request, the senators said that administration employees “may have improperly accessed and disclosed confidential taxpayer information.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/10/06/further-scrutiny-for-white-house-over-koch-comment/
Made a slip? What slip would that be? Apparent mistake? Hmmmm?

.
 
Last edited:
We're not going to see them prove their claim that Obama said something private. Because he didn't. And they know it. The problem is that Zimmer, Adpst and Gill are too entrenched in their positions to actually admit they are wrong. See how they keep arguing that S and C corp taxes are the same? Crazy. Utterly crazy. If that was the case, no one would elect to be an S-corp if the taxes were the same. And there would not be lawsuits over termination of S status. But there are. I get notices daily about S-corp shareholders winning cases about wrongful termination. This behavior is what we see when people care more about their "face" then the truth.

Who has argued that C-Corp and S-Corp taxes are the same ??? I've been president of both types of corps, so your lies and cut and paste replies from Wiki don't impress me.
 
Who has argued that C-Corp and S-Corp taxes are the same ??? I've been president of both types of corps, so your lies and cut and paste replies from Wiki don't impress me.

You did......

Do you REALLY think there is a difference in the taxes paid by an S-Corp and a C-Corp ??? The only difference in the corporate taxes paid is in semantics.

You've made yourself look really silly and your lack of knowledge is appalling.
Well, you just made yourself look extremely silly and it's very hard to believe that you were president of anything let alone both a C and/or an S corporation. Very hard indeed and needless to say not very impressive.
 
Last edited:
You did......

Well, you just made yourself look extremely silly and it's very hard to believe that you were president of anything let alone both a C and/or an S corporation. Very hard indeed and needless to say not very impressive.

Are you the poster that claimed that s-corps don't pay Federal taxes?
 
You did......

Well, you just made yourself look extremely silly and it's very hard to believe that you were president of anything let alone both a C and/or an S corporation. Very hard indeed and needless to say not very impressive.

If you had bothered to read the entire thread and my posts and if you had a clue how corporations work (besides what you and O.C. have read in books), you would know that I was referring to the fact that both forms of corporations pay taxes, just in different ways.

Go back and read Wiki or wherever you're getting your information before trying to insult people that actually do it.
 
Are you the poster that claimed that s-corps don't pay Federal taxes?

Since a corporate tax is a federal income tax, yes I did say that. Are you the poster that refuses to accept the fact that S-corporations don't pay a corporate tax to the federal government?

"The income of a C corporation is taxed, whereas the income of an S corporation (with a few exceptions) is not taxed under the Federal income tax laws. The income, or loss, is applied, Pro Rata, to each Shareholder and appears on their tax return as Schedule E income/(loss)...."
C corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The Republican's filed for an investigation. We will see what results.

And most likely we'll get nothing.

So, they will not use it in the future. Why would that be if it's merely public information?

Still waiting for what piece of non-public information was released.

Chirp. Chirp. That's the sound of the utter lack of argument you're presenting.

Made a slip? What slip would that be? Apparent mistake? Hmmmm?

It's political cover to reduce the damage perceived by the ignorant.

You won't provide the non-public information released because no non-public information was released. See how simple that was? You have no argument, and you know it.
 
Since a corporate tax is a federal income tax, yes I did say that. Are you the poster that refuses to accept the fact that S-corporations don't pay a corporate tax to the federal government?

"The income of a C corporation is taxed, whereas the income of an S corporation (with a few exceptions) is not taxed under the Federal income tax laws. The income, or loss, is applied, Pro Rata, to each Shareholder and appears on their tax return as Schedule E income/(loss)...."
C corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are taxes paid to the federal government on a S corps income ?? Of course it is, and you've proved my point once again.

Go back to Wiki and research some more.
 
Who has argued that C-Corp and S-Corp taxes are the same

You.

Do you REALLY think there is a difference in the taxes paid by an S-Corp and a C-Corp ???

Post #86, by Gill. How quickly you forgot what you wrote. Too bad you can't go back and edit that. What a shame. Damned by your own words.

I've been president of both types of corps, so your lies and cut and paste replies from Wiki don't impress me.

Sure you have. Prove me wrong. Try. Show me how corporate taxes aren't dependent upon their location within a consolidated parent. Show me how S-Corp passive taxes are lower then C-Corp PHC. Put your money where your mouth is.

The key difference between you people and I is that I insult you and then prove why you are wrong. You guys just insult me and then run away when challenged.
 
If you had bothered to read the entire thread

Amusing coming from you.

and my posts and if you had a clue how corporations work

Said the guy who said that corporate tax rates are dependent upon positions in consolidate parent corps "A lie." Notice we demonstrate knowledge. You just insult people and hope that personal attacks somehow compensate for a sheer lack of any demonstrated knowledge on the subject. How about you actually show you understand the subject before throwing around accusations people don't know what they are talking about?

(besides what you and O.C. have read in books)

Wanna prove what I said is wrong? Btw, is infinite = 1? lol. I'm going to mock you until you admit you are wrong.

you would know that I was referring to the fact that both forms of corporations pay taxes, just in different ways.

And the types of taxes, the amounts, rates and on what income are different. You in your crackpot argument argued that S-corp taxes and C-corp taxes are the same.

Go back and read Wiki or wherever you're getting your information before trying to insult people that actually do it.

Try prove someone wrong with something other then insults. Note how we quote you proving you wrong. Where have you provided anything resembling evidence at all much less any knowledge?

If S-corp and C-corp tax differences didn't matter, then people wouldn't organize as an S. See how 100% wrong you are?
 
Back
Top Bottom